Meta:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5

__NOINDEX__

Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates
Today I present to you a problem that has me completely baffled. If you look at, you can see that it has only translations of Custom domains. That said, the reason that it says "incorrect protection template" is most likely because the original Custom domains is in fact protected, but that doesn't carry over for translations. Do you think there is a fix to this or will this be permanent? Just to clarify once again, this is regarding  --Integer  talk 03:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have moved this here from SN as this only concerns Meta where Stewards generally should not interfere. Thank you. 07:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed this while cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. It is likely caused by a template imported from Wikipedia. 08:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Integer Thank you for raising this issue. R4356th was correct in moving this thread from stewards' noticeboard to Administrators' noticeboard, where this request is now more in scope. I would quibble just a bit with the phrasing of R4356th's explanation, though, as stewards do have some managerial responsibility for Meta Wiki. It's a governance structure that is somewhat complicated, to put it mildly. For example, Meta bureaucrats oversee most local user group permissions requests requiring a community election (i.e., at Requests for permissions) or which can only be granted by Meta bureaucrats as a discretionary appointment at Administrators' noticeboard (i.e., interface administrator) whereas stewards oversee the global group permissions requests plus one local Meta user group permission request, wiki creator, which was functionally implemented as a local rather global user group for various reasons, but it very much is a global role (i.e., it's just only used on Meta, essentially). Meta bureaucrats generally close most local Meta Wiki discussions, whereas stewards close most global discussions. ManageWiki settings changes are done by stewards. Extensions are enabled by stewards, though in most, but not necessarily all, cases, stewards should consult with a Meta bureaucrat to see whether a community discussion of some sort is needed. In short, it's quite complicated. Alas, I digress. Nevertheless, R4356th is correct that stewards have little concern for which pages or templates are appropriate to Meta, or even such matters as how pages should be titled, generally speaking. Thus, Administrators' noticeboard is the best venue for anything concerning Meta Wiki only. Most requests here can be handled by either a Meta administrator or Meta bureaucrat, whether a community discussion is warranted or not. That's not to say that there may never be a particular request at Administrators' noticeboard that would never be handled by a steward, depending on the specific change required. For example, a minor change to Special:ManageWikiDefaultPermissions might be requested here, though community noticeboard would probably still be a better venue, it's not unreasonable for it to be requested here. In any case, to your specific question, I've gone ahead and just ✅ Template:Pp-template that was causing this issue. While we could have corrected the template to improve the category by which the template categorized pages, since it was only used on one or perhaps two pages, it wasn't really used. And, to be honest, unless we have a bot like AnomieBOT that updates the page protection icons automatically when page protection levels change or expire, these errors will be commonplace. Since one can easily view the protection status in the "page information" feature of a given page, it's not that useful. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, and very much! Integer  talk 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Integer ✅. Dmehus (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Updating Miraheze
Could someone please update the news section in "Miraheze" to note that Miraheze now hosts more than 4000 wikis? Thank you. 10:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * R4356th I'm going to mark this as ❌ because (a) we've hosted over 4,500 wikis before and (b) a large swath of closed wikis is due to be added to Special:DeletedWikis in the next few days, which will likely drop us below 4,000 wikis again. Thus, if it's considered significant enough news to note on Main Page, I'd rather wait until it's over 4,100-4,200 wikis. Dmehus (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : ( Okay. 11:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to agree as I believe we did once update the News like that and afterwards it was quite awkward when the number went down because of the wikis deleted per the Dormancy Policy Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Reviewing Template:Documentation
Could someone please review Template:Documentation? It has a Lua error. I am guessing you may have to import a Lua module. Thank you. 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Integer talk 21:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please leave importing to admins from the next time. We should attribute the module authors by importing instead of merely copy-pasting. This is due to legal reasons. I hope this helps. To admins, this is ❌. 21:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Got it. Will note this for future reference. Integer talk 21:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, past practice on Meta Wiki with respect to importing versus copying and pasting has been...mixed, to say the least, often without even a required edit summary linking to the source page (via an interwiki page link). Thus, while it's true attribution is required, full history attribution is not required, provided an edit summary link to the source page is included. Best practice here is to say something like, where   is the source page from English Wikipedia. Dmehus (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th I don't see where there's a Lua error on either Template:Documentation or Template:Documentation/doc. Can you clarify what you mean just a bit? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The errors have been fixed by copy-pasting the required modules mentioned in the error by Integer. However, as we do not have any link to WP or MW.org stating that we imported them from those sites in a widely visible place for modules, conventionally, we import them instead of merely copy-pasting. This is what you are requested to do now. 09:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th I don't see where Integer fixed these issues by copying and pasting, though, unless you don't mean Template:Documentation and Template:Documentation/doc? I just don't see a revision issued by this user. These templates we did actually import correctly, though; however, we could do well to provide a link in an edit summary to the source templates, so I will do that now. Assuming it was only these two templates, I'm going to mark this as ✅ following my correction. Dmehus (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The template needed a Lua module which Integer copy-pasted themselves. This sadly means that this is ❌. 13:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you forgot about this. 22:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th Oh, you didn't link to the Lua module. I thought I checked Module:Documentation and saw it was already imported or properly attributed, but I'll have another look. What other module(s) need to be imported? Dmehus (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It needed some other module. I cannot remember the name right now. Perhaps, can. Nevertheless, I will recheck the template.  12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Making a Translation-related Configuration Change
Hello, as a Meta Translation Administrator, I would like  (can be found in the Localisation section) to be checked in ManageWiki. It will help translators by showing machine translation suggestions. Thank you. 16:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

✅. Dmehus (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th I personally would have no objections to this. I'm going to ping Reception123 to this thread to say whether he feels this needs a full Administrators' noticeboard discussion. I personally don't feel it does, as we have no policy on translations. We primarily rely on users' common sense that only those users who know a language should be doing translations in said language. This is a tool that would help users who know a language, but may not be native speakers of said language. Dmehus (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't ultimately change the workflow of this wiki and just provides a translation aid I would personally think it's fine to proceed without a formal discussion, especially since I can't really see a reason to oppose this. I don't think it would encourage users doing machine translations, but if that happens they can be told accordingly. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a good way of looking at it, I think. Additionally, if the extension proposed to add any new local Meta user groups, or alter existing Meta user groups in a significant way, I would also think we'd want to have a local community discussion on Meta Wiki. As you and R4356th have articulated, this is just adding an additional tool to existing translators' and translation administrators' toolkits to ease their translation work. If it becomes an issue, then we may need to have a larger community discussion towards adopting as translation policy or guidelines for translators to adhere to, but we can have that policy discussion at a later time when it's required. Accordingly, this requested settings change is now
 * Thank you very much. 21:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Um... I do not see any change? 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hrm, are you still seeing no change? Is there any other setting change needed? Dmehus (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I still do not see any change. I will take a look at the Translate extension's documentation and Miraheze's mw-config repositroy. 12:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at Yandex's translation service and looks like the languages I have tested with are supported. I will further look into this. 14:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, a really simple answer could be that we are not paying Yandex. 14:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I think I found the problem. I will make a pull request. 14:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * CSP seems to be causing this. Universal Omega has made a pull request to add Yandex to the CSP whitelist. 15:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per finding on Discord or IRC, this has likely been caused by Miraheze's API key becoming invalid. 16:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th Ah, that makes the most sense actually because I was sure I'd used the Yandex translation hints on TestWiki in the past year. Nevertheless, if you can advise when this has been corrected, that'd be awesome. Thanks Dmehus (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Miraheze was using a free API key given by a user (they cannot remember where they got it) which got expired in August of 2020. So I am not sure whether it is coming back. 13:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

R4356th Ah, okay, thanks for the update. Yeah, we likely don't have the budget to pay for a premium API key. I thought I saw that the Translate extension has configuration variables that can work with either of Google Translate, Yandex Translate, Bing Translate, and possibly even Naver Translate? I wonder if either of those has a free plan, without usage limitations, that we could try. Dmehus (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

meatball
Ho ho ho,

links to, but it is 301'ing to. One less 301s are always better, so can we modify this?

Thanks. &mdash; revi  14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation administrator
I know I don't have many edits yet, but yes, the number of edits would increase if I had translation administrator rights: I could use them to translate pages and also mark them for translation. On my chat page, I was talking to a Miraheze user when I asked how I could help Miraheze and collaborate with others so if I understood correctly, translation was taken up. Therefore, I would like the rights of a translation administrator. Anton (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Anton I'm not opposed to this, but which language(s) do you speak fluently or fairly fluently, and on which wiki(s) have you used the Translate extension? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I speak Swedish, Spanish and French, moderately English and Finnish well. I have learned Russian, but I do not know about than a couple of sentences.  Yes, and I would use that Translate tool.  In addition to this, I would mark the pages for translation - and I would translate them as well. --Anton (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anton I'm going to put this on hold for a week or two, at minimum, as I would like to see you doing some translations first in languages in which you're most fluent, doing translation reviews of existing translations, and experimenting with the translation administration tools on one of your wikis. How's that? Dmehus (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I am not an administrator, I would suggest you to become an active translator first. 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was suggesting as well. Basically, you don't need translation administrator tools to translate. If you're active translating, you'll usually be invited to participate in fairly short order. Dmehus (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, you can grant me translator rights and later even a translation administrator :) it's good to go to traffic.  I am now really going to participate in Miraheze. Anton (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not need the Translator rights to translate anything here! You can just visit Special:Translate or click the "Translate" button on any translatable page. I hope this helps. :) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  This helped.  I got started! Anton (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anton ✅! I'll follow up with you in a couple weeks on your user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FuzzyBot breaks bulleted lists
FuzzyBot breaks bulleted lists, see Special:Diff/159755 and Miraheze/eo for example. Why does this keep happening and what can we do about it? --Sabelöga (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am to blame for this, apparently. I updated the translation syntax which seems to have caused this. Having said that, we should always keep the syntax up to date from time to time. I will look into switching back to the previous one in a few hours. We should consider making an upstream task on Wikimedia Phabricator regarding this as well. Also a note for Interface Admins: it may be possible to fix the issue with CSS. 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a list of broken pages? 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think R4356th's translation edits or administration is to blame for this. If I'm understanding correctly, this occurs when a translated source page is marked for translation. The Translate extension, via FuzzyBot, adds  with a Translate extension-specific CSS class that breaks bulleted lists. It's an upstream bug almost certainly, but usually what translators do is they just remove this special div the next time they go to update the translation subpage. Dmehus (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What Dmehus said above seems right. Updating the syntax should had used another HTML element. 17:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so how does one manually update the translation syntax?
 * Also, I do think there is a fix to this as it doesn't seem to happen on MediaWiki.org where the syntax keeps the text on the same line which doesn't split the bullet from the text and prevents this from happening in the first place. --Sabelöga (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind the above: the text was aligned that way on the source page which caused the translation to get mangled when FuzzyBot added that syntax. This has been fixed on the discussed page. Oh, and can you do the same on the Main Page? --Sabelöga (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Revoking the User Group from Incnis Mrsi
They have recently made some edits here which actions arguably constitute attacking other users which is obviously not acceptable. Even though their actions cannot be called vandalism, I (as a Meta patroller) think we should patrol their edits till we decide we are fine with them. Thank you. 13:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌. This could've been considered, perhaps, but given that the user seems to have dropped the stick, I don't feel this is necessary at this time. We'll monitor the situation and take action accordingly. Dmehus (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thank you for looking into this anyway. :) 13:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:MyLanguage in a system message
I recently saw the system message that says "Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies." "More information" "OK", the link directs to Privacy Policy when it should direct to Special:MyLanguage/Privacy Policy. (I don't know if this regards the Stewards, if it does please move this thread) --Sabelöga (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I do no know how welcome this message is as I have not really done anything here in the last 24 hours but... this cannot be changed by Stewards or Meta administrators. This must be changed by a Sysadmin. I have made a pull request to change this. 14:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th's pull request looks fine to me. I can't think of any reason why not to implement this change, as we're not even adding Special:MyLanguage in an interface message or anything, but yeah, to add to what R4356th said, if it cannot be changed on-wiki, then your best bet is to open a Phabricator task and a system administrator can consider implementing the change&mdash;after first determining if a community discussion is required or not. This is likely a very non-controversial change, as it only helps internationalize our cookie warning message. Additionally, any community volunteer can implement the change, as R4356th has done, and any system administrator can merge it. Dmehus (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The change has been merged, by the way. It should be live by now. :) 17:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It has, thanks very much :) Anyway, I should really learn how to use Phabricator, but I haven't gotten around to do that yet.. Sabelöga (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about Content Policy/fr
En français c'est bourré de fautes de syntaxe --Zazoult (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Zazoult Please note I have procedurally moved this question from Talk:Content Policy/fr as talk pages on Meta Wiki are infrequently monitored and because centralized discussion is preferred. In this case, Administrators' noticeboard is the best venue for this question, which translates from the French using Google Translate as, "In French it's full of syntax errors." Do you mean technical syntax errors, or language syntax errors? If the latter, I'd recommend reaching out to either HeartsDo, a French speaking translation administrator on Meta Wiki; Reception123, a French speaking administrator on Meta Wiki, or Gerdami, an active French speaking translator on Meta Wiki. They will likely need you to clarify your question a bit, though. If the former, can you clarify what sort of errors, possibly by way of linking to a specific diff, or quoting a brief example? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * J'ai essayé de retraduire, parce que la synthaxe est très importante il faut quand même que çà soit compréhensible pour les éditeurs ou les créateurs surtout concernant les conditions générales de cette ferme de wiki. Zazoult (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merci Zazoult de vouloir améliorer la traduction française de cette page. Il en reste d'ailleurs beaucoup à traduire. Cependant, " ;Ceci n'est pas une erreur de syntaxe ", en effet, le ";" en début de phrase sert à placer une emphase sur le texte et ne demande ni espace ni minuscule. Cordialement, Gerdami (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Zazoult Merci et j'ai juste fait changer comme l'a dit Gerdami, l'histoire du ";". Par contre, juste une dernière question pour savoir: Pourquoi "Politiques et réglementation" en titre pour "Content Policy" ? HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 12:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for agreement with flood flag while templates maintenanance
Hello administrators, i want ask you if you agree with addition of flood flag to my account while i will continue with templates maintenance later in this week. I've noticed that my mass changes floods out RC, but some users may want have these edits in RC for transparency. Please do not take this as bothering and please do not reply with page about flood flag, it is not policy. I want your opinion :). Thank you,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are doing trivial and repetitive tasks, I see absolutely no issue with you adding the flood flag in order to not spam RecentChanges Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is creation of docs, categorising, sometimes completely rewrite or deletein if its merged or not used, etc.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally have no issues with this. While Flood flag is not a policy, it is a guideline of generally and widely accepted customs and practices. Template maintenance isn't specifically mentioned, but categorizing of templates and merging templates should generally be non-controversial. Rewriting depends on the level of rewriting, I think. I personally see no issue with adding  to create documentation subpages, though others may not share this view. I would also just note that the   flag does not suppress edits from RC on the IRC and Discord feeds; it would only affect on-wiki RC. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Adding "Tools" to MediaWiki:Edittools
Please add these to MediaWiki:Edittools:. Just for clarification,  should be replaced by. Thank you. 14:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Interface Administrators policy does not mention where to request this kind of changes. Could that page be updated and could someone clarify if I am at the right place, please? 14:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th This doesn't actually need a interface administrator, as any administrator on Meta can handle these requests. Interface administrators are only needed for edits to sitewide gadgets or CSS. In any case, Administrators' noticeboard is indeed the best location. Anyway, I've done this request, but your request is a bit unclear as I wasn't unsure if you only wanted  replaced. If you wanted the other links added, can you please clarify where on the MediaWiki:Edittools page you want them added? Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "your request is a bit unclear" Um... the topic or thread title states "Adding"? "If you wanted the other links added, can you please clarify where on the MediaWiki:Edittools page you want them added?" And why exactly? That should be admin-discretion. 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th Well, I just don't want to break anything. Should it be added above the charinsert tags? Dmehus (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When you dont want break anything, why not just leave it for someone else? There is no need to have it done in one minute after request...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to this. Thank you. 14:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added it here. Presumably, we don't want to translate MediaWiki:Edittools, correct? So, I suppose we should discourage translations of that page? Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured it out, so this seems to be ✅ now. Please advise if any further changes are needed / wanted. Dmehus (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

LGTM except for the fact that "·" is appearing as an edit tool which could be fixed. Also, using the nowiki tag was not needed as we could simply not mark the page for translation. 14:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True. I included  was included within your   tags, so assumed that meant you wanted it included. I'll remove that. That's true about the   tag; on the other hand, it doesn't hurt anything to have it, in case a page was inadvertently marked for translation. Dmehus (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you very much. 14:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Dmehus (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed policy for adding extensions and changing settings on Meta
Hello. For the community's information, I have drafted a local Meta RFC in order to resolve the contentious question of adding extensions/settings to Meta. Please check it out and let me know if you have feedback/add proposals before I submit it as an Request for Comment. DeeM28 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Candidate for patrollers.
Candidate for patrollers. Because I want to cooperate with the editing patrol. When I become a patrollers, I will mainly patrol Japanese editing. I think Japanese editing is safer if Japanese people go around. Also, sometimes I'm thinking of translating the edited content on google and going around the editing of foreigners. うざっきー (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * うざっきー Thank you for your interest in patrolling Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages, with a particular focus on Japanese pages. The only minor concern I would have is that you created, albeit in good-faith welcome user talk pages for users who've never contributed here. This was likely because we don't have any codified guidelines on when it's appropriate to welcome users. So, generally speaking, we prefer to only welcome users when they make their first constructive editing contribution to Meta. Secondarily, if you'll review the patroller guidelines, and indicate to me your understanding of them, asking any pertinent questions you may have, I can definitely consider onboarding you to the  team. Dmehus (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks you. I read 「template:Patroller granted」. If you don't know what to do, you can check with the administrator.
 * Also, regarding pasting templates to new users, every site that is always active "let's paste  to users who have posted records at least once." Because of the rule, if there was even one posting record, I would put it up and misunderstand it. I'm sorry. うざっきー (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * うざっきー That's completely understandable. You've demonstrated to me a capacity to accept and learn from constructive criticism of colleagues and other community members, which, to me, is most essential. Plus, we do need more Japanese patrollers and translators, so I'm going to ✅ this request. I'll post the guidelines at User talk:うざっきー, and then grant the  group. Dmehus (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Resigning My Patroller Right
I used to enjoy helping out with the right but due to excessive drama starting to happen recently, I am hereby resigning my Patroller rights. Maybe someday I may consider requesting this right if the situation gets better. Please remove my right. Thank you. 16:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sad to see this. Will remove :/--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. 16:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This feels like a quite impulsive and rash move and that I don't really understand why disagreeing with someone (which is nothing odd) must result in resigning rights. People have their differences, no one will ever agree on everything, I don't quite see why a resignation is necessary. I appreciated your work as a patroller and find it a real shame that you have decide to resign this right over one discussion. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for crats
Dear Bureaucrats,

Can we get extended deadline of this request to prevent premature closure as some comments raised needs to be addressed before the closing?

Thank you,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no fixed deadline for such requests. While there is a minimum period of 7 days for a request to stay open, there is no maximum period so it is at the discretion of a bureaucrat to close it, which will not be done if there is still activity. Having participated in the vote, I will in any case not be handling it myself, of course. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's no fixed deadline, but it's been 14 days since it opened, someone might want to close it. I wanted to express that I would not agree with that.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks
has come here from Fandom to harass me, creating an inappropriate talk page, and personally attacking me. This needs to stop. Firestar464 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Firestar464 While I do agree that FtosorciM's personal drama-type comments on your user talk page and in unrelated venues needs to stop, this is a bit old, as the user was already advised at their user talk page to drop it, which they did here and here, so this very act of raising this issue at Administrators' noticeboard feels like rehashing an already dealt with issue. Therefore, I'd strongly advise both of you not to interact with each other going forward. (FtosorciM, please do not reply to this thread, as that will only keep the issue continuing.) Dmehus (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Policy for the functioning of Meta
It is my belief as stated here that it will be beneficial to this project (Meta) to have a policy detailing current "conventions" and practices that are unwritten but are deemed to be policies of this wiki. The arguments in favour of such a proposal may be read by reading my comment that I link above but the main idea is that it would make things more clear and reduces disputes and it would also be a good thing for new users to be able to understand how Meta functions. I do not want to draft a proposed policy yet because I would first like to have some opinions about the idea. DeeM28 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * DeeM28 This is indeed on my todo list, but I wouldn't describe this as a policy page documenting the non-codified conventions and practices, but rather a documentation or guideline page that describes them. I would begin the draft and others who've been here before me would edit and add to the draft, removing or modifying any items that are not considered to be widespread, non-codified conventions but rather customs. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin but am going to boldly reply anyway. (I do not understand why this has been made here instead of CN.) So, first of all, we kind of fallback to Wikipedia policies whenever there is no local policy as those are widely recognised in the so-called "wiki universe". Now, to respond to your concern regarding disputes arising from confusion related to these conventions, people must have common sense. Everyone needs to be able to judge if doing something is right before following conventions taking the circumstances into consideration. In the same way, people should also not be saying stuff like "there is no policy on x so I am allowed to do y" (which is related to the background of this request). Besides, no matter how many pages policies are made, there will always be confusion. I am opposing this as a Mirahezian. (Sorry for the messy wording.)  13:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DeeM28's choice of raising this request at Administrators' noticeboard, I believe, is the correct venue, as they're proposing to discuss a policy, guideline, or some sort of documentation on non-codified conventions and customs on Meta Wiki, not something which would be pan-Miraheze where community noticeboard would be more appropriate. Dmehus (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Making this request here is discouraging input from community members in a way. 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. Administrators' noticeboard is watched by 167 page watchers, ~60 of which of viewed recent edits. Reception123 and I did discuss the prospect of a separate Community portal that would be used for local Meta only community discussions, but there would still be considerable overlap with Administrators' noticeboard. Secondarily, as that was the historical community noticeboard, we'd have to merge the historical discussions, presumably to Community noticeboard/Archive 1, before repurposing it as a local Meta community discussion board. Dmehus (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To address the Community Noticeboard vs. Administrators Noticeboard the rationale is that while Meta is the central wiki for all Miraheze wikis it also has its own community and its own policies that only apply to Meta. Therefore I do not think that Meta-specific affairs should be discussed on Community Noticeboard which is for global Miraheze problems and discussions. If people are interested in Meta affairs and discussions I think it can be expected that they check this page. I do agree however that instead of "Administrators Noticeboard" there should be a noticeboard dedicated to Meta affairs like the Community portal Dmehus suggests.
 * Regarding the actual issue I do invite you to read my reply on Meta:Requests for permissions where I dispute the "common sense" principle, as it is relative and while one user may believe that what they are doing is "common sense" another user might disagree. What is the disadvantage of having a guideline page? (compared to the advantages I cite). A guideline or policy page cannot be perfect and will undoubtedly not cover everything but it can cover some ground and be useful to avoid confusion and for newcomers. Also, if I am not mistaken I remember a user complaining about the citation of Wikipedia policies and I do think that we do need our own identity and cannot solely rely on policies from Wikipedia which may or may not fit our purpose. DeeM28 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to what DeeM28 said above, in which I do think a guideline page would be helpful (and anyone could contribute to it and discuss revisions on the companion talk page), I would also add that I think there is a need, generally, for less rigidity and insistance on a certain way of editing. For example, it's a bit of curious irony that some users have lamented my citing English Wikipedia guidelines where no such guideline or policy exists as they, rightly, do suggest Miraheze is a completely separate global community from the Wikimedia community yet they cite English Wikipedia or other wiki editing patterns as the reason for why certain less conventional editing should not be done. I don't agree with everyone's edits, or even other administrators' deletions, but I very much value flexibility over rigidity and do appreciate cultural, stylistic, linguistic, grammatical, and other differences. Dmehus (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that it's probably not a bad thing to some guidelines for Meta (that would be discussed and agreed on) as it would make things more clear and not have people cite Wikipedia policies. While I don't necessarily think that it would change their behavior, it could be useful to have a guideline page that we could point users who struggle with our practices (commonly referred to as CIRs) to. Meta has very few policies and guidelines so I think it could be useful to work on some, and even something like a "Newcomer's guide" or something that could help someone new understand how Meta works. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I do not really get why you think I replied here without reading your comment on the linked RfP. I disagree with what has been said there. 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There really is not problem with lack of policies. There is problem with users that uses "there is not policy for " or linking unrelated Wikipedia policies as excuses to everything. Here will not be policy to everything, but if someone want prepare some, i would support it.
 * Also, i am unaware there was such revocation request based on user behavior before. That also shows something. With this behavior, on WMF (Wikipedia) he would have his permissions revoked already, maybe would be banned... --MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, let's be real here: I think a lot of us will benefit from the written guidelines much better and easier than ever before. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please clarify why you support this. Thanks. 13:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware that this isn't a vote, but the reason why I'm supporting this is simply because the rules should be not only more clear, but more subtle in order to rule out any possible clouding, and make this community even better than it is (or was) now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose to try to create a draft guidelines page with things that I have observed here and after this people can make edits to it and comment expressing approval or disapproval of this guideline page. Does this proposal sound reasonable? DeeM28 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for autopatrolled right
Because I used to have it before I got locked, and I know the scope of Meta and help out. InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * InspecterAbdel Though you've had a few missed signatures and did start this good-faith though premature proposal, you do understand Meta's purpose and scope well and generally understand talk page guidelines, so this is ✅, with those points for you to keep in mind. Dmehus (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Access for Autopatrolled Users in Board Pages
I have hit abuse filter 34 a few times trying to make minor changes to Board pages. I think autopatrolled users should be allowed to edit those pages. Could that be done, please? Thank you. 17:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's been explicitly requested by the board that only the board that these pages are protected to prevent access. Autopatrolled is way too wide of a group for me so ❌. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can just make an edit request on the companion talk page or Administrators' noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Only trusted users have autopatrolled. :-( I should not have to make a edit request here everytime I want to make small changes like adding relevant categories to Board pages. 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do agree it's kind of a pain, though it doesn't have to be a system administrator Meta administrator who can make these non-controversial minor edits; any administrator or even Owen, as he is exempt from the applicable abuse filter, can process these edit requests. I do try and monitor the abuse logs for good-faith edit requests, and would've done it as soon as I'd seen it. Anyway, I've ✅ this, and also added Category:Board to the previous month's board meeting minutes for consistency. Dmehus (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that's it's annoying to not be able to edit these pages, but they do contain important information and while autopatrolled users are in theory trustworthy it's not really hard to get the right in the end, and it could fairly easily be acquired by a user with malicious intentions. I would remind that global policies (i.e. Content Policy) are also protected at an administrator level. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the specific change, Dmehus.
 * I am not suggesting editing global policies at all. Pages like Board meeting minutes pages are supposedly not high traffic whereas pages like the CP are read by many people everyday. 20:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While perhaps minutes could be less high traffic and of less general importance than policies and official documents and therefore have a lesser protection level, it would be inconvenient to have to modify the AbuseFilter and add every single new page that's a policy. In my opinion it would probably be simpler for edit requests to be made if there's an issue with one of the pages, as that shouldn't be a very frequent occurence. The AbuseFilter system for protection may not be ideal, but it was decided that it worked better than granting Owen administrator simply for this purpose. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Deleting All Translations By Shaunak Chakraborty
All the translations done by are filled with issues. They have many formatting issues and I suspect those are instances of unedited machine translation. Considering they have made 628 edits in the Translations namespace, I think a Phabricator task should be created requesting this instead of trying to do this monotonous work by hand. Thank you. 11:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Bump. If nobody objects within the next 48 hours, I am going to proceed with this and request deletion on Phabricator. 06:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's a good idea to simply declare all of someone's translations as problematic and order a complete purge. I think the user should at least be given a chance to defend themselves first, and 48 hours would not be enough. So I propose we wait and see what has to say about these allegations. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be about 72 hours since this request has been created. As you can see, I have taken care to ping the user in question above. But if you still want, I am okay with waiting till 14th April. 08:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't you feel that deleting someone's work is simply insulting the user's hardwork. If you feel that the translations are not correct then mention the pages which needs correction. I will rectify each an every page which you will mention. Shaunak Chakraborty (talk)
 * Hi, thank you for your reply. First of all, this request is not meant to insult anyone and I appreciate everyone's translation work. It is just unedited machine translation that I hate. Now, there are a lot of issues in your translations and I think you would be better off starting from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have made an incomplete list of such pages here. Please expect the list to be expanded later. Thank you. 10:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, please consider adding a timestamp to your signature. Signatures without timestamps will cause errors after we upgrade to MW 1.36. 10:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reception123 here. I'm quite uncomfortable with a Phabricator task merely to delete all translations on the basis of being suspected machine translations, particularly with the user in question never having been guided as to our approach to translations. Machine translations, while somewhat problematic for native speakers, are not terrible, and can nonetheless be improved upon. We also don't know whether all or some of them were unedited machine translations, too. So, while I'm not opposed to deleting some poor quality translations, I would rather identify a list of pages, post them here (or in a subsequent thread on here), and delete them in the normal course and method&mdash;that is to say, by marking the pages for deletion and having FuzzyBot process the applicable deletions. Dmehus (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my usage of the word "suspected" was not strong enough/did not provide enough context. If you check the list of pages I have created, it will be clear to you why I have said that. "particularly with the user in question never having been guided as to our approach to translations" Hmm? Have you checked their talk page? I left a message months ago. 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No follow up at all from . Could we proceed with deletion, please? 14:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th I'm not willing to consider a Phabricator mass deletion as you originally proposed, but if there are specific pages you can list which are either (a) not translations, (b) barely started translations (i.e., less than 30% completed), or which otherwise have issues, please list them here, and we can consider deletion on a case-by-case basis. Dmehus (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? I thought I made it clear that almost all if not all translations have issues. It would be a waste of our time if we wanted to "consider deletion on a case-by-case basis". 14:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * R4356th Well, for one thing, case by case basis doesn't mean one page at a time. You can still list multiple pages in this thread, but I want to see clear and specific issues necessitating deletion. Machine translations on their own are not prohibited, provided they've been done in good-faith, and there's no indication Shaunak Chakraborty's translations were not done in good-faith. They can be improved upon by other native Hindi speakers. Dmehus (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shaunak Chakraborty did reply above previously, so I'm inclined to at least give them another chance to further respond to you (perhaps link specific pages) rather than proceeding to a full purging of all their work. They might have issues but I would still feel uncomfortable with dismissing another translator's work without hearing more from them first. I also find it quite problematic that it is said to be a "suspicion" and not certainty regarding the translations being machine translations. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the fact that using machine translation is not prohibited. I myself use it. My concern is that Shaunak Chakraborty's translations are unedited and have a lot of issues anyone can notice even without knowledge of Hindi. One of the first things you see when you visit a new website should never be messy translation. Trust me, that is a very unpleasant experience.
 * "@Shaunak Chakraborty did reply above previously, so I'm inclined to at least give them another chance to further respond to you (perhaps link specific pages)" Hmm? I linked an incomplete list of pages above. "I also find it quite problematic that it is said to be a "suspicion" and not certainty regarding the translations being machine translations." Something I said above- Perhaps my usage of the word "suspected" was not strong enough/did not provide enough context. If you check the list of pages I have created, it will be clear to you why I have said that. 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh! I am extremely sorry I will look into this as soon as possible. Actually, for 2 weeks, I'm working with COVID relief teams management, organizations and extremely busy in that which is, of course, my first priority, please excuse me for some time. Shaunak Chakraborty (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for responding. 20:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Updates, please. 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Interface-Admin from MrJaroslavik
Hello, please remove interface administrator permission from my account, thank you.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ John (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)