Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat Archives (current)→
Meta has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of an administrator or bureaucrat for some particular task, it is not always easy to find one. This page helps users find one when they need one; asking specific admins directly via their talk pages is one way to elicit a fast response. See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Identification noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Please find answered requests in the archives (this month).


Grants:Learning patterns/Improving your building photography marked for translation[edit]

Hi. Can a translation administrator mark this page for translation? I want to make sure this translation is done by Sept 1st, when WLM begins. THanks!--Strainu (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Glaisher (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Flag removal request[edit]

I would like a local bureaucrat to please remove my account from the massmessage-sender and translationadmin user groups here on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! odder (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Matanya (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)`

Request for CentralNotice banner[edit]

Hi all! I would some help to create a Central Notice banner for the w:es:Wikipedia:Encuentros/I_Encuentro_de_Wikipedistas_Bahía_Blanca planned by Wikimedia Argentina in Bahía Blanca next 26th of August.The banner should be based on the design available here The campaign that we want to try is the following:

  • Campaign
    • link://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuentros/I_Encuentro_de_Wikipedistas_Bah%C3%ADa_Blanca
    • from August 20th to August 26th
    • logged-in and anonymous users
    • only in Argentina, only in Spanish projects
    • Text1:¡Vení al I Encuentro de Wikipedistas en Bahía Blanca el próximo 26 de Agosto!
    • Text2:¡Te invitamos también, a participar en el primer editatón en Bahía Blanca el 27 de Agosto!

Thanks a lot--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Torres (WMAR): I created a campaign and a banner (preview). Could you check the settings and the banner before it is enabled? Thanks! (P.S. Please add new posts to the bottom of the page. I had to move this section.) --Glaisher (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Glaisher: Thank you so much. Just a few thing to point: the meeting time will go from 21:00pm to 23:00 pm- dinner time- as before we are holding a conference. The banner is just perfect!! Thanks you so much!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Enabled. --Glaisher (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for massmessage right[edit]

Hi, I requested a few months ago the right massmessage for Wiki Loves Earth in the Netherlands. At that time, I requested it for just 2 months because WLE ran just two months (until late June). Now I'd like to request this right again indefinitely, because I'd like to send mass message about the overarching project "Natuur" of WMNL, which Wiki Loves Earth belonged to. Those messages will be sent to the village pumps of several Dutch projects. Thank you. JurgenNL (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please let us know if you want them removed again. — TBloemink talk 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this right due to the message that was sent out crosswiki about a petition against a decision of WMF. Rights granted are expected to be used within the scope of the application. If you wish to reapply, please restate the scope of your mass messages, and how you will maintain yourself to the applied scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What a shameful act of political reprisal. odder (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is "political reprisal". I strongly believe Billinghurst would have removed this right in any case if abused, not just because it was related to this change.org petition, and I also don't see why Billinghurst should have a need for "reprisal". Vogone (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have witnessed Billinghurst not remove this user right from Wikimedia Foundation employees who abused it to promote their point of view regarding the Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo initiative and the MP4 RfC on Commons. To see this user right immediately removed from a volunteer who used it to promote a community initiative opposed to the WMF is just a blatant act of political reprisal and double standards. odder (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I refute your allegations, they are without basis of fact. I have not been involved in any of those campaigns, either at the moment with regard to superprotect, nor those others that you mention, nor can you demonstrate that I have knowledge or awareness of that (mis|ab)use of the tool. It is pretty disgraceful that someone of your reputation will stoop to unsubstantiated allegations where an administrator acts against someone's out of scope use of a tool. Is an apology of out the question?
The user was invited to reapply for the rights when they were able to state the scope of their use, and their limiting their use within that scope. If they want to state they are going to use the massmessage right for political messages, then the right can be assessed on that merit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I think Billinghurst acted appropriately and wisely. Odder, I think that you've been caught up at bit too much in this regrettable mess and perhaps that has clouded your judgement, as Billinghurst has done nothing more than any Meta administrator would, regardless of their personal feeling on the superprotect mess. I would advise that you withdraw the needlessly inflammatory and unfair statement directed at Billinghurst. Snowolf How can I help? 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with Billinghurst's decision, and I know at least one other Meta admin on IRC was concerned with Jurgen's recent MassMessage. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
MassMessage when used globally needs to be done so with great care. Some wikis have already threatened to block the account that it sends on, because of perceived overuse. (Some communities did block EdwardsBot, too, and they were generally out of the loop when it came to important notices from WMF or stewards or other global parties). Thus, I think that we should act conservatively when we send out messages with it. --Rschen7754 01:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there evidence some recipient considered the message inappropriate? But Billinghurst "only" asked Jurgen to reapply for the right with a clearer/broader scope (though I can't say whether there is a precedent for this either), so we should probably only discuss of appropriateness when Jurgen does so. --Nemo 08:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
[1]. (For what it's worth, they didn't have very great ideas about the WMF post that followed either: [2]). --Rschen7754 13:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@billinghurst: It is a fact that you (be it a singular you or a plural you referring to all Meta-Wiki administrators, whichever you prefer) did not remove access to the mass message tool (and EdwardsBot at one time) from Wikimedia Foundation employees when they abused it to promote their point of view regarding those two situations that I described above. It is also a fact that you personally immediately removed access to the tool from a volunteer who did the same — so don't you tell me my allegations have no basis in facts. And I strongly suggest that you stop using argumentum ad verecundiam in your posts — I can also say that to see a person of your reputation apply different standards to different people in very similar situations is disgraceful. See — it works both ways. odder (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You started with the accusation of reprisal. Then that was changed to you supposedly witnessed me not remove rights. Now as others did not do something, I get the blame for acting on this specific matter, and you find me guilty by association. Really? That is the level of your argument? Okay then, if uttering an apology for your personal attack is too much for you to undertake, then how about a retraction of the attack and the accusations?

And to your latest little snipe, that I am applying different standards to different people. I saw JurgenNL's post, I checked the application for rights here, and the post that was made was out of scope for the application (read up) and for that it is entirely appropriate that the right is rescinded, that is not disgraceful that is appropriate. Then meta administrators who assign this right, and the community can fairly have the opportunity to assess the next application. I am interested that you have not addressed the specific out of scope use, and instead you come attacking me, where I have restricted nothing, and reverted no posts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Any partisan messages ought to be considered spam, perhaps that needs to be made clearer to everyone, regardless of whether they are unpaid volunteers or Foundation employees. I suggest anyone who has used the tool in this way, is denied access for at least a year. Frankly, we ought to be asking to see a formal project page to reference, and community consensus or a credible open peer review process for specific mass messages before any are sent out. -- (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting massmessage rights[edit]

made a comment that pretty well reflects comments made at my home wiki, and that have also been made above by another steward. On reflecting on this matter today, I would like to see massmessage have a greater level of fine tuning available in its rights application. There was also a comment about the number and content of messages coming through. The WMF generated message bot has been in play for somewhere for one or two years (at a guess) and it seems reasonable to review where we are and what we are doing, and how we are doing it, since EdwardsBot is not in the game, and the imprimatur of the more official (less unofficial?) messages is now different.

Here I am thinking that while we keep the global right that there is ability to have selective rights, ie. based on a language, and based on a sister series of wikis; and for meta. Here I was thinking radio buttons for global/language (drop down list for each language)/sister (drop down list for each)/none, then a check box for meta, so that right can be applied independently which is an issue where we cannot restrict to this wiki alone.

I also think that we need to improve the nomination process, so that there is a more accurate description of scope, and frequency, along with the community thinking of better guidance of what is acceptable to be sending. There is not much of a review process of sent mail, and the log doesn't even show a record of what was sent just where, which makes accountability difficult (also discussed above). So I would like to see a retained record of the outbound message.

Would people support a review through a RFC?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Support A RFC is a healthy way to go, maybe folks will come up with some smart and effective options. -- (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
sDrewth: Not sure about what you meant at the end of the post. A record of the outbound message is present on pages where the message was sent. You could check the applicable oldid of the recipients' list at the log and then search for the section header/subject on pages where the message was sent. Could you clarify? --Glaisher (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hunting hunting hunting for a message, especially a historical message is not logging. We should log what was sent, and it should be available at the source, not chasing down targets. The message is compiled at meta, it should be logged at meta and be directly clickable from the log.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Legoktm: Regardless, I was thinking about setting up different lists for Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Wikipedia, etc. so that we don't have to generate a list each time. Also, when performing AAR, I noticed that there were several wikis not on global message delivery. In regards to the nomination process, Support Support. --Rschen7754 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really understand a lot of what's being discussed here. I'd encourage everyone to read (err, skim) MassMessage. It lays out why a nomination process and other bureaucracy probably doesn't make much sense.
Regarding Special:Log/massmessage not including a link to the message that was sent out (or rather, regarding the fact that it's currently difficult to figure out what message was sent out without a bit of digging), we probably need to brainstorm technical solutions to that problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Fully understand the warning at massmessage, though it is not being sent as the user, it is the bot and the system that is getting the trash talk. It is also a significant effort to set up hundreds of messages to hundreds of wikis, and they run the risk of their actions, at the moment there is next to no consequences and it is too easy to misused.

Re logging, I would be comfortable if we post the message to the sender's talk page and recall it as an edit id.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this thread. As I see it, you've identified at least two real pain points with the current MassMessage implementation and I appreciate you starting a discussion about them. I personally don't see a need for a requests for comment currently.
The first pain point is that User:MediaWiki message delivery is currently used instead of the sender's user account. This is now tracked at bugzilla:69954.
The second pain point is about identifying the message content of a particular message delivery. This is now tracked at bugzilla:69953.
Are there additional issues you or others are seeing with MassMessage? I think (I hope) once both of these bugs are resolved/fixed, the issues put forward so far will be fully remedied. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts are that we could look to assign permissions per language family, or per sister family, though I can see that maybe that can be quite restrictive for some newsletters. It is the issue between those who sign up for newsletters, we don't wish to restrict, but there are some push messages that should be kept within the scope of the rights for which that the sender applied. If the above changes are likely to take place, it may be that we let them settle and how effective they may be, and while administrative controls are not that an effective control, we may look to boost those in our armoury.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If you just open a bunch of browser tabs, you can trivially post to dozens of wikis within a few minutes, without needing to even log in. When we talk about restricting access, by wiki family or by wiki language or whatever else, it feels strange to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation User groups[edit]

Please mark this for translation. Thank you. --Winternacht (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Vogone (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Steward requests/Username changes[edit]

We need a bot to archive requests in this page...--GZWDer (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

QuentinvBot used to do the archiving regularly but it's not active anymore and Quentinv57 has been inactive since April. --Glaisher (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
See SN#Getting auto-archiving on stewards' pages. --Glaisher (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for banner[edit]

Hi. The city of Oviedo (Spain) will be held during the next month a meetings and various activities to celebrate the 10 years of Uiquipedia, the Wikipedia in Asturian language. The organization is being done by users of Uiquipedia and it's supported by Wikimedia España (WMES). We need a campaign in CentalNotice to show a banner in order to promote maximum participation in the event. I have a draft banner here (It should be checked, the code might contain errors and I'd like to see a preview). The details of the campaign are as follow:

  • link: //ast.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uiquipedia:Alcuentros/Celebración_del_10u_Aniversariu
  • dates: from September 2nd to September 13th, both included.
  • logged-in and anonymous users.
  • Worldwide, all projects in Asturian language (ast:*)
  • text1: Wikipedia n'asturianu celebra'l so 10u aniversariu,
  • text2: axúntate a les actividaes que tendrán llugar n'Uviéu'l 12 y 13 de setiembre.

I make this request on behalf of ast.Wikipedia community (see the discussion page) and as board member of WMES. Thanks in advance. Montgomery (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Montgomery: I've added it to the CN Calendar and created a campaign and a banner (preview). I also made some changes to the actual banner. Height of the banner is 66px instead of 160px. Height/width of the logo is 50px instead of 150px. These changes were made because having a banner and an image of that size takes up too much space. No boldfaced text in text1 because the text is already in bold so it is ugly when the text is extra-bold. Unrelated to this post but for some reason CN is failing to "expand" {{{banner}}} and the css is broeken when used in the ids. Has anyone else encountered this issue? [3] --Glaisher (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes and fixes. I was not sure about the height of the logo. Indeed, 150px would have been too big. Montgomery (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Montgomery: So it can be enabled now? --Glaisher (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Enabled. Found the error, thanks to Pcoombe. The CSS was broken because the banner name started with a digit and the resulting id name also started with a digit. --Glaisher (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Request review of questionable block[edit]

Beeblebrox's conversation moved to User talk:M7 as the courtesy would be be to await a response before escalating, and as there is conversation there already.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)