Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-01

Patroller

I would like to request Patroller rights on Meta wiki which is a powerful anti-vandalism tools to revert vandalism edits also could have access to patrol. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, since your last application in a month, I only count 5 undo and out of them, only 2-3 can the rollback button be used. Your activity level is still way too low here. --Cohaf (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Several times I've tried to undo edits but before published someone did by rollback so I couldn't done that, its happen most of the times. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I find that highly unlikey. I strongly oppose granting of patroller permissions; this user has a history of requesting rights they don't need, can't use, and/or aren't familiar with. Vermont (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Vermont for the most part. User has a long history of hat collecting and has shown absolutely no need for the tools. Furthermore judging from cross-wiki reverts thy have a failure to understand when rollback is supposed to be used and judging whether an edit is vandalism or not. hiàn/_{editing on mobile account} 19:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Haven't quite gone through the application but two things come to my mind:

5 undo in itself is too low for patroller. However, I can believe it if a user says that "I've tried to undo edits but before published someone did by rollback so I couldn't done that.." because that's happened to me and I'm not a very prolific user here. Considering the comments from other users about hat collecting, I'll have to give it a  Oppose. Leaderboard (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Can we not turn this into a vote? Meta sysop are generally competent enough to figure things out on their own without turning a basic request for rollback permissions into a mini-RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not done - your only revert from today was inappropriate. If a user or IP leaves an improperly formatted request on a steward request page, the better response is to fix their formatting rather than revert the edit. Please gain more experience using the undo tool, and think about how your actions are viewed from the perspective of the user you are reverting. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry to pile on but the below section resolved template just show they are not interested in any kind of engagement, which patrollers are supposed to do as we often face disgrunted users who question our motives. I will add that this is a clear sign another suggestion of hat-collecting. However, I do acknowledge that the watchers here are quite active and you often will get into rollback conflict. However, if you are active enough, there are ample opportunities to rollback / undo edits. I did try out just now and managed 2 undos (for edits I will otherwise use rollback on). Keep trying and you will get the permissions you want when you demonstrate a competency and need for it and then use them. All the best! --Cohaf (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC) edited --Cohaf (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No need to make guesses about their motivations, either with their template addition below or your accusations of hat collecting (which is perhaps the most victimless crime in wikiland). If the requestee can demonstrate a pattern of good reverts and engagement after a few weeks or months, then I'd be happy to grant this very minor toolset to them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ajraddatz:I apologize for it. Fully retracted. I also hope so. All the best again!--Cohaf (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

automatic admin user User:Abuse filter

Hallo Could someone also create user pages for User:Abuse filter on local Wikipedias (et:User:Väärtarvitusfilter etc). So there would be less confusion about who is this new user with admin rights, is it Messiah, or somebody else... --WikedKentaur (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WMF should do it as they are responsible of granting admin rights for those. Also, there is no global account for "Väärtarvitusfilter", so creating an user page here won't show it on Estonian Wikipedia. Stryn (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile the wiki creating it for themselves.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Or just wait to get phab:T160666 deployed. Stryn (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning 84.143.39.212‎

84.143.39.212‎ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: see this diff. Mend My Way 14:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I given them a final warning, no edits since then. --Cohaf (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Done anyway by Alaa the other day. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I guess now this can be closed now as nothing more need to be done.--Cohaf (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

While User:BAICAN XXX got locked...

The following discussion is closed: no further action required

---

Status:    not done, information is inoffensive and not problematic

Hello admins, I'm looking for latest behaviour of this account locked in 30 december 2018 by MarcoAurelio. Should this global userpage of BAICAN XXX be kept with stored informations & interwiki redirects while is locked, or maybe to or send it to the trash and/or marking as {{Locked global account}} instead keeping data by this contribuitor? Thanks! 46.55.254.26 07:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't fuss it. It is what it is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't encourage the addition of the template per DENY unless the userpage is grossly inappropriate. This seems not the case here.--Cohaf (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: In response to @Cohaf and Billinghurst: Unless information subject is proven for evidence regarding global user page of account while locked, the issue is accurate for question. However, this global user page of contribuitor while locked if appropiate or inappropiate cannot be kept for long time. It's such suggestive topic as well. I suggest you with the admin rights to delete it from WM entry if request is adequate issue. 46.55.254.27 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment. There are many such pages throughout all the wikis, locked and non-locked users, presently here and departed. It is not different.

  This user put these pages up for the world to see presumably in full knowledge of what they were doing. As I said, it is inoffensive, it s not problematic, so there is no reason for any admin to intervene. Not sure what business it is of yours anyway?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but not enough. I saw at the moment if his user account(s) is blocked/locked, they are locked from editing trough Wikimedia. However, I have looked at is user subpages and no less results had than just one subpage found. If page is not problematic, I did see their property, but little enough. Here is the discussion of global lock request by contribuitor (see this discussion for the request reference). 46.55.254.27

• More: This global user account got blocked around some different Wikis (such on ro.wikipedia and ro.wikinews). You can also read this community consensus regarding situation for the user at ro.wikinews: see here.

46.55.254.27 02:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment You have brought it up here, and you have had plentiful opportunity to express your point of view, and it doesn't convince me that we need to scrub the information from the page.

I take into consideration that stewards chose not to act further when they locked the account, and nobody else decided that it needed action following. There has been no other comment from the community either for your proposal, or offering alternatives. If you truly believe in the goals of the Wikimedia community you could understand that there are other acceptable judgements than your own. In this space, we all have to accept a level of difference of opinion. 22:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IP Vandal: 109.153.91.75

Hi! Can you please block this IP: 109.153.91.75 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)? It has been recently observed obvious vandalism, an LTA did "made edits". 86.126.112.251 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Report of User:Arenah - Correct page is protected

• Arenah (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
• ...

Addition of spam links on multiple wikis --RhinosF1 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Usual place to request this is on SRG, but done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: - Thanks to all who helped with this RhinosF1 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Page was protected so I was unable to RhinosF1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. I've given you the ability to report there in the future :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

False positive

I tried to move a full stop to the right-hand side of a closing square bracket on Research:How much do Wikipedians in the US value editing Wikipedia? but it was automatically identified as being spam or advertising. [1] JackintheBox (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is because of "purchase" in the text. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Being your first edit, we have some protections against shopping spam from newbies. I have made some mods to the filter, anyway.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

More false positives

Hi, more of my attempted edits on this page were prevented. [2] JackintheBox (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Advo7

Advo7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Sock of LTA and global locked user User:Allthingsgo. Reported at SRG but local behaviour on meta is also problematic, hence I'm here. Indeffed at enwiki and zhwiki already. Cohaf (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

They are not editing outside of scope; and they are not block evading, so we can leave it to the stewards. Stewards deal with all things locked. We can escalate all things globally banned.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:Noted with all thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

:This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My sockpuppets keep getting blocked.

• To Whom it may concern.

• The abuse filter keeps instantly blocking my sockpuppet accounts when I try to leisurely do some f******i vandalism on the SRG page and Stewards' talk pages. Please tweak the abuse filter so I can continue my BMX on WheeIs vandalism and trolling.

• Thank You.

• Regards,

• BMX on WheeIs.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop Hop (talk)

Doing... --Vituzzu (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User group in meta

Status:    Done

MsaynevirtaBOT (talk · contribs)

Hi, I'm building a pywikibot script for uploading population diagrams to Commons. I was going to setup OAuth for this bot account, but this doesn't seem to be possible atm as the user isn't for some reason autoconfirmed in meta. This account was created in 2015 and has made thousands of edits e.g. in fiwiki, so that shouldn't be a problem. Would it be possible to some how manually confirm this account? Thanks. --MsaynevirtaBOT (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@MsaynevirtaBOT and Msaynevirran: Status of accounts will differ between wiki depending on your actions on the wiki, and the setting of the wiki, it is generally not a global assignation.

At Meta, we have a time and edit count requirement for autoconfirmed. For here, it will need a bureaucrat to assign confirmed user status to this account if you haven't met the edit criteria. I have restructured your request to make it evident that a 'crat needs to act.

To note that your account is not even registered as an account at Commons (see special:centralauth/MsaynevirtaBOT) and they have an even tougher set of criteria, so you may wish to familiarise yourself with c:Commons:Bots early on.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Done; confirmed granted for one week so you can register the OAuth consumer. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@MsaynevirtaBOT and Msaynevirran: noting the timeline— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)

Ping User:Msaynevirta instead. Stryn (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:116.58.205.103

116.58.205.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism: removing content without consensus and justification. Tomybrz Bip Bip 17:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

has stopped; @Tomybrz: instead I have protected both target pages as they seem to be targets that have a history of problematic editing. Thanks for the note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please review this case

Hi fellows, I have no more time today and I can't review this case appropiately, so please review it and perform the correct measures. At first I thought it was an edit warring but then I thought it consists on vandalism by Letswaritout. I've adopted fast measures to stop it but I don't have time to review it apropiately, please review it for me. History: history 1, history 2, history 3. Thank you very much.--Syum90 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Letswaritout and the IP's they previously used - 109.159.100.101, 86.183.115.82 and 109.150.45.248 are socks of Iniced, an LTA. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think a global lock of the accounts as well as maybe a global block of the IP is needed. It's not unacceptable username only but long term abuse, so the block reason might need changing. It is not editwarring at all to be clear, just the usual vandals who like to deface talkpages. Others per plystar.--Cohaf (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93 and Cohaf: ok, so it's just a LTA. Measures taken accordingly. Thanks both.--Syum90 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Another one: 89.236.229.9

What is problematic: this LTA is changing the IPv4 address to other one as from 89.236.251.73. I think that they are from 89.236.0.0/17 part of range. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 15:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

nothing to do neither local (Special:BlockList/89.236.229.9) or global block Special:GlobalBlockList/89.236.229.9  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure

Resolved.

Requests for comment/Domain parking has not been editted for a year. It'll take another one to be automatically closed as inactive, but why wait if there's nothing productive happening there already? I was going to close as 'invalid', then 'unsuccessful'; but I'm not sure. Anyone with a better idea could please take a look? (also who changed {{rfc subpage}}?) Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I just remember the generic closed status so I closed it myself. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 62.209.149.59

The following discussion is closed: Nothing to be done by administrators  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Open proxy – 62.209.149.59 that is tied to DCH (hosting). This may need pre-existent block. See IP information. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 19:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In the stewards' domain, they can manage it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, 62.209.149.59.ip.tps.uz is a residential PPPoE link which is online only intermittently – the IPv6 lies, and is certainly no “helper”. Why users without credentials (I have a couple of guesses about LTA behind the IPv6) are permitted to scrabble in the pages important for receiving complains? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Who's behind... IPv6? I'm not sure about this complaint, but LTA 62.209.149.59 did it due to reverted edits (see [3] and [4]). This (as of 89.236.251.73) has been changing the IP to other IPv4. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 06:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  Added also 62.209.133.20 – maybe is really LTA editing at Talk:Steward requests/Global, I think. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 07:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that local admins are not stupid, but again… Special:Contribs/62.209.128.0/19 is a poor Uzbek ejected from Wikipedia for his bad demeanor. The range may have some hosting within it, but the user obviously has nothing to do with it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Why the range is a poor Uzbek ejected from Wikipedia for his bad demeanor? Prove details regarding this range if it has some hosting within it. Of course, also as an LTA on English Wikipedia one of IPs in the range given same edit at Bbb23 talk page as such, someone did like this. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 08:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 5.126.243.43 adding nonsense translations

This IP 5.126.243.43 xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • ST • IP info • WHOIS • robtex • gblock • glist • abuselog • bullseye adding non-translated information such as nonsense content at Help:Contents/fa (see the history). 86.122.226.226 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:86.173.7.128

86.173.7.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: See contribs. Iluvatar (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Managed by Tegel.--Cohaf (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a Open proxy block

Hello please block this open proxy.. Fraudlent scores are very high and recently there was a vandalism spree on one of these IPs.. I request a global block as well, because it is prone to cross-wiki abuse (as its not globally blocked, only local block is placed).. Thanks, 182.58.253.72 16:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio and Ajraddatz: can you please check the 194.187.216.0/22 at the backend and see how problematic is the range. While it has some external reports, beyond the single IP address abusing here yesterday, there is nothing apparent xwiki as being problematic outside of the language or origin; nor long term, so I am reluctant to block the /24 without evidence. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a moderate amount of activity cross-wiki but none on Meta within the last three months outside of that one IP. A lot of the activity is also spambot accounts, but there are some apparently legitimate users. If the range is actively vandalizing xwiki then it might be worth a short block here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have extended the block on the IP address that vandalised for the medium term. We can look at the /24 or the /22 here if there is a broader issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

118.209.244.174

118.209.244.174 needs a block locally. It's currently blocked globally and just began vandalizing meta. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

IP 86.173.4.25

Vandalism: LTA. See contribs. 82.76.60.6 12:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks for reporting. Defender (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Defender (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Block needed for Special:Contributions/5.39.216.243

Thanks 182.58.199.99 09:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protect User talk:Vermont

Lot of persistent vandalism by LTAs. See history. 82.76.61.11 13:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We are well aware, thanks for helping.--Cohaf (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. Something need more resolution. Users are beware of LTAs, with abusive or offensive usernames (accounts) as they can't be stopped. What then do administrators and stewards to act urgently. However, some vandal(s) were moving on many user talk and talk pages. 82.76.61.11 14:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Adding Talk:Steward requests/Global as target. 82.76.61.11 17:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  There is no need to report every page for protection in this case. Please read this page for more information. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:科學警察

科學警察 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism: LTA. 82.76.61.11 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Managed by Ajraddatz. --Cohaf (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for patroller

Hi,

I'd like to request patroller in order to use the rollback function to undo vandalism. There was recently an IP vandal whose edits were just personal attacks on users and rollback, in conjunction with the massrollback.js script would be very useful instead of having to go through the undo, confirm cycle. I'm a rollbacker on enwiki and simplewiki and a member of SWMT, so I have experience with the tool.

I have read and understand Meta:Rollback and Meta:Patrollers.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support We really need all the help to keep out vandalism and their activity is very good in this area, however mass rollback isn't quite useful for the MO of vandals here sadly.--Cohaf (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • my fault, shouldn't use the support template, once again this had became a mini RFA.--Cohaf (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• @StraussInTheHouse: you've referenced experience on enwiki, however you are currently blocked on that project - can you elaborate on that? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux:, it's a self request-block. Tomybrz Bip Bip 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: I need a little bit of time off to study. I'll be stopping editing on all projects the day after tomorrow but as enwiki constitutes a large chunk of my Wikipedia activities I needed to cut down in order to revise. I tried wikibreak enforcer but I just changed my clock so I could keep editing, so a self-requested block was the only option. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

    @StraussInTheHouse: thanks for the response, and best of luck with your studies, in light of that is signing up for extra patrolling on an additional project (here that is) really what you want to start now? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: thank you! Yes, I'll be back by 4 February. Best, SITH (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Good activity on en.wiki Tomybrz Bip Bip 18:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Not impressed with your history over at enwiki. Nihlus 18:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nihlus:Do you have some evidence to support that? And this is just a very minor toolkit which we give to people who can and want to help us? Their work on meta seems decently good. I don't see a reason to say no.--Cohaf (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Special:CentralAuth/DrStrauss. More here. Even more here. Nihlus 07:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      • What a mess this is, thanks Nihlus. Strike out my supportAfter reading through, the block is lifted, their contributions seems good then, I'm not convinced that we cannot grant this right to them..--Cohaf (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)updated --Cohaf (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Cohaf: heh, don’t worry, I have no intention of RfAing any time soon! SITH (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies, I should have mentioned that in my PERM request, I just didn’t think it was relevant as the incident 13 months ago had nothing to do with the misuse of rollback. Plus I’ve made 15,000 constructive edits to enwiki since then so I think it’s a bit unfair to judge me on one incident to which there is a lot more context than I can publicly reveal, but that’s your prerogative. SITH (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's a culmination of those actions, the seemingly unhealthy relation you have with editing, and the multiple self-requested blocks showing a lack of ability to separate yourself from the site. Any administrator is free to do what they want; however, I wanted to make sure they were aware of everything before doing so. Nihlus 09:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• As I say, you can !vote how you like, that's your prerogative. I know this isn't a popular opinion but a lack of ability to separate oneself from the site could be seen more as a dedication to a cause than an unhealthy relation to it, and the self-requested blocks are merely a manifestation of that. SITH (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support I think that Meta need more patrollers. --云间守望 13:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose not patrolling at this time, would think that someone asking for the right would be seen making the effort, even if it takes a little longer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral per above.--Cohaf (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Do we have to turn every request for permissions into a mini-RfA? For the record, I’d support as it’s basically rollback and SITH is a trusted user on other projects, but having a vote over something this small isn’t respectful to the requesting user. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  Saying he is a trusted user is an opinion that may not be held by others. Additionally, whether templates or used or not is irrelevant; it just provides a visual cue to any administrator that is looking at this request. No one has indicated that this is a vote that needs to meet a certain threshold in order to "pass." Nihlus 05:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• @StraussInTheHouse: Just install MiniTwinkle. Natureium (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Done, no big deal. Can easily be removed in case of misuse, which I do not expect to happen. --Vogone (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux ^Talk 12:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ibrahim khashrowdi

The user page at User:Ibrahim khashrowdi contains some text in Persian which is inappropriate (the user labels some folks as terrorists). The English text also seems politically loaded. I certainly can edit the user page and/or ask the user to edit it, but I thought I should ask here first. Huji (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Huji:I think for Persian, none of meta sysops or stewards are better than you, some may be equal, I think you may well proceed to directly ask them to change that part. For English I'm not sure us there a convention to prevent political slogan. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mardetanha: ^, care for comment? — regards, Revi 08:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the English version is inappropriate, though it does display their political leanings without making provocative claims (as I see it as an outside).  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can trust the translator aspect of Google, I can see some proud nationalistic statement, though I don't see a personal attack, nor a call to arms. If you think that there is specific problems with the text, then I would advise talk page discussion with them, or specific solutions that you see that could be employed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It is definitely politically loaded, from what I can translate it says, we are not terrorist but those who can't fight us are so despicable that they call us terrorist. Mardetanha ^talk 15:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It is more along the lines of "We are not terrorist but those who can't fight us and are so despicable to call us terrorist are themselves terrorists".

Maybe I'm less tolerant towards people calling others "terrorist".

I will leave a message on their talk page. Huji (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not speak Farsi or Arab. I trust Huji and Mardetanha here. Google Translate suggest to me the text might be refering to the Balochistan Liberation Army members, which is a terrorist organisation as designated by the Republic of Pakistan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pursuant the Terrorism Act (2000). The U.S. Department of State have classified the BLA activites as terrorism (cf. Wikipedia), but has not listed the BLA in the FTO though. Having said that, if the text seeks to glorify, justify or advocate for such group, I think it'd be quite controversial for us to host such content here. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Let us see if communication works, and then review. If they are inactive, then it doesn't need to stand.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Clean a user page

Status:    Not done

User:Vivil as offensive trolling. Many thanks. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: It's not trolling. It's my opinion about Wikipedia after recent abuse of power against myself. I was banned without proof. If vulgar words are a problem we can reach a consensus in this case. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 13:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done as long as Vivil is not making personal attacks, then the WPs will cope with their commentary where it is reasonable, and not out of scope to meta.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If any Wikipedias wish to hide the meta page, just add a local userpage that's it. It's still within scope here. Regards, --Cohaf (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well; I suppose since en-wp can No Longer Be Trolled by User:Vivil, and their UP has indeed been marmalised there, we're all done. cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of Meta:Urbanity. Nihlus 13:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It's violation of urbanity yes, but then it isn't against person. So technically urbanity doesn't count.--Cohaf (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Something is fine as long as you attack a group of editors rather than a specific one? Is that what you are saying? Nihlus 13:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It states Wikipedia admins as a whole. In extension, Wikimedia Foundation projects admins as a whole. However, don't we have this everywhere, rants towards admins aren't rare. In unblock reviews here insults are also hurled at meta admins, do we delete those? nope. So unless policy is to change. I don't think we have grounds to delete this. Do correct if I'm wrong.--Cohaf (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Each and every scenario isn't going to be laid out in policy, so it falls to a common sense interpretation. That being said, the policy states: "Highly uncivil or insulting comments may be removed, provided that it is noted on the edit summary and on the page." Does the entire page need to be deleted? No, but the comments should be removed and Vivil warned. Nihlus 13:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘

I will say can you communicate with the user? That's better in some sense. My personal take is nope in this case, even if someone says all " Wikiversity admins are flawed". --Cohaf (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Please stop being precious. So someone has a negative opinion of us, or parts of us; we get over it, and maybe we learn from it. We would have admins who would fail urbanity checks at times. The text is not a personal attack, it is not even aimed at a particular wiki. Whilst unpleasant, I look at such comments as a reminder to me to not be a pompous admin, and to remember that I should only block someone's edits or remove their edits where there is a clear reason to do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between constructive commentary and baseless attacks. Guidelines and rules only matter to the extent that they are enforced, and ignoring blatant incivility is a slippery slope. Nihlus 15:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Who said it was ignored? Non-removal != ignoring. We are allowing people to make their own assessments, and it may reflect as much on the person as the community. BTW I think that you should also reread the detail in urbanity.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: It's not baseless considering I was blocked without proof and no ability to challenge this block without pleading guilty to things I didn't do. I can source examples of abuses of power but this would be considered personal attack. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 15:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Please meta isn't an appeal court, any discussion on that will be out of scope already. That's belong on enwp.--Cohaf (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it seems like they're currently blocked from editing their own talk page, but not sending email. So I guess the best way for that to be done right now is by trying to contact whoever did the block via the email function. Saederup92 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saederup92: I'm indefinitely blocked from editing english Wikipedia. If you're suggesting that I should send an email to person who blocked me then I don't think there is a reason to try that. I've asked for proof so I can explain/prove it's not correct but I was denied. From what I read in current unblocking policy the only way to get unblocked is that I plead guilty and beg for mercy. This assumes that admin decisions are perfect. That's very flawed assumption.

I get to experience the famous Wikipedia toxicity first hand. Now I understand why so many people are scared to edit. _{Please use {{Reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 15:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Vivil, I think everyone who looks at your edits and your comments, even without the revdeleted one, will understand where the toxicity comes from. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Ignoring, inaction, it's all the same. I'm fully aware of what urbanity says, but your underhanded comment is noted. Regardless, I've no intention of explaining urbanity any further. Nihlus 19:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring, inaction, etc. are not the same. I haven't ignored their comment, I am fully cognisant of it and its meaning, and it will inform my opinion, and it may impact actions now, or actions into the future (which are inactions at the moment). In this case, I was not inactive, though I didn't remove the comment, instead I addressed it by other means. I do not believe that all commentary needs to be positive, or that all negative opinion should be wiped just because I don't like it. Sometimes these places are a contest of robust ideas and opinions, and that should be allowed, but not making it personal. BTW which underhanded comment?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Force archival of a talk page

Good day fellow administrators. I had to opt-out the talk page from Edgar H. from automated message deliveries due to the constant erroring due to the page being too big. I tried to leave a message to the user asking him to please archive his talk page. I was lucky that I could add the opt-out category so it doesn't keep erroring. Now I wonder if it'd be acceptable if I could archive his talk page so it becomes readable and editable again or, for the contrary, it can stay as it is. Thank you for your comments. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: I went ahead and force archived that page, and left the user a note explaining everything, primarily as they have been inactive globally since 2012. I think a bigger thing to consider would be if we should ever force-unsubscribe people from mailing lists in this sort of situation. It is possible that someone sets up an account just for mailing lists, perhaps getting them via an rss feed or email relay - but that is generally a rare situation. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Xaosflux. I wonder if we could --at least temporarily-- exclude Edgar's talk page from further mass message delivery in order to avoid this very same situation in the future, provided that the user seems to be globally inactive. That or either remove him from the Wikidata updates mass message. There are others in this same situation by doing a quick check in the mass message log. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment We have good archiving bots, so it is totally reasonable to force archive pages that are too big where the user has not been undertaking reasonable management steps. Being the activist, I have also archived (moved) two further user talk pages that are failing delivery, and removed two users' subscriptions to a newsletter who were on an editing hiatus / gone. Notes added to user talk pages as appropriate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)