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 28 November 2020)

Discussions:
(as of 28 November 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.


Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura‎[edit]

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)
  • X mark.svg 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 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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Editnotice not working?[edit]

Hello, I recently created Template:Editnotices/Page/User:AJ1m3,zsd./sandbox as an attempt to make an editnotice for my sandbox. I created this as a plan to have a test editnotice. It doesn't seem to be showing when I edit User:AJ1m3,zsd./sandbox, so is this a bug or something? How to fix? --AJ1m3,zsd. (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello @AJ1m3,zsd. Meta isn't ground for testing, given your SUL, you had very little significant contribution elsewhere, I don't see why we shall allow you to test here on metawiki. I had deleted the template. Please observe Meta:Inclusion policy which states the scope, these pages for testings / sandbox are more suitable for use in testwiki, which you had some edits already. In addition, there is no reason for you needing sandboxing here, I will recommend you to visit one of our content project, either to contribute to the content or fight some vandalism. Well wishes. In addition, this is no need of admin intervention. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I will add that a project like Wikipedia or maybe testwiki with build in sandbox capablity (i.e. there is sandbox activated by default) will be easier to experiment, and there are plenty of editors there which can guide you in building the edit notices and sandboxes. I hope you will find help in their help desks there. :) For meta, this can be better answered if ask in Tech or Meta:Babel I guess as those are more of community boards rathe than this which is for admin actions. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@AJ1m3,zsd: You will be wanting to create user talk:AJ1m3,zsd./Editnotice if you want an edit notice in your user talk space and utilise {{editnotice}}. You are trying to make things harder than they need to be.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Further noting that Editnotice is a bit of a complex beast and to get it working easily the admins need to put in the parts of componentry to make it work sweetly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@AJ1m3,zsd. Helpful link: Please use User talk:AJ1m3,zsd./Editnotice as their username have a dot behind it, I am also fixing the ping for this one as the ping above won't reach him. I am trying to be helpful by providing these (fixes in ping / page names) and all the advices above, certainly not making things harder. Surely this is what is needed, and there is clearly no admin intervention needed, whosoever who know this, I admit I don't, can provide without needing it to be an admin. Your message on my talkpage saying "Well it seemed they got a bit of a slap" I aren't for what is worth. "guiding hand in the direction of what was available." is also untrue, I had tried my best to redirect them to places here on meta. I don't think this statement is correct and fair to me as the 1st responding admin here. I admit that my first respond may not be ideal and I will learn more. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Now you can use both links already as the above incorrect one seems to be fixed here, so any one should work for now. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Back to the topic, they seems to want an edit notice for their sandbox, the above given link is for their talkpage, hence, the sandbox link should be User talk:AJ1m3,zsd./Sandbox/Editnotice (I think you have to set the sandbox into user talk namespace and not user, not too sure on this - I really don't know edit notice that well). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

93.42.0.0/16 and 93.48.0.0/16 email block[edit]

Please block the email feature only for these two subnets. It's a LTA flooding special:contact with his gibberish. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)