Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

When will extension Score be working again?
It has been a while that I get an error message, in my wiki in German: ''LilyPond konnte nicht ausgeführt werden: /dev/null ist eine nicht ausführbare Datei. Es muss sichergestellt sein, dass $wgScoreLilyPond in der Konfigurationsdatei richtig eingestellt wurde.'' Will the extension Score ever work again? Lily (Lilypond Wiki talk and I will listen) 05:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We were made aware of a security issue so we switched it off. As soon as they fixed that, they found another. Sorry, ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the info, Lily (Lilypond Wiki · talk and I will listen · my little garden ) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, to keep you updated, We were supposed to be waiting on the public disclosure and fix but have now been told that the fix is leaking memory and been stopped so it could be longer. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:InspecterAbdel - Request for autopatrolled
InspecterAbdel has more than 100 edits on Meta, which, in and of itself, is not necessarily enough for ; however, the user is helpful on the noticeboards, has demonstrated they know Meta's scope and limitations, and understands the purpose of each noticeboard. My only concern was the user's forgetting to sign their posts, with my having to add unsigned as recently as a week ago. However, separately, I had the user really make a concerted effort over the past week, and agreed to nominate them for  on 1 August 2020 when I was satisfied that the improvement had been met. I'm now satisfied, particularly with the user also adding unsigned signatures correctly to other users' posts, and because I haven't had to add unsigned to the user's signatures for (roughly) the past week. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for requesting this! I appreciate it a lot! InspecterAbdel (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * for his great work, and being helpful, although the only concern is that he kinda forgot to sign posts. CircleyDoesExtracter  ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud ) 19:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Okay.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for version invisibility
Please make this difference invisible.thinks.--松•Matsu (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Void  Whispers 01:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--松•Matsu (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoring Auto patrolled For Cocopuff2018
User Cocopuff2018

Reason About a few days ago MrJaroslavik‎ Removed me from autopatrolled without any consult of the admins nor was there any notice of this removal he told me to go to another admin as If he had no idea how to handle it and seems to poorly handle Dealing with issues, on top of that this is considered power abuse as it was not part of the actions taken When i was banned from the miraheze discord server this was not part of the actions taken so Here is my proposal.

Proposal 1 - Restore my autopatrolled  (proposal 1 Support, oppose, Strong Support)

Proposal 2- make a Meta guideline Including Auto patrolled to be voted on before being removed from a user (because this makes it fair to everyone)

Proposal 3 - Hide the Removal of my auto-patrolled from the log (Because this Clearly does not need to be there for everyone to see)

and lets just add on I am Unhappy with how MrJaroslavik‎ as he refuses to answer any other concerns i have towards this matter it was poorly Handled and should be dealt with using the new 3 proposal's

Proposal 1,2,3 it was an unfair removal Cocopuff2018 14:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Autopatrolled is a right given to people we trust that's edits don't require further review. Given you are under active sanctions both on and off wiki for harrasment, I don't think that applies and I standby all 3 proposals. I'm therefore all the options.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ( edit conflict ) First of all, autopatrolled is not a right that requires votes or community discussions. Autopatrolled is a right that is delegated by Meta administrators to users they trust to allow them to patrol revisions. Autopatrolled is not a "status" and it serves a purpose, to patrol the edits of less experienced users. MrJaroslavik revoked your autopatrolled because he felt that you can no longer be trusted, and at this time you have given no evidence that you can be trusted to get autopatrolled back. Thirdly, the request to hide the removal from the log is absurd, we do not perform such censorship. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

2 & 3, they are 100% unnecessary. For proposal 2, if you do that for removal you also need to do it for adding it which would just make no one get it. For 3, why would you possibly want to hide any logs? They need to be there for record purposes. 14:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * Having reviewed edits, I am not sure why autopatrolled was removed from your account. I'm going to invite to review his decision and provide evidence of meta-based evidence to back up his decision. If there is not a satisfactory response, I am tempted to restore autopatrolled based on discretion as an administrator. John (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with completely here, but wished  might've waited, as I planned to discuss this, first, privately with other administrators. Sure, Cocopuff2018 has issues making typographical errors, but that's not a reason, on its own, to remove autopatrolled. Autopatrolled, primarily, reduces the patrol backlog of autopatrolled users and administrators. So, I personally do feel that   should be re-added. The issues with respect to Cocopuff2018 not respecting no contact orders and excessive pings on Discord and IRC are separate issues, and should be dealt with separately (which they are). Dmehus (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't conflict with anyone here but I would just like to add that another issue here is an odd thing we have on Meta - the fact that autopatrolled users can also patrol other users. This right should probably be split into a "Patroller" group. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you here that we may want to consider including  in the autoconfirmed implicit user group, and renaming the "autopatrolled users" to "patrollers." We could also just create a separate "Patrollers" group, too. I'd support either of those options, and was thinking of a potential draft local Meta RfC in the next couple months (have some other higher priority ones, though). Dmehus (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against splitting it into a separate group as suggested. Actually I think that's a great idea.  15:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * FWIW, Cocopuff2018 hasn't patrolled any revisions, per this log page. I don't think the user necessarily wants to do any active patrolling, so, while I think we should consider splitting the groups, we've got some time here to do this and get this right. Cocopuff2018 is mainly concerned with having their revisions autopatrolled. They do know Meta's scope, purpose, and are fairly active. I'm active on Meta and can fix any issues with Cocopuff2018's comments (i.e., indentation or wikitext coding issues). Dmehus (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding patrol privileges to the existing Rollbackers group.I'm still thinking about what to do with the group name.--松•Matsu (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'd be opposed to this, to simplify the number of user groups added to rollbackers, but I still think we should have a separate Patrollers group because  is a serious user right, and shouldn't necessarily be granted to the same users capable of patrolling revisions. So, I'd favour a separate group, however that works itself out. As to group names, I favour autopatrolled users, as is currently the case, and patrollers as they are users that would be patrolling other users' edits. Dmehus (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, 1) Every time you contacted me on my discussion page, I replied to you. You could contact another administrator who might consider restore of your 'autopatrolled' right. 2) If you think it was power abuse, you can create confirm vote (request of no confidence) on RfP per policy. 3) Autopatrolled from your account was removed for (also reply to ):

--MrJaroslavik (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Harrasment other users (for example k6ka, he blocked you on discord, you harrasment him though IRC despite his request to leave him)
 * Ghost pings (message with ping, then deleted) on discord - in 3+ cases
 * I think autopatrolled users should know they should sign their comments
 * per Code of Conduct - there Discord and IRC are included - "Harassment of other users is unacceptable. Depending on the severity of your actions, you may be warned once or immediately banned/quieted depending on the medium."
 * 'autopatrolled' group include 'patrol' right

hello, but still i am truly sorry for what i did and will never do what i did again i feel that the removal was still unfair and want to make things right i don't want to make this a huge deal or anything i just feel you could of at least Messaged me on my wall of why i was removed and as above irc and discord is not part of actions taken on the platform itself Cocopuff2018 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply . As you've not made the decision based upon Meta evidence, and I do not see any evidence of misuse of the rights on Meta, I'm going to take the decision to restore the rights. John (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Rollback (Universal Omega)
Hello, I know I have not done much counter-vandalism here on meta, although I do feel I should have rollbacker, so that if necessary I am able to quickly rollback the edits of vandals. I am active here on meta and quite frequently check the wiki requests, and already patrol many edits on meta, marking then as patrolled, so it makes sense for me to have rollback so that I can use it if needed. I can live without it by just going back and publishing the last good edit, but the rollback would provide a better record, and make it easier to do it. Thank you for the consideration! 15:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * I'm not opposed to this, but I personally haven't even requested it as Twinkle's pseudo-rollback via "undo" and "restore to revision" has served me well (though, there has been one, maybe two, instances where  might've helped, mainly relating to another user's refactoring of other users' comments). Dmehus (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I actually think I have twinkle off, thanks for reminding me. In that case I do suppose this request is somewhat unnecessary. Thanks! 15:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |
 * I also would see no reason to oppose this, though I personally feel that there is very little vandalism on Meta currently and that as Dmehus said, Twinkle would probably work. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 15:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me about Twinkle, and while you may be right about there being very little vandalism on meta, I do not need Rollbacker with Twinkle existing. However, I do think I should mention that twinkle seems unreliable, and does not work on all my devices for some unknown reason. But for now I suppose I do not need Rollback. Thanks for the replies! 04:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC) ］ |