Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFH)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat 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. 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 23 September 2019)

(as of 23 September 2019)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2019-06-26)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

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

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

Send MassMessage about WLM[edit]

Hi, I, as a massmessage sender, would like to ask for permission to send a massmessage about Wiki Loves Monuments to a list of users without their opt-in, obtained from last years participants. --Ferdi2005 (Posta) 18:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The list is here, the query is here--Ferdi2005 (Posta) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
And also, just for safety, I ask the permission Global message delivery/Targets/Puglia. They are subscribed to the Apulia category.--Ferdi2005 (Posta) 19:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that it may be a better request to be made at Commons than here. Personally, I don't feel comfortable saying that it is okay to use the system to deliver messages to Commons users who have not subscribed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Commons admin said it's ok.--Ferdi2005 (Posta) 14:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this a 100% commonswiki thing? If so, why is this even here at meta-wiki? — xaosflux Talk 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Because I have sender right on Metawiki...--Ferdi2005[Mail] 21:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So you are solely trying to bypass the local project process to mass message that same local project by funneling it through here? That seems a bit inappropriate. — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Which was my point. If it is okay to do it at Commons, do it at and from Commons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Slowking4 sockpuppets[edit]

Several accounts confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Slowking4 on ENWP have been active on Meta: User:Nelliecustis, User:Marthadandridge, User:Henryshirley, User:Prose-proem, User:Marthacustis, User:Beatley, User:Sudowoodoo, User:Duckduckstop. Since the user has engaged in sockpuppeting here on Meta, I recommend blocking all of these accounts, as well as the main account. --Yair rand (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like these accounts have actually been editing on many wikis, including Commons and Wikidata. Where does one request global blocks for this kind of thing? --Yair rand (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Socks are not against WMF and broader community processes except where they breach other rules, eg. influence voting, problematic editing, etc. The rules around multiple accounts and where they are disruptive and/or sockpuppets are local rules for wikis, so please take your concerns to the respective wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
These have been blocked on ENWP and Commons for violations, but are not currently blocked here. How do Meta's local policies deal with sockpuppeting? --Yair rand (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why we haven't had a community discussion about globally banning this user given their prolific cross wiki socking. I'd also note billinghurst that the meta sock puppetry page does not specify to circumvent community account blocks on meta. These accounts are explicitly used to circumvent blocks; they're being used to circumvent blocks on the English Wikipedia and Commons (now also Wikidata), while still participating in contests here. The user is specifically not using their main account because it would be promptly connected with their many socks and they would be promptly blocked across other local projects. They have also failed to disclose the connection with their main account in accordance with Sock puppetry for the same purpose. GMGtalk 12:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I think a global ban discussion might be worth having but - their home wiki seems to be en.wikisource where they are not blocked, so people might oppose based off that. --Rschen7754 18:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      @Yair rand: We block problematic editors here at meta, and that is not about the type of account that they have. We don't import their dramas, nor other peoples vendettas. Some of these people are able to resolve their issues here at a wiki that is set up for the purpose of WMF wiki coordination. We understand that users get into issues at other wikis, and that some wikis are problematic, some argumentative, and some people will never function in those communities. We also know that some problematic users find good homes elsewhere. So we allow all those communities to manage their affairs. Of the accounts that were mentioned, 4 edits (2018), 4 edits (2018), 5 edits (2017), < 100 edits (2017), ~20 edits (2017), ~50 edits (2016), 4 edits (2016), 2 edits (2015/6). Do you truly think that meta admins should be blocking and prosecuting actions based on that behaviour at this time? If you see problematic behaviour at those accounts here, then please be specific.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      I had thought that sockpuppeting itself would be considered problematic behaviour... --Yair rand (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      Re a ban discussion. Not blocked at English Wikisource as they have valuable contributions, and usually have quite reasonable interactions. Maybe your community can look at what it is that has people at loggerheads, and how other communities are able to resolve issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry billinghurst. Maybe I didn't explain properly. One of the issues with this user (see also en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Slowking4) is that they have a fascination with contests. So for example, this sock isn't editing meta by happenstance. They're editing meta specifically to facilitate their socking on another project where they are community banned.
We had the same dilemma on Commons ([1]). The master hadn't been blocked yet, but everyone knew they were using prolific undeclared socks to upload images on Commons for use in evading their ban on the English Wikipedia. They weren't legitimate alternative accounts on Commons, they were socks created to abuse Commons to avoid a ban elsewhere. We eventually decided to block all the socks and leave the master if they wanted to contribute productively. They didn't and eventually were indefinitely blocked in their own right there as well.
The problem is that by allowing these socks to participate in Meta, Meta is allowing and perhaps even facilitating block and ban evasion elsewhere. GMGtalk 01:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said, we don't block accounts for being socks, we block accounts for being problematic. What the meta community decides by consensus, will be implemented by meta administrators. What the global community decides by consensus will be implemented by stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I would support a block of the master and socks here, though I won't do it myself as I am likely involved. Most of the user's activity here is maintaining lists of "cancer" on other wiki-projects. We've worked hard to make Meta a more legitimate and welcoming place for trusted users from other projects over the last few years, and I think that allowing sockmasters to edit here unchecked is a wrong move from that perspective. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment Comment Blocking non-problematic accounts would be contrary to our practices, especially with relation to a primary account. Half the problems that wikis create for themselves is the attempted suppression of opinion which they don't like, with the response of users to create alternate accounts or anonymous edits to express opinions or to work in other areas. The suppression never fully works, and some people create a full-time career chasing sock accounts, where there are no winners.

Deal with bad faith as bad faith occurs. Stop thinking that certain people are inherently evil, inherently wrong, and that chasing them away is going to be 100% functional. Our experiences over many years shows that it is simply not the case; and we are more likely to end up with fanatics on both sides in a ridiculous war of attrition. Try and implement practical solutions to practical problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear exactly what practical solutions you would have us take. You surely can't expect any local project to overturn a community ban on an active sock master. There is also zero interest in overturning their block on Commons. What options remain other than a global ban? GMGtalk 00:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
If you believe this, then I would encourage you to participate in relevant discussions on both of those wikis - or even unblock the user yourself, as you hold adminship at both of the wikis the user is indefinitely blocked from (and are thus part of those communities) - rather than trying to lecture said communities about your philosophy about multiple accounts. --Rschen7754 03:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
We are here on a meta admin page and I am responding to a request to accounts that have been inactive since 2018. Local users need to be dealt with according to local rules, and breaches of them, not those rules codified elsewhere, nor by means codified elsewhere. [Please don't try to muddy the waters, nothing there is aimed at any particular community or any particular action at any particular observation.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
To speak personally, I'm not trying to muddy anything. I'm actually trying to avoid a global ban discussion. I appreciate that they have contributed productively to en.source, and would like to see them use their legitimate contributions to return to the community at large. What I would prefer is to simply give the user a warning that any further socks will be blocked on Meta, as they were on Commons, that they are welcome to edit under their main account, but they are not welcome to abuse meta as a means of evading blocks and bans on other projects. GMGtalk 02:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Then you would be looking for a consensus to restrict their contributions to metawiki to be from their primary and designated account, and that edits from non-primary account should be considered problematic where their purpose is to conceal the identity of contributor, and that concealment is due to account bans at enwiki and commonswiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Vandalism. PD: Delete his translations. Sgd. Hasley 22:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg managed thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)



Please replace tipography by typography.

Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Special:Diff/19381007. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Protect my talk page[edit]

Continuous destructive editing after protection expiry. --Xiplus (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, protected for another half-year. Best, Vermont (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


The IP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC) is creating nonsense translation pages. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Did it? I can't find any edits from deleted contributions. Stryn (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)