Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
For stewards

Last word[edit]

The following discussion is closed: matters relating to a community should be discussed in a RFC

Well, if nothing else, the discussion highlights the ineptitude of stewards to prevent organised vandalism and territorial warfare on Wikimedia sites, which results in contributors being blocked for no defensible reason and potentially useful information being destroyed on a massive scale. Seems to me that stewards are just trying to demonstrate on their CV that they are keen to take on administrative roles, and yet they avoid dealing with anything other than the most simple and standard problems. As something of an analogy, stewards are like armed guards, but with guns loaded with blanks. It is an absolute disgrace for stewards to uphold a local "consensus" which amounts to nothing more that Koehl and his band of cretinous thugs imposing mob rule on a Wikimedia site ... an absolute disgrace. Stho002 (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

band of cretinous thugs is, definitely, what is called "incivility", then 1 week of block. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather than throw insults, your normal habit, it would be useful for you to read the page to which you were directed. That page states ...(Stewards) are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, and dealing with emergencies such as cross-wiki vandalism. Stewards are empowered to act as members of any permissions group on any project with no active member of that permissions group. For example: wikis without administrators may call upon stewards to fulfill that role; stewards will act as bureaucrats as needed on wikis without bureaucrats … Your area of request for action is not within stewards remit. If you believe that stewards' remit should be amended to the areas of your concerns, then that is an RFC. Until there is an RFC changing our role, we will stick to our designated role as prescribed by the community, not your opinion of what you think we should do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, I alert stewards to the use of an unapproved bot (KoehlBot) as a weapon of mass destruction (see here). I alert you to the discussion here. How can stewards turn a blind eye to such a blatant breach of protocol by DanKoehl??? How much destruction is he going to be allowed to wreak? Blocking me from Meta for one week really helped the situation, didn't it Vituzzu? ... Stho002 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Matter seems to belong to the community and not be within stewards remit. If you are unhappy with the community's actions please see and consider starting a Requests for Comment, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: when the community has a local discussion that results in them bringing the matter to us, then we act

Clearly, you don't have a clue what you are talking about! As this diff clearly shows, it is most certainly NOT a "community matter". I am alerting stewards to the issue whereby a WS crat (DanKoehl) has made over 1000 edits with a bot which did NOT have proper approval by the community. This is an issue about a crat not following proper procedures and policies. Why the fuck aren't stewards giving a shit about this, particularly when it results in the mass deletion of content which was contributed in good faith? Disgraceful ... Stho002 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your position and attitude to that community clearly affects your ability to comprehend the powers of the stewards. We do not have the right that you wish that we have. Yes we have the tools and access, but we don't have the authority to act without community consensus. We act on community consensus, not at the request of a former disgruntled community member, nor based on our own views. The community will have their discussion and there will be an outcome, be it be about the bot approval, the 'crat activity, etc. If you wish to bring a larger discussion to the broader community to address the matter then have the RFC, to which at this point of time you refuse and continue to harass stewards. Simply enough, have your RFC if it is that important, and from that form the consensus for stewards to act. Now please go and acquaint yourself with community consensus, stewards' authority to act, and RFCs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence that crat DanKoehl does not know what the fuck he is doing, and is acting (on a massive scale) without proper community consultation/support. Stho002 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: you have had your opinion and laid your insults

No, you are, perhaps deliberately, evading the issue. By the time an RFC gets any kind of "result", or by the time the WS community manages to reach any kind of consensus on KoehlBot, DanKoehl will have deleted content on many thousands of pages, both manually and by use of an unapproved bot. You are simply allowing massive scale vandalism to take place. It is as simple as that. And it isn't just my contributions which are being vandalized (see here). There is actually no difference between my categories and those by these other contributors. All that is really happening on WS is that DanKoehl is determined to be the popular champion of an agressive mob of users who are disgruntled and envious of my being able to make a much bigger and better contribution to the project than they are capable of, so they are destroying my work. If that isn't a matter for urgent steward attention then you are all incompetent and/or corrupt ... Stho002 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed Closed  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: And are you the only steward here?? Why am I always dealing with you?? You have been subtley egging on the WS community against me for some time now. I have no confidence in your judgement/objectivity. Isn't there someone else? No doubt you will now canvass a response from a steward colleague to back you up ... Stho002 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

PS2: You might be interested in this diff whereby, in response to your comment to DanKoehl on WS, he replies by accusing you of conspiring with me and OhanaUnited against him! This has been his approach all along. He simply discredits or threatens to discredit anyone who disagrees with him, and then claims that nobody in the community disagrees with him (it is analogous to a hospital claiming that no patient has died in the hospital, but only because they take them outside to die! If you disagree with DanKoehl, you are not in the community any more!)This completely unacceptable situation urgently needs to be resolved. DanKoehl is destroying WS. The COI he claims to lack is the popularity he craves from an aggressive mob of contributors who are envious of my contributions. Stho002 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

PS3: DanKoeh has just NOW set up a WS page for local policies! See here. So, presumably there werent any local policies before today, at least none that WS's only active crat is aware of! Stho002 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

See this diff. Is it normal for wiki users to mob together in "informal societies" like this one? I see it as further evidence of DanKoehl's Mafia attitude to wiki Stho002 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Closed. Stho002 was blocked again for "insults," see the block log. I have extended the close template above to below this remark. --Abd (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Global group - Global file deletion review[edit]

Hey all,

I've rediscovered Requests for comment/Global file deletion review, and found it was still open despite reaching some form of consensus. I've closed it, as the consensus seems to be in favour of the global group. I understand a steward is needed to create the global group, so passing on to you (and also so you can object if what I did is outside policy or something!) Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think such a sudden closure of an inactive RFC about a global group with not unimportant rights by an unknown user (no offense against you, but I mean that I never encountered your name before on Meta/global RFCs at all) is correct; regardless of the outcome (I didn't look at the opinion distribution in the RFC now). --MF-W 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I personally disagree with the outcome. There is a bare majority of people supporting creation of the group - 44 support (including the conditional support by myself) to 35 opposed as I count it. To me, that hardly indicates consensus to create a global group, especially when looking at the precedent of previous RfCs of that nature. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if you look at the votes, several are opposed to automatic addition, but not the group (eg. with X as a Common's admin, I can't support). As many of the supports proposed a solution (the requirement to take it to a discussion to get it), I kinda see that that addresses the opposes, so they get less weight. Again, that's how I assess consensus - often, the reasons are as important as the votes. Mdann52 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course the reasons are important. But when you have such a significant minority opposing regardless of the reason, it isn't fair to those people to implement it. Just because the opposition is divided along multiple lines doesn't mean that it can be discounted. I would honestly expect something in the order of 70-80% support or conditional support to enact, not 55%. Keep in mind that these people have had ample time to come back and change their comment, and haven't. There could be other concerns that they want to express, or are just generally opposed to the idea, and might have problems with the proposed solution. You can't pick and choose. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
A number of the opposes are, for example, "Oppose automatic process" or similar, however then included a conditional support if it was reviewed. Taking those as conditional supports, it is around 70-75% when I calculated it - it's not an exact science, and I may have miscounted (I'm only human), but that seems to be the general consensus there. Mdann52 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Ajraddatz. If there is to be a group, then the proposal should be reworded incorporating the commentary and put back in front of the community. While I would say that there was some favour to a sort of group the proposal should be clear to its purpose, its make-up, how people enter and leave (scope, membership, duration). This proposal has clear impacts across the broader community and we would also be wanting to alert all of the communities to the proposal and seek their feedback.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:CheckUser policy#New steward practice?[edit]

I would like to draw attention to the above discussion, where a steward is edit-warring in his preferred version of the CheckUser policy. --Rschen7754 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Comment You make me laugh Rschen7754. Please tell a complete story. In the conversation on your talk page and on that page, I have clearly said that if people can find a better set of words than I used, that encapsulate the previous words that were lost from the policy, then please do so. Otherwise, fall back to the version that the stable version. Plus the original comment was about a change of steward practice, which has not happened, steward practice has not changed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have replied at the aforementioned discussion, but this is certainly a "change of steward practice", coming from a former steward. --Rschen7754 05:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashto Wikipedia[edit]

Background discussion continues at Requests for comment/Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia.
Requests for action on may be filed at Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests

Proposal to remove all advanced rightsholders at Pashto Wikipedia[edit]


1. To remove all advanced rightsholders at Pashto Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry and community disputes.


2. As discussed by email with stewards there are clear issues with administration at Pashto Wikipedia. See the following discussion at Steward requests/Checkuser

  • where we have had an administrator block another
  • issues of sockpuppetry with an administrator
  • clear association between an administrator and a bureaucrat which is either a sockpuppet, or what seems an undisclosed personal relationship.
  • uncertain processes of appointment of administrators

3. There has been issues raised about admin control and the inability to progress articles outside of one person's control, see Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia that relates to the underlying personalities in the CU requests


4. At this point of time unpicking this complex issue of personalities, opinions, issues, and administrators seems difficult and to me and would be more about picking sides, so it seems the time to restart the administration of the community.

Accordingly I proposed the actions:

5. Removal of all administrators

6. Removal of the bureaucrat

7. No appointments of administrators for six months

8. Future appointments are considered for review by checkuser due to use of socks on the community.

 — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I Support Support this proposal.--AldNonymousBicara? 00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Have efforts been made to notify all involved parties (including all admins and bureaucrats on that wiki), as well as the community on a global scale? --Rschen7754 01:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Rschen7754: We even have RfC for this, but unresolved, and now new abuse came. I count this as emergency desysop to prevent further abuse.--AldNonymousBicara? 06:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    If it was truly an emergency, wouldn't it have been done already? Consensus is needed for stewards to act in this case, and proper notification of all parties should be done as part of due process. I am not saying that I oppose this proposed action, but the process followed has to be fair. --Rschen7754 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Formally Oppose Opposeing this until all involved and affected parties (i.e. the other administrators on the wiki) have been notified, as well as the local community, in a prominent place. Taking global actions like this is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort. --Rschen7754 17:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, Rschen7754. While that would normally make sense, emergency desyop in the presence of abuse -- or even plausible allegations of abuse -- is commonly done. I was desysopped twice this way -- , and it has been said that if it is a problem, it's easily fixed (and I agreed and did not make a fuss over it, even though the requests were misleading, both times. Once I was desysopped properly, at least after a local discussion.). The situation here appears to be that there were two active sysops, and one indef blocked the other. There are other sysops, and there is a 'crat, but the 'crat was just identified as "related to" the only unblocked and active sysop. This qualifies as an emergency. It is not a finding that there was actual abuse, but it has become impossible to sort it out locally, if the possible problem is the only active administrator, who blocks critics. There was substantial and non-emergency attention to this situation, and attempts to encourage cooperation, and they failed. This is not a "first resort," it is, in fact, a measured response. Being blanket, overall, removals will be without prejudice. If any of them are a problem, anyone may request resysopping here, and it could be considered, including by looking at the original approval. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Billinghurst. I think Pashto Wikipedia should not have any users holding advanced permissions until this colossal issue is resolved. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is a crat only vote, but I mostly support what Billinghurst suggests if the vote counts by a non steward/crat. I have been working as a member of the Small Wiki Monitor Team via IRC and I have noticed a lot of strange activity on that wiki over the past couple months. Although I am leary to agree with removing all the admins (there are only a couple active ones), given the large number of different discussions here and in other venues over the same topic I think it would be in everyone's best interests to implement some control over the situation. Reguyla (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt this here is a vote even, just an attempt to have a public discussion about this apparently previously internally discussed issue. At least, having been posted to SN, it is a proposal directed to stewards. Vogone (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Non-steward comment: I must say that as a developer I've had some concerns about this Wikipedia as well. It looks like an admin manually copied in a lot of JS from other wikis to the MediaWiki namespace in August 2012, but removed all the linebreaks from them. I wonder if the admin really knew what they were doing and whether they should have access to that namespace. (The pages are still there, unfixed, and the admin still has access) --Krenair (talkcontribs) 00:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. This has gone beyond tolerability, with wheel-warring, etc. Normally, I oppose interference in local projects, and in this case, the language issue creates special difficulty. However, I do support removal of advanced rights for all on, and then the encouragement of the appointment of at least one administrator who is very widely trusted. Because selective blocking may have been used, that election should take place here, though being announced there. Process here should be carefully regulated and facilitated. It is likely from the history that users will attack each other. That should be firmly handled, with warnings and short blocks where warnings are ignored. In the meantime, global sysops and stewards may set up a process for Pashto speakers to advise them, here, and may themselves identify trustworthy Pashto users, making them "quasi administrators," trusted to make suggestions that will support the Pashto community. Such users, if blocked on, may readily be unblocked there. The goal will be to return control to the Pashto community ASAP, consistently with overall global policies. Support might be obtained from the Urdu and Farsi communities, which will include substantial numbers of Pashto speakers.
Abusive administration often creates disruptive response, so there should be amnesty for past behavior, on all sides (and including the incivility shown to and by Khangul here and there). Future right to edit should depend on future behavior, with standard process of clear warning before block, absent emergency, and community discussion of any bans, and, at this point, a requirement of consensus for an indef block.
The issues brought up here, about "censorship," for example, are matters for the local community to decide. In my view, wikis may censor according to the specific needs of a language community. Such should never be only the view of a narrow segment of users, it should reflect consensus. It is far too easy for the personal sensibilities of a sysop to become dictatorial censorship. The result of autocratic administration is decline in participation. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal; it seems like things are out of hand there and removing the existing "power" infrastructure might help. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please close this discussion. I have added a link to Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests above. Nemo bis has been moving new contentious requests and comments from here to the old RfC, which is not being used for continuing discussion. That's fine with me, though they might as well be moved into a black hole. The new RfC is a clean slate, and is being facilitated so that it does not become a train wreck. It's an experiment. Volunteer facilitators are requested, and translators are needed. (Sign up on the Facilitators subpage, or the Translators subpage). Please do not transfer requests from here to the new RfC. My goal is to discourage the barrage of complaints from users here, and channel it into either discussion on, or, where facilitation may be needed, on the new RfC page for global support. If consensus appears on any request there, and is not already actioned, it will eventually be noticed here, though I also request that stewards watch the overall RfC page, Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia and help keep it clean; that should only contain requests that have found consensus.
Noncontentious requests for may continue to be filed here.
I have accordingly separated out the MediaWiki namespace cleanup request below. --Abd (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ps.wikipedia MediaWiki namespace cleanup[edit]

Font abnormally large, only half of the page fits the screen, sidebar broken down... Vector is totally broken at

1) shows in the logs, among other things:

console.trace()load.php?debug=true&lang=ps&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=20150415T20…:10934 mw.log.log.warnload.php?debug=true&lang=ps&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=20150415T20…:10960 mw.log.log.deprecate.Object.defineProperty.Object.defineProperty.getload.php?debug=true&lang=ps&modules=ext.gadget.teahouse&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=20150421T1…:6 (anonymous function)

Please remove "default" from all gadgets at w:ps:MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition.

2) w:ps:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets is not properly localised, please restore the correct headers of w:ps:MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition which can then be localised where appropriate.

3) Remove everything from the block "Uploadwizard_newusers" to the end at w:ps:MediaWiki:Common.js, the wiki uses commmons:Special:UploadWizard so that script is unneeded.

4) The collapsible tables and navigation bars blocks should probably be removed too.

5) Remove the logo at the beginning of w:ps:MediaWiki:Common.css, that's not the localised version which the wiki uses.

6) FYI [ has 0 errors, 118 warnings, 112 infos.

7) Remove the "Import more specific scripts if necessary" block at Common.js, those scripts use deprecated addOnloadHook.

8) Remove w:ps:MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js fork, load from Commons directly.

9) Empty w:ps:MediaWiki:Vector.js, the functionality is superseded by MediaWiki core features and wgUserName is deprecated.

10) Empty w:ps:MediaWiki:Irc.js, appears to be notonly unmaintained and broken but also unused.

11) Report the Common.css font changes in Phabricator so that core is fixed and local changes are superseded.

--Nemo 20:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done all except for 2), 4), 5), 6), 8), 11). I may do them later, but if somebody is faster, they should feel free to do it themselves. Vogone (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Should some global interface editor be contacted for the rest? It may also be fine to blank all local scripts etc. and start from scratch. --Nemo 15:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashto Wikipedia Common.css[edit]

Since there no Admin on PsWp so please any steward copy the data from this page and paste it in ps:Mediawiki:Common.css .--UsmanKhan (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Requests for changing looks and the resulting edits to such a page would normally be made and discussed within the community, (eg. ps:Mediawiki talk:Common.css for discussion), and once the discussion has taken place then any GS, global interface editor, or steward would make the change. Please have the conversation internally. Local consensus rules.

bot request[edit]

Dear all stewards, please confirm some of the bot request there.-Mr wikilover (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean SRB. Your requests there were already handled by Ruslik now. --MF-W 00:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Special pages which are not appearing on hiwiki[edit]

Hi, From last few months hiwiki (Hindi Wikipedia; is missing special pages related to "Pending changes". Can some-one tell me how can we re-establish them. List of pages is given bellow:

There are some other special pages are also not doing their work. Please help me to get back them.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This bug has been reported at Phabricator several weeks ago: phab:T90382. In the future, if you see a software bug, please report them at Phabricator, not here. Regards, Glaisher (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Recommend review of Floquenbeam's actions on the English Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Not actionable by stewards

I have been stewing on this for a couple days and even though I feel like its a waste of time and isn't going to be taken seriously feel like I have to do something to try and improve the devolving situation at the English Wikipedia and a very senior administrator and functionary named Floquenbeam. In this edit Floquenbeam was approached by fellow functionary Tiptoey about a block against me. Now, I expected it to be declined, so no hard feelings there, but what I am most concerned about here is the manner in which Floquenbeam addressed both Nick and Tiptoey regarding the case. Rather than simply saying no or providing some links as evidence about why, they gave this response instead stating:

Wait, what? Why the fuck are you talking to him about an unblock request, when his previous indef block was reduced to 6 months on the condition he not edit WP during that time, and he has since socked dozens of times since then? The latest yesterday? There are no "reasonable conditions", he had unreasonable conditions in his favor and he refused to meet them. He requested an unblock a little while ago on UTRS and was denied. He has had talk page access removed since November, and several months before that, due to serial socking. And he's not socking to edit articles, he's socking to stir shit. How could you possibly believe anything he says? Aren't you a functionary, for God's sake? Aren't you supposed to have some tiny iota of clue? No, I won't change the block settings, and I will be deeply, deeply disappointed if you do.

This statement was made with the permanent edit summary of " what the FUCK". Tiptoey then replied with this response stating their disappointment in Floquenbeam's conduct and Nick responded with this] statement as well to which Floquenbeam responded with this statement.

I could go further and show older diffs of how Floquenbeam acts towards others on the project and can provide them if requested for this but in in the spirit of keeping this fairly short I will pass on that for the moment. What I do want to impress upon the stewards though is that this is pretty typical behavior from Floquenbeam. I really think its time for someone outside the English Wikipedia to take a long hard look at this admin/functionaries conduct on the project and I was trying to avoid submitting this as a long and detailed case to the Ombudsman group which would be my next submission depending on the outcome here.

Further evidence of misconduct in the statement above also includes blatant lies by Floquenbeam's that my block required "6 months on the condition he not edit WP". That is not what it says, it says 6 months of no disruptions and that can be seen in the discussion itself linked on my userpage at ENWP. In fact my talk page was unblocked specifically so I could have some interaction until a couple of people who didn't agree with the outcome turned my talk page into into a battleground so they could justify extending or revoking my block. I am not trying to bring up my case for review here though, I just want to clarify that Floquenbeam is also lying about events that are easily reviewable, to suit their own conclusions and point of view.

I also apologize I cannot contact that parties personally to notify them of this discussion. I think most of them have accounts here though. Reguyla (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Reguyla: English Wikipedia has an ArbCom, and independent processes that exclude stewards acting except in very specific situations. The matter that you bring to stewards does not fall within the scope of our actions. Please address your matter to English Wikipedia's ArbCom.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I bring it here because Floquenbeam was a recent member of the Arbcom and thus the majority of the current committee would likely be required to recuse due to their relationship. Additionally, I cannot take it to Arbcom since I am blocked there. But I understand if its outside your scope and I suspected it would not be actionable here. I just wanted to try this route before going to the Ombudesman commission. Unfrotunately, since its not exactly a privacy or legal related issue affecting the WMF, it may not be in their scope either. Reguyla (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps ask someone from enwiki to initiate recall, then your problem would surely be addressed by the local community. Vogone (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The recall process is voluntary and its common for people to just refuse to give up their access. Additionally, there is a fear or reprisal so its unlikely that anyone will bring it up. That's one of the reasons they have been able to maintain their conduct as long as they have been. Unfortunately there is really no way within the ENWP community that this is likely to be addressed. MY hope was that the Stewards would discuss the matter and could address it to the Arbcom for review. I believe there is enough of a pettern to indicate problematic behavior of an admin/functionary. Reguyla (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Whichever way you slice and dice, this is solely an enWP issue. Email them, or contact an ArbCom member at meta. It is not within our span of control.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
k thanks, I find it a shame that there is no checks and balances in this process. I will notify the Arbcom via Email and I guess I'll draft up something for the Ombudsman. I wish there was a venue that would take serious problems with functionary conduct seriously. Pushing it off to the Arbco is precisely why these problems have become so widespread on ENWP and are dragging the project down. Reguyla (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
None of it is actionable by stewards. If you have an issue for global discussion, then please consider a RFC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Btw ombcom deals with privacy issues, I don't see any privacy issue here. Out of my steward's capacities I see just an unnecessary lack of civility from a tired functionary but no substantial misacting. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I believe this to be a serious matter concerning the eradic conduct of a functionary who has access to private information about members of the community that could affect the project, its members and the WMF in a negative way. All it would take is for them to leak private information or logs to discredit or harm various parties. Reguyla (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And thans billinghurst, I may do that as well. Reguyla (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with billinghurst here. This is still something with many courses of action on enwp itself that remain unexplored. Untill they have become exhausted, I wouldn't expect any action by anyone here. Please, if you feel it is a pressing issue, raise the issue on tge proper AN board, request a recall per Floq's recall page... If those fail and you feel you must proceed, take it to ArbCom. If that fails, and you still feel you are in tge right, then ask what to do next here. Good luck in your venture... - {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Again out of capacities "I think the functionary in question regularly kills kittens" is not the best way be taken seriously. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Technical 13 et all, I am blocked on ENWP so I cannot submit it there anyway. I cannot submit it to ANI, I cannot submit a futile recall request and the Arbcom probably won't even respond to my email but I will try and contact them. I'm sorry and find it frustrating and disappointing that no one here takes matters regarding functionary conduct on ENWP seriously, probably solely because its me submitting it. Reguyla (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum that should be used to blacken reputations. Quite improper. Matter closed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Help requested![edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Hello. Many barnstars for example (1, 2, 3) have been using distorted National Emblem of India as a base image. Use of Emblem of India (or any part of it) in barnstars on WP is in violation to many Acts and Statutes of India (1, 2, 3, 4). Further, using the half/distorted Emblem attracts even more severe consequences since it is not inline to Law and Statues of India in Force (this order of GOI). These Acts also prohibits the use of this Emblem by Indian who are not in India since they are bound to follow the law of Land (Section 1.2). It is pertinent to mention that these barnstars are part of WikiProjects India and mainly/generally created, maintained and used by and awarded to Indian editors. A detailed discussion on this issue along with citations and links to appropriate laws/statutes had taken place at this page yesterday.

These barnstars not only are in violation to many acts and statutes of India, but also violate the standby official policies of WP too which state that the images which are in public domain can not be used, reused, mixed, remixed if specific legal restrictions are in place. Since this exactly is the case for Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use Act as Well as Proper Use Rules), every time we create a barnstar with such Emblem, or use them, we violate the policies of WP too. Display of half barnstar is also considered disgrace and dishonor to the Nation as per Indian Statutes in Force.

Many of the editors and administrators feel that an intervention by Stewards would be more appropriate at this issue before these specific barnstars (containing full OR half Emblem of India and/or Indian Flag) are sent in afd discussion or replaced with appropriate image. May I request the Stewards here to please help decide on this matter as appropriate. Thanks. --Educationtemple (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter for Commons Wikipedia, not stewards. Please read c:Commons:Deletion policy and under that guidance you would be seeking the deletion of the list of files that you wish to submit. The deletion process at Commons is very good.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(editconflicted)You should address the matter at commons' ANI or, if a law infringement will go on, at legal at since those images are hosted at WMF's facilities. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stewards have no authority to act at English Wikipedia. The policies in place there are will give you guidance on the steps to take.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Could you please suggest me a link to specific notice board/wp page, where this notice could be displayed for help from appropriate authorities. --Educationtemple (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Update - OK. Got it. Posted the issue here for advise. Thank you all. --Educationtemple (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)