Jump to content

Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2025-09

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Stewards' noticeboard | Archives
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Revi C. in topic Reverse rename

Request for assistance – Blocked on Mon Wiktionary

Latest comment: 7 months ago18 comments8 people in discussion

My account has been blocked on Mon Wiktionary, mnw.wiktionary.org, and I would like to request your help in reviewing this block.

Username: [Htawmonzel]

Project: Mon Wiktionary, mnw.wiktionary.org

Issue: I was involved in a content dispute with another user. I blocked them after repeated edits I believed to be incorrect. Shortly after, they blocked me in return. I would like Stewards to review whether this block is appropriate.

Request: Could you please review the situation and advise on how I can resolve this?

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Htawmonzel (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment Non-Steward comment: This user User:Htawmonzel and User:咽頭べさ are administrators on mnw.wikitionary. Both of them blocked each other without any discussion (like, rfc or anything else) with communities. I think both of them abused their sysop tools there, if this wasn’t mistake. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 14:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I blocked user @Htawmonzel again for abusing the privileges of an admin. Evidence: 1. Blocking someone else's account without reason (Unreasonable blocking of a နဲစၟဳစၟတ်မရပ်စပ်ဆဆဵု account created by Wiki officials to protect Mon Wiktionary Auto and I have not committed any violations of the rules, but he blocked my account based on false accusations. My opinion: I think he came to Mon Wiktionary to take revenge because he was not happy with the topics he and I discussed at Translatewiki. As I said on Translatewiki, the ၚ် spelling is not only used by me, but also by many other Mon scholars, he didn't accept my explanation and evidence at all, and he was talking about me as the main target. He unreasonably blocked the @Intobesa.bot account, which was approved by Wiki officials for maintenance of Mon Wiktionary) regarding this issue, we respectfully request that the wiki officials resolve the matter fairly. I am innocent, no rights have been violated, best regards thanks 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 15:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but why did you react with a block? If you think there were ongoing abuses, you should have contacted the steward immediately... I saw you tried to post on RFH yesterday, which wasn't the right place, but you did it 30 minutes after blocking the other sysop and, also, there are no other local sysops on the project :/ Superpes15 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 After some private discussions I am lifting both blocks. With that being said, @Htawmonzel and 咽頭べさ: I suggest to take this as a firm warning to not do this again without input from anyone else, and any potential "next time" may lead to the stewards removing your rights. If you have a personal dispute or disagreement with a specific user, it's best if you either try working it out in other ways (such as discussing with each other) or ask someone else for input first (another local sysop if possible, if there is none then please ask the stewards instead who can assist you). Blocking someone you are involved in a personal dispute with is seldom a good idea and will generally just cause a cobra effect (we have had several cases like this one in the past). Hopefully this will be the last time this happens and that we won't need to intervene here again. EPIC (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Marking as resolved. The reciprocal blocks were resolved. The system account block was removed. The sitenotice has been reset. (Regarding sitenotice, many projects refer users to off-wiki resources such as social media. This should be done carefully and neutrally if desired.). — xaosflux Talk 10:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 10:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Biased editing protection on Milorad Dodik Wikipedia page

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Wikipedia Stewards,

The Wikipedia article on Milorad Dodik is currently locked due to alleged “vandalism,” but the lock has resulted in the intentional manipulative preservation of false and politically manipulated information. It still states that Mr. Dodik is the “current President of Republika Srpska.”

This is factually wrong. According to the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina (decision of 6 August 2025, confirmed by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 18 August 2025), his mandate ended on 12 June 2025. The presidency is currently vacant, with early elections scheduled for 23 November 2025.

Reliable international sources:

Reuters, 6 August 2025 https://www.reuters.com/world/serb-separatist-leader-stripped-office-by-bosnia-election-commission-2025-08-06/

AP News, 6 August 2025 https://apnews.com/article/bosnia-serb-dodik-removed-election-separatist-sarajevo-6af8a3073e4851996a6ca2f270d0e659

European Western Balkans, 19 August 2025 https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2025/08/19/whats-next-for-dodik-after-the-court-of-bih-confirms-that-he-is-no-longer-president-of-republika-srpska/


Due to local administrator bias, this error is not being corrected, and the article remains misleading. I kindly ask that global administrators intervene to ensure neutrality and accuracy, in line with Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality policies.

Sincerely, N.HODZIC Dakewln4596 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Not done for content issues on projects with communities, you will need to discuss your concerns on the local community. As you are writing in English, I'm assuming you are referring to the English Wikipedia, which has a very large community with many local resolutions processes. — xaosflux Talk 10:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 10:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Request to change the duration of IP address block

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User:125.139.245.135 was blocked for 1 year in zhwiki, please change the duration for 1 year in global and see w:zh:WP:VIP, thank you. Peterxy（talk） 10:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done if there is actual crosswiki problems with this after it expires, list at Steward requests/Global#Requests for global_(un)block. — xaosflux Talk 12:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 12:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Opt in mswiki in gswikiset

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

7 days ago I proposed mswiki to opt in gswikiset, which reached an conscious with no oppose.

Thanks. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 12:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. EPIC (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EPIC (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

About CU in zhwiki

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This is a discussion on how projects without local CUs can best be supported by Stewards with access to CU tools. But local CUs will be restored in zhwiki (Per w:zh:WP:VPP#修订本地与用户查核员相关的方针和指引). Is it still necessary to forward the sockpuppet investigation request in zhwiki to SRCU? Thank you. Peterxy（talk） 05:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Will leave open for other comments, however *if* a project has local checkusers, they should be able to perform their own SPI's. — xaosflux Talk 18:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree, SRCU is meant for projects without local CU. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Answered above. — xaosflux Talk 18:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Please global lock CrossWiki LTA

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 18:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Systemic failure on Uzbek Wikipedia

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a courtesy notification that the U4C has passed a motion finding systemic failure on Uzbek Wikipedia. On behalf of the U4C, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Northen Sotho Wikipedia

Latest comment: 7 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

There's a vandal at this wiki that has been creating number articles without any actual contents (see deletion logs), and this has been going on for about a year (I vaguely recall that they also targeted other tiny wikis). Could a global filter be created to prevent this vandal? Or would a local filter be more appropriate? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I did a quick check, seems like they are almost always being created by the same anon range, a placed a local range block against page creation. — xaosflux Talk 18:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. That resolves it. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@Xaosflux@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh This is a LTA. He make this crosswiki since Years. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 18:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
@WikiBayer: Do you know which other wikis they vandalized? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I would say this is "Mason Decker". --MF-W 18:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I didn't document the LTA. They were always just very small wikis with no activity. I only noticed this one in passing. I always deleted the pages and blocked the range, and when I noticed the troll in another wiki, I did the same thing there too. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 (WikiBayerCatHelper) 18:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Close RfC

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Requests for comment/Require RfC filers to be autoconfirmed on Meta is overdue for closure (since Requests for comment/Policy is tagged as a global policy it requires a steward to close). * Pppery * it has begun 02:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure there is sufficient consensus to close that yet, maybe it can be more widely advertized and we can check again in two weeks? I like the idea of reforming the RfC process but I'm not personally sure if this is the best way to accomplish it - I'd prefer an endorsement process where a prospective filer needs to get the ok from a meta admin or something before filing, but there would be drawbacks to that too. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Not sure where else it could be advertised; it's an internal change of Meta RfC policies, so it seems like its presence on the RfC list itself is the place most likely to attract interested people. * Pppery * it has begun 01:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Opt in svwiktionary in gswikiset

Latest comment: 7 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

svwiktionary meets one of GS Scope:

  • fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months.

No explicit opt-out discussion. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 11:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not that there was a discussion on that wiki from 2024 about opting in (for transparency), although all participants were neutral about it. On the other hand there were no objections at that time, so I'll leave it to another steward on how they want to handle this since I was also the one who opened that discussion back then. EPIC (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Given that there is a discussion and the community didn't explicitly agree, I don't think we should opt them in without continuing the existing discussion and getting approval. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@EPIC @Johannnes89, Check the discussion now, which reached conscious to opt-in. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I think this wiki should now removed from opt-out of gs wikiset.
    • Note: The discussion kicked off on July 20, 2024, but the community felt a bit unsure and didn’t strongly oppose the proposal, staying mostly neutral. Then, on September 28, 2025, we picked up the discussion again, and this time they decided to opting in (consensus).
Thanks, 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 19:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Done seems fine to opt in this time. EPIC (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EPIC (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Stryn

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

FYI, @Stryn: has tendered his resignation from the steward team. Thank you for your decade of service on the team, hope to keep seeing you around. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 21:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your service Stryn! Johannnes89 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 13:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

pi.wiki

Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Pages created by pi:Special:Contributions/EukeshBot are of subpar content, containing only headings, a stub template, categories, and a single line of "XXXX is a year of the Georgian calendar" (approximate translation according to Google). Clicked on about 100 pages and none seem to have any useful content that was added to the page in the last 18 years. Pages listed in pi:Special:ShortPages, up to those of 44 bytes, are also "useless" pages, containing a template and a stub template. If all ~2200 pages are nuked, ~80% of the wiki's content will be deleted. Should I proceed with the deletion? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Weak keep year articles. I think one sentence qualifies as "some useful content". NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
While I do understand the these pages are almost 2 decades old, my question is why should treat such articles created by bots differently to those created by LTAs such as this? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Good question. Three apparent differences:
  • Articles created by local editors (using bots or otherwise) are backed with local consensus of some kind, whether it is by a group of people or just one who cared enough about the wiki to do so.
  • Considering Decker's disruptive behaviour, we assume bad faith and that their articles, if not link-only or similar, are machine translations or LLM-generated.
  • Existing, nicely formatted articles are more likely to attract good edits.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Also pinging @CX Zoom as a former local sysop. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I am opposed as a general principle to the global sysops declaring they know better than the local community, as I feel deleting these would be. * Pppery * it has begun 00:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • For background: I have not worked at Pali Wikipedia but I have a fair knowledge of Pali, and I frequently work on Pali and related dictionary entries at English Wiktionary. I've just deleted a large number of bad articles on Pali Wikipedia (and those deletions have included all the pages created by EukeshBot as well) because all those were extremely useless and subpar and the "content" on them (usually a single line) was usually broken, distorted and ungrammatical Sanskrit, not Pali as I've pointed out in the deletion reasons. While many of these were indeed created by apparent piwiki regulars (or by their bots), I'm sure that it's clear to anyone who is versed in Pali that these were all completely nonsensical. For anyone interested: all these had Sanskrit words like वर्ष (year), तत्त्व (element), राष्ट्र (nation/country), etc. instead of their Pali descendants like वस्स, तत्त and रट्ठ. A common pattern I also used to track down most of these was the use of Sanskrit imperative अस्तु where the indicative present verb (such as 'is') would be grammatical to use, for which Sanskrit is अस्ति and the Pali is अत्थि. Another pattern of mistakes was the excessive use of genitive case for एक (meaning 'a, one') along with no application of (nominative) inflection for the following noun (year, element, country, etc.). I've previously done another batch-deletion of similar bad articles in June and have also thought about proposing the closure of piwiki. – Svārtava (tɕ) 09:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Reverse rename

Latest comment: 6 months ago19 comments7 people in discussion

This user wasn’t in a good condition, there’s a open SPI case in enwiki: en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ThedetectivePiash1, and reported in bnwiki for block evation. Thanks, 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 13:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Renaming reversed by @MdsShakil, I've unlocked the account. --Johannnes89 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@Johannnes89: This is a LTA's account, we have to lock it. @A09: Please let the local users handle requests from their own projects. There’s no need to rush these matters, and local language renamers are best suited for such cases. This also helps avoid potential misunderstandings. Thanks. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@MdsShakil no issues with re-locking the account with the correct reason, it just shouldn't be the automatic vanishing lock. This request was about reversing vanishing, not about steward action against the account (which hasn't been CU confirmed if I'm not mistaken), that's why I just unlocked. Feel free to lock if you took a closer look. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, most of GRENs who are also enwiki sysops or above aren't that active and the request would very likely get picked by someone who isn't part of neither enwiki nor bnwiki. If we were to limit renames only to wikis someone has them as a homewiki it would cause huge backlogs on every GREN front – which is probably something none of us is striving for. I consider myself an enwiki regular but didn't see anything too harsh to not pass the vanishing request but didn't oppose when I was pinged about this matter. I am happy this resolved quickly and without hassle. A09|(pogovor) 13:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, there’s no need to rush with these requests and my advice is meant generally, not just for this case. Helal ahmed129 submitted their vanishing request at 13:04, 28 September 2025, and it was approved by you at 13:08. Just before that, they had started vandalizing on bnwiki (12:56) and enwiki (12:22), on top of earlier disruptive edits. Before approving, it’s part of a renamer’s responsibility to review the requester’s contributions. Personally, I would not have approved this, since vanishing requires the user to be in good standing. I understand that language can be a barrier, but that’s also a key reason why such requests are often better handled by the local team, especially in cases like this. That doesn’t mean restricting renames only to homewikis, but being mindful of the context helps avoid problems. —MdsShakil (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • This seems like a lot of wasted button pushing. Re-reanaming and unlocking an account that is already locked, because it is the subject of a discussion that may lead to it being blocked and locked - how is this making the project better? — xaosflux Talk 18:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    This was primarily for the CU's investigation into the SPI case, which was open at that time. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 19:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    CU data would be same regardless of whether the account was vanished or not. A09|(pogovor) 19:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    How Checkusers gonna find it from the SPI page when there's no account with the username! I know there's a public log kept, but users already asking about it to be reversed, I prevented the discussion from escalating earlier by requesting the reverse. Otherwise, the question could have been raised about why the vanish did not follow their local vanish policy. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 20:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Vanishing (and accounts in general) are global, especially with a majority of vanishing being automatic now - one project making a local rule is not going to hold up action on hundreds of other projects. Also, redirects are cheap. — xaosflux Talk 21:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Now I got it. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 21:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    The misunderstanding was made from the !global policy page, as it’s encouraging to see the Wikipedia's vanishing guidelines. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 21:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    Since the vanish involved a LTA, it makes sense to reverse it, as already done in the past. But I understand it requires a bit of (seemingly pointless) work. I'd like to point out that all of this could be avoided by waiting a little longer and avoiding renames without thorough review. As I've said several times in ML, we've gone from periods where renames took days to complete (and the queue had 6-7 pages), but they were processed with quality, to renames being done too hastily, and honestly, I've noticed some bad renames. There is no problem if a rename takes even 3-4 days since we are all volunteers and there is no ETA required by the guidelines, furthermore this doesn't hurt anyone unless it's an urgent matter, instead the important thing is to do it correctly and with the utmost quality, I don't see where the problem is in having a bit of backlog, which by the way has never been so huge in renames! Superpes15 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Another reversed vanishing: SRG#Unlock and unrename Renamed user 6ae9384e99894f567d6f34f0d62fe444. I'm in favour of waiting at least 24 hours before vanishing accounts, similar to resigning admins, although we probably need to check with Legal if there's an expectation to implement vanish requests in a certain time frame? --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't have an obligation to do them under 24 hours. Note for accounts without edits vanishes are done automatically. — xaosflux Talk 10:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
For the record: In this case, the account in question did have an edit, so it must have been manual. Otherwise… if the account did not have an edit, it would have been autoApproved, and then it could not have an edit and local ANI report for being a DUCK. — regards, Revi 15:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Permalink: Special:GoToComment. — regards, Revi 08:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Yet another: Special:GoToComment/c-Revi_C.-20251019214500-Unlock_Renamed_user_5de0a4e8f3cf9340d1cb8e49c94c2379 (log entry 2025-10-17)
PSA: Account created within the past month + homewiki: kowiki should be a red flag for processing S/GRN. They use the AccountVanish when they are found and reported, so this is not automatic approval. — regards, Revi 02:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards%27_noticeboard/Archives/2025-09&oldid=29675486"