Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Archives:
 * Archive 1 (9 August 2015 - 21 December 2015)
 * Archive 2 (21 December 2015 - 13 December 2016)

Lack of general disclaimer
I noticed that the Meta wiki has a lack of a general disclaimer, I apologise if this is the wrong place for this but I imagine that the creation of such policy would be in the hand of administrators only. My wiki is lacking a general disclaimer and I was going to use what I thought Miraheze would have however it does not have one, it might be useful for a lot more wiki owners if such a one was created. Apologies for any inconvenience. LulzKiller (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a valid edit?
Is this a valid edit to somebody's User page other than one's own?

https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=User:RedditNavy&curid=5370&diff=20815&oldid=20636

--Robkelk (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a valid edit. I have told Amanda on IRC that doing that is unacceptable and it should not repeated. 14:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should the page have been deleted, then? --Robkelk (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was not deleted because of Amanda's request, it was deleted because 1) the user blanked the page which indicates that they want deletion 2) the content before wasn't really userpage content and it should be wiki content. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 15:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So then it was a valid action and request then? Nothing stipulates certain people have to request deletion neither only certain accounts can edit user pages. Validity is in the action not the person to me. John (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Was it the user who blanked the page? Since the page has been deleted, I cannot double-check, but I thought that the Recent Changes list indicated that it was Amanda who blanked the change. Could an admin verify this, please? --Robkelk (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The page was blanked by the user. -- Void  Whispers 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Meta policy
As there are a lot of issues with recent actions on Meta made either by Stewards, by non-stewards or by Meta administrators I think that a policy is required to ensure that the rules on Meta are clear. I have created User:Reception123/Meta policy (draft) and anyone is invited to edit it and/or comment on it. After the version is seen by users a vote would be required to decide if this should be the Meta policy, but for now I think we should just leave it to comments.

Comments
There's some sloppy wording in there that will be likely twisted to malefactors' benefit if it's left as-is. I've left specific comments in the document. --Robkelk (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The sentence regarding removing comments at RFC should be removed from the draft, or excluded in a final policy. This contradicts the previous sentence about disallowing incivility and insults. Users should have the right to remove derogatory comments from RFC or other discussions. Amanda (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was added back as it was removed without the consent of the person that wrote it, removal can be discussed here or on the specific talkpage. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 17:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I already said on the talkpage, removing someone else's comments from an RfC is the ultimate incivility. I'm repeating this here for emphasis. --Robkelk (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Bumping this as there is no recent activity. Please feel free to contribute to the policy! Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 13:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please share your thoughts on my draft NPA policy for Miraheze. Amanda (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Far too over-reaching - applying that to "all Miraheze" would mean that some stranger could remove text from a wiki other than Meta if that stranger found the text offensive, or if it was determined that the earlier wiki editor referred to himself with the wrong pronoun, no matter what that wiki's individual Terms of Use and that wiki's Content Policy might be. Also, it doesn't guarantee that disagreements of opinion will not qualify as personal attacks simply because they are disagreements of opinion. --Robkelk (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't login
Just bringing to your attention not being able to login on Meta (and, therefore, no logged in access to own website). Probably just a temporary and/or minor issue but this is the message I get after I have entered my login credentials:
 * (Cannot access the database: Cannot access the database: Unknown database 'zgradetenniswiki' (81.4.127.157)) – 86.160.46.10 22:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC) (Borderman)
 * ✅ this was caused by miscommunication in that I was told the database was okay to drop so I presumed it had been deleted correctly several months ago. John (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Working again.  Borderman   talk 23:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge Histories of Images
Hi, I wanted to upload an improved version of File:Miraheze admin.png, however for a strange reason I did not want to save the file and I had to upload a new one. I request that the histories of the 2 files be merged to preserve the authorship of the same ones. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 07:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The original file has been updated, I think you just had to wait. I deleted the newer one as it was identical. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 07:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser group
Would it be possible to chang the  group display name to read  ? This is the form that is used on Wikimedia globally and it looks better IMHO to not have the space. This would require:


 * Changing MediaWiki:group-checkuser to "CheckUsers" or "Checkusers"
 * Changing MediaWiki:group-checkuser-member to "checkuser"
 * Changing MediaWiki:grouppage-checkuser to "CheckUser" or "Checkuser"

-- Amanda   (talk)  22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be done in MirahezeMagic, I have already requested the change in GitHub . What of the page I think should be discussed before being renamed. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 23:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the extensions are hosted on Wikimedia, so the request was denied. A request will have to be made in translatewiki.net since only the administrators of that site can edit the original versions in English of the MediaWiki system messages. I'll open a thread on the support page to do the modification, but that can take weeks because almost nobody cares about that page there. For now I think you can close this since the administrators can not do anything in this case. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 05:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you can edit the MediaWiki pages linked above to change the group name only on Miraheze Meta Wiki. -- Amanda   (talk)  11:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can, but I see no valid reason to do so personally. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Interwikis in Special:Interwiki
Hi, I would like to know if it is possible for an administrator to add the following link in the "Interwiki prefixes" section of Special:Interwiki:


 * Prefix: "test" or "testwiki" / URL: https://publictestwiki.com/wiki/$1

And add the following links in the "Interlanguage prefixes" section:


 * Prefix: "es" / URL: https://es.publictestwiki.com/wiki/$1

This would allow generating the section "In other languages" in both wikis and would allow the users of the primary wiki to know that there is a Spanish version, besides it would facilitate the theme of the links between both wikis. I do not know if this is possible, but from my point of view I do not see it as controversial. I hope you consider yourself. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - <font color="#137500">✔ ) 13:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I could add testwiki, but for the Spanish PublicTestWiki I'd rather at esttest, estest or pruebawiki rather than jsut "es", if that's okay with you. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#AF91525"> contribs  ) 14:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It could be, but I fear that the original goal I had raised would not result. Do the same as you suggest (with "pruebawiki") to see if it works. —<font color="#1406D0">Alvaro Molina (<font color="#137500">✉  - <font color="#137500">✔ ) 14:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Translate available languages top or bottom
The box that shows what translated languages of a page are available is either placed on the bottom of a page (for example Miraheze or Help center) or the top (CheckUser). For consistency reasons I think we need to decide whether it goes on the top for all pages or on the bottom for all pages, or else users will be confused. Please leave your comments and opinions below. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 07:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I think it looks better at the bottom of the page, but that is purely based on aesthetics rather than function. However, on long pages it's not always apparent there's other languages available unless you scroll all the way down. With that in mind it might be better at the top. Depends what is more important: aesthetics over function or the other way round. Borderman  talk 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that some users aren't necessarily aware that we have several languages, so maybe having it on the top would be a better idea. Though I will point out that on the WMF Wikimedia, they have it on the bottom for their Main page, and at the top for other pages. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 18:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at Wikimedia Meta's main page and several random pages afterwards I'm inclined to agree with you. Keeping the languages at the top certainly makes it obvious that some pages have more than one language. I'm not particularly keen on the language boxes that have 30 or 40+ languages in them as the box becomes quite large and somewhat of a distraction from the article. But, that's just me and I guess function over aesthetics, in this particular case, is probably more important. Borderman   talk 20:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that when there's 25-30 languages+ it already becomes something that we don't want on a Main Page. I just want there to be some obvious indication that we have multiple languages, even though it will not look as nice, even a "Scroll to the bottom to change language" would be a more effective than now, in my opinion. Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 06:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My two cents are that I like how it is at Wikimedia. Bottom of main page and top of all other pages. If it really hurts the ascethics that much then we can put it on the bottom of every page, but then I'd like some indication it's there. Maybe a small box in the top right corner listing subpages or a box saying scroll down for translated pages. Kind of like the position and size of RightTOC -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 11:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I like NDKilla's idea. We can have small box that says "This page is translated! Scroll down.", and that wouldn't ruin the aesthetics of the page. We also need to find a suitable place on the Main page (as that is my main concern for people not knowing there are multiple languages). Reception123 (talk) (<font color="#d00404"> contribs  ) 11:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would work and it catches the eye. What about having it clickable instead of scrolling down. I know it's not a major thing to scroll but on long pages it might be better to have a link to the bottom of the page. Maybe word it similar to Reception's suggestion: "This page has been translated! Click here to see all available languages." or words to that effect. Borderman   talk 12:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Restricting page views based on user group
Hello, I have a question. I'm building my first wiki (it's a private Wiki). The wiki is for documentation purposes so, I'd like: Create 3 sections: 1 for SupportStaff, 1 for Sales Representatives and 1 for Customers; Each person will have their own login but: if the login is listed inside SalesRepresentative, can view Sales Representative pages and Customer Pages, but the SupportStaff pages should denied from access (read only) if the login is listed inside SupportStaff, can view all sections (read only) If it is a customer login, the user can only access to Customer Area. SupportStaff Pages and Sales Representative Pages should be denied Is there a way to do that in only one wiki? I'm trying to understand, since I'm new, but I have different ideas that don't match. Thank you very much for your help! Serinf.it Roverato (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)