Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2017-06

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unfounded accusation of harassment while being blocked. What can I do?

The following discussion is closed: Not a Meta-Wiki issue. No action can be taken over here.

Jmvkrecords, an administrator in, has unfoundedly accused me of harassment there. As I'm blocked from I've asked him here to please either give evidence that I've harrassed, or to take back his words as it is a serious personal attack. He has refused to do so, basically saying that since I'm blocked from I don't deserve any evidence and I can be gratuitously insulted.

My question is: How can this matter can be dealt with? All I want is not to be insulted by an administrator of a Wikimedia project. Specially not such a heavy insult as being called a harasser without any evidence whatsoever. To be treated like a person, even while being blocked. I hope it is possible. Thank you in advance. Atón (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Atón. I, a non-admin, see you already commented at Requests for comment/Checkuser abuse on the Spanish Wikipedia. In the light of this, is renaming the RFC discussion necessary? --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Without reviewing the merits of the block, which is not our remit, this board is to request help from an administrator or bureaucrat on Meta-Wiki issues only. Meta-Wiki administrators or bureaucrats cannot intervene on issues on other local projects. If you're blocked on eswiki, you should appeal the block over there as Meta-Wiki cannot overturn the block nor unblock you. Therefore this thread is closed with no action taken as it excedes our remit. You're free to open a RFC over this matter if you think it'd be worth it, but still, RFC here won't solve the issue I'm afraid. Large Wikipedias such as eswiki are autonomous on this matters and if they've decided to ban you then only them can lift the ban. There's no body on Meta-Wiki or elsewhere that can make them change their mind if they don't wish to. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio 20:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection of User talk:Ks0stm

Hey y'all! Could a meta admin please semi-protect User talk:Ks0stm? An LTA from has taken to messaging/taunting me on my meta talk page; see this and this. I'll post a notice at the top of the talk page saying that if new or unregistered users on meta wiki need to leave me a message they should do so at my talk page, since I have more tools available there to immediately deal with trolls like the LTA. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and I've semi-protected your user page too. Defender (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

RFC discussions on Croatian Wikipedia (post-2013 actually)

Is merging Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the Croatian Wikipedia and Requests for comment/Hard line nationalism on the Croatian Wikipedia possible? Seems that similar issues about may have still occurred. --George Ho (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that such a merge is necessary? Whilst that may be your assessment, it is presumptive to merge them. They can definitely be cross-referenced. It is not a meta admin job to be interventionist in such conversations; ours is to ensure that a civil conversation to take place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Rescinded request. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for mass message sender user right

Hi there. As you may have noticed, the Signpost hasn't been published for several months now. Part of this is due to the complicated nature of the manual publication process (the previous automated process hasn't been working for a while now), and that the main two editors responsible for producing and publishinghave been "buried in off-wiki responsibilities"[1]. There is now a new effort to revive the Signpost at w:en:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Reviving_the_Signpost, in which I have offered to do the publishing (with a new userscript). Part of that process involves posting on talk pages of subscribers to Global message delivery/Targets/Signpost, hence why I am requesting the mass message sender user right. I already have mass message sender on English Wikipedia[2]. Thanks, Evad37 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a public acknowledgement that you have been accepted to undertake the distribution of Signpost? That link would be advantageous. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: There is no process for vetting the en:paperboy for The Signpost. Historically the editor was editor, publisher, staff manager, and did delivery. The work has become too burdensome and we are trying to separate tasks so that different people can do different things.
If it helps, then I could get a statement from the last named editor or some other statement of need, but I think it would be more fitting to put this person through the routine vetting process for Meta sysop rights. I feel that getting confirmation at The Signpost that this person volunteered to fulfill a need would fail as a basis for evaluating them to not abuse this requested userright, which I expect is the usual criteria for granting the right.
From the Xtools profile - Evad has made 28,000 English Wikipedia edits and 48,000 Wikidata edits. Some of that seems to be automated and this user has gotten bot approval in the past. They have been editing since 2012. Browsing around, I see no record of any contentious behavior from them. Can you be more specific about what you want to see here? I might be able to do something but I am not sure what is appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
As Bluerasberry said, there isn't anything formal, its more like an existing void which I am offering to fill. There is general consensus that users do want the Signpost to continue publishing (it's the subject of just about every thread currently on w:en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost), with the latest discussion looking like it might actually get something done. I'm open to suggestions as to how to proceed. - Evad37 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Blue (nice to see you). I have had a look at the editing pattern of the applicant, and that was positive. A general consensus/acceptance with no obvious dissent would be my expectation to assign rights. So the hand is up, let us give it a few days. A little bit of rigour and opportunity for the community. Nothing to particularly hold up the process. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for managing this in the usual way. Yes, waiting some time for comments is appropriate. I requested comments at en:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Assistance_from_Evad37. This is a niche use and I expect that many people are not prepared to evaluate this deeply, but I gave notice in a way that I thought was appropriate. Let's see what response comes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Endorse. Trusted user, with a history of writing sections for the Signpost. Quiddity (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I endorse this request as well. --Rschen7754 02:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I went ahead and flagged @Evad37 as requested and per this discussion. It'd be good if we could review the list of flagged editors with MM-sender privs and remove it from those not using it or no longer using it :) Regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I did a light review last month, see Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2017-05#Mass_Message_sender_right.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :) SJ talk  19:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Spam filter accidentally tripped for a grant proposal

Hi folks, Mbunzama attempted to start a grant proposal but their edits were prevented by filter 188. Having looked over the filter, it looks like this was because they used the terms "marketing", "campaign", and "Facebook" in their proposal. However, reading through their application, this is not marketing for a product or a service, which are edits the filter is intended to prevent. Rather, the proposal is for organizing a conference. Is there any chance this filtered edit can be reverted? Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): If you wish to remove the filter specifically, it would be worth prodding the original author. I have made some edits to limit where the filter takes place as I think that it is lower risk for that sort of spam in that sort of place. It was a pretty crude filter in the first place, though I can understand some of the garbage from bots that would have driven such a filter being created in the first place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the edits to the filter. I don't have any problem with the filter generally-- as you've said, I think it prevents a lot of garbage on Meta. Is there a way to revert the filter for that particular edit so the applicant doesn't need to rewrite their whole proposal again? Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
There was no edit, so there is nothing to revert (unfortunately). It was a new page, and there is now text there, so best we can do is pull the ugly log diff. It can be copied somewhere if that is helpful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Understood, just trying to save myself some time if possible-- cleaning up the raw text from the diff has a lot of extra spaces and line breaks that I'll have to clean up. Thanks for your responses. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@I JethroBT (WMF): User:I JethroBT (WMF)/grant sandbox. You need to invest in Pathoschild's TemplateScript which has a lovely built in regex tool (use for this clean-up)  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


In relation to the ongoing Requests for comment/Global ban for Yahadzija, Yahadzija has been making personal attacks other failures to AGF; for example:

  • 06. June 2017: "Congratulations on recommendations of the global suspension. Even if that happens - you will stay a little mouse who thinks he's a lion." [3] (per Google Translate)
  • 06. June 2017: "discriminatory proposals" [4]
  • 07. June 2017: "what about Yours (sic) destructions?" [5]
  • 11. June 2017: "Terfili is wiki-Isnogood, and the potential Racist" [6]

As Yahadzija is currently blocked on 11 (!!!) other projects (including for intimidation/harassment/personal attacks), he is presumably well aware that such comments are unacceptable. I very seldom edit Meta and am thus not familiar with behaviour policies here, but it seems to me labeling others as racists crosses a line. Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It does. I'll give him a warning, but generally users should be unblocked here when a global ban discussion is proceeding against them. If he continues after the warning, then I think a block would be appropriate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally am not bothered by these comments, which say more about the one making the attacks than about me and are just more evidence that a global block may be necessary. --Terfili (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yahadzija is now socking as Falcon Bos to oppose the RfC; confirmed on Commons (where I'm a CU) - CUs can see info here. FYI: @Ajraddatz: Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing UA differences on Meta and bswiki. Given that they're both editing from the same mobile ranges as a number of other legitimate users, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for now. I would rate the connection as possible to likely. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I suppose those data points are what they are, but the UA and IP have both been identical on the Commons, to say nothing of behavioural evidence (e.g., both editing quite esoteric articles, and in disparate topic areas, like Arm folding - [7][8] and PTC tasting - [9][10]). Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it wrong forum?

Please move the page Requests for comment/Global ban for Xpanettaa to Requests for comment/Global ban for XPanettaa because it is a Wrong forum can a local admin to move to the correct forum now? 2602:306:36D5:5690:9444:888A:4D71:4CD5 20:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I don't see a requirement for an admin to move it. It is in the right part of the wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit MediaWiki:Globalrenamerequest-pretext

Hi, please replace "steward" by "global renamer", thanks. --Framawiki (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment Comment I think it would be better "stewards and global renamers". —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 22:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Base (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you. --Framawiki (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Report concerning

Yes check.svg Done Re-blocked, known crosswiki-abuse IP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

CentralNotice about FoP in South Africa

A friend pointed out that the banner about freedom of panorama has a couple of typos (screenshot) in particular the second sentence should read: «It's important to you, South Africa and its culture». --CristianCantoro (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done fixed the apostrophes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


Could someone semi protect my user page? -- 1989 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done There was one incident of vandalism, hardly seems worthwhile.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: No, there was two incidents, and one of them I had to handle myself. Judging from how my user page was protected before, I don't see a reason to decline a request for a user page to prevent vandalism, as I am on active projects that display my global user page, and would not like for it to be disturbed. -- 1989 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done It is hardly persistent vandalism, especially when the vandal is blocked, however, if you truly insist. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)



MechQuester (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to edit my global.js

Hi. I request editing to make User:Mirinano/global.js blank. I started taking wikibreak with "wikibreak enforcer" just now. However, because I did not make global.js blank, other projects were affected as well. So I request do it. ("みりナノ" is a sub account of " Mirinano ".[11])--mirinano (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is your account, then you should be able to login and edit it. I would not feel comfortable editing a js file on authority of another account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I can not edit because my main account has been set "wikibreak enforcer" on User:Mirinano/common.js until 2020. I can not log in so I am asking for help. and prease see this log.--mirinano (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: User:Mirinano has an email link on the user page, so you could confirm identity that way. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
What's about simple disabling JavaScript in your Browser? --Plagiat (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for information! I could edit it temporarily by disabling java script! With this I can wikibreak with peace of mind. Thank you very much.--mirinano (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --mirinano (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to MediaWiki:Userrights-summary

Given that phab:T131766 was apparently done, MediaWiki:Userrights-summary should probably be updated to remind stewards that when adding/removing steward status they should add to/remove from this list as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it could fit better somewhere like Steward handbook. It's the same like removing them from IRC channel and non-public wiki's and mailing lists etc. These all could be added somewhere, if they are not yet. Stryn (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
There are many lists that stewards need to be added to/removed from. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Per consensus on talk pages, please move this page back to Values. The current Values can be moved to Values (disambiguation) I guess. Thanks, Nemo 12:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No consensus discussion overtly evident (pages in question, or user:Asaf (WMF)). I am not certain that a disambiguation page is the answer, not the local style.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)