Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-06

Fundraising_2010/Core_messages/si

Fundraising_2010/Core_messages/si is now ready! please update it...Pasindu Kavinda  ^Talk 15:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Flood flag & temp admin right (again)

I'm gonna put uncategorized pages into categories. Once some pages are protected, I will temporarily need both flood flag and admin permission. I'll let you know when it's all done (it's supposed to be very fast this time. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 Support. Sysop permission can be removed. Thanks. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Done by Mentifisto. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Category

Please, include the pages Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-03, Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-05 and Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-06 in category Spam blacklist archives. I can't do it myself because they are protected. Thanks in advance. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 19:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, I also added it to Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-04. Trijnstel 19:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting ending, update "CentralNotice"

Currently there are a lot of people voting still, but the voting is about to shut off at 23:59 UTC. The CentralNotice global banner has not been updated to reflect this, and still reads "The Wikimedia Board of Trustees election has started. Please vote."

If we do not update it, there will be a large number of people who do not realize voting is about to close and who are disappointed to find that we instantly went from "election has started" to "election has concluded" with no warning. This will be a bit demoralizing for them. Could we add text "Election ends at 23:59 UTC" to the notice? This will alert users to the deadline and let them avoid the negative experience of missing the voting deadline by a few minutes.

I've proposed this at election talk page, but gotten no response so far, and the election committee is very overworked. If it's as noncontroversial as it seems, could someone lend a hand to them and make the change? I wouldn't want it done if it were controversial with the election committee-- but I also wouldn't want it not done exclusively because they haven't had time to do it themselves, if it's non-controversial. --Alecmconroy 14:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, I hope I did it right as I added it to the campaign 2011 Board Elections - voting. Feel free to correct me. Trijnstel 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Flood flag

Hi, I wasn't sure where to bring this up so I'm leaving a notification here, any discussion should be directed to [1]. As it currently stands, Admins can assign flood flag to only themselves and bureaucrat can remove it from anyone. Bureaucrat instead assign bot flags locally and remove it as needed. There is however, no one to assign the flood flag locally, a request that is probably directed to stewards. I would like to ask if it's possible to change the user group rights so that flood-flag requests could be handled locally by the Meta community. There are no shortages of admins or crats currently who can oversee such request as needed, there is little need to clog up requests to stewards for this. Please provide your opinions here: [2] Thanks. Theo10011 17:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ru-admin needed

Учебно-методический совет. Июнь 2011. - I doubt this in scope, please check! axp_de^Hello! 11:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done, I don't speak Russian, but Google Translate does. ;-) It was indeed out of scope, therefore deleted. Trijnstel 11:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I was so smart, too. But the translation was not conclusive ... axp_de^Hello! 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  The subject of the article was about a new education programme (or something like that). Anyway, it had nothing to do with the Wikimedia projects. Trijnstel 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

bo(?)-admin needed

Please check Special:Contributions/ངག་དབང་བསོད་ནམས།. This user created a lot of pages which aren't linked anywhere ... axp_de^Hello! 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I did some cleaning, I notice that Dferg does too, but I restricted myself to edits since June 2011. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:ActiveWikipedias

I was about to delete this page... but it was deleted and restored in 2008. So I'm not sure whether it should be deleted or not, and I prefer waiting that nobody opposes (for instance because something external to meta is linked to this template). -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that the message was added there so that only admins can edit it, and not because it's actually part of the software. It can probably be deleted, but there's also nothing wrong with keeping it around. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's a cross namespace redirect, even worse, it links a mediawiki system message to some template everyone is able to edit. We shouldn't keep such hacks. axp_de^Hello! 19:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not really doing that because it disturbs me, but because of this request. In 2008 the page has been restored with the reason "2 revisions restored: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiki (and alike) links to it", and I just would like to be sure that none of these mentioned pages are nowadays linking to this MediaWiki page. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done it's an old useless page made by the template initialization script. I've deleted it and its talk page. fr33kman 08:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Please, semi-protect this user talk page. Excessive vandalism from cw-vandal. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, but Teles is an admin himself, I'll wait for him to do it. Theo10011 18:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Teles is offline to do it himself. That's why I've asked for it here. Thanks. :D Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 05:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review

Going away for some hours so can not handle this. I've removed Abigor's sysop tools in application of Meta:Administrators/Removal in April 2011. I've received a message from him appealing his desysop because appart from the 9 non-deleted edits he had some deleted ones in the period and therefore the removal may have been done by mistake. Since the policy nowhere states that only visible edits are counted I'm inclined to re-grant; but also think that deleted edits are not really edits since they're gone so far. But as I've said before I'm not sure and I'd like to hear from you first. Also, any bureaucrat: feel free to resysop without waiting for me if the case is crystal clear. Also I'm suggesting here we should reword that policy for avoiding this in the future, maybe. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 06:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Going by the current policy, deleted edits should also be counted. After all, the user has made the edits, even if the page on which they were made eventually gets deleted. However, Abigor has no deleted edits between 2 October and 2 April. Jafeluv 06:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jafeluv. It is clear that there is no deleted edits during this period of time. mickit 07:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't he simply open a RfA again ? It seems to be the best solution here. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 07:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No totally sure right now, but if it wasn't autoremoval, it would have been the rule to give a reply within 7 days. I doubt he'd noticed otherwise he should have responded to the removal. So he'd lost his tools anyway. I'd suggest to go through an RfA. -Barras 08:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@Quentinv57, because he knows he won't get the sysopflag again with a new RfA. He got blocked on nl-wiki due to sockpuppetry and there are also serious concerns on Commons, see here. That's why he requested it quietly. Oh and he didn't notice it all by himself; I notified him on his user talk on Commons. Trijnstel 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

He was wrong about the deleted edits, and that's the whole point. There has been no mistake in removing his flag, IMO. mickit 10:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no mistake. The user had less than ten edits (9 edits) on the stated period, so he fits the removal criteria. If he wants to get back and help again, would be great to see him on a RfA.” T_ele^s (T_{alk @ C S}) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated system messages

1. MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels
2. MediaWiki:Linksearch
3. MediaWiki:Sharedupload
4. MediaWiki:Undo-summary

The replaced contents are identical to the original ones. All pages listed above can be deleted.

Thanks in advance. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done fr33kman 02:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Block

Please block http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.249.109.246 for disruptive editing after final warning. Mathonius 09:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done, Matanya blocked him for 1 day and I semi-protected the page. Trijnstel 09:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)