Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2010-09

Userpage unprotection request

The following discussion is closed: User blocked from Meta, closed by suggestion of Nemo Bis.

Hi, I've protected a userpage which was repeatedly used to add/change commentary on a dispute on the German Wikipedia. The primary concern is that the page in question is neither a RFC page (to help resolve the dispute) or Essay (to explain how the dispute occurred and attempt to either form a conjecture as to its origin or to prevent such future disputes).

A brief timeline:

• Prior to this date, a number of accounts have edited User:Thomas7 in ongoing notes regarding a dispute on the German Wikipedia. One section created by Thomas7 (see page revert in page history) was titled "Mofafahrende Bauerntölpel als Admins in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia", which Google (possibly inaccurately) translates as "Moped riders yokels as admins in the German Wikipedia"
• 12:30, 31 August 2010 - Link on Thomas7's page modified by Withweel diff
• 15:11, 31 August 2010 - Herby diff reverted and Withweel diff re-reverted.
• 17:04, 31 August 2010 - Kylu protected User:Thomas7 with reason Repeated abuse of userpage
• 09:36, 1 September 2010 - Thomas7 requests unprotection(consolidated diff)

Please see continued discussion at User_talk:Kylu#Please_unprotect_my_user_page.

One concern is that the edits make derogatory comments about the administration of another project in a project and userspace which possibly disinclines those users from rebuttal. Such a combination seems to serve little useful purpose, either for the project or the specific user. It's hardly constructive.

I would prefer that the community have some input as to if this is the proper use for a userpage before any sysop lifts the protection on the page. Review on the propriety of the protection action is welcome. Thanks. Kylu 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct call, many wrong reasons. User pages should not be used for listing 'bad people', period. That they are admins on another project, or have no means of rebuttal, is irrelevant. There is also nothing against a user allowing other users to edit their user page (but are they really different users, or merely sockpuppets?), etc. Meanwhile, admins editwarring on userpages is just as disruptive, if not more so, as the users' offence. Is it really so hard to explain things instead? Guido den Broeder 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the "userpages should not be used for listing bad people" argument, and I think that my pointing out that the fact that the people in question are other-project admins is over-emphasized. I do think such discussions should be allowed (RFC, for instance), but that keeping them on someone's userpage like that is hardly fair to those mentioned. Thank you for your input on the matter. Kylu 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Discovered Talk:Stewards/elections_2005#Blocking_Frauders_blocked_Thomas7, which seems to be relevant... has this really been going on for the last five years nonstop? Kylu 03:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, see User_talk:Anthere#My_page_was_blocked_by_User:Kylu. It was a mess from the beginning. I suggest directing him towards RFC once more, then in a couple of days lift the protection of his user page and see what happens. If the editing by various accounts on his userpage is resumed, a checkuser is justified. Regards, Guido den Broeder 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I do hope that he makes the most of such an opportunity, though. It might sound odd, maybe, but I actually dislike blocking folks. Kylu 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Guido den Broeder, but after the latest threat to post me as an example of abusive administrators on his blog, I have neither the interest nor patience to deal with him on the matter any further. In what's likely a doomed attempt at remaining an ethical administrator (feel free to laugh, WRians), I'm abstaining from locking/blocking this fine gentleman. Likewise, unless there's some consensus for me to do so, I'm abstaining from modifying the protection action at all. Please feel free to request more eyes on the topic (from everyone) and checkuser results (from neutral stewards/CU's) if you'd like, though. Kylu 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(Laughs.) Looks like he found a shorter way to the pit. Guido den Broeder 17:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should have taken part in the community discussion? Kylu 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we've discussed about this enough. --Nemo 08:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ja, einfach kurzer Prozess. Wie schon andernorts geschrieben: das fällt auf das Wikipedia-Projekt zurück. Stadtplatzer 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thomas7

The discussion above was closed so I'm writing here, but it's about the same user. He is misusing the opportunity to edit his own talk page by posting attacks on summary (off-wiki attacks) and removing the block tag. As I was acused for 'vandalism', I let you solve this question. Thanks.--T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 19:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. -Barras 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks." T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 19:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Azeri wikipedia

This request has posts ranging from Jan. to Apr. 2008 and then from Apr. 2010. I believe it is a mistake to have them all lumped together. The requests from 2008 might be so outdated that they are no longer an issue. The request from 2010 might not be getting any attention for being set back two years. I would be glad to separate them, but I'm afraid I don't have the necessary skills and tools, in order to preserve histories and other important data. For example, I noticed that there's a post dated May 1, but the last entry on the history of that page is from Apr. 27. Please help the Azeri Wikipedia by making these RfCs manageable and listed with correct entries in the correct years. Thank you so much for your assistance. Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado. Vapmachado 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help. Vapmachado 18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done It is done already. The first request is just included in the second via templates.--WizardOfOz ^talk 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should the first request be included in the second via templates? As far as I can tell, on the same page, Requests for comment/Azeri wikipedia, there are the following five RfCs:

• "Abuse of Administrative Rights for POV in Azeri Wikipedia and More..." made by Gulmammad 03:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC) diff
• "Admin AMD's abuse from Azeri wikipedia" made by Vusal1981 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC) diff
• "Azeri Wikipedia empty page" made by Uannis 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC) diff
• "Check user conclusion" made by Vusal1981 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC) diff
• "User:Vusal1981" made by Uannis 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC) diff

Since nobody has closed any of these five RfCs, I would like to handle them, one at a time, assuming that would not distress anybody. That course of action requires some help from someone that could skilfully untangle the five RfCs. I hope there is someone willing to help the Azeri Wikipedia by making these RfCs manageable and listed with correct entries in the correct years. If not, and they remain open, I'll deal with them as they are. "There ain't a horse that can't be rode" Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado Vapmachado 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So you have to handle them the way they are. We are not going to make few RfC´s for same matter (Azeri Wikipedia) if the previous are related to the last one. --WizardOfOz ^talk 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Nyah-nyah, you're not the boss of me! ... well, actually, you're not. Everyone here, from the latest anonymous contributor through our administrators to OTRS staff and Bureaucrats, even the Stewards and the Board of Directors... we're all volunteers. Technically, if we wanted to, we could all take the day off tomorrow, get absolutely jack done, and you really can't complain. We're doing this because we want to.

This doesn't mean that some of your fellow volunteers don't have authority, they just can't tell you what you have to do, [...]

People don't have to put up with your shit. [...] If you make an ass out of yourself, you'll be removed." (From User:Kylu/Essay).

Just one question. When you write "we" are you referring just to yourself or who else entitled you to express their opinions here on this on any other matter?

SIncerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado. Vapmachado 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The "we" applies to others here also: If "we" don't want to do something like create a new RFC just to make you happy, either: 1) You get to do it yourself, or 2) You don't feel like it and it doesn't get done. Hence the content of the page. Also, note that it's an essay and isn't actually binding on anyone. :) Kylu 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dfergbot

Hi. I've found some tasks where having again the botflag would help me. Can I have it reinstated? The RfBot is here and the rights log is here. Thanks, --dferg ^{☎ talk} 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag given back for same tasks as earlier. -Barras 11:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --dferg ^{☎ talk} 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser

The following discussion is closed: Unblock request declined by several admins. This means there is no reason to discuss this anymore. This discussion is closed now and there is no reason to go on with this. Please use your time for other more important things. Thekohser keeps blocked on meta. Please note that further commenting here can be seen as disruption. If there is a way to decide to unblock, it should be done by officials (board members, staffs). We don't unblock him here. Thanks for understanding. -Barras 19:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd appreciate your comments regarding my request to unblock User:Thekohser which was declined within minutes by deeply involved admin user:Abigor.[1] I sincerely hope that we do not keep users blocked here when it has become abundantly clear that the reason to block was invalid. Guido den Broeder 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel it's properly reviewed, at least for the way you phrased. Because enwikibooks consensed that block is not proper on a differnet wiki doesn't mean it is. It's like meta decidein enwikibooks unblock was unproper and therefore reblockign again. es:Drini 23:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't fall for Abigor's rhetorics which are entirely unrelated to my request.

My request is not based on an opinion on wikibooks, but on the fact of his unblock there and elsewhere. That proves without a doubt that he is not globally banned, which was the one and only reason provided for his block here. Since we have abundant proof that he is not globally banned, the reason to block him on meta was false. Guido den Broeder 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the whole month thing about kohser on enwikibooks had nothing to do with wanting to contribute to enwikibooks but only to be able to say "look, I'm not blocked there".

Consider the last unblock request:

Thekohser is asking to be unblocked because: My contributions here have been laudatory, and I would like to complete the section World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe'

Further, after comments like

Meanwhile, I note that not a bit of work has been completed on World War II/Strategic Bombing in Europe. Had I been unblocked two weeks ago, I could have completed that section for Wikibooks by now. This is appearing very clearly now to be far more about political fealty to Mike.lifeguard and Jimmy Wales than about care and concern for the Wikibooks project itself. I have been unblocked on English Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, and English Wikiversity, and I have been contributing recently to all three. I have not noticed one whit of disruption that I've spurred at any of those three projects, and it's been months now on a couple of them. Could the Wikibooks community please describe for me what exactly it is that you fear will result from an unblock here that will be damaging to either the project or to the project community? Perhaps I can offer assurances that those fears will not be realized, if only I knew what they were. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC))'

or the one like Abd's

He will make positive contributions at Wikibooks, or at least harmless ones, and if he runs outside that and ordinary warnings don't work, he will be blocked again. There is no danger, after all that happened, of a repeat. And, meanwhile, he will make positive contributions here, it is consistent with what he wants to accomplish.

I find quite puzzling comments like this one

And I have completed my end of the bargain. Was it worth all of the fretting and argument about how dangerous I might be to this community? I hope that everyone can see how ridiculous was this notion of a "permanent and global ban", issued by one person, and clumsily enforced by another person. Community shouldn't ever be overruled by a stark minority of one, or two, acting on their own personal whim. I don't plan to contribute much more for now, but it is a nice feeling to be unblocked. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it's clear he was just buying his unblock to prove a point (which I insist, this unblock request is about, to prove a point) while at the same time no intention to edit or contribute. es:Drini 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And my point remains, it's meta's community to decide should he be unblocked HERE, not enwikibooks. I went and checked for myself (as I wasn't involved prior today), that's why I post this (not just "I agree with Abigor" without doing my homeword) and this is my viewpoint, please don't disqualify as "falling for someone else's rethoric" even if you don't agree with it.es:Drini 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, if you have an issue with events on en:wikibooks, go there to discuss. Do not import it here.

Your point does not remain, you still have not understood the situation. Perhaps it helps if you try to explain to us why you think he should be blocked on meta. Then compare that to the block reason actually given, and look up the meaning of the term 'global ban'. Guido den Broeder 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with enwikibooks, don't put word on my mouth. I have an issue with the unblock request done just to prove a point and therefore believe should be denied.

I mentioned the enwikibooks posts to prove your first disqualification was groundless (that I was just nodding to abigor without first reading about the issue) and also to explain why the enwikibooks unblock should not be considered binding to meta. es:Drini 00:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. For the fourth time: I have not claimed that a decision on wikibooks is binding on meta. I have merely claimed that it is evidence that there is no global block.

At this point I am inclined to conclude that you only came here to troll. Guido den Broeder 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally would have to decline to perform the unblock, though I'm not really familiar with TheKosher:

• diff - Legal threats of any sort on Meta are unwelcome due to the chilling effect they have on free speech. While it's not strictly a policy here, it's not really a positive note either obviously. I'd rather not deal with people who whip out the "lawyer" card on-wiki. Not that I condone David Shankbone in that interaction either, mind.
• This block was reversed by mike.lifeguard with the note, "Thekosher should restrict himself to editing Meta only while logged into this named account. Further incivility, whether implicit or explicit, harrassing other contributors to Wikimedia projects, incivility, or edit warring will not be tolerated. Please contribute constructively and in co-operation with other users of the site. Thank you", and ...
• Jimbo's global ban (correct or not) was still done during his tenure as "Founder", prior to his giving up such rights due to the petition. Previously, such actions were limited in review to Jimbo himself and the board, possibly to arbcom review if the project had such a committee and Jimbo authorized them to do so. Stating that as Jimbo is not currently in a position to perform such actions and so they must now be considered invalid strikes me as a bit ex post facto.

I'd note here, though, that if the board or Jimbo were to authorize a review of the block, that would be preferable, though a spontaneous community unblock action (with proper consensus, not preferably a rogue admin deciding to be a cowboy) would not be reversed by myself, either.

• I'm not a "wikiFederalist" really, but the entire concept of a local bureaucrat performing end-runs around the SUL system simply to bypass account locks (and similar actions) bothers me - It's little more than a decoherence of the global community and stating that the opinions of users on siblings projects simply don't matter.

This all said, I'd rather encourage interaction with the Board prior to unblocking locally and a request to all involved (Thekosher and his detractors both) to please consider being more reasonable in responses. While I imagine I'm not the nicest person on Meta, some of the discourse was patently unpalatable. Best. Kylu 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point, Kylu. However, you may have missed that the interaction has already taken place, and resulted in the withdrawal of Mike.Lifeguard as an admin at meta and elsewhere. I.e., the board did not confirm Mike's point of view. Guido den Broeder 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, my retiring is totally unrelated. I've received a promotion that doesn't leave me in a position to contribute to WMF projects any longer. It is interesting to see, however, that many believe the universe revolves around them and their allies :)  – mike@meta:~$  01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought that we were all allies. Still, apparently you found the time for this contribution, so something must be revolving at your end as well. :) Congrats with the promotion though. My own career ended a long time ago. Although we clashed several times, I wish you all the best. Guido den Broeder 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I did. Do you perchance have a link to the decision of the board and/or discussion? I'd appreciate it. Kylu 00:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wish I had, as that would help things along. If the Board confirms that there is no global ban, in addition to our own observations, are you then willing to unblock? Guido den Broeder 01:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the board confirms such and there's local consensus to do so (always a requirement!) - BUT you get to deal with all the yelling people on my talkpage, okay? :) Kylu 01:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pfah. People yell at me all the time. ;)

I'll try and contact the Board then. Guido den Broeder 01:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts...) en.wikibooks doesn't matter at all here. What they decide has nothing to do with Meta. As the "cross-wiki issues" mentioned in the block reason written by Jimmy Wales, include disruptive behaviour on the Metawiki itself, Meta therefore needs to be protected from his edits which is perfectly done by the block. Request declined. --თოგო ^(D) 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thogo, there are no crosswiki issues. And Thekohsers' behaviour at meta has already been reviewed and resulted in an earlier unblock, so please do not go there. By the way, you do not own meta and don't get to decide all by yourself (IIRC this has come up several times before). Guido den Broeder 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I only see reactions from admins that are saying declined so why keep arguing, I think you see a kind of consensus here. Huib talk ^Abigor 08:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinions do not a consensus make. Consensus springs from discussion and arguments. Of everyone here, only Kylu is working with me towards such an outcome. If you can't bring yourself to participating in that process, be so civil not to interrupt. Guido den Broeder 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TheKosher made problems here on Meta before, got blocked, got unblocked with some specific terms, he violated those got blocked again, got unblocked because one admin didn't like the block and ended up being blocked for a year.

Unblocking him would only make him come back for more problems, and everything will start over and over again. He is welcome to contribute again on 11 march 2011 when he did his time. Huib talk ^Abigor 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You had a personal disagreement with Thekohser. That does not equate to 'Thekohser made problems'. You have lost that discussion twice already. It is also not the reason provided for his current block.

Of course, if you have genuine concerns, you can bring that up, but you will need to be specific and to the point. 'He made problems' is not informative and it is not to the point if he has already shown not to continue these 'problems'. By the way, some respect towards your fellow administrators would be appreciated, I wager. Guido den Broeder 11:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, as Kylu said, the decision came from the founder himself at a time he beared full power. Stewards should in no way stand again such an official decision. If an unlock should be decided, it should be decided by the WMF staff or the board. Discussing this to no end on this page will not change anything, and imho it makes every participant lose valuable article-writing time. It's better if you go see about the current problem with the appropriate entities DarkoNeko 18:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, again. Darkoneko, there is no lock. What we are discussing here is a block. Really, one expects you guys to know the difference; if you don't, leave this to those that do. Now, you can wrap this in all the templates that you want, and decline a dozen requests that were never made, but that does not close the discussion, nor does it constitute a review of the request that was made. I am contacting the Board as Kylu and I agreed to - not to request an unlock (again: no lock is in place), but to ask for information. Once the Board confirms that there is no global ban, this community is free to make its own decision, just like the communities on Commons, Wikibooks and Wikiversity before, despite all the efforts by Mike, Abigor and Drini to sabotage due process. Guido den Broeder 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Guido, to clarify the situation: The unified account for Thekohser is globally locked. Thekohser is additionally blocked on various local projects, including on Meta. There are five unattached accounts (on commons, enwikibooks, enwikinews, enwikisource and enwikiversity) for which 'locking' has no meaning; these are mainly not currently blocked, though some have been blocked in the past. Kohs has been blocked on Meta on a number of occasions, independent of the lock, most recently until March 2011.

Kohs is not blocked "on behalf of the Board" in any sense, so there is no need to contact the Board. As we lack clear policies on cross-project blocking [for instance, there is no technical way to impose such a block, so we currently resort to account locking instead, leading to confusions such as the above], there has been uncertainty about where to discuss such things. You brought the local unblock request to the right place -- this is the page where an unblock request for the Meta account would be handled. If you want to discuss the global lock, that belongs on the global requests page. –SJ · talk | translate 02:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sj. I consider this discussion still open then, and would appreciate your input with regard to my unblock request. Specifically: if it has been established that a block was made in error, is that sufficient grounds to unblock? It would help if there were a global policy on that, or at least a statement from a board member. Regards, Guido den Broeder 09:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A prediction: The board will turn down making a resolution on the matter, and a statement from a single boardmember would be treated as the opinion of a (well respected) member of the community, but nothing more. The status quo is that the communities decide when to implement blocks/bans and when not to, unless the board (or previously, Jimbo) decides otherwise. This is the basis for my statement earlier: Lacking board (or previously, founder) direction, blocks and bans are the purview of the project in question. Perhaps, if it's agreeable, we should simply institute a straight vote for such global bans? I'm not fond of the idea of being "voted off the island", but if that's what the community wants, I'm not going to argue. Kylu 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nor am I, I strongly favour the wiki process of building consensus, but it is one step up compared to the current practice, where a single person can decide to throw someone out.

However, Meta may not be ready yet to take a vote on Thekohser's status. This is a small community, and several of the most active users had a personal disagreement with him over the Public Speakers page, where emotions ran high. Therefore, at this time I suggest to reinstate Thekohser's access to his user talk page. That will give him the opportunity to declare his good intentions, which made a significant difference on the projects where he was unblocked. I believe that, now that it has been established that the decision falls to he local community, this would be an non-controversial move. Access of a blocked user to their user talk page is, after all, the normal state of affairs. Guido den Broeder 10:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, may I suggest an RFC on the issue with its initial subject being access to his talkpage? Once you've created such, you can announce the matter here in a new section, requesting that commentary go on the RfC page instead, that way this section can be archived. Would this be agreeable to Gregory and yourself? Kylu 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done: Requests for comment/Thekohser - user talk access. Guido den Broeder 19:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

← Just a passing comment, this might be of interest. Tiptoety ^talk 05:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not. Please don't import (perceived) problems from elsewhere. Guido den Broeder 09:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sysop

Wuold like to reactivate my flag again if possible. THX --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you asked to revoke your admin bit and under which circumstances? vvv^t 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Done User left uncontroversial. No reason to not give back the mop. Welcome back!! -Barras 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

VVV, i´ve bean disappointed and annoyed and so i´ve done this. The reason was the result of this RFC, also closed by myselve. For real, i didn´t want to act as a sysop here until i have got my cold shower and have cool down. Now i think that i am over those block and can promise not to overreact. You can see it as preventive move from my side. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sync of www.wikipedia.org

Only a couple of days out of sync, but it's frustrating to see it go undone, and since I'm no longer a sysop here I can't fix it myself. :-) See the diff.

James F. (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Done --FiliP ██ 10:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

James F. (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ostwestbahn

Ostwestbahn (contribs) is either impersonating indef-blocked Thomas7 or is a block evasion account by that user. Either way, something probably needs to be done about it. Thanks. Jafeluv 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Barras. Kylu 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thekohser - user talk access

Hopefully, this will move things forward. You are invited to comment on the RFC page. Cheers, Guido den Broeder 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove personal attack

Could someone remove personal attack "If fiwiki was a circus, the two people that have started this rfc would be fitting clowns." from Requests_for_comment/fi.wikipedia_and_community_action_missing_in_problem_solving#Discussion --Juhko 12:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a personal attack in it, more a statement. Huib talk ^Abigor 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Clown is an honourable profession, so why bother, especially since you yourself spoke of trolls. If I may comment on the RFC itself: it is rather vague, and there seems nothing for Meta to do. Guido den Broeder 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the RFC then. All comments are very welcome. Commenting on a person's right place on a circus is very clear personal attack, anyway not going to fight about one comment anymore. --Juhko 15:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I could write somewhere "If wikipedia was a gay disco, X would be the micropenis spinner striptease artist." and it'll be not personal attack? Everybody got annoyed should make use of it. Kthx. --Juhko 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be just a user's "personal opinion" and another sad day in wikiland paradise! Vapmachado 20:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Teles

Please review User:Teles behavior and contributions to Meta providing constructive feedback on areas for improvement. When reviewing, consider the user conduct (informative summaries, constructive comments, attitude toward others, and so on) and number and types of edits (is the user making positive contributions to Meta?). Please consider reviewing User:Teles, otherwise he may feel like he is being ignored, and every user deserves at least a few positive words or some constructive criticism.

The space right after this message may be used by User:Teles to post a brief message about himself and a self evaluation, answering the two questions below. Vapmachado 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Teles (Talk - Contributions - Count) (Previously User:Lucas Teles (Talk - Contributions - Count))

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Meta? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

3. Have you been in any disputes in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

• I hope you don't mind if I refuse to answer this questions, because I won't. Even if they were created in an appropriate location. I confess that will be very nice to hear a few positive words from those more experienced, though I doubt that there will be users interested on comment about such an irrelevant user and though I doubt that it's is really your intention (sincerely). If anyone has anything to say to me I will read the text below (by the way, thanks, Kylu), but feel free to use my user talk page, which would be more proper. Regards and keep up your good work here on Meta, but don't give me the "opportunnity" to revert some of your contributions, 'cause I will.” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Vapmachado: While it's fairly clear from his talkpage that you seem to take umbrage for various of his edits, there are some of the reverts he has performed (such as [2] which you might be ill-advised to undo: The Thomas7 blog, for one, has already caused a number of other users to be indefinitely blocked here on Meta, and were you to decide that re-adding it is a good idea, I think it's safe to say that the number of users blocked would increase by one.

While I've not reviewed his entire contributions thus far, the few that I have reviewed seem to implement common sense and deny addition of attack blogs and similar sites. For these issues, I'd like to suggest that you are correct in that he's deserving of more praise for his work that he has received thus far. Thank you for bringing this valued contributor to our attention. Kylu 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Review by Vapmachado.

Over a period of about 9.5 months, or exactly 293 days, this valued contributor edited Meta 66 times, a dashing rate of 0.2 edits per day, or one edit every 4.4 days, with a peak of 12 edits on July 14, "a date which will live in infamy" coinciding with La Fête Nationale of the Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity country, home of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

His edits can be viewed at a more favorable light considering that he only edit on 27 or 9.2 percent of the 293 days. That brings his editing rate up to 2.4 edits per day he edited. Quantity is not quality, so it's only fair to look at those 66 edits.

• 24 Articles, 39.4 %:
  • 1 Steward requests/Globaldiff A request was filed for the global block of an IP globally blocked. Done on that same day, for two entire and very long weeks by Kylu.diff)
  • 5 Stewards/elections 2010/Questions,diff, diff, diff, diff, diff all negative, i.e., bringing up matters that would disqualify the candidates.
  • 2 Steward requests/Permissions Removal of access (Self-request) "Please, remove my bureaucrat access on pt.wikipedia. Thanks and save the whales." [bold italic added]diff Thanks again.diff A bureaucrat on pt.wiki since November, he resigned Jan. 19 2010, for personal reasons,[3] lasting for about two months of a one year position. He kindly handed over his position to his replacement[4] who turned out to be dismissed less than a month later for using sockpupets[5], but that, of course, is another story.
  • 1 Global sysops/Vote (Yes)diff
  • 4 Stewards/confirm/2010/Alexanderps "The community doesn't trust him anymore",diff Redux Keep "I hope you enjoy here in Brazil."diff Kylu (Comments about Kylu: Keep) "Very active."diff Dungodung (Comments about Dungodung: Keep).diff He writes like a true representative of his community, a Brazil greeter, and knows how to give a pat in the back. As for user Dungodung, anyone with a name like that deserves to be a steward.
  • 1 Steward requests/Global.diff diff Everybody seemed to have better things to do. After being ignored for height days his wish was granted somehow.
  • 3 Stewards/elections 2010/votes/Shashank Reddy.P No "Unexperienced. Perhaps some day."diff Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt Yes "Of course que sim. Will be very helpful with his knowledge."diff Dferg Yes "I was looking for his name on confirmation page."diff
  • 1 No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man/ru (Undo revision 1860273 by 24.98.19.47 (talk))diff
  • 5 Wikimedia Forum, 2 Undo's,diff diff 3 Getting the record straight.diff diff diff
  • 1 Wikipedia policies (No summary) Corrected redirect.diff
  • 1 Logo suggestions (last 3 edits undone - vandalism)diff
  • 1 Requests for comment/External links to pages censored in other projects (I didn't comment here and I did not make any request for comment. That message was not signed by me.)diff Ignored.
• 2 Talk, 3.0 %:
  • 1 Talk:Wikimedia Forum (No summary) "This announcement would work a little better if were posted on the main page. I discovered now that it's not protected. So, go ahead. It's really necessary to organize and expose here your actions since you are...everywere."diff Ignored.
  • 1 Talk:Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements (Numbers and percentages) "It already started on the "wrong foot". First line: "based on number of edits"
    The elections are not made according to the number of the edits; it's just a minimum requirement. It doesn't mean that when user X achieve a certain number of edits he will be considered able to do anything. It's just the minimum to be analyzed. The community decides; not the number. The qualities extra Wikipedia may have not any representation here, since we have our own rules. The user has to show that he knows how Wikipedia works and that requires time here and editing. I could give a few examples of users who have some kind of qualities out of this project, but cannot live together in a community, or uses to insult other users, or doesn't even know the basics, such as signing theirs messages. What is called here "well documented" refers to the project where the user Vapmachado was banned for several reasons (insult, meat puppetry, posting personal info). Now he finds the place where he can complain about it (with a little bit of propaganda) and pretend to care about a better way of election."diff Ignored.
• 6 "User", 9.1 %:
  • User:Lucas Teles[6] Jan. 18 2010 the account was renamed to the current User:Teles.
  • 2 User:Teles (Created page with 'User of pt.wikipedia. Leave your messages here. Thanks.'),diff (No summary) {{User language|pt|N}} {{User language|en|3}} {{User language|es|2}}diff
  • 1 User:Teles/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js (Created page with '.')
  • 1 User:Vapmachado/Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues ({{delete}}) "It's an attack to pt.wiki. Banned user wants to continue with the disruption that ended with his blocks. This page is incompatible with the purposes of this project and have only to do with the thought of a person, posting his own subpages and other meaningless links. It doesn't represent the pt.wiki in any aspect."diff FAILED
  • 1 User:Vapmachado/Portuguese language issues ({{delete}}) "It's an attack to pt.wiki. Banned user wants to continue with the disruption that ended with his blocks. This page is incompatible with the purposes of this project and have only to do with the thought of a person, posting his own subpages and other meaningless links. It doesn't represent the pt.wiki in any aspect."diff FAILED
  • 1 User:Vapmachado/There is no such thing as a free lunch ({{delete}}) "This project is not a personal blog."diff FAILED
• 25 "User talk", 37.9 %:
  • 3 From Nov. 28, 2009 to Jan. 18, 2010, his first contributions in Meta, as User:Lucas Teles, were to use it has some sort of private chat to exchange supposedly humorous messages with his buddies, mocking Meta and other Wikimedia projects.diff, diff, diff
  • 2 User talk:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt (Código) "Não sei...ainda acho que tá pouco animado. Precisa melhorar isso."diff (Código) "Exagerou na "animação" na última mensagem."diff Same behavior this past Aug. 1 and 9.
  • 2 User talk:Dferg (Crosswiki vandalism: new section) "Maybe you want to block him globally."diff Thanks!diff With the same amusement park humor.
  • 2 User talk:Pathoschild (Just curious: new section) "A global block shouldn't work here?"diff "Makes sense"diff Preocupied with gag rules.
  • 1 User talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues ({{delete}}) "It's an attack to pt.wiki. Banned user wants to continue with the disruption that ended with his blocks. This page is incompatible with the purposes of this project and have only to do with the thought of a person, posting his own subpages and other meaningless links. It doesn't represent the pt.wiki in any aspect."diff Wrong page for predefinition. FAILED
  • 1 User talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues (Blogs: removing blog prohibited on pt.wiki (see black list http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist))diff FAILED Blog no longer blacklisted. [7] Link was restored.diff
  • 1 User talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues (Undo revision 2116060 by Vapmachado (talk) - off-wiki attack)diff SUCCEEDED Nothing to make a big fuss about. The blog can be found in all the "noise" made about it on Meta. Didn't even bother to read it. After posting the link to it, someone very close was asked: "Is that bad, very bad or awful?" The answer: "Nothing remarkable. It describes something that seems similar to what was done to you."
  • 2 User talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese language issues/Nota 3 ({{delete}}) "Banned user wants to continue with the disruption that ended with his blocks. This page is incompatible with the purposes of this project and have only to do with the thought of a person. It doesn't represent the pt.wiki in any aspect."diff Wrong page for predefinition. Undone. (Undo revision 2039797 by Vapmachado (talk))diff Disabling "If you object, remove the template and discuss on the talk page." FAILED
  • 1 User talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese language issues ({{delete}}) "It's an attack to pt.wiki. Banned user wants to continue with the disruption that ended with his blocks. This page is incompatible with the purposes of this project and have only to do with the thought of a person, posting his own subpages and other meaningless links. It doesn't represent the pt.wiki in any aspect."diff Wrong page for predefinition. FAILED
  • 1 User talk:Vapmachado/There is no such thing as a free lunch ({{delete}}) "It's an attack to pt.wiki. Banned user wants to continue with the disruption that ended with his blocks. This page is incompatible with the purposes of this project and have only to do with the thought of a person, posting his own subpages and other meaningless links. It doesn't represent the pt.wiki in any aspect."diff Wrong page for predefinition. FAILED
  • 5 User talk:Vapmachado (This project is not your blog: new section) "Sorry, but it is not. You can't put here your ideas since they don't represent the pt.wikipedia. I will request for a local sysop attention even if you remove the tag. You will not continue your attacks to pt.wikipedia as you did before and was blocked for that."diff Ignored. (This project is not your blog) "There's no discussion. Attack pages have to be removed. Pages created for banned contributors with bad faith cannot be accepted anywhere. You will not continue here your disruptive edits that justified your blocks on pt.wiki."diff Ignored. (My message was not false: new section) "Vapmachado, thanks, but the information would not be necessary since you are everywere. Nice way of not answering my comment with diffs. Did I say anything incorrect? Isn't the blog on the blacklist? There was any discussion where it concludes that the blog could be used? Didn't you called a steward a "false prophet"? I didn't invented those diffs. That's a huge "coincidence". Exactly at the moment when we discuss on pt.wiki the removal of the blog you put it here and... at the top of the list. As I explained here, the content of the blog included material that is not allowed anywhere, in any project...including here.
    I won't waste my time with your request/attack since there's no meaning on it. I've already seen how much you can be "educated" on pt.wiki and I would not like to see it again."diff Ignored. (Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Thogo) "You have conquered another namespace. Congrats."diff Ignored. (Off-wiki attack: new section) "The text above explain why did i revert one of your edits in your subpage. Please, don't insert this kind of links on this project. Those who make the links are also responsible for its content."diff "Much ado about nothing" ending with a perplexing statement. There's a lot of responsibility being spread around. Biased and arbitrary decision based on a overzealous and inflammatory interpretation of policy and behavioral guideline.
  • 1 User talk:Niko9990 (Created page with '{{subst:welcome}} ==Wikimedia Forum== Hi. I had to undo your edit on the page "Wikimedia Forum". That page is where all users can post some questions or start any discus...')diff
  • 2 User talk:Thomas7 (rv to Kylu version. The precedent summary is an attack (off-wiki))diff diff
  • 1 User talk:Alinaxu (Created page with '==Wikimedia Forum== The page "Wikimedia Forum" is place where the users can discuss about Wikimedia Foundation. Please don't use it for spamming. Thanks.')
• 6 "Meta", 9.1 %:
  • 3 Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat (Request for block) "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."diff (Request for block) "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."diff [Bold added] "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)."diff FAILED
  • 2 Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat (User talk:Thomas7: new section) "The discussion above was closed so I'm writing here, but it's about the same user. He is misusing the opportunity to edit his own talk page by posting attacks on summary (off-wiki attacks) and removing the block tag. As I was acused for 'vandalism', I let you solve this question. Thanks."diff (User talk:Thomas7) "That was fast. Thanks."diff SUCCEEDED User indefinitely blocked from editing Meta and happy about it.
  • 1 Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat (Request for review of User:Teles: hey! That's me! \o/) "[...] feel free to use my user talk page, which would be more proper. Regards and keep up your good work here on Meta, but don't give me the "opportunnity" to revert some of your contributions, 'cause I will.”diff
• 1 "Help talk", 1.5 %:
  • Help talk:How to start a new Wikipedia (Undo revision 2102024 by 71.195.122.154 (talk))diff

Remarkable, for a user who is a sysop and checkuser of the pt.wiki, was is capacity of publicizing in 12 of 19 edits that I was either banned or blocked in the pt.wiki, while never mentioning a single accomplishment of mine on pt.wiki or any other Wikimedia project. Amazing how, after causing so much disruption, User:Teles still has the gal to tell me "keep up your good work here on Meta".diff

You got to love his user page and his ego. Not sure which one is bigger. User:Teles is sloppy with his summaries, feels better when disrupting, destroying, eliminating and blocking ("My main task in all wikis is to combat vandalism"), does not know how to behave and has hardly made any positive contributions to Meta. User:Teles, in his own words, is "an irrelevant user" in Meta. Since irrelevant is subjective, the question seems to be how irrelevant is he? Mildly irrelevant, just irrelevant, pretty much irrelevant, relatively irrelevant, quite irrelevant, truly irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant, or totally irrelevant?

Teles, please grow up and get a proper education. You might still be able to join the community of civilized persons. That is, however, very doubtful as you're probably convinced that you already belong there and are not lacking in any respect.

Those of you who still don't know me well please be advised never forget what User:Teles has certainly forgotten: the user that can offend or intimidate me has not been born yet.

Please grant User:Teles his wish and move all this to user Teles talk page, "which would be more proper."diff

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've never said that this section should be moved to my talk page (check the diff). That's not true and please don't put this attack on my page. I wont read all this insulting comment above and example of harassment, that once justified his block on pt.wikipedia - some made by me, what helps to explain this request - and there's nothing else to be demonstrated. You were blocked on pt.wikipedia and I'm still not regretful about that. Now you repeat the same behavior here with me and others users (example: Alexanderps and Sir Lestaty)... I will just watch this time. ” T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New logo for Turkish Wikipedia

Turkish-wikipedia material has exceeded 150,000. We want to change the logo for a short period of time. Discussed this community and a set of logos. But We can not change the logo. How can this be done? default logo / new logo and bugzilla no, --taysin (message) 08:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Put $wgLogo="(your logo url here)"; in LocalSettings.php.[8] Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That can only be done by a developer, I think. Hence the Bugzilla request. Jafeluv 10:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Guido den Broeder don't give uncorrect infos since they cannot change LocalSettings. Until the end of migration to vector logos are centralised on Commons, you can simply add

#p-logo a {
background-image:url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/b/bc/Wiki.png)!important;
}

to tr:Mediawiki:Common.css as I made some month ago on it.wiki...and congrats to tr.wiki! :) --Vituzzu 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who are interested. Do not pass without looking --taysin (message) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Cool. Thanks for heading up. Congrats to the Turkish Wikipedia :) --Aphaia 09:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

rename

My rename has been un-noticed (I-20->Frozen Wind) for some time. Could somebody perform it? 24.178.137.65 00:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Patience young grasshopper! Your rename there is done. Kylu 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)