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 (at Meta-wiki only) 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. 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
Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 23 September 2020)

(as of 23 September 2020)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2020-05-23)
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=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Permission to question scowiki statistics[edit]

Vermont (notified) banned me from the scowiki RFC on my talk page,[1] but I have multiple questions about Talk:Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia#Current Statistics and ask permission to ask them. James Salsman (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@James Salsman: In less than 500 words and 20 diffs tell us what you want to question and why you should be allowed the appeal. Do note that any conduct that are out of WM:CIV can be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator and I will be looking into this carefully. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There are no diffs needed to describe the statistics which interest me: the number of bots (>50? How many of those are active?), the proportion of articles in Scots, the length of time the current wiki administration intends to keep more than 5% of the articles in languages other than Scots, and the value to the Foundation of ceasing the attack on the endangered language. James Salsman (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend other administrators not accept this appeal. James, please do not resume editing while logged out. Vermont (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am often logged out without having logged out. Is there a specific edit you believe would have been more helpful if it was logged in? Why do you recommend that I not be allowed to ask the specified questions? Do you agree with MJL's admonishment that I should not talk to the press? James Salsman (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, the questions you are proposing to ask are vauge. To be precise, how will all these questions, after being answered, add to the discussion. In addition, the logged out editing is worrying, James Salsman you should know that logged out editing is not recommended, especially when one is under sanctions. This can be seen as an attempt to evade sanctions. I know this isn't very clear at times but please cease any logged out editing which are against en:WP:ILLEGIT. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Learning why there are more than 50 bots and whether they are active could help show alternative paths to automated and partially-automated solutions.
How could learning the proportion of articles in Scots on scowiki not add to the discussion? It is the central statistic causing the Foundation to have oppressed and to currently oppress an endangered language weeks after the problem was brought to light.
The length of time the current wiki administration intends to keep more than 5% of the articles in languages other than Scots can tell us the extent to which they are operating in good faith.
The value to the Foundation of ceasing the attack on the endangered language is far more than most editors realize, as far as I can tell, and the longer we don't ask about it, the longer that value will increase with the damage done. James Salsman (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am still not convinced this will add positively to the discussion as many of the points had been raised by them and others. This seems repetitively raising the same arguments verbosely which doesn't lead to productive contribution. The language used such as "oppressed" "attack" etc seems a little confrontational. There is a risk that the same behaviour that lead to the ban to reoccur (i.e. risk of recidivism is there). I am not inclined to support a lifting of the RFC ban. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Camouflaged Mirage's reply was specifically about your logged out editing. Your response completely ignored that, instead focusing on what you want to add to the scowiki discussion. You were banned from the RfC in part because of incivility and in part because of clearly bad faith replies like this. Stop dodging the subject. You have been editing logged out, something which you very well could have been blocked for especially considering past activity, and I oppose your unban from the RfC for that reason. Considering your account never edited the UCoC page, and only your IPs, it looks like a bad faith attempt to evade scrutiny. Please agree to use one account (with the exception of legitimate socks), and not to edit while logged out. Vermont (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to reply to this. If I object based on "Firstly... In addition" I wonder whether I will be accused of being disagreeable in bad faith again, as I was on my talk page when I tried to defend myself on substantive issues and was banned for being argumentative. When I started responding to the UCoC draft, I had added multiple sections before I even noticed I was not logged in. Instead of signing the comments, I figured the comments were more important than who wrote them. None of them have been controversial and I don't see how they can be construed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I agree not to let such comments go without signing them in the future, and I will go back and sign them with my username if that is what you want. James Salsman (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
James Salsman: This isn't an issue of opinion as to whether the "comments were more important than who wrote them", nor is it one of not letting "such comments go". Let me make it as clear as I possibly can: You made contributions to a discussion, while logged out, shortly after being banned from another discussion on your account. This makes it look like you were intentionally trying to distance your comments from your account. This is especially problematic considering your history of sockpuppetry and conduct issues, where in 2017 you agreed, during your unblock, to only use one account. You could have been reblocked for this, but it seemed more beneficial to make note here as your edits while logged out were not disruptive. Thank you for agreeing to use your account to contribute in the future. Best regards, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
At this point, I'm kind of getting fed up here. –MJLTalk 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Scots Wikipedia ban discussion. –MJLTalk 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not lifted. There had been no further discussions by any other sysops for a couple of days now, I shall close this appeal as unsuccessful. Since this had went through a community discussion, this ban is now a sort of community ban (we don't have such thing here, but de facto it is). There is no consensus to lift it at this moment, and I will recommend James Salsman not to appeal until at least 3 months have passed. In addition, I will remind him to not to engage in any further logged out editing using IPs. Any accidental logged out editing should be reported to meta oversight team via Special:EmailUser/Meta-Wiki_oversighters or meta-oversight(_AT_) Any further disruptive editing on meta will most likely result in a block. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Notifying Sidowpknbkhihj and communities they edited on all wikis[edit]

Hi. Recently i started up a RfC for global ban of Sidowpknbkhihj. As of now, i'm trying to notify this editor and notifying communities in all of the wikis where they have edited in. However, for me, this is a tedious task (especially notifying the community) as i'm not an administrator or a steward in Meta - as such i have no rights for MassMessage which could help me tremendously at notifying them. As such, can an admin or steward help me at this to make this a less tedious task? By the way, i'm not requesting MassMessage user right and i have notified the user and community at enwiki, jawiki, wikidata, commons, kowiki, zhwiki and idwiki. SMB99thx 06:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Account is globally locked, they can't reply anyway. In addition, there is not a need for global ban IMO, they are clear candidate for global lock (which rightfully done by Ruslik0). Furthermore, no sample of MMS and most of their active wikis the requestor had notified, should be within RFC policy. Nothing much more to do. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I finally provided the samples and from what i feel in the reactions in those communities i have notified, this is an overkill. I admit, this is the first RfC i have done on Meta and i could learn from it. SMB99thx 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I still think a MMS isn't that appropriate for now, since most of the communities had been notified. It's okay, meta isn't easy to navigate. Feel free to ask for help if needed. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Update regarding Project portals and Module:Project portal[edit]

Just an FYI. I synced an update to Module:Project portal that will now preload the edit summaries when using the link on each portal's talk page to update the portal (eg at template#Current issues the "instructions for updating the portal" link). Now all you need to do is copy the {{subst:#invoke:Project portal|generatedPortal}} and verify the changes! Let me know if I broke anything. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Grant Application reported as Vandalism[edit]


I am trying to update my WikiCites grant application - however my edits are getting reported as vandalism.

"Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Antivandalism (local)"

I only created my meta-wiki account yesterday so this could be the issue?

Any advice on how I can continue editing the application? Thank you, Adam

Part of the issue. Responded directly to user.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! that sorted the issue. --Noideawhatiamdoing (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia[edit]

The standard 30 days of commenting have almost concluded. As I have prepared a bot to run Pywikibot/, I am getting ready to help enact whatever consensus Meta-wiki sysops here deem appropriate according to the discussion. I did what I could to hurry things along for the sake of this endangered language, but I would still request that Meta wiki sysops make the necessary preparations ahead of time to ensure a punctual close. –MJLTalk 03:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

...Any volunteers to write a closing statement? –MJLTalk 03:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)