Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat: Difference between revisions

Please find answered requests in the archives (this month).

Good day to all,

In light of the recent closure of Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia I think it would be appropriate to close the three sections of Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Community feedback and straw poll as well.

While not an official RFC it was treated similarly to one; there have been almost no comments for two months. Perhaps something along the lines of A significant majority of the community finds that any survey about naming proposals should include the status quo as an option, with the same prominence as proposed new names for the first section with the others also closed following the same formula.

Posting this here instead of on the stewards' noticeboard since it doesn't really need to be closed by a steward.

I won't be around much the next few days, or weeks really, so apologies in advance if you have any questions and I'm not there to answer them.

Q Q 16:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

• Comment Question Do we have to really close this, and since this isn't technically a RFC, any community member can close if they think they can read the consensus. I don't see the value of closing such a page which is just a straw poll and the numbers itself can tell the story, any additional commentary isn't going to sway the decision in any significant way. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
  • @Camouflaged Mirage: Thanks for your question, the primary reason a close is desirable is that it becomes easier to use the discussion as a succinct data point once it has been summarized by an independent observer, see for example how Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia is now being employed at Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project, whereas as long as it's open its still possible to aver that an important comment giving deeper insights may yet still change the whole course of the discussion.A secondary consideration is letting contributors know that the discussion has run its course, and they don't need to invest personal time resources into reading through everything to make an informed individual assessment that will be useful in building consensus.Now I'm not saying a closes are always desirable. Take for example Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer. In that case there is no value to any type of closure because the petition is already its own summary, and there's no oppose, neutral, or other option, hence no possibility of a change to the course of the discussion. Further there is minimal tax on the time of a contributor, you either choose to sign it or you don't; no further discussion is needed. I suppose potentially an opponent could be induced to start a counter-petition, but even in that kind of hypothetical case the extra time commitment is still restricted to a comparative handful of individuals.To your second point, I agree that the policy on RFC closes does not apply here as currently worded, and any community member may therefore close it. However I am involved and thus unable to do so myself. The request was posted here because this is as high-profile a page as any around to request an independent closer, although I have no objection to a cross-post to babel if thought desirable. I still believe it would be best if a long-time trusted member of the wikimedia community closed it to minimize any doubts that foundation staff may harbor and preemptively blunt objections that might otherwise be raised based solely on the identity of the closer.Q Q 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
    • For the first point, this, unlike superprotect, isn't so clear if community protest will change their minds. Here the foundation have the right to rename itself no matter whatsoever we wants. To be clear, even in the superprotect case this is their website, they could do whatsoever they wanted. What is different in superprotect is that we can have some leverage in terms of it's content issues and local communities can police them, in this case, there is no way we can act. No matter whatsoever, if one landslide vote of opposition cannot sway the foundation, I don't think an additional of a statement will. Now to the other points, this should be discussed at the page if there is any closure and if there is a consensus to support closure, it will be useful. This need not to be closed by a sysop, so feel free to post it at Meta:Babel, you are right in this. Lastly, as of trusted member, I don't think meta sysops are considered trusted enough sadly, the partial foundation actions RFC the foundation require a steward to close, calls to allow meta sysops to close isn't accepted by T&S, I don't see how this is different. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
      • Thanks for your thoughtful response. I suppose I should be surprised the foundation places so little confidence in some of its hardest working volunteers, but I'm not; mostly just saddened. In any event I've gone ahead and cross-posted to Babel per this discussion. The number of neutral closers for this is probably small, so even with a cross-post it may be a while before a volunteer steps forward, but this is not in anyway urgent so that's not really much of a concern.Q Q 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
        • Sure, hope someone can response there. Regards, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply
          • @Camouflaged Mirage: if you don't mind doing me a favor, when this archives in 24 hours or so could you update the link to this discussion in the first line at Meta:Babel#Close request. You have my permission to edit my post as odds are fairly low that I'll be around to do it myself, thanks.Q Q 17:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

            @Quantocius Quantotius Why not you just add the permalink of my current diff which might also do the same purpose. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

┌───────────────────────┘

@Camouflaged Mirage: Good point, I didn't think of that; just disregard then something just came up, but I'll update it in about 10-15 minutes here, thanks for the suggestion.

Now, Done and again I appreciate your help here. Q Q 17:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Hello, this complain IMO shouldn't be on global userpage, without objections, I will move to user - subpage. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Or maybe just add __NOGLOBAL__? That'll disable the global user page (until he/she removes the magic word). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I moved the text to my talk page. It is just a draft and will be removed soon. Is this okay now? sen (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Fair. True too. I am just wanting some consensus before doing anything, to prevent something like User:Ruhubelent happen again. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

For the record, I Support Support deleting (or restricting visibility) of this user page. An user page traditionally serves to introduce oneself as a wikimedian, not as a place for complaints.

I also think this is getting close to a block, given their only contribution is sending complaints everywhere, see a comment by Ladsgroup at my talk page. Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Yup, sock puppetry, causing continuous issues in fawiki. I support deleting the page or blocking the user. Amir (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Neutral for block. Support for delete the userpage--WikiBayer 👤💬 19:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

I am stuck in a bad situation and need help. I am Not a puppetry and I did everything I could to prove this. I thought that check users are reasonable and polite people. I did not do anything wrong and I am here to see justice. However the check users do not need to prove their claim. I had a meeting on skype with two of the fa.wikipedia stewards. They showed me the way of going out of this situation by complaining in Meta. We think a strange problem has happened in usercheck and we have only asked for recheck. @Amin(امین): @Rskhshe sefid: @Huji: @Ajraddatz: sen (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

• Please be informed that something strange is happening on fawiki. Four accounts have been blocked due to sock puppetry while there are good reasons to believe they belong to different people. At least one admin has tried to help them and he is being de-sysoped. Two other accounts who have spoken against the blocks have been blocked themselves. Blocking Scholar.me at this moment is a poor decision. This may need to be discussed at Wikimedia Forum or an RFC. Fawiki is on the verge of becoming another azwiki. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

  Comment Comment Heeding user:4nn1l2's warning of events in faWP, I think that this should be allowed to develop on a subpage in the user's ns; it is not our job to stop reasonable complaints and investigations. The requirement for all compilation of evidence is civility. If there are problems at faWP there are enough trusted users through that space for Stewards to get an understanding of what is happening through informal means. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Per the global ban policy, we technically need to inform literally every wiki Kubura and his alternate accounts has ever edited.. right? If that is the case, can I just request a MassMessage sender do it? –MJL ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 22:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Give me the list of the community noticeboards to send it, and I'll send it for you. — regards, Revi 22:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

@-revi: Not sure how to notify koiwiki, bewiki, mgwiktionary, kywiktionary, lbwiktionary, lowiktionary, chrwiktionary, uzwiktionary, bewiktionary, iowiktionary, or tgwiktionary.
–MJL ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 05:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Would a sysop or autopatroller please restore to revision 20664776 as Special:AbuseFilter/150 prevents other users from doing so since a user's signature contains too many emojis, thanks.

Q Q 19:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Done --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Can someone track my reverts and block all the users I reverted, long term abuse, etc. Lock too as xwiki abuse.CM-Public (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

globally locked by Bsadwoski1. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

There are still some but I'll handle it myself when I am back to a secure connection. Thanks all :) CM-Public (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

POWERFUL 245 (talk · contribs) is currently disruptive-editing multiple pages of multiple projects.

There is an open report at English Wikipedia's ANI [1] about Powerful questionable edits ([2], trying to replace 1991's Dangerous with a 2016's version of it, without even explaining himself); or replacing 1987's Bad[3] with Bad 25 despite the fact that Bad 25 [4] does have an article.

I checked their global edits, and they are doing the same with the Spanish and the French wikis, and are already blocked at Commons for persistently uploading copyrighted pictures to use them in the articles they are editing. There are no intentions from this user to stop and discuss despite the long list of warns.[5] [6] Tbsock (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

What does this user have to do with meta? This user hasn't edited here and is only blocked on Commons at the moment. What action do you want meta sysops to take? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

I think disrupting editing at 4 wikis, 0 summaries, 0 talk page contact, and reverting solely because they want to revert is enough evidence this user will continue disrupting unless any kind of global block is performed. Yes, I can take it to French and Spanish noticeboards, but the outcome will result in the same in every wiki they edit, the user getting temporarily blocked every time for not attempting to engage in any way until they are indef. The user will be unblocked in a week in Commons and once that happens the user will continue uploading files there. What's the point of wasting everyone's time with users that don't even attempt to interact with others (and no, I can't edit the Global block noticeboard as that page is protected). Tbsock (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Tbsock: This is a page for request admin attention related to metawiki only. Global b?lock needs to be requested at SRG and if you are unable to edit it try edit request on it's talk page. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

• Not done No disruption on meta, hence, we meta sysops doesn't have remit over this case. If you think the account needs a global lock, do request at SRG, unable then email stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:982:0:0:0:30 - adding gibberish to translation pages, please apply a block. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

It already stopped. Pages deleted. --MF-W 16:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I'm organizing Movement Strategy Call in Bangladesh, that's why I've to send message on several talk pages and several times. I also serve as an EduWiki Outreach Collaborator (newsletter publisher) for Wikimedia Education. If someone could assign me MassMessage sender rights it would be very helpful, or send a message on behalf of me at this time. And I'll ask here for the same to send messages.

• Message text: User:ZI Jony/MassMessage/Movement Strategy (section 2)
• List: User:ZI Jony/MassMessage/Movement Strategy/List

Thanks in advance. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

@ZI Jony How long do you need the rights for? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Camouflaged Mirage, As an newsletter publisher until demission, and for strategy call till we complete. Specifically I can't announce the deadline. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

@ZI Jony So is it once off message or how many messages you expected to send over the course of this, is a 6 months grant adequate? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

Camouflaged Mirage, It's not once off message, maybe this week or earlier next week will need to send another message. But, 6 months grant is fine for me at this time, if required will request after 6 months. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Reply

• Meta-Wiki requests