Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat (at Meta-Wiki only) Archives (current)→
Shortcut:
WM:RFH

Meta-Wiki has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of an administrator or bureaucrat for some particular task, it is not always easy to find one. This page helps users find one when they need one; asking specific admins directly via their talk pages is one way to elicit a fast response. It is only for assistance required at Meta-Wiki, help for other wikis needs to be requested at those wikis.

See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies

Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 10 August 2022)

Discussions:
(as of 10 August 2022)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2022-04-02)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

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

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.


edit warring at talk:QW2022[edit]

OwenBlacker (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in conjunction with obvious socks of Fae (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), are trying to own and censor this page, and are edit warring to that end. They insist, despite other s's objections, that the discussion community members are trying to have cannot be had on that page and must be elsewhere, when it directly concerns the user group and its public image. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone involved here should be blocked: 2a02 for being an obvious sock of a WO contributor, OwenBlacker for edit warring, and Beeblebrox for edit warring and being overly antagonistic. Nobody has clean hands here and, frankly, everything after Peltarion's question should be removed as off topic. It is clear that they aren't Fae and this whole thing slid into a sideshow hours ago -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm as entitled to be here as you are. I'm not locked, blocked, banned or anything else. All I've done is raised concerns about how an event is going to be conducted on the talk page for that event, and then tried to keep those concerns from being swept under the carpet by people who'd rather ignore them. 2A02:C7F:BD0C:F700:F183:B06A:638E:BD3D 15:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have (re-)hatted what I see as the most disruptive material. While the violation is probably sufficiently severe to warrant outright removal I opted to err on the side of caution and use the mildest measure necessary to end disruption. The other stuff is more borderline and while it belongs elsewhere could potentially be moved so I'm more hesitant in my actions towards it.
The idea that hatting is somehow inappropriate censorship represents a gross misunderstanding of our policies especially Meta:Civility. Threatening, harmful, uncivil, or harassing comments, or those containing personal attacks, private information about other users, libel, vandalism, soapboxing, advertising, irrelevant/off-topic material or just plain gibberish will be reverted, collapsed, revision deleted, or even suppressed as appropriate. Edit-warring to reinsert such material will result in blocks, and whining about the injustice of such removals isn't going to change that.
Personally I do not yet believe any blocks are needed, but if disruption resumes some p-blocks are probably in order.
FWIW I have no connection to (the wrong account was linked above) although I have some general knowledge of the user's reputation from the grapevine. What I can tell you is that you are extrapolating a lot from a very small amount of information and accusations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly. In general you should not accuse other contributors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If you must make an accusation, then do so with evidence, on the user-talk page of the contributor in question or in the appropriate forum.
For that matter AFAICT Fæ is not (locally) blocked and as such even if it were Fæ the accounts would be inappropriate only if used for illegitimate reasons. And while we're on the topic even if you know for a fact that a user is an LTA's latest reincarnation the appropriate response is not trying to troll the troll which may result in you also being blocked (though in most cases I think a warning would be issued instead due to the mitigating circumstance) but to see that they are quietly blocked with a minimum of drama.
Although many WO members are evading locks that is not necessarily the case so while 2A02:C7F:BD0C:F700:7459:ED99:DF51:89B0/33 already has 4 x-wiki blocks (verify) the range is wide enough that it certainly includes numerous constructive users (and yes some LTAs too). Hence, unless disruption resumes, or there is further evidence that they are evading a (local) block or a lock then blocking is likely still premature.
OwenBlacker doesn't really come across as any worse then any of the other participants here. I don't see any claim that the affiliate has sole control over the talk page or special ownership of it although the reference to the foundation and grants team is a bit odd since being in good-standing doesn't immunize you from criticism even if it is indirect evidence that the criticism is unfounded. Anyway I don't think a block is needed unless edit-warring resumes.
Sorry this ended up being long. 131.128.76.50 01:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inactivity closure of three RfC[edit]

According to the RfC policy, I request an inactivity closure of RfC about renaming nah.wikipedia to nci.wikipedia, political pressure on the Bulgarian community, and consolidating language learning resources. —— Eric LiuTalk 07:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ericliu1912 Done 2. Sorry for missing the ping(s) for the 1st one but since it's langcom related, it's best for a langcom member to address. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! —— Eric LiuTalk 07:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last one closed too. All Yes check.svg resolved. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]