Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat
| ←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
- Assistance with Meta-Wiki maintenance is always welcome.
- Many files awaiting review for basic
{{information}}, source and license.
- None currently.
- 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.
|
Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion[edit]
I am interested in hearing the input of Meta sysops and other Meta users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Meta at the linked page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
About hosting a tool in the MediaWiki namespace[edit]
I have recently developed a tool that generates a structured description of categories based on Wikidata statements. Further details are available at d:Wikidata:Structured Categories. The JavaScript Code is currently stable at d:User:Csisc/StructuredCategories.js. I ask if the source code can be copied and pasted at MediaWiki:Gadget-StructuredCategories.js so that the tool can be safely deployed across language editions of Wikipedia. --Csisc (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc: are you intending this to actually be a gadget here on the meta-wiki, or do you just want code placed somewhere that our interface administrators will maintain with edit requests in the future? Does it have active maintainers? — xaosflux Talk 18:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I am intending to deploy this gadget across multiple editions of Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, Wikispecies and Wikivoyage. It will be useless to host the tool in the MediaWiki namespace of every Wikimedia project. I also want code placed somewhere that the MetaWiki administrators will maintain with edit requests in the future. I am the creator of the project. But, it will be interesting to enhance the sustainability of the created tool. As well, there are several concerns about using user scripts as tool sources, particularly regarding data security. The idea of hosting the code in the MediaWiki namespace in Meta was proposed by administrators in Italian Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia. --Csisc (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that hosting it on meta and then including in individual projects where it is used makes sense, and I would support such usage of meta. You'd need to fill a request for meta interface administrator rights, see Meta:Interface administrators. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec: It will be simpler if an administrator can copy the JavaScript code and paste in MediaWiki:Gadget-StructuredCategories.js on my behalf. --Csisc (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc That would mean you would not be able to maintain it anymore – I don't think it's a good idea to have code that cannot be maintained by its author. Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec: I know. However, I can still ask for applying revisions from the Meta administrators if required. But, if the interface administrator rights can be granted to me for Meta, I will not object. Yet, I think that this is a long process. That is why I think that if an administrator can move the code, this will be more efficient to proceed with deploying the tool. --Csisc (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc: please note that simply adding the page does not actually make this in to a "gadget", that would also need to be done. That is what I was asking if this was actually ready to be gadgetized and added to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition? Note, this generally requires identifying and loading certain libraries. — xaosflux Talk 21:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- xaosflux: Yes, it is already used as a gadget in the Italian Wikipedia. I just need the source code to be hosted in the MediaWiki namespace. The tool will not be used as a gadget in Meta. Then, every Wikimedia project that will like to use the tool as a gadget can call the tool using mw.loader.load(). See it:MediaWiki:Gadget-StructuredCategories and it:MediaWiki:Gadget-StructuredCategories.js for an example of how to do this in wikis. --Csisc (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc: please note that simply adding the page does not actually make this in to a "gadget", that would also need to be done. That is what I was asking if this was actually ready to be gadgetized and added to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition? Note, this generally requires identifying and loading certain libraries. — xaosflux Talk 21:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec: I know. However, I can still ask for applying revisions from the Meta administrators if required. But, if the interface administrator rights can be granted to me for Meta, I will not object. Yet, I think that this is a long process. That is why I think that if an administrator can move the code, this will be more efficient to proceed with deploying the tool. --Csisc (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc That would mean you would not be able to maintain it anymore – I don't think it's a good idea to have code that cannot be maintained by its author. Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Martin Urbanec: It will be simpler if an administrator can copy the JavaScript code and paste in MediaWiki:Gadget-StructuredCategories.js on my behalf. --Csisc (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that hosting it on meta and then including in individual projects where it is used makes sense, and I would support such usage of meta. You'd need to fill a request for meta interface administrator rights, see Meta:Interface administrators. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I am intending to deploy this gadget across multiple editions of Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, Wikispecies and Wikivoyage. It will be useless to host the tool in the MediaWiki namespace of every Wikimedia project. I also want code placed somewhere that the MetaWiki administrators will maintain with edit requests in the future. I am the creator of the project. But, it will be interesting to enhance the sustainability of the created tool. As well, there are several concerns about using user scripts as tool sources, particularly regarding data security. The idea of hosting the code in the MediaWiki namespace in Meta was proposed by administrators in Italian Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia. --Csisc (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc: OK, so we don't need to activate it as a gadget here, so that's "easier" I suppose; as this is primarily "about" wikidata, have you asked about hosting it there? As you are a much more prolific editor on wikidata you may be able to become an admin/int-admin there and maintain it directly as well. — xaosflux Talk 23:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Xaosflux: The process of adding JavaScript codes in Wikidata is quite more complicated and takes time and this will block the deployment of the tool. As well, the MediaWiki namespace in Wikidata only includes the codes that are deployed in Wikidata. --Csisc (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Xaosflux: I asked for interface adminship as requested. Please find the request at d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Interface administrator/Csisc. --Csisc (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Csisc: in the meantime, I've uploaded for you to MediaWiki:Gadget-StructuredCategories.js - keep in mind you will need to request edit reviews for any updates by posting an edit request on the associated talk page - then wait for an interface administrator to review and implement the edit. Should you gain access at wikidata, we can just delete it here. — xaosflux Talk 02:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Imported. — xaosflux Talk 10:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Marking Steward_requests/Global_permissions/Global_renamers for translation[edit]
Hi, could someone mark the above page for translation? I ask because I had made some changes to the source page to reflect practice (such as removing the "global renamer is not a vote" because it is), but the use of {{Template:Dynamite}} means that even the en version is taken from the translated version, which I cannot do since I'm not a translationadmin. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Appears to have already been done by User:Zabe. — xaosflux Talk 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki[edit]
Please protect the page due to block evasion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
What counts as CheckUser 'abuse'?[edit]
Hello, I am in a situation where a checkuser on es.wiki insists that I am the sockpuppet of a blocked user—which I am not. He stated that my editing pattern "fits perfectly" with that of the blocked user, without providing any diff to back that up, and said that our "technical profiles" come very close. On that ground, he kept me blocked for more than two years. At one point it was clear that, if I wanted to keep using my account, I would have to prove that I am not a sockpuppet by disclosing my personal information. Which I did. I gave my name and surname, which coincides with my first username. I linked to my social media, showing that I don't even live in the same country as the suspected sockmaster... Which the checkuser of course already knew from our ips. But even after publicly disclosing my personal information, the checkuser keeps insisting without proof that I am the sockpuppet of a blocked user!
The question is simple: If a checkuser repeatedly accuses someone of being a sockpuppet—without providing any diff and with the supposed sockpuppet and sockmaster editing from different countries—does that count as 'abuse' of the CheckUser tool? Or does only the release of personal information count as violation of the CheckUser policy? Your advice would help me greatly. Thank you. Atón (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment @Atón: This appears to be a concern for the ombuds commission. In that case, I suggest you to read the page where I've linked to. At that page also stands 'how to handle' when you suspect violation of the checkuser policy or abuse of checkusertool. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (CA) 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, @Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: (or, dank je wel!). I already did. @Góngora: responded on their behalf saying that no violation of the policy took place because "no disclosure of personal information took place". But is that the only criteria? Should I get in contact with them again, or would I get the same answer? Atón (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment