Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2010-07

Trouble unifying accounts

Resolved. See SR/SUL

I have accounts as William S. Saturn on Wikipedia, Commons, WikiNews and German Wikipedia as seen here. I would like to globally unify these accounts, but when asked for the password, I am told it is wrong, however I know it is correct and have made sure many times over. Could someone help me unify these accounts? Thank you. --William Saturn 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see SR/SUL. Erwin deleted the global account so that you can create it using Special:MergeAccount. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 09:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protection request

Resolved.

Мягкое перенаправление seems to be vandalized quite a lot for some reason. Could someone semi-protect the page, please? Jafeluv 21:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done — Dferg ☎ 21:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at watcher page

Resolved.

There is a backlog going back to 21 May 2010 at Talk:Toolserver/watcher of users requesting to be added to the list of users given access to all data of the watcher tool. Could an available meta admin please help clear this backlog? CT Cooper 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks, — Dferg ☎ 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. CT Cooper 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Betalph

Several personal attacks. [1] saying "Be equipped with concept. Shame on you!", which is major insult in Korean. [2] saying "Don't say lie. Don't contribute to the dictatorship of ko-wp.". [3] saying "Shame on you! Apologize that you called me a liar." [4]: "You are abusing adminship, so you'll be impeached later." And here he is disrupting discussion by commenting about his ban on ko-wp. Please ban him from meta. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

부끄러운줄 알아야지 is not major insult. actually it is a joke please see ko:부끄러운 줄 알아야지 and User:Kys951 abuse adminship for block user because he said t it is sockpuppet of Unypoly(me), when I didn't made sockpuppet.here is not distruptment because Hyolee2's closing is wrong.

(한국어:)부끄러운 줄 알아야지는 한국에서 흔히 하는 장난입니다. user:kys951은 많은 사용자를 Unypoly(본인)의 다중계정이라는 이유로 근거없이 차단하였으므로, 실제로 권한을 남용한게 맞습니다.

here는 Hyolee2사용자가 본인의 차단 해제에 대한 이의를 이유없이 닫아 문서를 훼손한 것을 되돌린 것입니다.--Betalph 10:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. You're lying. It is not considered as a joke. And you apparently said you're unypoly, who are banned by ko-wp community. And Hyolee2 is irrelevant to this thread. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

제가 굳이 한국어 위키백과에서 차단되었다는 것을 왜 거기에서 알리는 건지 모르겠습니다. --Betalph 14:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm really quite inactive here, but I was requested by someone to take a look at this, as I am myself a Korean. :) Betalph, I'm sorry, but 부끄러울줄 알아야지 was neither kind or polite in the way you used it above: the expression might be used in a joke in a different situation, but it sounds quite insulting in the way you used it above. Please remember, dear Betalph, that 고운 말이 가야 고운 말이 온다 (fair words bring fair replies). Kindly, Clementina 08:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Betalph, since those two users pointed out the same thing, I'd take it into my consideration, and would like you to be nice to other people. Meta is not Wikipedia, but we share mostly the norms including "be nice", "be civil" and "assume good faith". I at Meta sysop team strongly urge you, Betalph, take the wise advice from Clementina seriously and keep your wording fair and nice.

Kwj2772, I'm sorry to see you harassed, but could you please give him or her one more chance to behave, specially if he promises to do so? You've been acting as an matured Wikimedian, so I expect it's not impossible for you to assume good faith on him, even it looks difficult in regard of his past wording. Thoughts? --Aphaia 09:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag for BryanBot?

I know that it edits at a very low speed and that perhaps this should be requested by its operator but I would like to request a bot flag for BryanBot (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It is a bot (obviously) and has been editing here since 2007. With bot flag it will be in the correct usergroup and its edits would get automatically patrolled saving us time in reviewing them. Thank you, — Dferg ☎ 10:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the request (I might have said the same when it started) however some folk have pages edited by the bot on their watchlist and do not want to see bot edits on their watchlist generally? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that too & seems to be the primary issue. However it is flagged on other projects and that's why I asked. But if folks are comfortable with the current situation for me is fine too :) — Dferg ☎ 14:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a flag would be fine here. Although it edits very slow I agree with dferg, to have the edits automatically patrolled would be just fine. -Barras ^talk 19:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Deleteme

Hi there! I noticed that this category has lots of pages in it. All pages are tagged by the same user. I'm not sure if I should just delete the articles or not since they all are marked by one user. Maybe anyone can confirm the reason given by the user? The reason is "wrong and meaningless article from machine translation." An opinion from someone else who understands that language would be appreciated. Thanks, -Barras ^talk 08:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look-through of some of the pages in the category, and there doesn't seem to be anything glaringly wrong with it in its meaning. I don't know, the meaning might be unfit for Meta's purposes, but no vandalism or nonsense in it. Clementina 08:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just got an other input here. -Barras ^talk 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If they do not fit clearly under WM:CSD#1 I think it would be better to discuss them at RFD. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 09:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - anything so complex that it takes weeks with no one daring to clear speedy requests should be taken to discussion. -- Mentifisto 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Block / Ban proposal

The following discussion is closed: User banned

---

Ok. This, this, this and this is concerning & worrying for me. I think that this kind of disruptive behaviour should not be accepted here. I propose to ban PauloHelene (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from this project. Please share your views. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - this has gone on long enough.  – mike@meta:~$  15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed. -Barras ^talk 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• <SWBot5> Block editor m:User:PauloHelene blocked by admin m:User:Barras Length: infinite "crosswiki issues; creating meaningless ranslation -> project disruption" Best wished -Barras ^talk 07:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I  Support this block. Tiptoety ^talk 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

From the global contributions, I'd suggest bringing it to steward attention for global blocking/locking as well. Kylu 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your information, Tiptoety. I  Support the global b/locking.--Aphaia 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for block

The user Vapmachado (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has been banned from Portuguese Wikipedia, is using his subpages to post improper material which degrads wiki.pt community and is incompatible with the purposes of this project. If the user insists on edit warring, please, block him. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide us with specific examples (preferably via diffs)? Additionally, not all of us speak Portuguese so a little help in that department would be appreciated too. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The pages "Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues", "Talk:Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues", "Talk:Portuguese language issues/Nota 3", "Talk:Portuguese language issues" and "Portuguese language issues" are being used to continue the disruptive editing made at pt.wiki. These pages are working as some kind of subpage of the user or some kind of blog. He is posting his own subpages and what HE thinks that is incorrect on pt.wiki with links for old discussions with complainings about the management of pt.wikipedia. This page is used to store information about the differences between the portuguese language spoken on different countries and old discussions on pt.wiki about the division of pt.wiki in two. This section is used as a humorous page and there's a SPAM link for his own blog. This page has a few links for subpages of the banned user and other links to blogs, meaningless links to old discussions on pt.wiki, including the logs of a steward, coments of users that have left the project (the pages of meta are being used as his subpage, to store information, personal opinion). This section is an e-mail sent when the user ask for someone to edit a page for cleaning a sysop garbage an says that there is a rotten peace between those who belong to the list. See the content of the pages (some of them are in english) and you will see that there is an "issue" involving portuguese language. What "issues"? It's just personal opinion. I believe that here is not the place to put meaningless links, personal opinion, spam, self promotion, nonsense, attacks...--Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} -- 05:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, there are a few concerning things regarding these pages. For starters, the posting of email correspondences is generally frowned upon unless both parties have agreed to release said email. Secondly, linking to ones own blog tends to come across as spam. Third, if anything these pages would be much better suited in userspace instead of mainspace as they appear to be "essay" like rants. Comments from other administrators would be great. Tiptoety ^talk 05:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you message.

First and foremost I want to bring into the forefront the fact that there was a post made here at 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[5], another more than four hours latter[6] and only a loyal and considerate response[7] and [8], brought to my attention, within one minute, what was being attempted behind my back, without any warning, and which I have just found out. I know this "modus operandi". It speaks for itself and for those who, unable to carry a civil dialog, resort to practices that are an embarrassment to a noble project.

I am a person inclined to thought and reason. A rapid exchange of charges and counter-charges might make great entertainment, but it is not conducive to calm reflection. Nevertheless, despite being outnumbered at the ratio of one against three[9], I will try to do my best, as a gesture of good faith. After the following statement I'll take leave from my office, to return much later, but within 24 hours, to address any further questions.

It is my wish that the charges be reversed, if an analysis of the occurrences that will be addressed concludes in favor of the accused, the undersigned user. The plaintiffs are invested in high positions at the Portuguese Wikipedia, where they are facing serious challenges from the community. They are not just registered users. Therefore, the sanctions must be commensurate with their responsibilities, nothing short of their banishment from all Wikimedia projects. If necessary, I'm willing to provide all necessary additional evidence to demonstrate how detrimental to an environment of normalcy their actions have been over an extended period of time.

Let us now address the outstanding accusations that have been made against me on this page.

Please note that, although mentioned, there are no records of any "page moves", "block user" or "block log", but special care was taken to mention that I have been "banned" from the Portuguese Wikipedia. A cursory inspection of the "block log" from that Wikipedia clearly shows how active the two plaintiffs have been in preventing this user from editing on the Portuguese Wikipedia. This is indicative of a personal animosity, who would not stand close scrutiny of what has happened on the Portuguese Wikipedia. At the very least these are not uninterested users who happened to come across this user edits here on Meta. Unfortunately that's only a very biased view of my banns and accomplishments, which I am willing to discuss at length, if necessary.

1) "His subpages" are mentioned has being used. There is no such thing on Meta, where this user has no user subpages and has only created one talk subpage as deemed appropriate by the extension of the content. Statement (1) is thus FALSE.

2) "Post improper material" is a hollow and unsubstantiated statement which below, beyond any reasonable doubt, will be shown to be also FALSE.

3) "material wich degrads wiki.pt community". It is beyond the modest capacity of this user to degrade any community. These powers that are alleged to be possessed are a delusion, without any credibility in any community in the civilized world. Communities are what they are, and it is beyond the powers of any single individual to change that, under any kind of policies or management. By the very nature of my profession, it is and it has been my life goal to contribute to the betterment of any community of which I have been part of and the world at large. The lack of evidence of the gratuitous statement, is sufficient proof that it is also FALSE.

4) "[material] incompatible with the purposes of this project". As the one above, this unfounded statement, for which not a single iota of evidence has been produced is clearly FALSE.

5) "If the user insists on edit warring" implies that this user has engaged in "edit warring" and presumes an intent to insist on such behavior. This user has not engaged in any way or form of "edit warring" and thus no intent to insist may exist. This statement, like the four above contains an accusation that is FALSE.

6) Statement (5) together with the previous four show a level of falsehood that can only be attributed to slandering and defamation of this user, a posture of disrespect for the truth unbecoming to the positions vested in that plaintiff.

Help was on its way, and the second plaintiff had his statement ready about one hour and a half after it was requested. The first plaintiff went on R&R. My educated guess is that we'll see him back in action with renewed vigor if not viciousness.

Mention is made of two pages and their respective talk pages, including one talk subpage. In his haste, the plaintiff failed to mentioned a third page (including its talk page) "There is no such thing as a free lunch" which all together pretty much is the sum total of my edits on Meta until I had to engaged in this very interesting but totally unproductive endeavor of defending myself from FALSE accusations. FALSE accusations must not be tolerated in Wikimedia projects, they consume time and energy that can be used for better purposes, with care for one's loved ones at the very top of any human being priorities.

7) The mentioned pages "are being used to continue the disruptive editing made at pt.wiki." This is a personal opinion that it was never possible to challenge but it boils down to a generalization, without proof, no evidence whatsoever, in what should be now a recognizable pattern of statements that are FALSE.

8) "These pages are working as some kind of subpage of the user or some kind of blog". This user has created and directed the creation of enough subpages to know what they are. It is also the editor of a significant number of blogs and even some wikis to have a clear understanding of the differences between them. The pages are what they are and nothing less, nothing more. The plaintiff is entitle to his personal opinion. If for him they are "working" as such, at least they are working which is better then doing nothing at all or stalking a user with false accusations.

9) "He is posting his own subpages". As far as I can recall, there is no posting of my "own subpages". If there are, the plaintiff is requested to provide evidence at the risk of having us repeat that this statement is FALSE.

10) "what HE thinks that is incorrect on pt.wiki". Please forgive the usage of "HE" by the plaintiff which is totally uncalled for. I'm sure that it was unintentional and the plaintiff didn't know what he was doing. Let us take one page at a time.

10.1) Portuguese language issues was "born" out of a discussion carried out on Foundation-I (Pt-Portuguese Wikipedia), between March 22nd and 25th, at which time I was directed and advised to create such page on Meta. That I did on March 25th and duly reported on the discussion list. There is no denying that such issue is real as it has been extensively but not yet exhaustively on that page and talk page with references to the some of the most illustrious Portuguese linguists. There has been a constructive dialog with another editor, author of an outstanding proposal on the Portuguese Wikipedia pt:Wikipedia:Esplanada/propostas/Conversor de idiomas para as variantes do português (30mai2010). My personal views are a bit dispersed and have not been completely reported on that page, but you might read two samples on this pages: strategy:Proposal:More multi dialect wikis and strategy:Proposal:A Brazilian Portuguese Wikipedia. I have made a serious effort to collect important and relevant information on the page and raised questions that remain unanswered on the talk page, as well has a slew of different opinions, compared to which mine are a negligible footnote. The expected and desired outcome: a decrease of the constant confrontations and sometimes very ugly discussions that breakout at a regular pace on the Portuguese Wikipedia. That is a worthy cause that I am proud to pursue for the benefit of the vast population of portuguese speakers spread all over the world.

10.2) Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues was created more than a month later, on May 4th, based on my experience with the page above and spurred by the Public Policy Initiative project details which I run across on Outreach. I gathered a substantial amount of background material which led me to get acquainted with criticism of the English Wikipedia which I was not aware of until then, and provided me with a better understanding of the forces in play. I strongly believe that knowledge and understanding is important for the Portuguese Wikipedia, which being smaller, might be more manageable and more susceptible to some course corrections which might be deemed appropriate. Which ones? That's what I am striving to find out. If I knew the cure to all the unpleasantries that afflict the Portuguese Wikipedia I would have certainly have already spelled them out. To pretend that everything is fine and dandy on the Portuguese Wikipedia is ignoring a fact that has been extensively documented as can be seen on the talk page, although still unfinished. If anything useful and beneficial for the Portuguese Wikipedia comes out of this page, I will be glad to have been of service to such a noble and altruistic project.

In summary, none of these two pages and their discussions are reports of what I think is incorrect on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I could do that, but I honestly believe that nobody is interested in my personal opinion. Statement (10) turns out to be also FALSE.

11) "with links for old discussions with complainings about the management of pt.wikipedia." If there are any wrong doings on the management of the Portuguese Wikipedia, I strongly believe that it would be healthy if people complained more, not less. Besides, the Portuguese Wikipedia is not that important to be at the forefront of the critics of Wikipedia, which naturally have concentrated on the English version. The lessons that can be learned from those criticisms are what matters for the Portuguese Wikipedia. On the discussion page there are links to ongoing and unfinished discussions, which hardly can be categorized as old. There are links to statements made by people who have left the Portuguese Wikipedia, who unfortunately, but understandably, for lack of qualified manpower, does not conduct exit interviews. There is then an already extensive but still incomplete list of links to discussions who have brought into the fore some management problems on the Portuguese Wikipedia. That is turning out to be an invaluable knowledge base, which, it is hoped, will help to make better informed decisions. I was surprised by how long some problems have been festering without no adequate solution. I could have been hoarding all this knowledge for myself, but in the true spirit of Wikimedia I believe it is most useful shared with anybody that is willing to study, learn and seek the betterment of an enterprise that is a common good. The statement (11) is skewed, incomplete, inaccurate, in short it is again another statement that is FALSE.

12) "This section is used as a humorous page". For the benefit of those who might find it difficult to understand the initial line states the following: With my apologies to those who take these things very seriously. Arguments for and against laughter have already been presented elsewhere [external link]. I understand that some people might be of the opinion that humor has no place on these pages. I started apologizing to them. I meant no offense, but laughter is as intrinsically human as reason and all art forms. If that is a violation of some Meta policy, it was not meant to be so, and there is no problem in eliminating that section which is indeed hilarious. Again, I am very sorry for having taken the liberty of providing a lighter moment to the readers of that page.

13) "there's a SPAM link for his own blog". There is a link to an entry on a blog which I directed. As stated on the right, under "SOBRE O LIVRO" (sorry for the capitals, but that's the way it is written there) it reads (in Portuguese): This work is the result of the common effort carried out on the blog "Logistica 2006" by the students registered for the Logistics course of the Management and Industrial Engineering undergraduate degree offered by the Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (no translation is allowed of the official names), during the school year of 2005/2006. The page itself contains a list of quotes and proverbs about laughter with a very large majority in favor and only two against. I'm sure a lot of people will recognized some of them as well as the authors: Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, Groucho Marx, Pablo Neruda, Françoise Sagan, Bertrand Russell. Too many to list them all here. Better check that blog entry, right? There is then some jokes related to supermakets and links to funny videos, some collected by the students, others by me, with the sole purpose of making good that "A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit saps a person's strength." (Proverbs 17,22). It ends with the sentence: The last one to laugh is the one who didn't get the joke. I rest my case on this point.

14) "This page has a few links for subpages of the banned user and other links to blogs, meaningless links to old discussions on pt.wiki, including the logs of a steward, coments of users that have left the project". This has already been addressed above under (10.1).

15) "the pages of meta are being used as his subpage, to store information, personal opinion". I don't quite understand what is the point here. Pages of meta used as my subpages? Does that mean that these pages should be subpages of my Meta user page, and the directions that I got on the Foundation-I are incorrect? Nobody expressed a dissenting point of view there. I was lead to believe that I was following correct information, and, again, the creation of the page was also reported there. Pages of Meta used to store information? What are they supposed to store? A jumble of characters unintelligible to any living human being? Pages of meta used for personal opinion? When I give my opinion it is indeed mine, even when shared by others. It has already been written for the record that my opinions on that page "are a negligible footnote".

16) "This section is an e-mail sent" to the Portuguese Wikipedia mailing list, hardly a state secret. Anybody that subscribes to it may get a copy. Transcription was used instead of paraphrasing in order to avoid content disputes, but paraphrasing it is within my capabilities.

17) My statement concerning "garbage" reads: It seems that there isn't much inclination for certain people to clean their own "garbage", since any other editor might do it, just like it happens with the garbage they throw into the street, using the same line of reasoning. If the plaintiff considers what a sysop did, garbage, it should take that issue directly with the sysop. This is hardly an appropriate place to do it.

18) "says that there is a rotten peace between those who belong to the list". "Rotten peace" is a common expression (more than ten thousand hits on Google) whose meaning is understandable to most with some education. So, I'll pass on the explanation, but emphasize that there is nothing questionable about that sentence or its use. It's just a matter of opinion, and as a human being I'm entitled to have mine also.

19) "See the content of the pages (some of them are in english) and you will see that there is an "issue" involving portuguese language. What "issues"? It's just personal opinion." Is the plaintiff arguing against the use of the plural "issues" and in favor of the singular "issue"? I wish the Portuguese Wikipedia was so lucky. But that is besides the point. A difference of opinion concerning using "issues" or "issue" in a page article is grounds to ask for the page creator to be blocked? Honestly, I believe that such a request is more than sufficient motive for the plaintiff to be blocked.

20) "I believe that here is not the place to put meaningless links, personal opinion, spam, self promotion, nonsense, attacks.." Now this certainly is raising the bar. Meaningless links? Please show. Personal opinion? Absence of personal opinion is a chimera. When a subject is chosen, personal opinion is already involved. All the plaintiffs have done is spreading their personal opinions, not once but seven times on top of all the pages created by this user and their talk pages, with statements that is beyond the scope of this discussion to deal with. However, I should close calling attention to the fact that, as posted on those pages: I regret to have to report that I have been prevented, according to the above instructions, to "remove the template and discuss on the talk page" as posted on two separate locations: [10] and, perhaps more appropriately, [11]. Accusations of "spam, self promotion, nonsense, attacks..." are below my own dignity.

Y'all have a nice day.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 12:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing more than an essay created by a single user. Have to be deleted or moved to user namespace.
"based on my experience", "which I run across on Outreach", "I gathered a substantial amount", "which led me to get acquainted", "provided me with a better understanding", "I strongly believe", "That's what I am striving to find out."
This user was blocked on pt.wiki for personal attacks and now he wants to complain about that project when talks about what he believe to be a "governance issue" and post several links for his subpages on that project. Of course I'm not talking about the use of plural; it's the way he found to escape from the question. He is so kind here and so educated, isn't he? The same kindness that he used to make his personal attacks subtly, reveal of personal information, misuse of "Wikipedia" namespace, meatpuppetry, false accusations and "advice" to play with my penis. I was already offended (offenses hidden on long talk pages) too much for this user and have already lost my time discussing with him on pt.wiki. I won't provide his stage and give him more opportunity to call for attention. Pt.wikipedia is free from him and that's enough for me.--Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} -- 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I will agree with Tiptoety above. I am not sure about blocking the Vapmachado here simply because he is banned on ptwiki, but the pages he has created can be moved to his userspace, at best. --Shanel 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Vapmachado, would you be so kind as you move these pages into userspace? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting your request so kindly. The subject of this section is a "request to block". The summary of you edit states that you posted a "question for Vapmachado". It turns out that the wording of your question leads me to understand it more like a request. Let me try to make clear those two alternatives:

a) Will you move these pages?

b) Would you be willing to move these pages?

Alternative (a) is my current reading of your statement of July 18th, not a question, but a request.

Alternative (b) would be a question, for which you would like to know my answer, which is obvious. I'm a common user. I have no power or ownership. Any pages that I create here can be edited, deleted, moved, even removed from history. I only have authorship of my comments on discussion pages which I have duly signed and dated. I hope you are satisfied with my answer.

Since you and your fellow administrators have to make a decision on the "request to block", and since no explanation was given, I don't quite see the connection between a "request to block" and a "request to move" three pages and their talk pages. Is this a precondition, a mitigating circumstance, something else that I quite don't understand?

You see, I was asked to be blocked because "The user ... is using his subpages to post". I tried to explain very clearly on no. (1) above that "There is no such thing on Meta, where this user has no user subpages and has only created one talk subpage as deemed appropriate by the extension of the content." Therefore the plaintiff's statement was deemed FALSE.

If I complied with your request to move those pages into userspace, that would automatically make the plaintiff's statement TRUE and mine FALSE.

Since these pages were not created after my own initiative, but based on advice I got publicly, as explained on no. (10.1), it would perhaps be preferable if any other alternative would be clearly justified and also posted in the same discussion, by the interested party.

Please also observe that under no. (20) I stated "All the plaintiffs have done is spreading their personal opinions, not once but seven times on top of all the pages created by this user and their talk pages, with statements that is beyond the scope of this discussion to deal with." I haven't changed or heard any reason why my opinion on that matter should change. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to deal with the personal opinions of the plaintiffs written seven times on top of all the pages created by this user and their talk pages.

My closing remarks are to call your attention to the fact that when one of your fellow administrators agreed with you, reference was made to a comment you made before I had written a single line here. Another matter of great concern to me is that neither a single item, nor a single question that I raised was either commented or answered by either that other sysop or you.

Please note that although another editor has posted an interested comment on one of the talk pages, I have stopped editing on Meta, patiently waiting for your decision to block me or not, and for what period. In fact, and in practice I have been blocked from editing, voluntarily, by myself, for almost five days. This is a gesture of good will and proof that I'm not pursuing any agenda with a deadline, or schedule, but only wish to contribute to this project to the best of my abilities. If there is any urgency in having problems addressed and solved it certainly is not mine, it's the projects' which I believe we are all supposed to serve.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 20:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the pages into your user space. --Shanel 20:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I  Support this action. Also, in regards to the block request. I see nothing at this time that warrants a block. That said, the issues you are bringing up are clearly sensitive, so I ask you do so grace. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your decision concerning this "request to block", resolved to my entire satisfaction.

Please advise on what is suppose to happen with respect to the nominations for "speedy deletion" which I noticed have not been removed, not even from the talk pages on my userspace

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your trouble. I'm afraid there is still the case of the page and talk page mentioned under item (6) above. The content is self explanatory. I'm not particularly happy with the title, but I was at a bit of a loss as how to name that subject.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 04:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you so very much. Vapmachado 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• The user Vapmachado now is adding in one of his subpages a blog that was prohibitd on pt.wiki (removed). The blog is listed on the blacklist. The community decided to remove the blog because it contained attacks to other users, reveal of personal info, reveal of private conversation and unlicensed material. The removal of blacklist was discussed and denied here and still not approved here. It's also a space that blocked users (especially Quintinense) uses to attack the project and its users. As I said before, the pages have to be deleted, because they are being used for attack (including an attack to the steward Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt called "false prophet" here).--Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} -- 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the all the commotion I might be causing. While looking for some other material I run into what seems to be a significant number of blogs in Portuguese about the Portuguese Wikimedia projects, namely the Wikipedia. I could have made a personal list of those, but within the spirit of Wikimedia, assumed that it was better to share this information. I have read of some blog or blogs being unwelcome at the pt.wiki, but had no idea of which ones. Now I know at least one. Giving the length of the material contained in the blogs that I already found, I had no time to read all of it. They didn't seem to contain anything below the standards of the pt.wiki discussion pages. This is not the pt.wiki. This is Meta. I'm still finding out about the rules here. As before, I think this is hardly a matter for a request to block, but rather a request for comment where, if I may be so bold, I'll post a copy of the other user statement and my own.

The outstanding questions are:

1) Is it important for the understanding and better knowledge of the Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues what has been written about it in blogs, including those by editors of that Wikipedia?

2) Is it forbidden to include in Meta links to external pages, including blogs, that have been censored out of any other Wikimedia project? Although this might be easy to enforce, isn't it a bit primitive since anybody with half computer skills may find those pages? Apparently I found one of them without even being looking. :-)

3) Since the above rule might still have some exceptions, is the link to the blog under contention allowed or not under current Meta policies and which ones?

3.1) If forbidden, do those rules include any mention of its existence and/or clues to it's location on the Web?

Personally, and as a result of a life long profession, I'm only concerned with the Wikimedia vision, mission, values, and strategy. If decisions concerning content do not conform to them, they are highly reproachable and all of us need to be aware of that.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 22:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion (in Portuguese) is directly related to the "offending" blog and includes some interesting information and points of view of the user above, who removed the external link from one of my user subpages. Vapmachado 02:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That discussion has been going on since July 22nd, related to facts that occurred at least since July 1st. It involved five users, including two administrators. The user above only posted to that discussion on July 31th, after his actions here on Meta.

From that discussion I concluded that whatever "offending" material it contained, it has already been removed from that blog. The arguments now are quite convoluted and I will not dare to attempt to summarize them here, at the risk of being drawn into that discussion which is by no means a clear cut case.

Therefore, and independently from the comments produced here, there is no justification whatsoever for removing that particular blog from the list, and I would appreciate if the above user deletion is reverted.

Sincerely,

Virgílio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 22:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Blog no longer blacklisted. [12] Link has been restored. [13]

Comments to the outstanding questions above are still very much welcome at RfC. Vapmachado 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Within a reasonable period of time, similar to what it took to handle this request (a fortnight), I expect that my "request to ban" users Ruy Pugliesi and Teles or other appropriate sanctions be considered, based on the evidence provided above, but also everything that is accessible to users in high positions on Meta. "If necessary, I'm willing to provide all necessary additional evidence to demonstrate how detrimental to an environment of normalcy their actions have been over an extended period of time." This is bound to get very ugly, should not be taken lightly, and it's certainly something that I'm not looking forward to do.

As for the moving of the pages into my user space, it will be respected under strong protest, according to my statements made above.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Login unification issues

Hi. Let me start by saying this isn't a big deal to me: I don't expect to become an active user of the de/es/ru wikipedias anytime soon. That said, User:Haus on es & ru have no visible edits. The edit history of User:Haus on de is bizarre: as far as I can tell, it consists of AWB edits to articles in that were, at that point, written in English. The edits are consistent with AWB edits I was doing on en.wiki. I really can't imagine logging into de.wiki on purpose and trying to edit articles, especially with AWB.

So, I guess my question is this: should I attempt to usurp the accounts on the individual wikis? Thanks. Haus 13:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the decision is up to you, but I certainly would. There shouldn't be a problem with usurping any of those accounts. The German Wikipedia often imports English articles when someone wants to translate it. That way the history of the article is preserved. So the AWB edits are actually yours imported from the English Wikipedia. --Erwin 09:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of former Wiktionary logo in wikipedia.org template

Hi, I opened a thread in Talk:www.wikipedia.org template to change the former Wiktionary logo into new one, but no one replied. So, I am asking here to gain attention on that matter. Please comment there. Thanks for your consideration. — Tanvir 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

see discussion on thread James (T C) 02:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)