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)→
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 17 January 2022)
Discussions:
(as of 17 January 2022)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2020-05-23)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

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.


Inactive bots[edit]

As per policy, bots which are inactive (edits/log actions) for 14 consecutive months will have the bot flag removed. The following bots have lapsed the stipulated time period for them to retain the flag.

Bots or their operator(s) have been notified on their respective talk pages. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not strictly need bot flag for BaseBot at this very moment, unless there are objections I would prefer to keep the flag so that whenever I do need to use it I don't hit low API limits and other downsides of regular accounts. --Base (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Base: (and any other operator on this list) - think we can give this a week to see if these are still needed by replying here - but also make at least a trivial edit with your bot (even it's own userpage) so that it doesn't keep coming up for review every month please. — xaosflux Talk 10:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad for not mentioning this, policy states a 1 week holding period. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. I still need the bot flag. I'm just running the existing tasks again to fix some errors detected by Linter and the bot. --NicoV (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thr notification, it stimulates me to reactivate Botik (talk · contribs). There are a few more ideas worth trying to implement --Alexander Sigachov (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Александр Сигачёв: Thanks for your answer. Bot flag is kept. However, could you please make any edit with Botik so it does not keep appearing as inactive every month? Thanks a lot. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. All items have been addressed. — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for patroller[edit]

Hi there! I'm here to request the patroller permission, mainly for the rollback. I've recently become more active in cross-wiki RC patrol again, and rollback here would be useful (for example, yesterday I undid edits by Lazaduckgun: 1, 2, 3). I think I'm trusted enough for this; while I don't have tons of experience on Meta, I'm much more active on English Wikipedia, and I have rollback there and on Wikidata. Thanks! (Note: If you assign the patroller permission, you can remove the autopatrol permission because it's redundant.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey proposal identified as spam[edit]

I clicked the banner on Wikipedia that invited me to create a proposal for the Community Wishlist Survey 2022, and I decided to create a proposal in the watchlists category (the only thing I did was filling in the template), but when I clicked publish it was identified as spam. The description of the rule was the very helpful «Antispam». I'm not sure what triggered it, I'm guessing it's the repeated all caps "DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE" but in that case I'd expect other people to also not be able to create proposals. Or maybe it's that I don't have any contributions on the meta wiki? Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: it was indeed the all caps, because after I removed it I was able to publish the page. Either the rule or the proposal template should probably be fixed. Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The all caps wasn’t why the filter was triggered. It’s a very targeted filter, but unfortunately has a decent amount of false positives. It shouldn’t be an issue for you in the future, though. Vermont (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not enamoured with that filter. I have put in another exclusion test.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing at RFC[edit]

Requests for comment/Stop accepting cryptocurrency donations is currently experiencing abnormally high levels of canvassing by crypto proponents due to advertisement on crypto promotion platforms. Although I imagine meta has different conventions on canvassing than some of the Wikipedias, at the level it’s currently at surely this doesn’t help build a consensus and is a problem. Admin intervention, perhaps semi-protection, might be appropriate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last five commenters (all opposers) are all legitimate accounts, the youngest of them is 4 years old, so I'm not sure what semi-protection would achieve. --MF-W 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal of Massmessage sender flag[edit]

On 22nd December, my authorization as massmessage-sender expired. Can you please reactivate it? Thank you.--Ysogo (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ysogo, can you please clarify a bit on the need to have the permission? I see you only sent messages in December 2020 (few days after your request for MMS was approved). Thanks for any clarification you can provide, Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The need is the same I had one year ago: announcments of activity done as vicepresident of WM-Italia. During year 2021 I had not that many opportunities to use it as long as the covid situation significantly affected the events organized by WM-Italia. Ysogo (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Okay then. Granted until 2023-01-13 (a year from today). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux Talk 14:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for uploader[edit]

Hello :) I occasionally would like to upload images to Meta -- for instance a photo of Luis B-E to illustrate the Board article (while we wait on getting a properly licensed one). I'm requesting uploader permissions to do this. –SJ talk  15:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj: Unlicensed or non-free files are not allowed on Meta, nor is fair use per community consensus. I'd prefer if you uploaded the picture to Commons when one exists with proper licensing. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need local files (or uploaders) at all, so long as there is no EDP? Are there any file formats that we allow that Commons does not? I'd like to see a simple EDP to support meta work, so that we can host aggregations of knowledge from other movement wikis -- or if not an EDP, implementing something like InstantCommons that supports a cascading list of movement-wikis for resolving File: references. But until then I'll push for freely licensed versions. –SJ talk  18:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only instances of local uploads that were needed recently were to mirror some logos used in the portals for security purposes. Since we disabled local uploads in 2015 or so, there has been no need for local uploads. Still the mess of files without source, license, descriptions, etc. remains. I don't think it is a good idea to allow local uploads and increase the number of potential copyright infringements we're hosting. EDPs and Fair Use require active monitoring too, something that evidently we lack; therefore I oppose any EDP for Meta. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Report concerning User:2600:1700:7670:1C00:60F3:5EF4:8E1D:380A[edit]

2600:1700:7670:1C00:60F3:5EF4:8E1D:380A (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandal. Mykola7 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg managed Thanks. 06:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ferien (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New RFC for meta admin inactivity policy[edit]

Hello, just a notice that I started an RFC to ammend the inactivity policy for meta admins. Meta:Requests_for_comment/Change_to_Meta_Admin_Inactivity_Policies. Opinions are most welcomed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

85.115.243.37 is adding strange translations[edit]

85.115.243.37 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) --魔琴 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done thanks  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning User:14.0.164.0/24[edit]

14.0.164.0/24 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Long term vandalism. SCP-2000 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Sotiale (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2601:40A:8480:39F0:7D00:2720:CA57:A9AD[edit]

2601:40A:8480:39F0:7D00:2720:CA57:A9AD/64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)
Reason: translation vandalism. Stang 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block for Naleksuh[edit]

Naleksuh (talk · contribs)
Computer Fizz (talk · contribs)
Krett12 (talk · contribs)

Naleksuh has made a very consistent pattern of casting aspersions without supplying proof and making personal attacks. Since they have been publicly connected to their previous invalid CLEAN START accounts (invalid because the accounts had overlap, even interacting with himself). I am a meta sysop, but as I was attacked by Naleksuh last year, I will ask for another meta sysop to take a look and consider a block. Operator873 connect 19:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This post is entirely wrong. There has not been casting aspersions, as all claims are backed up. The first diff is from a year ago, and in that case proof WAS provided both to ElectCom and in the form of snippets. In the second, more recent, one, I have provided proof on the talk page, where I have supplied proof of my claims and shown a users response to my question to be wrong. Also, the link of "interacting with myself" does not depict me interacting with myself. The account being replied to is "Kill switch 1999", which is not me. You do not appear to be trying to suggest it is me either as it is not on your list. This is yet more false information. This should be thrown out both for provably false claims (like "interacting with myself" when I didn't) or even consider a block for the filer per w:WP:BOOMERANG. Naleksuh (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw the interaction, but the diff still supports both Krett12 and Computer Fizz being active at the same time, there for invalid CLEAN START and abusing multiple accounts to evade scrutiny. Operator873 connect 20:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 20:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&oldid=22625660"