Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFH)
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat 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. See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic information policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies
Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 27 April 2017)

Discussions:
(as of 27 April 2017)
(Last updated: 2017-01-29)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

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=~~~~}} and sections whose oldest comment is older than 10 days.

Semi-protection request on Wikimedia News[edit]

This need semi-protection due to reverts lately. --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Import c:Template:Verified account[edit]

Hello,

Could an admin, an importer or a trans-wiki importer import the aforementioned template here ? This would be useful for OTRS.

If there is already such a template, could you simply tell me which one it is ? I didn't find it.

Best regards,

--AntonierCH(d) 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we require account verification on meta? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd say we don't. No valid use case (if there is any at all) for verified accounts applies to meta. --Krd 11:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
There is one use case actually, the meta user page is used on other wiki if there is not a local one. Example with User:Louvain Coopération who uses the global userpage for FR wiki and Commons. --AntonierCH(d) 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add that if this template is not imported, it implies that 1) the agent has to create local pages on all involved wikis (here only FR + Commons) and 2) the user can't use the global user page functionality entirely. Let's work efficiently and UX oriented :-) --AntonierCH(d) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there any account verification policy on Commons and/or on frwiki? --Krd 14:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes for sure, on FR wiki and probably yes for Commons since there is the template and it is used... However, none is written in OTRS wiki and maybe it would be great to have a common cross-wiki policy. --AntonierCH(d) 14:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
See en:WP:REALNAME, which is also policy at simplewiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a global policy could be useful, and I'd say the policy and the corresponding guidelines for OTRS agents should be established before facts are made by using a new template. I'd appreciate if anybody could take care of building such global policy. --Krd 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Krd: Sure, but I am currently in Cuba and know how much time consuming creating a global policy can be (weeks or months !), there is no way I am working on this in the next weeks, so I solved the problem by adding a simple line on the meta user page of the user. --AntonierCH(d) 09:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

remove protection[edit]

Hi, please remove protection from Tech/Server switch 2017. TYVM! Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the protection you set already expired. Stryn (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Request to Language committee[edit]

Good afternoon. Can someone from the Language committee confirm the receipt/acceptance of this request? Thanks! --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Language committee will see it in the other places you've posted. If they do not respond soon I will poke. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Report concerning Sänger[edit]

  • Sänger (talk · contribs. · moves · block · block log) Reasons: Defamatory statements, repeated two times to the detriment of User:Der Wolf im Wald. Precisely, this report is about the statement that said Wikipedian is a "habgieriger Erpresserbriefschreiber" and used a "widerwärtiges Erpresserschreiben" (rough translations: "greedy writer of extortive letters" and "despicable extortive letter" , it is about some legal proceedings including some adhortatory letters by the latter to a third party). Maby some steward could advise if this even warrant a global block, at least for a finite duration? Grand-Duc (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    The concerned account sent a as-aggressive-as-possible and stuffed with maximum legalese threatening cease-or-desist-letter with over 1000$ claim to the owner of a free-knowledge, CC-licensed, website owner, who had a fully licensed picture on his site, just overlooked a automagically created back-page, that the account especially looked for for financial exploitation. It's his business model, sending such letters, in the hope that fear will make some of the recipients just pay. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it's not up to you to make a legal judgement, and declaring something being an "extortion" is such a statement, which is only to be made by a court in conclusion of a case. / New diff, same thing. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If the user in question is threatening people who are using content hosted her in good faith I have a problem with that. One needs to have excellent justification to send a demand for money. One IMO must have requested proper attribution first and been denied and only than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The cease-and-desist-letter-fans only talk about legalese, they are completely immune to moral thinking and doing just what's right. They want to maximum-criminalize all those users of our content, who make negligible mistakes, and some even want to make money out of this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
To answer the initial question: Global blocks for user accounts do not exist. There's merely the possibility to globally lock accounts which is certainly not being done for finite durations. --Vogone (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Vogone: Well, your statement actually contradicts the first sentence of Global blocks: "Global blocks are ways to prevent an account or IP address from editing all Wikimedia wikis, for a time or indefinitely." The workaround for the lack of suited tool is indeed a lock, as far as I understood the following explanations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: Global blocks quite clearly says, at the top This page is currently a draft. so I wouldn't start arguing based on the information in a draft page. This all seems terribly vindictive, don't you have productive editing to engage in elsewhere in any case ? Nick (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Say that to the guy engaged in defamatory hounding of another Wikipedian. I'm quite pissed of about the eternal equalization of "people who are engaged in defending their intellectual property" = "criminals who eagerly await the occasion to wring out some money out of innocent media users". On the other hand, asking for assistance to enforce a civilisated tone in arguments and discussion is productive, isn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anybody suggesting those of us who defend our intellectual property rights are being equated with criminals who eagerly await the occasion to wring out some money out of innocent media users. I see someone complaining that one user is sending out letters asking for significant sums of money when minor errors of attribution (which appear to be good faith, accidental omissions, rather than wilful 'theft' of the image) have occurred. I've had plenty of my images re-used without attribution, including in print, and I've never considered sending out a letter demanding $1000, despite being in the same legal position as Der Wolf im Wald, I find myself largely agreeing with Sänger, I think demanding any sum of money when a good faith failure to correctly attribute is discovered is abhorrent, it flies in the face of our mission here, it actively deters people from re-using what we contribute, and that reduces the amount of 'ShareAlike' licensed content downstream which is completely contrary to our mission here. And as I say, wanting Sänger blocked globally is coming across as unduly vindictive, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Sänger makes this equation again and again. Well, yes, Der Wolf im Wald (DWiW for short) has made an error in judgement in a case of intellectual property, and he clarified the matter with his opposite. But since several months, the one who has been reported here is a bad hound of DWiW, jumping on the smallest occasion to discriminate him. First, it was on the talk page of a RfC, then on the DE-WP signpost talk page, not to forget a second RfC, several pages for administration (vandal report page and the like), always on DE-WP and always about the behavior of DWiW (and I surely miss some instances). Well, our German Wikimedia chapter is currently trying to put together some solutions to this and has asked for comments and ideas, and guess who we see again engaged in defamatory acts against DWiW? The diffs above show it. Yes, DWiW's acts weren't sound and weren't morally well thought. But using these errors to make the assertion that someone is an extortionist is way too much, it's going in the realms of justiciable acts: someone who is not judged as such by a legal court is not to be termed "extortionist". Ah, and Sänger likes the fake news too, that photographers routinely get a four-digit amount of money out of any license infringer. That's simply wrong, German courts usually award between 100 and 500 Euros for damages and retroactively owed license fees (and of course the expenses of the claimant and the costs of the proceeding are imputed to the defendant, given that he lost). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course he would never have got this money in a court, but that was never his intention. He just wanted to extort money by creation of a climate of fear, he doesn't want to go to court, that#s why he backed down after the shit had hit the fan. And a quite loud and good organized group of fan-boys'n'girls stands fast with him and tries to ruin every meaningful MB (RfC) about this issues on deWP. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple proposals for new projects[edit]

There are so many proposed projects, including a few older ones, like WikiCook, Wikifoodia and WikiGames (not to be confused with Wikigames (2). Some or a few proposals need closure as "rejected" proposals. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)