Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2020-09

Block request

• 2400:8901:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) Reason: LTA. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^(CA) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 17:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Block and hide edits

Please block 93.137.10.94 and possibly hide the edits. Isabelle ^🔔 00:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sgd. —Hasley 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 00:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Block and hide

Please block 2405:4800:12D6:D035:5C50:B09E:CBB:A132 and suppress their edits. Thanks. Isabelle ^🔔 17:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Block 1.53.88.196

Please block 1.53.88.196 and suppress their edits. Thanks. Isabelle ^🔔 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sgd. —Hasley 01:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 01:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Zeelandic (Zeêuws) proficiency templates

After the recent scandal concerning the Scots Wikipedia, I have been thinking about my own past contributions. Specifically, I have been editing the Limburgish and Zeelandic Wikipedias without being fluent. It didn't get nearly as big, don't worry. Through the years I have become fluent and most things have been fixed; besides, native speakers were around early on to point out my mistakes. However, there are a few things I'm unable to do since I don't know where they're stored. When you invoke Zeelandic language userboxes like zea-3 on your user page, they still say "Deêze gebruker praot vloeiend Zeêuws". The form deêze is incorrect, as I know now through my much better mastery of the language and ditto understanding of etymology. It should be deze, just like in Dutch. But since the good old Babel templates are gone, how must I fix that? Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 12:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You have to look for those translations on translatewiki:. You might also want to mention your worries at Small wiki audit talk page. --Base (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with meta wiki admins / crats. Closing as non actionable. Do follow Base instructions to translatewiki and small wiki audit. Thanks for the note. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's translatewiki:MediaWiki:Babel-N/zea etc. --MF-W 13:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Block IP

Please block 71.58.67.35. Thanks. Isabelle ^🔔 03:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Done and nuked. --Sotiale (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 11:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

81.155.171.104

• Special:Contribs/81.155.171.104

vandal on this page. --Gomdoli (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 11:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting deletion

Hello, can someone delete czech translation of UcOc? (Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review/cs) − it is not czech translation. Thanks.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

done. --MF-W 11:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 11:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for patroller rights

Hello, I would like to request for local patroller rights, which would help me combat vandalism on this wiki. See my recent contributions for reference. I have read and understood Meta:Rollback and know what patrolled revisions mean. (I also have corresponding rights on other WMF projects.) Thanks! 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering. I see this string of reverts with an LTA quite disturbing, this is granting recognition to a vandal, see en:WP:DENY and we don't revert so much in a row on a steward talkpage. They can deal with it themselves. Other than that, the trwp block is on username I guess? Do clarify if needed. I had no strong inclination but will like to point this out. Will leave for another sysop to review. I seen your work and is generally fine and with all your permission elsewhere a patroller doesn't harm. If no one respond and by a couple of days there aren't any opposition then I'll grant it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: Thank you. Yes, I will report spam like that here instead of keeping reverting. The block on trwiki appears to be username-related (and my two edits there were probably on my userpage before I found out one could create a global userpage on Meta). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Superyetkin: Question: You blocked this user account at trWP back in 2016, do you have any insight that you can provide to meta administrators?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The block operation was due to the inappropriate username chosen. As long as the user is in good faith, I think you could proceed with the request. Thanks. --Superyetkin (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Superyetkin: Thanks for the reply. With the user assurance they will not RR with vandals I am granting this permission. @1234qwer1234qwer4: feel free to ask me on my talkpage for guidance for vandal fighting here. Thanks. Done Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.89.164.31

Please block this IP.--Turkmen ^talk 20:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Done by Martin Urbanec--Turkmen ^talk 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Turkmen ^talk 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Account claim

User:NerdyShohag is my old abandoned account. I had to create this account getting no access from it. Even though trying to reset password. Can I claim that account and add it as an extension of this account? so that I have access to both two accounts. Please. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 08:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, if the password reset feature does not let you to access the tool, there is no way to recover it. Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Fundraising 2010/Waldir/sh

Please delete the page. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Done.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please synchronize translations for:

Can a translation admin please synchronize Oversight policy/Requests for oversight to Oversight policy/Requests for oversight/en, so that this change will be reflected on Oversight policy? Thank you. ST47 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@ST47: Done. --Minorax (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of COVID-19

Hello, there has been regularly, steady vandalism or disruptive edits of this page on COVID-19 over the past month or so, which contains both fairly critical information and guidance from both community and Wikimedia Foundation-based sources. I don't really see a great use case for editing access to this page from unregistered or very new contributors to Meta-wiki. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sgd. —Hasley 22:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

IP editor being unclear and making accusations

Someone using an IP address is using vague language to probably provoke replies at the talk page discussing UCoC draft. Not only that, the IP editor made accusations on those replying to the user's vague and unclear statements (or arguments). Furthermore, another user requested closing the subsection thread. What to do about it? George Ho (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There is an administrator editing over there, that seems sufficient.Don't engage would be my recommendation. Blocking seems excessive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the above; I don't believe any action is necessary at present, probably best to not engage further. Best, Vermont (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now. Do report back if the IP continues the disruptions / the disruptions spreads. No action needed now per my colleagues above. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

OP here. For the record, George Ho (who raised this request) initially contributed to my comment with these words: "Whoever you are, haven't you realized that you have been circling your reasoning? You haven't explained why the phrase offends you, and "double standard" doesn't look adequate, does it?" This is a wildly inappropriate way of interacting with another editor. It is a textbook example of a loaded question. ("haven't you realized x" versus "I think x"). I'm really surprised nobody in the discussion mentioned the right way to write the same sentiment. Here is a better way:

problematic: Whoever you are, haven't you realized that you have been circling your reasoning? You haven't explained why the phrase offends you, and "double standard" doesn't look adequate, does it?

better: (omit "whoever you are"). I believe that you're using circular reasoning. Could you explain why the phrase offends you? I don't believe there's anything wrong with a double standard per se.

As you can see, the two statements are equivalent, except that after I remove the loaded question and dehumanizing appellation now the honest way of writing it makes it obvious that the question itself is problematic. It is a little bit ironic that I was subject to this style of attack on a page discussing code of conduct. Ironically, if George Ho used a normal style of discourse rather than attacking and dehumanizing discourse based on a loaded question, they would have simply written that they consider the part I want edited a double standard, but they think a double standard is fine in this case. That would have made it obvious it is not fine. After commenting in my thread with a textbook example of a loaded question, I am not surprised they came here to ask that my contribution be closed. 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:C1DE:F689:EF71:3911 11:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

We have already said that it is being managed and didn't need special intervention. All you are showing is a lack of control and a continued argumentativeness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Massmessage privileges

Hello, could someone please provide me with massmessage rights? I intend to use the tool to notify users sampled for the 2020 Community Insights survey that they have received a distribution email. I also might use it when the report is released to notify users who have asked to be notified when the data is available. My massmessage rights were revoked in 2019 during the distribution of this survey, pinging @Vermont:, who was involved in that revocation. Moving forward we have no intention to use massmessage as the primary means for distributing the survey, and will not be sending follow-up reminders on-wiki. Happy to discuss this more if need be. RMaung (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Though I believe the usage of massmessage in this case may be unnecessary, as massmessages aren't for informing people you've sent a mass email (shall we also send them mass pings to inform them of their mass talk page message about their mass email?), this is not the appropriate venue and out of the scope of Meta-Wiki administrators. As was noted to me in my email to T&S in October of last year, which was when I informed them of my revocation of your massmessage userright, staff members should be requesting work-related hats through T&S, not the community. For more information and who to contact, please see User groups#Assignment. Best, Vermont (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, @Vermont. I apologize for using an inappropriate medium, and I will contact T&S. Best, RMaung (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I find it personally quite hard to grant MMS permission for distribution of a survey to an user who had them revoked for over-propagation of that survey. Was this a purely community request, this would be a Weak oppose – mainly because I unfortunately don't see anything that explains "what will I do differently to avoid past mistake(s)" - something that I would expect was this a traditional community request. I also second Vermont's message that this is not the usual place how staff members get rights (on the other hand, it's _possible_ for the community to do so, nothing prevents the community from promoting staff members). For awareness: @JSutherland (WMF):. This is my personal opinion, and by no means a decision about this request. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I  Oppose this anyway and I think that we should go ahead and oppose to make it clear to the WMF that the Meta community does not support the granting of this right. --Rschen7754 05:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the director of T&S should be aware, and I assume he will comment here soon. Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Moin, thanks everybody for weighing in. It sounds like we’re coming from a desire to improve the way the Foundation gathers these insights every year with a better method than repeated pings on mass-messaging, which people found understandably annoying last year. The data is an important channel for the community to share its thoughts and help inform Foundation planning, so I want to do what I can to help make sure we collect it most efficiently. I will grab some time with Becky to learn more about the new email approach her team developed in response to last year’s community feedback and what my team can do to help. Based on that, I will follow the traditional process for staff rights that Vermont and Martin have already noted and also circle back here for closure before the end of the week. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Circling back on this, we had a constructive meeting yesterday. Several bigger communities already have had enough voluntary opt-ins to be statistically viable. To close the gap for smaller communities and make sure they have a fair chance to make their voices heard going forward, T&S will be looking into alternative routes to massmessaging next week. In case it remains the only viable path to ensure a fair chance of annual participation across communities, we would help to operate a one-off opt-in invite only towards underrepresented communities. Thanks again to everyone for weighing in. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Tokyo Metro 6000 series

Hello there! I've recently soft-blocked this user for their username. en:Tokyo Metro 6000 series is the name of train. At first, I think it's promotional username, and later on I realized I might have mistaken. So, I'm looking for second or third opinion. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be best to unblock them on meta and commons. It’s the name of a type of train. It’d be different if they posted an ad for buying trains, which is...unlikely. We have tons of editors whose usernames are that of products, vehicles, etc. Vermont (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Poor trains. Yes, unblock. — regards, Revi 13:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for sorting it out. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Tulsi Bhagat ^{[ contribs | talk ]} 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Former staff

Please remove AWang (WMF)'s translationadmin rights. They no longer work for the WMF and their account is locked. Thanks. Sgd. —Hasley 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Just writing here to endorse the request. Alex's last day was on Friday last week. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Notifying Sidowpknbkhihj and communities they edited on all wikis

Hi. Recently i started up a RfC for global ban of Sidowpknbkhihj. As of now, i'm trying to notify this editor and notifying communities in all of the wikis where they have edited in. However, for me, this is a tedious task (especially notifying the community) as i'm not an administrator or a steward in Meta - as such i have no rights for MassMessage which could help me tremendously at notifying them. As such, can an admin or steward help me at this to make this a less tedious task? By the way, i'm not requesting MassMessage user right and i have notified the user and community at enwiki, jawiki, wikidata, commons, kowiki, zhwiki and idwiki. SMB99thx 06:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done Account is globally locked, they can't reply anyway. In addition, there is not a need for global ban IMO, they are clear candidate for global lock (which rightfully done by Ruslik0). Furthermore, no sample of MMS and most of their active wikis the requestor had notified, should be within RFC policy. Nothing much more to do. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I finally provided the samples and from what i feel in the reactions in those communities i have notified, this is an overkill. I admit, this is the first RfC i have done on Meta and i could learn from it. SMB99thx 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I still think a MMS isn't that appropriate for now, since most of the communities had been notified. It's okay, meta isn't easy to navigate. Feel free to ask for help if needed. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Cannot create global user page

I tried copying the contents from my English Wikipedia user page to my user page on Meta, but it said: Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter, I don't know what to do. Can I please have some help? Gioguch (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gioguch I have copied the text from the abuse filter log and created the user page, though you may want to update it since it includes a number of templates that don't exist here on meta. Sorry the filter prevented your edits DannyS712 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712 That's ok, and thank you very much. Gioguch (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Permission to question scowiki statistics

Vermont (notified) banned me from the scowiki RFC on my talk page,[1] but I have multiple questions about Talk:Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia#Current Statistics and ask permission to ask them. James Salsman (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@James Salsman: In less than 500 words and 20 diffs tell us what you want to question and why you should be allowed the appeal. Do note that any conduct that are out of WM:CIV can be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator and I will be looking into this carefully. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no diffs needed to describe the statistics which interest me: the number of bots (>50? How many of those are active?), the proportion of articles in Scots, the length of time the current wiki administration intends to keep more than 5% of the articles in languages other than Scots, and the value to the Foundation of ceasing the attack on the endangered language. James Salsman (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend other administrators not accept this appeal. James, please do not resume editing while logged out. Vermont (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I am often logged out without having logged out. Is there a specific edit you believe would have been more helpful if it was logged in? Why do you recommend that I not be allowed to ask the specified questions? Do you agree with MJL's admonishment that I should not talk to the press? James Salsman (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the questions you are proposing to ask are vauge. To be precise, how will all these questions, after being answered, add to the discussion. In addition, the logged out editing is worrying, James Salsman you should know that logged out editing is not recommended, especially when one is under sanctions. This can be seen as an attempt to evade sanctions. I know this isn't very clear at times but please cease any logged out editing which are against en:WP:ILLEGIT. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Learning why there are more than 50 bots and whether they are active could help show alternative paths to automated and partially-automated solutions.

How could learning the proportion of articles in Scots on scowiki not add to the discussion? It is the central statistic causing the Foundation to have oppressed and to currently oppress an endangered language weeks after the problem was brought to light.

The length of time the current wiki administration intends to keep more than 5% of the articles in languages other than Scots can tell us the extent to which they are operating in good faith.

The value to the Foundation of ceasing the attack on the endangered language is far more than most editors realize, as far as I can tell, and the longer we don't ask about it, the longer that value will increase with the damage done. James Salsman (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I am still not convinced this will add positively to the discussion as many of the points had been raised by them and others. This seems repetitively raising the same arguments verbosely which doesn't lead to productive contribution. The language used such as "oppressed" "attack" etc seems a little confrontational. There is a risk that the same behaviour that lead to the ban to reoccur (i.e. risk of recidivism is there). I am not inclined to support a lifting of the RFC ban. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Camouflaged Mirage's reply was specifically about your logged out editing. Your response completely ignored that, instead focusing on what you want to add to the scowiki discussion. You were banned from the RfC in part because of incivility and in part because of clearly bad faith replies like this. Stop dodging the subject. You have been editing logged out, something which you very well could have been blocked for especially considering past activity, and I oppose your unban from the RfC for that reason. Considering your account never edited the UCoC page, and only your IPs, it looks like a bad faith attempt to evade scrutiny. Please agree to use one account (with the exception of legitimate socks), and not to edit while logged out. Vermont (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to this. If I object based on "Firstly... In addition" I wonder whether I will be accused of being disagreeable in bad faith again, as I was on my talk page when I tried to defend myself on substantive issues and was banned for being argumentative. When I started responding to the UCoC draft, I had added multiple sections before I even noticed I was not logged in. Instead of signing the comments, I figured the comments were more important than who wrote them. None of them have been controversial and I don't see how they can be construed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I agree not to let such comments go without signing them in the future, and I will go back and sign them with my username if that is what you want. James Salsman (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

James Salsman: This isn't an issue of opinion as to whether the "comments were more important than who wrote them", nor is it one of not letting "such comments go". Let me make it as clear as I possibly can: You made contributions to a discussion, while logged out, shortly after being banned from another discussion on your account. This makes it look like you were intentionally trying to distance your comments from your account. This is especially problematic considering your history of sockpuppetry and conduct issues, where in 2017 you agreed, during your unblock, to only use one account. You could have been reblocked for this, but it seemed more beneficial to make note here as your edits while logged out were not disruptive. Thank you for agreeing to use your account to contribute in the future. Best regards, and happy editing, Vermont (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I'm kind of getting fed up here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Scots Wikipedia ban discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not lifted. There had been no further discussions by any other sysops for a couple of days now, I shall close this appeal as unsuccessful. Since this had went through a community discussion, this ban is now a sort of community ban (we don't have such thing here, but de facto it is). There is no consensus to lift it at this moment, and I will recommend James Salsman not to appeal until at least 3 months have passed. In addition, I will remind him to not to engage in any further logged out editing using IPs. Any accidental logged out editing should be reported to meta oversight team via Special:EmailUser/Meta-Wiki_oversighters or meta-oversightlists.wikimedia.org. Any further disruptive editing on meta will most likely result in a block. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: do any of the editors who you see as forming the community consensus object to my taking my complaints and questions to Twitter, Reddit, email, or the small wiki and wiki governance audit discussion? James Salsman (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@James Salsman: I will say it's your liberty to take it to Twitter, Reddit, emails. However, any user can object to these as off-wiki litigating of issues. I will say this isn't the scope of meta sysops to handle such complains (as it's technically scowiki issues), but these may be handled at scowiki / T&S (Trust and Safety). In addition, for edits to the small wiki / wiki governance audits page, I will caution that any form of re-litigation of issues that are on RFC can be seen as ban evasion. I will recommend cease and desist from the RFC and the scowiki issues. Regards,Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User indeffed, reclosing.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Grant Application reported as Vandalism

Hello,

I am trying to update my WikiCites grant application - however my edits are getting reported as vandalism.

"Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Antivandalism (local)"

I only created my meta-wiki account yesterday so this could be the issue?

Any advice on how I can continue editing the application? Thank you, Adam

Part of the issue. Responded directly to user.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! that sorted the issue. --Noideawhatiamdoing (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedians of the Caribbean User Group/WikiCari Festival

Could the page be semi-protected untill 28/9? This is a landing page for a central notice banner. Ciell (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 23:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 23:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:183.171.135.170

183.171.135.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: vandalism --Uncitoyen^talk 18:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for now. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Scrappy2001

Scrappy2001 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: See user page for user's lovely loveliness, please. Please see UTRS report. Please see en:w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scrappy1931. Thanks, Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Blocked indef + userpage deleted as out of scope. I can't view UTRS though, so if you need anymore feel free to send me an email or maybe wait for someone else that can view UTRS. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A steward might want to consider a global lock.Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

UTRS is basically them saying "it was a joke!" and us saying "yeah no." Deepfriedokra I agree that this user needs a global lock since their socks are now disruptive cross-wiki (this is the latest in a line of socks of the Scrappy(year ending in 1) pattern), I will file for that. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Locked by Ruslik0. All done here Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Block request

• 179.53.16.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

Vandalism. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^(CA) 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by Tegel. Thanks for the report. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

- confirm for User:Krdbot

Already autoconfirmed, @Krd: if they still need it? Admins cannot add / remove, so need a crat. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective this can be removed. --Krd 16:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Gah, who cares. But can be combined with the possible addition of a bot flag, depending on the outcome of a current request. --MF-W 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Done anyway. Confirmed flag added nothing to that account at this stage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 13:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalbot IP that's been running for almost an hour

Hi, can someone please disable talk page access for Special:Contribs/2001:67C:198C:906:42F2:E9FF:FEC5:8C2? Thanks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Done by Sotiale. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Ruhubelent

This deserve some attention. They are now turning to meta sysops after trwp issues. After a partial block on userpage, subsequent full block of 1 month for civility concerns, they now double the ante and did 123. I am thinking to give an indefinite block sitewide for persistent failure to adhere to WM:CIV as their behaviour is getting way over the norms. Opinions? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not independent on this user. I will continue to manage the few aspects where I have had that interaction. I doubt that this user is particularly going to change their behaviour and their current statements claiming victimisation of some sort and their innocence in everything. Statements about racism are interesting on a multi-lingual wiki where people with which we each are of a variety of races. Not certain how we can all be racist, or think that we are all against one race. Beggars belief, though I don't doubt that this is a somewhat heartfelt claim, though maybe not supported by evidence for all the incidences of which they speak.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You think I am afraid of losing my account and I will stay silent in front of these racists who acts against Azerbaijanis but do not do anything when the reported ethnicities are different? Do it man, I will be very glad. But as far as I can I will never ever be part of these racists and I will always oppose racism as much as I can. "Act against Azerbaijanis, ignore the rest. Ban those who oppose it." Wiki is being administered by racists and Wiki does not have any free speech. --Ruhubelent (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

blocked Enough derailing of discussions. --MF-W 12:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Update regarding Project portals and Module:Project portal

Just an FYI. I synced an update to Module:Project portal that will now preload the edit summaries when using the link on each portal's talk page to update the portal (eg at Talk:Www.wiktionary.org template#Current issues the "instructions for updating the portal" link). Now all you need to do is copy the {{subst:#invoke:Project portal|generatedPortal}} and verify the changes! Let me know if I broke anything. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandal gone crazy at norwegian wikipedia

Hi, is there anybody that could stop this user and revert? TIA. 109.247.7.86 00:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Has already been globally locked. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Marking a page for translation

Csn the page Grants:Risk assessment during COVID-19 be marked for translation? DraconicDark (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The WMF staff that created the page, @GVarnum-WMF, is themselves a translation administrator, and could have marked the page for translation, but didn't. Since we don't know if this was intentional or not, I suggest asking at User talk:GVarnum-WMF instead. DannyS712 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not set up properly for translation, I am thinking it is still a draft or whatsoever. At this current state it cannot be marked for translation. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done Stale request. No replies from page creator or OP. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia

The standard 30 days of commenting have almost concluded. As I have prepared a bot to run Pywikibot/delete.py, I am getting ready to help enact whatever consensus Meta-wiki sysops here deem appropriate according to the discussion. I did what I could to hurry things along for the sake of this endangered language, but I would still request that Meta wiki sysops make the necessary preparations ahead of time to ensure a punctual close. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

...Any volunteers to write a closing statement? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I am not sure this RFC can be close under the remit of meta sysops. Likely steward closure will be more appropriate or maybe GS although GS isn't technically dealing with inaccuracies rather vandalism. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that meta admins have anything to do with it, nor stewards. You had your RFC, and the points of view are there. It belongs to scowiki to work out what they want; they have the communities opinions, they need to work out what they want to be and what to do with those opinions. We cannot dictate.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Are you saying posting a request at Steward requests/Miscellaneous would be inappropriate at this time? I'm just looking for someone who could just say if they see any consensus to take a specific action or set of actions based off that discussion. The new admin team is not particularly equipped to take action without clear guidance. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that you are asking at the wrong places and the wrong people to determine the consensus. Neither stewards nor meta admins can guide you on your content, nor your language, nor how best to undertake the task. If the RFC doesn't clearly have a consensus to state the path forward, then that needs to be the next phase of the RFC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not that I don't see a clear consensus for a path forward, but it's more like I don't feel comfortable definitively stating my perception is objectively correct considering I participated in the RFC itself. Having someone summarise the RFC with a closing statement would be of help in that regard and not throw the results into dispute as people could otherwise accuse me of imposing my will onto the project and language. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unable to determine if there is a specific consensus for anything at that RFC, as the discussion there is so convoluted. However, what Billinghurst is saying, and what I support, is that it doesn't matter so much if that RFC has a consensus for a specific action, it matters more if the community which is now active on scowiki is in agreement with it. I don't know where the 30 day period of commenting comes from, but it might make sense to just close the RFC with a note about the actions that you and others took on scowiki. Do you plan to do some kind of mass-deletion with your bot, approved by the community? Then go ahead for a mass-deletion. --MF-W 00:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Per Requests for comment/Policy stewards or Meta admins are the only ones that can close a RFC. --Rschen7754 00:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Great, an unannounced policy. If someone is closing an RFC and implementing something as a policy, then there is value in announcing it to admins, and the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

MJL, I agree with the other admins above in that this is a RfC for those who hold local rights to determine and implement the result of. Though the technical closure and archiving of the Meta-Wiki RfC page is something which must be done by a Meta Admin or Steward (as per RfC policy), the decisions and implementation must be determined by local administrators. Though there are some cases where this would not be appropriate, namely RfCs where the status and systemic activities of administrators are called into question (i.e. the hrwiki/azwiki type RfCs), this is not an issue where Meta Admins or Stewards have an ability to determine consensus, not to mention that they have no means of implementing a result. Would it perhaps be beneficial for you and the other scowiki admins to discuss, possibly on a subpage of the RfC, how the RfC's results should be interpreted and implemented? Also, remember that there is no fixed time limit on RfCs here; though the English Wikipedia usually keeps theirs to 30, on Meta-Wiki most global RfCs involve projects whose editors are not constantly checking the list of open RfCs and often take time to notice it. Though that isn't a direct concern here, the RfC would optimally not be closed until constructive discussion about results has tapered off. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Will recommend the current sco wiki admin team look through the RFC, draft a closing statement and maybe open it for discussion on the RFC, when there is consensus to adopt the statement, I will be happy to close the RFC administratively (per RFC policy) with something like "This RFC is resolved by enacting the proposed steps (contained in the section #closing statement)". Wording can be improved of course, but this is what I can think of for now. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary gadget for new wiki name selection voting

Hallo. Briefly: I just wanted to give an FYI that we're setting up a temporary, default-on gadget early next week.

Context: Next week begins the 1st round of the communities' vote for the official name of the new "wiki of functions" (currently known as Wikilambda), which is part of the Abstract Wikipedia project. To make it easier for people to participate, I'd like to use a version of the same "click to support" gadget that the Community Wishlist has been using in recent years, and that was also used in the 2017 Developer Wishlist on MediaWiki-wiki. We've made a fork of the gadget, tested the configuration, and so we just need to do the final integration which will add it to preferences and make it default-on from 29 September until 10 November. I didn't want these changes to come as a surprise to anyone, so wanted to drop this note. If you have any concerns or suggestions, please let me know. Much thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Linking to gadget: MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe-AbstractWikipediaVoting.js.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): assuming this is for Abstract Wikipedia/Wiki of functions naming contest? Do you want non-logged in users using this? If not rights=purge should make it for only logged in users easily. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)