Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2016-12

Meta:Requests for translation adminship/Laurentius

Hi. Could it be closed? Matiia (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle Gadget

Hello and Namaste Is there any code for enabling twinkle gadget in global wikis. Regards —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 15:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Please see User:Snowolf/How to globally Twinkle. Regards — TBhagat (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Done —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 12:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Report concerning various

• various (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Regarding the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oratory_Athenaeum_for_University_Preparation&action=history

Looking at the page editing history, there is a very large amount of vandalism occurring constantly on the page. Would it be possible to require log in to edit this page in order to reduce the amount of vandalism that this page is receiving? 2600:100C:B026:F761:48AD:C080:5655:6819 05:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That page is on the English Wikipedia, where there are plenty of administrators. Please post at w:en:WP:AIV for a specific user that won't stop vandalizing, or at w:en:WP:RFPP to request page protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To change the interface

Hello. I want to know, Can the local admins to change the interface of the local wiki? For example, if there is a typo or an incorrect word translated. Андрей Козлов 123 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the interface messages, they should be corrected on https://translatewiki.net/. --Stryn (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stryn:, Abkhaz Wikipedia needs to change name category section. Категории must be amend to the Акатегориақәа name. Should be the correct translation. I don't know how to do it. I'll be glad if you'll help me, and I'll be more glad if you say me how to change interface. Андрей Козлов 123 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And Категория must be amend to the Категориа name if article has one category. Категории must be amend to the Акатегориақәа name if article has 2 or more categories. Андрей Козлов 123 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to read Requesting wiki configuration changes and follow the instructions. --Stryn (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting my IRC ban be lifted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A ban was placed on my on the Wikimedia channels and I am requesting it be lifted on at least some. There is only one IRC group mod active and that is Az1568 (AlexZ) who refuses to acknowledge me and has me on ignore and I cannot access the appropriate IRC channel to request being unblocked due to the ban in place.

Therefore, this is the closest thing to an appropriate venue to request it. Since AlexZ refuses to even speak to me on the issue my only avenue is for the community here to discuss it and perhaps vote to lift it or at least set an end date that the ban would be lifted. Reguyla (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Az1568 Requesting unblock in a calm manner is not nor has it ever been trolling. I for one hope that others see through this bullying you are doing and see you baseless "trolling" comment for the abusive harassment tactic that it is.

As you are aware it is NOT ok to revert a discussion you are involved in. Since you are literally the only global op right now, it is inappropriate for you to block, ban and restrict access to every single venue a blocked individual can use to request unblock. That is not only unfair and inappropriate it is also a gross violation of the WMF's policy. All you are doing is harassing me and bullying me and it is not ok. Now, let the community discuss this and it's up to you to live with the result same as me. Reguyla (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Most of the various (and mostly) former bans against Reguyla were just in response to previous action taken against him. I haven't noticed any socks, strange emails, or other complaints about his enwiki ban in quite a few months now. Might as well unban and let him do his thing. I agree that the venue is wrong, but really, where else would he go? If anyone has other ideas then I think we'd all like to hear them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict.) The community cannot vote on IRC issues. IRC ops are not bound to any decisions made here. The only thing you can try to do is to talk with the ops of the individual channels, but I fear without the consent of Az1568 that will not change much about your status, either. If you want to hear my personal opinion, I do think it is pointless to impose infinite bans on community members who are allowed to edit onwiki. It just transfers drama/complaints from one venue to another. --Vogone (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarification, AlexZ is literally the only global op right now and they have blocked me from every venue possible to prevent me from requesting unban. In the past, the other mods on IRC have stated its a group op decision since Alex imposed it globally. By blocking me from all the other places he knows he can justify reverting and harassing me if I request in others like I did here where he called it trolling when it's obviously not. If the other venues were available to me I would use them. Reguyla (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree this is a pattern which is in gross violation of two of our policies and similar actions have already caused administrators to lose their adminship here on meta. But let's assume good faith and hope it does not happen again. Otherwise, it might be sanctioned. --Vogone (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reguyla, there are in fact nine global ops to appeal to and you tend to paint this as me having some personal vendetta against you with no means of appeal but that's simply untrue. You've been excessively disruptive on IRC to justify such a ban and have worn out quite a few people's patience with you. I've tried to negotiate an unblock with the help of other community members in the past, and you rejected it and even made a mockery of the entire process. Repeatedly going about it the way that you do is concerning and has been problematic for the community. --Az1568 (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be right about the global mods, there may be 9, but I only see 3 listed and you are the only one active. So maybe the page just needs to be updated.

Obviously I do not agree that my ban is justified but aside from that, no, you really haven't negotiated anything. As I stated on my talk page a few minutes ago, you are upset that the commons community overruled you and required the commons channel be included in the agreement so that channel access was back under your control in the agreement. I denied that one channel because it is not ours to negotiate, that was the commons community. So because you were put off that I wouldn't agree to include the commons channel so Alex got a back his control, you threw the whole thing out. If the logs still exist its clearly visible for anyone who goes and checks. Well, before you kicked me from the channel while I was asking about it through your insistence that the commons channel must be included for the deal to be valid. So yeah, I have a major problem with that type of discussion outcome manipulation. Reguyla (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was upset about commons at all? I also don't "control" all of IRC, nor individual IRC channels - I do manage the global ban lists as a team of several ops. In any case, you became disruptive when it was clear you weren't going to get your way, again... and I told you that we were done discussing this situation. I had asked you to leave which you refused and you got kicked by another op in the channel. --Az1568 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok Alex that's enough. All you are trying to do is derail this discussion and you are being disruptive. Reguyla (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I am an admin in #wikimedia-commons, and a Commons oversighter. Regulya is a non-controversial editor on commons, and has been for a long time now. Exempting him from his global ban on all wikimedia IRC channels, for the Commons channel, was discussed on Commons (and the IRC channel) for the better part of a year, but did not happen because of his global ban from IRC channels, before it eventually happened (because I simply 'did it' on the basis of both many past discussions and figuring out how). I'm also quite familiar with Reguyla's history on both the wikis and IRC. He was a long term enwiki editor, with over 300k edits, whose only real fault was to become annoying critical of admins on the drama boards. His actual ban was itself arguable, as the result of repeated 'involved' reverts of the close.

Frankly, the only real objection that I have seen to unbanning Reguyla is that he will not shut up about asking to be unbanned. He was originally banned because he would not shut up about an enwiki block that he considered unjust, and that block itself was based on his repeated criticism of enwiki admin culture. This has become a self perpetuating cycle.... he's told that he cannot be unblocked because his repeated requests to be unblocked are considered harassment, but he cannot be unblocked without asking that it be done. Even if he asks to be unblocked, that is itself considered to be a reason to perpetuate his block, but if he does not ask the block will extend forever.

This is in regards to a person who has never been a vandal, and who has contributed nearly a quarter of a million edits to Commons in the past year without any onwiki drama, and who made over 300k edits to enwiki before he ever became a problem. Despite that history on Commons, his unbanning from the Commons channel was challenged within hours by @Az1568:, on the basis of a past history that he is, frankly, unlikely to be aware of (based on his enwiki history). Instead, his bans have seeming perpetuated because of a combination of his annoyance with repeatedly being asked for an unban, and possibly a degree of (probably mostly enwiki-based) 'accepted wisdom' that he is a problem.

Reguyla has repeatedly stated that he only desires to return to the content-based editing which was originally unproblematic. Despite that, he has been denied the opportunity to do so, basically because he was annoying about repeatedly asking. This is simply inane... he was never a vandal, he just pissed people off by being critical of their behavior.

Reguyla should, at the least, have his 'global' IRC ban removed, and be subjected to channel bans on the basis of those particular communities. That his block on enwiki is being extended to sanctions on the IRC channels of other projects where he is a useful contributor is unconscionable. It also points out a flaw in how the IRC channels are managed. Revent (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, wasn't Reguyla indefinitely blocked just this year on Commons for similar behavior there, with a final unblock being given as a last chance for him to improve? He's certainly avoided drama recently there, but has shown a history of issues in the past. I did challange the unblock, since it wasn't discussed with the global ops at all prior and had appeared to be made out of the blue from our end. I asked you for clarification on the decision behind it, and once that was provided I indicated it was fine to keep in place. --Az1568 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Az1568: The block was, from what I understand, based on him using Commons to reply to enwiki editors about comments that he was unable to reply to there, and then being accused of using Commons as a soapbox to complain about the specific people who could otherwise comment about him without response. It's exactly the same circle I addressed above... and he has repeatedly said he would drop the drama and go back to useful contributions if he was allowed to do so, but he is not. I've, myself, seen enwiki people basically attempt to troll him about his enwiki ban since he was unbanned in the Commons channel, several times. The problem with Reguyla is, frankly, simply that he has a hard time staying quiet about what he sees as wrong. I think it's healthy for us to allow dissenting views, as long as they do not become disruptive. Reguyla, according to enwiki, crossed that line and was sanctioned for it. He deserves the chance, IMO, to go back to simply contributing without the drama... he is clearly capable of doing so, if not trolled.

I'd suggest reading https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_15#Reguyla.27s_block for a degree of context as to why Reguyla tends to get blocked (and noticing that this was from over a year ago).

I will not attempt to say that he was not (under his previous username) an egregious troll on enwiki, post block. He was, to the point of having edit filters against his attempts to sign his name to comments from 'sock' accounts (they were block evasion, yes, but hardly socks when he went to the point of using ascii art to sign his own name). Such accounts were used, AKFAIK, not to vandalize, but simply to protest against what he considered to be an abuse of power to get him blocked, by the same admins he considered abusive and was complaining about.

The simple facts are that he contributed in good faith for a long time, and continued to do so in various ways after he was banned on enwiki. He was never a vandal. He objected to what he saw as an abuse of power, was banned due to not shutting up about it, and his ban was prolonged because he continued to not stay quiet about what he considered to be wrong. You, Alex, have entered the camp of people that he considers to be treating him unjustly, from what has been said, and thus been a victim of it,

He deserves the 'standard offer', in good faith. He has, effectively, been refused it. Revent (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Without knowing any of the particulars involved beyond what I've seen here, and without commenting on the merits of the request, this sounds almost like a Standard offer-type situation. Repeated attempts to be unblocked/unbanned can be disruptive, and it is almost always wise to wait for a while before requesting again. Too many requests in too short of a time does indeed have a tendency to rub people the wrong way and make them less receptive to such requests, and we have banned people temporarily from #wikipedia-en-unblock^connect for such behavior in the past. On those grounds, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that the cards are stacked against the global ban being removed; more, I would say that there has not been enough opportunity given for the cards to stack in Reguyla's favor, as they will naturally do over time when the issue is not being forced. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

[9:52pm] Revent: Ok, let me ask, specifically. Are you willing to return to purely ‘content-based’ edits, on all wikis, and not comment on the behavior of other editors unless it directly concerns you, personallly? And, if trolled about your previous behavior, to simply request that an admin tell the other editor to drop it?

[9:52pm] Reguyla: Yeah

[9:52pm] Revent: I figured.

[9:53pm] Revent: The other question… can I quote that?

[9:53pm] Reguyla: But just to be clear I am just trying to get unbanned on IRC. I am already unbanned on all the other projects except EnWP and the Arbcom is requiring me to go through them to get unblocked there

[9:53pm] Reguyla: Of course

[9:53pm] Revent: Ok.

This is a direct quote from an IRC conversation. I think it fulfills the requirements of the 'standard offer'. Frankly, I have seen his attempts to do this not received in what I considered to be good faith. Revent (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I asked Reguyla, as I did not personally remember, about the actual date of his formal enwiki ban. It was in February 2014 (I am not linking the log so as to not make his previous identity more obvious). All his later sanctions have, including those on Commons, have been (AFAIK) based on either his protesting the justness of his block, or complaining about the people that have extended and expanded it. He's clearly harassed people, but he has also felt wronged by them, and he has rather clearly attempted to contribute in good faith since. Revent (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: To quote you, with emphasis added: "...he's told that he cannot be unblocked because his repeated requests to be unblocked are considered harassment, but he cannot be unblocked without asking that it be done. Even if he asks to be unblocked, that is itself considered to be a reason to perpetuate his block, but if he does not ask the block will extend forever."

I'm not an sysop, bureaucrat, steward, or anyone else special. I'm just a member of the community, but I wanted to throw in my two cents here as I've experienced the disruption Reguyla has caused in his campaign to be unblocked/unbanned. As far as I can tell, Reguyla has shown little or no inclination to meet the terms of the standard offer and the IRC discussion you pasted above is the closest I ever seen him to it. He has never, not once, abated in his disruption on IRC (though less publicly in the past few months). He has even been banned from a variety of non-Wiki channels for repeated personal attacks on Az1568 and generally beating the dead horse to a pulp.

Let's look at the terms of the standard offer:

1. Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

Firstly and most importantly: He has not waited six months. He HAS block evaded (see his meta talk page and his many other block-evading posts on a rather wide variety of on-Wiki forums).

Yes, he has promised to avoid the behavior, but he was banned on IRC for refusing to drop the stick, and still refuses to drop the stick (again, see his meta user talk page and also some excerpts this "discussion" on Nov 2nd (times in PST) in #freenode^connect where he obviously isn't dropping the stick and suggests an intent to continue further ban evasion. So how much stock can we really put in that promise??

As to the third aspect of the standard offer, all this seems pretty extraordinary to me.

From m:Standard_offer: "Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee#Procedure states, "Editors who accept the validity of their block or ban but wish to be given a second chance should be aware that we, the subcommittee, do apply the standard offer and will expect you to have not tried to circumvent your block/ban in the recent past.""

Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for second (and even third) chances. However, Reguyla doesn't seem to show any remorse for his disruptive behavior or even seem to accept that his disruptive behavior was/is inappropriate. It would seem to me that he was "effectively" refused the standard offer because it did not apply to him as I've pointed out. The normal avenues of unblock requests were denied to him because he abused them repeatedly and remorselessly - so he then proceeded to, repeatedly, make a scene on numerous and varied IRC channels, other Wikis, and any other venue he found. This is not appropriate or desirable behavior.

Honestly, I'd probably support a standard offer if he even simply just stopped beating the dead horse for six months - but when I suggested this to him some months ago, he completely blew me off and ranted about how it was a huge conspiracy against him and vowed to continue the disruption on principal. Regarding Az1568, perhaps he has not been 100% stellar in all this, but I am of the opinion that no one can be expected to put up with the stress of this long-term campaign of personal attacks and still remain absolutely perfect.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Waggie (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer is an overly bureaucratic enwiki policy which does not apply here or on IRC, thankfully. My guess is that the person who mentioned it was referring to the broad principle of it; let the user come back if they can prove their ability to step back. Honestly, when evaluating blocks and bans, I prefer to ask "is this currently preventing any disruption?" If the answer is yes, then the action stays. If not, then it can be lifted. I also think that these sorts of actions are very easy to do, so to some extent it makes sense to give him some rope, as the saying goes. I globally locked his account(s) earlier in the year when he was actively being disruptive asking to be unbanned from enwiki. After he stopped doing that, I unlocked, and he has gotten back to editing Commons productively. I see this as a similar situation, and think that unbanning from IRC is a sensible thing to do here, with of course the understanding that there is a line and stepping over it will result in re-banning. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz:, thank you for your reply. I realize that the standard offer doesn't really apply here. I think the standard offer is a good idea in concept, but perhaps I do agree with you in that it has become overly bureaucratic. It was brought up as a principle and I just pointed out that Reguyla wasn't really fitting the mold, so to speak. I wanted to make it clear that the disruptive behavior has continued on IRC outside of his ban on the WMF channels and it is my opinion (FWIW) that his continued behavior of personal attacks and disruption should not be allowed back on WMF channels and do not believe that the personal attacks or the incivility will cease if unbanned at this time. That conversation I linked to on Freenode, just last month, is a culmination of him regularly PMing Az1568 and harassing him to be unbanned on IRC to the point where Az1568 had to /ignore him. This has happened in many channels, over the course of many, many months. Thankfully, as he is globally banned on WMF channels, I only have to deal with it occasionally, like the unfortunate backscatter on #freenode I linked to (that wasn't even the first, second, or third occurrence in that particular channel even) and other non-WMF channels. As I said before, if he could bring himself to drop the stick, I'd be more sympathetic - but the continuing snide remarks, personal attacks, insults, and general incivility really grate on me (and I'm not even the target). So please do not take offence when I say that I disagree with you that unbanning is appropriate at this time. Again, just my opinion and viewpoint, FWIW. Thanks for your time! Waggie (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you're always welcome to have an opinion and present it in discussions like these! I do know a bit of what it's like to get the constant messages from Reguyla; I was getting weekly emails for a while there, until I made a filter to auto-delete them. If the disruptive behaviour is still happening, then I'd agree that the ban should remain. I suppose I haven't seen much recently, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Waggie I have been trying very hard not to mention my situation on EnWP however without stating it, it's very difficult to quantify where I am coming from in this discussion. As such, if I may state so succinctly, I have been the victim of a years long bullying campaign due to my outspokenness on EnWP that admins should have to follow the same rules as editors. I understand your experiences have been different and I am glad not everyone has had the same negative experiences I have. There have been times when I have acted poorly and I have apologized for that in various places, but it was out of anger and frustration at the abuse and the very select individuals who are bullying me and are allowed to hide behind their admin status and get away with it with impunity. You said above that the admins shouldn't have to endure the abuse but should I? Should you? How about some other editor? I don't believe so and I have fought strongly for that. I am also prone, as are we all, to the same limits in patience. Eventually everyone has their breaking point and I reached mine long ago when I was bullied out of the English Wikipedia.

I have, my entire life lived by a set of values that dictate not to give in to bullies, terrorists, etc. You fight back as hard as it takes, as long as it takes. It's one of the reasons I joined the Marine Corps and not the Peace Corps. Bullies are at the core cowards and will falter. I am not a coward nor a quitter and believe passionately in these projects and in the belief that the community members should be treated fairly and evenly. If I didn't believe in these projects I would have just walked away long ago. You may disagree and believe that admins should live by different rules, I don't know. Myself, when I see the community being disrespected or policy is not being followed, particularly by admins in positions of authority, I tend to state it directly and at times I admit my tact could have been better. Blame that on 20+ years of military service where aggressiveness and high morale character is encouraged and generally speaking, rewarded. But I do believe in these projects and arguments that I am not here, trolling, etc. are merely rhetoric being used largely by those who do not agree with me that admins should have to follow the rules to discredit me. Please do not fall for it as others have. Its a fallacy that people who have spent years of building and collaborating on projects and do hundreds of thousands of edits to improve it are not here. Reguyla (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please move this conversation elsewhere. This is a page to request sysop or bureaucrat help and this conversation is out of scope from this page. Thank you for your understanding. —MarcoAurelio 09:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

MarcoAurelio I apologize for the inconvenience but unfortunately this is the closest thing to an appropriate venue. Do you have a suggestion for a better location? Reguyla (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Earlier you have used Talk:IRC/Group Contacts. I think it's more appropriate place. --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that venue is that currently AlexZ is the only group contact, so it would be putting the decision on one person who has already shown a refusal to accept an agreement and a willingness/pattern of using their mod/sysop access to manipulate the outcome of the discussion to their own favor. So I do not think that would be appropriate. Here, neither of us can influence or manipulate anything. I cannot and will not stop anyone who moves this discussion however I do believe that asking for Sysop/Bureaucrat intervention to break the ongoing cycle bullying, manipulation and retaliation is appropriate for this venue. Reguyla (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that's entirely untrue, there are two other group contacts besides myself. There is no cycle of bullying going on here, except your continued unwillingness to respect other's time and space by bothering me and others repetedly about this and expecting a different result each time you bring it up. Honestly, Reguyla, everyone is quite fed up with this pointless campaign. I suggested this before and ask that you at least try it, just take a break from this subject for six months or so and hopefully by then people will be willing to give you a chance without all the surrounding drama. --Az1568 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alex look above. The "everyone" you mention aren't there. People are willing to unban me. You are the one that's arguing against it as usual. Because every word of what I said is true. Sure, there are 2 other names listed as group ops but neither is ever around. Maybe they do things in the shadows, but neither is ever on IRC or even edit much anymore and everyone can clearly see that and neither is reachable for discussion. Check their contribs, check the logs, nearly zilch for months. They are just placeholder names leaving you as the only one and I am sick and tired of your continued bullying and manipulation.

All you are doing is creating and continuing a self perpetuating cycle of abuse. You know my ban from IRC was Bullshit and you know that I will fight it as the harassment and bullying it is. You restrict my access to every possible venue and get mad when I submit here. Then because I am pissed about the bullying and harassment you say I am not repentant enough to be unblocked. Really? All you are doing is manipulating the outcome, again, as a couple of others have done in the past, and showing everyone, to get what YOU want. If you want me to stop asking to be unbanned then unban me as you already agreed to do and then took back because I wouldn't include commons. If I/we cannot even trust you to follow an agreement that you made without manipulating it to undo the commons communities decision to unban me, then why would we leave the decision to you at all Alex? Reguyla (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I truly don't feel that this is going to go anywhere, nor is it a productive use of my time... as you aren't understanding the concerns stated by everyone in regards to your behavior issues and the fact you're getting rather uncivil with your comments once again so, I think we're done here Reguyla. --Az1568 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah well I don't. Alex you have been trying to derail this discussion since I started it. You are being extremely disruptive and I for one hope someone else besides me sees that. Reguyla (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again... it's not bullying or harassment for you to be banned for repeated incivil behaviour, Reguyla. And given the fact that this behaviour is continuing, I would suggest following the advice given above: take a few months off. Then come back and request these restrictions to be removed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect, he is doing it right here on this page and on my talk page. He has been continuously trying to derail this discussion since I started it. I am merely getting frustrated that he is doing it and no one cares. It's obvious that he is doing it. Reguyla (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I know; I see it. But you'll also notice that his attempts have been unsuccessful. You don't need to attack him, or insinuate anything about his motives for doing so. If you would change your behaviour, show that you can indeed get along with people, then there wouldn't be any issues here. My suggestion of taking a few months still stands. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I get along with most people just fine and my behavior reflects that of someone who has a sysop goosing the discussion. But if I don't get unblocked here today then Ill just keep resubmitting every few months until I do I guess. I mean the only reason that I am not unblocked now is because AlexZ made an agreement and then refused to follow it but hell what do I know, I'm just the guy getting screwed. Besides, we all know that this discussion doesn't bind Alex to unblock me even if there was a clear consensus to do so. Even if everyone agreed he would just ignore it and no one would do anything. That's just how it works here. Reguyla (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hi, can someone please help creating central notice banner (CentralNotice/Request/Maithili Wikimedians Mission 10)? Regards — TBhagat (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Seddon (WMF) and MarcoAurelio: Ping. Regards — TBhagat (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll follow up on that page. —MarcoAurelio 09:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks MarcoAurelio :) — TBhagat (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — TBhagat (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for small changes in css

Hey, In order to standardize CSS among different projects, please change what's in Mediawiki:common.css with content of User:Ladsgroup/common.css. Same goes for MediaWiki:User language.css and User:Ladsgroup/User language.css (please delete my subpages too). These are unnoticeable changes just to catch up with more changes happened in the mediawiki and have a standard UI using one color palette (phab:M82). These changes already is done in English Wikipedia. Thanks Amir (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Done (standardized CSS/UI color palette) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Move page over existing page

Hello,

Please move Wikimédia France/fr to Wikimédia France. The rationale is that multilingual pages can now have any language as source. I cannot do it myself because the target page exists (I tried exiling the contents to Wikimédia France/old but that did not work out.

Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

CentralNotice WLM GR awards event

Hi! I know that it is the last moment but please someone check CentralNotice/Request/WLM GR awards event. The event is tomorrow, so the CN should be displayed today... --Geraki ^T_L 07:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing, as the event is over. The banner wasn't created, unfortunately. Matiia (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matiia (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hi, someone please kindly fully protect my user page (Edit=sysop & Move=sysop) for infinity time period. Thanks, Goodbye :) — TBhagat (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done, and actually I'm tempted to delete it for blatant personal attacks. —MarcoAurelio 18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — TBhagat (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Close

To sysops or bureaucrats of Meta, please close my nomination as I've decided to withdraw this. Thanks in advance. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 01:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC).

Done. —MarcoAurelio 11:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Translations at SE

A note for translation admins: Please don't mark the SE 2017 pages for translation yet; especially not as we figure out the question of whether/how to best improve the translation system for it. Any input is appreciated at Stewards/Elections_2017/Coordination#Translations. Thanks. --MF-W 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: I suppose you meant to post this at Meta talk:Babylon? --Vogone (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. --MF-W 12:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message linking here. Matiia (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Request to create page MediaWiki:Lang/jam

Please create page MediaWiki:Lang/jam with the content jam. I request this because calling {{int:lang}} when the language is set to Jamaican Creole (Patois), or jam, doesn't work. And now I suspect it's because the function {{int:lang}} can't find a value for jam. Thanks very much. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be fixed also in mediawiki/core somewhere? —MarcoAurelio 20:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe. But for the purposes of what I was needing it to do, this worked. If you go to my user page, choose "Patois" as your language, and watch my Babel box, a "jam" entry will appear. It wasn't working before. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Mediawiki:Lang madness exists exactly because core for whatever reason does not provide a way to fetch current interface language code, well at least unless something has changed recently. --Base (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need a WikimediaMessages override for this one? —MarcoAurelio 23:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't log in anymore with two-tier authentication

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T154171

Hello, my name is User:Angelo.romano (admin on English Wikipedia), and I am contacting you due to my inability to get logged in through the two-factor authentication method. Unfortunately I do not have scratch codes with me anymore (they all got lost, together with the Google Authenticator settings, as my old mobile phone basically died for good days ago), so I have no way to log in to anywhere through my account.My email is angelo [DOT] romano [AT] gmail [DOT] com, if that can be of any help. I can also provide you with any other ways to ensure you about my identity, if requested. With best regards, Angelo. --79.23.21.38 00:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have submitted T154171 for this to be taken care of, I hope that is not a duplicate. I am sure there were instructions on who such requests should be directed to, but I failed in my looking up. --Base (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial user group that will be able to create newsletters in Meta

After a rather long development period, mw:Extension:Newsletter (a volunteer project) is approaching its deployment in Wikimedia, starting with Meta. The last point open in the security review is to define which user group will be able to create newsletters initially (check the link to see the options suggested). In case of doubt, we will go for higher restrictions first, although that might bring more work for Meta admins. Your feedback is welcome, here or in the Phabricator task. Thank you!--QuimGil (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is about mere creation of newsletters, I agree no high restriction is needed. If it were up to me, I would go for the last (least restrictive) option. --Vogone (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Ouch, my memory tricked me, and this extension will be deployed first in mediawiki.org. Sorry! Still hearing opinions about Meta admins will be useful because this should be the second wiki getting this extension if no problems are found in mediawiki.org or here.--QuimGil (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, QuimGil. Sounds interesting. What I wonder the most is are/can be those newsletters translatable? Perfectly meaning some deep integration rather than another template based infrastructure on top of that. Well I am saying it more like a translator and translate admin rather than normal admin :) As to the topic, I agree that just creating must not be a great deal. But if that right will also mean sending notification out to all who have subscribed perhaps it will need to have some restriction, probably somewhat milder than massmessage has though. --Base (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Research talk:ORES paper

Trizek (WMF) (talk · contribs), active supporter to enable Flow in a discussion decided, while involved and the discussion going towards the opposite, to enable Flow on such page against the opinion of the majority of the community of Meta as is, yet again, being demonstrated in a community vote taking place right now. I feel this is an improper use of the tools granted to him and that such talk page status should be immediately reverted to normal wikitext. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• So, community have no meaning to WMF now, from FDC/Grants to this, all of it, consensus building no longer respected, no longer a virtue that's actually mean something to Wikimedia movement, tbh I am offended by this action.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 08:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• It was enabled as per phab:T153412#2886164: "Done, per consensus from that Research project team members.". IMHO asking the community-at-large for their opinion to later just take into consideration other opinions is not okay. —MarcoAurelio 15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass Message Sender Right

Resolved.

Requesting for the Mass Message Sender Right to deliver various regional collaboration projects and activities in South Asia. Thanks! —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello!

• Strong Oppose Recently having the history of abusing multiples account, i can't trust this user for this right. — Wiki Mopper ^?? 07:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• Nah "19:12, 16 December 2016 Ruslik0 (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:JuniorX2@global": set locked; unset (none) (Cross-wiki abuse)" It speaks volume if you should be given any rights to do anything advanced at all. And this unlock doesn't help, it only shows that you are inexperienced Special:diff/16179240.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 15:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

lolno - Not done per reasons given above. -Barras talk 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It means i willn't get user rights anymore ? —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 07:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Just keep the good work up for some time, at least a year I think, so that people can see that you have good intentions. MassMessage can be badly abused so it is no wonder people are being precautionary now. Please do not feel discouraged. Thanks :) --Base (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks ! —JuniorX2 ^Chat_Hello! 00:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I must say I can't understand the opposition. Mass message is a tool that merely automates something that everyone can do anyway. That is the reason why, when the massmessage-sender group was created, it was said it should be given out rather freely. If JuniorX2 could give a less vague description that "various projects in South Asia" for his use case, I would have no problem with granting this. --MF-W 23:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @MF-Warburg:. If i misuse this user right then you can take it back. Regards ☆★Raaza Upreti (✉✉) 15:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That you agree doesn't surprise me. However, 'could [you] give a less vague description that "various projects in South Asia" for [your] use case?' --MF-W 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sending messages for Datathon, Wikithon and other various online programs organized by nepali and maithili wikipedia. ☆★Raaza Upreti (✉✉) 06:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: User is doing vandalisms at newiki with ip addresses (36.253.254.125, 36.253.255.25, 36.253.255.247, 36.253.254.98, 36.253.254.65, etc.) and doing reverts of that vandalisms with main account (JuniorX2) after that user asking for Rollbacker right @ne.wiki. (See also @commons 36.253.254.125) — TBhagat (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tulsi Bhagat: If u don't want me to edit wikipedia then i will leave it. Regards ☆★Raaza Upreti (✉✉) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The user is blocked on 4 wikis and has a history of socking. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I closed that days ago as Not done, no need for further !vote, discussions etc. -Barras talk 13:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No open proxies question

I'm having trouble interpreting the 'No open proxies' policy. It states: "Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked" (underline added). Does this mean that one may use open proxies for legitimate edits (no SPAM, sock puppetry, or any other policy violation)? Or is it strictly forbidden in any case and any use of open proxies is a violation of this policy unless a permission is granted? Thank you. 213.143.50.20 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Of course you are allowed to make legitimate edits using open proxies until they're blocked, and you will not be sanctioned for doing so. That said, if you really need to use open proxies to edit (for instance, you need to bypass the Great Firewall of China), it is recommended you use an account to edit and request an IP block exempt in order not to be prevented from editing by open proxy blocks, since you are not the intented target. Defender (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for your clear and quick answer, @Defender: I'm the author of the question. Unfortunately, even though I didn't violate any policy, I've been permanently banned from es.wiki just for using open proxies. Through CheckUser, an administrator stated that the open proxy IPs clearly belonged to my account —I don't even know If that's possible or a legitimate use of CheckUser. Another administrator blocked me permanently because of that. I showed them the policy and I showed them your answer. They insist that the use of proxies is strictly forbidden and that your answer is worthless because you are «not even a steward». A third administrator has stated that the infinite block is correct because if I used IP with proxies it's because I had «something to hide». Even though the edits (four edits in total) were done in good faith and don't break any policy. That's how they work. What should I do? Is it possible to appeal to a higher instance? I do believe this is a clear abuse of admin rights and I can prove it with detail. They have no right to ban me permanently from Wikipedia for no good reason, but unlike other Wikipedias, in es.wiki there is no mechanism whatsoever to counteract admin abuse. Thank you in advance. Atón (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

PD:By the way, es.wiki has no local policy regarding proxies. The Meta policy applies. Atón (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems you're blocked on eswiki for harassment or otherwise misbehavior, not 'solely for using open proxies'. When I said of course you are allowed to make legitimate edits using open proxies until they're blocked, and you will not be sanctioned for doing so, I forgot to mention this does not include evading active blocks or bans and sockpuppetry, which are (obviously) not legitimate editing. As for appealing your block, you'll have to follow the process of the Spanish Wikipedia. Starting a request for comments here won't help you much with this situation. Meta-Wiki is not an appeals court, and stewards don't have any authority to overrule admin decisions on a project with a clearly established local community. Defender (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again @Defender:. I did not evade any active block or ban, I did not commit sockpuppetry and I did not misbehave in any way. I just reported anonymously on another user, a report which was legitimate, supported by other users and actually resolved on my favor by an administrator. I'm aware it's difficult to believe to an outsider, but the «established local community» of es.wiki is totally helpless before the reign of terror of a small group of admins who block whoever they dislike with no due process and no regard for the truth. That's why I reported anonymously, even though the report was legitimate. I know it sounds unbelievable, and I've come to the conclusion there is absolutely nothing to be done. Thanks for your time and professionalism, and I'm sorry this wasn't the right place. I'll just forget es.wiki. Greetings Atón (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)