Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2015-01

Some backlog at Meta:Requests for deletion

Hi. Can anybody please close some RFDs that are more than a week old? (In the Pages and Templates section) Thanks! -- M\A 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. — Revi 13:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikimetrics category renaming request

I don't know why Category:Wikipedia training Wiki Metrics is protected, but it should be renamed to Category:Wikipedia training wiki Metrics according to this edition. JackPotte (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not protected, but the page is marked for translation, so maybe it can only be moved by translation admins. I tried to, but got an error message which said something about that the page is marked for translation and bla bla. Does that edit actually make sense? Why should "Wiki Metrics" be written "wiki Metrics"? --MF-W 01:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RFD on unfree bid files

Hi. On 30 April 2013 I started a deletion request concerning a set of unfree files at Meta. This generated some discussion and since some users started drafting an Meta:Exemption doctrine policy to comply with wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, Trijnstel did well in holding the RFD until the development of such a policy would finish. As of today, however, both discussions are frozen; and my attempts to move forward that discussion have been futile. It is my humble opinion that no discussion like these can be opened forever, and that RFD has been opened for long enough. Absent community consensus in a reasonable time frame the result of that should default to rejected as inactive. In that case, it's clearly a lack of community interest I am afraid. Likewise I think that the result of the RFD should default to delete. Please share your thoughts on what should be appropriate. Best regards. -- M\A 13:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As we can undelete them when EDP is set up, I'd say delete. — Revi 13:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We can always undelete, but imho it's more constructive when we have an EDP. Can't we open an RFC and have the community vote? Trijnstel_talk 15:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: I agree that it is possible to undelete later, but if such an EDP is approved later then we will need to double-work restoring files, so I am willing to give it another try, but we should fix a time of discussion (lets say, 1 month?). Questions would be if Meta does need an EDP and if the answer is "yes", then we should move to discussing the specific policy text. I am not good in drafting RFCs but I have created our local place Meta:Requests for comment for discussing local issues and not mix with "global" ones. I can understand this might be boring or complicated, but IMHO this situation should be unblocked :-) Best regards. -- M\A 12:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say delete too, because IMHO {{unfree bid media}} will not even comply with fair use guidelines. The purpose of the template looks like a "I don't know what the status of the image is, the license or the source, but I'm uploading it here anywhere". Fair use requires explicit identification and a rationale for each page where it's used. -- M\A 11:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

massmessage for inactive bots review in Russian Wikipedia

See also prior year request - link. I updated the message to be sent this year - User:Rubin16/message. The list of pages where message should be sent was also updated - User:Rubin16/list. It was created in the same way as in 2014, messages for ru.wiki users will be sent by myself via local MassMessage rubin16 (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sent. I created section header by myself. — Revi 10:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks a lot rubin16 (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with publishing translations

As translations for the SE banners have started it'd be useful if sysops help with reviewing and publishing them. I've already published some. [1] [2] Thanks, --Glaisher (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for page protection

How do I ask for semi-protection on this page? Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject Women. Lightbreather (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Here. What is the reason for the request? --MF-W 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If you go to the page and look at its history you'll see vandalism, and I think it's likely to get worse, since there appears to be an opposition campaign going on at reddit:

• /r/MensRights
• /r/WikiInAction (a GamerGate affiliated subreddit)

Lightbreather (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Where's the vandalism? Lightbreather, you should know better than anyone that vandalism is undisputable, yet you've demonstrated no diffs, no evidence of said vandalism. Vandalism is not 'active opposition votes', vandalism is vandalism. Additionally, just because the fact that outside entities are trying to influence the discussion does not make the opposition !votes dismissable. Tutelary (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism from today:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Done semi-protected for for 1 week. Glaisher (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm against this protection, Grant pages should be able to be edited by everybody, usually people/organization unaffiliated with Wikimedia make an edit on grant Pages so they can communicate. This is going against the usual procedure.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there wasn't very much vandalism before the protection indeed. But one week is also only a short duration. --MF-W 17:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin activity review for 2015, not 2014

All subpages and translatable monsters should be 2015 instead of 2014. One must be an advanced right holder to do that. --Pxos (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why? Vogone (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, you ask for a reason and promptly start to move the pages back to 2014. Well, the review of 2013 took 2 years and consisted the reviewing and rights changes during 2013 and 2014. The next review has started on 2015 and it has nothing to do with the year 2014. That's why. --Pxos (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is now a page titled 2014 that has dates in format "13 Jan". So they are perhaps January 2014? The year 2014 is misleading and the actions of Vogone are plainly arrogant and condescending. The review takes places in 2015 and if it runs for two years, perhaps the review that will take place in the year 2017 will be named the "review of 2015". --Pxos (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The policy requires a yearly review, AAR2014 still needs to be done as there was no time for it back in 2014. If we call all pages AAR2015 now, how should we call the review of 2015 then? AAR2015-2? Vogone (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the policy can require anything it likes but when it is obvious that the first review took 2 years to complete, the next review takes place in 2015. I thing there is no reason to try to "catch up" with some kind of a forced schedule with this. The next review can very well happen in 2016. But whatever. I have already been accused of an "abusive move-warring" so perhaps I should just yield to the man and go away. --Pxos (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I do not expect a further review to happen in 2015; there will just be this one. In 2014 no new round was started because we were still busy with that one of 2013. It is maybe deplorable that there could not be a new "annual review" in 2014, but that's how it happened. --MF-W 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me and additionally move all the subpages too, as initially requested by Pxos. Though, I don't think this round of AAR can be expected to take nearly as long as the 2013 one, as way less users are going to be affected by the process. Thus, I would have thought it may be possible to run two rounds of it within this year, the latter one starting in the end of 2015 and being called AAR2015. I still believe there is no problem with this round of AAR being called 2014's AAR, but if you think otherwise, there's nothing I could do against. Regards, Vogone (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the general laziness (tm) of stewards will prevent two rounds from happening this year. However, there is no problem with having an AAR 2015-1 and 2015-2, as the policy itself gives the possibility to do the review anually or semiannually. --MF-W 20:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(saved after an edit conflict) This is not the place to discuss the schedule, but here are my thoughts. The round of 2013/2014 was the most important round as the rights of many users that had been inactive for several years (e.g. last activity was recorded in 2006) were finally removed. I don't see any point in making this semi-annual (twice a year) event just to hunt down those poor bastards who just qualify for the 2-year criterion. It is sufficient to check every year, perhaps starting in January, for those who have been inactive during the previous two (calendar) years. I'm not a qualified user to take part in the reviewing process but if I were, I just coudn't be bothered to perform two reviews a year. The benefits of that would be negligible as opposed to the amount of work in compiling the data and removing the odd right from a couple of administrators. --Pxos (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

When activity is reviewed starting from November 2012 and ending in December 2014, and the process takes place in 2015 starting in January 2015 and perhaps ending in April or May 2015, the process should then be called the review of 2014? The reasoning is of course there but this does not mean that it it reasonable. --Pxos (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving that many subpages should not be done without a good reason; it makes a complete mess. I think the pages should stay where they are right now (and I haven't looked as to where they actually are right now). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Rschen7754 02:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

When there is the page called Data/2014 and you use the dates 9 Jan / 13 Jan, do you think that people will understand that the dates don't mean January 2014 but they refer to January 2015 instead. When a single steward understand that 2014 means 2015 that's fine but when the pages are browsed in the future, this might be a problem. It is fairly simple to move 20 subpages but not a hundred. Time is on your side on this. --Pxos (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You could say the same about the 2013 pages... plus, the page history. I'm sorry, but there are much more productive ways to use the time we're having to have this discussion. --Rschen7754 05:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. This is the second time a steward has said to me that my concerns are irrelevant and I am basically wasting their time as well as mine. I can understand that stewards are busy dealing with developing new antibiotics or orchestrating peace talks in North Korea, but I have come here with real, albeit petty concerns. If you disagree with me it usually is enough to say so. It's great that there is a consensus on this matter and the pages stay as they are so I can bugger off. I shall try to cook up a more pressing issue next time. Signing off. --Pxos (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually do not agree with the pages having the year 2014 in their titles. --MF-W 17:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My comments were directed at multiple people. --Rschen7754 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New banner

Hi. Wikimedia Spain is currently organizing an editathon that will took place in Madrid on January 24th. To ensure a maximum number of attendees we would appreciate a banner to publicise the event among Wikipedia users. I have a design for the banner here. The campaign details are:

• link: es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuentros/Editatón_Europeana_Fashion
• dates: 18th -24th January.
• logged-in and anonymous users.
• destined for Spanish users only. To be shown in all projects in Spanish language (es.*)
• text1: Si te interesa la moda participa en el Editatón Europeana Fashion.
• text2: Te esperamos el 24 de enero en Madrid.

Thanks in advance. Montgomery (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking care of this. -- M\A 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the steward noms banners are up during this time so it won't appear unless the settings are made correctly. --Glaisher (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montgomery: Vogone and me worked on this and we think everything has been set up. Regards, -- M\A 19:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Usman Khan Shah

Usman has been blocked on English Wikivoyage due to his continued disruptive behaviour and now he's removing comments here. --Saqib (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've left the user a warning, something that should have been done earlier. If they continue to disruptively remove content please re-report them here. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That was fine. Hope things are calm down now. --Saqib (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

block Mebel Jati kayu

Apparently Mebel Jati kayu would like a block. --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Blocked for a month. A month will be enough, I think. If he continues after expires, I'll indef him. — Revi 04:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

danke! --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@-revi: Mebel Jati Kayu means Wood furniture seller, it should be indef blocked for spam only account.(just a suggestion)--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Block for spam-only account User:Tapqlbe

Looks like our typical flavor of cross-wiki spambot. Recommend an indefblock per their user contributions. --Az1568 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done - Who can I block next? :D --Stemoc 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rights query

I dropped off the radar due to some life issues about 18 months ago and have now found myself back here and watching RC (always my addiction) a bit. Looking at a revert yesterday I realised that rollback is more than a little useful & having been granted that right again on Commons asked around - the response made me wonder and I see no harm in posting here.

I'm quite happy if local 'crats see this as not appropriate or indeed wish to leave this posting here for a while. I fully respect the small but active community here on Meta and have no wish at all to create problems. I will not be as active as I was however I'll probably be more active that some I guess and I have no plans to quit the project at present so I'd be interested to know if admin rights could be returned to me or not. I think I was pretty competent with the admin buttons in the past and nothing substantial seems to have changed while I've been away. The answer "no" will not upset me and I'll happily answer any questions that 'crats or the community have. Thanks for your time --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than strongly in favor of granting you the bits back! You haven't left under a cloud and so I see no reason to not grant you the right back. Welcome back to the projects, btw! (Not granting the rights right away, I will wait for me input since it's been quite some time) -Barras talk 13:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to grant your sysop bit back here on meta, since you left uncontroversially and I can fully understand how can people benefit from a pause. Please allow me to do later this afternoon, just in case some fellow admin/bureaucrat has something to say about that. --M/ (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both - kind words appreciated and good to see some long term friends still around. I have no problem with waiting a while - I see no need to create problems - they come along without any help! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have  Support with giving you your admin rights back. Per Barras and M7, and it's been an old custom local practice to restore rights from users leaving in good standing at Meta, plus Herby is trusworthy. Welcome back. -- M\A 13:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done

--M/ (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• There may be no policy on meta, but on many projects having retired for over a year is good reason to expect a reconfirmation process. @Herbythyme: would you be prepared to do this as a gesture of good will and to assure everyone that you have the full support of the community for your work? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously intent on pursuing me across projects Fae. This appears to have been closed with the support of a number of 'crats so I see little point in worrying about it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer here, even though you have not opted for wider questions from the community to ensure transparency about events at the time of your retirement, and to hopefully demonstrate the support you have. --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat happy that meta isn't any of those many projects. The right has been granted and there is no apparent reason to have now a re-election. He's not the first person to get his tools back after a break longer than one year. This decision is on meta part of the bureaucrats discretion. Please don't try to turn meta needless into one of those many projects with needless bureaucracy. Thanks, -Barras talk 12:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ymblanter is making threats on wiki en

ymblanter is making threats on wiki en— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.101.131 (talk)

This is not a case for Meta admins. -- Tegel _(Talk) 10:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This complainant has had this answered on multiple occasions, and has been pointed to enWP for all resolutions. Please revert further edits here and especially on SRG where they are now approaching vandalism.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to reinstate mass-message rights

In my work on the Grants:IEG/Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing I have used mass-messaging to get messages out about the project. As part of a larger outreach effort I sent a mass-message that unfortunately found its way to certain users several times on different Wikipedias. I will oversee all my protocols to make sure this or anything similar does not occur again. CFCF (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Currently  Oppose: See User talk:CFCF#MassMessage rights Amir (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• I guess the user learned his lesson and similar actions won't be done again. I do not object to re-granting. A link to the talk page discussion in the request would have been nice though. --MF-W 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose from reading that discussion I'm seeing a number of things that indicate that the user does not know what they are doing. --Rschen7754 03:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC) --Rschen7754 03:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate, also consider "that user" is the one who made this request. CFCF (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose too. Only after he make a valid massmessage request here for few times. (Example by other user) — Revi 06:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose unless and until the user can demonstrate, per Revi, that (s)he can properly use the extension.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless if you believe I should submit requests for the time being, you can see that previous newsletters have been sent without incident. CFCF (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please answer me in your talk page. I want to clean up the mess you made and you're not cooperating. Amir (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)