Steward requests/Miscellaneous

← Requests and proposals

Steward requests (Miscellaneous)

Archives→

This page is for Wikimedia wikis having no active administrators. Requests can be made here for specific administrative actions (such as page deletion) to be performed by a steward or global sysop. In other cases:

• If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.
• If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request.
• For global lock/block requests, file a request at Steward requests/Global.
• For non-controversial deletion requests such as empty page, simple spam or vandalism, and non-controversial or emergency requests to block vandals, spammers or other malicious users, you may use global sysop requests instead.
• If a consensus is considered required to act, similar principles apply as expressed at Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements, and can be used for guidance to how and what should be done at small and medium communities to gain a consensus.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the "Manual requests" section using the format below:

=== Very brief description of request here ===
{{Status|In progress}}
Give details about your request here. --~~~~

It is helpful if you can provide a link to the wiki (or the specific page on the wiki) in question, either in the header or in the body of your request.

When reporting cross-wiki vandalism, the following template calls can be used to link to a user's contributions across all Wikimedia content wikis (these are for logged in users and non-logged-in users, respectively):

* {{sultool|Username}}

* {{luxotool|IP.address}}

Template {{LockHide}} can also be used in appropriate cases.

To request approval of OAuth consumers please use {{oauthapprequest}} (see the documentation before using).

Old requests are archived by the date of their last comment.

Cross-wiki requests
CheckUser information Global blocks/locks Permissions (global) Permissions (bot) Permissions (other) Username changes/ usurpation requests Miscellaneous requests URL blacklisting Title/username blacklisting Email blacklisting
Meta-Wiki requests
CheckUser information Deletion Permissions Requests for help

Manual requests

Please see a list of pages nominated for speedy deletion via {{Delete}} and/or the local equivalent. You can also filter by wikis whose admins are less than X or have not delete since Y.

Discussion closure issue

Status:    In progress

Hi all, I created a Wikipedia page in November that was nominated for AFD under a source reliability question. The discussion began on November 17th and ended on December 19th after being relisted 3 times. Link to the AFD. The discussion garnered 3 opinions with little participation, a relist, a delete, and a keep, but was closed as a delete. I spoke to the admin who made the close and asked him why there wasn't more discussion and why the article wasn't closed as a no consensus. He criticized my English and asked me to post a deletion review. Deletion review here. I posted an opinion there and then posted to the wikipedia-EN IRC as I did not want the discussion to end with less than 5 unique participants after 33 days the way the AFD did. I made this exact post to the IRC "Any editors want to weigh in on a deletion review? I believe an admin closed an AFD as delete when the discussion warrants a no consensus close." and was immediately met with backlash and criticism by users there for canvasing. I explained that I wasn't looking for anyone to vote, that I just wanted more eyes on the page because of how the AFD dragged on with little participation. Users immediately posted to the deletion review that I had canvased users to the page. I posted a response on the deletion review that transparently used the my quote above and stated that I was looking for a wider discussion, but I was met with backlash on the IRC again. Specifically, "Rocckker13_, you clearly don't get it or aren't sorry if you are still trying to defend your canvassing." as well as a private message from a user that stated that the admin in question was forceful but widely liked so going after him would be a bad idea. I would like to clarify that I am not after the admin, he seems to do a lot of good work, I just think the AFD close was made as a super vote rather than a consensus decision.

I would like a review into the process by which the AFD was closed and the brigade that appeared on the deletion review. A user on the deletion review page suggested restoring the article to draft and then running it through AFC, which seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise to the situation that allows more users to hash out and validate sources. Thank you for your time. --Rocckker13 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-free content

Status:    In progress

Does anyone have an interest in Non-free content at wikis that have no exemption doctrine policy or that do not seem to be enforcing it properly? As an example of the latter, w:id:Wikipedia:Penggunaan media nonbebas#Kebijakan gambar tokoh yang masih hidup appears to prohibit non-free images for BLPs, but w:id:Istimewa:Daftar berkas seems to have more photos of BLPs than one might expect under such a policy. (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you can/should tag such violations with {{delete}} and if the requests are not acted upon in a month or so you can ping global sysops/stewards here, as with #Speedy deletions on as/ms. Nemo 12:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You mentioned id.wikipedia, which is a larger project and stewards can probably not edit there. There are 295 Wikipedias and of these there are ~85 Wikipedias [1] having more than 1000 local files. In 2012 Nemo claimed 76 [2]. These Wikipedias often 1) have upload open for any logged-in user 2) host dozens of unused files 3) have lots of unfree files among the unused files, i.e. they are not EDP-files, since they lack an applicable rationale. Some Wikipedias have more than 1000 unused files, some more than 5000 – the counter stops then. Some have 20% of all files unused.

Local files in Wikipedias

Date	1 Qty of projects	2 Qty of projects w/o local files (100% Commons)	3 Qty of projects having local files	4 Qty of local files	4/3	Reference
2013-01-01	285	36	249	2 038 148	8185	[3]
2014-01-01	287	30	257	2 208 750	8594	[4]
2015-01-01	288	30	258	2 311 679	8959	[5]
2016-01-01	291	37	254	2 405 486	9470	[6]
2017-01-01	295	140	155	2 430 156	15678	[7]
2017-04-14	295	140	155	2 436 730	15720	[8]

In the last ~4 years (2013-01-01 to today) the number of local files in Wikipedias increased by 391 925 from 2 038 148 to 2 430 073 [9], i.e. ca. 100 000 per year. At the same time, the number of Wikipedias using local files decreased. The major part of the increase comes from the aforementioned 85 Wikipedias. Some are out of scope for stewards and SRM.

To stop the problem with non-free content in small, open-upload Wikipedias and the workload for stewards to become worse, one could restrict the upload to admins. That is not fixing current violations, but reducing chance for new violations and freeing steward resources.

Candidates for restriction are the following 40 Wikipedias, each has 9 or less admins and uploads still open: ksh, pfl, rm, wuu, nv, frr, als, vec, bar, zh-yue, an, mt, pa, km, ga, oc, bcl, as, ps, scn, eml, mn, ba, be-tarask, am, be, sw, wa, lb, ky, hi, kn, tt, my, si, jv, br, fy, ka, bs. 92.227.229.171 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the problem we currently face on id.wp, most of those files were PD-Gov, can be seen from the source links, but we are currently muddling if we should just transfer them to commons or just tag and add pd-gov license to it, but then again, there are thousands file need to be handled, we don't have enough hand. As for Stewards and GS, can close this request as this cannot be actioned by stewards or GS, whatamdoing can just come to id.wp to make this announcement/comment (again).--AldNonymous^Bicara? 19:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'm one of the admin in id.wikipedia. I've worked up a Quarry script to detect those violating images and I've deleted all of them. There was around 2,000 of them but I suspect that it didn't cover all fairuse BLP images yet. Feel free to fork and/or improve the Quarry script. Kenrick95 (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how much you've already achieved there.

But idwiki is just one example (and perhaps one that is more capable of addressing it than average). Is there a desirable general approach to this issue, e.g., for a wiki with no (or many fewer) local admins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yeah, you could fork my script by changing the wiki database name ("idwiki_p"), the fairuse category name ("Gambar_berlisensi_penggunaan_wajar"), and the BLP category name ("Orang_hidup") to the local names. Kenrick95 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kenrick95. I'm not very familiar with Quarry, but I might give it a try.

OTOH, I'm wondering whether a much more ham-fisted approach would be appropriate, given that copyright violations are involved. For example, instead of manually reviewing and tagging hundreds or thousands of images, we could leave a general note to at a few Village Pumps to report problems. We could say that there are obviously problems, and if local admins don't report that it has been addressed to their satisfaction in <number of days>, then all of the local files will be deleted and uploading will be disabled.

Also, at wikis without any (active) local admins, uploading should probably be disabled anyway. (It may already be the case; I don't know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Funfact, we even have it on our recent changes for warning to them to review their own files (since year[s] ago), then do single warning for multiple files that uploaded by same person, not a single reply (except from the minority of the [still] active senior user, One of the reason why we muddling it so long, I even left same kind of warning on my own talkpage so every visitor will read it, we kinda wanted those old user return and tend to their own uploads/files)), of course because the files are so old, the person who own the account are also went inactive for year, I don't know how it is with en.wp or other Wikis, but this was the heritage from the old times when the old local laws still don't require user to to give any rationale for the upload. Number of days? More like number of years. Mass deletions are just last resort, not a good way but still a 'way', a better way to avoid legal liability. (Which kinda weird, it's almost complaining why a wiki being old is kinda bad).--AldNonymous^Bicara? 23:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Can somebody Delete all pages and categories in this category

Status:    In progress

Please delete all pages and categories in this this category. It's candidates for speedy deletion. tgwiktionary has not active administrators year -79.170.185.103 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless they are obvious spam or vandalism I am not sure we can delete them. Ruslik (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, apparently the original poster meant wikt:tg:Гурӯҳ:Мақолаҳои номзади ҳазф (in case anyone wants to look through the category for "easy cases"). - dcljr (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Import requests

Status:    Not done

Please import all subpages of MediaWiki:Lang to test.wikidata.org. Some modules and templates need them to work.--GZWDer (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: is this still required? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done. Feel free to make a new request if required. Matiia (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Bertrand101 sockpuppets creating pages on Cebuano Wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Hello could please delete all of pages created by Bertrand101 on Cebuano Wikipedia due to massive creation of pages made by Bertrand101 so it must stop permanently creating all of hoax stations so it won't be continue all of creation of pages by Bertrand101 thanks. --209.242.141.24 17:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide more details, like the account names or a link to their local contributions? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done. Matiia (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge history in zu.wiki

Status:    In progress

No local sysops.

• zu:Melilla is a duplicate from zu:iMelilla (correct name). I matched the content. iMelilla is the main entry but Melilla is most complete. Inhabited places are prefixed with i in Zulu language (i.e. zu:iSpeyini - Spain).
• zu:Usuku basebenzi is a duplicate from zu:Usuku Lwabasebenzi. Usuku basebenzi is older but Usuku Lwabasebenzi is most complete. I matched their contents. It is strange because in Usuku basebenzi is written that your name is Usuku Lwabasebenzi. I think that is a posible typo mistake to create the article, but now there are two different pages for the same concept.

--Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note: I've been working on the zu.wiki daily since 27 July this year (2K edits in ca. 4.5 months), mainly doing cleanup for consistency. The Special pages (e.g. Pages/Categories wanted) are unreliable, largely due to variant spellings and the intrusion of English, so I use a dictionary and consult with native speakers. In the absence of active editors and maintainers (Admin, sysop, et al.), the Small Wiki Monitoring Team patrols the zu.wiki and provides on-call global sysop support. I'd appreciate being involved in Merge requests for the zu.wiki due to my familiarity with its existing vs. optimal page and category structure. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Deborahjay: This thread is not about the wanted categories, that is another issue that we can continue discussing in zu.wiki. I am sure that we will be able to help each other, especially because we both have good intentions :). We agree that Usuku basebenzi (old article) is a duplicate from Usuku Lwabasebenzi (new article), but I do not believe that empty and redirect is the solution because it hides the old history. I am happy to find a user with my own interest, from now on we can start working as a team. --Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate the value of keeping the Edit history of the old page - it's preserved and appears when you go to that page by name (linked in Redirected from... under the new page name when the old is requested). So how do we accomplish a Merge preserving both pages' Edit histories? I'd like to understand Merge better, though I expect it's a major hassle. Teamwork will be great! Are you ever on IRC? And what's your local time zone? -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for the previous authors in the history of redirects does not seem like a good idea nor do I think it's something usual, although I could be wrong. I will answer the rest on your user page, it's nice to meet you. --Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure

Status:    In progress

Would a steward assess the consensus at Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation? The RFC has been open for almost 3 months. I was advised to make the request here after initially posting at WM:RFH. --Rentier (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has nothing to do with stewards. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I'm the one who asked him to come to the stewards. It's a cross-wiki RFC. Who's supposed to close it, then? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no any specific rules about this. So, I do not know. I only known that this does not concern stewards. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would expect most stewards to be qualified and trusted to assess the consensus in a difficult RFC such as this. This is just a request, no one can be forced to close it, rule or not. Rentier (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's precedent for RfCs with a global scope like this being closed by stewards. I cannot personally, as someone involved in the discussion. But I disagree with Ruslik's assessment here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not the right venue to make this request per This page is for requesting that a specific administrative action (such as page deletion) be performed by a steward or global sysop on a Wikimedia wiki having no active administrators. (If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.) If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request. since Meta has active administrators and there is no clear consensus on that Rfc. Inlinetext (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As Ajraddatz said: There's precedent for RfCs with a global scope like this being closed by stewards. Global RfCs can be closed by stewards (and most of the time they do) and if there's consensus or not, it's something the closer should decide. Matiia (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Global deleted contributions

Do you stewards have a way to search a user's global deleted contributions, i.e. a version of https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc that works with deleted? Over at Commons, we have a user asking for an image (commons:COM:AN#Graphic that I Cannot Find), and while I've checked his deleted contributions there and at en:wp (it's in neither of those places) and his live contributions with this tool, I don't have a way of knowing that it wasn't uploaded to some other wiki. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't have any. But we can see the deleted contributions special page in every wiki. I checked all where the user had an account and found none results. So either they used another account or they didn't upload the file at all. Stryn (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

See also

• Global sysops
• Steward handbook
• Archives:
  • 2013: 2013.
  • 2014: 01-10, 11-12
  • 2015: 01-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2016: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2017: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2018: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2019: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2020: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2021: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2022: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2023: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
  • 2024: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation