Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Volunteers for Meta Bureaucrat position
The thread just above this thread has lead me to the realization that since the departure of one of the two bureaucrats there is currently only one Meta bureaucrat. While it is completely true and accurate to argue that the bureaucrat rule is very minimal to the functioning of Meta it does have some important attributes and particularly the authority to close RfCs pertaining to Meta. This is not meant to question anyone personally and I do not think that it is a very big issue but in order to be able to have another "check and balance" other than the community I think it would be advisable if someone who is currently an administrator would volunteer for Meta bureaucrat in order for there to be two and I recommend that someone takes this up. I did not nominate any particular person because I did not wish to be presumptuous and make a nomination for a person who does not wish to have the role for any reason. DeeM28 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * An idea that has been floated around is abolishing Meta bureaucrat and assigning its rights and responsibilities to Stewards. Thinking about it, no non-Steward has ever been bureaucrat so perhaps it might make sense. As its job is very minimal and has been described as the "most boring role on Meta", it might make sense to just merge it with Stewards as they already handle things like right assignments, RfC closures, etc. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Over time I have noticed that there are some people who would prefer what you suggest while others are more adamant that Meta should be its own separate wiki without undue interference by global groups such as Stewards and Global Sysops. Recently of course Global Sysops have obtained more authority to intervene on Meta in case there is no administrator available. What I propose as a compromise would be to follow a similar line and to more clearly allow Stewards to take actions on Meta and even the ability to overturn the actions of local bureaucrats if they are egregiously wrong but not go so far as to abolish the entire group and have no more directly elected users and give all powers to Stewards. In practice it makes no difference but there may be a time in the future where these groups will no longer be held by the same users which of course is ideal for more accountability. DeeM28 (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an administrative wiki for the platform I'm tempted by the idea of merging the utility of meta bureaucrat into stewardship and would encourage this be offered as an option in a local RfC to be considered. I believe Stewards may already be solicited to cover in case of absence or if an issue precludes Reception from reasonably handling something in his capacity, as part of the global Steward function. But this is not ideal, there should be a merge or the role should be staffed appropriately. I believe the right number here is three meta bureaucrats as a slightly future-proofing balance. I would personally urge and  to consider this capacity, I would be willing to support/nominate either directly from the meta admin pool. I think there are more options if we look past meta admins into 'trusted stakeholder' community members, but without them becoming admins as well and accounting for activity issues this can quickly become messy.
 * To me this thread raises raise another question, broader to meta adminship and Miraheze volunteering. Right now meta admins fall in two groups. First group: deep platform volunteers who already have a plethora of responsibilities. These include Void, Reception, Agent, and technically Universal Omega despite his partial exit and recent apathy. Going by your suggestion, these users save Reception are the only ones who would realistically 'rise up' to bureaucracy. Going by the above subtopic, these groups would further centralize into the same core of users. Second group: the "independent" meta admins with few other responsibilities. Remaining these are Zppix and MrJaroslavik, both facing requests for removal and lacking odds in their favor. This status quo is natural because of meta's intrinsic relationship with running the platform as a whole, but to some it may be concerning how few effective meta admins exist and how they are already tied to global responsibilities.
 * What I would suggest is that this discussion or a subsequent one shift to the state of meta adminship in general. I find that the numbers are dwindling and fresh blood is hard to come by. We may wish to see other users rise to the mantle of adminship, probably not many as the need is not high, but there is need for trusted but also somewhat newer users to take the mantle or at least be able to consider a more active role. The "core volunteers" are few and always hurting for members. Some users find it difficult to enter because of broader issues with their newness, their situation handling, familiarity with Miraheze and practice, competence etc. There is a small list of users who a) have participated recently, b) are established in the Meta community and c) have help built the content of Meta, substantively participated in RfCs (beyond a minimal or unexplained vote) or provided support. Excluding current admins. I mark * for users who have participated recently but have clear activity concerns or arguably don't quite fit a/b/c that would draw from a candidacy.
 * Pulling from the active users list these are: BrandonWM, Bukkit*, Collei, Commetian Empire, DeeM28, HeartsDo*, DarkMatterMan*, Collei, Dmehus*, Globe, HeyTürkiye, KatozzKita, MacFan4000, NotAracham, No se, OrangeStar, Redmin, Raidarr, Tali64³, Ugochimobi*, and 小美粉粉*. I apologize if I missed anyone who should be here.
 * This list represents the current "meta community" in a nutshell. Others such as Dross, Hypercane John etc are notably parts of it but I would label them as inactive at this time. I say 'active' generously as there are unmarked users listed who are also more cyclic in activity which could somewhat hinder their volunteering efforts. This is the effective list you have to work with for volunteering to administer meta, overlapping with the theoretical list of users who could put themselves out for other roles. This does not account for any other concern that may make candidacy inadvisable. Frankly I don't think the meta community well represents the true global community of the platform, another issue I would posit but for another time. This is a rabbit hole I would like to explore probably through the Meta Community portal or Community noticeboard. Apologies for somewhat hijacking this conversation with a broader subject, but I think it is intrinsically relevant to the meta bureaucrat question. --Raidarr (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A fun previously-unnoticed tidbit that was also pointed out in discussions elsewhere: Only Meta Admins are eligible for Meta Bureaucrat, so there's a double-challenge in the pipeline to expand the ranks of Meta Bureaucrats. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the number of Bureaucrats in Meta Wiki is only 1 and that volunteers are needed really makes me think a lot. As I am active in the community, especially as a steward, and as a user who fulfils all options A), B) and C), I could apply for the shortage, but the needs do not meet this. If I were an administrator, I would choose NotAracham and Agent Isai, because they are very familiar with English Wikipedia and Consensus. A bureaucrat needs to have a good command of consensus, so people (or rather admins) could nominate themselves/others for bureaucrat. (If there is no consensus rule, etc.) I hope someone will nominate for bureaucrat, because we need consensus admins very much. Hey Türkiye  Message? 18:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that list of people people you would consider to be competent Meta administrators, or simply people that contribute to Meta? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 22:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on side conversations, it's a simple list of active users who have done edits within x days and should not be taken as an endorsement or assessment of competency (either good or bad). --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. Was attempting to clarify, on first read I took it as "a list of users who could be nominated for Meta adminship", but I figured that couldn't be the case (or at least all of it) as it's too large haha. Thanks for clarifying. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 03:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Translation request pending on the Template:User info page on the Miraheze Login Wiki for 1 year
Miraheze Login Wiki has 1 year of pending unmarked changes for the Template:User info page. I announce this to the relevant Translation Managers, Stewards and Administrators. -- Hey Türkiye Message? 13:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to why it's necessary to have translations on templates? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @BrandonWM The last change on that page was made by Agent Isai, and I have not intervened on that page. This question is directed to the person who added the translation, not to me. My purpose is to help the administrators in assigning tasks. For your information. Best regards, -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I defer to TAs and local admins before acting in the third mentioned Steward capacity, but in general my opinion aligns with Brandon: I do not see the need for the translation to apply and am unconvinced that doing so won't result in usage complexity. --Raidarr (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to address my answer to BrandonWM to you in the same way @Raidarr; Please ask this question to the user who added the translation extension. Best regards, -- Hey Türkiye  Message? 17:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The translation extension itself is subject to conceptual flaws that are subject to an ongoing RfC. Its outcome will be pivotal in handing translation going forward really. I think a few people have changed their minds on translation as time went on. --Raidarr (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Unmarked translation requests
Dear translation administrators, There are unmarked translation requests on the Custom domains page and the Template:Help navigation page. It is respectfully announced to the persons concerned.

Best Regards, -- Hey Türkiye Message? 17:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While it is appreciated to have an active user assisting in translations across Miraheze Meta, I’m not sure it’s necessary to have an AN thread for every time there’s a new edit to a page that’s translated, and it needs to be re-marked. Someone will get to it when they can. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we were to post a message every time an edit was made to a translatable page, this noticeboard would be spammed through the roof. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That being said though, I thank you for your contributions to the translations as it’s quite useful for foreign-language users and improving Meta documentation. This is by no means an ask to stop with that at all, because it is appreciated. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 01:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry @BrandonWM. If this place fills up with requests, we'll make a request to open Translation Administrator noticeboard on RfC :) Don't worry Hey Türkiye  Message? 20:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @HeyTürkiye ✅ I have marked them for translation. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 17:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you very much @Zppix :) Miraheze needs administrators like you. Thank you so much :) Hey Türkiye  Message? 20:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Naleksuh edit warring again
They've been warned many times, by multiple Meta administrators. Note that edit warring does not require three reverts; that is an English Wikipedia-centric policy, not a Miraheze Meta Wiki one. On Meta Wiki, we consider edit warring when a user reverts an edit someone else does. Agent Isai reverted their edit. They know the correct process should have been to open a discussion at either User talk:Agent Isai or at Talk:Requests for Comment/Global ban for Naleksuh. Given they've been warned in the past, I would suggest a 3-7 day Meta Wiki edit warring block. Dmehus (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If Naleksuh engages in an edit war, they will be re-blocked indefinitely as they are violating Global bans policy. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Agent Isai I don't think I did edit war, I wrote a comment and added a noindex tag. I think Dmehus means the second one, but Agent Isai removed it saying they were "fixing spacing", so I added it with spacing fixed. However, I don't see why my entire comment was removing citing edit warring. Please put it back. Naleksuh (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is quite the argument! I don't know what to make of it, but I'll give you credit for originality. So you're saying that because Agent Isai removed your  whilst ostensibly forgetting to remove the spacing, you re-added the magic word but fixed the spacing and thus you are not edit warring? Wow. I've heard a lot of legal doozies in my day, but this one takes the cake.  Well lawyered, counselor. ;) Dmehus (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is engaging in an edit war violating global bans policy? I believe they are violating Meta Wiki policy and convention and should be reblocked. I am agnostic as to term length of the block. Indefinite works for me. Dmehus (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * He has been reblocked indefinitely, the policy in which he was allowed to be unblocked states if disruptive he will be reblocked. He is beyond warnings at this point. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . ✅ by Zppix. Dmehus (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of this revision of Amanda Catherine
It's germane to a current Phabricator discussion. I am agnostic as to whether it's undeleted to a subpage of Amanda's userspace, user talk space, or undeleted and history merged into a talk page archive. Thanks! :) Dmehus (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this revision? – AmandaCath  ( talk ) 15:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ at this time. Currently there is no precedence to undelete specific revisions that are within a user’s userspace. Furthermore, the revision in question is borderline uncivil and will not be restored due to that as well. If the SRE team would like to use that revision during their decision making process, they are fully capable of viewing such revision themselves, or reaching out to the appropriate persons. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 02:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)