Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat

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

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Hello. I have issued a warning to By gone in Light (talk · contribs · CA) regarding some WM:URB edits. But while looking at their edits I am not sure they are understanding the scope of Meta. 90% of their edits are adding/removing content to User:By gone in Light/U. Others hardly make any sense. Surprisingly too, they have the most edits on Meta while not being particularly active on any other Wikimedia content-related project. Their repeat unintelligible email requests to me and apparently others and repeat frivolous rename requests (they've been renamed already twice in a very short time span) makes me wonder if we're at a WP:NOTHERE case, and I'd like further input as to what the next steps you think we should take if any. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Addenda: after the warning was issued, their reply, which hardly makes any sense, seems a personal attack directed at me. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The fuckboy is 49, the women is ES or ICE idk.

What happen in google, go check my name ⊗_⊗ (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I want delete this account and the name ⊗_⊗ (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

They sent a couple of nonsensical emails to me, too. Account locked, it's probably a troll. There is not much else to say here.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 13:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank God it's locked. I have also got some e-mail from them asking to be renamed for wierd reasons. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Account globally locked already. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I believe I have had my privacy wrongfully invaded by user Materialscientist, who performed an illegitimate "fishing" check on my account, at en.wiki. Efforts to bring light to this locally via the block appeal process, have been frustrated by his complete and total refusal to answer any questions, not even to clarify if he even did a check, and further obstructed by the actions of two other local CheckUsers, Jpgordon and Yunshui, the former choosing to lie and claim there was no check, the latter locking me out of my talk page on the clearly false and unethical basis that I have supposedly admitted doing what the illegItimate check exposed (block evasion).

All these users seem to think I should have no problem with revealing my personal information, as a condition of being able to pursue a complaint about their improper inspection of my personal information. I do have a problem with it, both as a clearly immoral and unjust approach to privacy invasion, but especially as some of these users are part of the very system I am supposed to expose my private information to, as a means of redress.

My request is simple. Is it within anyone's power here to tell me if Materialscientist checked my account, and if so, what reason did he provide in the log? Obviously you have my permission to check me here, to verify I am entitled to know the personal information held about me on Foundation servers (I am a European Union citizen, and it seems to be the case the Foundation already accepts these logs are releasable to the person they pertain to, under the GDPR). Similarly, what reason was offered by jpgordon in the log when he performed the check he was at least willing to admit to performing, even though he too declined to address the subject of why he did so when asked by me.

BarryBoggside (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This noticeboard is for issues dealing with metawiki. If you have concerns regarding checkuser use on the English Wikipedia, you may contact the enwiki arbitration committee (see w:Wikipedia:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse) or the ombudsman commission (Ombudsman commission). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, my mass messaging rights have expired on May 12. As I am part of several affiliates and also several national level initiatives India, I will need these rights further for cross-community notifications. Please renew my rights. Also, my rights are being renewed every year for the past three years, and it would be great if it can be without expiry this time. Thank you, KCVelaga (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done --DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please delete User:Krett12/global.js. Delete templates can't be applied to JavaScript pages. Krett12 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Krett12: actually, it kinda works if you comment the template out (e.g. /* {{delete|author's request}} */). Admins will become aware of your request :-) bye--Sakretsu (炸裂) 23:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reality is that they can just have their contents removed and be saved, what is deletion doing? I don't actually know why we bother with deletion, and instead recommend that they just be emptied. Seems to be an action without a clear value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

2001:44C8:45C6:8E6E:1:0:75E7:774D (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism Esteban16 (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Already done. —Sgd. Hasley 01:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sgd. Hasley 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

A local Administrator by the name Hasley has removed my post from Talk:Ombudsman commission, without giving a resson. He also has his talk page locked so that so I cannot ask why he has done this.

I fail to see why that post should be removed, it is a perfectly legitimate question, and while the person trying to remove it before Hasley is claiming I am trolling or engaged in harsssment, those are clearly lies. A troll doesn't typically file privacy invasion complaints, and such a thing cannot be considered harassment. Besides, the fact the person accusing me of trolling and harassment has done nothing more than attempt to revert me wholesale, in the form of bullying into submission, rather shows he probably doesn't believe the charges.

This is a serious matter, so do not take it lightly. Don't assume that merely having the power to remove posts and lock users out of a project, entitles you to do so. If I am forced to reveal private information just to pursue a complaint of privacy invasion, I will seek the maximum redress available, and seek it against every single user who forced that outcome. BarryBoggside (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will just caution you against any reveal of private information. That will be oversighted and might lead to an oversight block. No comments on the other issues. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I perhaps misspoke, I am referring to being forced to reveal my private information, nobody else's. BarryBoggside (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@BarryBoggside: No, your personal info isn't ok too. I will say the issue is sort of resolved by AGK replying to you, let's go that way shall we? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Post restored. AGK ■ 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. AGK ■ 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Meta-Wiki Welcome and User:Meta-Wiki Welcome Aasim 11:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Talk page protected by Hasley. Don't see a need to protect the userpage.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Userpage was already protected. I've unprotected it due to non-autopatrolled users can't edit other user pages. —Sgd. Hasley 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hullo, this editor has no interest in meaningfully contributing; all they wish to do is use meta as a platform from which to continue harassing other users. The above section is illustrative of this; note also the threat to reveal personal information on the internet. Has been blocked on en-wp and Commons for this also. On y va! ——SerialNumber54129 11:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

IMHO they are ranting about their enwp CU block being unjust, however, this seems the case here for some users, and they approach people who are from OC which are the avenue to redress any abuse from CU. I am on the fence on this, we typically give latitude for people from other projects to air their grievances here and I don't see any clear outing. On the otherhand, this is close to unproductive. A note is if blocked this can be globally locked. I will defer to another admin for this. (leaning doing nothing at this moment) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

If it was just venting on project pages such as here—sure, no harm done. But if it moves onto personal pages such as it has on other projects. Mon vieux. ——SerialNumber54129 11:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict.) Agreed; as it stands the user seems to be making legitimate use of Meta. Serial Number 54129, can you explain how BarryBoggside's post at Talk:Ombudsman commission was harassing other users – are we missing context? AGK ■ 11:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

He has no cause to be using such loaded accusations, and it is noted he only began doing so when he apparently failed in his attempt to bully me off the projects with wholesale reverts, which he initially only justified as "remove trolling", if he gave any reason at all. It disturbs me greatly how swiftly his unevidenced accusation of "harassment" led to a block on Commons, when the blocking admin arguably simply blocked because on one cursory look based on his reply to that report, he could find no relevance to Commons, and not, as he later logged as his official reason, "intimidation/harassment". I'm here (and on Commons) for one reason only, to pursue a complaint about my privacy having been invaded by an en.wiki CheckUser without just cause, and I am only here and not at en.wiki, because two other local en.wiki CheckUsers decided to compound the mistake, rather than account for it, ultimately locking me out of the project in an apparent belief that would force me to drop it. I suspect this user only cares as much as he does, because he is perhaps the person who brought me to the attention of the first CheckUser in the first place, and perhaps now feels guilty that he may have somehow induced him to perform an illegitimate check, and accusing me of harassment now seems like it might be his only means of making it all go away. Hard to think of a better reason why he would be pursuing me as much as he is, certainly when none of the people he seems to think he is acting for, have said anything at all to give him reason to think they are behind him. BarryBoggside (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The only person being intimidated here, is me, as a result of the cross-wiki harassment conducted by Serial Number 54289.....

You are in Wikipedia and Commons only to harass and intimidate other users. This must stop. Go away and never come back. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)"

I am of course now locked out of Commons entirely, which is handy for this local functionary, because now he won't have to explain what local policy he is following when he states I am "blocked forever" (a power reserved exclusively to the Foundation), and of course, why he refused to even bother to read my appeal. It is remarkably similar to my treatment at the hands of the Administrative elements of en.wiki, although at least I suppose this guy was more efficient and to the point.

What is wrong with these people? Why do they think they can just get away with this level of sheer hostility and utterly cowboy use of what are supposed to be advanced privileges only given to trustworthy users of impeccable judgement? What do they not understand here? Good faith communication and the filing of legitimate reports, is not harassment, and you should only feel intimidated if you fear being sanctioned as a result of said communications/reports, which nobody who has followed the rules, should ever suspect would be the case, surely.

It is these repeated attempts by advanced rights holders to apparently demonstrate they can get away with anything, even up to completely locking me out of local projects if I don't keep my mouth shut, that is the real crime here.

I refuse to believe AGK is the only person I have interacted here who doesn't understand the basic rule - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

I'm not going to be silenced, and the harder you push, the harder I'll fight for my rights.

BarryBoggside (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

In response to User:AGK's point, once you're blocked on enwiki, it is not appropriate to go to every other English-speaking WMF wiki (especially every enwiki functionary's talk page on those wikis) and start casting aspersions. This is a pattern that is unfortunately common. They have been directed to several venues (UTRS, ArbCom, OC) and refuse to use them. I would support a block from Meta as well if this behavior continues. --Rschen7754 18:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The reasons for my refusal are on record, and have apparently already been accepted by the Ombudsmen as entirely sound, so any block that presumes they are not, would clearly be in error, if not wholly prejudicial to their investigation. I have cast no aspersions, I can and will provide evidence for any specific claim anyone wants to take issue with, or I will be happy to retract if I cannot. And please don't exaggerate, I suspect there are non-fluent speakers here who will not understand your unnecessarily hyperbolic phrasing. BarryBoggside (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are not allowed to bring your dispute elsewhere to Meta. This wiki is also not an Appeals Court. Stop doing these two things, or you risk being blocked. Consider this your official warning. — regards, Revi 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

In other words: If you have a problem with English Wikipedia CheckUsers, solve that by contacting OC. If you have a problem with your block on English Wikipedia, follow English Wikipedia process. Meta-Wiki will not reverse your block on English Wikipedia - we don't have such jurisdiction and even if some of the people here might have that ability, they will not do it for you UNTIL you follow the English Wikipedia process. Period. — regards, Revi 19:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is hard for me to understand this warning even after your clarification. Why are you, for example, telling me to do something I have already done (contact the OC)? BarryBoggside (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

69.197.191.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism Esteban16 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sgd. Hasley 20:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

96.62.169.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) — Reasons: Vandalism Esteban16 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ~riley (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply