Meta talk:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011
Latest comment: 4 years ago by DannyS712 in topic Split proposal
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
WHERE IS MY FACEBOOK LINK????
For the past week, every time I click on the link to go to FACEBOOK, I get a message that "wiki does not exist". E BEEN USING FACEBOOK DOES EXIST and I have been using that link for months. Now all of a sudden the FACEBOOK link brings me to you guys? Please fix this. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.157.207 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what you means. What link doesn't work anymore and where can that link be found (which page on which wiki)? Regards, Trijnstel 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Split proposal
It is very difficult to follow anything as the page is overly long and discussion on some cases are... well very long. I propose a split of the current "request for help" structure to two. One for obvious cases like vandalism where discussion shouldn't reach a paragraph and one more detailed structure for more lengthy discussions in a manner that resembles afd or com:del with sub pages for individual "cases". The main problem is following a specific debate is just very difficult at the moment. -- とある白い猫 chi? 05:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it makes some kind of sense - but I'd rather have the text "Help requested here shouldn't require a lengthy discussion and the expected sysop or bureaucrat action should be for obvious cases such as the update of mediawiki pages or dealing with disruption (vandalism, spam etc)." on top of the page. There should, IMO, be no lenghty discussions here - controversial requests should be sorted through RfC and such. Finn Rindahl 19:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ehm. I've reverted this change. Where's the consensus? Where's the need? One or two discussions per year is not a reason to split this page and annoy us with watching more pages, breaking archiving bots and so on. If the discussion is long, probably it's a sign that it does not belong to this board. -- Marco Aurelio 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Marco, absolutely no need for this. I don't need to watch more pages. This page is normally a low traffic page (just not right now, things will be calmer soon anyway). Please don't make things more complex than needed and don't make changes for the sake of changes. -Barras 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not agreed either per what was said above... though this proposal was worth to remind us that this page should not be used for long discussions, polls, request for comments. This page should be used on clear situations or 'after' we have achieved a consensus; not 'before'.” Teles (T @ L C S) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- What could be done then, is to quickly close unclear requests, either moving them immediately or suggesting where they should go, or, for an unclear situation, any neutral admin could "accept" a "case," and then invite and allow discussion on their talk page, making a decision only after some substantial opportunity for comment. Because that doesn't happen, users with opinions on a raised issue are certainly going to comment here, even piling in, creating the mess. Look at the development of the Abigor unblock request (permanent link to what existed prior to my first comment in it). I was familiar with the case, having investigated during the original block (which I'd ultimately supported). Given that the discussion was happening there, and no admin had acted in any way other than to discuss, what would, then, have been appropriate? Fast close (which could have been misleading at that point)? Moving it to the RfC, perhaps, as was eventually done? But a Talk page for a closed RfC? What would that lead to?
- How is a user to obtain the suggested "clear situation"? How do we achieve a consensus? Discussions on obscure pages won't reach much in the way of consensus! (It can be a start, though.)
- I am suggesting a fast close without immediate decision. I.e., a neutral administrator takes the case and closes it pending investigation, requesting comment on their talk page, or elsewhere, such as the RfC Talk. If the community consents, this could be done by any experienced and neutral user, who would report back after investigation, requesting action based on the discussion. --Abd 16:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not agreed either per what was said above... though this proposal was worth to remind us that this page should not be used for long discussions, polls, request for comments. This page should be used on clear situations or 'after' we have achieved a consensus; not 'before'.” Teles (T @ L C S) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Marco, absolutely no need for this. I don't need to watch more pages. This page is normally a low traffic page (just not right now, things will be calmer soon anyway). Please don't make things more complex than needed and don't make changes for the sake of changes. -Barras 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ehm. I've reverted this change. Where's the consensus? Where's the need? One or two discussions per year is not a reason to split this page and annoy us with watching more pages, breaking archiving bots and so on. If the discussion is long, probably it's a sign that it does not belong to this board. -- Marco Aurelio 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)