Steward requests/Miscellaneous

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) Archives
Shortcut:
SRM
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.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of this page (but above the See also 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
Meta-Wiki requests


Bot-reported requests[edit]

See Global sysops/Speedy delete requests.

Manual requests[edit]

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.

Right to vanish: CarbonicAcid et al[edit]

Status:    In progress

Several accounts posted a Synchbot request for their right to vanish:

I deleted the pages Synchbot normally handles, but the bot runs within strict limits to avoid causing any issues (e.g. it doesn't delete the global user page, user pages where the user has a block history, or user talk pages). I'm forwarding their requests here to handle the remaining pages as needed. —Pathoschild 17:48, 06 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the user pages on which local admins / the local community have not made any changes (e.g. blocked template) can be deleted.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Same opinion with WikiBayer: (for user talks) Delete if nothing was ever posted (except vandalism, if any), and courtesy-blank if history is not empty. — regards, Revi 16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Done for meta global userpages. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

common.js on tr.ws[edit]

Status:    Requires a Phabricator ticket

"We want to DoubleWiki on tr.ws and global community said that add to the code mw.loader.load('//wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:DoubleWiki.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); paste common.js. Community consensus is here Can we help you?"--Satirdan kahraman (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The script at oldwikisource:MediaWiki:DoubleWiki.js is different from mw:Extension:DoubleWiki - which do you want? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712:, I don't know the difference between the new and the old. We just want to this appear. Therefore, if the new - mw:Extension:DoubleWiki - functions the same, let it be. --Satirdan kahraman (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on the documentation at oldwikisource:Wikisource:Shared Scripts, it seems the script requires the extension to be installed first. Please see Requesting wiki configuration changes and request that the extension be enabled by filing a request on phabricator --DannyS712 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I made a request --Satirdan kahraman (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Done, by ToprakM in this edit per phab task. Sohom Datta (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

small wiki IP bot additions[edit]

Status:    In progress

WikiBayer contacted other global sysops to notify that the IP bot editor was back at akWP, and it would appear that they were also at lldWP, and they have been busy at a list of smaller wikis. I have asked stewards to block the following

Though I also note that I can see edits from at least three other IPs (162.210.194.35, 178.209.42.106, 185.104.194.4 all of which smell like OPs or small range server sets) and that was not even really digging through many wikis. I think that we probably should be writing some filters to grab the edits, and possibly to stop the edits, I know that user:GeneralNotability wanted to do some GAF work, and we have special:abusefilter/196 and special:abusefilter/199 set to watch. To me it is time that we started to put absolute impediments for this LTA.

Also noting that this LTA is now also adding the data to WD.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Info: ak:Soronko:Contributions/Sorrat Account from 2012 has the self edits -𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
billinghurst I see the filters, but I'm not at all familiar with this case (and you've deleted all of its handiwork) - what is the bot doing? GeneralNotability (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

150 spam ?[edit]

Status:    In progress

All 150 contributions/articles on Studio 54 Network (here in "simple english" for example) appear to be spam ? --Arroser (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arroser: Simple Wikipedia has local sysops, GS or Stewards can't help you. simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@WikiBayer: : Simple english was only an example, to have links on the article, on the others WP. The real problem is not only this language, but the 150 articles i think. --Arroser (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Could you please link articles that are at global sysop-enabled wikis then? THanks! Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
OK Wikidata d:Q39841 Article created by Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino. Article are in ak:Radio_Studio_54_Network bm:Radio_Studio_54_Network ca:Radio_Studio_54_Network and more.𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we should delete these pages. The content is 1 line + Links. This is not Useful for the projects. Please more opinions. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@WikiBayer I agree Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
.:@WikiBayer I agree as well. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If we are talking Radio Studio 54 Network (Q39841) then really shouldn't they be raised with the individual wikis. It is not up to this place to determine the notability nor whether pages that have been considered a reasonable addition for 8+ years after they were created. That has not been our role previously, and without some broader discussion through an RFC I don't think that we should act. Different from asking stewards or GS to act as administrators at these wikis where a legitimate conversation has taken place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

billinghurst the problem i'm seeing is that this is a massive crosswiki borderline hoax :/ Praxidicae (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: The item is visible at so many major wikis so who are we at this wiki to make that determination with the scope that we have been granted by the communities in our rights allocation. The processes for deletion of out of scope material is set to belong to local wikis. If the major wikis went about their investigations and came to their determinations, then these determinations flowed out to the wikis, then we have the scope to act. Tell/show me where it is in scope for this forum to be the instigator for such actions. Yes, it means more work, yes it is a PITA, but once we start that slippery slope of granting ourselves the power, then … No thanks, let us act within scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't advocating for doing anything, it was just a comment in general. Praxidicae (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@billinghurst Quote "The item is visible at so many major wikis ... The processes for deletion of out of scope material"
I don't see that as "Out of Scope". One line and the web links is not useful content. Pages with useful content should not be deleted by GS, but pages like in the akWP can, in my opinion, be deleted using Reason "Crosswiki Spam/no useful content". --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I am making zero judgment on the articles. I am talking about the community specified roles of global sysops and stewards.

Out of scope for global sysops and stewards to speedy delete 8 year old articles. Out of scope for Steward requests/Miscellaneous to determine local wikis deletion processes. If you were doing works added today, maybe. Works added in 2012 should go through due process at the wikis. These wikis, they own their issues, we don't. Don't start making this role to be more than we have been elected to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Google translations by User:Sandesh9822[edit]

This user seems to be a hardcore follower of B. R. Ambedkar and so creating articles all over by using Google translator. Here is the list of the articles that needs to be removed:

Some of these have local admins active so just listing here for documentation and cleanup.

These are translation of English Wikipedia article: en:B. R. Ambedkar

Tool used: https://translate.google.com

This user has a history with such creations, see Wikidata item history. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of this proposal. Looking at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_for_Google_Translations I understand, that use of google translate probably does not inringe on protected copyright. Correct? -- Moreover I am not sure about the research quality of this item; he lists swwiki (the only one I am concerned here) as having 2 active admins only, which is not correct. I am not sure what this says about the whole proposal which has to be built on a very exact analysis in order to be valid. At least the swwiki version does not seem to be a 100% word-by-word takeover of google translate. - This notwithstanding the fact that we get a lot of bullshit from google-translate because the quality of en>sw is lousy if nobody invests sufficient time to correct it, so we throw out quite a bit of that stuff. Kipala (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Kipala. --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kipala: Nowhere in all these articles they have properly attributes the source of content as required by the link you shared plus the quality of these machine translation is one of the issue. Moreover what is the gain spamming machine translation all over projects? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear stewards, I have stopped creating these articles far last year after a word from a senior editor Praxidicae on my meta talkpage. Thank you for the discussion. --Sandesh9822 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ideally all of this mess should be deleted following global ban on sandesh9822. Thye were already blocked on four major projects for socking, copyvioand topic ban. Additionally there is no way to clean and make it acceptable for the contents created in such a manner that too cross wiki. QueerEcofeminist [they/them/their] 03:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue with Infobox on nia.wikipedia[edit]

Status:    Not done

Hi, we need some help to fix the Infobox template that doesn't render properly (no table, at least no borders, and the box is not aligned right). Despite of reimporting Module:Infobox, the issue persists. Someone advised me to looked at MediaWiki:Custom.css, but I don't have permission for that (we don't have any admin at the moment) and I'm also not sure how to do that. I'm grateful for every help of solving this issue. Thanks. Slaia (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slaia: It's true that enwiki common.css line 333-481 should be copied. Though, correct me if I'm wrong, this can be implemented on w:nia:Templat:Infobox/style.css and no admin rights will be required. See mw:Help:TemplateStyles for detailed manual. English Wikipedia hasn't migrated to template styles since there are tons of articles using raw infobox class, but this is not the case for most small wikis (can be verified by this and this query). --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @WhitePhosphorus:, for this tips. I definitely try out this solution first. Slaia (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@WhitePhosphorus:, it works for infobox. However there are others like mbox, ombox, ambox, cmbox, imbox, etc, which also had similar issue. Do I need to created css styles for every of those templates? How to know which part of css belongs to mbox for example? I created css styles for mbox but the issue is not yet resolved (probably there other parts of mbox styles that need to be included, but I don't know). Slaia (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Slaia: It looks like {{mbox}} has an "ombox" class (which you can check by inspect element). (And you forgot to add <templatestyles> and WikiBayer did that.) You may either put all the CSS rules in one page or split them like enwiki trying to do. Though as pointed out on enwiki todo page, there would be more work to do, such as adding a "child templatestyles" parameter to mbox module, to allow "child" templates (which transclude mbox) to have their own styles. So, if your community feels this method too complicated to implement, we could still edit common.css for you. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@WhitePhosphorus Common.css was used earlier because there was no other method. Common.css is intended for the user interface and not for templates. When we do something, we should help users to do it professional and not with outdated methods. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫, @WhitePhosphorus, thank you for your response. At the moment the error has gone. However it's still a huge challenge for a small wiki like us to identify which part of of common.css belongs to ambox and which part to mbox, and other boxes. Is there any detailed manual about this? The mw:Help:TemplateStyles doesn't mention about this.
please read the documentationspage of the Template.𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 09:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

OAuth permissions[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg Preferably permission requests should be submitted using the form from Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration.

After submitting this form, you will receive a token that your application will use to identify itself to MediaWiki. An OAuth administrator will need to approve your application before it can be authorized by other users. It is possible to request approval using {{oauthapprequest}}, please create a sub-section to this part.

A few recommendations and remarks:

  • Try to use as few grants as possible. Avoid grants that are not actually needed now.
  • Versions are of the form "major.minor.release" (the last two being optional) and increase as grant changes are needed.
  • Please provide a public RSA key (in PEM format) if possible; otherwise a (less secure) secret token will have to be used.
  • Use the JSON restrictions field to limit access of this consumer to IP addresses in those CIDR ranges.
  • You can use a project ID to restrict the consumer to a single project on this site (use "*" for all projects).
  • The email address provided must match that of your account (which must have been confirmed).

See also[edit]