Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2020-03

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 March 2020, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

AP for User:Firaag

My alternative account, no need to patrol. -- CptViraj (📧) 10:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for MassMessage sender right

Hello, I would like to request the MassMessage sender right to be able to send the messges to Wikimedia CEE Spring 2020 (and possibly during next editions) local roganizers. --Papuass (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done granted for six months. If you need the rights after this time, feel free to re-request. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Restore a redacted log

this log entry should be restored as there's currently no reason to hide it (it have been undone).--GZWDer (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done restored. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:5.210.73.235

5.210.73.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Vandalism. Envlh (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. —Sgd. Hasley 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Userpage translation request

Hello,

I'd like to have the translation feature enabled for my userpage, since I'd like to translate it into several languages. This necessitates the intervention of a translation administrator. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am quite uneasy to process this request given their history here. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how a minor disagreement about the contents of my userpage should affect my ability to translate its current content into several languages. I got smashed on EN-WP, and I expressed (in very careful form) what I thought about that. And when I was told that this was undesired, I never attempted to put it back again. That's how press freedom works in the west. (By the way, I'm noticing right now that the content I added to de:RWE has largely been restored, so that this unjust ban was entirely for naught.) --Mathmensch (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Even though the paragraph on Mr. Wilhelm Ricken is the pinnacle of poor taste. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
A few issues here. 1. The page isn't properly marked for translation. 2. I am unsure why you need the page to be translated, to let your statement of you have been blocked in several wikis unfairly to be translated for greater audience? Can't you just use a multi-lingual userpage (i.e. write all you want in different languages) or alternative is to use language codes (example: Stewards/Elections_2020/Statements/Martin_Urbanec) so there isn't a need to ask for us to mark it for translation everytime when you update it? I just feel uneasy about this request. The above statements about press freedoms and Mr Wilhelm also left me puzzling what the requester means?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, as to the first point, I followed the instructions that may be found here. As to the second, on my userpage I never claimed that I was unfairly banned, but I would be lying if I'd said that I didn't doubt the justification. Moreover, I do not understand what you mean by "language codes". About Mr. Ricken (Wilhelm being the given name according to the Western name order): He had been the chief technician of the very backbone of the Nazi industrial complex, and it's in extremely poor taste to paint him as a victim, in particular given that the "Stolperstein" (English: stumbling stone) memorial is normally used only for innocent (most often Jewish) holocaust victims. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This, however, is not the only means used in order to try and disassociate the RWE from the Nazis. For instance, the word "supervision colleague" is in quotation marks, apparently indicating that they were no true colleagues, and the sentence casts doubt on his actions by using the German aid word "sollen", which in this context roughly translates as "may". Anyway, I can't rectify this, since I've been banned indefinitely, and even if I hadn't, my changes would be reverted in a matter of hours. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey, what have nazis and those matters here? And you might want to mark the page with translation units like <!T1-- --> etc to enable translation more effectively than a whole chunk of text to translate per one unit. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
But the Guide says that it's being done automatically! (BTW I explained myself because I wanted to clarify that I'm very much not a Nazi.) --Mathmensch (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair, I just saying breaking into smaller units might be more effective. And I get it, will let another sysop review this. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, those units are added automatically. You need to wrap only things that are to be translated to <translate></translate> tags. For instance, with the infobox, only the parameters should be wrapped in translate, so it's easier to translate. Same with the syntax highlight part - I wouldn't be sure how to translate that. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
User pages aren't (usually) entitled to enjoy the features of translate extension. Why should we grant such privilege? — regards, Revi 15:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The privilege will be well-deserved: I'm learning lots of languages in order to translate my wikibooks. For instance, at b:de:Ringe I've been able to simplify Matsumura's treatment of the lying-over theorem, and I've also been able to find a new efficient proof of the Hilbert root theorem (see the chapter titled "Gleichradikalringe"). I want people to be able to contact me in all the languages I write in. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've also made the modifications regarding the <translate> XML tag, and since I've got nothing further to say, I'll now take a wikibreak, because I've got to eat something. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mathmensch: You are going a wikibreak, so when will you be doing the so called "translations"?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You can do all of it without translate extensions, ({{LangSwitch}}) so you still have to justify why you specifically need translate extension to do this. Again, this is not a norm, so the burden of proof is on you. — regards, Revi 15:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I was talking about a short wikibreak (I have not yet eaten; the household has kept me too busy).
@-revi: Using the translator extension would save me lots of work. --Mathmensch (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want it to be translated, please use simple(r) English, not everybody here speak English and not all language can easily localize English translation (nor they are experienced in localizing language). This is just an advice.--AldnonymousBicara? 17:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I would translate it myself, given permission. Of course, it would only make sense to translate it into languages that I speak (or at least that I will speak within a reasonable amount of time). I would certainly be enourmously grateful for having this feature available to me, and right now I don't see any downsides. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
But the point of TE is to allow other user to translate easily, if its just yourself Langswitch might be preferable. Anyway its just a suggestion.--AldnonymousBicara? 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to have the translation tool available in order to save me work, so that I don't have to use templates with lots of if-branches and subpages. I'd like to have the machine do that for me. (Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to someone else translating my user page, but as if that's gonna happen.) --Mathmensch (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment I am not in favour of having this done. The statement itself is problematic, and there already exist means for the user to do this themself. Apart from the fact that it is too open for abuse, and just more things to be managed by others, which are the contributor's responsibility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: Mr. Billinghurst and I had previously had a disagreement, whence I'm not sure whether or not he's neutral in this matter, and I further believe that the use of the Comment Comment template gives his post the appearance of a non-given higher importance. --Mathmensch (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. there is no automatic translation, it is all users' actions, it is just the construction of the components that is done by the system on the fly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmensch (talk)
The preceding post has not been authored by me, but it was obviously directed at me and moreover
  1. falsely suggested that I had been unaware of its content, and therefore
  2. showcased the author's unawareness of the above discussion, which clearly implies the opposite.
I'd also like to be given an example of a thing that "would have to be managed by others". --Mathmensch (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Here's the problem Mathmensch, you didn't see it from the Admin/TA/TEAdmins perspective, by the time TE enabled on your userpage and somebody translates it, hundred of pages will be created, which means it will be harder to patrol. And of course the one who also suffer is also you, if you don't mind getting hundreds of notification about somebody editing your userpages that will be your own risk, but for us its an increase of work, when we could spent the resource (our hour of being volunteer) elsewhere and be more productive in those areas that actually build "the wiki".--AldnonymousBicara? 22:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind the notifications at all. I also reject the notion that there would be a need for "patrolling". And I too would find more productive uses for my time than arguing why it doesn't benefit you to put bureaucratic hurdles in my way. --Mathmensch (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done This will just create extra work for Translation Admins and you will have to request it to mark for translation whenever you will change the content of source page - which means extra work for you too. So for better control and reducing extra work for everybody use {{LangSwitch}} instead. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Second this not done, just a simple LangSwitch should do the work. I will add the requester needs to understand it is a privilege not an entitlement to have userpages marked for translations, and only in exceptional circumstances we will allow (e.g. WMF ED Userpages or etc). This will save us more time and you more time too. Feel free to leave a note on Meta:Babel for help in how to use the Langswitch. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
400px --Mathmensch (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mathmensch: Please do not add such pictures here on RFH, it's out of scope. Thank you. If you want you may type facepalm, but do ensure civility is ensured. There is not a single meta sysop who commented here thinking your request should be granted and among others, I also did give alternatives. A facepalm reaction is not suitable. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --AldnonymousBicara? 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

AbuseFilter 243

Can Special:AbuseFilter/243 include a check so that it ignores edits to pages specifically about the Coronavirus (page title includes [ck]oronavirus) to avoid false positives? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec:  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Good point, done. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, please global block

Meusenome (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: Global locks should be on SRG. Do you need my help to report there? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Can do. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem. :) --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Enable Workflow states for translating

Dear Wikimedians,

could somebody enable this group of translatable pages for editing/translating. I see that the group works for the languages which have translations, and it is not yet enabled for translating on translatewiki: example. Those familiar with translatewiki will know what I'm talking about. Thanks in advance for considering this request/plea. Truly yours, -- Несмир Кудилович (разговор) 14:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I’m not sure sysops can remove protection of system messages. For sysops, the concerned pages are all pages starting with “MediaWiki:Translate-workflow-state-”. --Pols12 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done We can't do this, or we don't have the ability to do this. I am also translator and offline translator for translatewiki, I know what you are talking about. Try asking in Phab:--AldnonymousBicara? 16:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
So, Несмир Кудилович, you should probably post here your translations in order that an admin publish them. --Pols12 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid the only way for this to actually works is for us to find the specific page and translate it directly from there.--AldnonymousBicara? 21:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Abuse filter 243 (again)

For Special:AbuseFilter/243

Hi. Can I suggest:

See the current filter hits for motivation - don't need to flag edits to articles known to be about the topic.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Billinghurst --DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Asf dine

Need some opinions, given the history of this page as well as the deleted contributions, I see some very close username users editing the same page, I am thinking they are duck socks. However, only Asf Cruz is being blocked currently here. I don't think a CU is needed hence it is here. The accounts can be treated as a person and shall we just indef all socks due to socking due to repeated addition of out of scope materials. Master account should be indeffed? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage deleted, that was vanity spam.--AldnonymousBicara? 13:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I indeffed Asf_Diine (see deleted contributions) per duck. There are still Asf dine and Asf Dine la machine. However, the creation of the later 2 accounts is before the block of Asf Cruz.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Blocked the rest two accounts too.‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Tweaked the rest of the block reason to meet what is documented here. Thanks all for inputs.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for autopatrol

Can User:Sphilbrick be granted autopatrol? While they only made ~240 edits here, they are an established user (sysop on enwiki) and do not need to be patrolled. See Special:CentralAuth/Sphilbrick. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for MassMessage sender rights

Hello,

As a Community Liaison I often have to reach out to groups of 10+ people on their discussion page to alert them about new workshops by projects they are involved with (it's especially critical for beginners that may not follow general discussion pages and miss out info), so I would like to be able to MassMessage people (after I create the accurate recipient lists of course).

Thanks in advance!--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Flor WMCH: Do you have any experience in dealing with MMS and also if possible, a MMS target list as well as a sample MMS message will be appreciated. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage:, thanks for the answer. I am yet to use MMS, as I have been copy-pasting on user's talk pages and would like to upgrade, but I will be delighted to read the correct info on utilisation. Here is an example with a group of students I am training:
==Bienvenue sur Wikipédia==<br/ > Hello,<br/ > N'hésite pas à me poser des questions, si tu en as besoin. Je répondrai plutôt en horaires ouvrables, du lundi au jeudi. Sinon, si c'est le weekend, il y a le [[Wikipédia:Forum_des_nouveaux|Forum des nouveaux]], ou pour des infos locales, il y a aussi le [[Projet:Suisse/Carnotzet|Carnotzet]], deux endroits où tu peux poser tes questions et avoir des réponses de Wikipédien·ne·s chevronné·e·s.<br/ > Il faudra juste penser à signer tes messages en cliquant le troisième bouton en partant du haut dans la section des modifications (après le gras et les italiques), ou écrire les éléments de code suivants: <nowiki>--~~~~
--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
</nowiki>--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Flor WMCH: are you looking into sending the message to multiple wikis, or else a local fr MMS right might be all it need? And how long will you need the right? Thanks. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I would be needing to send messages on fr only, so a local fr MMS right should be enough, ideally until the end of 2020, as I will be supervising several groups until then.--Flor WMCH (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Flor WMCH: I see. For local frwp MMS access, you need to ask locally at frwp. However, per frwp local rights, only sysop have the right to send MMS, there isn't a local MMS group. I am seeing valid need, just am unsure whether we can grant MMS on meta to override local process. Will let an meta sysop who is active in frwp to decide this. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage:Hah, had no clue about that, would have asked directly. Will go there then.--Flor WMCH (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Flor WMCH: Hope you can find help at frwp. All the best.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please Block ip 91.41.146.95

See Special:Diff/19890976 --𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 08:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@WikiBayer:Yes check.svg Blocked--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for autopatrol

Can LightandDark2000 please be granted autopatrol? Almost 2 thousand edits here, edits are fine, doesn't need to be patrolled. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--AldnonymousBicara? 21:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:38.39.78.79

38.39.78.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Vandalism at Affiliate-selected Board seats/2016/Nominations/Nataliia Tymkiv after warning DannyS712 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for autopatrol for WMF staff

Please grant User:Shobha (WMF), User:Mehran (WMF), and User:Mervat (WMF) local autopatrol. As WMF staff they do not need to have their contributions monitored. All of the accounts were created by User:PEarley (WMF), and so can be trusted to be actual WMF staff. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:망해가는_위키뱩과

망해가는_위키뱩과 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Test edit, using foul in edit summary 1233 T / C 11:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@1233:Yes check.svg Blocked. Will be sending for global lock.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
And locked.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
RDed too.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Filter 243 (once more)

Special:AbuseFilter/243

Can SARS-CoV-2 also be added to the title exclusions? Edits to fr:Test diagnostique du SARS-CoV-2 or just fr:SARS-CoV-2 are expected to be about the topic. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Protect User talk:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal

Long-term vandalism. Same as my root talk page. --Xiplus (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

And may be able to extend protection on my root talk page. --Xiplus (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Protected both for 6 months. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove rights from locked staff

Please remove User:Shouston (WMF)'s autopatrol; the account was locked by @ERoss (WMF) with the summary "no longer works for wmf". Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also User:PMiazga (WMF) - locked as "no longer works for the foundation" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Also User:LShangkuan (WMF) - "no longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:BWolff (WMF) - "no longer work for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Smalyshev (WMF) - "No longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:CXie (WMF) - "No longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:ITait (WMF) - "no longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:CDentinger (WMF) - please remove centralnoticeadmin - locked as "no longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that only meta admins cannot do this, only crats (and technically stewards, but Meta:Meta–steward relationship) --DannyS712 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:LSmith (WMF) - "no longer works for the foundation" --DannyS712 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:SMalik (WMF) - "No longer working for the Foundation" --DannyS712 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:JMatazzoni (WMF) - "no longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:TBolliger (WMF) - "no longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
User:EYoung (WMF) - "no longer works for wmf" --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: even the centralnoticeadmin part? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Well yes, when saving, didn't realize that's not what I would be able to remove as a non-steward. It's uncontroversial housekeeping on the other hand. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Please remove
  • User:TKozlowski (WMF)'s autopatrol - locked (no reason given)
  • User:MKramer (WMF)'s autopatrol - "No longer working with the Foundation"
  • User:KLove (WMF)'s translation adminship (can only be done by crats) - "no longer with the Foundation"
  • User:Awight (WMF)'s autopatrol - "No longer works for WMF"
  • User:Dario (WMF)'s autopatrol - "No longer works for WMF"
    Dario also has "transwiki" (importer) rights, which can only be removed by a steward. Posting a request at SRP
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done except the translation admin (needs a crat which is right) and the transwiki (which there is a request on SRP). Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Dario's transwiki Yes check.svg removedThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 19:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do we remove non-critical rights from accounts which are locked anyway? --Krd 18:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Because its no longer needed? As Martin put it above, "It's uncontroversial housekeeping" --DannyS712 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed the translation-adminship of KLove (WMF). For a useless permission like autopatrol, it probably is indeed exaggerated... --MF-W 20:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC disrupted by persistent IP vandalism yet again

The page Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian Wikipedia is still being vandalized by IP addresses. The page had been semi-protected indefinitely due to persistent vandalism, but today, ~riley removed the protection from the page with the reason "No longer necessary." As can be seen from the page history, this is clearly not the case. Can the page's semi-protection be restored? DraconicDark (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@DraconicDark:Yes check.svg Restored. No prejudice to another administrator unprotecting it in the future. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Removed per request as there was no indications (no recent vandalism on talk page) that it would continue. Good call to re-apply with the renewed vandalism. Thanks Cohaf! :) ~riley (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 00:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:토론란_잠금시_목따_죽인다!!

토론란_잠금시_목따_죽인다!! (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: vandalsim 𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 08:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Already done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please protect User:Killarnee

Please protect so that this page can only be edited by administrators. Thanks, --Killarnee (T12) 14:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Killarnee: Are you sure, as such you won't be able to edit. Unless you are using a transculuded CSS. Now it can only be edited by autopatrollers and above. Please confirm your intentions, thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I created the page User:Killarnee/Killarnee.css and included it on my user page so that I can still edit it. --Killarnee (T12) 14:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Killarnee:Yes check.svg Done per your request. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Killarnee and Camouflaged Mirage: but why? There is no evidence of vandalism, and editing of user pages here is restricted to autopatrolled (trusted) users, so it just seems unnecessary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Not everyone who is autopatroller can be trusted ... I would prefer not to say more. --Killarnee (T12) 20:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Killarnee: Please don't deflect from the question. We should only be fully protecting pages where there is a need, not on a whim. At this time, I see just whim, and I would like to know why we are protecting your user page.

Any autopatrolled user who edited a user's page contrary to process would quickly lose the right, and probably a lot more, so I don't see that particularly as a reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: E-Mail --Killarnee (T12) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Killarnee: No, not email for this wiki business. Rarely use it, I prefer open communications, especially for these matters. This is a simple request and it shouldn't require email, and your explanation should be to the community about why you need your page protected there are simple criteria to meet. This is a user page, nothing more, please keep it simple and explain why you need your user page protected.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
If you help me? --Killarnee (T12) 21:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: As the protecting admin, I am following the general guidelines laid up at here which we also follow at my homewiki. User pages can be protected based on request from the user, which there is. And I had reminded them that only autopatrollers can edit. Since there is a concern from the user, I choose to assume what they are saying is true. Having said that, I followed the 3rd paragraph which is in above to ask them create a transcluded CSS. After confirmation that they had done so, I then proceeded onto protecting per their request. I think we shouldn't protect userpages pre-emptively but I also balance it with the fact that the users had expressed concerns.
I had deal with one of the more odd RFD here Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2020#User:Killarnee/archive/wiktionary/1 where there are some controversy regarding their userpages and someone seems to be after their meta userpages. Hence, I am of the view that their userpage can attract traffic. We do so for some prominent users such as Jianhui67. I am seeing it something like that
As such, per the guidelines and as what is indicated above, I protected the userpage. I will also be fine with you to reverse this action. I hope this explains. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Except that applying enWP's rules here is not particularly pertinent, and it is not been guidance that we have used here previously. Further you have not followed the guidance there as it specifically starts the paragraph "When a filter is insufficient to stop user page vandalism …" So differences are 1) the user pages here have not been abused here, and 2) with our abusefilter protection being to autopatrolled, above autoconfirmed, this has prevented abuse here. So I do not see any requirement for full protection. These are global user pages and it should not solely be up to administrators. We would generally only take to full protection when there is a demonstrated need, please show the demonstrated need.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: (Edit conflict.) I think for the next round, I will just comment for such issues rather than striaght protection and will seek consensus on these possibly contentious cases before implementation of the protection. I will now unprotect the page, pending @Killarnee: further evidence on why they can't trust autopatrollers here. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll get in touch here because there was a reference to Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2020#User:Killarnee/archive/wiktionary/1. For information: I'm an administrator in the German Wiktionary.
I would never edit a foreign user page (or subpage) here on Meta. The deletion request from me on Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2020#User:Killarnee/archive/wiktionary/1 was well founded. It seems to me that Killarnee has now become somewhat paranoid. But I'm not at all interested in editing his user page here on Meta.
However, if Killarnee places a link to an external / private website on which he copies / duplicates discussion contributions from users from the German Wiktionary without their knowledge and consent, then I would have to consider having to request a deletion for his user page.
Killarnee had already copied discussion contributions from users from the German Wiktionary to an external / private website without the knowledge and consent of these users. After I asked Killarnee in the German Wiktionary about this, he then deleted the external / private website.
I sincerely hope that Killarnee will finally stop copying / duplicating contributions from users of the German Wiktionary to an external / private website without the knowledge and consent of these users.
Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Udo T. The deletion is not a user page, and followed community consensus processes, so all good there. And the reason why other wiki admins are given AP easily here is to manage the situations that you describe, though I would hope that people in that situation we could try persuasion as the first means to remove contentious text.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
OP didn't reply despite editing elsewhere on why they need the protection (which seems to be the case per the RFD). If you need the protection please state clearly why autopatrol protection doesn't work. Closing.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/X1X2X3X4X5X6X7

This user is created recently, but only edits Steward requests/Global. Although the edits don't seem disruptive, this may be an undisclosed alternative account. I'm not sure whether this is acceptable.--GZWDer (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It is disruptive editing to create an account, edit the sandbox to knowingly get through the autoconfirmed aspected, then edit SRG. Sockpuppet of someone, and I don't care who it is; if you are real, use your real account, otherwise block circumvention. There have been others recently.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/178.115.131.19

Please block this IP--Turkmen talk 09:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Turkmen:Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.176.136.204

Please block this IP. Thanks.--Turkmen talk 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:1onyx1

1onyx1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: DUCK with Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2020-03#Special:Contributions/X1X2X3X4X5X6X7. Stewards may run a CheckUser to find sleepers. GZWDer (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Blocked indef. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 03:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: CptViraj (📧) 09:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Main page edit warring over unusual RfC

Hello, I'm involved so am seeking input from someone uninvolved. Despite objection, and without consensus to continue, User:EllenCT is editing warring with me over adding a link on our Main page here: Template:Main Page/WM News. The link is to a very unusual RfC, Requests for comment/Ask the US government to require open access to federally sponsored research. I think this is a political action message and not a legitimate RfC, and should not be on our main page. I'm certainly open to discussion on this matter and have asked for follow up on that page. Am asking now that another admin review this situation and determine if the repeated addition at Template:Main Page/WM News should stand or be reverted (at least pending a community discussion). Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that I am edit warring, and strongly object to the language of war or intentional infliction of harm in relation to my edits. EllenCT (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Despite specifically making your bold edit, and having it reverted, you have reverted again without coming to a consensus, while a discussion is active. — xaosflux Talk 00:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: you have accused me of "logical fallacies" at Requests for comment/Ask the US government to require open access to federally sponsored research, but have stated that you do not intend to describe them. Do you consider that to be discussion in good faith? Since you have commented here instead of replying, in what way do you consider the discussion to still be "active"? EllenCT (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
See also edits on Universal Code of Conduct. Not sure what to do about this. User:EllenCT does not, to the best of my knowledge, have a history of this kind of behaviour, but has been making some problematic edits over the past day. --Yair rand (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I have moved my objections to the talk page in accordance with your request, Yair rand. I trust that is within the scope of your concerns on these matters, is it not? EllenCT (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is, thank you. (If there's some extra message intended with the extra links to past ENWP edits of mine, I'm afraid I don't understand what it is. Could you spell it out, please?) --Yair rand (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Per Bold, revert, discuss cycle, once something is removed, please discuss with other editors on the particular talk page on the removal. Edit warring to reinstate the content is never a good idea. @EllenCT: should discuss with @Xaosflux: on the talkpage on their removal. This will be the correct way to handle. Please do not reinstate the content any further, thanks much. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a detailed discussion at Requests for comment/Ask the US government to require open access to federally sponsored research in which Xaosflux has accused me of "logical fallacies" in the same edit in which they state that they refuse to describe them. After several hours of no reply to my response, I assumed that there would be none. EllenCT (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, let's give them longer to reply, a few hours might not be that sufficient. Second, if you are thinking they are casting aspersions or any other conduct issue, the way to resolve is to bring it here for an independent review. The scope of this reply of mine is that there is absolutely no ground to reinstate the removed content from main page without consensus to do so. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I have been awaiting a reply for over nine hours now against a deadline of less than four days. How long do you think it is prudent to wait? EllenCT (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand your frustrations, I will say at least a day. An alternative is to start a discussion at Meta:Babel or the talkpage about the issue, if there sufficient consensus (an uninvolved administrator / experienced editor can gauge it), well, we can put back the content then. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do so. EllenCT (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Replied there. — xaosflux Talk 10:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment I have removed the text whilst this conversation is taking place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I await your response at User talk:Billinghurst#Objection to deletions. EllenCT (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Import for translation

Hi !, I would like to import in Meta the page v:en:WikiJournal Preprints/Quand le mouvement Wikimédia questionne le comment faire science for profit of translation tool on Meta-wiki before to import it one more time in en.wikiversity. Thanks in advence ! Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 17:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Admins cannot import from wikiversity (not a default import source). Need one of these users to import. Can you just do a copy-paste with attribution like the diff of the page?Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok Camouflaged Mirage, So strange than you don't have the same tool as other projects' admins. I gona put the permanent link on the edit summary. Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 19:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lionel Scheepmans: I have access to Special:Import for commons, enwp, frwp, zhwp, outreach, just enwikiversity isn't part of the wikis which transwiki import is enabled here. If you still want an import, do contact one of the importers in the list above. If not then a diff works as well for attribution. Well wishes.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems resolved via their contributions record they attributed via diffs.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:DonetteChristian

DonetteChristian (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: spam illegal links 𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 07:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Blocked indef. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat talk ] 07:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing right of any user group

Hello. I'm a sysop at Malay wikipedia and we had collect votes here to remove "createpage" right from unregistered user (ip address user) as a way of preventing any further attack page creation and vandalisms just like what the English Wikipedia did. These user can request from user to create page but they still can do editing. Mojority of the local user were agreed for this removal. Actually I'm not pretty familiar about changing this configuration. As what I've read here, it does not shows that I need to have grants from steward group but I must gather local on-wiki community consensus for the change. After collecting the consensus, I should submit the task to the system administrator at the MediaWiki. Is that true? The process doesn't seem very difficult which creates uncertainty for me. Hopefully there's someone can help me about it. Thank you. CyberTroopers (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I will look into that. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you RhinosF1. Please let me know any updates.CyberTroopers (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@CyberTroopers: I have created a task and will get this done soon. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: Thank you so much!CyberTroopers (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Closing this thread as not relevant to Meta directly. Please continue at Phabricator task.

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for sending a mass message

Hi, could someone (admin/mm sender) please send the content via Special:MassMessage for me?

Thanks! --KOKUYO (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

KOKUYO Everything is clear I think I can give you the rights, but for how long?--AldnonymousBicara? 17:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, do you want rights to send it yourself, or are you asking for it to be sent for you? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the request was originally mean, Kokuyo asking other people to send those message to everybody on the list, I'm still unsure though, do Kokuyo want to do this himself, or want it to be done by others. Need clarification.--AldnonymousBicara? 17:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I think I know what KOKUYO wants, Yes check.svg Done msg sent to 545 targeted pages. Please tell me if you have another request.--AldnonymousBicara? 17:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Aldnonymous: Thanks! I hope I could send a mass message, but I'm not sure whether I deserve it or not.--KOKUYO (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
If you ever need a MM again, you can request the rights here - we would surely consider it :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
OK! Thank you very much :) --KOKUYO (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a note, the simple list is incorrect, I had done some adjustments and manual reached out to those affected. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. Hasley 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Eksposed

LTA. -- CptViraj (📧) 04:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Was locked --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

My Wikipedia account affected by IP Block

I cannot login on English Wikipedia due to the IP block. I filed OTRS twice, both OTRS closed asking me to request an account.

I cannot create User:BabbarJatt on Wikipedia, as it says already registered. Yes that is me and I am unable to login. I am not sure , what am I supposed to do. WP:REQUEST an account is not working for me. I get this message as listed below.

I'm sorry, but the username you selected is already taken. Please try another. Please note that Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of any user name, therefore User:example would become User:Example.--BabbarJatt (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@BabbarJatt: Hi, I see you have a local account at English Wikipedia now. This should let you to login. Could you try again, please? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you worked this time. I can login and also made one edit. Thank you for fixing. Did you do something or was the problem resolved on its own ? regards. --BabbarJatt (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 17:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Odd dialogue box prompt

Hey folks, just now, I've started to receive a strange prompt in my browser whenever I navigate to any page on Meta-wiki that reads:

meta.wikimedia.org says:
Ops!!! Please login with your user account!

I'm already logged in, and logging out and in again doesn't appear to help. This appears across multiple browsers. Any idea what might be causing this issue? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be caused by https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-reportEditor.js&curid=10617736&diff=19931573&oldid=19794730. Can someone roll that edit back? Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The original editor undid his change. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for these updates. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What's going on here?

This is not a complaint against anyone in particular, but a comment to express my disappointment in Meta's RFA process. Whether something useful comes out of this, is up to those commenting.

  • As a non-paid longtime volunteer, I've decided to request for sysop rights so that I could expand my area of voluntary work.
  • My background: Active since 2008, commons sysop since 2011, enwiki sysop since 2016, RL-identified by WMF, and known by a number of you in RL for offline Wikimedia work.
  • At the time the RFA was supposed to be closed (on 15 March 2020 14:42 (UTC)), there was 6s and 2o. The oppose reasons squarely being on the edit count alone (~750).
  • Due to lack of active crats, the RFA was left open for a whole extra day. During which three more oppose votes were added for the same reason - edit count.
  • Per my note on the closing crat's talkpage, I disagreed with their reasons. See here for the brief conversation. Why I disagreed:
    1. The RFA was not left open intentionally (which is done on rare cases when unknown issues surfaces), but due to lack of volunteering crats.
    2. Edit count on Meta is irrelevant. This is not an encyclopedia or parallel project like Wikidata/Commons. How does someone legitimately raise the edit count here? And should they?
    3. Thus, it is the crat's responsibility to decide on the validity of the vote, rather than basing purely on numbers.
  • For the sake of argument, on the other hand, I have over 40,000 global non-deleted edits. Although again, I don't think edit count reflects the quality nor quantity of work done.

From my observation, I feel that the process here has evolved in such a way that legitimate non-paid volunteers (most of whom have full time jobs and families) cannot volunteer freely because of the strange criteria that has been automatically adopted. I may not be able to revolutionise Meta in my volunteering time, but the fact clearly remains that a legitimate volunteer was blocked from helping in whichever way they can, due to a silly criteria that really has no relevance to Meta.

I've posted this here on this page, not because I needed some help, but with the hopes that the community would be willing to discuss and hopefully change the process and understanding/purpose of RFA's on Meta. Anyone is free to move this to any other venue they deem appropriate.

As a courtesy, I am pinging our 3 crats User:MF-Warburg, User:MarcoAurelio, User:Matiia, and those that opposed on the RFA User:Steinsplitter, User:BRPever, User:1997kB, User:Hasley, User:Herbythyme, to share their views. Again, this is to strike a productive conversation, and not meant to be anything else. No one is forced to participate. Regards, Rehman 07:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment Meta's "processes" have always been rather loose compared with Wikipedia projects. The active community is massively smaller than en wp for example. I for one prefer it like that. --Herby talk thyme 08:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I supported the RFA, but this post-closure asking crats to reconsider seems not too appropriate. The RFA closed at 6/2/1 (75%) support, but the oppose get built up and there is a declining curve (i.e. support ration declining), with my support turning into a weak support. However, that doesn't matter much as meta we tend to go without discounting any votes. I am very glad you are willing to help, but this seems not the general consensus. I think the main issues are activity, while it isn't a big deal IMHO as we have the inactivity removals, we clearly do not want to go back to 2004 where any sysop on WMF are entitled to sysopship here and then we have all the reconfirmations. We expect sysops to have some form of activity here, for example, there are ample vandals to revert, bad pages to be speedied. I will recommend you to take part of some of these and come back a little while, say 6 months later and I think the community will be happy to accept. In order to do some of this work more effectively, you can apply for patroller, which I am happy to grant, just leave a note below this. Well wishes.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Policy for requesting adminship: "[...] with at least one week allocated for the community to express opinions [...]". As far i can see MW-W followed standard practice when closing the RFA. Needless to say that this is also standard practice on other wikis such as Commons. The complain is unfounded. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We grant permissions based on experience, trust, responsibility, and a number of other factors, not willingness to help. For example, were I to request adminship on Wikidata, I would surely not pass for I do not have a track record of experience editing/collaborating on Wikidata. If I had seen your RfA, I probably would have opposed on the basis that there is no observable need for the right and inactivity on this project. As you do not have a track record of collaborating on Meta-Wiki, I'd have no way to ensure that you know what is involved in being an administrator on Meta-Wiki. Though Meta is not a community-based project, there are Meta-specific rules, policies, and practices that govern how this project is run, and that knowledge is necessary to act in an administrative capacity. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @MF-W: Would it be possible to re-open the RfA and give it another week. If there are concerns that there was a sudden burst of votes at the end, how about we just let it run, and see how it goes. I don't feel comfortable with any of this commentary being here, and in this manner.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    I would also be happy to see this. I think when an RfA (like this one) receives far less participation than the average Meta request, it is worth extending the time for a while to allow users more time to comment. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    Of course we can do so. It would however seem to me to go against Rehman's wishes, who called for a timely end of his request? User:Rehman, what do you think? Or maybe an entirely new request? I am open to both options. --MF-W 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    Good call to ask him. I also fear that the outcome will not change; I am not particularly inclined to support the request, and would like to see more active participation in Meta discussions and activity on Meta requiring sysop access before supporting. My comment was meant to be more general for these type of circumstances. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Ajraddatz: As Comment Comment each RfA takes place on a different subpage, so if you don't notice an addition on a page, then you often don't know that it is occurring. Personally, I would only notice through my watchlist, as it is rare for me to visit the page and read it; as I am less into the wikipolitics these days and rarely vote anywhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you all for opening up the options. Per the initial response on the closing crat's talkpage, reopening was declined. Hence for the sake of process integrity, I don't want this discussion to overturn that on the basis that the crat's call should always be final. Of course, if other crats voice out, that's a different story. Per the OP, the main reason I started this thread was only to voice out that the outcome should have been different. And comments like this should ideally not be entertained. This is not a private wiki, and having an existing bunch of people who seems to be able to handle things, does not and should never mean new volunteers shouldn't be onboarded, regardless of the project's size.
    The fact that the conversation ended up with more options, suggests to me that the message is (hopefully) conveyed. And I'm happy with that. Any next action, be it closing the case entirely, tweaking Meta's RFA criteria, changing the outcome of the closed RFA, or reopening another RFA; I will leave it with the existing Meta community. Thanks for listening, Rehman 06:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    I think the existing RfA criteria are quite vague at the moment, like on most projects. It's an issue of whether people support granting the userright, not meeting a set of written criteria. Vermont (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see any out of process actions here and fail to understand why it would need to be reopened. Nihlus 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't have any issue re-opening it for a few days, if that's what the users want. That said, it seems it's unlikely the outcome will change. Matiia (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rehman: Now a crat above is willing to reopen the RFA, so the ball is in your court, do you want it to be re-opened or else I think this thread can be resolved. Thanks.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Camouflaged Mirage. Per my note above, I don't wish to instruct on, or be directly involved of, what happens next. The purpose of this thread was to convey the message that this should not have happened - and I feel that that message is conveyed. And per that same note, I will leave it to you, the other crats and admins, to decide on what needs to be done next (i.e. the last sentence of my last post). Cheers, Rehman 12:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
welcomed. I think this thread had served it's purpose and since the OP is fine with not re-opening as indicated to leave to the community, I don't see what else can be obtained via this thread. In addition, there seems no consensus that a re-opening will change anything. If Rehman wants to run for a next RFA, he can proceeds anytime. Further discussions on the rules of RFA, validity of vote couting, criterias shouldn't be on RFH but rather Meta:Babel. Closing as no further bureaucrat / admin action needed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

user:InteGraalityBot

Question: is InteGraalityBot approved? I'm seeing its edits unpatrolled in recent changes, and cannot find a discussion about it. If it is approved, I request that it be granted autopatrol. If not, it should be stopped and discussed. @Jean-Frédéric: --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

4 edits a day to a single page, what is the problem? Why would we need to go through an approval process or autopatrolled for that?  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Its 4 pages, and there isn't a problem, I just didn't know if the edits should be patrolled or not, and suggested that the bot be autopatrolled if it is running properly --DannyS712 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that we want to set it to autopatrol. If you wish to patrol them then go for it, otherwise I think leave it as it is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I patrolled the rest of the unpatrolled edits.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Comment if we have issues with (low) volume repetitive editing needing patrolling on a page, or a small page series, then we can look to implement the pywikibot patrol.py. We use(d) it at English Wikisource. I can get wikisourcebot doing it here if needed, or we can start up a local bot with shared users to have it running.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think even a bot is needed, as it's just 4 edits / day at the most. I had once again patrolled all. Closing as clearly nothing else need to do, at such a low rate of edit, no autopatrol is needed. The edits aren't problematic. Closing. Re-report if the bot is behaving in an undesirable way and we will look into it then.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey, only saw the ping now… and that everything is sorted out already ^_^ Jean-Fred (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have received mail from Hjfocs, which asks to vote for his project. I don't know which rules are active here, at meta, but this mail looks like like a spam for me. If it is ok, then just close this request. — Vort (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a metawiki specific issue. I too received an email and left a note on their enWP user talk page, and I would suggest that you provide your feedback directly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. It is specific, because advertised project is located here, at meta + wikimail has arrived with "Meta" <wiki@wikimedia.org> source address. — Vort (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This feedback is not about advertised project, it is about mass messages (which is prohibited in many Wikimedia projects), that is why I discuss it here. — Vort (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Vort: Courtesy would be for you to address your concerns with the user initially. If you don't get an acceptable response, then maybe we can put it to the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
So no one want to help me understand if such messages are fine. Ok. Will ask it in different place. — Vort (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Comment.Grants_talk:Project#Projects_advertisement. They went to this page for the same issue. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If a person has an issue/problem with another user's behaviour it actually is a problematic situation, and rightfully they should address it to the person in a polite and respectful manner. The recipient should be open to positive feedback/criticism and considerate of others.

In my opinion it does not require the community to intervene unless a behaviour is egregious, continuing or flagrantly in contravention of policy. We are not people's mothers, we will treat you as adults (or trying to be adults) and capable of managing your own affairs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like such messages are allowed. It is strange for me, since it is prohibited, for example, at enwiki: en:Wikipedia:Canvassing. But if Meta community thinks that it is normal behaviour, then nothing more is needed to be done here by me. — Vort (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing else to do, behaviour isn't egregious, OP given advice on how to proceed. Closing.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)