Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-01

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.


I would like to request Patroller rights on Meta wiki which is a powerful anti-vandalism tools to revert vandalism edits also could have access to patrol. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, since your last application in a month, I only count 5 undo and out of them, only 2-3 can the rollback button be used. Your activity level is still way too low here. --Cohaf (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Several times I've tried to undo edits but before published someone did by rollback so I couldn't done that, its happen most of the times. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I find that highly unlikey. I strongly oppose granting of patroller permissions; this user has a history of requesting rights they don't need, can't use, and/or aren't familiar with. Vermont (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Vermont for the most part. User has a long history of hat collecting and has shown absolutely no need for the tools. Furthermore judging from cross-wiki reverts thy have a failure to understand when rollback is supposed to be used and judging whether an edit is vandalism or not. hiàn/editing on mobile account 19:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Haven't quite gone through the application but two things come to my mind:
5 undo in itself is too low for patroller. However, I can believe it if a user says that "I've tried to undo edits but before published someone did by rollback so I couldn't done that.." because that's happened to me and I'm not a very prolific user here. Considering the comments from other users about hat collecting, I'll have to give it a Oppose Oppose. Leaderboard (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we not turn this into a vote? Meta sysop are generally competent enough to figure things out on their own without turning a basic request for rollback permissions into a mini-RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not done - your only revert from today was inappropriate. If a user or IP leaves an improperly formatted request on a steward request page, the better response is to fix their formatting rather than revert the edit. Please gain more experience using the undo tool, and think about how your actions are viewed from the perspective of the user you are reverting. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry to pile on but the below section resolved template just show they are not interested in any kind of engagement, which patrollers are supposed to do as we often face disgrunted users who question our motives. I will add that this is a clear sign another suggestion of hat-collecting. However, I do acknowledge that the watchers here are quite active and you often will get into rollback conflict. However, if you are active enough, there are ample opportunities to rollback / undo edits. I did try out just now and managed 2 undos (for edits I will otherwise use rollback on). Keep trying and you will get the permissions you want when you demonstrate a competency and need for it and then use them. All the best! --Cohaf (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC) edited --Cohaf (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
      • No need to make guesses about their motivations, either with their template addition below or your accusations of hat collecting (which is perhaps the most victimless crime in wikiland). If the requestee can demonstrate a pattern of good reverts and engagement after a few weeks or months, then I'd be happy to grant this very minor toolset to them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
        • @Ajraddatz:I apologize for it. Fully retracted. I also hope so. All the best again!--Cohaf (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

automatic admin user User:Abuse filter

Hallo Could someone also create user pages for User:Abuse filter on local Wikipedias (et:User:Väärtarvitusfilter etc). So there would be less confusion about who is this new user with admin rights, is it Messiah, or somebody else... --WikedKentaur (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WMF should do it as they are responsible of granting admin rights for those. Also, there is no global account for "Väärtarvitusfilter", so creating an user page here won't show it on Estonian Wikipedia. Stryn (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably worthwhile the wiki creating it for themselves.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Or just wait to get phab:T160666 deployed. Stryn (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning‎‎ (talk · contribs. · moves · block · block log · GUC)Reasons: see this diff. Mend My Way 14:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I given them a final warning, no edits since then. --Cohaf (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done anyway by Alaa the other day. Tropicalkitty (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I guess now this can be closed now as nothing more need to be done.--Cohaf (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

While User:BAICAN XXX got locked...

The following discussion is closed: X mark.svg no further action required

Status:    not done, information is inoffensive and not problematic

Hello admins, I'm looking for latest behaviour of this account locked in 30 december 2018 by MarcoAurelio. Should this global userpage of BAICAN XXX be kept with stored informations & interwiki redirects while is locked, or maybe to or send it to the trash and/or marking as {{Locked global account}} instead keeping data by this contribuitor? Thanks! 07:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't fuss it. It is what it is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't encourage the addition of the template per DENY unless the userpage is grossly inappropriate. This seems not the case here.--Cohaf (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment: In response to @Cohaf and Billinghurst: Unless information subject is proven for evidence regarding global user page of account while locked, the issue is accurate for question. However, this global user page of contribuitor while locked if appropiate or inappropiate cannot be kept for long time. It's such suggestive topic as well. I suggest you with the admin rights to delete it from WM entry if request is adequate issue. 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment. There are many such pages throughout all the wikis, locked and non-locked users, presently here and departed. It is not different.

    This user put these pages up for the world to see presumably in full knowledge of what they were doing. As I said, it is inoffensive, it s not problematic, so there is no reason for any admin to intervene. Not sure what business it is of yours anyway?  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but not enough. I saw at the moment if his user account(s) is blocked/locked, they are locked from editing trough Wikimedia. However, I have looked at is user subpages and no less results had than just one subpage found. If page is not problematic, I did see their property, but little enough. Here is the discussion of global lock request by contribuitor (see this discussion for the request reference).
  • More: This global user account got blocked around some different Wikis (such on ro.wikipedia and ro.wikinews). You can also read this community consensus regarding situation for the user at ro.wikinews: see here. 02:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment You have brought it up here, and you have had plentiful opportunity to express your point of view, and it doesn't convince me that we need to scrub the information from the page.

I take into consideration that stewards chose not to act further when they locked the account, and nobody else decided that it needed action following. There has been no other comment from the community either for your proposal, or offering alternatives. If you truly believe in the goals of the Wikimedia community you could understand that there are other acceptable judgements than your own. In this space, we all have to accept a level of difference of opinion. 22:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IP Vandal:

Hi! Can you please block this IP: (talk · contribs. · moves · block · block log · GUC)? It has been recently observed obvious vandalism, an LTA did "made edits". 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donexaosflux Talk 16:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Report of User:Arenah - Correct page is protected

Addition of spam links on multiple wikis --RhinosF1 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Usual place to request this is on SRG, but done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: - Thanks to all who helped with this RhinosF1 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Page was protected so I was unable to RhinosF1 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. I've given you the ability to report there in the future :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

False positive

I tried to move a full stop to the right-hand side of a closing square bracket on Research:How much do Wikipedians in the US value editing Wikipedia? but it was automatically identified as being spam or advertising. [1] JackintheBox (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is because of "purchase" in the text. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Being your first edit, we have some protections against shopping spam from newbies. I have made some mods to the filter, anyway.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

More false positives

Hi, more of my attempted edits on this page were prevented. [2] JackintheBox (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Advo7

Advo7 (talk · contribs. · moves · block · block log · GUC)Reasons: Sock of LTA and global locked user User:Allthingsgo. Reported at SRG but local behaviour on meta is also problematic, hence I'm here. Indeffed at enwiki and zhwiki already. Cohaf (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

They are not editing outside of scope; and they are not block evading, so we can leave it to the stewards. Stewards deal with all things locked. We can escalate all things globally banned.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:Noted with all thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Cohaf (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My sockpuppets keep getting blocked.

  • To Whom it may concern.
  • The abuse filter keeps instantly blocking my sockpuppet accounts when I try to leisurely do some f******i vandalism on the SRG page and Stewards' talk pages. Please tweak the abuse filter so I can continue my BMX on WheeIs vandalism and trolling.
  • Thank You.
  • Regards,

Symbol wait.svg Doing... --Vituzzu (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User group in meta

Status:    Done

MsaynevirtaBOT (talk · contribs)

Hi, I'm building a pywikibot script for uploading population diagrams to Commons. I was going to setup OAuth for this bot account, but this doesn't seem to be possible atm as the user isn't for some reason autoconfirmed in meta. This account was created in 2015 and has made thousands of edits e.g. in fiwiki, so that shouldn't be a problem. Would it be possible to some how manually confirm this account? Thanks. --MsaynevirtaBOT (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@MsaynevirtaBOT and Msaynevirran: Status of accounts will differ between wiki depending on your actions on the wiki, and the setting of the wiki, it is generally not a global assignation.

At Meta, we have a time and edit count requirement for autoconfirmed. For here, it will need a bureaucrat to assign confirmed user status to this account if you haven't met the edit criteria. I have restructured your request to make it evident that a 'crat needs to act.

To note that your account is not even registered as an account at Commons (see special:centralauth/MsaynevirtaBOT) and they have an even tougher set of criteria, so you may wish to familiarise yourself with c:Commons:Bots early on.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; confirmed granted for one week so you can register the OAuth consumer. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@MsaynevirtaBOT and Msaynevirran: noting the timeline—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
Ping User:Msaynevirta instead. Stryn (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User: (talk · contribs. · moves · block · block log · GUC)Reasons: Vandalism: removing content without consensus and justification. Tomybrz Bip Bip 17:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg has stopped; @Tomybrz: instead I have protected both target pages as they seem to be targets that have a history of problematic editing. Thanks for the note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please review this case

Hi fellows, I have no more time today and I can't review this case appropiately, so please review it and perform the correct measures. At first I thought it was an edit warring but then I thought it consists on vandalism by Letswaritout. I've adopted fast measures to stop it but I don't have time to review it apropiately, please review it for me. History: history 1, history 2, history 3. Thank you very much.--Syum90 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Letswaritout and the IP's they previously used -, and are socks of Iniced, an LTA. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would think a global lock of the accounts as well as maybe a global block of the IP is needed. It's not unacceptable username only but long term abuse, so the block reason might need changing. It is not editwarring at all to be clear, just the usual vandals who like to deface talkpages. Others per plystar.--Cohaf (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@PlyrStar93 and Cohaf: ok, so it's just a LTA. Measures taken accordingly. Thanks both.--Syum90 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Another one:

What is problematic: this LTA is changing the IPv4 address to other one as from I think that they are from part of range. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 15:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg nothing to do neither local (Special:BlockList/ or global block Special:GlobalBlockList/  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Requests for comment/Domain parking has not been editted for a year. It'll take another one to be automatically closed as inactive, but why wait if there's nothing productive happening there already? I was going to close as 'invalid', then 'unsuccessful'; but I'm not sure. Anyone with a better idea could please take a look? (also who changed {{rfc subpage}}?) Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I just remember the generic closed status so I closed it myself. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Nothing to be done by administrators  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Open proxy – that is tied to DCH (hosting). This may need pre-existent block. See IP information. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 19:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In the stewards' domain, they can manage it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, is a residential PPPoE link which is online only intermittently – the IPv6 lies, and is certainly no “helper”. Why users without credentials (I have a couple of guesses about LTA behind the IPv6) are permitted to scrabble in the pages important for receiving complains? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that local admins are not stupid, but again… Special:Contribs/ is a poor Uzbek ejected from Wikipedia for his bad demeanor. The range may have some hosting within it, but the user obviously has nothing to do with it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Why the range is a poor Uzbek ejected from Wikipedia for his bad demeanor? Prove details regarding this range if it has some hosting within it. Of course, also as an LTA on English Wikipedia one of IPs in the range given same edit at Bbb23 talk page as such, someone did like this. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 08:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

IP adding nonsense translations

This IP cross-wiki-contribs ST IP info WHOIS robtexgblockglistabuselog adding non-translated information such as nonsense content at Help:Contents/fa (see the history). 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)