Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

←Requests and proposals

Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

Archives (current)→

Meta has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of a sysop 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.

• Before posting to this page, make sure your comment doesn't belong at one of these specific request pages:
  • Requests for adminship on this Meta-wiki
  • General requests for permissions on other wikis
• Import is currently enabled only from foundation wiki and the English Wikipedia. From other wikis, you need copy & paste your materials by hand, but please remember to copy the history of the page as well to avoid GFDL violations.

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

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

Requests

See answered requests in the archives (this month).

Cross wiki admins required

OK not strictly a problem here but this one came to the spam blacklist. A user has created user pages on a lot of wikis with links to their website on as can be seen here. The report on the blacklist is here. I'd appreciate it if admins on the various wikis could take a look at this. The pages should be deleted in my opinion and I have blocked indefinitely where I can. Thanks in advance for the help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete + block on en.wp. EVula // talk // 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete + block on it.wikt, it.wikiversity.--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete + block on it.wikinews --Tooby 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

put on userblacklist on cs.source and oldwikisource, -jkb- 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot folks - the help is appreciated, I've removed all teh links I think now and the sites are all blacklisted, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Locking a page

Wikimedia Sverige/kontonummer contains the bank account for Wikimedia Sverige. Can it be locked so it cant be altered? /Joakim Larsson 11:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing Username: Nat.tang → Nat

I wish to have my username changed to Nat due to the fact that that is my current English language Wikipedia username. My original intent was to register under the username Nat, however someone had already registered it but has not used it for any editing or uploading. If you have any doubt to who I am, you can leave a message on my wikipedia usertalk page: w:User talk:Nat. Nat.tang 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Majorly (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot on Meta

I'm looking to run a bot on meta. What is the right place to go for approval? ~ Wikihermit 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here? --Aphaia 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Babel has been the most common place I think, but there's no set page I don't think. Majorly (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this going to be common enough of a request in future that it would be a good thing to do to create a special page? Commons has it as some pages transcluded into their c:COM:A page where administrator/crat/CU etc requests already go... even though most bots are not going to get the admin flag, the same set of regulars tend to comment. It's done by translcuiding a different page though. If this is a good thing, it's not too hard to set up. We could transclude something bot related into Meta:Requests_for_adminship Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. It'll also give a better idea of whether to make a bot for the 'crats, since before they had to guess and use their judgement... Majorly (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

note I've started a discussion on getting the bot approved on Meta:Babel. ~ Wikihermit 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack Lar. Since bot flags will probably not given very often on Meta it will probably be the best to include these requests to RfA as a separate section. --Thogo (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. There was already a comment that the "other access" section can be used for bot flag requests. So it might have been no change except in the organisation of the RfA page. --Thogo (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well discussing on Babel wasn't quite what I had in mind, I was thinking a separate subpage ala Commons but that's a good start. Once the bot policy seems widely accepted, probably should link to it from that subsection as well. I think it's good to have the subsections present even if they currently have no requests. ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Update Hebrew translation for Fundraising

Hi,

Please update the appropriate messages for the Hebrew translation of the site notice. Links to the messages and translations are available here. Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk 08:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you! Korg + ⁺ 09:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. – rotemliss – Talk 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you update the new messages (which I marked "for update" here)? – rotemliss – Talk 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, again, thank you! --Aphaia 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Update hr (Croatian) translation for Fundraising

Hi, please update the messages for the hr translation of the site notice. Links to the messages and translations are available here. Thanks. SpeedyGonsales 12:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done by .snoopy.. If you want, you might translate updated messages. Thank you! Korg + ⁺ 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Eagle 101

Öhm... Has one of the spam blacklist experts any idea by what this ERROR could be caused? I don't know if Eagle 101 will come back someday, his last non-bot edit was on 27 Sep (and this error message is much older (11 July!) and actualized every 12 hours since then). --Thogo (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the error report of Spam blacklist... routine :)--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But it was not there before 11 Jul... And it could probably be possible to avoid it, that's what I wanted to ask. It's not very helpful if the bot posts the same thing every 12 hours... --Thogo (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I shut it off for now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to take a break...

...so I request a block for 3 weeks. Thanks, -- Prince Kassad 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've Done it but if you change you mind leave something on your talk page, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides if it is considered to be acceptable, does meta enable blocked editors to edit their talk page? I'm not sure ... --Aphaia 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange request, but he could send an E-mail since this is not blocked [1], best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be related to the latest discussion at Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikiquote, where he insisted he had a right to declare a project closing and stated (on the main page edit summary) meta sysops have no right to conclude votes on meta (it is a strange claim, too). I feel I'm in COI, so leave it as is, but disappointed with the user who requested that and with his manner throwing away the discussion he'd initiated. --Aphaia 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say that while I disagree with Prince Kassad's Simple English Wikiquote decision and some of his reasoning, I appreciate his push to close what has been an interminable discussion; I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I wish him well on his break.--A. B. ^(talk) 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads up, comments please

This edit concerns me and I have reverted it and posted on Zocky's page. My understanding is that sites are placed in the blacklist with community consensus and should only be removed that way? I'd appreciate the views of others, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally I agree with you on that, though I tend to agree with the rationale Zocky gave on his summary, while doubt if delisting is the best way to deal with those legitimate links. They could have been whitelisted locally (and generally it is one of the best ways - since most of links may claim only in one and sole languages - foreign language references are not always welcome). My another concern is, since any meta sysop can blacklist links, we cannot simply say every current listing reflects consensus. --Aphaia 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed generally. For your second concern that worries me too. Without some rationale behind a blacklisting it seems very likely to me that sites legitimately placed on the blacklist could be removed on appeal if we cannot find out why they were placed (which is why logging all requests is essential IMO).

My comment is not on the validity or otherwise of the site but on the fact that some discussion (which anyone can contribute to) should take place before listing or removal. In fairness I listed one yesterday without any such discussion but based on the fact that the site contained malicious scripting which would pose a danger to casual users. Thanks for the comment Aphaia --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think that blog.myspace.com was blacklisted at Jimbo Wales direction earlier this year with much ensuing discussion (caveat: I'm not absolutely certain). There are some blogs that are appropriate for use -- usually the official blog of the subject of an article -- and they have been locally whitelisted on a case-by-case basis. The other 99% is self-published, unencyclopedic stuff. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The link was added by Raul654: [2]; Jimbo commented at [3]. Korg + ⁺ 12:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such removal should be discussed first, a fortiori when it has been discussed before. If the reason why a link has been added is not recorded in the log or is unclear, it is still possible to ask the sysop who added it. Korg + ⁺ 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I too support discussing this. Reverting the removal was the right thing to do pending further discussion. Where to discuss is not quite clear to me though given that the original discussion is spread around a bit, but I'd prefer the Talk:Spam blacklist page. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

user:א.שטיימן

I request help from admins with this user who repeatedly damages the hebrew translation to the Inclusionism page here in meta [4] and substitutes it with smears. He has done it at least 4 times in the past 2 months, perhaps more. I've warned the user in his talk page [5] but unfortunately got back only smearing and deletion of my warning [6] and of course continuance of the smearing and the disruption on the inclusionism page [7].

Basically, for those who can't read hebrew, the user takes the opening passage which is a strict and accurate translation of the english passage which is that: "Inclusionism is a philosophy held by Wikipedians who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them. Inclusionists are also generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual."

and substitutes it with that, in hebrew (I highlighted the changes, diff:[8]): "Inclusionism is a philosophy held by Wikipedians who favor not to delete problematic articles and that somebody else will amend them. Inclusionists are also generally not concerned with the question of notability, and are not even concerned whether or not an article is factual."

Obviously I can revert and warn him once more but it seems that in light of this history, it won't help and therefore an assistance from an admin is required. Additionally, This user is known for edit warring in the hebrew wikipedia and is blocked there for that reason [9]. The IP 84.229.3.98 which also joined the edit war is positively his, he used it in the hebrew wikipedia parallelly to using his own account and therefore this IP was also blocked by for that reasong there [10][11]. The other IP, 89.1.76.67 was identified by hebrew wiki admin 'Pacman' as an internet troll that disrupted his and another admin's user pages [12]. The Relativity of The Truth 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I confirm, as a sysop in Hebrew Wikipedia and the one who translates MediaWiki into Hebrew, that the changes The Relativity of The Truth noted were indeed done by א. שטיימן. Some of the changes of א. שטיימן are valid, though. I edited the page פילוסופיית ההכללה, reverted the vandalism by א. שטיימן but added some of his valid fixes, and also added some other fixes. If this will be reverted, I will request block. – rotemliss – Talk 10:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Please rename this account to User:Kimberley-nia Bot. Thanks! --WarburgBot 16:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)