Jump to content

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from RFH)
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Ciell in topic Does Template:Bots still work correct?
Shortcut:
WM:RFH
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. It is only for assistance required at Meta-Wiki, help for other wikis needs to be requested at those wikis.

See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies


Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 15 November 2025)
Discussions:
(as of 15 November 2025)

None currently.

(Last updated: 2025-08-27)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

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

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

Filter proposal: Disallow temporary accounts from editing IP user and user talk pages

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Since temporary accounts have been rolled out since September, I believe IP user and user talk pages will no longer be very meaningful to use in the future (except for historical archival purposes).
I queried and found following 5 edits. All of them got reverted.

I'm proposing a filter to prevent temporary accounts from editing IP user and user talk pages. 

// Based on [[:w:vi:Special:AbuseFilter/126]]
user_type == "temp"
& (page_namespace == 2 | page_namespace == 3)
&
(
  page_title rlike '^(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}$' /* IPv4 */
  | page_title rlike '^([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,7}[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}$' /* IPv6 */
)

We can also limit it to autoconfirmed only if needed. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 11:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

User talk:IPADDRESS pages may still be used for things like discussing IP blocks, so I'm not sure about this one. — xaosflux Talk 11:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would at least support temporary accounts not being allowed to edit IP userpages at the very least. //shb (t • c) 12:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's no need for them to edit user pages as IPs shouldn't even have userpages so that part of it is definitely fine. With these IP user talk pages, considering how quickly the vandalism was spotted, I'd rather these IP talk pages that no-one looks at be vandalism than say, RfH. I take quite a conservative approach to page protection based on my homewiki though, so that is just my take. --Ferien (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
A tangential problem: Should temporary accounts have user (sub)pages? There are currently 8 such pages. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I mean, I guess - they can draft things in user space just like anyone else. But nonsense can be deleted just like always. — xaosflux Talk 14:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am noting here that English Wiktionary has a similar filter, Special:AbuseFilter/192. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.json

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago12 comments9 people in discussion

Good day all. With the amount of local userright changes (LA, WMF-related, Omb, U4C). I'd like to seek the community's opinion on whether we should automate this process. DreamRimmer is willing to take up the task but the obstacle is that DreamRimmer bot does not have sysop rights and can't edit the page, and giving the bot sysop rights to edit a single page seems to be an overstretch. As suggested by DreamRimmer, I propose that we move the file to the bot's userspace and let it handle the updates automatically. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 11:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. The page is in JSON, so there's no security risk (not to mention the bot owner is already a sysop). @DreamRimmer: How will the bot differentiate limited and regular sysops? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have not thought about the functionality yet, but I will probably spend some time on it tomorrow. I am sure there are reliable ways to detect the differences, such as checking whether an RfA or RfLA page was created recently whenever there is a change in admin rights. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
As per our current config, we don't differentiate between limited and regular sysops, both are listed as (A). So both regular and limited admins can be categorized together under the same group in future. As for user rights with an expiry, the bot shall add in a note of the expiry and remove the username when the rights have expired. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support Support See no problem here. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 10:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This seems reasonable here. JSON pages are automatically fully protected so it shouldn't require additional protection, nor would it cause problems. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
See this en.wikibooks discussion for precedent. JJPMaster (she/they) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Does this mean we'll modify the core module so it fetches the JSON via an HTTP request rather than importing it with require? From a technical standpoint, that sounds like a significant regression in server-side efficiency. Dragoniez (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've filed phab:T409617 as a possible workaround. Dragoniez (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
A page that is implicitly used by the community should not be placed in userspace if possible. DreamRimmer is trusted, so I'm fine with adding +sysop to the bot. Leaderboard (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps instead the bot can update a JSON list in their userspace, and the gadget in MediaWiki namespace can just source the names from the JSON page? This prevents even needing the +sysop or the move. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is how we do it on en.wikibooks. JJPMaster (she/they) 02:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Policy violations and canvassing from SophiaJustice59

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 hours ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Hi admins, sorry to bother you with a messy RfC. Requests for comment/The state of Simple English Wikipedia was recently started by SophiaJustice59. As you might know, I am an active editor on Simple English Wikipedia so am heavily against this and involved in this "proposal" of sorts, so I am not going to take any admin action on my own. However, I see many issues with this discussion from a procedural point of view which I feel are now needing admin action:

  • Sophia has been as vague as she possibly could be with the proposal. You will notice that the opening statement of the RfC actually proposes no action. I was under the impression this was required for an RfC - however, even if it is not, the closing projects policy requires the local community to be informed and while I can't find it in policy, it is a well-accepted procedure that all closure requests are to go on Proposals for closing projects instead of Requests for comment. She has failed to do either, but she is setting a tone for closing the wiki while not actually stating it in words.
  • At the same time, especially when considered with the above fact, she has canvassed to attempt to tilt the outcome of her RfC. She purposely pinged Piotrus, who started the third closure request for simplewiki, and notified the enwiki community at w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Community input warranted, while failing to notify simplewiki. Closure requests that fail to notify the local wiki are typically ignored per the closing projects policy, and she has gone well beyond this in notifying the people who are mostly likely to support the proposal.
  • As a general note (while not necessarily needing admin action on its own), Sophia has repeatedly accused others of incivility and assuming bad faith, when I do not believe this to be the case, while at one point arguing that I treat simplewiki as my hermit kingdom(!). If anything, I have perhaps engaged in the proposal more than is necessary, but I don't believe any of my comments are problematic.

Overall, I believe the RfC should be closed as invalid and a means of evading the Proposals for closing projects mechanism - as if the proposal were to be made at the correct venue, it would likely be rejected given the reasoning is almost identical to what it has been in the past. Sophia's behaviour has not been in line with expectations for closing projects or really in speaking with other editors. I don't think it is yet worthy of a block but certainly of a warning. However, I'll leave this for you to decide. Thank you, --Ferien (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ferien has not declared that he is a bureaucrat of SWP. Instead of acknowledging legitimate concerns from Meta community members and discussing with them, you appear to have resorted to casting aspersions and using the process to try closing a legitimate RfC by fixating on minute procedural details of which most users would not be aware unless they have been around for years to be sufficiently familiar with the rules. Even if your claim that I must have notified of your community was true, it would not impact on the validity of our concerns. I find it difficult agreeing that "criticism of SWP is welcome" when this is how disinterested critics are treated. My RfC statement was phrased in a civil manner, backed by data, examples, and points from supporters of previous closure proposals. Just because you feel unsettled by someone doubting SWP in which you serve as a bureaucrat, it does not make them bad-faith actors. I would like to say that I expected a constructive dialogue out of my RfC, but we appear to have a huge disconnect, which makes our dialogue unlikely to proceed. I mean no offense to your community, but I am simply voicing legitimate concerns as a Meta community member. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't intend to respond to this any more now as it'll make it harder for the admin to review the situation themselves, but I've declared I'm an active member on simplewiki, user rights just aren't relevant here. For the rest of this, assume good faith isn't a get out of jail free card, and I don't think I've not assumed good faith up until the point of reporting. I've given you opportunity to elaborate and I appreciated your justification even if I didn't think it was right. So that's just not why I'm reporting as otherwise I would have been reporting a few other users here. That being said, we don't randomly go discussing the bad bits about random projects on meta unless we want to close them, because we'd be here for a good long while if we did that. We had a discussion about simplewiki last year. And I don't think I've fixated on the issue of not letting the community know, I mentioned it twice initially and then went onto other things, before reporting here where it was relevant. A final word, if you want to argue you're new and that you don't know much about general procedures, starting an RfC is probably the last thing you'd want to do. --Ferien (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
In addition, I do not accept that pinging one of the previous closure proposers is a form of "blatant canvassing" as alleged by Ferien. The wording and the underlying assumption is not policy-compliant. I do not see that it is inherently wrong to ask for input from a previous closure proposer when he was deeply involved in the process. If SWP had no problems that warranted Meta community discussions, Ferien as a bureaucrat of SWP should not take issue with it. The allegation of "blatant canvassing" is unfair, sounding more like an arbitrary use of rules to try ending legitimate discussions. I hope that patrolling sysops can consider this, preferably reminding Ferien to assume good faith when interacting with relatively new users. If I did not fully follow the process as alleged by Ferien, I would welcome a reminder from sysops, while more ideally, Ferien's report should be closed as a content dispute. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to close the RFC because I have a conflict of interest as a simplewiki admin. However, I agree with Ferien that it's not right for you to alert the English Wikipedia about the RFC while failing to notify us at the Simple English Wikipedia as required by Requests for comment/Policy. Ternera (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for pointing it out. I am not familiar with the rules as I am relatively new. I apologize for failing to inform the SWP community. However, I believe that my RfC points are worthy of discussion as I am not the only user noticing that SWP is beset with long-term problems: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...the RfC should be allowed to continue. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
In response to Ferien's claim that I have not made clear the intention of my RfC, I have actually done it in this comment:

... Furthermore, I am not saying that the project should be closed, but a serious review should be conducted to facilitate major improvements, if the project really has thousands of active contributors, given that the project has been around for pretty much as long as English Wikipedia.

In addition, the allegation At the same time, especially when considered with the above fact, she has canvassed to attempt to tilt the outcome of her RfC. is an example of assumption of bad faith. At no time did I act with such an intent. SophiaJustice59 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have closed the RfC as invalid. I don't think any blocks or sanctions are required, but I think it's best if you dropped the stick on this issue for the time being, Sophia. //shb (t • c) 22:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am concerned as SHB2000 also edits Simple English Wikipedia, and therefore probably wants it to stay open, which may be a conflict of interest for them closing that discussion. ~2025-32843-25 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm probably closer to your view of uninvolved. I don't agree with the entirety of SHB's closing statement, specifically some of the wording, but I think the RfC is probably invalid enough that the close is justifiable given the lack of any clear plan for what to do in regards to Simple. Similarly, I don't think sanctions are really required at this time, but I note that the bickering back and forth is simply disruptive, folks. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm curious to know who ~2025-32843-25 is given this happens to be their first edit under their current TA (also comical, because it doesn't take long to check my contributions there). //shb (t • c) 08:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
You obviously pinged Piotrus, a person who advanced the proposal in here: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) . If you are truly looking for inputs, you would have pinged 125 editors who have participated in that RFC, not just the one who have started it. On the other hand, I do think that no sanctions should be done, SophiaJustice should drop the stick, and this thread to be closed. If SophiJustice still wanted to pursue the closure of Simple English she should start the proceeding at Simple Wikipedia itself. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Report concerning User:Joris Darlington Quarshie

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago27 comments16 people in discussion

Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Abuse of mass message system by sending unsolicited message to tens of thousands of users, see log. I suggest removal of mass message sending privileges. XReport --Count Count (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

My apologies to this mistake. I noticed this after these errors and I have been shown the right things to do. So this will not repeat itself again. My apologies to this damage caused. Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is the second time in a month where a mass message you sent out has problems (see these manual fixes). How, exactly, will you be preventing these issues from repeating? Taavi (talk!) 12:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've thought about this for a bit and have removed Joris' MM perms. Joris hasn't really explained how they will avoid similar mass message mistakes in the future, and the fact that this is the second instance in a single month doesn't make Joris' case compelling either. I've got no objections to an admin regranting Joris MM perms in the future, but I'd at least like to see a full thorough explanation from them on what went wrong and how they will ensure an incident of this nature does not occur again. //shb (t • c) 12:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks shb. @Joris Darlington Quarshie, if I can make a suggestion: if you want people to get interested in your tool, you should probably tell us what it does. I'm sure you've created something useful, or at least something that has a use, whether or not I personally might want to use it. But your outreach copy is so drenched in corpo-speak buzzwords none of us have any idea what it does. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Asilvering, Well noted and thanks a lot for the great feedback! Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@SHB2000, I apologize again for the harm caused. I am going to follow the advices given to me on my talkpage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joris_Darlington_Quarshie and I agree to share every MM I am supposed to send out on Babel and make sure it goes out only when it has been approved by an an admin. Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Simply speaking: Only send massmessage to those who has knowingly agreed to receive a message from you. Doing otherwise is called 'spam' in those wild internet world. — regards, Revi 12:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Revi C., Thank you very much. I have taken notice of that and will make sure to have a sub page list where users can subscribe by adding their usernames or opt-out anytime they want to opt-out for outreach. For wordings, I believe once its shared on Babel any admin can help me review the message. Then once a response is received for improvement I will make sure to improve the message and wait for a feedback before its sent out. Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
knowingly agreed to receive a message from you means opt-in, not opt-out. Taavi (talk!) 14:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Taavi, Please pardon me if I am a bit confused with your message. The opt-out I stated in my response earlier. I meant if the user does not agree to subscribe to that list again the can go ahead and remove their username from the list or send an email to be removed from the list and my apologies once again. Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
To put it even more simpler, don't add other user as recipient of your massmessage, unless you have their 'agreement'. — regards, Revi 14:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sure that is understood Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
^. I get that it is quite hard to get some initial 'buy-in', but use of MassMessage for this kind of message is frowned upon, and there is a unwritten agreement that 'you only send massmessage IF they subscribed to your newsletter, and ONLY IF they did it themselves'. (NB: Back in my prime time, that is.) — regards, Revi 14:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I actually don't like it to give pile-on comments like this now, however, I support the removal of the MMS rights. I was surprised that I got such a message today, but thought it could be either because I did some translations in the past and maybe because I have TA rights. But I then noticed that people were messaged who haven't been active globally for a decade. This just shouldn't happen. -Barras talk 13:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Joris Darlington Quarshie had autopatroller flag prior to being a mass message sender. Shouldn't that be regranted? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Meh, if admins get sick of patrolling they will just re-add (that flag is for the benefit of others). — xaosflux Talk 14:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Endorse removal, bad use of MMS and doubling down that people should have to opt out of their lists. — xaosflux Talk 14:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
    +1; also, as has been noted by Asilvering, the message was completely incomprehensible (who should translate what now?) and the associated page isn't much better. I'm happy to see that this has been dealt with so well. -- MF-W 14:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I was fine with receiving a single message regarding this topic (even if I didn’t subscribe to anything to warrant it), but two in two weeks is frankly too much for something I’ve had no active interest in. Thanks for dealing with it. stjn[ru] 15:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Meta:MassMessage senders currently have no defined requirements for granting, and I think it would be helpful to introduce some clear criteria so admins have a better basis for evaluating requests. We already look at a user’s global and local standing and whether they genuinely need the right, but given the tool’s global impact, I believe it should generally be granted only to users who have requested at least five MassMessage deliveries at WM:RFH or another suitable venue. We can still make exceptions for users who already hold the right on their local projects and have a demonstrated history of using it responsibly. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm open to it. Non-admins can still create a mailing list and set up the message so all the admin has to do is press a button, so it's not like non-admins are hamstrung without the right. Leaderboard (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Unfortunately, since this is a potentially dangerous flag, with such misuse, even if clearly not intentionally abusive, I think it's appropriate to remove the flag for a while. I've restored the AP anyway because, in my humble opinion, there's no problem from that perspective. --Superpes15 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
    TIL that AP was bundled with MM perms on Meta (btw I agree with the reinstatement – I'm just surprised more than anything else :)). //shb (t • c) 19:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - I was also surprised to receive "CapX" messages. I didn't object since it may happen that I express interest in new features and then " forget " about that. I support shb's administrative action, as spam is not tolerated on Wikimedia projects at any level and for any reason. --M/ (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I also endorse this, that message should have been sent to the intended mass message mailing list, and not many others. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. shb (t • c) 19:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Report concerning User:~2025-33628-70

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

~2025-33628-70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Long-term abuse XReport --Peterxy（talk） 02:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done EggRoll97 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does Template:Bots still work correct?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I noticed this edit on a deceased user's talk page, but the page has a {{bots|deny=all}} in the top.
Does MassMessage currently ignore the nobots template, or (the other way around) does the nobots template not work correctly anymore? What happened here? Ciell (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another example here. Do I need to add a second template to also deny MassMessage messages? Ciell (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&oldid=29651277"