Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat
(Redirected from Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| ←Requests and proposals | Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat (at Meta-wiki only) | Archives (current)→ |
Meta-Wiki 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. It is only for assistance required at Meta-wiki, help for other wikis needs to be requested at those wikis.
See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies |
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation
Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 20 January 2021)
- Assistance with Meta-Wiki maintenance is always welcome.
- Many files awaiting review for basic
{{information}}, source and license.
Discussions:
(as of 20 January 2021)
- None currently.
(Last updated: 2020-05-23)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
- About Meta
- Discussion pages
- Request pages
- Policies and guidelines
- Information and statistics
- Categories
- Help pages
Participate:
Please find answered requests in the archives (this month).
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.
|
Expired RfD[edit]
Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Wikimedians_of_Slovakia's_Annual_Report_2018 is pending since August 2020. There are talks about deferring the case to the AffCom, which seems has not happened yet. Ping Camouflaged Mirage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @MarcoAurelio To be honest, I don't see any policy based reasons to delete the page, so my suggestion then was to defer to Affcom as there seems to be some suggestions that they are already informed about the contentious issues and this page is within their remit. We of course have no way to tell if Affcom will be taking any actions, I see this as similar as submission a CU abuse to Ombudsman Committee where a case can take for years. I am not sure if my this suggestion will make me INVOLVED, hence, I hesitated in closing. If I am UNINVOLVED, I will close as no consensus with a suggestion to defer to Affcom on the issues and they can manage from then. There is simply no cogent argument to delete, nor keep. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I concurr the request is bizarre and it'd be better if the AffCom could review which of the reports is the good one. This thread is to request some eyes on it, an an action (even a closed: no action taken). The ping to you was a courtesy given that you were participating there. If you feel involved, this thread will also draw some attention and any other admin may close. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The last reply on the RFD by Quantocius Quantotius " I guess we'll have to wait and see if any other independent observers feel differently." (quoted directly) makes me think that they wanted someone else to close (which seems to suggest I am INVOLVED), so that's why on the side of caution I treated myself as INVOLVED. Yes, I will hope someone will close this, as this is way overdue even by typical meta standards. Thanks for the ping anyway, appreciated :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I recommend not to delete it without any prior approval from AffCom since it's an official report of an affiliate. We can do is just blank the both report pages and put a notice on it as such it is kept for historical reference. Sorry, I am not comfortable to close the discussion. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 13:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The last reply on the RFD by Quantocius Quantotius " I guess we'll have to wait and see if any other independent observers feel differently." (quoted directly) makes me think that they wanted someone else to close (which seems to suggest I am INVOLVED), so that's why on the side of caution I treated myself as INVOLVED. Yes, I will hope someone will close this, as this is way overdue even by typical meta standards. Thanks for the ping anyway, appreciated :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I concurr the request is bizarre and it'd be better if the AffCom could review which of the reports is the good one. This thread is to request some eyes on it, an an action (even a closed: no action taken). The ping to you was a courtesy given that you were participating there. If you feel involved, this thread will also draw some attention and any other admin may close. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dear all. I just stumbled on this discussion while looking for a way to deal with KuboF Hromoslav who keeps reverting the report despite an AffCom agreement that both sides of the dispute would stop publicly fighting in the matter. Therefore I suggest a temporary ban on editing any articles/reports etc within the /Wikimedians of Slovakia subspace on meta. Thank you and stay healthy.--Jetam2 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh wow, that's massive edit warring. Please cease both @Jetam2 and @KuboF Hromoslav. I will typically block both for a slow edit warring way beyond 3RR, but I will not as I don't think it's a current war (blocks aren't punitive but preventative) as well as I don't know who is right and who is wrong at this moment. With that being said, I will revert to the pre - edit war version (see en:Wikipedia:Stable_version) and full protect it for now, until the RFD is closed and I will recommend the closing sysop to review the protection then. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Please do consider the topical block for KuboF Hromoslav as well. I am sorry it had to come this far but he seemingly could not resist. Thank you.--Jetam2 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will not for now, as I don't know who is right and who is wrong and Affcom didn't have anyone telling meta admin team their view on this. If you want, I will make it a 2 way interaction ban (voluntary) per en:WP:IBAN subject to the normal exceptions, but I think you won't like it. If Affcom determines that KuboF is in the wrong, sure I will be willing to sanction them accordingly, just not now when there is very little information. Hope this clarifies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I understand. The situation is not quite clear and that is why AffCom asked both the sides (WMSK) and KuboF not to continue with editing. I am in the process of writing to AffCom so they are aware of the current developments. Not sure that the IBAN is needed now that the reports are blocked anyways. Further action might be if he edits any other pages. If you care to read about the conflict, the talk pages to the report has most of the background. You are under no obligation to, though, I understand that it is not your responsibility/job to be the arbiter. Thanks!--Jetam2 (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will not for now, as I don't know who is right and who is wrong and Affcom didn't have anyone telling meta admin team their view on this. If you want, I will make it a 2 way interaction ban (voluntary) per en:WP:IBAN subject to the normal exceptions, but I think you won't like it. If Affcom determines that KuboF is in the wrong, sure I will be willing to sanction them accordingly, just not now when there is very little information. Hope this clarifies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Camouflaged Mirage for you action! But, please be aware, that the edit war started on both of the reports on its very first revision - both of them includes false, libelous, unproved information about a living person provided by WUG WMSVK (as long as I know, the official short version of the name is "WMSVK" not "WMSK" in order to clearly show, that the group is an User Group and not a Chaper...). So please, return it to empty state in order to not contain such false libelous information. I am dealing with AffCom some stuff about misbehaviour of functionaries of WUG WMSVK (to be clear, AffCom asked me to not help functionaries of WMSVK to became trusthworthy, responsible and capable - that is a responsibility of AffCom now - not to tolerate WMSVK spreading false libelous information). --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @KuboF Hromoslav I won't as I cannot determine if it is libelous or not based on current sourcing. However, I will escalate this to the oversight team on meta for them to handle, I think this is the best. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Camouflaged Mirage! In the meantime I will deal about it with WMF. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @KuboF Hromoslav I won't as I cannot determine if it is libelous or not based on current sourcing. However, I will escalate this to the oversight team on meta for them to handle, I think this is the best. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Please do consider the topical block for KuboF Hromoslav as well. I am sorry it had to come this far but he seemingly could not resist. Thank you.--Jetam2 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh wow, that's massive edit warring. Please cease both @Jetam2 and @KuboF Hromoslav. I will typically block both for a slow edit warring way beyond 3RR, but I will not as I don't think it's a current war (blocks aren't punitive but preventative) as well as I don't know who is right and who is wrong at this moment. With that being said, I will revert to the pre - edit war version (see en:Wikipedia:Stable_version) and full protect it for now, until the RFD is closed and I will recommend the closing sysop to review the protection then. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
File Move[edit]
Can someone move File:HollandOpen.ppt.pdf to File:HollandOpen.ppt? .ppt is the correct file ending, because it's a presentation. --ZabeMath (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please also move File:Wikipedia as a teaching tool.pdf to File:Wikipedia as a teaching tool.ppt and File:Wikis are cool !.ppt.pdf to File:Wikis are cool !.ppt for the same reason. --ZabeMath (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe they are as they are for a purpose. PPT is not supported file type. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- See c:Commons:File types — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- They should be labelled as {{do not copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. GerardM and Piotrus are these still of value? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- See c:Commons:File types — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I believe they are as they are for a purpose. PPT is not supported file type. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should remove them. PPT is not a free format, and we shouldn't store non-free files. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then probably File:Wikipedia presentation by Piotrus.pdf and File:Wikis and Wikipedia presentation by Piotrus v2.pdf should be deleted as well. --ZabeMath (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ideally the ppt should be converted to pdf, and then transferred to Commons. Not certain how being ppt makes the out of scope, whether non-free or not. I would like to hear from authors first. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- That. It does not make sense to say that PPT is non-free; it's simply a less accessible format compared to PDF. In this case I recommend keeping both versions, because PDF does lack presentation-specific features. Leaderboard (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ideally the ppt should be converted to pdf, and then transferred to Commons. Not certain how being ppt makes the out of scope, whether non-free or not. I would like to hear from authors first. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)