Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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
Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 01 October 2020)

(as of 01 October 2020)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2020-05-23)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

Please find answered requests in the archives (this month).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia[edit]

The standard 30 days of commenting have almost concluded. As I have prepared a bot to run Pywikibot/, I am getting ready to help enact whatever consensus Meta-wiki sysops here deem appropriate according to the discussion. I did what I could to hurry things along for the sake of this endangered language, but I would still request that Meta wiki sysops make the necessary preparations ahead of time to ensure a punctual close. –MJLTalk 03:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

...Any volunteers to write a closing statement? –MJLTalk 03:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: I am not sure this RFC can be close under the remit of meta sysops. Likely steward closure will be more appropriate or maybe GS although GS isn't technically dealing with inaccuracies rather vandalism. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that meta admins have anything to do with it, nor stewards. You had your RFC, and the points of view are there. It belongs to scowiki to work out what they want; they have the communities opinions, they need to work out what they want to be and what to do with those opinions. We cannot dictate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Are you saying posting a request at Steward requests/Miscellaneous would be inappropriate at this time? I'm just looking for someone who could just say if they see any consensus to take a specific action or set of actions based off that discussion. The new admin team is not particularly equipped to take action without clear guidance. –MJLTalk 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I am saying that you are asking at the wrong places and the wrong people to determine the consensus. Neither stewards nor meta admins can guide you on your content, nor your language, nor how best to undertake the task. If the RFC doesn't clearly have a consensus to state the path forward, then that needs to be the next phase of the RFC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not that I don't see a clear consensus for a path forward, but it's more like I don't feel comfortable definitively stating my perception is objectively correct considering I participated in the RFC itself. Having someone summarise the RFC with a closing statement would be of help in that regard and not throw the results into dispute as people could otherwise accuse me of imposing my will onto the project and language. –MJLTalk 22:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm unable to determine if there is a specific consensus for anything at that RFC, as the discussion there is so convoluted. However, what Billinghurst is saying, and what I support, is that it doesn't matter so much if that RFC has a consensus for a specific action, it matters more if the community which is now active on scowiki is in agreement with it. I don't know where the 30 day period of commenting comes from, but it might make sense to just close the RFC with a note about the actions that you and others took on scowiki. Do you plan to do some kind of mass-deletion with your bot, approved by the community? Then go ahead for a mass-deletion. --MF-W 00:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Per Requests for comment/Policy stewards or Meta admins are the only ones that can close a RFC. --Rschen7754 00:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Great, an unannounced policy. If someone is closing an RFC and implementing something as a policy, then there is value in announcing it to admins, and the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

MJL, I agree with the other admins above in that this is a RfC for those who hold local rights to determine and implement the result of. Though the technical closure and archiving of the Meta-Wiki RfC page is something which must be done by a Meta Admin or Steward (as per RfC policy), the decisions and implementation must be determined by local administrators. Though there are some cases where this would not be appropriate, namely RfCs where the status and systemic activities of administrators are called into question (i.e. the hrwiki/azwiki type RfCs), this is not an issue where Meta Admins or Stewards have an ability to determine consensus, not to mention that they have no means of implementing a result. Would it perhaps be beneficial for you and the other scowiki admins to discuss, possibly on a subpage of the RfC, how the RfC's results should be interpreted and implemented? Also, remember that there is no fixed time limit on RfCs here; though the English Wikipedia usually keeps theirs to 30, on Meta-Wiki most global RfCs involve projects whose editors are not constantly checking the list of open RfCs and often take time to notice it. Though that isn't a direct concern here, the RfC would optimally not be closed until constructive discussion about results has tapered off. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Will recommend the current sco wiki admin team look through the RFC, draft a closing statement and maybe open it for discussion on the RFC, when there is consensus to adopt the statement, I will be happy to close the RFC administratively (per RFC policy) with something like "This RFC is resolved by enacting the proposed steps (contained in the section #closing statement)". Wording can be improved of course, but this is what I can think of for now. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary gadget for new wiki name selection voting[edit]

Hallo. Briefly: I just wanted to give an FYI that we're setting up a temporary, default-on gadget early next week.

Context: Next week begins the 1st round of the communities' vote for the official name of the new "wiki of functions" (currently known as Wikilambda), which is part of the Abstract Wikipedia project. To make it easier for people to participate, I'd like to use a version of the same "click to support" gadget that the Community Wishlist has been using in recent years, and that was also used in the 2017 Developer Wishlist on MediaWiki-wiki. We've made a fork of the gadget, tested the configuration, and so we just need to do the final integration which will add it to preferences and make it default-on from 29 September until 10 November. I didn't want these changes to come as a surprise to anyone, so wanted to drop this note. If you have any concerns or suggestions, please let me know. Much thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Linking to gadget: MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe-AbstractWikipediaVoting.js.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): assuming this is for Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest? Do you want non-logged in users using this? If not rights=purge should make it for only logged in users easily. — xaosflux Talk 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Marking a page for translation[edit]

Csn the page Grants:Risk assessment during COVID-19 be marked for translation? DraconicDark (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The WMF staff that created the page, @GVarnum-WMF, is themselves a translation administrator, and could have marked the page for translation, but didn't. Since we don't know if this was intentional or not, I suggest asking at User talk:GVarnum-WMF instead. DannyS712 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not set up properly for translation, I am thinking it is still a draft or whatsoever. At this current state it cannot be marked for translation. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Stale request. No replies from page creator or OP. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Request "MassMessage sender" user right[edit]

Hello, I am working on Wikipedia Asian Month 2020. I need to have MassMessage sender user rights, in order to send messages across wikis. Thanks for your help! --KOKUYO (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@KOKUYO: Happy to grant, but can I have a sample MMS and recipient list. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)