User talk:M7/Older talk 3

Confirmation edit

This was edited by M7it, my non-SUL user name on ja.wiki. --M/ 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Turzh@ukwiki

Did you have concerns about that request?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't read Ukranian either, however Google translate provided a good translation, which seems clear enough to me. However, I'll defer to you.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

:-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Richiesta

Ciao M/, puoi togliermi il flag di admin? Da ormai troppo tempo non ho più il tempo e le forze per svolgere quel ruolo di servizio. Ti ringrazio in anticipo! --AmonSûl 14:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser

Hi M7! Please have a look at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/checkuser-l/2009-July/007120.html . Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC) P. S.: To your question: Global blocks does not effect meta: so that the IP can request an unblock here (or trolls furthermore as these IPs just did).

Richiesta di "delete" di pagina utente

Ciao, avrei bisogno per favore di una mano per eliminare la mia pagina utente in (quella gabbia di matti della) wikipedia lombarda. E' la prima volta che faccio un account (di solito edito anonimamente) e posso assicurarti che sarà l'ultima. Ho voluto dare una mano a un amico (user:Belinzona) a caricare alcune pagine, poi volevo andarmene (ma mi era stato raccomandato di non fare edit anonimi). Ho testimoniato quanto è successo qui su meta, alla mia pagina utente (user:Swiss51). Ho riportato in una sottopagina user:Swiss51/lmo la cronologia della mia pagina utente e di discussione in lmo. Dapprima avevo inserito degli avvisi che l'account aveva finito di operare ma loro hanno fatto dei rollback. L'ultimo dei miei contributi è un template "delete" su entrambe le pagine, ma non vogliono apparentemente saperne. Peraltro ho subito ogni genere di trolling e attacchi, e non ho avuto neanche un benvenuto. Insomma, vorrei cancellare la mia pagina utente per favore. Molte grazie per l'aiuto. Buona notte, --Swiss51 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Deletionist

Ciao M7, a tag has been placed on Talk:Deletionist requesting this talk page to be speedy deleted from meta. Given that you started that page; perhaps you want to keep this little discussion for historical interest?. Saludos, — df|  16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dominic

When you completed this request, did you also take his administrator status by accident? Nathan ^T 23:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Vote page

You are very correct! I had been checking some things on my phone while I was away from my computer and must have accidently pressed the rollback button, It has happened 2-3 times in the past but I always caught it right away. I have reverted my edit so that the vote remains and again thank you for pointing it out. James (T|C) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

chiarimento

Leggi user talk:Vituzzu#chiarimento, poichè anche tu m'insulti bloccando miei IP. Hai capito che Luigi28/Presbite e BarbaNane non sono mie utenze, dunque, anzichè accanirti contro le mie vere utenze, perchè non chiedi tali sblocchi agli amministratori di en.wiki?--Ducatista 15:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gente come te che si vanta di creare ad arte voci POV (evadendo blocchi e bandi) non è - evidentemente - compatibile con il progetto. --M/ 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ricordo bene di averti insultato nella tua personale posta telematica quindi sai il mio indirizzo telematico nonchè i miei veri nome e cognome ma tu dopo un'iniziale cordialità ti sei ostinato contro di me e continui a insultarmi! Considera che:

• io collaboro al progetto da prima di te e in più sezioni linguistiche di quanto faccia tu
• mai mi son vantato di alcunchè
• solitamente non rispondo agli insulti ma tu, Vituzzu e Montesacro avete superato un certo limite quindi ho semplicemente reagito in passato nonchè recentemente
• gente come me ha molta pazienza ma quando la perde può ricambiare gl'insulti ricevuti con i dovuti interessi
• non sto qui per litigare ma neanche per fare amicizie
• son rispettoso di tutti ma reagisco se provocato offensivamente
• tu non sei in grado di giudicare le mie voci
• non hai titolo per stabilire che non sono compatibile con il progetto--Ducatista 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

La tua capacità di reagire, di offendere, di fare propaganda, di evadere i blocchi è ben nota a molti, anche su altre Wiki. E, mi spiace, ma le tue ultime affermazioni sono inesatte - fino a che la comunità di Wiki e di meta.wiki lo riterranno opportuno - ho titolo (insieme ad altri, ci mancherebbe) per amministrare alcuni progetti, quindi anche per stabilire l'incompatibilità di un editor con il progetto, decidendo le varie azioni necessarie a tutela. --M/ 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• certo sei amministratore in due sezioni linguistiche ma non puoi bloccare il collegamento di un giapponese che vuol collaborare al progetto dalla biblioteca nazionale di Bari
• se certi insulti stavano nella sezione portoghese, è logico bloccare solo in tale sezione
• hai ragione: molti fanno propaganda ma tra questi non mi trovi!
• inserire le biografie dei campioni di -pallone col bracciale- con la mia utenza Pantaleone non è propaganda!--Ducatista 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, certo. Infatti si tratta di abuso di utenze multiple ed evasione di blocco. Ed ecco che scatta un nuovo blocco e l'ennesima querelle con qualche amministratore. Cambiare gioco no? --M/ 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

difatti cambio sempre gli articoli così non mi potete individuare: ma non fate meglio a reintegrarmi poichè mai ho vandalizzato un articolo? Voi dovreste cambiare gioco: se vi chiedo di lasciarmi sviluppare la parte sportiva soltanto, potreste accettare?--Ducatista 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Le mie immagini

Ciao M7, ti pubblico sto link per fartelo ricordare: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussioni_utente:MM/archivio_30&diff=prev&oldid=25478569

Allora, tu mi bloccasti perché manifestai in maniera impropria la volontà che le mie immagini fossero rimosse da wikipedia. Ieri guardando i log delle mie modifiche, mi sono accorto che a molti mesi di distanza questo non è accaduto, anzi l'utente che si firma Blackcat (Sergio D’Afflitto, La Spezia, 20 settembre 1965) le ha spostate su commons senza la mia autorizzazione. Questa non è una minaccia, sto solo ribadendo la mia volontà a uno stewart e amministratore di Wikipedia affinché la cosa sia fatta al più presto. --Grifter72 20:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quale parte di "irrevocabile" non ti è chiara?

--M/ 20:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosa intendi per irrevocabile?

La licenza con cui hai rilasciato le immagini è irrevocabile. --M/ 21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Non so di cosa stai parlando.--Grifter72 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Allora è meglio che ti informi prima di scrivere. --M/ 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Questo significa che non intendi rimuoverle?--Grifter72 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Io non ho nessuna autorità per rimuoverle. Le immagini rilasciate con licenza GFDL non possono essere rimosse a capriccio, inoltre chiunque può, rispettando i termini della licenza che tu stesso hai apposto, caricarle ovunque. --M/ 21:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Aggiungo che le immagini precedentemente rilasciate in GFDL sono state migrate ad una doppia licenza Creative Commons + GFDL. --M/ 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, grazie. Non interpretarla come minaccia. Io comunque ho fatto la mia richiesta direttamente a te. Tu mi hai detto che non si può. Buona serata. --Grifter72 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Io leggo quello che c'è scritto qui, confronto con quello che hai fatto su it.wiki e agisco di conseguenza. E' questo che cerchi da me? --M/ 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Block of Grifter72

You have blocked Grifter72 for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Trolling and legal threats, cp." My understanding of Italian is not the greatest, but I could not see the "trolling" or "legal threats". Could you please point out where these are? By the way, "legal threats" are a block that is removed once it is stated that there will be no legal matter as the block exists simply to keep Wikimedia from being used during ongoing legal trials/disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Meta normally does not block an individual for blocks on other Wikis, nor do we block because we are to allow appeals here. I also do not see the level of harassment or threats that would warrant an indef on Italian Wiki, so I am bothered by your level of response here. It also seems that you have a conflict of interest in the blocking here in addition to your block at the Italian being inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This shows that you have a conflict in that you blocked a user then you blocked him on meta from having any ability to appeal when he was being very civil and polite. That is inappropriate behavior. I am asking you to undo your block now and follow protocol. He was not being abusing, harassing, and made it clear that he would not pursue any legal action. As such, both blocks have no basis as there is a blatant claim that there would be no legal action. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Reaffirming my will" to have the image deleted. Please do not take words out of context. His last statement was clearly stating he would not take legal action ("Non interpretarla come minaccia"). My Italian is strong enough to know that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"the user could easily write to OTRS queue (info-it(at).wikimedia.org) in case he/she intends to further explain his will" The user has made it clear that they don't understand what is going on. How are they supposed to know about writing to OTRS if you just block them like that? Show some latitude. If your images were suddenly moved and relicensed without anyone informing you first, you'd probably be upset too. The user was very polite above and I think it would be in the best interest of both meta and Italian if you unblock them and explain to them the proper ways they can handle the situation - i.e. contact OTRS, deal with them, etc. Just blocking someone, talk page and email, is not what normally happens on meta and I am just bothered by what appears to be over aggressiveness in response to a user with a legitimate concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot take your claims of private data being released seriously as 1. I do not see anything above or in the history and 2. there have been no oversighting. If there was such a breach as you claim you would have addressed that already. It is obvious that you will not retract the block so I will be posting later at Babel asking that the block is overturned and asking for an inquiry over at Italian Wiki of the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As a secondary note: the only info on others posted above is copied from this user profile statement. Making a claim that reproducing material that is blatantly posted on a user page about an individual as "posting private data", which has the connotation of being potentially oversightable material (i.e. outing), is not appropriate. I ask that you strike your accusations towards that effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I will now try to post on his talk page informing him how to proceed. I will stress that making legal threats and the rest will not be accept and advise him on our best practices. Hopefully, everything can be resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

151.49.0.0/18

Mi è stato segnalato che qualche bravo ragazzo ha qualche problemino a editare qui su meta a causa di questo. Che ne dici se lo riportassimo a solo anonimi, lasciando libera la creazione account? Il vandalo delle sandbox ha sempre agito da anonimo. Ciao --Melos 19:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandal on my talk page. Much appreciated. Ciao! --dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thankyou for tell about RFC--Betalph 17:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

SUL

ciao, se guardi la crono della mia pg discussione in ti.wiki vedrai che dr. claudio sta cercando di registrarsi a nome mio in altre wiki: a causa di ciò in chan mi hanno suggerito di fare questo. dal momento che esistono già altre utenze in altre wiki a nome mio (http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Gregorovius) ho visto che serve uno stewart per ovviare al problema. Potresti farci qualcosa ? buona giornata --Gregorovius 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Falso Tia

Non è che ci scappa un CU crosswiki visto che i candidati sono due e per entrambi bisogna avvertirne i genitori? --Vituzzu 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sì sì lo so ma c'è questo che ora sta guardando Melo ;) --Vituzzu 22:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Visto, l'account lo ha già bloccato a livello globale. --M/ 22:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re

Buon Natale anche a te! Ciao! :)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 17:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome templates, an honest mistake

Ok, thanks.

--Haytham^Abulela 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsman commission rights

Hi. You forgot to change the global group membership for both old and new people, including my steward rights. ;) As for FloNight's oversight rights I informed Christine to fix the request. I guess they have to be removed too. --თოგო ^(D) 00:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottava block discussion suppressed

[1], I'm sure you saw. What Ottava did was to arrange what's going on to what is mostly likely to induce some admin to act without adequate review. He's only mentioned the block by WizardOfOz, and he removed the very relevant discussion leading up to his block and ensuing upon it. He's implying that this is only about WOO. He knows that he can get some sympathy on that basis. He removed with his "cleanup" my note about the RfC, which should definitely be reviewed by anyone considering unblock. (He previously removed my later note, I let it be.) He's hoping for a new or somewhat confused admin to happen upon his unblock template and not check things out. Not likely, perhaps, but also not impossible. Ottava is a master at framing evidence to make his fantasies appear real. Most people aren't fooled, but enough are that disruption expands.

The loose end is the RfC, it should be closed with a conclusion. As I noted in the later note, I asked for review at the admin request page. Meta is S L O W. It's okay, I suppose, but .... --Abd 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ottava's cleanup action was based on my advice to keep it simple. There was no malintent, and you would do well not to assume bad faith behind every edit. Guido den Broeder 19:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's considered very bad form to remove discussion about an unblock when the unblock is still being requested. Some people have made some opposing claims to what he has said and have backed up their statements with proof. Him removing them is clearly an attempt to bias any decision making. -Djsasso 19:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The page was turning into a mess, with some users importing all kinds of unrelated stuff into the discussion. You should have more confidence in your fellow administrators, surely they will always look at the page history before responding to the request. Guido den Broeder 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• M7 responded to me on my user page, and I replied there. (permanent link) --Abd 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

[2]. Guido is asking a question which has the RfC as a thorough answer.... with comments from many respected users, etc. --Abd 20:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Abd, calling yourself a respected user is a bit odd, especially when you have recently been desysopped at en:Wikiversity for, among other things, your attacks on Ottava Rima. Guido den Broeder 22:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is typical. Once one of these bulldogs is engaged, they don't let go. Instead of reading for agreement, every word is scoured for a way to "refute."

• I did not claim to be a "respected user." I was referring to many others commenting in the RfC.

• I could be awful, and that would be irrelevant. Guido has learned this from Ottava, though he was always tendentious: attack anyone who criticizes what you do, tossing up what dirt you can allege, if they go on the defensive, it makes you look good. --Abd 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

what happened with my desyop? --Abd 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
But if someone wants to look, It's obvious why I was desysopped. I blocked Ottava for gross incivility, personal attacks, and threatening the community that his friends were going to arrive and block them. I begged for days for a neutral custodian to intervene. None showed up, so I announced the block, requested review, acknowledging my involvement. Just before I blocked and after I warned Ottava, he filed a topic ban proposal, complete nonsense, Wikiversity doesn't do topic bans like that. But he was then able to claim that the block which followed, because he disregarded the warning, was retaliation. However, Ottava then turned the discussion with his friends suppporting a topic ban, into an emergency desysop "hearing," and copied over a fourth of the discussion. Guess what part of the discussion he copied! Try to figure out from the discussion what I was desysopped for! (If anyone wants diffs or links, I'll supply them.) Ottava has a few friends who will show and vote for about anything he wants. They did. (votes have been analyzed.) He also tried to desysop all three active WV crats at the same time as he was working on desysopping me. I closed all three of those reviews; properly -- the closes stood until Jtneill reopened his own, and SBJ's review, originally filed very defectively, was refiled in the proper place and was impossible to close again. As a sysop, he blocked people for far less than he has himself done, for practically nothing. Since I and others on WV started to confront his serious incivility last year, he's been on a rampage. SB Johnny, who became the target of his ire for routinely approving my mentorship, unblocked him, God know why, perhaps he thought it would get Ottava off his back. Didn't work! Odd, especially, since SBJ had just previously blocked Ottava for two days, and Ottava's behavior had gotten worse, not better. SBJ never wanted me to be a sysop, he'd opposed it, but the most active 'crat suggested mentorship to me. And still supported me, he thought this emergency desysop stuff was not necessary. SBJ closed with desysop. Involved close, not following policy. But ... If it was wrong, all it takes is one 'crat to fix it. I haven't asked, and won't until the smoke clears. The world does not revolve on whether or not I'm a sysop. Ahem! Ottava, precisely because he can be so charming, is the most disruptive user I've encountered. When he lost his bit at Wikiversity, he went on full attack mode. Durova just testified on his behalf. She obviously hasn't been watching what he was doing, she's thinking of the old Ottava. With whom I once sympathized. Then I saw what he was actually doing. --Abd 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Translator, We need you!

Dear M7,

You have helped us in previous years with translations and for that we are most grateful. Now we turn towards the 2011/12 fundraiser. It may seem forever away, but work has already begun getting everything ready to go. This year we want to have landing pages covering as many countries in as many languages as possible.

Right now, we want to figure out who is interested in translating for the fundraiser. This year we're hoping to have more of a solidified "core" group of translators that we can count on to have work done by a few key dates, but we'd also welcome help from people who are willing to just help out when they can.

If you would be interested please take a look at this little sign-up survey and fill it out http://survey.wikimedia.org/index.php?sid=13638&newtest=Y&lang=en. With that we can start building a list of people and filling any gaps in the languages we serve.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon (User:Jseddon (WMF))

Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
Jseddon (WMF) 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at http://sd.wikipedia.org ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My sd.wikipedia.org ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس

Alixafar 01:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Still no response there

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Sindhi_Wikipedia,_a_house_of_problems

But still no one came to give suggestions Alixafar 19:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Richero cluster spam

Hi M7. Could you please give me some more information about the "Richero cluster spam"? Or point me to some sort of file? Thanks! Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 17:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing a request

Ciao M7. I saw you on the recentchanges :-). The Meta:Requests for translation adminship/Simeondahl requires closure. As I've actually voted ("oppose") there it'd be innapropiate for me to close it and I wonder if you could close it, because it's more than a week old. Grazie mille. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Translation

E 'stato un piacere, it's the least I could do for your help/assistance to me in the past year :) Ciao, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. --Makecat 03:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Stewardship

An image that is partially in focus, but mostly out of focus in varying degrees.

Please notice that I asked three questions of each candidate at Stewards/Elections 2013/Questions

1. Do you look forward to being an active catalyst for consensus-building, especially in small wiki contexts?
2. Do you see your role as a passive bystander with a few tools?
3. Are you able to make balanced guesses about why, when and how "it is better not to reach than to go too far"?

As you know, you are identified as a steward at simple:Wikipedia:Administrators#List of Administrators. In this context, it is timely and meaningful to pose the same questions. --Ansei (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

These questions are forward looking and open-ended. Is it not appropriate and useful to ask such questions from time to time? Is it not reasonable to ask experienced stewards the same kinds of questions which are presented to steward candidates? --Ansei (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions are not a complaint. Your leap of logic not justified by the specific words of my diff. However, you may want to know that PeterSymonds drew a similar inference here. --Ansei (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider what I have written here. --Ansei (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion

Hello. A bureaucrat discussion has been opened to decide the outcome of this request for de-adminship. It is opened for more than three days now and it has only received one comment so far. If you could please pass by and leave your comments over there it would be really appreciated. Best regards.

— Delivered via Global message delivery on behalf of MarcoAurelio, 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback

Hey M7, I have a bit of a request to ask from you. We pulled down our banners nearly a fortnight ago for what was a highly successful international fundraiser and brought the curtain down on last years fundraiser. This week however we will be changing payment processors and during the testing of the new system it would be useful to use the time productively on on testing banner text.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to help us improve our italian text using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.

We are going to run the test on tuesday so if you dont see this message till 24 hours after it was sent you can ignore me :) Many Thanks though.

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback

Hey M7, I have a bit of a request to ask from you. We pulled down our banners nearly a fortnight ago for what was a highly successful international fundraiser and brought the curtain down on last years fundraiser. This week however we will be changing payment processors and during the testing of the new system it would be useful to use the time productively on on testing banner text.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to help us improve our italian text using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.

We are going to run the test on tuesday so if you dont see this message till 24 hours after it was sent you can ignore me :) Many Thanks though.

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're fast...

...but not fast enough. :P Happy new year! Thanks anyway, Savh^ñ 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

answer

Hi, please see my response to your question here --Ibrahimjon (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi M7, I have sent an email to your regarding the new admin's performance via Tajik Wikipedia. ---Ibrahimjon (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dear M7, I do not create empty categories. All categories that I create a special page to receive popular categories. And the fact that these categories are not empty, easy to check. At the expense of blank pages all those pages he considers empty, mostly articles about villages where the source said little, but they are significant encyclopedic and decorated according to the rules of Wikipedia. Creating articles years, was a necessary measure to be order, the example and it was created before I became an administrator. insult he found my answer that the administrator is not required to fill in the blank page and the not desired category. If the administrator understands the topic, has the ability and the desire, he can fill a blank page and no one has the right to force his. According to the rules and categories of blank pages to be removed. Insulted him this answer. Sincerely,--AryanSogd 05:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Temporary adminships

Hi M7, you don't need to archive temporary adminship requests manually like this anymore, User:QuentinvBot does that automatically. --MF-W 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making me admin for 6 months on punjabi wikipedia. --Satdeep gill (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrator in the Hebrew Wikinews

Hello,

A week ago I asked to get sysop rights in the Hebrew Wikinews.

A week has passed and there weren't any resistances in the village pump.

Well, can you give me the rights?

Thanks, Guycn2 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

Dear M7. According to local regulations tg.wiki you have the right to vote. I gave a request for bot status and would like to invite you to take part in the vote, as active participants in the 3 person one of which I. Application here Sincerely,--AryanSogd 12:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WM News archive

Hi. Can you please leave at least two sections at all times? Thanks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Please, wait until a bit more experienced, I think something was messed up, and that 2013 events are not correctly formatted. Thank you, :--M/ (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry! I'm new :) Thank you for message :) Meelo (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Startling

I find your recent block and threats to block startling and not inline with our policies. I plan to oppose you at confirmation as clearly not being fit to hold advance permissions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to add a couple of things: impetuosity in coming to the defense of someone makes actions even more unnatural; your opinion about my own reconfirmation will be easily balanced with the much worse racist and biased attack that cause the block and you seem to be defending (and possibly subscribe?) today. --M/ (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no way to claim that the response was "racist." He said that you are not a proper representative of Italians, which is the opposite of being racist. To break it down further - he said that you were acting inappropriate. Your Wiki, Italian Wikipedia, according to his statement, has people who do not act like you ("inappropriate" according to the charge). Labeling that as "racist" is either a deficit in language ability (English) or willingness to label something in a grossly negligent way to justify silencing someone who disagrees with your actions. I do not like Abd (as my history can show), so there is no way to say that I am partial towards him. Your response to me on my talk page shows a complete disregard for Wiki-societal norms of conduct. You have only verified why you are not fit to continue in the position, and I will make sure to link diffs of this conversation in my response. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stewards and meta administrator are part of a multilanguage and collaborative project where there is not form of representation, nor there is need to attack people basing on their nationality. This is of course not clear to you, but you are fully entitled to have your own opinion and share as you like it. --M/ (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Condescending behavior directed to a long standing veteran participant of this community as myself is unbecoming and inappropriate. You were wrong in your actions, and you are wrong in your defense of them. Your actions and words do not meet the standard required of our administrators, and you no longer have the confidence of many people. You can redeem yourself by taking immediate actions to make amends. You have to apologize for your language above and your treatment of multiple parties. You can also apologize for making claims of racism that are just not based in fact, especially when your accusations are incivil. That will be a first step towards redeeming yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page demonstrates is strange - instead of responding directly, you decide to condescend on another area. Why must you act that way? It does not show clear thought. You are incredibly combative and insulting. That is inappropriate. Your hostility is not appropriate. And I have had far more featured credits than you, so trying to attack my contributions will get you no where. You have no back up in this matter, and you have effectively alienated yourself from others. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reported

[3] This abuse report was filed because you are being incredibly incivil, condescending, and not following our talk page standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines allow the user to remove content on their user talk pages for any reason. You do not have the right to revert that, nor do you have the right to spread a conversation over multiple talk pages. Please follow our community standards of behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked the question before to other users and I will ask it again. Point me to that guideline. -- Tegel _(Talk) 14:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all community norms have to be written down. Otherwise, there would be no ability to block someone for "racism" as M7 claimed the right to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Block of DanielTom

Hi. An indefinite block for this comment seems disproportionate and extreme. I think any block for that comment alone is excessive, but perhaps it could be shortened as a compromise? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that the involved user will write to another sysop. The mail he sent me was not really looking for a compromise. --M/ (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MZM here. An indefinite block without talkpage access for that one comment, without warning, is quite extreme. However, I agree the comment was not constructive at all. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Daniel was indefinitely blocked here for incivility until a global ban RfC was opened for him. He was only unblocked to allow him to participate, yet was allowed to remain unblocked after. If he has been incivil again - which he has - then I would agree with the status quo being restored. This is his third block for incivility here - at what point do we say "enough is enough"? Ajraddatz (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He has email access, but the email I received was just a mix of other accusations. It seems to me that the previous history and some of his edits make me think that this user is unable to express an motivate an opinion without making personal attacks or defaming other people. The linked comment, for instance, is disproved by those following and apparently goes heavily against a user without even giving a diff link. --M/ (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The content of that email. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi M7. Might I suggest allowing Daniel to edit his talk page? It would appear that this is not a cut and dry block, and one that is probably going to yield a fair amount of discussion. At this juncture I see no compelling reason against giving Daniel the option to defend himself, and if he chooses to misuse his talk page access it can always be taken away. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 18:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ajraddatz: The previous indefinite block looks to have been disproportionate and extreme as well. I'm personally more disappointed in the way Meta-Wiki administrators have reacted here than I am with comments such as "these guys give Italians a bad name." That might be offensive, but it's not racist, intimidating, or harassment. And it isn't block-worthy, let alone indefinite block-worthy, in my opinion.

That said, as I said to DanielTom privately via e-mail, looking over his contributions to Meta-Wiki, it's somewhat difficult to argue why he should be allowed to continue editing here. His edits here don't give the impression that he wants to be particularly productive or helpful.

If there's to be a block, it should be for a fixed, proportionate duration. Indefinite is simply over-the-top and will eventually be lifted as such. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that an indefinite block is unwarranted. I was just trying to restore the status quo and preventing more time being wasted on this debate when Daniel doesn't seem to want to contribute anything here, only make comments against various users - in my humble opinion. Perhaps reducing the block to a month or so, with the understanding that continuance of the behaviour that he knows is antagonizing will result in a longer block. Ultimately, as his blocks on multiple projects have shown, he needs to learn how to interact in a positive manner with other people. My hope would be that he figures out how to do this - but I've tried counselling him on the matter unsuccessfully in the past. But hey, giving him even more rope than he's already had might help. He does do good content work elsewhere. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

*nod* I think nearly all of us, perhaps even including DanielTom, are in agreement about his behavior here and on other Wikimedia wikis.

M7: what are your thoughts on reducing the block length? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when the involved user shows that he can interact properly with any user, at least understanding why his harsh comments are not welcome, and in some cases cannot be tolerated, I agree that the block will be revoked or set to a fixed length. Until then, I am convinced that this is not useful both for this wiki and for the user. --M/ (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

M7, until you apologize for your false accusation of "racist" against DanielTom, you are in a state of mortal sin, at least according to my understanding of the 10 Commandments, which prohibit i.a. making false accusations. Would not an act of contrition be good for the soul? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not involved in religious matters, nor the attack that led to the block is related to this pretense of apology. Please also note that the involved user has the ability of sending mail and was invited by the last blocking user to do so. --M/ (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Need some help for nds.wiktionary.org

I'm from the nds.wiktionary.org and have a problem, but I don't know, who I can ask for help. Perhaps, you can help me, to find someone, who can help me, or can yourself help me. We are a very little Wiktionary with not many aktiv users, so we will the Computer lets make much work; we programming much Modules and Templates, that we must not so much writing and looking, how a word is to be written, also the basic Categories will be definite automatically. Now I have made a very long Artikel with the translations of the Word "Water" and I get a scipterror, I do not know, how the errormassage is in English, but it means timeout: time for scripts is over. The only way for us would be, that the time for scripts would be longer, so that we get no error. But who can edit the programming of the wiki, so that we don't get the error in future?

The best would be, no timeout for us, 'cause in the future we need more Moduls; in Low German, there is no high-language, only dialects. The problem is, that some dialects could not be understand from people, who speaks a other dialect, because we have the problem, that we have 4 great dialect groups and pdt, many dialects in every group and the German-Dutch-border in the area, and in Dutchland they have another spelling as in Germany. In the moment, we have only 12 dialects in the Wiktionary, but there are more than 30 dialects in Low German, so that the problem with the timeout-error in future will be greater. If there is no possibility, to make no timeout, I think, in future we need 4 times more time for scripts, that there will not be an timeout-error. Answers please here --Joachim Mos (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, this side. "Skriptfehler": "Die Zeit zum Ausführen von Skripten vorgesehene Zeit ist abgelaufen." --Joachim Mos (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well M7, on my first edit to Low German Wiktionary, I was met with a two-week block for trying to help with the Lua module problem. Given that extreme reaction, I think our job is finished here, and most of the other developers are even less willing to help. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear M7,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Superprotect letter update

Hi M7,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: Kolega's block

1 month block is overkill, imo. --Glaisher (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion Kolega's blocking has been an overreaction, and in fairness it should be reduced. By creating long block to some users does not create an environment of cooperation and creativity. The environment turns into a dark, bitter, twisted and caustic place where everyone becomes a victim in the end. Vodomar (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Request review of questionable block in order to determine of other admins feel this is a justified or defensible block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have moved that conversation here, as the courtesy would be to await a response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if I erred in posting there, I'm not really up to speed on how such things are handled here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi M7. Even if i`m inactive here, i would like to know a real reason of this block. Whatfore? Please think about it and handle it as a overreaction if possible. Don´t think that there is a need for a month. Its nearly a week ago, so show a sign of compassion as well. Thanks in advance :D --WizardOfOz ^talk 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Request review of questionable block

User:Kolega2357 has been blocked for a month by User:M7, because of this edit. I would be interested in knowing if this is the sort of thing the community here expects be used as the sole justification for a block. Apparently he was accused of intimidating behavior once before, about 15 months ago, and because of that this admin feels it is proper to block him without warning for a single comment that, to my eye, is neither intimidation nor harassment, which are the logged reasons for the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment A strong disagreement is not intimidation and a single comment is not harassment. I started to write "unblock," but then I researched the former block. It was 31 hours, based on edit. I don't like blocks without warning, but short blocks for what a user should know better than to do, maybe. That former block was about a grossly uncivil comment about Steinsplitter, itself in response to a possibly gratuitous "information" about Kolega posted by Steinsplitter -- i.e., it was provoked -- , so the new comment might be viewed in light of that, as a kind of tit for tat. It was, however, not intimidation or harassment, it was mislabeled as such, nor was this comment harassment, which should be more than some isolated or infrequent incident. (Kolega's own bot request was denied, though his own uncivil comment probably didn't help matters.) A month seems like a drastic escalation. Maybe three days or a week? --Abd (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Summary There was more justification for the block than appears from what M7 posted. The prior offense was connected to the one cited here, opposing a bot request by Steinsplitter. Still, a strong warning might have been more appropriate. --Abd (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion just reducing the block is still unfair. I can't imagine any context in which user in good standing should be blocked without warning for a comment like that. I may not be an expert on Meta's conduct policies, but I don't see how opposing someone's bot request is intimidation or harassment. Whether Kolega's objections are valid or not, he simply made a comment. He did not resort to personal attacks and I certainly don't see intimidation. It looks very much like M7 simply recycled the reason for the previous block on a very flimsy pretext.

It also appears that M7 commented in the discussion. To my mind that would put him in conflict with this policy section. If Kolega's comment was really that bad, surely another, uninvolved administrator could have been asked to look it over and consider if blocking at all, let alone for a whole month, was an appropriate response.

I am very busy in real life right now and probably won't be available for the remainder of this discussion, so I leave it to the rest of the community to review and resolve this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that the user does not appear "in good standing" to me, since he was blocked on several IRC channels, he is on many ignore lists for pestering people about the most various issues and has been warned several times for many reasons. You may say that a month block is too long, but I am open to your opinion. --M/ (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• @User:Beeblebrox, could you please explain how a single comment *after* the offending one, and strictly related, would suggest that I am involved? It was certainly not me to ask for anything, nor to the requesting party, nor to the blocked user. Please also note that the page is in my Watchlist, since I am a bureaucrat on this wiki. --M/ (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not complicated. If you have expressed an opinion on the same matter, no matter the timing of it, you have directly involved yourself in the issue and should therefore defer to other, uninvolved admins for any administrative action related to that issue. Adhering to this simple prince at all times improves relations between administrators and the community at large and helps insure that administration remains neutral. Failure to adhere to it can create the impression that blocks and other admin actions are done on to whim based on your personal feelings rather than site policies.

I would also add that IRC is not Meta. What happens there, or anywhere else on the web, is not relevant if the user is not actually violating the policies of this website. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When a relation is deliberately expressed, e.g. using a cloak and especially for making requests or approaching other users, people are supposed to respect policies for both workspaces. In any case, I have accepted your request and delegated any further action to another user. --M/ (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Having knowledge of some of the methods of action of Kolega, I can understand the frustration with another of their approaches. I would like to see Kolega unblocked on this occasion, though would like to see an understanding met on where Kolega needs a more cautious approach. Would you like me to discuss with Kolega the means of shortening the block on your behalf?  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, please. I trust your judgement, as usual. --M/ (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  I would like to add my two cents as an admin who has had interaction with Kolega over IRC. He is usually well meaning, but sometimes does not express himself clearly, and can easily frustrate or annoy other users. Could he have been warned for this? Maybe, given his past history with Steinsplitter (including his past bot request and this (IMHO) unjustified lock). Should he have been blocked for a month with no warning? No. I also want to echo Beeblebrox's comment: IRC is not Meta. Being on an "ignore list" does not mean that someone is not in good standing on-wiki. In my opinion, M7's initial response was all that was needed at the time. After Steinsplitter's comment, he could have warned Kolega that the comment was inappropriate, but taking any further action would technically violate the involved admins policy, even though M7's involvement up to that point was merely stating a fact (which I agree with completely). I hope Billinghurst will be able to resolve this issue. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• CommentDidn´t saw this as I posted above. I had some interaction with this user some years ago here and on other projects. I (and I know that he knows as wel) know that he is overreacting in some cases. But, even if he is banned on IRC, I can´t see nothing that justified a block in this case. Warning, yes, but not a block. --WizardOfOz ^talk 10:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Kolega2357 has been unblocked by billinghurst 3 days ago. --Glaisher (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to the CentralNotice-admins list

Hi! This bulk email is to let you know about a mailing list used to communicate bug reports and new features in CentralNotice, and to facilitate conversations between the admins. This message is being sent to you because you have the privileges to use the CentralNotice admin interface.

If you use CentralNotice to post or modify notices, please consider joining the list by visiting this page and subscribing yourself:

   https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/centralnotice-admins
   

Thanks,

Adam Wight (talk)

00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising Tech,

Wikimedia Foundation

help pls

Hi; I am a student in Başkent University. ip 212.156.67.30 is used by Başkent Üniversitesi in Turkey. But it was blocked in Turkish wikipedia for unlimited time. block begins: 23:15, 6 Feb. 2011. Since that time whole university can not make any edits in Turkish wikipedia. We university students want to edit turkish wikipedia. Local adminstrators say they are very angry with an old time user and they dont unblock th i.p. and they punish a whole university. It has been a long time and probably the person that makes them angry is graduate by now. Thank you for help.

Updated scripts

Hi M7. I edited your monobook.js to update you to the latest version of StewardScript, which is compatible with the latest MediaWiki changes and resides on the Wikimedia Tool Labs for easier updates. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 23:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mr M7

I would like be a steward, how need to do for it? Can you help me please.--Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Mr M7! for your good information--Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

I am the First Administrator of Sindhi Wikipedia and have been blocked

Dear Elfix, I am the first-ever administrator of Sindhi wikipedia sd:Main Page. I was the only administrator active since 2006.

Yesterday, I've become victim of a recent administrator (temporary), https://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B1_%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB:%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%A8 who has blocked me for one year without any notice. I wonder, how a temporary administrator can block a Permanent Administrator. The user https://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B1_%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB:%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B2

has vandalized the Main page, removing almost all prominent features maintained be me and has made the Sindhi Wikipedia a Religious Platform with unilateral extremist religious islamic views, without any references.

It is therefore requested that I may be returned all my RIGHTS of ADMINISTRATION back.

Aursani (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an out of process block but the language barrier makes it difficult to be sure, I have asked for an explanation. One year is obviously far too long for a block - if it is not removed by the blocker and no explanation is provided, I will reverse the block. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was Blocked the other admin of sindhi Wikipedia, (Reason I Revert his non Sindhi Language Words on Sindhi Wikipedia's main page than he dont talk with me and he was blocked me and again non Sindhi Language words use in Sindhi Wikipedia than I UnBlocked me and Blocked him--محمد مجیب (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked Aursani. By unblocking yourself in order to block them you have shown that this was a bad block. Neither of you should use admin tools to fight for your own content. In future talk. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that Mr. Aursani is man of his mind he has never listened any suggestions by users. He deliberately converts English words into Sindhi which are not understandable even by we native Sindhis. Recently he destroyed the look of main page, I wrote on his account but he didn't replied. Then Mujeeb(another administrator) reverted changes by him. After this Aursani reverted back his changes and blocked Mujeeb. Then we decided to block Aursani. Howsoever there is no offence by Mujeeb, he has contributed a lot to Sindhi Wikipedia and there is no evidence that he has added unilateral, Islamic or extremist data, this is quite disappointing allegation by Mr. Aursani. I hope this issue will be resolved with peace. I would request Mr. Aursani to please look into suggestions by users and try to use regular and modern words of Sindhi for Sindhi Wikipedia.مھتاب احمد (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's Right --محمد مجیب (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear it is always wrong for administrators to 1) use the admin tools to support their own editing 2) unblock themselves when blocked 3) block another administrator in "revenge". If you cannot agree with each other, start a proper community discussion. If the conclusion of that is that an administrator needs their rights removed, then bring it here for the Stewards to act. Otherwise, as you have seen, administrators can just unblock themselves and carry on. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am still under threat

Thank you very much for your prompt action. I have been unblocked by a steward. But I am still under threat by the temporary administrator there. He's threatening me of taking away my administrator/sysop rights. I fail to understand how could a temporary sysop block me in the first place, secondly, how can takeaway sysop rights from me, who is working for Sindhi wikipedia since its inception in 2006. Kindly let me know the hierarchy of the admin rights and let me know if he can really takeaway my sysop rights.

Aursani (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Sindhi Wikipedia can take away admin rights if it reaches a consensus to do so in a discussion on the Wikipedia. An individual (whether an admin or not) cannot take away admin rights. An admin has no special rights - whether they are a temporary admin or a permanent admin. You are all members of the community with an equal say in what happens. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Aursani, as my fellow Steward says here, your're kindly suggested to talk and reach a fair consensus with other users, even if it takes times and efforts on your parts. I had a quite fast look at what it is going on, since I do not have any knowledge of your language and also Google Translate doesn't seem to be of any help to me. May I suggest also to help other people in taking great care about Copyright issues: it appears to me that some new articles in the sd.wiki are being imported and/or copied from another outside-wiki project. Could you please verify if that site contents are released under a compatible license, and in case they are not, please warn involved users about Copyright infringement violations and risks. Thank you for your kind attention. --M/ (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Message about edit war from User:Aursani

Below copied from your user page

• Projects where I'm involved: w:sd:Main_Page and wikt:sd:Main_Page.
• E-mail address: aursani@yahoo.com

Newly inducted administrator named Mujeeb [4] at Sindhi wikipedia is edit warring with me. I have never objected to what he is doing on the main page or elsewhere on the main page. But he reverts anything that I do on the main page. Please advise him to avoid edit warring and reverting my edits.

Aursani (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

NDKilla (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Il nuclearizzatore's block

Why did you block my account? --151.74.149.110 12:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

thousands of Non-content pages in Sindhi Wikipedia

Certain users created thousands of non-content pages in Sindhi Wikipedia, titled with the years, only to show their exaggerated and false contribution and get sysop rights. The pages contain nothing but the list of twelve subheadings titled with names of the months from Jan to Dec in Sindhi. Just click for "A Random Page" and you'll come across a page | like this. When I objected, they started misbehaving. Kindly help remove these non-content pages.

Aursani (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation discussions

Dear M7,

As you probably know, the confirmation discussions for Stewards have been closed. In order to determine the outcome of these discussions, you are invited to comment on Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2016 before scheduled closure of the confirmation section "one week after the appointment of the newly elected stewards" (Sunday 6th of March, 17:22 UTC), though the closing time might be extended at the ElectCom's discretion for an extra week if it is believed "further input is required before concluding". All stewards are welcome to comment, including those newly elected.

For those who ran for confirmation, consider revising comments regarding you, and replying to those where appropriate. Savh^ñ 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of removal of adminship

Hello,

I regret to inform you that, in accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and as a result of your inactivity, administrator rights have been removed from your account. Please see Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2016 for details. Kind regards, MF-W 01:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No renaming between November 20 and November 27

Hi,

You’re getting this because you’re a steward or global renamer. The Community Tech team are working on cross-wiki watchlists. We need to add a couple of fields to the localuser table in centralauth database. In order to be able to do this, we’d need to run a script that will get in the way of renaming users. Our apologies – we realize this is getting in the way of your work.

We ask that you do not rename anyone between 00:00 November 20 (UTC) and 00:00 November 27 (UTC).

(UTC means that if you live in the Americas, it will be on the evening or afternoon of November 19 when the script starts running, and if you live in Oceania or eastern Asia, it can be closer midday on November 27 before we can be sure the script is no longer running.)

Phabricator task.

If there are any problems related to this, or you have any questions, please write me on my talk page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Alexis Ivanov

I have been blocked from my talk page Alexis Ivanov, and I am using an open proxy, and notified me to come over here instead of my talk page, I just want to re-edit my talk page. Or else how can I request an unblock if my page is blocked. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't do anything about that. Please open a ticket on OTRS system or contact a Steward.

--M/ (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)