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

Norman Wikipedia Admins[edit]


I am one of three former local admins of the Norman Wikipedia. We were the only three admins with any knowledge of the language on the Wikipedia. All three of us have since had our admin rights removed due to inactivity. This means there are no Norman-speaking admins left on the Norman Wikipedia at present.

Two questions: What do we do when something on the wiki requires admin attention? How do we go about setting up a policy on our local wiki that could supersede the global policy that resulted in the loss of our admins?

(It's possible that Merlicoqùet has not yet lost his rights, but notice was served to him in English [in the middle of his talk page, for some reason], and he speaks Norman and French, but no English to my knowledge, and so I doubt he would be able to respond in time. I can assure you that we'd rather that he kept his admin rights, however.) 06:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The global policy is only intended to remove completely inactive users; if you are still here, then please start a local request and after a week request your sysop rights back at SRP. Same goes for any of the other admins. The admin activity review should only remove people who have been inactive for 2+ years. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
If you have an admin request (while there are no local admins), please go to Steward requests/Miscellaneous. In order to make your own inactivity guideline, please hold a local discussion and post the results at Admin activity review/processes to review holders of advanced administrative rights. All the best, Taketa (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
To also note that notice was given about this. If you wish to provide us with a Norman translation of the notice please do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Offensive sock used by User:Russavia[edit]

I've mentioned this at Commons:

This is an offensive name, and Russavia used it to upload several hundred images from Flickr to Commons, and to do 1000 edits in all. My concern is that this offensive name shows as the uploader of all these images, etc. Can this name be suppressed globally? This name could potentially offend many Spanish-speaking and other editors if/when the uploaded images are used on various wikis. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The name can be suppressed, the account can be moved too to a non-problematic name which will update the upload name in the db, though not on the uploads. If you are keeping the images, I would ask that the Commons community direct stewards how to proceed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree that a rename would be better. I also agree that it would be best to wait for internal commons discussion to be done. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Problematic case - user Dcirovic and shwiki[edit]

What to do with user Dcirovic from Serbo-Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia? He's running bots both from user and from bot account.


He runs bot very fast, he mades several tens of edits per minute. In very short time he reached 1 Million of edits on both his accounts on srwiki and 6 Millions of edits on his bot account on shwiki in just 1 year!! Also he has 560000 edits on main account on shwiki.

He ignores all WMF rules and just overloads WMF servers to swell sr and especially shwiki. For instance see here>

History of article ″Agna, Parma″ on shwiki

He created article on 26 Sep 2014, and then he began to play with statistics:

On 5 November he added just an empty section == Литература == in this article and other articles from this series about Italian populated places. There are several tens of thousends of articles in this series and task took some time. After 2 days he come here again to add {{refbegin}} [1]

Three days later he adds in articles {{refend}} [2]

Then he made a lot of useless edits to add some dubious ″bibliography″ to article [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

here, here, here, here, here and here — he added just an * !!!

Note that this false bibliography is almost unrelated to most of articles. He made 21 edits mass automated bot edits in articles (another example), although he could made all these changes in just 1 to max. 3 edits. Most probably he wants to ″swell″ depth of this botopedia.

Now he began his job to Mexican localities.

A lot of fresh useless edits from main account

I suggest to stop somehow this user, educate him or split shwiki from WMF and let him play his game on his own server. If you keep shwiki on WMF server in wikipedia family maybe it would be good to merge on server-side in database all those useless edits (like this) so as to shwiki statistics return back to normal. -- 03:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The bot accounts seem to be approved as bots. We, as stewards, cannot act in these situations. I suggest you contact the user locally and transmit your concerns. Savhñ 09:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass destruction of Wikispecies data by an out of control crat[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

FYI, User:Dan Koehl is busy destroying masses of potentially useful data on Wikispecies, see here. These were categories which users can choose to read or not. They were doing no harm, and were potentially useful. They were created in good faith by me at a time when there was no policy limiting what could be added as categories. Now Koehl is trying to boost his edit count by destroying them, after a long campaign to have me permanently blocked and out of the way. Koehl is an insidious little misanthrope who has become the popular champion of a group of cretins on WS who have no idea what they are doing. The mass descruction of potentially useful data is a sad reflection of what Wikimedia has become, i.e. a cesspit of "politics" - Mafia-like mob rule thinly disguised as "consensus" Stho002 (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No data removed, only categories, which, according to the community make no sense. Personally designed categories like Category:Zeclaviger explanatus (New Zealand) and identically Category:xxxx xxxxx (New Zealand), which had no use, according to users at Wikispecies. If those species had been endemic to New Zealand, the situation could have been different, as for now, only you saw any use in them, and you ignored others users opinions. But all data is there, so dont worry Stho002 (residing on New Zealand), just those New Zealand categories are removed, per discussion at Village pump. Your creation of those categories did not follow any standard or censensus, and there was a wish to remove them and other, for the project, irrelevant material.
I am not out of control, I am following the will of the community. Which you didnt, a main reason to why you became permanently blocked. As a productive and good taxonomist, its sad you didnt value collaboration with other users. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Your drivel makes no sense. Zeclaviger explanatus is endemic to New Zealand! You have no idea what you are doing. You are just hell bent on destroying anything that I created. You are the sort of person who drags mankind down into the gutter, who retards progress, who hides knowledge, and who gets off on the popularity you get from supporting the lowest common denominator. Really, Dan, the most constructive contribution you could make to mankind is suicide. Sure my creation of those categories did not follow any standard or censensus, nor did it contravene any policy. Those categories were created in good faith, and the user had the choice to read them or not. Now, like any megalomaniacal dictator, you take choices away from the user. Is this constructive? I don't think so! All data is not there, as you are deleting category pages, on which I put data relevant only to the context of a particular country (e.g. New Zealand). This data is not repeated anywhere else, so you are destroying data. Still, it is nice to see you wasting your time on something so pointless ... I only wish I could have given you an order of magnitude or more to do. Rot in hell, Stho002 (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, as we all are. But you are missing the point, the communiy doesnt see any sense in the "Nwe Zealand" categories. If we would have had made categories for each and every country for every species, then it would have been a standard within the project, supprted by consensus withing the community. Im sure you have followed the Village pump discussions, and you know that Im just following the wish from the comunity to clean out those categories. But all your real, hard work, of which you cn be proud of, is still there. I can only say Im sorry, you didnt make a priority to collaborate better with other users. Pleaes top of accusing me for personal reasons for this work I have to do, which is pretty tiring. Its easy for you to see that it was other users who brought up the issue.
I will not reply on this anymore, unless anyone at Meta wants me to that. This noticeboard is not intended for extended discussions. Please respect this. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The contributions of User:Stho002 in this thread contain the following passages, addressing User:Dan Koehl personally and the WS community in general: "insidious little misanthrope", "a group of cretins on WS", "cesspit of politics", "mafia-like mob rule", "sort of person who drags mankind down into the gutter", "the most constructive contribution you could make to mankind is suicide", "like a megalomaniacal dictator". Everybody will recognise easily these heavy issues of incivility, which among others resulted in a permanent block of Stho002 from Wikispecies. Will this be tolerated here? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from continuing this thread. This should (and it looks like it has already been) handled locally. We will not act unless there is explicit local consensus that expect us to. Savhñ 09:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion not closed[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Please take this via a RFC  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is not closed. How can stewards possibly not intervene to stop the mass deletion of potentially useful information by an out of control crat who has local backing of a small group of thugs (like Franz Xaver), while the bulk of the local community is too scared to disagree or get involved? This is a gross abuse of sysop powers by Koehl. Deletion is reserved for vandalism, or for mistakenly created pages. There are about 10K pages with N.Z. categories on them. Koehl intends to remove them all, and to delete the corresponding category pages, simply because he and his band of merry thugs consider them not to be useful! But they might be useful to other users. They are doing no harm. They are not vandalism. They were created in good faith, and their creation did not breach any policies in place at that time. The user has the choice to read or ignore these categories. Koehl is removing user choice. The reasons offered above by Koehl simply don't make any sense. For one thing, he is saying that because we can't do the category thing (in the short term) for every country, we therefore should not do it for any country! The same logic would result in the abandonment of Wikispecies altogether, since we cannot (in the short term) create pages for all the species in the world. It would follow that we should not create pages for any species! So, will some steward please be responsible enough to comment on the actual issues here, as they are very important. Stho002 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: To prove what a liar and a fraud Koehl is, just look at how much data and work he has deleted on this category page. He and his cronies might not be interested to know which new species were described from N.Z. in 2013, but other users might be so interested. They do not have the right to retrospectively deem articles to be "irrelevant". The site isn't there just for their own amusement and interests. This is massive scale vandalism, apparently being ignored by stewards! Stho002 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is sad to see STho002 ignoring the broad community consensus, before the crat took actions. The more as STho002 was a very active member of the project. But even the most active member has to respect the community. --Murma174 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (a simple member of the project, not under suspicion of being a "cronie")
Respect is to be earned. It is not a right. Koehl and some others have proven themselves to be unworthy of respect Stho002 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Stewards role is to act on the consensus of the community. In that we do at specieswiki the tasks for which they desire changes and do not have the direct rights and they have determined that a consensus exists. From a global perspective, where the broad community demonstrates a consensus, then that enables certain actions to be taken. We have no authority to intervene in this matter, please see Stewards for more information about our role.

The stewards' noticeboard is not the right place for the discussion you are looking to have. What you are able to do is to continue this thread as an RFC which puts your point of view to the broader community. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Immature Pashto Wikipedia Admin[edit]

Dear stewards, the Admin Khangul blocked me forever because of an argument I had with him. He first stated that I was a liar for claiming I am a PHD in Pashto. Possibly because I have been removing Arabic/Persian loanwords and adding Soocha [Pure] Pashto or possibly because I have been making pages on religious topics other than Islam, in truth I do not know = for reference click. In reply to his comment I told him he could verify this from the Pashto Academy and I became a little rude by calling him a smart ass = reference. So I come to you asking:

  • Please unblock me
  • I do not know how elections are held to make Pashto Admins; therefore as you can see normal Pashto Wikipedians are at the mercy of people like Khangul who treat Pashto Wikipedia as if it was there father's property. I want to see Khangul reprimanded for this cruelty.

Thank you PashtoLover (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a local matter and the block is within the discretion of the local administrator to make. You appear to have been warned before the block and at least one other member of the community supported it. There are no obvious grounds to overturn the block. On your other question, has a local bureaucrat who is responsible for determining if the community supports adding new administrators. It was they who added the admin right for Khangul. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: The RFC of same Admin that noted here Requests for comment/Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia.--AldNonymousBicara? 10:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks... With the RFC in progress there's no grounds for progressing this particular request here. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This admin blocked me only when I replied back to him and also a permanent block. There was no dispute over a particular article but his ego was hurt. I am sure there can be something that can be done as even if it is a "local matter" it is nonetheless an abuse of Wikipedia policy and an abuse of Admin position PashtoLover (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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)


Comment by عثمان منصور انصاري and UsmanKhan[edit]

remove the virus, not to kill the humanity

hi to all. in pashto wikipedia, we have one bureaucrat (ANB),4 admins, (ANB), Khan gul, waheedullah kaleem, me (Usman Mansoor Ansari). all other admins including bureaucrat (ANB) are so responsible, respectful, keen to develop ps wiki, helping users in while facing technical or other problems.

kindly i request here not to remove any admin from ps wiki nor the only one bureaucrat (ANB) unless Khangul. plz remove him from adminship and release the pashto wiki from his dictatorship.

as a responsible admin of pashto wiki, this khangul blocked my IP forever which is against all wiki norms. below is my request i have sent for some stewards: regards

hi Vituzzu, billinguart and others !

as an admin my IP is blocked by an irresponsible admin Mr Khangul just for the reason i have allowed and unblocked a user who is hard working, keen to develop, contribute in pashto wiki. see this for his countributions: Usman khan's contributions

plz have a look to his work. if you think that he (Usmankhan) deserved to be blocked by Khangul. and for restoring (Usmankhan) was that against the rule of wiki, or i have done something wrong for which Khangul (an admin like me) blocked me from wiki and deleted my pages where i have requested for bureaucrat.

plz take this matter serious and solve the prob which khangul create day by day to new users, and now for admins as well.

you will note that pashto wiki contribution is zero now a day due to khangul's behaviors with users.

best regards

note: my nomination page is also deleted by him. khangul deleted my nomination page for bureaucratship. its against wiki norms and laws.

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

First deleting legit pages and blocking innocent users hence this happen Requests for comment/Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia and now deleting 'crat nom pages and blocking an admin? This one is a serious abuse by Khangul.--AldNonymousBicara? 09:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Usman Mansoor is one of the best Admin of Pashto Wikipedia,Now Khangul has blocked him. as I said before that Khangul is always harrasing and discouraging other user, Whenever we comment against Khangul's misbehavior he always delete the Entire page on which we write against him. And whenever any other user Nominate his name for Adminship khangul also delete the others nomination pages. If Khangul leave people to work, We will have more than 50K pages on Pashto Wikipedia but unfortunately he always delete others contribution. So plz block Khangul and his sock puppets and Also unblock Usman Mansoor who is a good Administrator and guider.--UsmanKhann (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

For the community to note that users عثمان منصور انصاري and UsmanKhan show as being aligned accounts, so the commentary should be taken as a block, not necessarily independently. To the comment, stewards cannot play favourites with admins, and if the community has a level of dysfunction and is unable to resolve the matters by consensus the previous example was to remove all advanced rights holders for a period of time and restart through community consensus process. That is why the proposal has been framed in that way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

      • mr khangul! first of all PLZ DO NOT INTERFERE AND CHANGE MY COMMENTS, NOR ADD YOUR COMMENTS BETWEEN MY COMMENTS. (the proof is in check users talkpage), and in ps wiki as well as in this talkpage too.

if pashto wiki is here in-front of you. its not all ur struggles, but u have made something for which thanks, most of your 10000 contribution is to translate interface, edit someones users user-page, talk-page, delete others work you don't like. even sometime you edit others comments in some community portals and discussions even if u found it against ur ego, you Defiantly delete others entire comments, even if its on their own talkpake or userpage.

thanks god we have, ANB (First as an adim, now as bureaucrat). he is the one who brought the wiki to exist, helped us, guided us, but unfortunately now a days he is out of coverage area!? due to his personal probs!

  • most of my contributions are my written & translated articles from en, ar, ur, fa and other wiki and websites. references are available.
    • secondly: you dont think that if i could only read & write abut religious & Philosophical articles. i have my own contribution in history, botany, science, logic, biology, psychology, criminology, criminalistics etc.
    • i have no need to publish someones article without his/him permission. several time i have responded you that: anything i post in wiki is with the permission of their authors, translator etc. as a social worker i have a strong roots in my society. books writers, translators are met every day, and i discuss with them abut pashto wiki, its regulation , its benefits and after all, informed them if i post an article of them, it wont be their anymore, it will be published, edited by others etc. mostly ppl agreed and handed me over their work's softcopy. themember of afghan community where i live in, love to publish their articles in internet. the are so keen to work volunteerly for their mother-tongue (Pashto Language). and you khangul khan, plz clear your mind from this stuff that i will do something against their permissions.

(im able to bring hard-copy of their permission letter alongside their signature if needed here be stewards. :)

    • the last example is Mr Zahid Jalaly. before i have published his few articles with his permission, but now i have invited him to pashto wiki. now he is an active user, have a webblog, and day by day importing his articles from his weblog to pashto wiki. some of the articles you deleted were belongs to this person. you can find the same article in his weblog too.
    • another user: zakria.rahimi, an active user brought to wiki by me. he is active in sociology, management, criminology, law etc. at the first i have copied articles from his webblog, with his direct permission, after that, personally i have created an account for him. now this zakria.rahimi is active and posting by himself at wiki.
    • waheedullah kaleem: the best admin of pashto wiki was brought to wiki by me. at fist stage i have sent him some en articles to translate into pashto. he started. second round he was in but unfortunately he is off from wiki too maybe due to misbehave of some one in ps wiki.......

best regards --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Khangul[edit]

My Proposal: All these claims and arguments by USMAN MANSOOR ANSARI (عثمان منصور انصاري) and USMAN KHAN are baseless. Without any proof. In order to understand and justify all these claims one have to understand Pashto language, the character of Afghan people. It is beyond the understandings of non-native Pashtuns. To be honest USMAN KHAN & USMAN MANSOOR ANSARI hate me for my determination and decisive actions. Whenever they write anything and I have guided they simply dont like it. I can discuss about what happened as long as you guys want it. The same they will not get tired of arguments and come up with false arguments that is baseless. What I can suggest is that I and USMAN MANSOOR ANSARI both hand over the admin rights. We both get simple user rights then we both stand up for election and thus get the admin rights back. Let the community decide who is going to become an ADMIN and thus the only bureaucrat of Pashto wikipedia ANBI will appoint the rights. Until then USMAN KHAN should remain blocked because of his vandalism background. I think he should only get unblocked when he agrees to listen to the guidance whenever he gets from others. And he should not falsify the language by writing wrong grammar, spelling or other syntax. Third solution is to let bureaucrat ask the community to make guidelines and policies that can apply only for Pashto wikipedia and according to that guidelines and policies a user be blocked or unblocked.--Khangul (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

we trust the billinghursts one!

we disagree with khangul and cant trust him anymore.

we are agree only with the proposal of Billinghurst.

Respect to all

عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposal of Billinghurst, epecially the following points:

  • remove all advanced rightsholders at Pashto Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry and community disputes.
  • Removal of all administrators,etc
  • No appointments of administrators for six months (but here I think it should maximum 2 or 3 months)
  • Future appointments are considered for review by checkuser due to use of socks on the community.

--UsmanKhann (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Comment@Khangul: To this point of time there has been
  • no explanation for all the accounts and the relationship between the accounts that align with you and the bureaucrat ANBI to whom you refer. This relationship needs to be explained.
  • no response to my previous request to pointers to the administrator selection process by the community, so there is no clarity that due process is followed
  • blocking a fellow administrator is not the means to progress a matter and if you do follow such a drastic measure then you take it to the community for discussion; all these matters are community matters and are decided by the community, not singularly the point of view of one administrator.
  • the community has not been able to resolve matters previously, and the administrators have not been able to get community consensus to this point of time, nor even step through these matters of governance. Why do you think that it will be different this time?
 — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Comment@Billinghurst: To be honest unlike other Wikis, Pashto Wikipedia did not have any community for many reasons. One of the most common reason is that internet was not that common in use in Afghanistan as now. So people are beginning to get familiar with Wikipedia via Google and other social media websites. Now most of the people who surf on Pashto wiki they use mobile phones. So We have never been able to build up a community. Once there was such a move among the Afghan students who are settled abroad in European countries. But due to other responsibilities and personal problems the community did not sustain for very long. The other problem is the voting system, from the past experience if I send a message to all users to come and vote around 30 or 40 persons will respond to the request. While in Pashto wiki there is over 10000 users registered. Mostly users come and register themselves but then leave after a while due to many reasons of their own. The most active users will you find in wiki statistics. There are a few users who had committed themselves for Pashto wikipedia. As mentioned previously ANBI, Waheedullah Kaleem (another admin) lived in Romania previously and moved back to Kabul (doesn't have access to internet at home), Darius, Usman Mansoor Ansari (عثمان منصور انصاري) (returned after many years of inactivity) and me Khangul, Asif, Watanwal, Afghanwrites. In your comments you have asked about explanation for relationship between me and the bureaucrat ANBI and the rest of the accounts. I will simply explain it this way, pretend you have one computer at your home and there are many users for it, your mom, your dad, your brother, your cousin and any other relative who comes to your home, they all use your computer to log in to Wikipedia and make up usernames for themselves and thus want to contribute to wiki. What I don't understand is why it should be illegal and out of law for them to use their own user accounts and log in from one computer and actively contribute to Wikipedia. And each persons will have their number of edits to be registered under their username. You may not know about how Pashto Wikipedia was set up, who were the key campaigners for building up the over 13000 pages that exists now. For your information its only the work of few active users, its not the result of 13000 users not even 500 users. Many years ago admin-ship tools were easily granted to the users. Then there was a time that Admin tools were granted to those who had made 500 articles in Pashto wikipedia. As soon I reached this limit I asked ANBI and then he assigned me for the admin rights. I agree with you Billinghurst that by blocking of an Admin is not a proper mean to progress a matter. But when you warn him/her for his/her parts that causes destructive works in a wiki, and there is no community or no will from that specific admin to discuss the matter with you and reach a common ground. Then there is no choice left. It was the same case with USMAN MANSOOR ANSARI (عثمان منصور انصاري), but now I understand that they (the double USMANS) had already planned some sort of conspiracy, that they will deliberately take provocative actions and I will block their accounts and then they will come here and start their campaign against me to take up my admin tools from me. The way they both have aligned against me is a good proof that can support what I say. There has never been any consensus on this problem in Pashto wiki. Because there is no active community as previously mentioned. I suggest that you take all Stewards either let this matter be solved by a mediator locally or remove the admin rights from both USMAN MANSOOR ANSARI & me (KHANGUL). Afterwards let the bureaucrat ANBI make up new policy and guidelines for new admin rights, blocks, deletions and all those other matter that users can disagree on.--Khangul (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Comment Khangul we have not planned any conspiracy we want the development of Pashto Wikipedia. and let me say that Khangul is absolutely wrong that we have no active community. Remember We have more than 10000 registered users, They are not active because whenever they start working for Pashto wikipedia, Khangul start discouraging them from Khangul and other socks-puppet accounts So we have a large community but Khangul do not let them work for Wikipedia because Khangul want to see only his name in every article's history . I am sure that Afghanwrites,Zarghona and all other accounts belongs to Khangul . And Khangul don't say that many user in your home use same computer, Some days before I asked ANBI do you know Khangul? so he replied "NO, I know him only in Wikipedia" . Many times If some one write a single word wrong Khangul Block him, Khangul should remember that Wikipedia is for everyone who want to contribute. till today Khangul has never discussed any matter with community.And Khangul should also remember that if in Afghanistan there is no access to Internet but in Pakistan , nowadays Internet has rapidly progressed , In Afghanistan there are only 12 million Pashto speakers whereas in Pakistan over 30 million people are speaking Pashto, But unfortunately Pashtun of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan are not able to contribute just because of Khangul and his puppets harassment . (Sorry for weak English)--UsmanKhan (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I would also say that please resolve this issue here because I don't believe that Khangul will reslove it Locally.--UsmanKhan (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Comment@Billinghurst: You can see for yourself how immature arguments USMAN KHAN have. There are 10000 users registered users, and he claims that all of them are Pashto speakers. How many of these 10000 are active? take a look at the statistics page of Pashto Wikipedia. Also go to the block logs of the blocked IPs and Users and then you will find 10000 users blocked by me, what a childish argument. Another thing find 10 out of 10000 users that I have discouraged them and written to their talk page not to contribute in Pashto wikipedia. Where is the proof for all those claims? Usman Khan claims that I dont let them write articles, How? by what means? What is your proof? Where is your proof that you talked to ANBI? Why should we trust you since you already make false claims? What if we fix a time and then tell all the users that you claim to write an article at the same time and date? So your misconception gets cleared? Why do you Mr. USMAN KHAN think that I want every page of Pashto Wikipedia after my name? What benefits do i get out of this? Does your father pay me for this? Another funny thing is that he says: " till today Khangul has never discussed any matter with community" Come on don't lie, I can find many of the talk pages where I have discussed issues with users. You cant just make up things, I can prove it by giving you the links. There is no discussion about the number of Pashtuns in which country. This is not a topic of my discussion. Mr. Usman Khan tries to come up with topics to take the discussion on wrong direction now. What a silly argument that he says Afghans are not contributing to Pashto wikipedia because Khangul blocks them or harass them. Please Mr. USMAN or double USMAN grow up.--Khangul (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Khangul first of all please stop personal attacking by saying "Does your father paying". Here we are discussing the facts. I said there are more than 10000 registered users, among them there might be 10,20 or 50 users who were active users and they wanted to work for Wikipedia, but I have noticed that you are posting such messages on their talk pages which discourage them and then they do not come again to Pashto Wikipedia, If you guide them properly they would come again and again to contribute . I have also noticed that you are deleting others user-pages , example is my userpage which you deleted.You should not delete because everyone can create his/her user page as he/she wish.
And I gave you examples of countries, because you were telling that in Afghanistan internet is not common in use, So I said that if in Afghanistan internet may not be common in use but here in Pakistan Internet has rapidly progressed and is very common, therefore there is also large number of Pashtuns in Pakistan who want to contribute but just because of your behavior they couldn't do so. And you also delete every page on which we commented to point out your misbehavior. Khangul honestly tell me "Did I not warn you many times to not use multiple puppet accounts?" ,If you need evidence I can give --UsmanKhan (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
And I see Administrator عثمان منصور انصاري (who was blocked by Khangul)is still blocked, I request stewards and crats to resolve this issue as soon as possible, because the discussion is going so long --UsmanKhan (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment. In fact, there is consensus here; Khangul agrees with the removal of his own rights and those of عثمان منصور انصاري ; the only variation is the removal of others, including the single 'crat.
  • See checkuser data. The results would, at best, show a close relationship between Khangul and the 'crat ANBI, i.e, possible "meat puppetry." It's time to clear the deck, and build a collaborative community, cleanly, without these complications. Related accounts should be acknowledged. There is nothing wrong with them, per se, but they can raise doubts if they pretend to be unrelated. Removal under these conditions is not a black mark, and all parties will be encouraged to work together to restore full local control. I do not see it necessary to wait, because there is ongoing disruption and possible continued damage, and there is enough evidence to justify the intervention. Hopefully, there will be substantial support for from global sysops and stewards. Templates can be used by any trusted user to arrange for deletion of spam or vandalism, for example, and a fast-response page may be set up here for requests.
  • While this is a Steward's noticeboard, and Billinghurst's goal is steward consensus, I am commenting here in support, for stewards serve the general community, and the general community would ordinarily be opposed to steward intervention like this. As can already be seen, we are not opposed in this case. Billinghurst is to be commended. --Abd (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    You don't represent "the general community" as I don't either. We all are part of it. There's an overall consensus in taking this actions so I'll do it within a few hours (I have been waiting for two days waiting for consensus) but nobody is entitled to talk on behalf of anyone except himself. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Vituzzu, thanks for stating your intention to action this. I do represent the general community and so do you. We all may. If we are wrong, it can be corrected. You did not contradict what I wrote, you merely denied my right to represent the community (and your own). That's worrisome in a steward, because stewards are elected to represent the community in the use of highly intrusive tools. If they only act on their own opinion, something is off. However, this is not the place for a discussion of that. As pointed out, there is consensus on this action. I'm going to say this again: we are all entitled to write, "Consensus is," based on discussion and evidence, and we may also anticipate that as a claim, without proof, based on our own understanding and experience. It's basic wiki. Thanks for understanding that. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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)