Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-10

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 October 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

User: 62.138.14.112

Status:    Not done
It has stopped.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Theschoolwiththebeautifullchildrenandgoodteachers

Theschoolwiththebeautifullchildrenandgoodteachers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: spam. Sgd. Hasley 13:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion and block request

Dear sysop,

Can you User:Bàn thờ treo tường speedy block and delete his user page? Reason: G8: spambot. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done, blocked and deleted. Thanks, Vermont (talk)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nuke...

Pages created by 46.34.161.100. Thanks in advance. —Sgd. Hasley 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Done, best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:97.84.42.115

97.84.42.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Already blocked, but talk page access should be revoked DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks for reporting. Defender (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Defender (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed rights for Bot-Account needed

I need confirmed user rights for my new bot-account User:BotLeo for the OAuthConsumerRegistration(Owner-only consumer). The bot itself is requested on commons. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@GPSLeo:   Done. I granted the bot confirmed permissions for one month. Should be enough time for you to get the consumer registered. Make sure you make 5 edits here with BotLeo so it gets automatically confirmed after some days. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting MassMessage sender rights

Hi. I'd like to request MassMessage sender permissions here, primarily to be able to send out updates related to my global watchlist user script (User:DannyS712/Global watchlist.js). I am a mass message sender on enwiki, and am familiar with how the extension works. I previously requested that messages be sent for me at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-05#Request for sending a mass message and Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-06#Request for sending a mass message. Let me know if there are any questions about my request. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure if this right requires community consensus. If it does, I will   Support. Masum Reza 13:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Any objections anyone? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Harej (WMF)

Please remove this user's translation admin flag. The account is locked.--GZWDer (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I just removed the permissions from both. The accounts are locked and we've done this in the past. Can be easily granted if the accounts are reactivated and require them again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fix Spelling Error at User:Revi (WMF)

So, unfortunately, the edit filter (rightfully) blocks me from being able to edit another user page, as demonstrated here. But there's a spelling error for the word "projects." Would somebody with the proper permissions be able to fix that spelling error, since I'm not able to do so myself? Cheers! OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You could've simply asked me to do it. I noticed it via AbuseLog hit alert and done it for you. — regards, Revi 05:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. Didn't think of that until after the fact. Thanks! OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
In fact that is what the prevent message says in mediawiki:abusefilter-warning-otheruserpage "At Meta it is not usual for a user to edit someone else's user page. A user's main user page would generally only be edited by the user. Please consult with the user on their talk page for edits you are suggesting …" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
This section was archived on a request by: — regards, Revi 05:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Block and deletion request

Dear sysop,

I got a queston: Can you delete User:Gorandzingalasevic and this user block too? Reason: G8: Promotional account or a spambot. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done page deleted, though I don't think that we need to block the user. AGF.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Note re special:contributions/2600:1702:38D0:E70:0:0:0:0/64

Hi to my fellow admins. This person has been repeatedly asking for unblocks from IP addresses within the range 2600:1702:38D0:E70:0:0:0:0/64, and they have been declined, so I have upped the block to no talk page access. I propose that even when the block is expired that we utilise a partial block to remove their ability to edit within the template: namespace. Their edits in that namespace are unneeded and generally problematic, and they refuse to listen to community's needs. I could be convinced that we can move to that stage now, which would remove the general block, though I fear that we are just going to be harangued for template: ns access anyway. @Tegel:  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

After conversation with Tegel, this block has been converted to a partial block, removing access to the Template: namespace. log  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
And to note that I have now extended this to Template_talk: namespace as the moment it is released then there is a frivolous request. Time is too valuable and life is too short to deal with rubbish like this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Now I got blocked on Commons and enwiki. What should I do. I edited templates there! 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 11:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you should stop editing templates? Just an idea. -- Tegel (Talk) 11:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Not certain why my opinion is being asked about an independent action of which I have no knowledge. Further to this point, you have ignored both my advice and my requests, to the point that I imposed blocks on your editing ability in two namespaces. To also note, that if you follow my advice locally, the restrictions in place will have no impact upon your ability to make productive edits. Tegel's suggestion makes a world of sense.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As a suggestion, please edit from an account, chasing IP addresses to try and communicate is problematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

188.190.252.6

Nuke and block? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Already deleted. No new edits since then so I'm not blocking unless they return. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Nuke

Please nuke pages created by 92.47.182.222. Thanks, —Sgd. Hasley 17:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done I checked some of those additions earlier and the translations were correct. If there are problems then we are going to identify the problematic edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for autopatroled

Hello, I need autopatrol rights, because I can't tag other people user page for deletion. I'm active in cross-wiki patrol. Thanks, --Janbery (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Granted. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

31.209.35.245

… is inserting false translations. Can be blocked? Thanks. —Sgd. Hasley 10:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped already. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi, I'd like to request for the autopatrolled flag as I often run into filters when tagging user pages for deletion. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed: Blocked on German Wikipedia without breaking any rules, due to false accusation. (no access to talk page)

Hello.

In the German Wikipedia, my account was suspended due to the false accusation made by a non-administrator user called “-jkb-” of me being the vandal w:de:user:Mario_Schuller on the vandalism report page, despite I am not him.

I could not tell them that I am not Mario Schuller, but they also disabled my access to the talk page.

I created this account for the legitimate sole purpose of asking for help on a more sensitive topic on de:wp:Auskunft, the German equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Reference desk.

They accused me of trolling, despite it is not.

Also, the community I was referring to in my post on the German help desk is not Wikipedia, but a completely unrelated community. (Obvious, but mentioned again to prevent misunderstanding.)

I did not want that sensitive topic to be associated with my original Wikipedia account or my IP address.

Please let them know that I am not Mario Schuller. Thank you. ––Anonymous201910 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an issue that must be managed on the German Wikipedia with local administrators. We cannot help you with this. Vermont (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: I have no access to my talk page there. If I had, I would have asked there. --Anonymous201910 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This is out of the scope of Meta-Wiki administrators and bureaucrats, and must be managed on the German Wikipedia alone. There is nothing further to discuss. Vermont (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Like I said, I unfortunately have no access to my German Wikipedia talk page, therefore I am kindly asking someone here to unblock me there or ask a moderator over there to unblock me. Can't anyone else do it? ––Anonymous201910 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
To be (kind of) blunt, read WM:NOT#13. — regards, Revi 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: But that decision was based on prejudice of two people who have no access to the tools to actually verify it. The only thing I did there was to seek for help, and they thought I am associated with a vandal called Mario Schuller, which is untrue. --Anonymous201910 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything else I can do? --Anonymous201910 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If you are blocked and you are not getting unblocked via local method, there is nothing you can do here to get it overturned on this forum. — regards, Revi 00:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vermont (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit User:Hoo man/functions.js

Hi, I couldn't find a requests for help from an interface administrator page, so I am posting here. The script Tagger is not working properly, and after it was reported to the developer, Acamicamacaraca said how to fix it. I don't know if that is the solution or not, but at least it could be tried. Tagger is a very useful script, mainly used for xwiki work, therefore I kindly ask an interface administrator to change the code to see if it works. Thanks, Esteban16 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Esteban16: ^^^ #Tagger script  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Multimedia cleanup

Per the little yellow box at top right, I just went through the categories Files with unknown license and Files with unknown source. In all cases but two, I have deleted the files. In each of those cases, one of the following two statements is correct:

  • The creator was explicitly notified about the unknown license/source previously with respect to the file; or
  • The creator was notified about similar problems on other files previously, but has been inactive at Meta for over three years.

The last two files were created by someone still active here, so I posted notifications on the user's talk page.

All that said, I went through a total of about 12 files in those two categories—easy enough to do by hand. But the categories Files with no machine-readable license and Files with no machine-readable source contain a combined 1,300 (or so) files. I looked randomly at three or four files in those two categories and found no license or source at all. But I wonder if there is a fast way (bot?) to check these for non-machine-readable licenses or sources. I'm not doing 1,300 by hand. StevenJ81 (talk) 19 provided31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What an irony :) Well, we can use some heuristics I guess. Like look up the pages with no machine readable license which have "cc" somewhere in the text or images without sources but which have a url or word "own" provided… Does this go along what you are thinking? --Base (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have a feeling you will get a lot of pushback if you do tag a mass amount of images. I perused the category you linked. There are many MediaWiki images, Foundation images, and really old user images, among other things. I am not sure it is a task worth doing unless done by hand tbf. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Help:Section

Semi-protection? Thank you in advance! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done semi … infinite
  comment to fellow administrators maybe it is just what I am seeing, however, there seems to be a persistent vandalism to a range of central page by IP addresses. I used to be undertaking short term protection, however, these are long-term static pages, and pretty well don't need to be edited by IP editors. Unless the community tells me otherwise, my gut says that we should be soft protecting for longer periods, and possibly infinitely on certain pages where a page is pretty well set.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been protecting for longer periods of time on these pages recently (usually on the scale of months rather than days), but indefinite protection should also be an option. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked bot

MissingCastlePicturesBot (talk · contribs) — I've blocked said bot given that there has been no reply to my message. Please feel free to unblock once somebody claims ownership of said account. I don't think we let, nor should be letting bots whose owner is not known to operate. The bot's userpage is just a blank page created by itself. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that bots should be of a known owner in order to operate. Looking the only page that the bot edits (Wikimedia CH/Burgen-Dossier/FehlendeFotosinWikidatabzwCommons) only one other user has edited the page in a similar manner [1], so there mey be a connection with user User:Chilfing.—Ah3kal (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm operating MissingCastlePicturesBot (talk · contribs) on behalf of HSR and SOSM as part of Wikimedia_CH/Burgen-Dossier. Due to the block, I can't edit the bot account's user page, so I cannot currently comply with the requirements for unblocking, i.e. stating on the user page that I'm the operator. (See User talk:MissingCastlePicturesBot#Unauthorized_bot) Please advise. --Chilfing (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. The bot is now unblocked and I've tagged its user page accordingly. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Should this bot also be in the "bot" user group mentioned on bot? Should it get the "Bot" user right? (I'm not sure whether it'd be good or bad if its edits don't show up in the list of recent edits. I guess if the bot is operating correctly, you might want it not to show up there, so that no time has to be spent reviewing the changes?) If the bot account shall become member of the group and/or get the "Bot" user right, did I understand correctly, that I'd have to request that by creating the page Meta:Requests for bot status/MissingCastlePicturesBot and transcluding it on Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_for_bot_flags? If so, what should the content of that page be? --Chilfing (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Chilfing. Given that the bot edits each two hours it is unlikely the bot will flood recent changes so in my opinion a bot flag is not required. I would nonetheless file the request to get formal approval to operate. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Bot was approved at Meta:Requests for bot status/MissingCastlePicturesBot --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Bterbang212

Please delete, I'm unable to mark it for deletion because of Special:Abusefilter/161. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done (Speedy Deleted as out-of-scope/spam). @CptViraj: I'm adding you to "patroller" access so you can tag next time. Another option would be to just tag the talk page. — xaosflux Talk 13:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That will definitely help me in patrolling, Thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:RySenkara6

RySenkara6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Continuing gibberish addition on talk page since block. Please revoke tpa and extend block. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Martin Urbanec --DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:223.30.190.74

223.30.190.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Vandalism on Global permissions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

L123456789035 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC) back with account. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:B0

2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:B0 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: faulty translations ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:107.181.177.132

107.181.177.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: LTA Sgd. Hasley 19:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done. -- Tegel (Talk) 19:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nuke bad translations

Can an admin please nuke the translations of @PkanCHennn:? See Special:Contributions/PkanCHennn - they are generally just identical to the English, followed by a few extra translation variables added. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: the ones that all appeared to be the same have been speedy deleted, if there are other individual ones needed please just tag. Thanks for letting us know, — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: no problem. I have tagged Translations:Category:Users/2/th for deletion. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 01:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Move Help:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Swiss community to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Swiss community

Can you please fix this move? I was trying to fix vandal move but goes wrong. Sorry. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Billinghurst. Thank you! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Antispam false positive

I was trying to add :en: to the beginning of the final link in See Also (edit to clarify, 21:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC): this link: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion#Templates|Userboxes and other templates for inclusionists]]) on this page, as without it the link pointed to a dead page (because "Wikipedia" wasn't being read as the namespace). Despite turning off my VPN and leaving an edit summary, I was prevented from saving the edit. Anthologetes (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Added, see Special:Diff/19474247 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Protection of WMFR vandalized pages

Hello! The following pages have been vandalized several times on the last few days:

As they are essentially kept as archives, can you protect them please? — Envlh (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Semiprotected for one year. I hope that is enough. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

User:ΟΕρρικοσΤοΚαλοΠουλακι

Creating test/nonsense pages. Please block. -- CptViraj (📧) 07:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Globally locked by Bsadowski1. Was a sockpuppet of User:Epic Sockpuppet tag. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for temporary semi-protection User talk:MCC214

This section was archived on a request by: Base (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppetry (Special:CentralAuth/My Royal Young and Special:CentralAuth/史上最囂張破壞者韓導) and persistent vandalism,see history,continue after semi-protection[2].--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done, protected for 3 months. Hope they get bored over the time. --Base (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:190.94.3.163

190.94.3.163 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: vandalism. Sgd. Hasley 23:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Re-add removed email

Hello. I have recently removed my email from my account. But I now forgot my password. Is there a way that the system re-add my email, so I can use it to change the password? Or I have permanently lose my account? Thanks. 213.140.215.168 18:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Officially, nope. If you have some huge number of contributions, or are a functionary of a project - then the Trust and Safety department might look in to it, but otherwise, just create a new account. — xaosflux Talk 00:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
How can I communicate with Trust and Safety department? 213.140.215.168 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Send them an email: ca@wikimedia.org Vermont (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. 213.140.215.168 02:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If you removed your email very recently (<90 days, IIRC), your email can be still in the logs (and thus, is easily recoverable). Feel free to email me, I'll be happy to look into that for you. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for protection

User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal. Vandalism by LTA.--Xiplus (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:86.173.0.98

86.173.0.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: vandalism ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Vermont (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vermont (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Cosmosianfreq ren'

Cosmosianfreq ren' (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: sock of User:Reynaldo Ortiz Cruz. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

AP -> P

Hi, can a sysop assign me the patroller rights to fight vandalism when necessary? I'll only use it on mainspace pages and user talk pages after the vandal has been blocked. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for your work. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: You forgot to remove redundant AP. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  Done as well. I'm sorry, at Czech Wikipedia, we don't remove redundant rights, and I forgot other projects do so :). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagger script

Would someone mind following the instruction at User talk:Hoo man#About your tool "tagger.js" to fix it? We GR and GS are unhappy. The tagger script is not working. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, per phab:T233442 the use of "editToken" should be replaced with "csrfToken" on line 495 of User:Hoo man/functions.js. Such an edit would be within the scope of a global interface editor (or local interface admin) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It has only been two days since you asked Hoo. Please have the courtesy of waiting up to a week for a fix of a script before jumping up and down. It is not an essential tool, so intervention in someone else's scripts is not an immediate priority.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  Alright! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I sent Hoo man an email on 13 October. I agree with Billinghurst in allowing Hoo man the courtesy to fix the script himself in his own user space, however I think he's very busy ATM IRL so we might have to fix it ourselves anyway. Ping -revi as int-admin. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done as an interface admin, I apologize for touching your user space. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: What? Oh come off it. Sorry, #notsorry, not worth 2 rubs of a stick. What is the point of having user namespace with restricted permissions and people with their scripts in them that they maintain, if you just go and edit it. Two people with the rights to edit asked for a modicum of patience, and you just go and edit it with the rights that you gained the day before. If you disagree, then politely have that conversation, not just ignore. This is a team environment based on consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a widely-used script that required a purely noncontroversial change to make it work again. I think it's reasonable to enact such a change after 5 days of waiting for a response. However, as you previously asked for a week, I do concur with you that it would have been more appropriate to discuss with you prior to making the change. Vermont (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, scripts and stylesheets are protected for security reasons - there is no other reason. Since this is quite widely used, ~200 users only at meta, it's more a gadget than an userscript. Hoo man is currently quite busy looking at his contributions, and this is really a trivial fix - it's not a feature addition nor anything else, it's just a trivial bugfix. Feel free to revert if you want, but I guess now-happy users of the tool wouldn't like that action. Sincerely, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a script in a user namespace, not a central script, nor a central gadget. It is a script provided as a gesture of the user. These are the consequences of the placement of such pages, and their management, we all know that. I understand the convenience of the script, and I understand the work of GR and GS, I have been one for many years. As I said, if you had an issue with the process suggested, then broach that matter, not just ignore people's comment, and then add some false apology. Plus please don't try to divert the conversation with a populist approach to users, the complexity of the fix, none of that is pertinent to the points that I am making.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a script in user namespace/NS_USER/NS 2, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is (in fact) an user script. Scripts included by that many users are more gadgets than user scripts, as they affect comparable amount of people. May I ask you who was harmed by my change and/or who and how would benefit from further waiting? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being bold and just fixing the problem, I don't see any issues with such uncontroversial changes (that don't alter functionality).
I plan to re-write tagger and some of my other tools soon-ish, so that they follow the current coding style more closely, are simpler and hopefully work for many more years. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Tagger is much used and script is fixed. However, Hoo man has the last edit about 3 months ago. - MrJaroslavik (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so? The user in question is a current steward, and one who made commentary about his role when he asked for confirmation. All pertinent to this matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So related to this discussion, this is sort of what happens when you depend on someone else's personal page to do something. If these scripts are useful and will be widely used, we can make them gadgets, or at the very least move them to a community managed page. — xaosflux Talk 22:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete JS page

Please delete User:Apap04/global.js, I think it's causing some trouble with my scripts that I have installed on User:-andreas/global.js. Aνδρέας talk | contributions 15:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Aνδρέας talk | contributions 15:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

103.134.192.13 (talk · contribs) - consistently blanking pages. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thanks, Vermont (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to protect my user page

Please protect User:PlavorSeol page as "Allow only administrators". - PlavorSeol (T | C) 08:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@PlavorSeol: another admin has done this for you, however I strongly suggest we make an adjustment. The page you included, User:PlavorSeol/global.css is a special global page, if you want a "hack" around page protection it would be better to use any other title there (e.g. User:PlavorSeol/userpage.css). Would you like that moved? — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I aware User:PlavorSeol/global.css page is for personal CSS to apply globally, but I wanted to put contents of my user page on a "functional" CSS page, not arbitrary one, so current transclusion is suitable for me. In my personal view, it will bring me some minor advantages such as ability to edit both personal CSS and contents of my user page at once, request for deletion of my user page more easily (if necessary), etc. It will be fine to distinguish what should be on my user page with onlyinclude. Therefore I would like to keep current transclusion, though your suggestion deserves consideration. - PlavorSeol (T | C) 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not even certain why a newly created user page needs protection here at metawiki. Firstly, admin level protection means you cannot edit it, which becomes administrative burden. Secondly all user pages have a level of protection through abusefitlers such that only autopatrolled users above can edit. Thirdly, what evidence of abuse is there that requires the protection?  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

filter false positive

L2212 is prevented from editing on sc.wiki (filter log). They asked for help at Help_Forum#I'm_blocked_on_the_wiki_where_I'm_a_sysop_and_here_on_Meta-Wiki. Judging from the description I think they were affected by global filter 227. Can someone please take a look and make some changes to the filter? Thanks!  --94rain Talk 03:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@L2212, 94rain, and Martin Urbanec: I have rem'd the edit section of the filter, and MU can review that bit of the filter to see how they best wish to proceed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we can leave it commented out, and probably delete the filter entriely in some time. I'm wondering, why my titleblacklist entry is effective only on some wikis, cf [3] and [4]... --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
<shrug> Logout and check the reality to see if you can really create at those wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I can create an account at cs.wikipedia (verify), but not at en.wikipedia. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

MassMessage senders right

Hi, I would like to request MassMessage senders right to convey information to a large number of users about Wikipedia Asian Month that I am organizing in Nepali Wikipedia. I will notify you to remove this right as soon as I do not need it. Thanks! — Saroj Uprety (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saroj Uprety: can you show an example of your properly formatted mailing list and sample message? — xaosflux Talk 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Mailing List and Sample Message Thank you! — Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Saroj Uprety: I see, you're going to organize WAM 2019 locally on newiki. Did you have any onwiki discussion with local newiki community about this? I am sure you didn't so you don't support consensus procedure? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 17:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: Hi Dear, We have been organizing Wikipedia Asian Month in Nepali Wikipedia since 2016 and I was also the organizer in the 2017 edition. So I started the project. Thank you! — Saroj Uprety (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Granted until December 15. Please keep in mind you are responsible for all your edits using this tool, and the guidelines listed at MassMessage. Feel free to ask here if you have any questions regarding this extension. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MrJaroslavik (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please protect my user discussion page and also my user page

Hi Admins,

the so called Unitymedia-Troll (a troll, which ist mostly active in de.wp and de.wikt) is now vandalising my discussion page on meta. Please protect my discussion page and also my user page for IPs and new users.

And please protect both sides indefinitely, because this troll will probably not stop in the near future.

Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Udo T.: all metawiki user pages have a level of protection due to their being global we have abuse filters doing that job. I have lightly protected your user page for a year, a we tend not to overly protect user talk pages, especially where admins elsewhere; we have other tools and process in our arsenal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi billinghurst, thanks a lot for the protection of my talk page for a year. Maybe the troll has lost his appetite so far, but until then it helps to reduce the work of vandal fighters here on Meta. Best regards --Udo T. (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MrJaroslavik (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:2402:1980:142:7FB7:0:0:0:1

2402:1980:142:7FB7:0:0:0:1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: unexplained changes ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MrJaroslavik (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Block User:BiggBoss14

Spamming links to external sites. -- CptViraj (📧) 18:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. ~ Nahid Talk 07:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 08:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MrJaroslavik (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

User page

I am a new user on Meta-Wiki (have been an editor on the English Wikipedia for over a year), and would like to create a user page here. However, when I tried to create one, it was blocked by an automated filter as being "spambot-like". Can you help with or explain the situation? Thanks! (Here is the original text I tried to post: "Hello! I am a new-ish editor on the English Wikipedia who may appear here from time to time. I generally revert vandalism. If a subject or page is written in a non-english language, I usually use online translating tools. If something I say or do bothers or offends you, feel free to talk about it on my talk page!") RealSanix (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please try it again, it should work now. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Not sure what happened originally. RealSanix (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MrJaroslavik (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Block request

Dear sysop,

can you block user:95.208.59.217? Reason: Vandalism.

Greetings: Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that is better that we share a range block to the IP-address because he go further with other IP-addresses. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This range was blocked by Billinghurst. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol for User:Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker

No need to patrol. Working on anti-vandalism/spam, Filters won't disturb. -- CptViraj (📧) 04:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend not to apply autopatrol rights when they are not already trusted by a community, especially as auopatrol does more than autopatrol at metawiki, it also implicitly applies other abilities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. I requested autopatrol for the user because I found out their edits constructive, But no worries I leave this to admins discretion. -- CptViraj (📧) 07:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request withdrawn -- CptViraj (📧) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: CptViraj (📧) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiMed encyclopedia

This page needs protection, since right now it is a haven for spammers looking to add links to their (unapproved and likely dangerous) medical websites. — surjection?〉 11:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think spam level is that excessive. Added to my watchlist. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


Report concerning User:Beebetaxes

Beebetaxes (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: unexplained removals/additions to others talk pages. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Except from few starting edit, it looks like they are trying to solve some block issue. In case that's not the case @Ahmad252: for more info. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This user is another sockpuppet of User:Rowingasia, I've already explained how they should request for unlock and unblock, but they continuously refuse to take the proper process of an unblock request. Maybe we should take this to SRG, I think I've already explained everything. Ahmadtalk 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Summarize community consultation on office actions

Whether the WMF staff objects or not, I for one would like to ask any uninvolved administrator(s) or 'crat(s) to summarize the Talk:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019. The WMF T&S team has asked for an uninvolved steward to do so, but stewards are relatively less independent from the entirely involved T&S team, so I feel it's important to have a summary from an uninvolved admin or crat on the record whatever the T&S team decides about the propriety. EllenCT (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think this is a sort of thing that just one person can close. If it is to be done by community members, whether it be stewards, meta admins, or another group, I think it should be the result of multiple people's examinations of the consultation. Please wait for a T&S response on this, as it does not seem that we will be able to find a steward to close this and unless T&S does ask meta admins (which I don't think would be a good idea) there's nothing to be done. Vermont (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: why do you think it would not be a good idea for uninvolved meta admin(s)? Do you not see any turpitude inherent in asking for a summary from a smaller group of uninvolved functionaries who are more dependent on good relations with the WMF, and at the same time saying if none of them stick their neck out then the very much involved T&S team will take it upon themselves to summarize? I stand by my request. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I see this similar to if rollbackers on enwiki (using this because it's your home project) were given the ability to delete pages. They may do it right, but they weren't vetted for that level of trust when they were first granted rollback. Meta-admins are judged on their ability to handle both local and global issues (normal local work on meta, and global stuff like the blacklist, filters, MMS, etc.), yes, however this is an issue I believe is much more important than those, depending on how the outcome effects the current situation. Vermont (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree that Stewards are not the group that should be asked to compose the closing statement. It already looks like a play is being made to disregard or “creatively weigh” the sentiment expressed by the community with reference to “we are also exploring why participation in this consultation was significantly lower than participation in previous community discussions about partial/temporary bans.” Hint: it’s because it’s clear the WMF is only paying lip service to the community with the consultation (see: ignoring community questions and concerns in other venues) and is probably going to do whatever they want anyway. No, do not let the discussion be closed by a biased party (staff) or ones so closely beholden to the Foundation (stewards). Let it be a panel of uninvolved users. –xeno 10:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) (such a panel could include (a) steward(s) that had not opined and do not hold strong opinions on the subject as long as other groups were represented as well) –xeno 15:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
As a steward I am not, nor my colleagues are, bounden, indebted, obligated or obliged to WMF staff. I am certainly not in debt with them for anything as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Don’t want to get hung up on terminology, so choose your own word for “dutifully fulfills the directives of the WMF as written”. –xeno 13:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
That is a very inaccurate description of our role. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Rather supine ignorance. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
My bad, probably too harsh. Apologies. But in any case we do not do proxy work for the Foundation. They have a 'staff' global group to take care of their own stuff. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No apology required, please speak freely. –xeno 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I meant no offence. My feeling is that stewards are simply too high in the ad hoc “chain of command” to make the closure and for that to be acceptable to the communities that have brought forward these concerns. –xeno 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Stewards are members of the community, elected by the community to their role. The extent to which they fulfill "the directives of the WMF" is insofar as it coincides with community consensus/policy. Vermont (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Do stewards not follow all official WMF policies, as a rule? I would be persuaded otherwise and admit that I am largely ignorant of the vast majority of the Stewards’ work. Is there an example where a steward (or stewards as a group) wilfully chose to ignore or defy WMF official policy due to community sentiment? I understand “declining to act” is a pocket veto that could meet this description, I was curious about something more overt. Please feel free to talk it to my tak if this is off-topic. –xeno 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't actively go against WMF policies, but we are responsible to the community and our primary duty is following/enforcing community-approved policies and community consensus. There have certainly been areas in the past (removal of permissions on behalf of the WMF and enforcing WMF global bans) where we were involved in implementing WMF decisions but decided to actively take a step back from. Generally when we have a concern with something that the WMF is doing, we have been somewhat successful in suggesting changes or compromises, and they have been at least somewhat responsive to our needs as a group. I think it is fair to say that the stewards group has a different relationship with the WMF than most of the community, but we as a group are from the community and part of the community. I am also a poor representative of the wider group in that regard, as my personal opinion on topics like FRAMBAN has happened to align with the WMF's view, but this is not reflective of the opinion of the steward group as a whole.Ajraddatz (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the insight, Ajraddatz; I've stricken my comment. I think a representative panel with a mix of different groups (including steward(s)), meta admins, users from affected projects, would be ideal, given the gravity of the subject matter. –xeno 15:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It certainly could not be worse than any alternative. As a matter of fundamental fairness, an involved party should not close a discussion. The WMF are clearly an involved party in this dispute, and so are incompetent to close it. (That's not a knock at them; I'm also an involved party and would be equally incompetent to close it.) The close needs to be done by a neutral third party who has not been involved in, and has no strong opinion on, the matter. I'm aware finding that might be challenging, but that does not change the basic requirement. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
A panel sounds like a good idea; since the main aggrieved communities are enwiki and dewiki, perhaps a neutral community representative from both and one meta admin or steward would be a good mix. I'm not sure that any stewards or meta admins particularly want to go near this, so a couple of users from enwiki and dewiki might be the best bet. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So, Ajraddatz, that does sound like a good idea. How shall we go about that? Seraphimblade (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No reason we can't try recruiting some. Maybe send an email to checkuser-l. CheckUser policy/Users with CheckUser access, Oversight policy/Requests for oversight, OTRS (admins) might be good places to start. --Rschen7754 04:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, putting out calls for interested individuals is probably the easiest way. I'll leave a message for some dewiki folks tomorrow. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I think frwiki and eswiki might be worth it too, maybe nlwiki. Also Stewards/Former stewards (you'll of course have to sort through the ones who resigned under problematic circumstances). I think that often the best types for these roles are those who have nothing to gain politically from this (they're not at a point where they are looking to get more rights from WMF or from the community). --Rschen7754 05:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you want the assessment of the consensus, or summary of the argument, of the community suggest a range of trusted people from a range of sites to assess it. It worked when English Wikipedia blacked. Get languages, get sisters, and experiences. Once you have assembled a team that both sides trust, let them at it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry everyone, this weekend is getting pretty busy. @DerHexer: if you have a chance to look at this and recommend any dewiki users (or yourself) who would be willing to close, that would be excellent. Otherwise I'll try to look at this again tomorrow. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • My personal nominations would be @MBisanz, DerHexer, Wpedzich, Krd, Jon Harald Søby, and PhilKnight: (both who I think the community at large and the WMF would accept). But feel free to decline if you are not interested or you don't agree. That all being said, it could be moot per [5] --Rschen7754 01:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe if the panel is formed before 12th, I think we can ask WMF for some extension before they do the stuff... themselves. — regards, Revi 04:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): Given the threads opened in several boards regarding this matter (this page, the stewards' noticeboard, etc.), as steward I'd like to ask for an extension in order to find if there are any user or group of users interested into summarizing and closing the community consultation. This should not be interpreted as a personal interest in myself in closing that discussion. Since I have commented over there, I don't think I'm qualified. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: I took this request back to management and we did some thinking and here's what we've come up with: we aim to publish our close of the consultation, with our findings, next week (yes, it's a bit delayed, sorry!), but we would not object to a Steward also putting together some findings or suggestions for us to review at that time. We can't give you forever to find someone, however, as we'd like to implement the results of our close in a timely manner once we set it out. As you might have read, I have recommended that we not reinstate the two policy tools, so assuming that is our close, we would want to update our policies accordingly before too much time passes. So if you are able to find a Steward to put together some community recommendations about the consultation topic between now and when we publish our close, that's fine, but if it comes too much after that it will probably be less relevant. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): Thanks for your reply. It still looks no individual or group of individuals have volunteered to summarize the consultation. Considering that your team intent to close the consultation themselves next week, I'm not sure we'll find anyone. However, from a quick coup d'œil, in my opinion, the consultation shows that the majority of those that have participated ain't confortable with partial and/or temporary office actions and as such my personal recommendation would be not to reinstate at this point those tools as you have also proposed. This is not a formal closure. Again, I don't think I am qualified given that I participated in the consultation. Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)