Open main menu

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 20 November 2019)

(as of 20 November 2019)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2019-06-26)

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 most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Summarize community consultation on office actionsEdit

Whether the WMF staff objects or not, I for one would like to ask any uninvolved administrator(s) or 'crat(s) to summarize the Talk:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019. The WMF T&S team has asked for an uninvolved steward to do so, but stewards are relatively less independent from the entirely involved T&S team, so I feel it's important to have a summary from an uninvolved admin or crat on the record whatever the T&S team decides about the propriety. EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think this is a sort of thing that just one person can close. If it is to be done by community members, whether it be stewards, meta admins, or another group, I think it should be the result of multiple people's examinations of the consultation. Please wait for a T&S response on this, as it does not seem that we will be able to find a steward to close this and unless T&S does ask meta admins (which I don't think would be a good idea) there's nothing to be done. Vermont (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: why do you think it would not be a good idea for uninvolved meta admin(s)? Do you not see any turpitude inherent in asking for a summary from a smaller group of uninvolved functionaries who are more dependent on good relations with the WMF, and at the same time saying if none of them stick their neck out then the very much involved T&S team will take it upon themselves to summarize? I stand by my request. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I see this similar to if rollbackers on enwiki (using this because it's your home project) were given the ability to delete pages. They may do it right, but they weren't vetted for that level of trust when they were first granted rollback. Meta-admins are judged on their ability to handle both local and global issues (normal local work on meta, and global stuff like the blacklist, filters, MMS, etc.), yes, however this is an issue I believe is much more important than those, depending on how the outcome effects the current situation. Vermont (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree that Stewards are not the group that should be asked to compose the closing statement. It already looks like a play is being made to disregard or “creatively weigh” the sentiment expressed by the community with reference to “we are also exploring why participation in this consultation was significantly lower than participation in previous community discussions about partial/temporary bans.” Hint: it’s because it’s clear the WMF is only paying lip service to the community with the consultation (see: ignoring community questions and concerns in other venues) and is probably going to do whatever they want anyway. No, do not let the discussion be closed by a biased party (staff) or ones so closely beholden to the Foundation (stewards). Let it be a panel of uninvolved users. –xeno 10:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) (such a panel could include (a) steward(s) that had not opined and do not hold strong opinions on the subject as long as other groups were represented as well) –xeno 15:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
As a steward I am not, nor my colleagues are, bounden, indebted, obligated or obliged to WMF staff. I am certainly not in debt with them for anything as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Don’t want to get hung up on terminology, so choose your own word for “dutifully fulfills the directives of the WMF as written”. –xeno 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a very inaccurate description of our role. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Rather supine ignorance. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
My bad, probably too harsh. Apologies. But in any case we do not do proxy work for the Foundation. They have a 'staff' global group to take care of their own stuff. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No apology required, please speak freely. –xeno 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I meant no offence. My feeling is that stewards are simply too high in the ad hoc “chain of command” to make the closure and for that to be acceptable to the communities that have brought forward these concerns. –xeno 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Stewards are members of the community, elected by the community to their role. The extent to which they fulfill "the directives of the WMF" is insofar as it coincides with community consensus/policy. Vermont (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Do stewards not follow all official WMF policies, as a rule? I would be persuaded otherwise and admit that I am largely ignorant of the vast majority of the Stewards’ work. Is there an example where a steward (or stewards as a group) wilfully chose to ignore or defy WMF official policy due to community sentiment? I understand “declining to act” is a pocket veto that could meet this description, I was curious about something more overt. Please feel free to talk it to my tak if this is off-topic. –xeno 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't actively go against WMF policies, but we are responsible to the community and our primary duty is following/enforcing community-approved policies and community consensus. There have certainly been areas in the past (removal of permissions on behalf of the WMF and enforcing WMF global bans) where we were involved in implementing WMF decisions but decided to actively take a step back from. Generally when we have a concern with something that the WMF is doing, we have been somewhat successful in suggesting changes or compromises, and they have been at least somewhat responsive to our needs as a group. I think it is fair to say that the stewards group has a different relationship with the WMF than most of the community, but we as a group are from the community and part of the community. I am also a poor representative of the wider group in that regard, as my personal opinion on topics like FRAMBAN has happened to align with the WMF's view, but this is not reflective of the opinion of the steward group as a whole.Ajraddatz (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the insight, Ajraddatz; I've stricken my comment. I think a representative panel with a mix of different groups (including steward(s)), meta admins, users from affected projects, would be ideal, given the gravity of the subject matter. –xeno 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It certainly could not be worse than any alternative. As a matter of fundamental fairness, an involved party should not close a discussion. The WMF are clearly an involved party in this dispute, and so are incompetent to close it. (That's not a knock at them; I'm also an involved party and would be equally incompetent to close it.) The close needs to be done by a neutral third party who has not been involved in, and has no strong opinion on, the matter. I'm aware finding that might be challenging, but that does not change the basic requirement. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
A panel sounds like a good idea; since the main aggrieved communities are enwiki and dewiki, perhaps a neutral community representative from both and one meta admin or steward would be a good mix. I'm not sure that any stewards or meta admins particularly want to go near this, so a couple of users from enwiki and dewiki might be the best bet. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So, Ajraddatz, that does sound like a good idea. How shall we go about that? Seraphimblade (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No reason we can't try recruiting some. Maybe send an email to checkuser-l. CheckUser policy/Users with CheckUser access, Oversight policy/Requests for oversight, OTRS (admins) might be good places to start. --Rschen7754 04:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, putting out calls for interested individuals is probably the easiest way. I'll leave a message for some dewiki folks tomorrow. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I think frwiki and eswiki might be worth it too, maybe nlwiki. Also Stewards/Former stewards (you'll of course have to sort through the ones who resigned under problematic circumstances). I think that often the best types for these roles are those who have nothing to gain politically from this (they're not at a point where they are looking to get more rights from WMF or from the community). --Rschen7754 05:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you want the assessment of the consensus, or summary of the argument, of the community suggest a range of trusted people from a range of sites to assess it. It worked when English Wikipedia blacked. Get languages, get sisters, and experiences. Once you have assembled a team that both sides trust, let them at it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry everyone, this weekend is getting pretty busy. @DerHexer: if you have a chance to look at this and recommend any dewiki users (or yourself) who would be willing to close, that would be excellent. Otherwise I'll try to look at this again tomorrow. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • My personal nominations would be @MBisanz, DerHexer, Wpedzich, Krd, Jon Harald Søby, and PhilKnight: (both who I think the community at large and the WMF would accept). But feel free to decline if you are not interested or you don't agree. That all being said, it could be moot per [1] --Rschen7754 01:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe if the panel is formed before 12th, I think we can ask WMF for some extension before they do the stuff... themselves. — regards, Revi 04:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): Given the threads opened in several boards regarding this matter (this page, the stewards' noticeboard, etc.), as steward I'd like to ask for an extension in order to find if there are any user or group of users interested into summarizing and closing the community consultation. This should not be interpreted as a personal interest in myself in closing that discussion. Since I have commented over there, I don't think I'm qualified. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: I took this request back to management and we did some thinking and here's what we've come up with: we aim to publish our close of the consultation, with our findings, next week (yes, it's a bit delayed, sorry!), but we would not object to a Steward also putting together some findings or suggestions for us to review at that time. We can't give you forever to find someone, however, as we'd like to implement the results of our close in a timely manner once we set it out. As you might have read, I have recommended that we not reinstate the two policy tools, so assuming that is our close, we would want to update our policies accordingly before too much time passes. So if you are able to find a Steward to put together some community recommendations about the consultation topic between now and when we publish our close, that's fine, but if it comes too much after that it will probably be less relevant. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): Thanks for your reply. It still looks no individual or group of individuals have volunteered to summarize the consultation. Considering that your team intent to close the consultation themselves next week, I'm not sure we'll find anyone. However, from a quick coup d'œil, in my opinion, the consultation shows that the majority of those that have participated ain't confortable with partial and/or temporary office actions and as such my personal recommendation would be not to reinstate at this point those tools as you have also proposed. This is not a formal closure. Again, I don't think I am qualified given that I participated in the consultation. Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Redact Polish edits by various IP vandalsEdit

Various IP vandals have inserted Polish text into many pages. Please redact the text and edit summary of all the edits (both deleted and non-deleted) and the log comments of all the page creation log entries by the following IP addresses:

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I see that IPs have been blocked, and the edits reverted. Can you please express why we need to redact the edits and summaries. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Autopatroller rightsEdit

Hi, I am a sysop at de-Wiki and my main field of work there is to prevent vandalism. I need autopatroller rights, so I can edit Steward requests/Global to report edits or global vandalism of (locked) Users. Thank you very much. – Siphonarius (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Done thanks for the ping.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. CptViraj (📧) 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete translations of two IP usersEdit

The translations (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS) and 2001:EE0:48E4:7F20:B5EC:AB53:DB7E:E1BB (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS) created are non-sense, please delete them. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)