Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
(Redirected from AN)
Meta Wiki Administrators' noticeboard
Shortcuts:
AN,
Meta:AN
This noticeboard is for anything that requires administrator intervention on Meta only (anything related to global policies, global groups, or in some way involves other Miraheze wikis should be discussed at the Community noticeboard)

On the Meta Administrators' noticeboard, you can request:

  • Sanctions for a blatantly disruptive or spam-only account. For blatant cross-wiki disruption, vandalism only, or spam only accounts, please see Steward requests/Global.
  • Pages be added or removed from the approved list of pages for translation.
  • An extension to be added or removed.
  • A page to be protected.

If you would like to request:

To add your request, type in a title and click the "Add topic" button below.

Archives of Administrators' noticeboard [e]   



Discussion: Moving appointed permission requests from the AN to RfP[edit source]

Status:  In progress

BrandonWM recently moved the venue for requesting appointed permissions (such as autopatrolled, translator, interface admin, flooder) to Meta:Requests for permissions. Some have felt that this will clog the RfP page up and that it runs contrary to what the RfX pages usually contain, which are votes. What do all the admins think? @1108-Kiju:, @MacFan4000:, @NotAracham:, @Reception123:, @Void:, @Zppix:. Agent Isai Talk to me! 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a problem as the name for the page (Requests for local permissions) explains what it should be. Additionally, there isn't an overwhelming amount of permissions requests, and moving it to that page would be fine as it wouldn't 'clog' RfP, per say. AN would be cleared up of the requests, and the moderate number of requests that come through would also be open for more discussion. It's also attempting to just clarify the name of the RfP page by standardizing all of it, and it can be seen through this page on enwiki that it works for the WMF, which has a substantially larger amount of requests than we do at this time. Several sysops that were pinged were supportive when I approached them asking for consensus on the topic. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 18:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That page on enwiki is completely different because it is only for permissions that don't require discussions. What you did, that I assume is what people have an issue with, is combine a page that is for permissions discussions with requests that don't require discussion. Globe - (TalkContributionsCA) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My problems with this change have a few facets:
  • It's already difficult to get representative community input on RfXs -- cluttering those pages with requests that do not require community input creates noise that could easily result in requests requiring elections getting overlooked by voters AND appointment requests getting overlooked by administrators
  • It splits work for Meta administrators across multiple pages in different logical categories, which they'll now be required to monitor for changes, complicating their workflow.
  • It moves roles that are generally granted solely by meta admin into a page with mixed responsibility for assignment and revocation. This is probably the weakest of the three, but it should be brought up.
This seems to be a solution in search of a problem, if there are real and valid concerns about permission requests getting lost or handled in a delayed fashion, perhaps a split like the Steward requests board with subpages would be beneficial?
-- NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotAracham - I'd propose a short trial session to see if participation is satisfactory and things are running smoothly. If it works, we can keep as is, especially since appointed rights usually don't get much exposure (and could get more exposure as a result of things). If not, we can always revert. But I strong think this would increase exposure and make Meta as a whole more organized. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 21:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not comfortable or confident with trialing the change. I'm of the opinion that the move is fundamentally flawed and am not persuaded by rationale provided. Appointed meta rights aren't a thing that needs exposure, they're administrative tasks that exist to solve a specific, narrow problem for specific people. -- NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 21:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would also be remiss if I didn't call out the excellent improvements made by @Waki285 in creating a status template for the Stewards board -- it's proved tremendously useful in better enabling me at least to track open tasks. NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
100%, thank you for those modifications. Have only seen from afar but do not doubt they're useful.
I'd disagree though - the idea is for the community to have a voice, and the name fits its purpose if the page "Requests for local permissions" has, in fact, requests for all local permissions, and not just admin and bot. I'd also add as a question, if we keep appointed rights on AN, why is the Bot flag requestable on RfP? The two don't add up. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I would have to agree with those who have also raised concerns. I believe making this move adds additional scrutiny that is unneeded for lower-trust permissions like patroller or translator. Globe - (TalkContributionsCA) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, this diff is what an appointable right request would look like - there is no voting. If needed, we can also divide Meta:RfP into two sections, one for electable rights and one for appointable, if desired. I personally feel it's important to have all local rights there just due to the name of the page itself. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to see an opportunity for the community to express their opinions on the assignment of these flags, and I believe it would be beneficial for Meta Sysop as well. As a new option, I propose moving it to a separate page from RfP and AN. --1108-Kiju/Talk 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, based both on NotAracham's rationale and seeing how the move works in practice, I would support a full reversal of the change. I think it may overencourage requests by its layout, get in the way of voting affairs which mix right in, and is rather overly formal when treated as a full request alongside voted requests, even without voting given how it includes discussion closures and subsections. The 'ask and meta admin answers' of before with a status indicator here as is becoming standard I think is the more appropriate setup. This arrangement has never precluded other user commentary ie, my comments here or people commenting on other requests on this page. --raidarr (💬) 10:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone particularly fond of splitting off, would there be interest in a subpage that works like SR/P built for the AN specifically? cc 1108-Kiju and BrandonWM in particular. This alleviates some of the criticisms in format, still keeps permissions requests from "cluttering" here if that is a concern that some have, and basically fit right in with what NA has suggested above but seems to have been mostly missed. Though it's encouraged to only comment when you have something particular to add as it goes on SR, community input is quite possible either way. As for bot flag on RfP, perhaps it should be split off as it indeed doesn't really add up for being an 'elected role'. The main criticism is having another venue to check but with the intuitive system Waki has implemented this is much less a concern than it once was. --raidarr (💬) 11:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My name was mentioned several times so I will give my opinion. I checked out what other wikis have to say about it,
  • Wikimedia Meta wiki: the groups that require voting are RfA, and the application-style ("request" is confusing to me, so I will henceforth refer to roups that can be granted at discretion as application (group)) groups seem to be applied for with AN.
  • Wikimedia Commons: the voting groups are RfA, and the application-style groups seem to be filed under RfR.
  • English Wikipedia: sysops or bureaucrats are RfA, and application-style groups appear to be applied for on the RfP subpage for each individual group.
I would prefer to leave it as is or split RfP into two subpages, one for voting type and one for application type. I think the request for application-style group may be made with a shorter archive period. However, whichever way it goes, I'm pretty sure the I will make effort to track requests promptly for Meta sysops. --   Waki285(talk|contrib|log|CA|Target) 12:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any particular opposition to creating a subpage of AN or RfP in order to have these requests processed - I am however against returning it all to AN. But if it can be split, that would be my preference. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving permissions requests back to AN would be my first choice, I'll agree to disagree. I'd also be fine with moving to a subpage of AN, but it simply cannot stay the way it is now IMHO. Globe - (TalkContributionsCA) 23:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we reckon this has enough basis/support to revert and explore further action (such a permissions request offshoot) or would a local RfC be needed/desired to settle the matter? --raidarr (💬) 09:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Raidarr: I'd not want to revert until there's a decision on how to proceed. Doing so would mean a reversion and then another action later if needed. Pinging NotAracham and 1108-Kiju, would an offshoot of AN be acceptable? BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 15:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm of the opinion this is the most appropriate next step -- to separate and move appointed perms onto meta admin board subpage. I'll have time to do the heavy lifting tomorrow, barring further IRL surprises. --NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:CrazySpruiker2001[edit source]

Status:  Done

All sorts of vandalism and incivility going on. Back and forth disruption from a locked account and a person who has been blocked on meta for a day. Unsure if RevDel is required (leaning no). Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could admins semi protect that page temporarily? Silicona (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is that necessary? --raidarr (💬) 20:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continuous vandalism by LTAs. Silicona (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense with a gander at history, confirm to autoconfirm would be sensible. --raidarr (💬) 10:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done to autoconfirmed. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 14:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revoke Patroller Rights for GDPR Vanished User[edit source]

Status:  Done

One of our patrollers(MirahezeGDPR 4ce229fc9687e12ad2ff96f863f0909e) has been GDPR vanished. As such, I request their removal from the patroller group as they evidently may find their ability to patrol hindered indefinitely. Also, to not show up on Special:ListUsers/patroller and by proxy Meta:Patrollers ╚pixDeVl╝ (Talk Contributions CentralAuth) 21:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 15:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request confirmed rights[edit source]

Status:  Done

Request User:Waki285-Bot to grant confirmed rights for skip CAPTCHA and OAuth2 consumer propose. The bot flag is not requested at this time as I plan to do a temporary operation.    Waki285(talk|contrib|log|CA|Target) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 15:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CAPTCHA Issue[edit source]

Status:  Not done

When I try sending messages on someone topic it's says to complete CAPTCHA but there isn't written anything to complete that what should I do. Nexovia (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If possible, could you upload a screenshot of the issue? Globe - (TalkContributionsCA) 11:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added as confirmed user to bypass captcha. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 19:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enable Extension "Variables" on WikiCreators wiki.[edit source]

Status:  Not done

Please enable the "Variables" extension at the WikiCreators Wiki.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   💬 Talk ✉️ Email  📝 Edits   Auth →  19:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please direct your request to SR or ping Stewards on Discord. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 19:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse filter (Meta only): Throttle blocks and global blocks while not a flooder[edit source]

Status:  Cannot be undertaken

There is Agent Isai flooding RC with mass blocks while not a flooder. An abuse filter is required: Disallow; Throttle: max 10 blocks every 10 minutes

! "flooder" in user_groups
& action == (block | globalblock)

 Silicona (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Silicona: The action must be one of edit, move, createaccount, autocreateaccount, delete, upload, or stashupload, so block and globalblock cannot be detected. --   Waki285(talk|contrib|log|CA|Target) 08:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should have used flooder tbh but it's not too big a deal that it isn't. --raidarr (💬) 08:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you trying to prevent the blocks entirerly? That to me seems foolish. RC Spam is an issue (if you don't like, just filter it) but not worth stopping work for even more so when flooder exists ╚pixDeVl╝ (Talk Contributions CentralAuth) 12:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon me, I misread the post and didn't see the while not flooder part ╚pixDeVl╝ (Talk Contributions CentralAuth) 12:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete User talk:Bongo Cat[edit source]

Status:  Done

It is an unnecessary redirect, and I need to redirect User talk:Bukkit to my new user talk page. Thanks. -- Bongo Cat[cetacean needed] 22:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request for Main Page[edit source]

Status:  Done

Hi, please edit Main Page so that it redirects to Miraheze Meta instead, as it's a double redirect. Thanks! --Zeus, aka Blad (tcg) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reset redirect.  Done BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 21:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you global lock TheSun42 TheSun42 TheSun42?[edit source]

Status:  Cannot be undertaken

They are a vandal that is impersonation of another admin. 339Breakingoof (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not within the scope of the meta sysops. Please see SR/G. Globe - (TalkContributionsCA) 17:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]