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.
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
- Assistance with Meta-Wiki maintenance is always welcome.
- Many files awaiting review for basic
{{information}}, source and license.
- None currently.
- About Meta
- Discussion pages
- Request pages
- Policies and guidelines
- Information and statistics
- Categories
- Help pages
Participate:
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.
|
Contribution to a Talk page could not be saved because some tool blames it to be "spam"[edit]
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).
Therefore, can you please unblock? Thank you. -- Martinus KE (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
- Should the filter be changed maybe? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Filters are generally not static, and will be amended as required. There will always be false positives for any filter that is strongly out to get abuse edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Should the filter be changed maybe? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:27, 1 March 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)
Steward requests[edit]
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.
5.171.89.225 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.
- 5.171.89.225 21:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I said nothing about checkuser. Why? Because it is my opinion that many of the requests are trivial and pointless, many reactively stop next-to-nothing. Expecting a steward to sort out all the required block requests from the drivel is major impediment. Too many request a block that is temporarily problematic and should be handled by the wikis themselves, or just ignored. Stewards are responsible for their blocks and to check local and xwiki impact of the impact of the blocks they place is just damn difficult. SRG now seems to be considered a general clearing house for any crap found, rather than a place to stop systematic and real xwiki abuse. Some of the LTAs jump proxies so quickly, so they are abusing a proxy service rather than true OPs, so they are pointless to block retrospectively, but are still added. Can the stewards do a better job? Sure, we all can. Are they doing a bad job and not making the required urgent blocks? Not from what I can see.
You brought the conversation to Meta:RfH; rather than addressing it to stewards at their noticeboard. For a random IP address to know about SRG, let alone be commenting on the stewards undertaking blocks and locks and backlog itself is the signs of an editor with a clear level of involvement. So to when that IP address is not actively editing anywhere to be coming here with such a query is hardly an innocent enquiry. I don't know, that looks unusual to me. It looks like someone stirring trouble than genuinely open enquiry, where I would give AGF. And I love the wording that indicates that you are between accounts at the moment. Really? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I said nothing about checkuser. Why? Because it is my opinion that many of the requests are trivial and pointless, many reactively stop next-to-nothing. Expecting a steward to sort out all the required block requests from the drivel is major impediment. Too many request a block that is temporarily problematic and should be handled by the wikis themselves, or just ignored. Stewards are responsible for their blocks and to check local and xwiki impact of the impact of the blocks they place is just damn difficult. SRG now seems to be considered a general clearing house for any crap found, rather than a place to stop systematic and real xwiki abuse. Some of the LTAs jump proxies so quickly, so they are abusing a proxy service rather than true OPs, so they are pointless to block retrospectively, but are still added. Can the stewards do a better job? Sure, we all can. Are they doing a bad job and not making the required urgent blocks? Not from what I can see.
Requests for comment/Abusive stewart of Korean Wikipedia[edit]
Created by an obvious sock. Could an admin close (and preferably delete)? --Rschen7754 05:31, 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)
- Now deleted by WikiBayer. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- deleted: That was pure trolling. Should we block the user too? I do not think he will ever work constructively.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 12:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's observe then, I don't see them continuing for now. This is a little stale to block for now. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Meta:Requests for adminship/Zacharycook292[edit]
The creator have no other edits.--GZWDer (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- They're apparently an LTA, deleted the RfA. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)