Stewards' noticeboard
- This is not the place for stewards requests. To make a new request, see steward requests and requests and proposals.
- For illustration of steward policies and use, see the steward handbook.
- See also: Access to nonpublic personal data policy noticeboard.
- This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
Requests for comment/Require RfC filers to be autoconfirmed on Meta is overdue for closure (it requires Steward closure since Requests for comment/Policy is by its own terms a global policy and says Only stewards can close any RFC [...] changing global policy) * Pppery * in solidarity 03:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- I believe we should strike comments by globally (b)locked / WMF banned users. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- done, I have strike out comments from globally (b)locked users. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 14:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Recommendation to lift global locks
[edit]This is further to a prior discussion on this noticeboard. I was asked to review the local blocks on three of the accounts (listed below) involved in the original global lock request. It is not clear to me why the accounts were not globally unlocked at the initial request because they remained blocked on only one project, so that the allegation of cross-wiki disruption was no longer applicable. Nonetheless, it was suggested to me that the blocks on English Wikipedia be reviewed before further steward action was likely to be considered.
The following users have now been unblocked following further investigation and discussion with the blocking CheckUser. Thus, they are no longer blocked on any project. Please lift their global locks.
I leave it to the stewards to independently determine if the other accounts identified in the original global lock request still meet the standard for global locking, as I was not requested to review those blocks/locks and cannot speak to their current situation. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Risker (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- @M7: want to look at these first? — xaosflux Talk 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- @WikiBayer, as the requester of the locks, do you have any advice about other locked users (and still locally blocked on multiple projects)? Thanks, --M/ (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- There have been repeated edits to entries on similar or identical topics. If multiple users have indeed shared a computer and CheckUser information cannot therefore be directly verified, it is difficult to say whether they were truly different users or whether one person might, in fact, have multiple accounts. Enwiki and Wikidata CUs took place at different times, but it's also possible that a group of Persons meets more often. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- @WikiBayer, as the requester of the locks, do you have any advice about other locked users (and still locally blocked on multiple projects)? Thanks, --M/ (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Global
[edit]Dear Respected Wikipedia Administrators, I am writing this official appeal to you regarding serious violations of rules, monopoly, and actions completely contrary to Wikipedia principles on the Uzbek Wikipedia project. The individual committing these violations: @Abdufattohov Ibrohimjon Recently, this user and the group they have formed have grossly violated Wikipedia rules, undermining the principles of neutrality and openness of the encyclopedia. In particular: Incorrect and unreferenced information: Untested, unfounded, and false information is being disseminated about politicians of the Republic of Uzbekistan and other prominent figures. Artificial monopoly and vandalism: For their own interests, this group sets up artificial barriers for new users, falsely labels their edits as spam, and engages in vandalism. Hiding edits: The user attempts to escape responsibility by deleting warning or restriction notices placed on their own page before other Uzbek administrators can see them. Advertising and questionable articles: There is an increase in instances of exaggerating and advertising insufficiently famous individuals. At the same time, pages dedicated to true figures, famous artists, and scientists of Uzbekistan are artificially tagged with false spam markers and blocked groundlessly. Nepotism: Through illiterate edits that do not meet encyclopedic requirements, they are exclusively engaged in promoting and advertising their acquaintances. Wikipedia is an open and impartial source of information for everyone, and no monopoly by any group or individuals is permitted here. This situation is severely damaging the project's reputation. Taking the above into account, I kindly ask you to immediately put a stop to these violations and the monopolistic actions of the group, and to restore the rights of unfairly blocked pages and rightfully protesting users. We hope you will not leave this appeal unattended. Dear administrators, we kindly ask you not to ignore this situation. Sincerely, Bosh Mamur (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- This seems to be a part of the recent vandalism/harassment by uz:Special:Contributions/Blak off and uz:Special:Contributions/Bosh Mamur. Both accounts were created on 8 August and immediately targeted Abdufattohov Ibrohimjon. Both made clearly disruptive edits on uzwiki and repeatedly attacked his user page, Bosh Mamur now brought that as unsupported accusations to Meta. Given the timing, identical target and behaviour, both accounts should maybe get checked. --Icodense (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like there is some kind of self-promotion by User:UZB MUHARRIR, see c:Special:Contributions/UZB MUHARRIR. @Abdufattohov Ibrohimjon marked the promotional page uz:Nuriddin Norxo'jayev for deletion. The appeareance of User:Bosh Mamur and User:Blak off (all recently registered) looks just like an attempt to impress Abdufattohov Ibrohimjon. NDG (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)