Difference between revisions of "Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat"

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
:::::My objections and proposal have been presented above. There is no need for more bureaucracy. What we need is for you to make the changes. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 
:::::My objections and proposal have been presented above. There is no need for more bureaucracy. What we need is for you to make the changes. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 
::::::What "you" need. I'm certainly not included in that "we". [[User:Darkoneko|DarkoNeko]] 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 
::::::What "you" need. I'm certainly not included in that "we". [[User:Darkoneko|DarkoNeko]] 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  +
:::::::Note that DarkoNeko has attempted to add defaming information to Thekohser's entry on a living-persons page, thereby also revealing private information (diff available by mail). DarkoNeko has not participated in the RfC. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 14:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
   
 
== Question ==
 
== Question ==

Revision as of 14:08, 12 February 2011

<translate> Requests and proposals</translate> <translate>

Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat</translate>

<translate> Archives</translate> (<translate> current</translate>)→
<translate>

Meta-Wiki has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of an [[<tvar|sysop>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Administrators</>|administrator]] or [[<tvar|bureaucrat>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Bureaucrats</>|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.

  • Before posting to this page, make sure your comment doesn't belong at one of these specific request pages:</translate>
    • <translate>

[[<tvar|rfa>Meta:Requests for adminship</>|Requests for (translation/central notice) adminship]] on this Meta-Wiki</translate>

    • <translate>

[[<tvar|rfcu>Meta:Requests for CheckUser information</>|Requests for CheckUser information]] on this Meta-Wiki</translate>

    • <translate>

[[<tvar|os>Meta:Oversighters</>|Requests for oversight of edits]] on this Meta-Wiki</translate>

[[<tvar|import>Special:MyLanguage/Help:Import</>|Import]] is currently enabled in this wiki from some projects. From other wikis, you will need to copy and paste your materials by hand but please remember to add a link, as a permanent link, and the history of the page being imported in the edit summary to avoid copyright violations.</translate>

  • <translate>
To report [[<tvar|vandalism>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Vandalism</>|vandalism]] on meta: please click [<tvar
Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 20 September 2019)

Discussions:
(as of 20 September 2019)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2019-06-26)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

<translate> Please find answered requests in the [[<tvar|archives>Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives</>|archives]] ([[<tvar|current>Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-09</>|this month]]).</translate>


Requests for comment/Thekohser - user talk access

The subject request for comment has been open since the middle of September. The RfC should, if possible, be closed with a result. Thanks. --Abd 02:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Nemo 09:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing this. While I disagree with your conclusion, this settles the matter for the time being. --Abd 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unresolving for further discussion. Nemo, that close seems wrong to me. I'm not familiar with any procedural history involved with previous attempts, but regardless THIS attempt for talk access showed consensus leaning towards restore (Three users disagreed, two of which were inexplicably talking about unblocking Thekohser as opposed to simply restoring talk page access. Four users supported by count -- presumably Thekohser would be a fifth.) and if I had seen it before it closed, I'd have supported as well. Furthermore, email access has been restored, with no reports of abuse to my knowledge since April 2010. So why not restore the talk page access? I'd ask you to reconsider your decision. Remember, if he abuses it, we can always disable talk page access and be done with the discussion. It's not like this is the last and final holy wiki-stone sealing the great Kohs demon, whose return will unleash devastation and bring an end to the Fourth Wiki-age. SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO closes should be discussed with the initiator, in this case me. I agree with SWATjester that this close was wrong and the case is therefore still unresolved. There is in fact rather a clear consensus for the opposite conclusion, as comments on the block itself carry no weight here, and a close with the result 'access to be granted' seems prudent to me.
Nemo, you have not responded to the above comment, even while you have been active on-wiki. If you remain silent, I will take that as permission to undo your close. Regards, Guido den Broeder 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice about this; I didn't see it (the talk page would be more appropriate, by the way).
With regard to «closes should be discussed with the initiator», I disagree; I'd rather say the opposite, i.e. that it's better if the closure is decided by uninvolved users (as I was), and it would be extremely strange if the initiator reverted the closure. You can open a discussion on Talk:Requests for comment to see if people agree.
Swatjester, you can't just count, it's not a vote; In the conclusion I've explained why I have "discounted" some !votes, the respective arguments being offtopic. Anyway, I could add that even without this I see a clear consensus among Meta administrators who commented on the page, and that I'm not sure that a "consensus leaning towards" something is enough to override a previous admin action and possibly start a wheel war.
I agree, this is not «the last and final holy wiki-stone» etc.; one more reason to stay calm and avoid yet another discussion and let the block expire naturally (it's just one more month). --Nemo 20:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Nemo, you haven't explained anything, and there are three users here that entirely disagree with you. And by the way, all opinions are of equal value in an RfC. Adminship is irrelevant, we are all experienced users. This is not en:Wikipedia. We also do not look up someone like this the moment they disagree with you on something. That's very bad manners. Guido den Broeder 22:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You seem to mix up different types of points and messages: the reasoning of the closure; additional possible points which don't belong to the ratio decidendi; completely unrelated accidental personal messages/suggestions. I suggest you to re-read everything carefully and then, if you want, write relevant objections to the closure and propose a different conclusion. --Nemo 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
My objections and proposal have been presented above. There is no need for more bureaucracy. What we need is for you to make the changes. Guido den Broeder 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What "you" need. I'm certainly not included in that "we". DarkoNeko 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that DarkoNeko has attempted to add defaming information to Thekohser's entry on a living-persons page, thereby also revealing private information (diff available by mail). DarkoNeko has not participated in the RfC. Guido den Broeder 14:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why am I not logged in? 86.178.205.206 14:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please visit Special:UserLogin and see if there's any error message. Please also make sure that you're visiting meta in the same server you logged-in elsewhere, in case you logged-in in a different site than meta. -- Dferg ☎ talk 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima

The following discussion is closed: In the meanwhile this has implicitly received plenty of administrative attention, see Talk:Requests_for_comment/User:Ottava_Rima#Update.3B_closure where further, updated comments should be placed. 10:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Originally opened October 12, 2010. Needs administrative attention, please, already requested above under #Guido den Broeder. --Abd 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome messages

What's up with Special:Contributions/Meta-Wiki Welcome? The welcome message seems to be broken somehow. Jafeluv 13:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MW 1.17 upgrading is responsible for this. Blocking nor locking helped stopping it so it has been dissabled to prevent further problems. I have submitted bug for this issue. Leave the account blocked for now. -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.js breaks Talk:Spam blacklist

... and other pages that use class=attable. See w:WP:VPT#Cannot view m:Talk:Spam blacklist: empty page. MER-C 05:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this fixed it. --MZMcBride 07:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Expired RfC

Requests for comment/fi.wikipedia and community action missing in problem solving has been silent since December, and I don't think further comments are expected. Could someone uninvolved review and close the RfC, please? Jafeluv 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)