Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat: Difference between revisions

←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 #wikimedia-meta^connect 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 22 August 2024)

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

---

Discussions:

(as of 22 August 2024)

• Proposal to amend Meta-Wiki's inactivity policy (April 11, 2023).

(Last updated: 2023-11-09)

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

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.

Report concerning Asorev

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

Trolling. Per edits on others talk page, obvious trolling and harassment. Lemonaka (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Sigwald. Lemonaka (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note that it was particular Lemonaka who gave me piece of advice to start the RfC here (on Meta). And now Lemonaka accuses me of trolling and harassment. This is very strange being. Asorev (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Asorev You can start the RfC, but you cannot troll others on their talk page, that's incivil. Lemonaka (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked local administrators about local rules on their talk pages. It cannot be incivil or trolling. Asorev (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Asorev: Please see meta:civility, and please maybe heed the concerns that have been expressed about your approach. We all fail at certain times, and when that occurs, we try to learn and improve.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Billinghurst, thank you for the link to the rule. What do you think about the fact that Sigwald named me as a troll? Is it a violation of the rule? Asorev (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Asorev: I believe that I am giving you advice here in relation to the report about your actions, not someone else. Please read the whole line that I typed, not pick out the link and try to focus on one line on that user's talk page, when it was you who was there. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Lemonaka (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

They were and are pursuing a weird line of comments that I could only describe as CIR and refusing to take in others' comments, but I don't think they're active enough across meta to warrant a block now. Maybe a page ban from Sigwald's talk page? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I am hoping that I don't have to put any block in place, and I am hoping that people will look to uplift their approach. If there is an ongoing issue that needs an admin's intervention, then we can go there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

AGF, and adulting tried as primary response.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

• Guido den Broeder (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

Would it be possible if an admin temporarily unbanned Guido den Broeder until the duration of Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder? TIA, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Done by Billinghurst. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder request for unblock

special:diff/26062719

I would like the ability to edit my user page as it is used on many projects where I am in good standing, and it needs maintenance. It has been more than 5 years. At the time I was hurt and emotional because of mean things that were said about me both on- and off-wiki, of which you could only see a small part. My behavior in response to this was subpar, for which I apologize. I have no wish to edit anywhere outside my user space. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guido den Broeder (talk)

Comment I said that any request for unblock would be put before the community for consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support temporary unblock,  Oppose permanent unblock. I only support a temporary unblock, purely so they can respond directly in the ban discussion, but otherwise I'd oppose an unblock for almost all other grounds. Their apology seems half-hearted at best and too bad they lost their privilege to edit their Meta userpage through bad behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Their unblock request appears to be solely about wanting to edit their userpage. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'd say that depends on what said "maintenance" is, although the implicit soapboxing and bragging résumé currently on display could use a replacement. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Butting in here as it appeared on my watch list, but would it satisfy appellant's needs to just delete the user page ("implicit soapboxing and bragging résumé ") as out-of-scope? Best

  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose However, would accept a reasonable edit request for that page - especially if it is to delete it, mark it noglobal, or replace with some sort of x-wiki link to whatever they consider their now-current homewiki. This does not impede the user's ability to make local user pages on sites they are in good standing. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Transitioning Event Organizer Rights Management to Meta-Admins

Hello Meta-Wiki Admins,

We are reaching out to discuss the Campaignsevents-beta-tester right, granted to users for organizing events via the CampaignEvents extension, currently enabled on Meta-Wiki.

First, we are changing the right's name from "Campaignsevents-beta-tester" to "Event Organizer." This change reflects the completion of the beta testing phase and the formalization of the role within our community structure.

Secondly, we are also transitioning the responsibility for granting and revoking the rights from stewards to you, the meta-admins. Previously, stewards were the sole authority in managing these rights. However, as the role progresses from its initial testing phase, represented by "Campaignsevents-beta-tester," it's appropriate to give these responsibilities to the local administrators. As part of this process, we propose that organizers request the right on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. You can learn more about these rights and our recommended criteria on Meta:Event Organizers. You can also see everyone who currently has the right on Meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=campaignevents-beta-tester.

Additionally, we think it would be beneficial to create a sort of "super organizer" right for users who could grant (but not remove) the organizer right to others. At present, there are numerous organizers without the organizer's rights, and we think adding this right could help avoid overburdening admins with granting future requests.

Overall, our goal is to make requesting and managing Event Organizer rights more efficient and community-driven. Your input and participation in this transition are crucial. Please share any feedback or questions you might have regarding these changes. Thank you for your continued dedication and service as admins. Udehb-WMF (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless we are overwhelemed with requests I don't think there is any reason to build an organizer-organizer group right now. It could always be requested later if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @xaosflux, for your thoughtful feedback. We agree with your perspective on the proposed "super organizer" role. At this stage, it does seem more practical to monitor how well admins can handle the incoming requests for the Event Organizer rights. If it becomes too much, let us know and we can implement the super organizer right. -Udehb-WMF (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment @Udehb-WMF: If you are wishing to involve admins into a conversation about things that you are wishing all of us to do, then diverting the conversation elsewhere is less useful.

This presupposes that people know about Campaigns. The purposes and goals, guessing that numbers of admins here will not be around the subject. I don't think that I am comfortable granting those rights based on the criteria expressed and the information that is presented, it still seems like a specialist right to be allocated.

Essentially only 300 edits is required, no other criteria or recommendation; no clarity on what is being assessed. Based on what I am currently seeing, and having the requests on this page it will essentially be a tick and flick exercise. Should rights be periodical or infinite? How are rights lost or removed? What does an abuse of those rights look like? II there is a level of assessment, then rights allocation would be better managed at a different page; as if there is any assessment, any community comment and any accountability, then Meta:Requests for adminship may be a better place. I think that the Campaigns teams needs to better express what they are looking to achieve so that admins can better assist achieving the goals.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is a whole 'devolve this to the community' event; so all those thresholds for standards are up to whatever we want them to be. Looks like it is currently being managed by sysadmins and the current rolls contains all sorts of users, including ones that don't even meet the initial requirements. No idea what the "No active blocks on the wiki on which you are applying for the right" part is, isn't this exclusive to the meta-wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Udehb-WMF: is that general concept correct? That this will be a community managed system, not something staff manages via sysadmins? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the handover concept. it was that the whole aspect of "Campaigns" is not one that many of us have been involved, so we either need to have a concept presented to us, OR, we are expected to go and bury our heads in all the detail. Campaigns is not something has been discussed here, nor requested. If they wish to set up their own management, and put their requests to us, sort of like the old OTRS did, then fine. I can assist with the presented concept, and have next to no interest in embedding myself into the Campaigns scene.

Also, I typically feel that it is harder to impose restrictions, then to relax them, so I would much prefer that reins are kept tighter and eased as confidence in the system and understanding of the process is to occur. If that is the approach, then Meta:RfA is a better place for those requests than here, IMNSHO.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That may be the best venue, mostly was asking WMF if they are now going to be hands-off on this; and also are they going to clean up 'testers' that didn't test, etc? — xaosflux ^Talk 10:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see a better overview of what the goal of Campaigns are as well, and how they intersect with the other parallel campaigns (e.g. Programs and Events system, Outreach wiki system). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst, hello Xaosflux,

Thank you for your valuable comments and questions. Firstly, to address Xaosflux's query, yes, the intention is indeed to transition this to a community-managed system, moving away from staff intervention and allowing the community to take the lead.

Billinghurst, your concerns about the familiarity with Campaigns and the depth of information provided are well-taken. The Event Organizer right, as outlined on the EventCenter Registration Instructions page, is designed to be a straightforward, non-specialist right that facilitates the organization of Wikimedia events. It's primarily about enabling on-wiki registration and management of event participant lists, offering an easier and more integrated experience for both organizers and participants. The right doesn't confer extensive technical privileges or access, making it relatively harmless in terms of potential misuse.

However, we understand the importance of clarity and guidance for admins who may be new to this aspect of the Wikimedia ecosystem. We will work on providing a more detailed overview of Campaigns and how they interact with other initiatives. This will help in ensuring that admins are well-informed and comfortable with the process of granting these rights.

Regarding your preference for a tighter initial control, we appreciate your caution. While we agree that it is easier to relax controls than to tighten them later, we also believe that the nature of the Event Organizer right allows for a slightly more open approach from the start. The right, by its design, poses minimal risk, and a more open initial approach could encourage broader participation and innovation in event organization within our community.

With this in mind, we would hope that all organizers who currently have the right can maintain the right, so they can use it for potential events they may organize. Similarly, we hope that people who request the right can have the opportunity to try to use the tooling and demonstrate that they can create events in good faith.

We provided some initial suggested criteria for granting the future right so there could be some helpful guidance, but we also want this ultimately to be a community-led process so we see it as something that can evolve over time. -Udehb-WMF (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Udehb-WMF: Thanks for the reply. Good to know that there is little technical risk, and that the scope of allocation of rights. If the allocation of these rights is meant to have any responsibility lying with the granting admin, there needs to be that ability to justify a "yes" vs. a "no". If it is solely mechanics (ie. no justification) of tick boxes, then that clarity is helpful. My personal preference is that Meta:RfA is the place for these, though if the "Admin" nomenclature is problematic or confusing, then I am very open to pushing for that page to be known as ""Meta:Request for Rights" rather than admin status, as we have long moved beyond ADMIN only on that page as wikilife has matured. Firstly, we can have a standing section for those rights, and if there is ever a requirement for discussion over rights allocation, that is definitely a better place  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:62.228.40.206

62.228.40.206 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism, globally blocked but not locally --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done by Stryn TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 07:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 07:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:210.99.134.156

210.99.134.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism - two edits, see also deleted contributions TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 07:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Stryn TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 07:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 07:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Rickevans12

Rickevans12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Linkspam & Manipulating Discussions. @User:Johannnes89 fyi TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

reminds me of Duarani (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA). TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked + global lock requested --Johannnes89 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:田所先輩の甘くて強引な命令に困っています

田所先輩の甘くて強引な命令に困っています (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Out of scope user. A user misused the global user page to post information that violates privacy and is subject to deletion by JAWP (ja:WP:DP#B-2). Daraku K. (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 02:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Syunsyunminmin 🗨️talk 02:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Offensive expressions that violate the UCoC

The user Lazaro d'Aragon has used in this RFC two insulting expressions, both attributing to me a mental disorder. This violates the UCoC, which prohibits such behavior (no matter if he speaks literally or metaphorically): 2.1. "we will treat each other with mutual respect", and 3.1. "Harrasment. This includes any behavior intended primarily to (...) outrage or upset a person". The facts are:

1. Here he refers to my opinion about the license of a category of images in WP:AN, as "his obvious delusions of a political nature" ("sus evidentes delirios de carácter político"; as “delusions” in English, “delirios” is used in Spanish in reference to mental conditions).
2. And here he desqualifies my preference for an expression ("Wikipedia in Aragonese", instead of "Aragonese Wikipedia") as the manifestation of a "sickness phobia" ("fobia enfermiza"). I am a philologist and my reasons to prefer the first one in all languages have been explained here).
3. Additionally, he refers to me as "personaje", a term that in Spanish has derogatory connotation, as [explained in this dictionary], similar to the English "a piece of work", instead of the neutral words "person", "editor" or my user name.

CONTEXT: The same user has previously used in Wikipedia in Aragonese three times the word "paranoia" to refer to my opinions, as I reported in the linked RFC, but I am not reporting it here (although it is contrary to the UCoC as well) because that happened outside Meta.

I request the intervention of a Meta sysop to delete the offensive expressions and to convince Lazaro d'Aragón to speak to me respectfully. Thank you.

NOTE: As Lazaro d'Aragón does not speak English, I recomend him to use the translator DeepL. Como Lazaro d'Aragón no habla inglés, le recomiendo usar el traductor Deepl.) Pompilos (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)