Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2013-06

Translations needed for workflow states

Please translate at


ready = פֿאַרטיק

progress = אינמיטן ארבעט

published = פֿאַרעפֿנטלעכט

Needs updating = דאַרף ווערן דערהײַנטיקט

proofreading = קארעקטור לייענען

Thank you! --Redaktor (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done, can you check? PiRSquared17 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please close some discussions

As I'm the initiator of the proposal I abstain, but this one has been opened for more than a month. I do not think they should be kept open forever and I feel (and in fact surprised) that many users have commented over there so I feel a decision can be made. This one may also need attention. Perhaps not inmediate but worth to look at it. A review of Meta:Requests for deletion would also be welcome.

On RFC, Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders was set to close on 21 May, but noone has even formally closed it. As I've participated, I'll also abstain.

And, we have Requests for comment/Proposal for a policy on involved administrators opened for more than a year. I've also participated there so...

We should think about setting limits on how much time an RFC or Proposal can stay open. IRL election are not and can't be opened forever, and that should be the same here IMHO.

Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I also commented everywhere, except of the "involved admins" stuff. Though I'm unsure how to proceed there - I guess the second rewrite there could be added as policy, since it still has the spirit (but not the complicatedness) of the original proposal, and received no opposes. Maybe some other admins can give their opinions here (about closing it) too. Btw, somehow this section shows how unnecessary that proposal is/was, because we already are super-reluctant to close discussions where we were involved! --MF-W 03:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please review/implement this proposal ( template/temp)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For once I had shut up!   Done --MF-W 03:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A crat should close Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Sage_Ross_(WMF)_(temp). The result was to give him (temp?) import rights, and it has already been handled by a steward. I would close it, but really only bureaucrats should close RfAs. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Anyone wanting to do the above, please? It's been 3 days now. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the involved admins discussion and the above comment about it not being needed: I wish. Meta lost two admins who did not wish to conform to this standard ethical practice. Part of their defense was that meta had no such policy so they couldn't be held to it. So, a close one way or the other to make it clear whether or not admins here are expected to recuse themselves from administrative action is such situations would be very helpful in clarifying the matter. Although not every admin actually needs something so obvious explained to them, it seems there are some that do. Codifying it into policy could actually save meta a lot of trouble since admins will know where the line is and (hopefully) will respect it and no more desysopping will be needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's 6 days since this was posted and nobody has done nothing. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It's puzzling since the proposal has been open for sixteen months and there is a fairly clear consensus that it should be implemented in some form. I'm not super well-versed in closing practices here, but does it have to be an admin who closes it? Obviously I can't close it either but maybe we could find some uninvolved user who would be willing to do it instead of waiting another few months for an uninvolved admin... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright guys, I'll take a look and do the deed. Theo10011 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow up - Marco, I did most of what I could (I think I got to most of what you mentioned above). I have no problem closing more or getting involved in contentious issues, so feel free to ping me if you need anything closed. Theo10011 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you going to add the proposed text to Meta:Administrators and mark it for translation? PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I was. But I was going to get dinner first and maybe get around to that tomorrow. I would really appreciate the help if you care to add it to Meta:Administrators, and mark it for translation. I still would have forgotten to mark it for translation though until you mentioned above. :P Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This was implemented! PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Theo. If you could, this one needs closing too. By counting, there are more people supporting banning uploads than restrictions or leaving the situations as it is now. I personally go with banning them entirely first until Meta:Exemption doctrine policy is ever approved (and we know that can take years...). -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
That one might be contentious MarcoAurelio, but I'll close it. I'll count the votes and see what the results are, and how to mark it as. BTW RFH doesn't seem to be the right place for a policy discussion/vote. Someone might have to move it to an RfC subpage after closing....Anyway, I'll see what the votes say. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I closed that and I'm still tallying and checking. There might be issues with a couple of votes, so I haven't added the closing result yet. Theo10011 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. We should have a discussion about how to enact the changes. Theo10011 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much :) -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Theo, can you please clarify exactly what the result was for each section of the admin inactivity RfC? I'd say they're just the proposed ones (time = 2 years, measure = no edits or log actions). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone figure out what's broken? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess this edit caused it. Purge and refresh to see if it is fixed? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Purged and refreshed. It's still broken. :S PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. It was a very subtle change. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Could an admin block WMCola (talk · contribs) and Mysuperpage (talk · contribs)? They clearly are vandalism-only accounts. Thanks, --LlamaAl (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This could use a few admins to review - I've blocked at least one of the accounts so can't review it, and I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the other requests. --Rschen7754 08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can, if you decide to unblock, or if it's just BF101 complaining. But I'm also clueless about these 2 longstanding requests ("THIS IS NOT A PROXY"). --MF-W 03:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"People interested" and languages

One of my friend and I proposed a wiki, "Wikikulture" (this is the English version and this is the Italian version), but I don't succeed to make show the button "Add a signature" in the section "People interested" (a section for the supporters).

Furthermore I don't succeed to make show this section ("People interested" aka "Persone interessate") in the Italian version of this proposal.

Finally I don't succeed to make show the various language version (now only two, English and Italian) in the upper part of the screen both in the English version and in the Italian one.

Thank you in advance for the help!

--Mikelo Gulhi (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

wikibooks main page update

Can you please update Main Page? I've been added Ukrainian language on it. --Ipadm (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

done. --MF-W 21:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple English Wikiquote locked with no explanation

moved to Stewards' noticeboard. --MF-W 14:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)