Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

←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. Before posting to this page, make sure your comment doesn't belong at one of these specific request pages: Requests for (translation/central notice/interface) adminship on this Meta-Wiki Requests for CheckUser information on this Meta-Wiki Requests for oversight of edits on this Meta-Wiki General requests for permissions on other wikis Requests for CentralNotice banners and campaigns Import is currently enabled in this wiki from some projects. From other wikis, you will need to copy and paste your materials by hand but please remember to add a link, as a permanent link, and the history of the page being imported in the edit summary to avoid copyright violations. To report vandalism on meta: please click here. For immediate assistance, join #wikimediaconnect and use !admin@meta to notify administrators. To report cross-wiki vandalism see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

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

Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]

General maintenance announcements:

(as of 27 November 2020)

• Assistance with Meta-Wiki maintenance is always welcome.
• Many files awaiting review for basic {{information}}, source and license.

---

Discussions:

(as of 27 November 2020)

None currently.

(Last updated: 2020-05-23)

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page
• Meta-l mailing list

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.

Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura‎

Hello, per the main hrwp RFC, this is also plagued with anon / non-autoconfirmed vandalism / unproductive inputs, shall we semi protect this per the main hrwp RFC. Indef if needed but at this moment maybe 1 weeks? Reluctant to unilateral protect is I am afraid that there might be constructive hrwp editors not autoconfirmed here wanting to contribute, but well they can use the talkpage if needed and the talk is being monitored closely. Some consensus will be good. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this discussion is only meant for admins/crats, so I'll offer my 2c. Semi-protecting the main Kubura RfC page is certainly a good idea. I have not seen any constructive contributions there from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users and plenty of examples of non-constructive contributions, including sockpuppetry and vandalism. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's manageable so far. For me, having non-confirmed hrwiki editors able to voice themselves is more important than the (manageable) level of vandalism. I'm slightly opposed to protecting at this point. Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Urbanec. For now it seems like it can be managed. Nadzik (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism can be removed with a single press of a button. There is, however, no combination of buttons one could press to retrieve the comments of those constructive editors prevented from participating by a page protection. RfCs, in my view, should generally never be protected. Vermont (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Meta is not Wikipedia and there are no true "newbies" here. Everybody arrives knowing how to use a talk page. The RfC has been open for 12 days and we have yet to see a constructive contribution from an IP or a non-autoconfirmed user. In the meantime, sockpuppetry and vandalism continue, including some edits requiring not jut reverts but revdel, such as the one that happened just a few minutes ago[1]. If at some point a constructive IP/non-autoconfirmed contributor does materialize, they can comment at the RfCs talk page, and if they make a vote edit protect request for the RfC itself, their vote can be added to the survey as well. At least semi-protection will give the main RfC page itself some peace. Nsk92 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And in the few minutes since my previous post here, we also have this[2]. Nsk92 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

One edit from an IP that was immediately stopped? --MF-W 23:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not done then, I am raising it up primarily due to this, my primary reservation, per Vermont and Martin Urbanec is that good faith, non-autoconfirmed users from hrwp might be unable to participate. There is consensus against protection for now from the admins that participated here. We will manage by blocking, removing the vandalism. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)