Meta talk:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

Cut-and-paste transwikiing may be a GFDL violation

"Import is currently enabled only from foundation wiki and the English Wikipedia. From other wikis, you need copy & paste your materials by hand." Well, despite what it says in this project page, I would like to say that English Wikiquote is talking about possible GFDL violations when importing is disabled. I hope that this is properly addressed while affecting so many Wiki sites as well.--Jusjih 16:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as you copy the history of the page as well (which is and should be understood), it is not a GFDL violation. Cbrown1023 talk 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand copying the history of the page to attributes editors' usernames. However, the method in your answer would not allow non-administrators to see what exactly was changed if the original versions have been deleted. Thanks for your answer and I will pass it to all relevant Wiki sites where I administer.--Jusjih 13:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as GFDL goes, it doesn't matter, a record of authors is required, but attribution of each line/word of the collaborative work is not required. xaosflux ^Talk 06:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WHERE IS MY FACEBOOK LINK????

For the past week, every time I click on the link to go to FACEBOOK, I get a message that "wiki does not exist". E BEEN USING FACEBOOK DOES EXIST and I have been using that link for months. Now all of a sudden the FACEBOOK link brings me to you guys? Please fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.157.207 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

I don't know exactly what you means. What link doesn't work anymore and where can that link be found (which page on which wiki)? Regards, Trijnstel 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

It is very difficult to follow anything as the page is overly long and discussion on some cases are... well very long. I propose a split of the current "request for help" structure to two. One for obvious cases like vandalism where discussion shouldn't reach a paragraph and one more detailed structure for more lengthy discussions in a manner that resembles afd or com:del with sub pages for individual "cases". The main problem is following a specific debate is just very difficult at the moment. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 05:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it makes some kind of sense - but I'd rather have the text "Help requested here shouldn't require a lengthy discussion and the expected sysop or bureaucrat action should be for obvious cases such as the update of mediawiki pages or dealing with disruption (vandalism, spam etc)." on top of the page. There should, IMO, be no lenghty discussions here - controversial requests should be sorted through RfC and such. Finn Rindahl 19:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ehm. I've reverted this change. Where's the consensus? Where's the need? One or two discussions per year is not a reason to split this page and annoy us with watching more pages, breaking archiving bots and so on. If the discussion is long, probably it's a sign that it does not belong to this board. -- Marco Aurelio 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Marco, absolutely no need for this. I don't need to watch more pages. This page is normally a low traffic page (just not right now, things will be calmer soon anyway). Please don't make things more complex than needed and don't make changes for the sake of changes. -Barras 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not agreed either per what was said above... though this proposal was worth to remind us that this page should not be used for long discussions, polls, request for comments. This page should be used on clear situations or 'after' we have achieved a consensus; not 'before'.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What could be done then, is to quickly close unclear requests, either moving them immediately or suggesting where they should go, or, for an unclear situation, any neutral admin could "accept" a "case," and then invite and allow discussion on their talk page, making a decision only after some substantial opportunity for comment. Because that doesn't happen, users with opinions on a raised issue are certainly going to comment here, even piling in, creating the mess. Look at the development of the Abigor unblock request (permanent link to what existed prior to my first comment in it). I was familiar with the case, having investigated during the original block (which I'd ultimately supported). Given that the discussion was happening there, and no admin had acted in any way other than to discuss, what would, then, have been appropriate? Fast close (which could have been misleading at that point)? Moving it to the RfC, perhaps, as was eventually done? But a Talk page for a closed RfC? What would that lead to?

How is a user to obtain the suggested "clear situation"? How do we achieve a consensus? Discussions on obscure pages won't reach much in the way of consensus! (It can be a start, though.)

I am suggesting a fast close without immediate decision. I.e., a neutral administrator takes the case and closes it pending investigation, requesting comment on their talk page, or elsewhere, such as the RfC Talk. If the community consents, this could be done by any experienced and neutral user, who would report back after investigation, requesting action based on the discussion. --Abd 16:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Global sysop action request

I see this page is meant to request help from a sysop or bureaucrat for Meta. But there isn't any place where we can ask a global sysop to perform a minor action like moving or editing a protected page on a Wiki where there isn't any local admin nor bureaucrat. I think there should be a place where a contributor could ask for that. Personnaly, I always end up asking on the IRC for that, but it shouldn't be like that in my opinion. Amqui (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global sysops would be the appropiate place absent a GS noticeboard, which I find not needed. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Would there be a way to make it more clear and apparent on Steward requests and pages alike ? So, a lambda user don't have to search a long time for nothing for a little easy request. Amqui (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have re-open that topic there: Talk:Global sysops#Request to global sysops' page. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global sysops is not the appropriate place for that in its current state, since this page is to discuss the policies and rights of global admins and not to request something. In my opinion, there should be a section on Meta:Requests and proposals to request simple admin action on a wiki project without active admins. Pretty much the same as Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat is for Meta, but extended to all wikis without their own admins. There is Steward requests/Permissions and some others alike, but nothing to request help from a steward (or global sysop) for admin actions on the project itself. Amqui (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use Steward requests/Miscellaneous for this type of request. Thanks, πr² (t • c) 23:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)