Stewards' noticeboard

←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.

• 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.

Stewards

• About stewards
• Elections
• History

Requests

• CheckUser information
• Global blocks & locks
• Global rights
• Local bot rights
• Local rights
• Account renaming
• Miscellaneous requests
• URL blacklisting
• Title/username blacklisting

For stewards

• Help
• Policies
• Bugs
• Mailing list
• #wikimedia-stewards^connect

Noticeboards

• Access policy noticeboard
• Stewards' noticeboard

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 closure

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

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initial request because they remained blocked on only one project, so that the allegation of cross-wiki disruption was no longer applicable.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.

• Chinemeremprince
• Ozims_Divine
• Anumodu_favour_Amarachi

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)

@Risker, @Xaosflux: Considering facts exposed in this page, I've removed the locks. Thanks for your help in reviewing this. --M/ (talk) 06:32, 24 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)

Global lock request

Hello, A few days ago, the user Vogoje2 contacted me on my talk page on frwiki asking me to intervene on Aleksa Đukanović article. After taking a closer look at the account's contributions, I noticed that Vogoje2 had uploaded several selfies of the subject to Commons without ever disclosing that he were that person. When questioned about this, the user denied being Đukanović, while changing their story from one response to another, initially claiming to be a reader interested in the subject, then a journalist, and so on. Vogoje2 was indefinitely blocked on frwiki for failing to comply with the paid-contribution disclosure requirements despite one or more warnings, as well as for promotional editing and cross-wiki spam. A discussion regarding the cross-wiki spam was also opened on the frwiki administrators' noticeboard. Several accounts appear to belong to the same user: Vogoje, Vogoje2, Zrnkow, and HerŽikaa. All of these accounts have edited exclusively in relation to this article or lists where they added internal links to the Aleksa Đukanović article. Today, Zrnkow was also indefinitely blocked on frwiki for personal attacks after being notified of the deletion discussion concerning the article he had created. The duck test appears to be positive. I am therefore requesting a global lock of these accounts.It would probably be appropriate to delete the articles on the Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias due to the cross-wiki spam and poor-quality sourcing. Erlanger16e (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Erlanger16e Mon ami, cherche une aide psychiatrique professionnelle. Zrnkow (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're asking Erlanger16e to seek professional psychiatric help you should strike your comment. Personal attacks are not welcome here either. A09|(pogovor) 14:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@A09 "Personal attacks"? What do you call it when he @Erlanger16e makes things up and then persecutes by threatening to delete and block Wikipedia accounts and pages?

It is not an attack but a well-intentioned advice. Zrnkow (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Telling someone to see a psychiatrist on a well-formed report is not acceptable, yes. A09|(pogovor) 15:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@A09 "To formulate well" means to prove something.

It's not that he can't prove anything, but he started systematically destroying and hostilely initiating intentions to delete articles from Wikipedia, even though there are all the sources that support the text in the article. That's outrageous! Unheard of. Zrnkow (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion civil. Such reports are normal. A09|(pogovor) 15:08, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

And is that comment really sound advice? You need to stop directing your attacks at me. I am far from the only person who shares this view regarding your actions and contributions. You only need to look at the various links I have shared. These situations do not arise when editors are here to contribute constructively. My advice to you is this: you should instead do what is expected of you and disclose that you are indeed Aleksa Đukanović and that you are behind the accounts mentioned above. That would waste far less of the volunteers' time across the various wikis. Erlanger16e (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Something is really not right with you. Stop spouting nonsense and spouting nonsense.

Do something useful. There is so much crap on Wikipedia and false information, deal with it and leave me alone. Zrnkow (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Significance of Persian Wiktionary

Dear Stewards

Hello. The election for my second term as administrator of Persian Wiktionary is ongoing. I want to understand if Persian Wiktionary is currently considered "large enough" to have a permanent sysop or not.

Best Regards

The.shahab (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Mostly, not at this time as there are very few active users. However, what generally happens is that as expiring admins get renewed they get increasing longer expirations. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)