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.

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 April 2021)

(as of 23 April 2021)
None currently.
(Last updated: 2020-05-23)

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

Filing cabinet icon.svg
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/DiscussionEdit

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 translationEdit

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 azwikiEdit

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

What counts as CheckUser 'abuse'?Edit

Hello, I am in a situation where a checkuser on 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)