Meta talk:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

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

Cut-and-paste transwikiing may be a GFDL violation[edit]

"Import is currently enabled only from foundation wiki and the English Wikipedia. From other wikis, you need copy & paste your materials by hand." Well, despite what it says in this project page, I would like to say that English Wikiquote is talking about possible GFDL violations when importing is disabled. I hope that this is properly addressed while affecting so many Wiki sites as well.--Jusjih 16:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as you copy the history of the page as well (which is and should be understood), it is not a GFDL violation. Cbrown1023 talk 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course I understand copying the history of the page to attributes editors' usernames. However, the method in your answer would not allow non-administrators to see what exactly was changed if the original versions have been deleted. Thanks for your answer and I will pass it to all relevant Wiki sites where I administer.--Jusjih 13:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as GFDL goes, it doesn't matter, a record of authors is required, but attribution of each line/word of the collaborative work is not required. xaosflux Talk 06:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


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 (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)

Split proposal[edit]

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)

Global sysop action request[edit]

I see this page is meant to request help from a sysop or bureaucrat for Meta. But there isn't any place where we can ask a global sysop to perform a minor action like moving or editing a protected page on a Wiki where there isn't any local admin nor bureaucrat. I think there should be a place where a contributor could ask for that. Personnaly, I always end up asking on the IRC for that, but it shouldn't be like that in my opinion. Amqui (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global sysops would be the appropiate place absent a GS noticeboard, which I find not needed. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Would there be a way to make it more clear and apparent on Steward requests and pages alike ? So, a lambda user don't have to search a long time for nothing for a little easy request. Amqui (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have re-open that topic there: Talk:Global sysops#Request to global sysops' page. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global sysops is not the appropriate place for that in its current state, since this page is to discuss the policies and rights of global admins and not to request something. In my opinion, there should be a section on Meta:Requests and proposals to request simple admin action on a wiki project without active admins. Pretty much the same as Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat is for Meta, but extended to all wikis without their own admins. There is Steward requests/Permissions and some others alike, but nothing to request help from a steward (or global sysop) for admin actions on the project itself. Amqui (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use Steward requests/Miscellaneous for this type of request. Thanks, πr2 (tc) 23:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reporting vandal only accounts and inappropriate usernames[edit]

Hello. I would like to know that are there any noticeboards here on Meta where I can report vandal only accounts and inappropriate usernames ? I already do this stuff on the English Wikipedia and sometimes come across same accounts being created here which are already blocked on Wikipedia. I would like to know the right place to report all these things. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You can report vandals local to Meta on WM:RFH (the project page for this talk page). For crosswiki vandalism, SRG is the best place to report (also Vandalism reports). We don't have a specific equivalent to WP:AIV or WP:UAA, so we just use the requests for help page (equivalent to WP:AN). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I get it for the vandals, but what about the inappropriate usernames ? Are those also reported on RFH or somewhere else ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
For a Meta admin to locally block, RFH. For a steward to globally lock (and possibly hide), SRG. We do not have noticeboards for specific kinds of vandalism. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, that was quite helpful. Thanks for your reply PIRSquared17 :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I build a time machine?[edit]

or atleast gain amnesty, get all my essays back, and be relieved of all sanctions?

I know that the fresh start thing says I can't get fresh start, why not? We are imperfections who learn from mistakes everyday. But Wiki says no. :(

Also I wish the Wikipedia community wasn't so tough on disruption. I was treated like I flipped their computer desks over. You'd be really mad at someone if you caught them flipping your computer desk.

Is there any way to turn back time or use a time machine or ? I'd like to use a time machine to turn back time every time I'm told my editing is bad so I can succeed on Wikipedia and not worry about mistakes getting me in trouble again.

"No, that's not how it works. It's too late. You'll never edit on Wikipedia ever again. You're simply just not skilled enough to "make articles more NPOV", that's all, you incompetent, disruptive idiot."

"Nope. Too late. Already complained too much. Zip it. Shut up. Time for global lock!"

"Ha ha. You aren't serious! I really wish users like you were never born! If we let you go any further you'd be turning Wikipedia into a ruin!"

"I'm pinging [admin] to get you blocked, and there is nothing you can do about it."

"Get over it, you're never going to edit right, any editor with two brain cells can see that you are incompetent and disruptive!"

"Yeah, that's right. You are wrong. And guess what? It's payback time. Time to pay for all the time you've wasted with other editors. You'll wish you never existed in the first place!"

"I see you have made impressions of Wikipedia editors, that doesn't gain sympathy. That just makes me want to hate you more."

"I'm sorry, Turk. I'm afraid I can't free you. You know what that's a parody of?"

"Mistakes are allowed? Don't come on users like a ton of bricks? That is no excuse for all the editors' time you've wasted / disruption you have caused on Wikipedia. You shall never edit again."

"Consider yourself indefinitely globally blocked from all Wikimedia projects. That's enough. This will ensure you will never disrupt the WMF projects again."

--I wanted to help not hurt since 2011 I just created this account 2016 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wishes are wishes. Actions are actions. I am not sure what any Meta administrator or bureaucrat can do for you. Please address your issues to the wiki where you are having your problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
FTR, the above user was blocked at as a sock of a globally blocked user, Turkeybutt JC - see User talk:Turkeybutt JC here at Meta for some background. --Bonadea (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why am I blocked[edit]

I want to edit some wiki page, I am not a spammer (I guess all spammers say that but honestly I never did something wrong) Can someone help me and explain to me what is going on? I used to edit in wikipedia for a while, so you'd think I'll know what to do and I try it now. Thanks, Jacob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:04, 27 mars 2017

Do you have a user name? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to apply to a rapid grant and it says it's spam[edit]

Hi. I'm working on a draft to apply to a rapid grant. I clicked on "publish page" but it says it's spam. I don't know what to do. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgonzalezmillan (talk) 02:38, 20 mai 2017‎

Yes check.svg amended  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page[edit]

Hello, I have Just created the page "2017 Super 8s" but for some reason, it isn't showing up on Wikipedia search. I have created it and saved it but unsure as to why it isn't showing. Can you help please. Thank you. L1amw90 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) L1amw90 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. A Wikipedia-page is normally only searchable on that wiki, not from here. Is it this page that you are looking for? You have to ask on that wiki if there is any problem since it's nothing we can help you from here. Here we can only help you with issues related to this wiki. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
User:L1amw90, just FYI new articles on the English Wikipedia do not get index by external search providers for 30 days, or until the article is patrolled by page patrollers. — xaosflux Talk 03:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


For some reason the abuse filter thinks that I'm a spambot, I wanted to leave a message on the Stewards' noticeboard but for some reason get seen as "advertisement". -2405:4800:1484:93BC:2C52:2D10:79E6:22F7 06:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: it is your filter. Re the statement, and your xwiki abuse block, you would be best to talk to the blocking steward, Ruslik0.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright thank you. --2405:4800:1484:93BC:2C52:2D10:79E6:22F7 09:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi I am blocked too. Please help. I created and was exploring the wikimedia formatting. I was working on a project and didnt know it would be deleted. Please. I just need access to it for 10 minutes. My username was blocked too. I do not understand. Please help!

Thank you, Jennamag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:33, 4 décembre 2018

Hi Jennamag. You are not blocked here at metawiki, so we cannot assist with an unblock. If you created that article at Mediawikiwiki, then I am not surprised that you were blocked as it is completely off-topic for that wiki. I think that you may be lost or not understanding the purposes of our wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please change ":Category:Policies" to ":Category:Meta-Wiki policies". Also, add the template to Category:Headers (noinclude, please). πr2 (t • c) 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Or do you want to link to Category:Global policies? Linking to either, or both, is fine with me. πr2 (t • c) 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. micki 19:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request[edit]

Please change the wording in the paragraph about importing from other wikis:

  • currently it says:
From other wikis, you need copy and paste
  • but it should say:
From other wikis, you will need to copy and paste

Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor spelling fix[edit]

In this bullet point in the header template:

Requests for CentralNotice banners and campaings

the word campaigns is misspelled. Could it be corrected? Thanks, I JethroBT (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Replace magic words with parser function[edit]

Hi, please replace {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}} by {{#time:Y-m|now|en}}. This is so the link works even in languages that use numeral systems other than the Standard Arabic numeral system, such as Eastern Arabic numerals or Indic numerals. The archive link is currently broken on the /ar translation and I believe this would fix it. Also mark the page for translation when you're done. Thanks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by MarcoAurelio. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: If the change looks okay to you I can go ahead and mark the page for translation so the change propagates to the other subpages. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Actually, there's another link at the bottom of the page that needs to be fixed as well (the exact same change). PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi Dear Meta, I want to inform you that Vandalism has happened here.[1] Look at the item, it was decided to keep the article on the candidate page for deletion but then deleted. An article should be kept in the general discussion page after the end. The common decision was made to keep article, and one of administrators summed up its results. Later, if other administrator deletes it, it is vandalism.-- 08:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • That is not something we can help with. Please consult local means of rectifying the situation. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)