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)→
Shortcut:
WM:RFH
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

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 19 September 2020)
Discussions:
(as of 19 September 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.



Requesting Massmessage privileges[edit]

Hello, could someone please provide me with massmessage rights? I intend to use the tool to notify users sampled for the 2020 Community Insights survey that they have received a distribution email. I also might use it when the report is released to notify users who have asked to be notified when the data is available. My massmessage rights were revoked in 2019 during the distribution of this survey, pinging @Vermont:, who was involved in that revocation. Moving forward we have no intention to use massmessage as the primary means for distributing the survey, and will not be sending follow-up reminders on-wiki. Happy to discuss this more if need be. RMaung (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Though I believe the usage of massmessage in this case may be unnecessary, as massmessages aren't for informing people you've sent a mass email (shall we also send them mass pings to inform them of their mass talk page message about their mass email?), this is not the appropriate venue and out of the scope of Meta-Wiki administrators. As was noted to me in my email to T&S in October of last year, which was when I informed them of my revocation of your massmessage userright, staff members should be requesting work-related hats through T&S, not the community. For more information and who to contact, please see User groups#Assignment. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, @Vermont. I apologize for using an inappropriate medium, and I will contact T&S. Best, RMaung (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I find it personally quite hard to grant MMS permission for distribution of a survey to an user who had them revoked for over-propagation of that survey. Was this a purely community request, this would be a BA candidate.svg Weak oppose – mainly because I unfortunately don't see anything that explains "what will I do differently to avoid past mistake(s)" - something that I would expect was this a traditional community request. I also second Vermont's message that this is not the usual place how staff members get rights (on the other hand, it's _possible_ for the community to do so, nothing prevents the community from promoting staff members). For awareness: @JSutherland (WMF):. This is my personal opinion, and by no means a decision about this request. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I Oppose Oppose this anyway and I think that we should go ahead and oppose to make it clear to the WMF that the Meta community does not support the granting of this right. --Rschen7754 05:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the director of T&S should be aware, and I assume he will comment here soon. Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Moin, thanks everybody for weighing in. It sounds like we’re coming from a desire to improve the way the Foundation gathers these insights every year with a better method than repeated pings on mass-messaging, which people found understandably annoying last year. The data is an important channel for the community to share its thoughts and help inform Foundation planning, so I want to do what I can to help make sure we collect it most efficiently. I will grab some time with Becky to learn more about the new email approach her team developed in response to last year’s community feedback and what my team can do to help. Based on that, I will follow the traditional process for staff rights that Vermont and Martin have already noted and also circle back here for closure before the end of the week. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Circling back on this, we had a constructive meeting yesterday. Several bigger communities already have had enough voluntary opt-ins to be statistically viable. To close the gap for smaller communities and make sure they have a fair chance to make their voices heard going forward, T&S will be looking into alternative routes to massmessaging next week. In case it remains the only viable path to ensure a fair chance of annual participation across communities, we would help to operate a one-off opt-in invite only towards underrepresented communities. Thanks again to everyone for weighing in. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Permission to question scowiki statistics[edit]

Vermont (notified) banned me from the scowiki RFC on my talk page,[1] but I have multiple questions about Talk:Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia#Current Statistics and ask permission to ask them. James Salsman (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@James Salsman: In less than 500 words and 20 diffs tell us what you want to question and why you should be allowed the appeal. Do note that any conduct that are out of WM:CIV can be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator and I will be looking into this carefully. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There are no diffs needed to describe the statistics which interest me: the number of bots (>50? How many of those are active?), the proportion of articles in Scots, the length of time the current wiki administration intends to keep more than 5% of the articles in languages other than Scots, and the value to the Foundation of ceasing the attack on the endangered language. James Salsman (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend other administrators not accept this appeal. James, please do not resume editing while logged out. Vermont (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am often logged out without having logged out. Is there a specific edit you believe would have been more helpful if it was logged in? Why do you recommend that I not be allowed to ask the specified questions? Do you agree with MJL's admonishment that I should not talk to the press? James Salsman (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, the questions you are proposing to ask are vauge. To be precise, how will all these questions, after being answered, add to the discussion. In addition, the logged out editing is worrying, James Salsman you should know that logged out editing is not recommended, especially when one is under sanctions. This can be seen as an attempt to evade sanctions. I know this isn't very clear at times but please cease any logged out editing which are against en:WP:ILLEGIT. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Learning why there are more than 50 bots and whether they are active could help show alternative paths to automated and partially-automated solutions.
How could learning the proportion of articles in Scots on scowiki not add to the discussion? It is the central statistic causing the Foundation to have oppressed and to currently oppress an endangered language weeks after the problem was brought to light.
The length of time the current wiki administration intends to keep more than 5% of the articles in languages other than Scots can tell us the extent to which they are operating in good faith.
The value to the Foundation of ceasing the attack on the endangered language is far more than most editors realize, as far as I can tell, and the longer we don't ask about it, the longer that value will increase with the damage done. James Salsman (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am still not convinced this will add positively to the discussion as many of the points had been raised by them and others. This seems repetitively raising the same arguments verbosely which doesn't lead to productive contribution. The language used such as "oppressed" "attack" etc seems a little confrontational. There is a risk that the same behaviour that lead to the ban to reoccur (i.e. risk of recidivism is there). I am not inclined to support a lifting of the RFC ban. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Camouflaged Mirage's reply was specifically about your logged out editing. Your response completely ignored that, instead focusing on what you want to add to the scowiki discussion. You were banned from the RfC in part because of incivility and in part because of clearly bad faith replies like this. Stop dodging the subject. You have been editing logged out, something which you very well could have been blocked for especially considering past activity, and I oppose your unban from the RfC for that reason. Considering your account never edited the UCoC page, and only your IPs, it looks like a bad faith attempt to evade scrutiny. Please agree to use one account (with the exception of legitimate socks), and not to edit while logged out. Vermont (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to reply to this. If I object based on "Firstly... In addition" I wonder whether I will be accused of being disagreeable in bad faith again, as I was on my talk page when I tried to defend myself on substantive issues and was banned for being argumentative. When I started responding to the UCoC draft, I had added multiple sections before I even noticed I was not logged in. Instead of signing the comments, I figured the comments were more important than who wrote them. None of them have been controversial and I don't see how they can be construed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I agree not to let such comments go without signing them in the future, and I will go back and sign them with my username if that is what you want. James Salsman (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
James Salsman: This isn't an issue of opinion as to whether the "comments were more important than who wrote them", nor is it one of not letting "such comments go". Let me make it as clear as I possibly can: You made contributions to a discussion, while logged out, shortly after being banned from another discussion on your account. This makes it look like you were intentionally trying to distance your comments from your account. This is especially problematic considering your history of sockpuppetry and conduct issues, where in 2017 you agreed, during your unblock, to only use one account. You could have been reblocked for this, but it seemed more beneficial to make note here as your edits while logged out were not disruptive. Thank you for agreeing to use your account to contribute in the future. Best regards, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I'm kind of getting fed up here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Scots Wikipedia ban discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

IP editor being unclear and making accusations[edit]

Someone using an IP address is using vague language to probably provoke replies at the talk page discussing UCoC draft. Not only that, the IP editor made accusations on those replying to the user's vague and unclear statements (or arguments). Furthermore, another user requested closing the subsection thread. What to do about it? George Ho (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is an administrator editing over there, that seems sufficient.Don't engage would be my recommendation. Blocking seems excessive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I concur with the above; I don't believe any action is necessary at present, probably best to not engage further. Best, Vermont (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done for now. Do report back if the IP continues the disruptions / the disruptions spreads. No action needed now per my colleagues above. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
OP here. For the record, George Ho (who raised this request) initially contributed to my comment with these words: "Whoever you are, haven't you realized that you have been circling your reasoning? You haven't explained why the phrase offends you, and "double standard" doesn't look adequate, does it?" This is a wildly inappropriate way of interacting with another editor. It is a textbook example of a loaded question. ("haven't you realized x" versus "I think x"). I'm really surprised nobody in the discussion mentioned the right way to write the same sentiment. Here is a better way:
problematic: Whoever you are, haven't you realized that you have been circling your reasoning? You haven't explained why the phrase offends you, and "double standard" doesn't look adequate, does it?
better: (omit "whoever you are"). I believe that you're using circular reasoning. Could you explain why the phrase offends you? I don't believe there's anything wrong with a double standard per se.
As you can see, the two statements are equivalent, except that after I remove the loaded question and dehumanizing appellation now the honest way of writing it makes it obvious that the question itself is problematic. It is a little bit ironic that I was subject to this style of attack on a page discussing code of conduct. Ironically, if George Ho used a normal style of discourse rather than attacking and dehumanizing discourse based on a loaded question, they would have simply written that they consider the part I want edited a double standard, but they think a double standard is fine in this case. That would have made it obvious it is not fine. After commenting in my thread with a textbook example of a loaded question, I am not surprised they came here to ask that my contribution be closed. 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:C1DE:F689:EF71:3911 11:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notifying Sidowpknbkhihj and communities they edited on all wikis[edit]

Hi. Recently i started up a RfC for global ban of Sidowpknbkhihj. As of now, i'm trying to notify this editor and notifying communities in all of the wikis where they have edited in. However, for me, this is a tedious task (especially notifying the community) as i'm not an administrator or a steward in Meta - as such i have no rights for MassMessage which could help me tremendously at notifying them. As such, can an admin or steward help me at this to make this a less tedious task? By the way, i'm not requesting MassMessage user right and i have notified the user and community at enwiki, jawiki, wikidata, commons, kowiki, zhwiki and idwiki. SMB99thx 06:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Account is globally locked, they can't reply anyway. In addition, there is not a need for global ban IMO, they are clear candidate for global lock (which rightfully done by Ruslik0). Furthermore, no sample of MMS and most of their active wikis the requestor had notified, should be within RFC policy. Nothing much more to do. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I finally provided the samples and from what i feel in the reactions in those communities i have notified, this is an overkill. I admit, this is the first RfC i have done on Meta and i could learn from it. SMB99thx 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I still think a MMS isn't that appropriate for now, since most of the communities had been notified. It's okay, meta isn't easy to navigate. Feel free to ask for help if needed. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&oldid=20462823"