Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

←Requests and proposals

Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat (at Meta-Wiki only)

Archives (current)→

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. Before posting to this page, make sure your comment doesn't belong at one of these specific request pages: Requests for (translation/central notice/interface) adminship on this Meta-Wiki Requests for CheckUser information on this Meta-Wiki Requests for oversight of edits on this Meta-Wiki General requests for permissions on other wikis Requests for CentralNotice banners and campaigns Import is currently enabled in this wiki from some projects. From other wikis, you will need to copy and paste your materials by hand but please remember to add a link, as a permanent link, and the history of the page being imported in the edit summary to avoid copyright violations. To report vandalism on meta: please click here. For immediate assistance, join #wikimediaconnect and use !admin@meta to notify administrators. To report cross-wiki vandalism see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. See also: Stewards' noticeboard, Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard, Category:Meta-Wiki policies, Category:Global policies

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]

General maintenance announcements:

(as of 23 April 2021)

• Assistance with Meta-Wiki maintenance is always welcome.
• Many files awaiting review for basic {{information}}, source and license.

---

Discussions:

(as of 23 April 2021)

None currently.

(Last updated: 2020-05-23)

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

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

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page
• Meta-l mailing list

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.

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion

I am interested in hearing the input of Meta sysops and other Meta users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Meta at the linked page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Marking Steward_requests/Global_permissions/Global_renamers for translation

Hi, could someone mark the above page for translation? I ask because I had made some changes to the source page to reflect practice (such as removing the "global renamer is not a vote" because it is), but the use of {{Template:Dynamite}} means that even the en version is taken from the translated version, which I cannot do since I'm not a translationadmin. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Appears to have already been done by User:Zabe. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki

Please protect the page due to block evasion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

What counts as CheckUser 'abuse'?

Hello, I am in a situation where a checkuser on es.wiki insists that I am the sockpuppet of a blocked user—which I am not. He stated that my editing pattern "fits perfectly" with that of the blocked user, without providing any diff to back that up, and said that our "technical profiles" come very close. On that ground, he kept me blocked for more than two years. At one point it was clear that, if I wanted to keep using my account, I would have to prove that I am not a sockpuppet by disclosing my personal information. Which I did. I gave my name and surname, which coincides with my first username. I linked to my social media, showing that I don't even live in the same country as the suspected sockmaster... Which the checkuser of course already knew from our ips. But even after publicly disclosing my personal information, the checkuser keeps insisting without proof that I am the sockpuppet of a blocked user!

The question is simple: If a checkuser repeatedly accuses someone of being a sockpuppet—without providing any diff and with the supposed sockpuppet and sockmaster editing from different countries—does that count as 'abuse' of the CheckUser tool? Or does only the release of personal information count as violation of the CheckUser policy? Your advice would help me greatly. Thank you. Atón (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment @Atón: This appears to be a concern for the ombuds commission. In that case, I suggest you to read the page where I've linked to. At that page also stands 'how to handle' when you suspect violation of the checkuser policy or abuse of checkusertool. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^(CA) 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker: (or, dank je wel!). I already did. @Góngora: responded on their behalf saying that no violation of the policy took place because "no disclosure of personal information took place". But is that the only criteria? Should I get in contact with them again, or would I get the same answer? Atón (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Atón: The Ombuds Commission has these 5 guidelines:

1. Be concise. Lengthy emails with unnecessary information make it harder for the commission to process the case in a timely manner.
2. Be objective. Avoid making inquiries based on speculations or subjective judgements.
3. Provide evidence. Please provide us with diff links and/or permanent links when possible.
4. Be specific. Specify what part of which policy has been violated.
5. Please inform us if your wiki has an Arbitration Committee (or a similar committee) and if you have reached them (or used other dispute resolution procedure customary to your community) before reaching the Ombuds Commission. Provide a link to the relevant case page if appropriate.
   — Ombuds commission#Submission

I think that you could better follow-up these guidelines, otherwise it's likely that your request is going to be declined. Please note that administrators and non-administrators cannot help you further, only the arbitration committee - if your homewiki has - and the ombuds commission can help you further. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker ^(CA) 14:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I will try again then. Thank you very much Atón (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Atón: Checkusers are meant to be a check upon each other. So you should have recourse to go back to other esWP checkusers and explain your issue to them, and seek their assistance of resolution. OC is there to review breaches of privacy, or the breach of policies for the tools. I would think that asking for another CU to review the findings is a worthwhile choice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. There is nothing for a meta-wiki admin/crat to do here; either the local community or the ombuds office are the next steps. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)