Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat Archives (current)→
Meta-Wiki has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of an administrator or bureaucrat for some particular task, it is not always easy to find one. This page helps users find one when they need one; asking specific admins directly via their talk pages is one way to elicit a fast response. See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies
Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 17 October 2019)

(as of 17 October 2019)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2019-06-26)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

Please find answered requests in the archives (this month).

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Multimedia cleanup[edit]

Per the little yellow box at top right, I just went through the categories Files with unknown license and Files with unknown source. In all cases but two, I have deleted the files. In each of those cases, one of the following two statements is correct:

  • The creator was explicitly notified about the unknown license/source previously with respect to the file; or
  • The creator was notified about similar problems on other files previously, but has been inactive at Meta for over three years.

The last two files were created by someone still active here, so I posted notifications on the user's talk page.

All that said, I went through a total of about 12 files in those two categories—easy enough to do by hand. But the categories Files with no machine-readable license and Files with no machine-readable source contain a combined 1,300 (or so) files. I looked randomly at three or four files in those two categories and found no license or source at all. But I wonder if there is a fast way (bot?) to check these for non-machine-readable licenses or sources. I'm not doing 1,300 by hand. StevenJ81 (talk) 19 provided31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What an irony :) Well, we can use some heuristics I guess. Like look up the pages with no machine readable license which have "cc" somewhere in the text or images without sources but which have a url or word "own" provided… Does this go along what you are thinking? --Base (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have a feeling you will get a lot of pushback if you do tag a mass amount of images. I perused the category you linked. There are many MediaWiki images, Foundation images, and really old user images, among other things. I am not sure it is a task worth doing unless done by hand tbf. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Semi-protection? Thank you in advance! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done semi … infinite
Comment comment to fellow administrators maybe it is just what I am seeing, however, there seems to be a persistent vandalism to a range of central page by IP addresses. I used to be undertaking short term protection, however, these are long-term static pages, and pretty well don't need to be edited by IP editors. Unless the community tells me otherwise, my gut says that we should be soft protecting for longer periods, and possibly infinitely on certain pages where a page is pretty well set.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been protecting for longer periods of time on these pages recently (usually on the scale of months rather than days), but indefinite protection should also be an option. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagger script[edit]

Would someone mind following the instruction at User talk:Hoo man#About your tool "tagger.js" to fix it? We GR and GS are unhappy. The tagger script is not working. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, per phab:T233442 the use of "editToken" should be replaced with "csrfToken" on line 495 of User:Hoo man/functions.js. Such an edit would be within the scope of a global interface editor (or local interface admin) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It has only been two days since you asked Hoo. Please have the courtesy of waiting up to a week for a fix of a script before jumping up and down. It is not an essential tool, so intervention in someone else's scripts is not an immediate priority.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Face-sad.svg Alright! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I sent Hoo man an email on 13 October. I agree with Billinghurst in allowing Hoo man the courtesy to fix the script himself in his own user space, however I think he's very busy ATM IRL so we might have to fix it ourselves anyway. Ping -revi as int-admin. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as an interface admin, I apologize for touching your user space. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: What? Oh come off it. Sorry, #notsorry, not worth 2 rubs of a stick. What is the point of having user namespace with restricted permissions and people with their scripts in them that they maintain, if you just go and edit it. Two people with the rights to edit asked for a modicum of patience, and you just go and edit it with the rights that you gained the day before. If you disagree, then politely have that conversation, not just ignore. This is a team environment based on consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a widely-used script that required a purely noncontroversial change to make it work again. I think it's reasonable to enact such a change after 5 days of waiting for a response. However, as you previously asked for a week, I do concur with you that it would have been more appropriate to discuss with you prior to making the change. Vermont (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, scripts and stylesheets are protected for security reasons - there is no other reason. Since this is quite widely used, ~200 users only at meta, it's more a gadget than an userscript. Hoo man is currently quite busy looking at his contributions, and this is really a trivial fix - it's not a feature addition nor anything else, it's just a trivial bugfix. Feel free to revert if you want, but I guess now-happy users of the tool wouldn't like that action. Sincerely, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a script in a user namespace, not a central script, nor a central gadget. It is a script provided as a gesture of the user. These are the consequences of the placement of such pages, and their management, we all know that. I understand the convenience of the script, and I understand the work of GR and GS, I have been one for many years. As I said, if you had an issue with the process suggested, then broach that matter, not just ignore people's comment, and then add some false apology. Plus please don't try to divert the conversation with a populist approach to users, the complexity of the fix, none of that is pertinent to the points that I am making.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a script in user namespace/NS_USER/NS 2, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is (in fact) an user script. Scripts included by that many users are more gadgets than user scripts, as they affect comparable amount of people. May I ask you who was harmed by my change and/or who and how would benefit from further waiting? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Tagger is much used and script is fixed. However, Hoo man has the last edit about 3 months ago. - MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so? The user in question is a current steward, and one who made commentary about his role when he asked for confirmation. All pertinent to this matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So related to this discussion, this is sort of what happens when you depend on someone else's personal page to do something. If these scripts are useful and will be widely used, we can make them gadgets, or at the very least move them to a community managed page. — xaosflux Talk 22:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-add removed email[edit]

Hello. I have recently removed my email from my account. But I now forgot my password. Is there a way that the system re-add my email, so I can use it to change the password? Or I have permanently lose my account? Thanks. 18:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Officially, nope. If you have some huge number of contributions, or are a functionary of a project - then the Trust and Safety department might look in to it, but otherwise, just create a new account. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
How can I communicate with Trust and Safety department? 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Send them an email: Vermont (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. 02:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If you removed your email very recently (<90 days, IIRC), your email can be still in the logs (and thus, is easily recoverable). Feel free to email me, I'll be happy to look into that for you. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked bot[edit]

MissingCastlePicturesBot (talk · contribs) — I've blocked said bot given that there has been no reply to my message. Please feel free to unblock once somebody claims ownership of said account. I don't think we let, nor should be letting bots whose owner is not known to operate. The bot's userpage is just a blank page created by itself. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that bots should be of a known owner in order to operate. Looking the only page that the bot edits (Wikimedia CH/Burgen-Dossier/FehlendeFotosinWikidatabzwCommons) only one other user has edited the page in a similar manner [1], so there mey be a connection with user User:Chilfing.—Ah3kal (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm operating MissingCastlePicturesBot (talk · contribs) on behalf of HSR and SOSM as part of Wikimedia_CH/Burgen-Dossier. Due to the block, I can't edit the bot account's user page, so I cannot currently comply with the requirements for unblocking, i.e. stating on the user page that I'm the operator. (See User talk:MissingCastlePicturesBot#Unauthorized_bot) Please advise. --Chilfing (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. The bot is now unblocked and I've tagged its user page accordingly. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Should this bot also be in the "bot" user group mentioned on bot? Should it get the "Bot" user right? (I'm not sure whether it'd be good or bad if its edits don't show up in the list of recent edits. I guess if the bot is operating correctly, you might want it not to show up there, so that no time has to be spent reviewing the changes?) If the bot account shall become member of the group and/or get the "Bot" user right, did I understand correctly, that I'd have to request that by creating the page Meta:Requests for bot status/MissingCastlePicturesBot and transcluding it on Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_bot_flags? If so, what should the content of that page be? --Chilfing (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Chilfing. Given that the bot edits each two hours it is unlikely the bot will flood recent changes so in my opinion a bot flag is not required. I would nonetheless file the request to get formal approval to operate. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to protect my user page[edit]

Please protect User:PlavorSeol page as "Allow only administrators". - PlavorSeol (T | C) 08:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@PlavorSeol: another admin has done this for you, however I strongly suggest we make an adjustment. The page you included, User:PlavorSeol/global.css is a special global page, if you want a "hack" around page protection it would be better to use any other title there (e.g. User:PlavorSeol/userpage.css). Would you like that moved? — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Please delete, I'm unable to mark it for deletion because of Special:Abusefilter/161. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (Speedy Deleted as out-of-scope/spam). @CptViraj: I'm adding you to "patroller" access so you can tag next time. Another option would be to just tag the talk page. — xaosflux Talk 13:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That will definitely help me in patrolling, Thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)