Jump to content

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2012-02

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Gwen drama

Latest comment: 12 years ago201 comments30 people in discussion
See also Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2011-09#Is_it_appropriate_to_import_or_continue_local_disputes_on_Meta.3F.

Question

The following discussion is closed: question asked and answered, remainder of topic matters if ongoing and relevant to this forum should be started as their own topics

I wonder, if there's any policy at meta that prohibits me from publishing emails I got from members of arbcom. The emails in question are directly related to this request. I do not believe that emails sent by members of arbcom about an arbitration case could be considered "private" at least not private in concerning arbcom. There's no any info in these emails that could not have been absolutely safely posted on Wiki. If one is quoting some copyright material, one should use quotation marks and provide the name of the author, as I will of course. Are there any other concerns? Thanks.--Mbz1 07:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there are processes to undertake, and you should be consulting the authors of the emails about this, not looking to ask a third parties to approve an act for which we have next to no information. billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The authors do not want to talk to me, but they do make false comments about these emails on English wiki, where they blocked me for filing my RFC on meta, although my latest contributions to English wikipedia before the block was made 2 months ago, and although I was under a self-requested block there. It is very nice to silence somebody like they did, and then make false statements. But once again, when I used to write articles on English wiki, and used copy-righted quotes, I simply put them in quotation marks, and provided the names of the authors. I've never asked for permissions to do it. As I stated above I believe the emails that were cc to at least 17 persons should not be private in concerning to arbcom. They are private concerning me, but I'd like to publish these. --Mbz1 12:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Linking or quoting emails from, say, public mailing lists shouldn't be a problem, but if you want to publish an email someone has written to you in private you need to have their permission first. Jafeluv 12:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I published two emails (from public mailing lists only), but was reverted. So may I put them back please?Thanks.--Mbz1 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If they're in public mailing lists, why don't you just link them? Thanks, Nemo 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
These two emails were sent by two members of arbcom to my personal email account, and cc to list of arbitrators. These were responses to my request for arbitration. I do not believe they post such communications on line.--Mbz1 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
So it's not a public mailing list and you can't quote it without permission, please don't insist. Nemo 22:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not insist. I am simply trying to understand two things:
  1. Are emails from arbcom that is an official body on English wikipedia are considered to be private in regards to arbcom.
  2. What is the difference between quoting text from a copyrighted book or a magazine and quoting the text from these emails. Thanks.--Mbz1 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Books and magazines are published. Emails aren't. Seb az86556 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Would an admin please indef block Mbz1. They are misusing this wiki to carry on defamation and a personal feud at Requests for comment/Gwen Gale and other pages. The user is banned from en-Wikipedia already. Meta is not the place to post complaints about long ago settled matters on en-Wikipedia. The page serves no purpose other than to defame the target. Jehochman 02:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no emergency and I see no reason to rush the discussion to a close. Malcolm Schosha 02:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Malcolm is another banned en-Wikipedia editor, a sockpuppeteer. We do not allow banned users to form a gang for the purpose of harassing and defaming our contributors. You should cease your harassment immediately. The RFC needs to be closed because meta is not a platform to smear living people, or for banned users to carry out a vendetta once they have exhausted their appeals on en-Wikipedia. Jehochman 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am site banned on en-WP. But I was not banned for socking. And your argument is an ad hominem argument, which is by definition a logical fallacy. Malcolm Schosha 02:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You were banned, and you have a sock puppet account that has been indef blocked. Excuse me for mixing up the two. The conclusion holds--your reputation on en-Wikipedia is at a nadir. To improve it you need to avoid engaging in the harassment of en-wiki users with pointless process. Ironically, the user you are attacking was once blocked for socking in some trouble, and she managed to turn herself around. You ought to do the same. If you do, I'll support you as much as I support her. Jehochman 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am site banned from WP. That information is even on my Meta user page. I do not hide it. The sock accounts were not multiple user accounts, but just returning to make some good edits without bothering to say 'may I?' first. But I promised not to do IP editing in the future, and I have not so much as inserted a comma since I made that promises. The IP editing I did had nothing at all with my being site banned. If you think I have done anything wrong on Meta, you have not given a single specific, not a single diff. Just wild accusations about things I have not done. And, moreover, you have made these accusations on WP also, without giving me any way to explain. That seems very unfair. All just because you are angry. Malcolm Schosha 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have been forum shopping, Jehochman. You have the AN/I thread and Jimbo's talk page, as well as several forums on Meta. A lot of negative things being said on WP about a user who can not reply. And not as single diff to show violations. Malcolm Schosha 03:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is not for that subject matter, please find and take it to the appropriate place.billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Redact edit summery

Jehochman has put an edit on my talk page with the edit summery "Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment (via meat puppetry)". This is an untrue accusation, and I would appreciate if an administrator would redact that edit summery. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, you now spread the text wider and broader, you too added to the history, and still the topic line exists. I would suggest that you move the page and its history to an archive, and then restart the talk page by removing the redirect and starting your talk page afresh. There is nothing that we can do while the topic line exists. billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Malcolm is banned from en-wiki. He has teamed up with another banned or indef blocked user to pursue a longstanding campaign to harass a good faith user. This must not be tolerated or enabled. Jehochman 05:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
When I replied to Jehochman I had not noticed the false accusation he put into the edit summery. I think the term for what I want done is oversiting.
I do not see why I should have to hide my current Meta user page because of Jehochman's vicious accusation. I do not understand why he has not been blocked for his actions on Meta yesterday. Thanks to his carrying his vendetta against me back to en-WP, I have had changes made to my talk WP user pages are untrue, including a tag that calls my current user:Kwork2 account a sock account, which it differently is not. I asked for the right to reply to his attack against me on WP:AN/I, but he has not responded. He has brought incorrect and untrue accusations against me here on Meta, in several different forums, based on distortions of what happened of en-WP three years ago. Yesterday he was edit warring over the RfC, blanking the entire page several times. Why has he not gotten so much as a warning, while dragging my name through the mud? I have done absolutely nothing wrong on Meta, but he brings serious accusations without a single diff.
Please oversight his edit summery on my talk page, and block him for his reprehensible behavior yesterday. Malcolm Schosha 13:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
What was viscous? You are banned from en-wiki for repeated abuses. You are helping another banned user carry out a vendetta against a En-Wikipedia administrator. The dispute in question was resolved by ArbCom, the final stop in dispute resolution. The page presented as "an RFC" serves no purpose other than to disparage the subject by bringing up old disputes already resolved. Jehochman 14:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You have not responded to a single point. I have not said a single critical word against Gwen Gale here, and do not intend to. But you continue to make accusations over events on en-WP that are three years past. You are slandering me here on Meta, and right now. Why will you not, for instance, allow me to respond to the untrue accusations you have made both here and there on AN/I?
By the way my blocks on WP were mostly either 3RR (I admit to being bad at counting, but never intended to violate 3RR a single time,) and some sarcastic insults that were only on my own talk page. But it is past, and I have no further interest in that. I actually requested to have my ban lifted, not because I have an interest in much editing, but would like to be able to make corrections to spelling and punctuation mistakes when I see them. But it is hopeless. And all you are interested in is trying to cause me harm, which is deplorable. Malcolm Schosha 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If you simply walk away from this and any similar dispute, and focus on productive editing, I will be happy to help you get your ban lifted. Jehochman 14:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Jehochman, I have done NOTHING wrong here. I have supplied some defense of Mbz1, and have violated nothing by doing that. Malcolm Schosha 15:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You have enabled harassment by restoring defamatory content to a page, in violation of WM:NOT.[1] This is at least the third time I've show you that diff. Please stop pretending not to understand. Jehochman 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
For god's sake, Jehochman, I am asking you to show a diff of one or more of my edits here, something that backs up your accusations. I believe that have done nothing wrong on Meta. I am not interested in your personal interpretation of Meta rules for the RfC. You are accusing ME, and I want you to show I have done something wrong. Is that really so hard to understand? Malcolm Schosha 20:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again: Could a sysop please oversite Jehochman's incorrect and insulting edit summery on my talk page? Malcolm Schosha 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Malcolm Schosha for a week but I didn't review this request, I don't know whether it's resolved. Nemo 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It seemed a case of two people escalating each other, and neither wanting to let the matter slide. I will archive the talk page, and it can be discussed when Malcolm can talk again in a week. billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For information

Rights holders here may wish to be made aware of discussion on en wp mentioned here. Specifically the item on Wales's page where there appears to be encouragement to "change the management" here. --Herby talk thyme 16:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's one more "Support ban for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Wikipedia. (This comment should be taken as a neutral when weighing consensus)  :-) Well, if nothing else, a small and democratic Meta community found itself involved in the real actions :-) --Mbz1 17:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The management here appear to be under the mistaken impression that this wiki is a haven for banned users and soap box for publishing attack page. No it isn't. If you've facilitated these activities, you are unfit to be a sysop. Jehochman 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Then please start some action to remove my rights - I await it with interest. Bear in mind that I also responded to the idea that the page you are so incandescent about should be a NOINDEX page too. I wonder which one of us is behaving in the more balanced fashion. --Herby talk thyme 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a search engine expert. NOINDEX doesn't help because there are many sites that mirror the content here, and they strip out the meta robots noindex tag. Moreover, if somebody wants to defame the subject, they can point to this page, and a typical member of the public will not understand the different between English Wikipedia and Meta Wiki. You The meta community are enabling a long term harasser, a banned user who is out to defame on of our volunteers. Jehochman 18:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent - I am not - so I responded in a way that I could feeling it would help. No matter - I will know for another time --Herby talk thyme 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for at least trying to help. You couldn't have known NOINDEX wouldn't solve the problem. It would be really useful if you helped us remove any disputes from the page that are stale or already settled. (eh, that would be all of them) A good definition of "already settled" is that they were resolved by proper dispute resolution on en-wiki. As an en-wiki sysop somewhat familiar with the backstory, I would be happy to point you to the relevant pages. Jehochman 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh - and I should point out that no one is "management" here as far as I know, we are all volunteers trying to help out - maybe that isn't the way en works? You have management there do you? --Herby talk thyme 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Management ==== Meta admin corps. I think you are being pedantic to argue about terminology while dodging the substance of the issue. Why do you, a meta sysop, enable Mbz1, a banned user, to continue their campaign of harassment against Gwen Gale, and en-wiki sysop? Jehochman 18:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not enabling nor disabling - I am trying to act in as even handed a manner as I possibly can - something I always tried to do. I am making no judgements whatsoever despite quite considerable provocation from folk I can only reasonably call rude. --Herby talk thyme 18:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
After being goaded and mistreated quite a bit, I am not at my peak of collegiality, but I will try harder to be polite to you. Can we start by deleting all complaints on the page older than--I don't know--one year? Then we'll see what remains and see if these are active disputes or already settled disputes. Jehochman 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved block, WizardOfOz and Beeblebrox

The following discussion is closed.

WizardOfOz has just blocked Bebblebrox indef withut talk page access, for [2] this edit summary. I consider this block to be lousy, as the insult was against WizardOfOz himself, and the length and conditions were unnecessarily punitive. The block could have been justfied, done by another admin, and a length of 24 hours, but I can't find any way an indef is valid here. The only thing that stops me from resetting the block to a day is that this whole issue is an enwp mess spilling over to Meta, and that enwp is my home wiki... Courcelles 21:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As I told you on IRC, the block is not only for the calling me asshole, but also for trolling, threats, 3RR, ignoring policies and guidelines of this project, things that a good faith user should know and accept. Therefore I can´t see any benefits of lettin´ him any kind of acces here. --WizardOfOz talk 21:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with the last comment here, the user basically requested to be blocked; indef just means that the needed length still has to be found (and by the way the user doesn't seem to expect ato make any acceptable contribution to Meta in the future). If WizardOfOz doesn't disagree, I'll revoke the talk block, close this request and let the user explain how he wants to contribute etc. if he wishes. Nemo 21:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. --WizardOfOz talk 21:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Done by Courcelles. Nemo 21:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • REopened, as we still need to deal with this atrocious block. No justification has been given for this being indef, or for the admin insulted being the one to mash the button.. Courcelles 21:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This was an utterly absurd block. I strongly suggest that you consult other admins before making blocks of this nature in future, otherwise you may find yourself without tools at all.The preceding comment was not meant as a threat. It was a badly-worded caution that failing to grasp why this block was a mistake, and reacting so badly to it, would possibly lead to a desysop discussion to be started on top of this. Others have said it was a stupid block, yet you fail to grasp the point. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ Courcelles You claimed that this is a COI by you as a member of enwiki ArbCom who handled the case. And now you are overruling a action of an uninvolved sysop? What should this be, a enwiki ArbCom decision on meta? --WizardOfOz talk 21:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The block may be excessive, but it doesn't make sense to discuss it without a request from the user. I've blocked him myself, so it's no longer an "involved block" at all and can be discussed on his talk if he wishes. Nemo 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict @PeterSymonds As you are a steward feel free to remove my tools. --WizardOfOz talk 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Nemo, (re: indef just means needed length still has to be found): Be that as it may, I find it hard to reconcile the removal of talk page access. Killiondude 21:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that was a mistake and WizardOfOz has agreed to correct it. Nemo 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose I'm more interested in seeing if WizardOfOz understands that was poor form. I read (above) that he agreed to let others correct it, but that doesn't imply he acknowledges what was wrong with it. Note: I'm not a pro-arcom nor a pro-enwiki admin fan. Those are not reasons why I decided to comment. Killiondude 22:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This looks like blatant admin abuse to me: an attempt to squelch dissent. I recommend you chaps unblock Beeblebox now before further steps are taken to revoke your ops. Meta is not your personal fiefdom. It exists to serve as a coordinating point of all the projects. We are your constituents. You are here to serve us, not the other way around. You can allow a discussion to proceed about deleting what I allege to be a bogus RFC, or you can dig in your heels until you are dragged from the venue kicking and screaming. The choice is yours. Jehochman 22:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

^Beeblebrox has now formally filed for unblock. I fully support granting this requesty. Courcelles 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done: I've reduced the block length to 22 hours. Mathonius 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Next order of business. Let's discuss reopenning the RFC deletion discussion. I assert that the RFC considers disputes that were fully resolved already, and as such, the page serves no purpose other than to disparage an identifiable, living person. As such it is an attack page in violation of WM:NOT, line 11. The discussion was trending towards delete when it was prematurely closed by an involved admin. Could we get a neutral admin to reopen the discussion and let it run until there is a clear consensus one way or the other. That would be the healthiest, quickest, happiest way to end this controversy. Jehochman 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::Sure! Just feel free to ask some of your people from ArbCom like Courcelles or the helping hand from PeterSymonds and let them handle against the policies and guidelines of this project. I´m sure they will help you as uninvolved sysops. --WizardOfOz talk 22:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Open a request if you wish, as I told you. Nemo 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will reopen my request for that page to be deleted. How should I do that? Jehochman 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You can open a new section on this page and ask sysops to reconsider my closure. Nemo 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

The following discussion is closed: There is a clear process for deletion, and that is through Meta:Requests for deletion which is where the deletion discussion is taking place, no admin can take further action on this request at this time. Someone will close the request after the discussion period and action as appropriate to the outcome of the discussion. billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am requesting deletion of Requests for comment/Gwen Gale on ground that it violates WM:NOT points 9, 10 and 11. Meta wiki is not the place to rehash a settled dispute. Although the page in question is formatted like an RFC, it is actually nothing more than an attack page prepared by a banned user for the purpose of harassing an en-wiki administrator. The matters therein were recently appealed to en-wiki's ArbCom, which declined to intervene. On en-wiki the ArbCom is the final level of dispute resolution. Therefore, those matters are fully resolved. There is nothing to be heard here. It would undermine the effectiveness of dispute resolution on en-wiki to allow a user, especially a user who was community banned for repeated disruption, to do an "end run" around established dispute resolution proceedures.

I recognize that procedures here are different from en-wiki. However, one thing common to all of our wikis is that we need to have the ability to control disruptive users and prevent them from gaming the rules to wreak havoc. We should not let a disruptive editor abuse the RFC process. Although your formal rules do not specifically require RFC's to be certified as legitimate disputes, I feel that per common sense or Ignore all rules we can decide to delete an RFC that serves no valid purpose.

What I would like is to resume the deletion discussion. It was, I feel, closed prematurely before a consensus formed. There is no danger in letting that discussion run until a consensus is achieved. If the community decides to delete the RFC, that implicitly means that the community wants to have the ability to delete RFCs. It is unnecessary to prevent a deletion discussion on the grounds that the community does not want to delete RFCs. If that is the case, the community can just vote "keep". Meanwhile, this dispute has spread to many pages and created much needless bad will among volunteers. Let's not spread the poison further. Let's resume the deletion discussion, contain all the comments there, keep them civil, and let a consensus form. Thank you for your consideration. Jehochman 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are specific concerns about some statements I made in RFC, these could be deleted. Deleting the whole thing is unwarranted. This request as well as all other behavior of Jehochman here and on English wiki demonstrates he is afraid of the evidences, he wants to delete them because I've spoken the truth that he and other abusive English wikipedia admins do not like to hear the truth about one of their own. Thanks.--Mbz1 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
MeatBall:ForestFire. Nemo 23:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale#Deletion request made.

I'm not sure how en.wiki drama landed here. Is there anything in this RFC that elevates it from en.wiki to here? If this is just some kind of forest fire / forum shopping thing (as Nemo suggests), I'll happily delete the page.

User requests for comment are not uncommon here for users under review by multiple wikis. Poetlister, et al. So the main question in my mind is whether that threshold has been met. If not, the page is outside project scope and can be speedily deleted. --MZMcBride 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is purely an en-wiki dispute, MZ. It can be handled there very effectively. Jehochman 23:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the subject-space page and talk page. Not sure why it wasn't speedily deleted in January. I agree that this appears to be completely imported drama from the English Wikipedia.
Nemo doesn't like the pages being deleted. I guess RFCs aren't typically deleted, even if they're irrelevant or baseless or whatever. My main concern is restoring content that violates the BLP policy or is defamatory (talk page comments suggested that some of the page content may be defamatory). I'll leave it to Nemo if he wants to undelete and close the RFC/protect the page. Maybe the page content can be banished to the page history rather than sitting around waiting for search engines and spiders? --MZMcBride 23:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Jehochman bases his request on the assertion that <<Meta wiki is not the place to rehash a settled dispute.>> But he does not establish that the RfC is that. Its just his assumption. Moreover, there is no indication of what harm he thinks will happen if the RfC runs its course. He implies there will be harm, but does nothing to prove that. Those things lacking, the request amounts to no more than WP:I just don't like it. Malcolm Schosha 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not the page where to discuss deletion. The deletion request didn't bring any reason for deletion (nor redaction, for what I've seen). MZMcBride's deletion equals a closure in its intent, for what he's written above, so I've switched to it. I've also closed Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. Now all related requests are closed, as far as I can see, so if there's still some unaddressed issue with the original problem which should be addressed on Meta, the closure (or state of the page) should be discussed on Talk:Requests for comment/Gwen Gale. Nemo 23:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not resolved. We want the RfC deleted, or at a minimum, blanked. We want a regular deletion discussion. We want the RfD reopened, which you closed out of process. This here is the request to re-open that discussion, i.e. a review of your administrative action. You don't get to first close the RfD, and then to also close this review of your action yourself. This is blatant abuse of your admin role. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice that MZMcBride considered the issue resolved in that way just above? I've not closed this request, I've implemented his proposal. Unless I misunderstood it, obviously. Nemo 00:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
MZMcBride has no more right to cut the regular deletion process short than you have. By the way, I also reverted your equally out-of-process closure of the other RfC. Claiming that there was no actionable proposal in it and that it was merely a rehashing of the first was simply an obvious falsehood. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this is a "requests for help from a sysop" and a sysop like MZMcBride has the right to close it. Nemo 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop fighting and reverting each other. Let's discuss the best way to resolve these matters. I am happy to let the RfD discussion continue to its end, or for a speedy deletion. I see no reason for Meta to host an RFC about matters that occurred entirely on en-wiki. Am I missing something? Jehochman 01:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • One more thing. A banned user on en-wiki may not start an RFC. By hosting an en-wiki RFC here and bypassing our usual protections for the accused, this wiki is undermining en-wiki's dispute resolution processes. That's not very friendly. Not at all. Jehochman 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If I may comment here, I think the current rules for RFCs on meta do no specifically prohibit a user banned anywhere but globally/on-meta to start a RFC here on whatever. But I do agree that it is a highly questionable practice to substitute meta-wiki for the dispute resolution processes of wikis with tens tens of thousands of active users, and which usually have an elected ArbCom. It's fine to bring RfC/Us on meta when a small wiki admin goes gung-ho and bans everyone but himself (yes, something close to this happened), but it's very questionable that two admins on meta can decide to host a catch-all complaint page against one enwiki sysop for her actions over there, when the en-wiki ArbCom has already decided it's much ado about nothing, and has strongly suggested something similar to an informal w:WP:IBAN between the complainer and admin in question. To further compound the problem was tone of the meta-wiki RFC in question. It was extremely acerbic in parts, e.g. describing the rejection of the case by the enwiki ArbCom as a "shameful, childish, dishonest and cowardly retaliation". The irony in that is beyond words. Furthermore, the meta-wiki sysop and crat who just resigned his tools (after fighting tooth and nail for keeping this RFC here) clearly isn't well acculturated to the dispute resolution methods on enwiki. [3] or with the mandate of Stewards [4], it seems. ASCIIn2Bme 04:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    Well, if "the en-wiki ArbCom has already decided it's much ado about nothing", then they probably decided on it without actually looking at the evidences. Do not believe me? Well, here's what one of the arbitrators had to say just a few hours ago here on meta "At the same time, if these allegations about behaviour on en:Wikipedia have not been examined before, I merely ask if they should be examined now. Is this something of concern to the community?". So were the evinces ever examined or "they should be examined now"? Besides, if the evidences were examined, why not to post on wiki what is wrong with let's say 5-7 of them? No, the evidences have never been examined, and this is the problem. It is why I state I have never got a dispute resolution. It is why I brought it here. Actually very few people read the evidences, but here is what one of them said: "Also I am glad of the disclosure of information (and supporting diffs) about this administrator, much of which gives me cause for concern. ", here's another quote "Mbz, at a quick reading much of what you say in your RfC/U makes sense." On the other hand you,ASCIIn2Bme, did not read the evidences, you had no time for this. It was much easier to comment and to vote on community ban proposal, which you happily did without giving any consideration to the evidences.I would have never done something like this.--Mbz1 04:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's cut to the chase, if [hypothetically] I put up a RFC page about a meta admin with the polemically worded request that s/he "stop being a bully administrator, and, if for some reason s/he cannot do it, stop being administrator at all" what do you think would happen? Your approach is more of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" discourse than a civil attempt at dispute resolution. So, don't be so surprised when people don't want to read your tl;dnr evidence when you prefix it with a "proposal" like that. ASCIIn2Bme 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      You know what, you are probably right. I am not a native speaker of English. I came from a different culture. It is difficult for me to see the problems in the language I use. When I used to write DYK on wikipedia, I have always asked somebody to copy-edit these, always, and I know my English could be hard to read, but is this enough reason to dismiss my evidences altogether without reading them at all, delete them, ban me? It simply does not look good. Besides, it is not even necessarily to read these evidences. It is enough to examine the differences, and not even all the differences, but just a few of them. In any case I would have never voted to ban somebody without giving this person an opportunity to talk, without asking questions without reading the evidences. About the first point you made, it is a different situation here at Meta.Please see here:"Requests for comment (RFC for short) is a process by which conflicts on Meta, or unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, can be resolved or discussed." So I violated no policy. I submitted valid evidences. Am I getting banned because of my English? Besides I was blocked indefinitely by arbcom, with my talk page access removed? Why should have a ban proposal to be posted at all? I would have never done anything like this to anybody! --Mbz1 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict; with update?) You are getting banned on enwiki for not dropping the w:WP:STICK after being told to do so by ArbCom. And you are not the first or the last to whom this measure is applied [5]. Now if you think ArbCom or enwiki are generally unfair for that kind of response, then you're probably entitled to bring a RFC about the en.wiki ArbCom or community on meta. Good luck with that. ASCIIn2Bme 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        Well, arbcom has no authority on meta. They cannot tell me what to do and what not to do on meta, just the same as they cannot tell me what I should or not should do in a real life. My ban is going be the first ever ban made on English wikipedia for an absolutely valid conduct at Meta. --Mbz1 06:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing and edit warring

The following discussion is closed: Per billinghurst's proposal, the discussion is closed. Nemo 11:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a serious problem here. A user put up an RfC on Meta about another Wiki, which is a very standard issue. Someone at en.wikipedia did not like it and heavily canvassed. Users there have been constantly disrupting Meta. I point out which users have no history, which is common practice to label such edits and there are even templates for such in just about every Wiki. Future, a person heavily involved in the en.wiki dispute, reverts and claims something that is just not true. It is utterly necessary for any admin to be able to quickly differentiate between possibly canvassed votes and those who are Meta regulars. This is the canvassing thread. I am surprised that these individuals have not been blocked for cross-wiki disruption via canvassing and other inappropriate actions. I am also surprised by en.wiki trying to take over Meta, which has always been a central location for such discussions free of the control of other projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The charge of "canvassing" is utterly ludicrous, as is the premise that having "new" editors with little prior editing on Meta participate in these processes is somehow a problematic thing. In this respect, Meta is crucially different from other, local projects that have their own local communities focussed on local content production. Meta is supposed to be a place where people from other projects can come on an ad hoc basis. When there's an issue ongoing here on Meta that crucially (and in fact exclusively) concerns editors on en-wiki, then of course editors from en-wiki are going to be notified, and of course they are going to flock in here. That's how it is supposed to be. Seriously, who else would you want to comment on those processes if not editors from the wiki it concerns? The insinuation that "Meta regulars" ought to somehow have a privileged voice here is utterly offensive and absurd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If there was a vote on en.wiki and Meta started a thread here with links to it and demanding that the user starting it be blocked in addition to it deleted, then those people coming from the Meta thread would be blocked when they tried to vote on en.wiki. Why the double standard? Are you saying that en.wiki users have the right to impose their will on every other project? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Read again what I wrote above. Then, if you still don't understand it, read it again. If you don't want to understand it, don't bother reading it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What you said above is that en.wiki gets to run every other Wiki. That is the equivalent of saying that someone from the United States or United Kingdom have the right to go to other countries and demand full voting rights even though they were there for only a day. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done (double edit conflict) I'm certainly not surprised. Thank you for your help in adding some notes, but I'm sure that the closing sysop, whoever it will be, will be smart enough to identify valid !votes, ignore invalid arguments and purify the result from canvassing, so I don't see any purpose in this RFH now. I also have to note that at least the first of your notes wasn't really neutral. Nemo 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
How was it not neutral? "This user has very few edits and this is his only recent edit" - how could this be made more neutral? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
By not saying it. How is it relevant? If you think users with few edits here don't belong, then the meta should not host RfC's where they are requested to comment. But apparently the meta does, and I see no policy which prevents them from commenting. Alanscottwalker 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Every Wiki points out when new users come and start editing sensitive discussion pages (deletions, blocks, etc) to measure if it is possible that there is canvassing or other forms of consensus disruption. Many, including en.wiki, have templates. Why you would claim that labeling them to point them out is "preventing them from commenting" is a tad confusion. However, it appears that you lack any history of editing here, which makes your post strange. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What? I am a registered user here, whether you approve or not. You you don't get to decide who's opinion counts in consensus discussions. Especially when you are involved. One would expect more maturity and circumspection from an admin. Alanscottwalker 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not an admin. Your lack of understanding that is exactly why new people's statements when they have no background on a project are mostly discounted and seen as disruptive. You make statements based on false beliefs and are probably here for the wrong reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about why your request to re-put in your tendentious comments was denied by an admin, with more maturity and good sense. Not that you are an admin, which is a good thing. As for your assumption of bad faith, you clearly don't understand the consensus process.Alanscottwalker 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The user in question was blocked when the situation was analyzed. Furthermore, your statements are empty as no project gives the same weight to brand new people with no experience coming to a canvassed page the same weight as uninvolved regulars. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course any self-respecting project gives more weieght to the well reasoned comments of others over the badly reasoned comments of regulars who demostrate such poor knowledge and maturity, that they argue 'don't listen, they're new.' Alanscottwalker 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The most eloquent rhetoric without any experience is still bs. Knowledge is something you earn, not that you magically start with. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Knowledge is something you learn, its not something you close your ears to because you can't abide others encroaching on your poor reasoning. Alanscottwalker 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Learning requires time. Those who suddenly appear have no chance to learn. By your own statement new people should be flat out ignored and directed to other parts of the project and told to help out before they try to participate in sensitive consensus processes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been visiting here for quite awhile. The fact that you don't apparently understand consensus or process is what is disturbing. Alanscottwalker 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere, I do not think that there is an issue when people from a local project are informed about discussions that relate to that local project; Meta is meant to serve all the projects and all wikimedians equally. I do agree that people coming from other projects need to learn (and that may require some quick teaching in a respectful manner on our part) that their local project rules are not necessarily the same as Meta's rules and on Meta, we follow Meta guidelines. I am loathe to exclude people from discussions about projects in which they are interested, but they need to conform to Meta policy and guidelines when participating in Meta discussions. -- Avi 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, maybe we should have a page showing some of the major differences between our largest projects and Meta. EnWiki obviously comes to mind as the largest source of potential problem. -- Avi 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Avi. As a metawiki user, en wiki user (primarily) and commons wiki user, I wish all admins were as service oriented as you. Some Admins, here, seem to view users of primarily other projects as unwelcome. If true, that is a very detrimental thing to this project, as a whole. Alanscottwalker 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a dangerous idea here among some admins that Meta can handle dispute resolution for en-wiki. In general Meta cannot, unless a dispute spans multiple wikia. Policy ought to be clarified to eliminate any doubt. Users may not take a matter to en-ArbCom, fail to get the answer they want, and then go to Meta for an appeal. ArbCom is the final stop in dispute resolution. Moreover, the ArbCom members and admin at en-wiki are elected by a larger number of community members, and with greater scrutiny, than the admins here. As such, decisions taken at en-wiki over en-wiki matters better represent what the community wants. En-wiki participants have reacted and will react very badly if perceived "outsiders" from Meta attempt to impose their will on en-wiki. Jehochman 20:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Nobody from Meta have ever tried to impose "their will on en-wiki". It is just the opposite: en wiki is trying to impose its will on meta. --Mbz1 20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
En:wiki users should also be mindful of meta:wiki policies and respectful of meta:wiki users. The spectical of an en:wiki adminstrator coming to this project and getting into a fight with an admin here, is a grossly poor reflection on both projects' admin corps, and on both projects. Alanscottwalker 21:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Meta RfCs are non-binding, have no ramifications, and are merely a reflection of discussion. All projects are given the ability to have people voice concerns on Meta, and many, many have done so. It provides a neutral territory that is more comfortable to people who believe they are unfairly being teamed up on, which the WP:AN thread would give clear reason why such is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
But you have to be mindful of whether they undermine process on other wiki's, or defame them or their users, going along in that way lies terrific conflict. Alanscottwalker 21:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no possible way of another project being undermined by an honest discussion. If they are "undermined" then chances are the process there is flawed and should be scrapped. People from many Wikis have come here to point out via RfCs abuse and the abuse was dealt with regardless of the protests of the other projects. Corruption should be exposed and everyone should desire that there are no flawed projects or systematic abuses. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course, you undermine other projects if you defame them that's the purpose of defamation. Alanscottwalker 21:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Making claims of defamation without proof is, by definition, defamatory. If someone disagreed with the user then they could state that. Canvassing, attacks, trying to get things deleted without cause, etc., are acts akin to bullying. That is disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
We agree that disruption should not go on. Of course, the solution of getting it off this board and have its users not be bothered with it is much better, because it is idiotically useless and can only bring the Project into disrepute. Alanscottwalker 23:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The boards were designed for it, so a solution for making it not designed shows more of a problem with those wanting it gone than with the board. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No there not. The purposes are listed here: WM:DP#All users. Alanscottwalker 13:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That page has nothing to do with the Meta RfC process. If you bothered to read the long history of RfCs you would see that most of them are about issues on other Wikis and problems with users on those Wikis that could not be resolved there. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That the purposes of the site have nothing to do with RfC's is, of course, absurd. I've seen the history of RfC's and that only reinforces the point. Alanscottwalker 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it is fine for small wikis to have their disputes appealed here because those wikis might not have enough uninvolved editors to reach a consensus. Such is not the case with the English Wikipedia, which has many more active editors than Meta. Jehochman 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Active does not mean uninvolved, nor would it imply proper or fair. Seeing as how Gwen Gale made a lot of destructive actions over time (especially regarding Malleus), it is obvious that the en.wiki system is incapable of fixing the problem. For those to come over here and disrupt the consensus process on Meta demonstrates that it is a problem with the social structure over there, especially when the vast majority of contributors don't actually write anything encyclopedic and are just a bureaucracy that is more akin to a social network than something you would find in Britannica. To be blunt, en.wikipedia needs professional outside auditors to review everyone with any power over there and have the authority to remove when they are not using that authority properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
But who watches the watchers? They can become more corrupt than their targets. Jehochman 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I propose to close this topic on the page "Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat" (noting that it is not an RfC subpage). There does not seem to be anything that is required to be done by either an admin or 'crat.
    • There is no policy on meta that prohibits canvassing, so there is nothing to rule, but simply to note for the closing administrator or bureaucrat on that topic. Accordingly such a note would be made at that discussion pointing to this record.
    • Edit warring is one of the issues and it can clearly be seen above, and until people learn to respect that others are entitled to their opinion, and the blunderbuss methodology is ineffective and ugly, it surely isn't going to resolve issues. While an administrator can intervene, when the person who lodged the complaint is one of exhibitors of the complained practice, my comment to all is about look to how you personally are managing respect, and tolerance in the discussion. Don't be the lowest common denominator, and if it helps picture someone who you do respect and then type your commentary as if they are the intended recipient.
    • "Request for comment" is where you can set up a request for comment (see the name similarity) if you wish to formalise your discussions.
      billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed: Per billinghurst, the RfD will follow its course as of policy. Nemo 11:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose to close this request. Allowing it to continue will only create more, unneeded drama.

IMO there are two ways of closing it:

  1. Tell the users (mostly admins from English Wikipedia) to stop trying to impose their policies on Meta, and keep RFC.
  2. Give in to the overwhelming majority and delete RFC.

Either option is fine with me, but at that point I am very sure that the deletion request should be closed one way or another, and as soon as possible. Thanks.--Mbz1 15:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you forgot #3, which is that the consensus of we Metapedians is that the RfC is inappropriate per our own policies and guidelines, having nothing to do with EnWIki, DeWiki, or Sanskrit Wiki. -- Avi 17:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot nothing. There's no consensus of Metapedians. There are English wikipedia users (mostly abusive admins, two of which were already blocked here on Meta) who want to change Meta policies.--Mbz1 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The above speaks more to demonstrate the fundamental issues you have with consensus-driven editing than anything else I could conceive. -- Avi 17:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, about "consensus-driven editing" as one wikipedian said: "The encyclopaedists would never have proposed that their work was to be an equal collaboration of the ignorant and the educated. It was to be a vehicle for raising the former from their ignorance by making the most valuable achievements of human endeavor available to all."
But in case, you did not understand my comment. I was not talking about "consensus-driven editing". I was talking about canvassing-driven abuse.--Mbz1 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, how can informing EnWiki about an RfC that relates to EnWiki be considered canvassing? Moreover, one cannot canvass by informing others about Meta discussions on local projects since Meta only exists to serve the local projects. -- Avi 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I could partly agree with this one, but before you were talking about consensus of Metapedians, and I said whatever you call it, it is not consensus of Metapedians. Two real Metapedians left the project because of this. --Mbz1 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The RfC says a minimum of seven days, and there is no process to shorten that time. billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment By definition all wikipedians, whichever their language, or other wikis are metamedians, to say otherwise is dismissive of the audience because one doesn't like what they are saying. Evidence ...

After that we are talking about eligibility and the closest that we come to an eligibility criteria is in elections, and that is about participation within a year. It sounds like an interesting RfC to determine a minimum criteria for eligibility, until then it seems that being here is sufficient to participate. billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a formal standard is needed for the RfD votes, but in case one is desirable, I think the one used in the ongoing Steward elections [7] seems good enough. ASCIIn2Bme 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
RfD discussions are not votes, and no standard is needed to participate. –SJ talk | translate   16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for oversight of diff (attack with identity link)

Diff to be oversighted. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved.

Already handled. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just for future reference, please don't ever link to oversightable material in public. The best way is to e-mail one of the oversighters, such as User:Courcelles. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. (Haven't handled that particular issue before.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I was passing through and saw this, so now suppressed. Though Peter is right, e-mail is the best way to reach someone with the buttons to do this without making the material more visible. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. Haven't handled before, and wasn't sure who to email who wasn't asleep -- but assumed someone was awake here. :-) (But yes, clearly posting in a forum is not the way to hide information.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

help request met with trolling from an admin here

Resolved. Concur issue has been addressed Proofreader77 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm not the most popular guy around here right now, but it is it really ok for a user who requests help in good faith to met with an edit like this from an administrator? An edit which can only be described as trolling my talk page? Could an uninvolved admin please step in and talk to this guy? I can't believe that this sort of behavior could be considered ok from an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He's free to consider yours trolling and you're free to ignore what he said, so all is right with the World. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
So, you think it is ok for an admin to respond to a request for help with an inflammatory remark that is decidedly unhelpful and obviously intended to harm rather than help? You can't be serious. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
He doens't feel like helping you, some other admin might do it, so what's wrong with him? And actually, did you ever try to imagine that your ideas and views are not universally agreeable? --Vituzzu (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
So? I opened a proposal, and asked for input. If he doesn't like my proposal, he is more than welcome to participate in the discussion of it. Instead he came to my talk page and responded to my good faith request for help with a technical issue by flaming me. How is that OK? I got blocked for calling another user an asshole, but an administator is free to just stop by any talk page they want and hurl insults at users asking for help, and you think that is ok? Has this whole project gone mad? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to point out what inflammatory remark that is decidedly unhelpful and obviously intended to harm means. --SomeoneBehindYou (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: he gave an answer to your request for help which seems to exaggerate the importance of the proposal itself. So it wasn't definitely out of the blue.
Setting apart some "exaggeration" by SBY I see a sort of charge of paladins on meta subsequently to a certain RfC about a certain action by the en.wiki's arbcom, trying to impose many policies and practice of en.wiki's over there too. Yesterday I had a strong confirm of my feelings when one of these users recalled me to the respect of a local en.wiki's policy. On meta.
Since this implies a complete lack of respect for about 10 years o history of the other communities you shouldn't expect the best reception for this kind of behavior. Maybe it's just a fault in communications strategies so mine can also be considered an advice about the importance of remember that there are dozens of different points of view to be keep in consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
What behavior?Adding a policy proposal and asking Metapaedians for their input on it so that it can be determined if it is something that will work here or not? That's a problem?Asking a question is disrespectful? Personal attacks from admins is what I should expect in response for a request for help with a technical issue if they don't happen to like me or my ideas? I'm not trying to force en policy down anyone's throat, I opened a discussion 'here about what policy should be in place here. I haven't advertised it off this wiki and I have asked for help getting it translated so that users who don't speak English and aren't from en.wp can participate in the discussion. And for that, I am met with unprovoked attacks from this sites administration and now you are telling me that is ok? 'It's not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually you're ignoring the background. But, anyway, please explain where are *my* supposed attacks, I'm quite curious. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I refuse to have an opinion about this, but for you to understand the reaction of some users better: In this discussion it was mentioned dozens of times that "users from meta who would come to en and open such an RFC would be immediately blocked" etc. Now imagine this had indeed happened and these users would now start to make a policy proposal on en. I assume you would at least reserved about it, even if it has some good points. --MF-W 17:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Vituzzu:I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you attacked me, but you are defending someone who did, and who I suspect is trying to bait me into making another comment like the one that got me blocked before. That's not how an admin ought to act, and I'm appalled that other admins are defending it. There is no context that makes it ok. @SBY:And for that edit, I was blocked. So now i am endeavoring not to act like that, and anyway my bad behavior in the past, which I already did my time for, does not excuse and admin trolling a legitimate request for help. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No you didn´t. As I can remember, I´ve blocked you for infinite, not for 24 hours. But behind that, the fact is that you are claiming something that Nemo hasn´t done. And as Vito wrote above: I don´t know what the message should be if some people who have no constructive contribution on this project, are now trying to create, or let us say copy rules of a content project over here. Perhaps you still didn´t get it, but this project serve almost 700 projects and not only the holy en.wiki. Just let the people work, as they have done befor this flood from enwiki and stop the trolling around. And yes, it is trolling for me, and I´m not longer an admin so I say it as a simple user. --SomeoneBehindYou (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait, what? Am I take it that you are the Wizard of Oz back under a new name? And you are back to attack me some more? Great, you're a real team player dud, thanks for your help. I got the message, you don't want to hear anything from anyone from en.wp unless they are banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could tell me who gave you that message? :D Can´t remember that I ever wrote/told that. And I´m not attacking you, I´m just teling facts. --SomeoneBehindYou (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this WizardOfOz (talk · contribs)? He's the only one around here who uses acute accents (´). Goodvac (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It certainly appears to be him, as he signed his first post here as "ex wizard" [8] and had only made about ten edits before coming here and taunting me about how he blocked me before. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny Disturbing that they'd let a "Self proclaimed future vandal" who self-requested a lock come back. Goodvac (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that is a bit odd, but at this point it doesn't surprise me, I half expect to get blocked again anytime now for daring to question whether admins should troll talk pages. It is pretty obvious that the "regulars" here have a double standard when it comes to one of their own, and that visitors can be blocked on the flimsiest pretexts while admins can taunt them and use their admin tools and status like a blunt object to quash anything they don't like. It's quite alarming actually. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment Nemo's comment was clearly trolling - and by far the best thing would have been to ignore the comment. Do not respond to trolling. I also don't think there's much point to developing that policy; it's like trying to fix the door knob when three walls of the house are missing - when the occupants are yelling and poking you with broomsticks. Besides which, it's difficult to apply on smaller wikis without external involvement (if Meta weren't so dysfunctional, I'd suggest developing ways that smaller wikis could reach out as needed for input on important issues where involvement is hard to deal with because of the size of the community). Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually do ignore trolling, but when is is coming from an admin I think we should not ignore it, especially if that admin is doing everything they can to make users from one specific project feel unwelcome at Meta. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Rd232, there's a good page here on Meta about trolling (started by mindspillage by the way, if I remember correctly): What is a troll?.
Does anyone understand what's the point of this discussion now that the user has removed the comment from his talk page? Nemo 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping someone uninvolved would explain to you that trolling is not ok, and especially not ok when it is done by an administrator. That would be the point, but it seems the wagons are being circled again and trolling is ok here if it comes form a regular. So go ahead and keep being consistently condescending and openly hostile, and butting in to make unhelpful comments in response to legitimate request for help with purely technical issues, and attack the person making the proposal instead of responding to the substance of the proposal itself at the appropriate venue, apparently that's all fine here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment (Star Trek flavored) Providing inter-wiki teleportation coordinates at WP:ANI/AN may generate spatial distortions ... with teleportees materializing in unmapped quicksand (where flailing about is not usually recommended).

I.E., Given the circumstances ... some slack is a good idea. Especially given that meta is a multi-lingual realm, precision in complex bureaucratic rhetorical interaction in English should not be insisted on. (Unfortunately we can't just roll in a keg of beer, dance awhile ... then walk sweetly away down our own paths with a wave and a smile ... :-)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw here my final answer (with final I meant I won't probably go on replying). --Vituzzu (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
(Salute wisdom) So much more pleasant than shots across the bow :-) --Proofreader77 (talk)

Temporary seal for RfD in limbo?

Resolved. Closed reasserted

Excuse my meta process ignorance, but would it be appropriate to put some kind of temporary archive seal on this (close-reverted) RfD until an official close can occur? (To prevent confusion by any new arrivals.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Deadminship

I have been informed that there are proper locations on meta for requesting deadminship. What would these be? Meta:Administrators was less than helpful on the topic. Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for adminship/Username (removal), set it up like an RfA (just look at the archive for examples) and then add it under a header (Requests for deaminship or something the like) on M:RFA. This happens very rarely (I remember only one case ever) and the chances for such requests to pass are usually not very good, but here you got the introductions now. You will have to give very good reasons for a removal, since the admins here are usually widely trusted and without good proof/evidence of abuse it very unlikely to pass. -Barras talk 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do some more research on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Going by Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Archives and Category:Closed_Meta-Wiki_requests_for_adminship, this has only be done once: Meta:Requests for adminship/Innv (removal), regarding a sockpuppeteer who wanted to "find out how much wiki-flags can be collected by a known sockpuppet" - (see Requests for comment/Locally indef-blocked global sysops). Rd232 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please verify this change in process wording (on RfDs) is allowed

Resolved. With SJ's response (bureaucrat, administrator)], issue appears to be sufficiently clarified/addressed with respect to topic-initiating diff etc. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted once as it is changing custom and practice of admin close on RfDs (by an involved editor previously blocked for recent activity), but as I am not a regular on meta, I leave it to administrative volunteers to determine if this change should remain. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He was advised to go ahead and make that change by Sj (talk · contribs), on the basis of "don't talk about it, just fix it". Fluffernutter (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I would not assume SJ's general remark would imply changing custom and practice with one edit (by an involved editor) amidst a dispute. Full quote (emphasis added):

Don't complain to make someone fix something, just fix it. You found imprecision in language about how consensus is determined? Propose new language here.

If his edit is a proposal, my reversion indicates:
  • There is not consensus for that change.
  • (It should go without saying: Don't attempt to rewrite the guidelines in the middle of a dispute to fit ones desired outcome)
If the editor interpreted SJ to mean he could "propose" that by changing the language on the RfD page that moment, then my reversion should have indicated a need to gain consensus on that particular language before reinserting it. (etc etc) But I will leave a link on SJ's page.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were asking more of a "is it allowed for a once-blocked user to make a change to wording on that page", so that's what my answer was addressing - that yes, it appears to be, since a 'crat/admin told him he could make such changes if he thinks they'll improve things. In regard to the question you seem to have actually been asking, I assume that, as you say, whether the wording change stays changed once it's been changed is dependent on the usual "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. Fluffernutter (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(Not your fault that I didn't write all that clarification to begin with :-), thank you, Fluffernutter. As an infrequent participant on meta, I will go no further on the matter than to highlight for the meta community -- with a general comment that policy/practice modification amidst dispute is outrageous -- but of course the events of February 11 and the ongoing ________ [fill in the blank with your preferred description is all outrageous, but certainly educational, or at least illuminating. :-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I thank Proofreader for bringing this discussion to my attention. My intent is to reduce any future confusion and improve the project, not to affect any current dispute. I think reducing the load on admins in a thoughtful, respectful way, while providing more clarity to all users would do so. Note that an uninvolved admin would still have to take any subsequent action, like actually deleting, based on good faith review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
And thank you, Alanscottwalker, for your gracious response/clarification. As for the topic, I think we've sufficiently addressed that specific process-page edit sufficently, but before we conclude, let us see if there is some more general guideline that might be helpful that meta admins/bureaucrats agree is reasonable. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But actually (or unfortunately) that issue has been reopened for discussion, on the talk page: Meta talk:Requests for deletion#Discussion of proposed change. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(sotto voce) That's the reason I'm addressing the general issue below. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Informal guideline question re policy adjustment (post-11 Feb)

(as in debate) Resolved: Involved parties shalt not create/modify policy amidst disputes affected by such policy.

(Looking for admin etc confirmation, but will add my agreement)

  • Support Support aka yes(no template for agree, didn't know {{yes}} made a pretty lime-green block. :-) As proposer of rule-of-thumb guideline to, um, guide me (and other non-regular metapedians) amidst events consequent to the Almost-Valentine's-Day Interwiki, um, Singularity(?:-). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - this seems like an odd request, as generally its good to address things as they arise. But others may have a different view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems appropriate not to make changes directly to a page where process is being actively reviewed. But people involved in such review can propose changes - say, on the relevant talk page. Running up against a limitation of policy is, after all, what often prompts the realization that it could be improved. –SJ talk   14:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that. The discussion is occurring at Meta talk:Requests for deletion#Discussion of proposed change. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:WizardOfOz

Resolved. No action taken.

User:WizardOfOz requested to be globally locked after he was told by PeterSymonds he misused the administrative tools when he blocked User:Beeblebrox.

I believe PeterSymonds should appolize to WizardOfOz and then WizardOfOz account should be unlocked until he reconfirms his decision.

Here are some points to prove my opinion.

1.There was no policy about involved administrators on Meta, when the block was imposed.

2. The block was right. It is rather sad and strange, but User:Beeblebrox who is English Wikipedia admin and English Wikipedia oversighter is not stable enough to be allowed to contribute to Meta and here's why:

And here's the user's latest outburst on English wikipedia.

--Mbz1 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

He has yet to request any of that, and until he does this proposal is moot. Please stop all this nonsense. It is evident that you are only here because of your distaste for the English Wikipedia and/or certain users active there. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I started the thread exactly because WizardofOz should request nothing, and should contact nobody. It is he who should be contacted by you with an apology.
Now, if I have said: "Please unlock WizardofOz because of my "distaste for the English Wikipedia and/or certain users active there ", then your statement above would have been correct, but I said nothing of a kind. I provided two valid points supported by five valid differences. That's why your statement is nothing else, but an empty scream.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If Wizard wants to come back, he knows whom he can contact about this. No further action and discussion here needed. Please follow Peter's suggestion above and stop this. Section closed -Barras talk 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    I explained above why Peter's suggestion is wrong and should not be followed. Besides Peter is an involved admin here, and is not in a position to make such suggestions in this thread. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (metacomment/semi coda) It appears the aftermath of the WP:AN/I diff of 02:21, 11 February 2012 may continue for years... and with a better effect than most would expect (at the current time). -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I am from the Armenian Wikipedia, where we right now discuss to change the Armenian spelling of Wikipedia (and maybe other projects as). This is actually a very important and "historical" decision we have to make. Is it possible to add a banner or just a massage to inform users and visitors of all Wiki-projects in Armenian? --vacio 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you just need a sysop who can edit the MediaWiki:Sitenotice on your wiki. There you can post a information localy. --WizardOfOz talk 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. You mean this page, right? --vacio 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. --WizardOfOz talk 19:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again :) --vacio 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Workflow states

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not allowed to edit interface messages (protectednamespace-interface). Would anyone mind doing it for Persian? (here)

  • In progress → در حال انجام
  • Needs updating → نیازمند به‌روزرسانی
  • Updating → در حال به‌روزرسانی
  • Proofreading → در حال بازخوانی
  • Ready → آماده
  • Published → منتشرشده

Thanks in advance. AMERICOPHILE 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. In addition, the Norwegian interface messages for Bokmål (nb:) should also be added for no: which is the prefix for the Norwegian bokmål wiki.
  2. And also the German interface messages should also be added to the fallback languages de-ch, de-at and de-formal, cause that isn't done by default (don't know why that can't be done by default). The same should also be the case for nl and nl-informal and perhaps further fallback languages. Thank you in advance. --Geitost diskusjon 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
All Done now, just took me some time to understand this. -Barras (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Sehr schön, dann weißt du ja jetzt, wie's geht … :-) --Geitost diskusjon 01:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
@Americophile: You can now accept the Persian translations here. --Geitost diskusjon 01:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I accepted them. AMERICOPHILE 01:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record from the newest 1.19, MediaWiki uses nb: for Bokmål instead of no:, release notes say. I'm not sure if they quit to use no: completely. --Aphaia (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t read about this up to now, thanks for the information, I should read the news with the changes. I suppose they’ll do it as with other prefixes and use no: as redirect to nb: then in the future. I once read here on meta about another case with such a prefix redirect, don’t remember now which one that is. That was a case where two prefixes were used for one language, and I think they were merged then to one prefix with the other as redirect. --Geitost diskusjon 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I’ve found it again, that have been the Danish projects (WB, WP and Wiktionary), dk: is a prefix redirect to da: since then, so you can also use dk: instead of da:. --Geitost diskusjon 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:StewardVote/de

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
  1. The message MediaWiki:StewardVote/de should also be added at MediaWiki:StewardVote/de-at and MediaWiki:StewardVote/de-ch, but not for de-formal.
  2. The message MediaWiki:StewardVote/de-formal should get this text instead:
{"windowTitle" : "Abstimmen!",
"windowButton" : "Abstimmen",
"vote" : "Bitte wählen Sie Ihre Stimme aus:",
"pleaseSelectVote" : "Bitte wählen Sie Ihre Stimme aus!",
"confirmPossibleDouble" : "Es sieht so aus, als hätten Sie für diesen Kandidaten bereits eine Stimme abgeben! Sind Sie sicher, dass Sie weitermachen möchten? Markieren Sie vergangene Stimmabgaben bitte als solche!",
"editError" : "Fehler: Laden Sie die Seite bitte neu (F5) und versuchen es erneut.",
"comment" : "Kommentar (optional):",
"signatureAutoAdd" : "Ihre Signatur wird automatisch ergänzt.",
"yes" : "Ja",
"no" : "Nein",
"neutral" : "Neutral",
"closeButtonText" : "Schließen"}

--Geitost diskusjon 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alles erledigt. -Barras (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Danke schön. :-) --Geitost diskusjon 22:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Weißt du eigentlich auch, warum der Link in der CentralNotice nicht funzt, nicht mal in einer anderssprachigen Wikipedia (hab mal was ausgesucht, wo man die Notiz sicher noch nicht weggeklickt hat) ;-), wo das doch normal genauso gehen sollte und auf einer normalen Seite auch funzt (hab's extra noch mal getestet)? Gehen grundsätzlich gar keine Links in diesen Notizen? Auch das Kursive wird nicht dargestellt. Wie kommt das? --Geitost diskusjon 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keine Ahnung, ich habe sämtliche Kackbalken aller Art für mich auf allen Wikis ausgeschalten, mich hat das Gesicht von Jimbo irgendwann zusehr genervt. Sehe also gar keine SiteNotice/CentralNotice Sachen mehr. Keine Ahnung was da wo falsch ist. Gruß, -Barras (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Verständlich. ;-) Wie kommen denn überhaupt Links in solche Notizen, wenn sie doch nicht tun? *grübel* Muss man dann html verwenden oder darf das nur reiner Text sein in den Mitteilungen dieser Notizen?
Zurzeit steht dort leider „Die Stewardwahlen 2012 der ''[[:de:Wikimedia|Wikimedia Foundation]]'' haben begonnen.“, als hätte jemand nowiki drumherum geschrieben, kein Link, nix kursiv. Komischerweise kommt danach „Stimmen Sie bitte ab!“, dort geht der Link dann doch (ebenso bei „Ausblenden“ und „Helfen Sie mit bei der Übersetzung!“, auch da mit Links). Kapier ich nicht. Muss eine Spezialität dieser Notizen sein. Wenn das keiner fixen kann, geht's wohl leider gar nicht mit Link dort. --Geitost diskusjon 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Diese Seite hat auch gefehlt, weis nicht ob das was ausmacht. Eigentlich sollte es bei dem oberen gar keinen Link geben, da dieser entfernt wurde, siehe diese Seite. Ich habe die Seite mal gepurged, keine Ahnung ob das Hilft. -Barras (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, habe es jetzt gerade mal versucht und ich weiß nicht an was es liegt. Eventuell mal einen CentralNotice experten Fragen. Gruß, -Barras (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Wer mag denn das sein, so ein Experte (der Umherirrende?)? Ich hatte zuerst angenommen, dass es am fehlenden „w“ vor dem Doppelpunkt läge (für WP statt Meta oder so), aber dann müsste es ja zumindest in einem anderssprachigen Wiki zumindest funzen.
Außerdem gibt es überhaupt keinen Grund, warum man nicht mal was kursiv setzen können sollte.
MediaWiki:Centralnotice-stew2012 vote-vote-invitation/de-formal ist dann die Notiz dazu, da ist es noch kursiv gesetzt, wird aber nicht so angezeigt (dabei wäre es laut Duden kursiv oder in anderer Schriftart richtiger, da es sich um eine fremdsprachliche Wortgruppe zu einer kulturellen Einrichtung – insbesondere aus dem Englischen – handelt, die im deutschen Sprachraum nicht sonderlich gebräuchlich ist (wenn man von Wikipedianerinsidersprech mal absieht), dafür sind dann entweder ne andere Schriftart oder Anführungszeichen vorgesehen – ohne das ist es aber falsch geschrieben (da es ja nicht angepasst an die Rechtschreibung durchgekoppelt wird); dann bleiben nur die Anführungszeichen übrig, wenn kursiv nicht möglich ist, ist ja etwas blöd so). Außerdem wäre es schon besser, wenn sich der Leser zumindest weiter informieren könnte, was das überhaupt ist, diese „Wikimedia Foundation“, ohne dass man Foundation erst im Wörterbuch nachschlagen muss. --Geitost diskusjon 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jetzt hab ich danach noch mal rumgeguckt, sieht so aus, als ob dort tatsächlich html benötigt wird. Demnach ist dann die richtige Schreibweise, um

zu erhalten, diese: 

Die Stewardwahlen 2012 der <a href="//de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia">Wikimedia Foundation</a> haben begonnen.

Kannst es ja mal bei de-formal eintragen, dann dürfte der Link gefixt sein. Und wenn es dann richtig erscheint, auch bei den anderen Versionen. --Geitost diskusjon 02:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. Noch ne fehlende Seite: MediaWiki:Centralnotice-stew2012 noms-noms-url/de-at, da sollte derselbe Text rein wie in MediaWiki:Centralnotice-stew2012 noms-noms-url/de-ch. Hab ich ja auch noch nicht gesehen, dass es -ch gibt und -at nicht. ;-) Mal wieder was Neues.

(English) There should only be copied the link from the de-ch page and pasted also to the de-at page, cause Austrians shouldn't be led to the English guidelines page. Perhaps it should be looked for more fallback languages that haven't such a link page already. --Geitost diskusjon 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Eigentlich sollte es doch so sein, dass "de-xxx" nur dann ausgefüllt werden muss, wenn es sich von "de" inhaltlich unterscheidet, oder? Egal, habe MediaWiki:Centralnotice-stew2012_noms-noms-url/de-at erstellt. Den seltsamen Verlinkungsversuch in ab: habe ich zunächst auch noch gesehen, nachdem ich mich aber ein wenig durch Special:CentralNotice gewühlt hatte (ohne etwas zu ändern), war der dann irgendwann verschwunden. War wohl ein nicht "gepörtschter Käsch" oder so ... a×pdeHello! 08:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Na, du musst schon den Link (uselang=de-formal) auswählen, das ist zurzeit nur bei de-formal so. Wenn du de: als Standardsprache ausgewählt hast, ist der Link raus und die kursive Darstellung auch, die aber richtig wäre (analog zur Wortgruppe Carnegie Hall oder auch „Carnegie Hall“, das auch hervorgehoben werden soll, weil solche Wortgruppen nicht an die Rechtschreibung angepasst ist, sondern als Zitat wie im Original in engl. Schreibweise geschrieben werden. Also entweder mit HTML oder Anführungszeichen.
Zum Fallback-Thema: Wenn die Notiz abgeändert wurde auf der MediaWiki-Seite für de:, dann ist das ja nur lokal so. Für die Fallbacksprachen wird dann weiter der Standardinhalt genommen, der in der Sprachdatei der Fallbacksprache eingetragen ist; und wenn's die auch nicht gibt, wird – statt den lokalen, abgeänderten MediaWiki-Text für de: zu übernehmen – dann der Standardtext der Sprachdatei von de: (bzw. bei deren Nichtexistenz von en:) übernommen. Wenn es also keine solchen existenten Sprachdateien für die Meldung für die Fallbacksprache selbst oder für de: gibt, ist der Standard per Fallback in Englisch (Text der Originalversion) [deshalb ist diese Seite auch überflüssig, weil sie den Standardlink der en-Seite enthält, der eh per Fallback übernommen wird] und somit muss man dann die Seiten auch immer für die Fallbacksprachen einzeln anlegen (das wäre dann der zu fixende Bug dabei, dass die MediaWiki-Seite in de: Berücksichtigung findet vor der nicht abgeänderten de-Sprachdatei und vor der en-Version). Siehe auch Guilloms Diskussionsseite und der alte Bug von 2005 dazu, der wohl nie gefixt wird, warum auch immer.
Hab aber keinen Bugzilla-Account (und keine Lust auf öffentliches Posten einer E-Mail-Adressen dort). Das heißt, die einzelnen Seiten für die Fallbacksprachen müssen immer dann auch mit angelegt werden (am besten wäre dann wohl per {{int:message name}} statt den Text noch mal zu posten), wenn man den Standardinhalt für de: lokal abgeändert hat (und man die Änderung dann normal auch für die Fallbacksprachen übernehmen will) bzw. es keinen solchen Standardinhalt gab und man ihn neu anlegt, der Text also vorher in Englisch war (und er auch nicht im Translatewiki nach de: übersetzt werden kann – denn dabei würde Fallback nämlich funzen!). So hab ich's nun verstanden. Wenn man das anders haben will, müsste irgendwer mit Bugzilla-Account wohl einen neuen spezifischen Bug dazu erstellen – mag das mal jemand tun? --Geitost diskusjon 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, hab' den Text bei de-formal geändert, ist wohl nun auch übernommen. Gruß a×pdeHello! 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fehlende MediaWiki-Seiten

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
(English) Just add the three int-templates into the four red links below, it’s not difficult. :-) Then the German-speaking Swiss and Austrian people get German messages instead of English, and the people with informal Dutch get Dutch instead of English. Would be quite better to understand in the mother tongue. -Geitost diskusjon 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hab noch mehr fehlende MediaWiki-Seiten gefunden: Siehe [9] und [10], da steht „Hide“ statt „Ausblenden“. 

{{int:Centralnotice-shared-hide/de}}

eintragen (evtl. auch bei de-formal; falls der Text für de: mal wieder irgendwann abgeändert wird, dann würde er auch dort automatisch übernommen). 

{{int:Centralnotice-shared-hide/nl}}

eintragen, damit auch dort nicht mehr „Hide“ erscheint. 

{{int:Centralnotice-stew2012 noms-noms-url/nl}}

eintragen. Danke.

Irgendwann erstell ich mal ne Übersicht zu diesen ganzen MediaWiki-Seiten, damit man sofort sieht, was es gibt und was nicht. Oder gibt es so was schon irgendwo? Mag nicht doch mal irgendwer ne Bugmeldung erstellen? Das ist ja echt müßig auf die Dauer, dieses ständige 4-fache Anlegen der de-Seiten. --Geitost diskusjon 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Die Schweizer und Österreicher kriegen immer noch „Hide“ angezeigt statt „Ausblenden“ bei allen CentralNotices. Mag das nicht wer ändern? -Geitost diskusjon 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Die deutschen Dialekte bekommen auch englisch zu sehen, obwohl de fallback ist. Die Diskussion hatten wir leider vor zwei Jahren schonmal: w:de:WP:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia/Archiv/2009/Woche_05#de-at_und_de-ch. Aus der Feature-Anfrage dem Fallback-Path auch für projektspezifische Nachrichten zu folgen ist bisher leider nichts geworden. Merlissimo (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Warum kümmert sich denn darum eigentlich niemand? Und ist das wirklich dasselbe Problem wie Bugzilla:1495 ( da es ja als Duplikat markiert wurde)?
Kannst du die 4 obigen roten MediaWiki-Links bitte mal entsprechend bläuen und mit dem jeweiligen Text darunter befüllen, bitte (+ evtl. auch die de-formal-Seite entsprechend anpassen)? Das wartet darauf nun schon 5 Tage … Dann wäre das zumindest für diese Seiten erst mal wieder richtig. Die 2009er-Diskussion kannte ich noch gar nicht. Werd ich mir mal durchlesen. --Geitost diskusjon 20:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Jain. Wäre Bug 1495 erledigt, wäre auch Bug 17384 enthalten, insofern stimmt das mit dem Duplikat. Aber einen Patch für Bug 17384 wäre recht einfach, weil nur eine Funktion betroffen ist. Eine Lösung für das allgemeinere Problem bei Bug 1495 hingegen könnte aber viele weitere Komplikationen hervorbringen, weil man die Auswirkungen nicht so leicht überschauen kann. Das ist vermutlich auch der Grund, warum sich um den älteren Bug niemand kümmert. Ich fand die Duplikat-Markierung deshalb auch unglücklich. Merlissimo (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Vielleicht könnte jemand mit Bugzilla-Account das irgendwie rückgängig machen, damit es gesondert behandelt wird? Ich denke ja auch, dass das nicht so schwierig sein dürfte und dass der andere Bug wohl eher nicht mal eben so angegangen wird. --Geitost diskusjon 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it helps to make a new section for that and place the English text above. It’s not very difficult, but there’s still this „Hide“ shown on all German pages for Swiss and Austrian people. :-( Should really be German instead of English. --Geitost diskusjon 19:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope pages

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not so sure what to do with the contributions of Bidsar. Delete it as out of scope pages or not? Trijnstel (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

At least Tell us about Rajasthani Wikipedia seems to be in scope. Raj:Rajasthani Language looks like a copypaste from Wikipedia and should probably be deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Tell us about Rajasthani Wikipedia is a copypaste of Tell us about Hindi Wikipedia ... even with exactly the same answers (see the sig!) Trijnstel (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that the page in concern has got no further edit since then, I speedied it as G1, mere test. I put a note on his or her talk to encourage a restart of proper content. --Aphaia (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Something isn't working anymore. The link to newbie contributions Special:Contributions/newbies now goes to a list of contributions for a user called Newbies as opposed to a list of edits by new accounts. Reckon you have an upgrade bug (same problem is occurring on en.wb QU TalkQu 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Works with fullurl...it's an annoying bug which also affects special:listusers! --Vituzzu (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Reported as 34659 for /newbies at Bugzilla. QU TalkQu 23:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/newbies works perfectly for me ... a×pdeHello! 11:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The bug was "fixed".Savhñ 11:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse log

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This has not been functioning for maybe 6 hours or so? I know there have been events that should have been logged in it - anyone know anything? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for another RfC closure

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Specifically for Requests for comment/Russian Arbcom obliges an user to report his sockpuppets to arbitrators. It has been made here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha you scared me there, thought it was a request for another closure of the Gwen Gale RfC :D Snowolf How can I help? 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Niet (ru: нет). ;) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Listen, RFC page is watched by Meta sysops. It is about time for you to stop running as a mad man from one drama board to another drama board and stop hounding my contributions across wikis. Even English wiki sysops are telling to you they have got quite enough of you. Find something else to do D= How about editing an article for a change? On the other hand your behavior and the behavior of user:Beeblebrox I discussed just above is the best demonstration of what kind of users voted to support my ban. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Who is doing the hounding in this thread? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you both please move this off-topic discussion to either of your talk pages? Thanks. -Barras talk 22:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Comment I graciously invite the disputants to use my talk page as neutral ground. More seriously, perhaps a meta RfC(regarding the improprieties of events on meta beginning 02:21, 11 February 2012 when an instigating topic was created at WP:ANI, concluding with the super-close of RfC/Gwen Gale on meta) is the appropriate location for such discussion.(I think the number of editors to be discussed is less than a dozen, but have not completed analysis at this time.)

(Although, on second thought, I'm not sure how an RfC could deal with this; It's the kind of thing that would be handled at ArbCom on en.wikipedia. Perhaps this is the moment to design a structure for meta that could handle this kind of thing. Perhaps.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Uncyclopedia

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Uncyclopedia - another account of the Selena Gomez fan to block.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We know ^^ --Vituzzu (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WizardOfOz

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

I´m requesting reinstalling of my sysop and ´crat flag here, preventive removed by my self to have no ability to overreact in an overheated discussion. After the discussion is closed, and I had enough time to calm down, think that I could go on with my work as done before. Thanks. --WizardOfOz talk 17:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stand for a new RfA. The nature of your departure precludes you from simply requesting the flags back non-controversially. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As you were one of the reasons I removed my flags, I would like to hear a response from another ´crat uninvolved in whole matter, but have no problem to run through an RfA again. --WizardOfOz talk 17:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not involved in the matter but I am in agreement with PeterSymonds, returning your flags is a controversial issue and as such you will need to re-request at RfA. The Helpful One 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
e/c Clarification Peter is not a metawiki 'crat. Snowolf How can I help? 17:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thought he is. Therefor the answer. --WizardOfOz talk 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I have no problem with that, but would also like to hear uninvolved ´crat beside PeterSysmonds who was one of the reasons and Barras who closed the whole issue. --WizardOfOz talk 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved bystander opinion: in principle, I agree that returning a flag which was self-deprived sounds like a reasonable idea. However, I'd suggest an RfA for 2 reasons: First, we all may benefit from community's confirmations from time to time. Second, if self-removal of rights would automatically allow their renewal later, admins undergoing scrutiny and imminent flag removal could preemptively remove the flag themselves, only to get it back a couple of months later without a vote. Naturally, I'm not saying that this is your case, but just pointing to the procedural problem. Pundit (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
+1 agreeing with Peter, though not a crat. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, three uninvolved is more than enough for me. --WizardOfOz talk 17:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was about to chime in, but glad to know it is clear now. es:Magister Mathematicae 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment A review of the (I assert: improprieties of) the events of 11-23 Feb 2012 is a more appropriate context than an RfA for determining the appropriate status of WizardOfOz. (Perhaps he should be given an Oscar bit. Or, honorary steward.:-) Although I do not know what format such a review should take. (See 2nd paragraph of my earlier comment higher up the page.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2012-02&oldid=22557338"