Jump to content

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Shortcut:
WM:RFH
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 04 January 2025)

Discussions:
(as of 04 January 2025)
(Last updated: 2023-11-09)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

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.

Proposal to apply some of my suggestions to some abuse filters

[edit]

There are two cases of some identical abuse filters, some of which I would like to propose my suggestions for them:

  • The spambot filters are identical, but filter 104 should also disallow spambot accounts to allow anti-vandalism patrollers to report them more easily, and 164 should either be disabled or even deleted (what's the added benefit of using a private filter to only disallow registered spambots?):
  • Special:AbuseFilter/104
  • Special:AbuseFilter/164

Also, for 104 we should opt-out Meta itself using wiki_name != "metawiki" because private filter 121 blocks the spambots locally. Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had a quick look at these filters. It seems like these filters were more or less independently developed and later converged more towards one another (with the most significant difference that filter 104 also matches IPs). The notes of filter 164 already mention a potential merge with filter 104 when temporary accounts are launched. I'll ping @XXBlackburnXx and SHB2000: since they were the last ones to work on the concerning filters. Concerning the user page filters, I see more pronounced differences (for example in the criteria used to identify edits & how it deals with redirects...). Filter 362 is more refined in that respect. I'll give an additional ping to colleage @Billinghurst: since he is more familiar with the latter filters. Daniuu (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I kept 104 and 164 separated back in May, for 2 key reasons: 1) 104 has always targeted IP edits, and I was concerned about potentially breaking someone’s script (if there existed one) by making a sudden change. 2) Separating them makes it easier to distinguish between registered accounts and IP edits, which could simplify the stewards’ work, though I don’t know if that’s the case these days, since pretty much everything gets reported to SRG anyway.
That said, I’m not opposed to merging them. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, agreed – though I'll probably defer to you three since you know way more about the specific nuances than I do. --SHB2000 (tc) 22:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I, as a non-admin, can also help as well. Codename Noreste (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Crosswiki?

[edit]

I have no evidence of crosswiki, but I think they deserve being checked, since they are a vicious vandal and prolific sockpuppeteer at en.wiki. I would be highly amazed if they confined their vandalism campaign to only one wiki.

See for details w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valen2929.



Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Update: the IP range has been blocked for socking, on behavioral grounds, at en.wiki. So, it's not like I'm speaking nonsense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Request for the patroller right

[edit]

Hello, everyone.

Today, I am requesting the patroller user right; this will allow me to revert vandalism and other disruptive edits much faster. I am familiar with the patroller policy here and some rollback policies on other projects where I have the rollback right. I did a previous request, but I had to withdraw it as I might have been inexperienced at the time. I had a relevant discussion about the patroller user right with a user here.

As for the ability to mark others' edits as patrolled, I will try not to abuse the patroller right by repeatedly marking bad edits as patrolled, and using the rollback function to edit war or to gain the upper hand in content disputes.

Thank you for your consideration.TYPEINFO (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I hate to do this, but I'm going to say no to this (thus Not done). I was initially indifferent – you have rb on enwiki, so trust isn't a huge issue here. But then I saw User talk:Bhairava7#c-TypeInfo-20250104073600-Something about requesting the patroller right, and I don't know if that's supposed to be a request asking for help or a genuine request for patroller perms, but if it's the latter, I do not feel comfortable granting perms to someone who doesn't understand how perms are assigned (I'm gonna be fully honest,the way it's phrased indicates the latter to me). Additionally, I've only seen 2 reverts on Meta-Wiki in the last 12 months too – that is way too few to be able to make a solid judgment. Please don't be discouraged (I'm well aware having two failed requests of the same permission can be frustrating at best) and do rerequest once you've addressed all the possible concerns have been addressed and have a sufficient need for patroller perms. --SHB (tc) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SHB (tc) 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Report concerning 5.14.141.116

[edit | Add topic ]

Vandalism. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done by Tegel. TenWhile6 16:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. TenWhile6 16:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply