Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

(Redirected from Meta:RfH)
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 15 January 2021)

Discussions:
(as of 15 January 2021)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2020-05-23)

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.


Expired RfDEdit

Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Wikimedians_of_Slovakia's_Annual_Report_2018 is pending since August 2020. There are talks about deferring the case to the AffCom, which seems has not happened yet. Ping Camouflaged Mirage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio To be honest, I don't see any policy based reasons to delete the page, so my suggestion then was to defer to Affcom as there seems to be some suggestions that they are already informed about the contentious issues and this page is within their remit. We of course have no way to tell if Affcom will be taking any actions, I see this as similar as submission a CU abuse to Ombudsman Committee where a case can take for years. I am not sure if my this suggestion will make me INVOLVED, hence, I hesitated in closing. If I am UNINVOLVED, I will close as no consensus with a suggestion to defer to Affcom on the issues and they can manage from then. There is simply no cogent argument to delete, nor keep. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I concurr the request is bizarre and it'd be better if the AffCom could review which of the reports is the good one. This thread is to request some eyes on it, an an action (even a closed: no action taken). The ping to you was a courtesy given that you were participating there. If you feel involved, this thread will also draw some attention and any other admin may close. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The last reply on the RFD by Quantocius Quantotius " I guess we'll have to wait and see if any other independent observers feel differently." (quoted directly) makes me think that they wanted someone else to close (which seems to suggest I am INVOLVED), so that's why on the side of caution I treated myself as INVOLVED. Yes, I will hope someone will close this, as this is way overdue even by typical meta standards. Thanks for the ping anyway, appreciated :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I recommend not to delete it without any prior approval from AffCom since it's an official report of an affiliate. We can do is just blank the both report pages and put a notice on it as such it is kept for historical reference. Sorry, I am not comfortable to close the discussion. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 13:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear all. I just stumbled on this discussion while looking for a way to deal with KuboF Hromoslav who keeps reverting the report despite an AffCom agreement that both sides of the dispute would stop publicly fighting in the matter. Therefore I suggest a temporary ban on editing any articles/reports etc within the /Wikimedians of Slovakia subspace on meta. Thank you and stay healthy.--Jetam2 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's massive edit warring. Please cease both @Jetam2 and @KuboF Hromoslav. I will typically block both for a slow edit warring way beyond 3RR, but I will not as I don't think it's a current war (blocks aren't punitive but preventative) as well as I don't know who is right and who is wrong at this moment. With that being said, I will revert to the pre - edit war version (see en:Wikipedia:Stable_version) and full protect it for now, until the RFD is closed and I will recommend the closing sysop to review the protection then. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Please do consider the topical block for KuboF Hromoslav as well. I am sorry it had to come this far but he seemingly could not resist. Thank you.--Jetam2 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I will not for now, as I don't know who is right and who is wrong and Affcom didn't have anyone telling meta admin team their view on this. If you want, I will make it a 2 way interaction ban (voluntary) per en:WP:IBAN subject to the normal exceptions, but I think you won't like it. If Affcom determines that KuboF is in the wrong, sure I will be willing to sanction them accordingly, just not now when there is very little information. Hope this clarifies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand. The situation is not quite clear and that is why AffCom asked both the sides (WMSK) and KuboF not to continue with editing. I am in the process of writing to AffCom so they are aware of the current developments. Not sure that the IBAN is needed now that the reports are blocked anyways. Further action might be if he edits any other pages. If you care to read about the conflict, the talk pages to the report has most of the background. You are under no obligation to, though, I understand that it is not your responsibility/job to be the arbiter. Thanks!--Jetam2 (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

File MoveEdit

Can someone move File:HollandOpen.ppt.pdf to File:HollandOpen.ppt? .ppt is the correct file ending, because it's a presentation. --ZabeMath (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please also move File:Wikipedia as a teaching tool.pdf to File:Wikipedia as a teaching tool.ppt and File:Wikis are cool !.ppt.pdf to File:Wikis are cool !.ppt for the same reason. --ZabeMath (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe they are as they are for a purpose. PPT is not supported file type.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
See c:Commons:File types  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
They should be labelled as {{do not copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. GerardM and Piotrus are these still of value?  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should remove them. PPT is not a free format, and we shouldn't store non-free files. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Then probably File:Wikipedia presentation by Piotrus.pdf and File:Wikis and Wikipedia presentation by Piotrus v2.pdf should be deleted as well. --ZabeMath (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ideally the ppt should be converted to pdf, and then transferred to Commons. Not certain how being ppt makes the out of scope, whether non-free or not. I would like to hear from authors first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That. It does not make sense to say that PPT is non-free; it's simply a less accessible format compared to PDF. In this case I recommend keeping both versions, because PDF does lack presentation-specific features. Leaderboard (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Autopatrol rightsEdit

Hello, I am doing translations based on the Meta policies and guidelines. Since I want to lower the burden of patrollers, I want the autopatrol right. Best regards --Matttest (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: they asked multiple sysops for it, first is Krd who directed them here, and after posting here they asked Hasley. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AWB AccessEdit

Hi, I was looking to use AWB on this wiki to fix some historical lint issues (the type where issues on a user's signature affects the rest of the page), but it's telling me that I don't have access. I would appreciate if AWB could be enabled on this account. At this time I do not foresee making edits to the extent of flooding RC. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: what is the volume, and are you going to be in user_talk: namespace? — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It is likely to be small at this time, and I do intend to run this on mainspace (not just user_talk); most of the issues I've seen are actually there. Leaderboard (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: I asked about user_talk, because you will trigger new-message banners for everyone unless this is done from a bot account. — xaosflux Talk 15:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Ah okay, in that case I'll restrict to mainspace for now. Leaderboard (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done @Leaderboard: edit with care, don't flood, mark minor and use a good edit summary. If you want to tackle hundreds+ of these at once, a bot account with a bot flag will be the way to go. — xaosflux Talk 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ZabeMath (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)