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)→|
|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.
Meta-Wiki has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of an |
|SpBot archives all sections tagged with |
I need to upload a file
- @Random Wikimedian: is your image free? If so you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons, then you will be able to use it on pages here. — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Mass message sender rights
Hi, in my request of 25 January, I wrote that "I only foresee needing it [mass message sender rights] this month". This has proven to be somewhat short-sighted, as circumstances have since changed and I now anticipate being publisher or back-up publisher of The Signpost for the foreseeable future. I was able to publish The Signpost without any issues in February and would like to request the mass message sender right on a permanent basis. If you read my prior request there is precedent for this right for this purpose, and should circumstances change--as they seem to do often--and I no longer need the right, I intend to request that the right be removed. Eddie891 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done extended permanently, congratulations on your promotion. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Inappropriate Comment in Training
In the section titled 'Board Member Behaviour' PatraKing has left a comment that is reflective of victim-blaming and rape-culture. This makes it unsafe for women and victims of sexual assault. What is the best way to deal with this? I am particularly concerned given this is connected to a training model about keeping people safe from harrassment."
- @DrMushEa: I have removed the comment you mention. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that I suddenly no longer have the mass message rights to send the newsletter on behalf of Wikimedia Nederland to talk pages of users who have signed up for it. Is it possible to restore this? Thanks in advance. --Germien Cox (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Germien Cox: Restored and since you had 2 runs of temporary grants, I had set it without expiry this time. Hope this helps. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Report concerning User:18.104.22.168
Contribution to a Talk page could not be saved because some tool blames it to be "spam"
On page Talk:Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month, I wanted to expand my previous contribution like this:
- (...) – Here again, the same tool does not allow me to insert the text in question. So, how am I to appeal to the administrators, as recommended?
In my understanding, this text is 100% on-topic, and there is no third-party advertising involved (apart from a reference to the Ukrainian Institute, which is a sponsor (or the like) of the Ukraine month, hence an ally of Wikimedia in this matter).
- @Martinus KE: Make your edit again. It should work. Leaderboard (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard: Yes, it did. – Thanks for stepping in!
- ... and in case you want to verify that it really is not spam, you're welcome to be "my first reader". -- Martinus KE (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- No need, we can see the edits that were caught in the filters. Your first edits here just hit upon a combination of phrases that has been more akin to some of the spambots. Once they were not your first edits, you passed one of the hurdles. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Administrators can view the filter log, so you don't need to cite the "text in question". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I couldn't find a more appropriate page for what I have to say. It's about steward requests: all sub-pages are checked almost daily, from checkuser requests to miscellaneous requests, but global requests for blocks, locks and hiding are checked very poorly. Currently there're requests for global locks going back to a week and requests for global blocks going back to even 2, but it also happened that some requests have been left there for almost a month in the past. They're about cross-wiki vandals, abuse, disruption... I wonder why such requests are given so little significance. I do understand that there're also a lot of other kinds of requests to keep up with, but these are quite important too, imho. I hope that pointing out this matter will stimulate an improvement of their management.
22.214.171.124 22:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Viewpoint of a former steward … real life, presumably. Running checks on IP addresses prior to blocking things is firstly a bit of an art, and time consuming, and sometimes there is just too much in the way to block, and not everyone does it. Reportees are variable in their requests, and some are overly reactive and ask for blocks based on smallest sample size, so the English adage "fools rush in ..." can have some reflective thoughts. The wikis themselves are the predominant means to block their IP addresses and stewards role is to act only when their is clear difficulties that require their action, not just because someone makes a report. So there needs to be the certainty that the action needs to be taken, not that a report has been made. So I would personally reject the bland and simple assessment that you make, too facile. I would also ask that if you want to be a big person to make such commentary that you do it from a user account, not hide behind an IP address. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've read your message, billinghurst. Well, you may be right if "each request took, for example, 10 days". But this isn't the way things work, because "20 or 30 requests which have been waiting for so long are often solved in a few minutes". Why doing such an operation massively every 2 or 3 weeks instead of checking a few requests every 2 or 3 days? Just wondering. I think that checkuser operations, that is checking and linking different usernames to each others through theirs IPs and IP ranges, would take more than simply blocking a user who's reported for making cross-wiki vandalisms. I'm not a steward, so my opinions might me wrong. There's just one thing I'd like precisely to tell you: I didn't like your subtile implications in your last sentence. I haven't got a registered account that I'm not using right now for these comments, I'm not "hiding" behind anything, you got wrong. A former steward should know well the "AGF" thing, especially toward a user who hasn't done anything to be suspected of something bad. Any checkuser could verify I'm saying the truth about myself.
- 126.96.36.199 21:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I saw it but skipped it because it was too fun to do stuff on there... Jokes aside, it's about me (while frivolous) so I'm not going to act on it. — regards, Revi 05:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct venue for this type of request, but can someone please lock the account of SonyMarathi (talk · contribs)? This is yet another sockpuppet of the the cross-wiki abusing Pratik thete (talk · contribs). ℯxplicit 09:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)