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

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

Moved from Requests for comment/August 2026 dispute about civility

I got a warning on my talk page (User talk:Clovermoss#Harassment) for leaving a single message on every board member's talk page. I do not think I did anything wrong and was simply frank about the responsibilities board members have and my assessment in how they are failing the duties of that role if they do not act urgently to correct the situation. I'm concerned that two stewards have warned me about this perfectly normal behaviour and the chilling effect it could have. Being threatened with a possible block over this really isn't okay, in my opinion. Clovermoss (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• This type of discussion is probably best suited at RFH or the Meta RFC, as it pertains to a warning issued by SHB in their capacity as a local admin not a steward (who do not act on Meta outside of non-controversial circumstances). I also agree with them that leaving a message on each board member's talk page is, shall we say, poor etiquette - imagine how quickly sanctions would come to someone who did that on enwiki to get the attention of arbcom, for example. I would suggest limiting future messages to either a single message on a relevant talk page or noticeboard (pings are acceptable), but I will not personally intervene if more happens, because this seems like an absolute nightmare to wade into so I will not wade in further :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  imagine how quickly sanctions would come to someone who did that on enwiki to get the attention of arbcom, I don't think anyone would ever be sanctioned for writing what I did, no. It's hard to give a direct one to one comparison, but on enwiki, doing this sort of thing is completely normal if you have concerns about whether or not an admin is violating w:Wikipedia:ADMINACCT, for example. The idea of leaving talk page messages to relevant parties being poor etiquette is literally unimaginable to me. Simply pinging someone if you're discussing them at a noticeboard can get one in trouble. You're meant to notify them directly. Clovermoss (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Well I am clearly not up to date on my enwiki norms :-) on Meta I think pings are generally preferable. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I respect your opinions and I understand that you're frustrated, but I do have to agree that the warning is correct here, and at some point this serves to bludgeon the discussion.

  Clover, while I applaud you for standing up, I am concerned that you're hitting your head on this wall too much. Please, stay away and take a wikibreak when needed, for your own good. EPIC (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I don't think the warning is correct and several people have clearly taken issue with it already. I did nothing wrong. As for your comment regarding my own good, I'd really appreciate if people stopped making patronizing comments about my supposed state of mind. That's not okay, either. Clovermoss (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Yes, I think you are the best judge of your own mind and your own health. And I think people should believe you when you state that you know what it best for you. Abzeronow (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Putting gender aside, saying "maybe you need to take a break" to someone expressing anger and frustration is a really invalidating thing to do. It reinforces the idea that the anger and frustration is not legit.

  This sort of "genuine concern" is unwelcome and is itself very impolite, even if it appears to be polite. It's like saying "omg please go to therapy" to someone. While going to therapy is a good thing that would benefit a person, saying this to someone is less genuine concern and more a veiled personal attack.

  I'm not saying that this was your intention EPIC. But think of how you would interpret it if I said "EPIC, you're acting wrong, please see a therapist", whether you would see that as genuine concern or an attack. It's a very similar situation. Egezort (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  The problem here is that the logic does not work, because there is a big difference between telling someone "go to therapy" and telling someone "I'm concerned that you're digging yourself too deep into a contentious topic". This is regardless of whether the frustration is legit or not. I like and respect Clover, but our job as Meta admins is enforcing policy regardless of who the person in question is. EPIC (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  But you didn't say I'm concerned that you're digging yourself too deep into a contentious topic. You said I was banging on my head on a wall and needed to stop editing for my own good. I think that's incredibly incivil and not at all appropriate. Clovermoss (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I didn't say that directly no, but my message was intended to be interpreted as such. I also didn't say that you needed to stop editing - I said that you should step away when needed because the matter is straining and none of us want anyone to be negatively affected by it. All that clarified, I'm sorry if you found my message incivil, that was not at all my intention. EPIC (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

  There is a smaller difference between "Please, stay away and take a wikibreak when needed, for your own good." and "Go to therapy.". The latter is a bit worse probably, but works for the analogy.

  Whatever offence you think is in the therapist comment, we think is in your comment. That was my point. Not that it's literally the same.

  If anything, only the degree and intensity is different, the underlying issue in both comments is more or less the same. Egezort (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Clovermoss has been warned already, no need to echo it, other than to say you think it was valid. The focus of this RfH should be on whether this warning should be struck or not Shushugah (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Speaking from the perspective of an uninvolved admin, while I can see SHB's point, on the whole I don't think this rises to a warning. The main reason is the "single message" part. Each WMF board member got exactly one message. Outside of that, I see several replies to the CEO's page, which while unhappy in tone doesn't look uncivil to me. What would have been unacceptable is, for instance, if each board member was needlessly pinged multiple times.

I would strike off the warning if it was me. Leaderboard (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree with EPIC and Ajraddatz. Multiple people have already explained why members of the BoT cannot simply implement remedies on their own and keep a large portion of their activities private or obscure. Statements such as failed to listen to desperate attempts of people [...] like me give the impression that the discussion is being framed around your individual expectations. BoTs and the wider Wikimedia movement have to consider the interests of the community as a whole rather than those of any single contributor, regardless of their achievements or recognition. Also avoid relying on English Wikipedia policies in this discussion. Meta has its own community, policies, and practices, so norms such as ADMINACCT are not applicable here. Whether a particular style of communication is acceptable on English Wikipedia is therefore not especially relevant to how discussions are expected to take place on Meta. Your recent messages have not been consistent with the standards of conduct that Meta expects, particularly compared to previous heated discussions. I think a warning is an appropriate response at this stage. However, I have not yet seen much indication that you understand why your conduct has been viewed as problematic, so I would not rule out stronger measures if the same pattern continues. I also believe that any contributor in the same circumstances should be held to the same standard, regardless of whether they are a Wikimedia Medal of the Year recipient, an English Wikipedia administrator, or neither. A09 |(pogovor) 11:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

You really think pointing out that people have made desperate attempts to reach them (aka the petition, which is also on Meta and has more than 200 signatures) is incivil? I'm not saying this is the English Wikipedia, but I'd expect similar expectations for what the word civility means. I'm not asking to be held to a different standard, but if this is the standard, I'm deeply concerned that this behaviour is considered unacceptable on Meta. I do not think anything I said was problematic. Clovermoss (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I believe this to the extent that I am willing to bring it before the Universal Code of Conduct Committee if nessecary. I think warning people for behaviour like mine has a significant chilling effect and is not okay, especially considering the fact that it's not unusual for someone to have a global Meta talk page. As for Your recent messages have not been consistent with the standards of conduct that Meta expects, particularly compared to previous heated discussions, I genuinely have no idea what you could possibly be referring to. If it's about my comment calling for Bernadette's resignation, I'm probably one of the nicest, most conciliatory people doing so in that discussion. It feels like I'm being unfairly singled out for odd reasons and I don't like it, especially since two people have already made two comments regarding my health.Clovermoss (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd like to apologize if my comment was uncomfortable to you, my intent was out of pure concern. I'm going to leave the matter from here as I've said what I've wanted to say. EPIC (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd personally advise against making comments like that, especially if you're directing them towards a woman. There's a lot of gendered associations that comes with such commentary. The fact that I have emotions does not make me irrational and my direct communication style doesn't, either. Clovermoss (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I believe EPIC's comment had nothing to do with gender at all. It was simply an expression of concern for the other person's health and wellbeing, and interpreting it as a gendered remark seems to misrepresent EPIC's intent. ginaan기나ᅡᄂ (T/C) 14:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

You can express concerns about someone's wellbeing without removing their agency or saying they're hitting your head on this wall. Saying that comments like that have gendered associations, regardless of whether they meant it that way (which I would hope not, hence my advice to avoid them in the future), is important if we want to be an environment that women feel welcome in. Clovermoss (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I confirm that my comment had nothing to do with gender. I was simply expressing my concern over getting caught up in a contentious topic. EPIC (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think the warning should be struck. Clovermoss said nothing incivil. Abzeronow (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just to point out that, on Metawiki, we generally pay more attention to those who post the same thing in multiple places, for example those who report something in the talk pages of all sysops (or stewards and so on). I understand that practices are different on other projects, but here, we generally see different "reprimands" about repeated messages or wrong tones (which is not a request for censorship, but simply for de-escalation purpose). I'd like to let you know that there's no issue in using the ping, this may not be seen correctly on some projects, but there is no problem here. I believe that the whole thing arose precisely for this reason.

Also, I'm sorry if the various comments were taken as discriminatory or indicative of a mental state. I believe it was also due to a language barrier and I don't think anyone tried to discriminate, I felt very sorry if anyone perceived this on metawiki, which always tries to be a healthy, integrated, multicultural and totally respectful environment. I wouldn't want anyone to not feel "at home" here.

Returning to the merits of the matter: Imagine if hundreds of discussions on same topic, perhaps heated ones, were created in different places. This is why we always say that "meta is not an experiment in anarchy" (please take the word "anarchy" very allegorically), precisely because of the multicultural and complex nature of metawiki we try to have a practical order of discussions. Now I'm asking, what is the request made to us third party meta sysops? What kind of intervention are you asking us to do (so we can evaluate what to do)? Personally, I don't think there was any abuse of the flag in this situation (also I see that no action has yet been taken by the involved admins), but I'm available to listen your requests, is this a request to edit the original first warning using different tones? Thanks for your attention. Superpes15 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think there's a big difference between notifying every admin on a project and notifying every single board member of something in pretty dire circumstances (enwiki would call the former forumshopping or likely qualify it as disruptive editing more broadly, while the latter would be perfectly acceptable).

Considering that Meta is a place where people are engaging from multiple projects, I think it's especially important that what I did is not perceived as problematic. It's simply another way of notifying someone, and again, global talk pages exist. I think it would've been incredibly rude if I had simply chose a random board member and decided to only direct my concerns to them. It'd be singling them out and making it needlessly personal.

I'm not sure I can entirely trust that this is a language barrier issue, either. The initial warning about harrassment included text about how my concerns were unhealthy. I think that's incivil in its own right. I'm not sure how it's perceived here, but I'm not used to accusations of harrassment being something one does casually, and that that in itself can constitute harrassment. Implying that my comment somehow meant that I wasn't respecting people's humanity is also a genuinely distressing accusation. I'd like the warning to be struck. Clovermoss (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yep, I understand the point, but just see thinks from our sysop prospective. The same message on several talk pages with bright tones can be a red flag. Putting the fact into context now it's clearer, and I don't think anyone intends to block you after the explanation or consider your behavior as problematic. I saw the word "unhealthy" was removed, so I can suppose it was likely a misunderstanding, even more clearly the one above. On the board page, as mentioned below, there's a noticeboard and I'd personally recommend posting there (I'm sorry that it's not clearly written and this caused all the troubles), instead of creating more topics.

Regarding the reprimand for the tone, I understand that it was made within the limits of the admins' discretionary power as per policy, so let's say that precisely in the heterogeneous style of metawiki, you'll never see an identical perception of harassment. Personally I'd interpret the message you received as an invitation to pay attention to the tone used, I don't think it serves "for censorship" and to avoid further (always fundamental) democratic messages of complaint towards the body, and the complaints are not the ones that lead to a block if done in the right ways and tones (and I struggle to remember a block for anything similar). Again, I'm personally very sorry that your experience on metawiki was like this and that it caused you negative feelings, but I assure you that you can edit on metawiki safely in compliance with the policies without fear of any kind of blocking. Superpes15 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm trying to see it from the Meta sysop perspective, but that's what concerns me. Because warning people for their tone when they haven't done anything incivil or improper creates a w:chilling effect that could prevent other people from exercising their right to complain or provide critical assessment and that's especially important when it comes to holding people in power accountable. I worry about that type of overreach because I recognize that these warnings do have genuine impact on the people receiving them, and someone who isn't me might be more inclined to just never say anything again, and that's not right. I also think it's tremendously unfair considering my tone is nothing like the majority of the comments at User talk:BMeehan-WMF. The focus on me feels disconcerting and of somewhat of a double standard. I do not feel confident that I assure you that you can edit on metawiki safely in compliance with the policies without fear of any kind of blocking is true. Clovermoss (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm sorry I didn't reassure you, but I never said anything untrue. I don't consider you a user who should be monitored or at risk of being blocked, and I'm sorry that it's said here that meta sysops usually use harassment, I'm not aware of it and I don't think it's our style, also I agree that when something is considered disproportionate or unfair you should ask for support as you did. I agree also it's essential to ask for information and updates on functioneers' accountability, and everyone should be able to do it, respecting the policies! Superpes15 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I appreciate what you and Leaderboard said, but it's hard to be reassured when multiple admins in this thread keep saying the warning is valid when it shouldn't be. Clovermoss (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The message doesn't mean you're formally warned and next time you edit will be blocked. On metawiki, any user can be blocked at the first policy violation, and there's no need for warning escalation. I recommend you take what the other sysops have said as a simple reminder to be careful in respecting the policies, nothing more, nothing less. If you have any problems, I remain available! Let me know if we can consider the matter closed for you, and I'm really sorry, but I believe that no further administrative action is possible at this time, I personally don't think you have a yellow card marking you. Superpes15 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

But I have been respecting the policies and the fact that I have been warned for behaviour that is not problematic is concerning. I'm worried I'll have to go to the Universal Code of Conduct Committee, truly. Clovermoss (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Clovermoss: Yep absolutely, It's your right and freedom to do so, if you feel that the UCoC policy has been violated. I was referring to closing the thread here, which is a request to us meta sysops, I don't think administrative actions are required at the moment. Superpes15 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Quick comment, there are places and processes to ping sysop and stewards on meta and make sure one see and manage a request. This is not the case here, Trustees are not expected to keep track of any places to pitch in. Even the different message boards are usually not tracked by all trustees. The only page they would receive a notification on, is their own talk pages. Which is what Clovermoss used, once for each if I'm not mistaken. She didn't spam, harass, or swamped to get a sysop or steward request fulfilled, she only sent a message to individual people on the board. If we look at it from each trustee perspective, they all received the grand total of one message on their talk page, not sure how that qualifies as harassment. schiste (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Schiste: I hope all trustees follow the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. Isn't it the best place to post if someone wants to reach all of them at once? Gdarin | talk 17:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, that is the correct location, and if there is a concern with whether the page is monitored then pings could be used when leaving a message. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would be very surprised, pleasantly, if that changed. Not all trustees are Wikimedians and there are community liaisons that are supposed now to be that link. If one was to ping all trustees on wiki, talk page would definitely be the right way.schiste (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@A09 @Abzeronow @Ajraddatz @Clovermoss @EPIC @Gdarin @Leaderboard @Schiste

I have received confirmation through the Wikimedia General Chat (from @Nadzik) that the Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard is the appropriate place for reaching out to the BoT.

Since this was not said by anyone before, I think Clovermoss' previous messages were okay to send individually.

I think that, as long as the BoT maintains good communication through those channels, there's no reason anyone would continue using all possible channels.

If the BoT doesn't engage in productive communication there, I still think it's (going to be) justified sending them messages individually.

With these info all clarified, I think we should consider this matter resolved, and treat the situation of Clovermoss as having a clean record (ie, no "you had been warned about this before" to be used against her later). Egezort (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I still stand by my message. While BoTN is an appropriate place to notify all BoTs there is no need to solicit each member's talkpage. A09 |(pogovor) 21:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Whether there was a "need to" do that is not the same as whether this deserves being warned by an admin. Egezort (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The default expectation on Meta is to use appropriate noticeboards, so the warning still applies. Not onboarding feedback even when negative is not an appropriate example of conduct, even less so when user has extended rights. A09 |(pogovor) 08:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it's ridiculous that some view one message on a talk page as being "harassment" or in any way problematic. Talk pages are for talking, and one message is not a pattern or anything like harassment. I also don't see anything uncivil in the messages, and sending the same message to multiple people is not the same thing as sending multiple messages to one person. Trustees are accountable to the community, and their talk pages are an appropriate place for the community to raise concerns. I am not aware of, and nobody has pointed to, any policy saying otherwise. The warning should be struck, as should several unfounded accusations/misrepresentations in this thread. Levivich (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ditto this: The default expectation on Meta should be a no-caps assumption of good faith, rather than an assumuption that everyone knows precisely what noticebowrd to use before daring to post. — Fortuna imperatrix 16:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

sending the same message to multiple people is not really an acceptable way of contacting an official group here on Meta and yes, a noticeboard is more appropriate place. You've been severely misguided by stating their talk pages are an appropriate place for the community to raise concerns. A09 |(pogovor) 19:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Then what are talk pages for exactly, if not for trying to reach out and talk to someone directly? ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm a bit confused as to what is being discussed here. What even makes shb's message a "warning" worth disputing? Is it the "very much a blockable offence" part? Did you receive that as a threat? From a first read of that message, all I saw was a friendly suggestion to tone down a bit, maybe take a break as some others have suggested above. (Though clearly the message has failed to reduce the heat of the discussion.) By accepting to be a sysop on Meta, one doesn't waive one's right to be a human and to talk with people as peers. Cheers, Nemo 18:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

When a person who has access to the block function tells you that something you did is "harassment" and is "very much a blockable offense," and links to a policy page, that's a warning. Also, I'm quite surprised that you describe this message as "friendly." I think you should re-calibrate what you understand as "friendly," because that wasn't friendly at all, it was very unfriendly. It is not possible to accuse someone of harassment in a friendly way. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The warning would give legitimacy to a future block, because it would have been a case of "You have been warned about this before, and are still continuing". This warning not being taken back would mean that, if @Clovermoss does something genuinely blockable (but mild enough not to warrant a direct block), she won't be given a warning but instead a block. If the warning is recanted, then she will still be afforded the good faith of someone who hasn't been warned before. Egezort (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is a request for help from a sysop or a 'crat, no actions were taken by the involved users, so no further administrative actions are required, we're going off-topic here and this isn't a place for discussions (which can be done, as is already happening, on the relevant talk pages). I'm closing the request for help for now, but feel free to create a new one in case of need, we're here to assist.
Regardless of the outcome and the matter, I invite everyone to reflect on the fact that we are in a collaborative environment, where we are all working together for the same purpose, and we should all return to the concept of ​​good faith, both on the part of "functioneers" (in how we interpret a certain words or action of a user) and on the part of users in interpreting the comments of others and of functioneers too (not thinking that they are always done with bad tones, always remembering that we are behind a screen, with our life outside with its bigger problems than wiki, certainly, but with clarity in dialogue and tone respect to a digital device). Diplomacy and dialogue are always the best solution and I hope that, in the relevant talks, we'll return to this solution in order to clarify the relevant points in a perfect collaborative spirit. I thank those who have intervened here for their patience. I proceed to close the request, since from a sysop/bureaucrat point of view no further actions are required, best regards. --Superpes15 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Jdudjejekwk (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Long-term abuse XReport --Morkoz (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Done. --Mykola 10:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Request page: /v321T4s.css

Request to change the content model of this page from "CSS" to "Sanitized CSS". I want to use this CSS on my user page to display it in most plans. many thanks. 🦉 Ṽṯȿ 10:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The instructions at the top of this page say that it is only for assistance needed at Meta-Wiki. For help with other wikis, the request should be made at those wikis. Since bbcwiki is a GS wiki, you could have posted it at GSR. I've changed the content model this time, but please use the correct venue for future requests. – DreamRimmer ■しかく 11:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

CHIU CHEUK GXY MAN (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Long-term abuse XReport --Morkoz (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done //shb (t • c) 11:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Global user: Galdiz (talk • contribs • User rights • global contributions • CentralAuth • block log)

Reason for request: I am a grant recipient and want to make my event more organized and audience attractive.

Criteria met:

• No active blocks: Yes
• Global edits: Yes
• Additional Criteria: Grant recipient, and interest in organizing.

Additional information:

Galdiz (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done for 1 year. – DreamRimmer ■しかく 13:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

vinitborde

He is creating Spam pages on Simple Wikipedia, Hausa Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia with the name Madhurendra kumar and T krishna Gaud on mulitple wikis. and no one is noticing and vandalising other notbale pages by emptying pages and this is happening from past 10-12 days so i will request Respected admins to check his global log and block the user and related IPs.

Thanks ~2026-44144-30 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not done. Since this involves spamming on multiple wikis, please report that account to SRG. There is nothing that Meta admins can do involving global locks, and the account has no edits here. Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is the direct talk page created by against wiki

maybe this is real spam

talking about the page if someone editing my page my information without my information this is real spam

@~2026-44144-30

Search priya gold this is paid marketing taking money from clients around 50k for post wiki in online ~2026-44212-41 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

As I said, please report that account to Steward requests/Global for global locking (cross-wiki spam). Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

~2026-44339-51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism XReport --Saroj (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done NDG (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sjduduejejej (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Long-term abuse (see filter log) XReport --Morkoz (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done //shb (t • c) 11:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Global user: Matthewvetter

Reason for request: I am the co-director of STRENGTHEN, which is an initiative to increase collaboration and knowledge for external grantmaking in the Wikimedia community. We will be holding 10 colloquiums from September 2026 to May 2027 and would like to use the event registration tool.

Criteria met:

• No active blocks
• Global edits: 6,468 - https://xtools.wmcloud.org/globalcontribs/Matthewvetter
• Additional Criteria: Recipient of General Support Fund grant - [Wikimedia Communities Through Shared External Grantmaking Knowledge and Collaboration]

Additional information:

I am a long-time volunteer, educator, researcher. See my user page for more about me.

Thank you for help!

Matthewvetter (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 15:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The zhwiki community has requested the removal of qiuwen.wiki from the global blacklist from time to time, though those requests were declined. I'd appreciate it if others could share their views on the latest request at Talk:Spam_blacklist#qiuwen.wiki. I may be seeing this differently, so some additional perspectives would be helpful for both me and the requester :) – DreamRimmer ■しかく 16:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@DreamRimmer only zhwiki? local whitelist Entry? WikiBayer 👤💬 17:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This, that's exactly what the whitelist is for. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Actually previous requests were more often about blocking qiuwenbaike.cn (summarized at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2025-06#qiuwenbaike.cn, only the one in 2022-12 requested unblocking of qiuwen.wiki).

I don't know how much scrutiny this domain received when it was added to the list. However, I believe the rationale for blocking it does not stand, as I explained in the discussion there. I would like to ask an administrator to review the case. Srapoj (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@turki9 ~2026-44504-32 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Meta-Wiki requests
• Noticeboards