Steward requests/Miscellaneous

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests(Redirected from SRSD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) Archives
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.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the page (just above the categories) of the form:

=== Very brief description of request here ===

{{Status|In progress}}
Your request --~~~~

Then describe your request more fully below that. 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.

To report vandalism issues, please use Vandalism reports instead.

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests


Bot-reported speedy deletion requests[edit]

This section is for reports filed via Kimberley-nia Bot on the SWMT's IRC channel #cvn-sw (bot's irc nick is Dellieplagiat). They are submitted on this subpage. Please watch this page separately if you are a steward, a global sysop, or a local administrator.

It is possible to manually edit this list if you follow the bot's formatting. If you feel a request is inappropriate, please remove the lines containing that request entirely. (Leaving comments, modifying the header line, and striking out reports will confuse the bot.)

Example for the correct formatting:

* {{msd-link|ie.wikipedia|Talk:Europa}}
*: spam - IRC user DerHexer ~~~~~

Properly-filed requests that point to pages that have already been deleted or do not exist will be automatically removed by the bot. Note: It is unnecessary to remove requests for wikis where local admins "can handle it by themselves". If that is really so, the pages will surely be deleted within a small period of time and then be automatically removed from the list by the bot.


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.

Bad bot edits on gomwiki[edit]

Status:    In progress

A steward might be required to help out fixing (e.g., possibly mass-reverting) a bunch of poorly executed bot edits (or bot-assisted user edits?) just made on the Goan Konkani Wikipedia. gom:User:RahmanuddinBot has apparently decided to link every instance of "Jezu" in existing articles to the local article on Jesus, regardless of where and how many times that string appears in each page. Needless to say, this has broken some things. See my talk page message to the user and proceed in whatever way seems best. - dcljr (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

See also the announcement of this brilliancy on gom:विकिपीडिया:समाजाचे_मुखेल_पान#Adding_links - "I will be happy to correct them". --MF-W 04:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. We'll see what he does, I suppose. - dcljr (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this guy doesn't actually seem "happy to correct" the errors his bot created; more like happy to fix a few minor things and not acknowlede the ton of problems that are left to fix. See the discussion linked to by MF-W if interested. The community is in the process of voting for admins (on the same page), so maybe soon a local admin can take care of the problem. - dcljr (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, perhaps my assessment above was a little harsh. He has edited a few hundred pages since people started complaining, but he hasn't been catching all the mistakes, even when they've been pointed out and diffs linked to. It's frustrating… - dcljr (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Badly named Babel AutoCreate categories[edit]

Status:    In progress

Last year, a bug in the Babel extension (see phab:T112868) caused a lot of badly named categories to be created. The bug was fixed quite quickly but the categories that were created still haven't been half a year later. Right now, there are 2990 categories across 207 wikis that need deleting. On the ticket, someone suggested asking here about a deletion bot. Is that something someone here can help with?

The categories were created between the 15th and 17th of September. There's a list of edits starting on [1] which could be used to extract a list of pages to delete.

- Nikki (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol wait.svg Doing...--Infinite0694 (Talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol wait.svg helping too... —Ah3kal (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done - Deleted on all Dutch language wikis, bewikimedia, Outreach, and beta Wikiversity - Romaine (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Not all done yet, there are a couple of hundreds ~260 left, but all remaining are tagged and feedback is left for 3 ones to be deleted at foundationwiki. [2]Ah3kal (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WMF licensing policy violation and vandalism in closed Wikipedias[edit]

Status:    In progress

wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is in force since 2007-03-23 and asks for clean-up until 2008-03-27. Five of the eleven closed Wikipedias still have some local media files.

The column SRM process status and the row-coloring are updated as the handling of the request progresses. They are not part of the original request.
ListFiles Count Comment SRM process status
mo:Special:ListFiles 31 copyvio, vandalism Down to 17. To do:
  1. mo:File:Wiki.png - no permission tag. Duplicate of c:Wikipedia-logo-mo.png
  2. mo:File:Молдонистрень.png - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  3. mo:File:140452.jpg - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  4. mo:File:Elk19.png - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  5. mo:File:Хартэ_републичий_молдовенешть_нистрене.png - no permission tag. Showing location of Transnistria Republic. There are correctly tagged maps in c:Category:Maps_of_Transnistria which could be used in the one article where the local file is used.
  6. mo:File:Rmstema.jpg - no license information, only used in user and user disc space.
  7. mo:File:Dektopromania.jpg - no license information, only used in user and user disc space.
  8. mo:File:Uniunea Europeana 2004.png - no license information
  9. mo:File:Romania Baner.jpg - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  10. mo:File:Dacoromânia.jpg - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  11. mo:File:Votare.jpg - no license information
  12. mo:File:Bgregions2.png - no license information
  13. mo:File:Боур.png - no license information, used on a page about Bos primigenius, could belong to c:Category:Bos primigenius in prehistoric art
  14. mo:File:430px-Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg - it says "copied from en:Image:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg {{PD}}" - but at that location is no file, and the name collides with c:File:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg
  15. mo:File:Arwel Parry.jpg - no permission tag, duplicate of c:File:Arwelpic.jpg, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  16. mo:File:Cosbuc.jpg - no permission tag, duplicate of c:File:George Cosbuc - Foto01.jpg
  17. mo:File:LocationBelarus.png - duplicate of c:File:LocationBelarus.png
ng:Special:ListFiles 1 file is a duplicate of a file in Commons COMPLETED. Zero local media files.
cho:Special:ListFiles 2 2x LP violation, 1x possible copyvio COMPLETED. Zero local media files.
mh:Special:ListFiles 2 possible copyvio COMPLETED. Zero local media files.
ii:Special:ListFiles 3 LP violation, possible copyvio COMPLETED. Zero local media files.
TOTAL 39 - 17 left.

Suggested solution: enforce wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy by deleting all local media files. --91.9.127.166 13:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The resolution does not require deletion of all local files. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
But it requires deletion of inappropriately licenced files. --Vogone (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with Vogone. Those left copyvio(s) / improperly licensed files should have to be dealt with. ~ Nahid Talk 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This requires a copyright review as the majority of those files does not appear to have licence problems. However the IP failed to have done such a review and in any case such a review will take time. So, these deletions can not be done right now but only after some time and require a separate request. Ruslik (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik "The resolution does not require deletion of all local files." - Correct, but irrelevant. Relevant is what the resolution does require. 91.9.112.193 08:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    So, what does it require? Can you enlighten us? Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Q1) See the text. Contrary to what it does not require, what it does require is included there. Q2) This depends on the definition of "us". It was only you who made that claim, to whom you refer by "us", to yourself? 91.9.112.193 09:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, your accusations of vandalism are patently false and the policy that you cited does not require any permission tags. Ruslik (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    I answered your questions. Neither re Q1 nor re Q2 I made accusations of vandalism. And neither in re Q1 nor re Q2 I did say that the policy that I cited does require any permission tags. In fact, I am not aware that I cited a policy. 91.9.112.193 12:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik "your accusations of vandalism are patently false" - patently this statement by Ruslik is false. 91.9.112.193 12:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik "the majority of those files does not appear to have licence problems" - out of 39 files the majority would be above 19. Could you list 20 files that are part of your perceived majority? 91.9.112.193 13:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ruslik - still awaiting your response. You can also start by listing 10 files. 91.9.112.193 16:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know what is wrong with just reviewing those files. Pokéfan95 (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    That is irrelevant. Relevant is that the LP is enforced. 91.9.112.193 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Please, point to a specific section or clause in the policy that each file violates (with quotations). Ruslik (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    I am not aware of "a specific section or clause in the policy that each file violates". 91.9.112.193 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Since you are refusing to specify any valid reason for the deletion of these files I will consider this request closed and will take no further action. Ruslik (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik "Since you are refusing to specify any valid reason for the deletion of these files" - you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. I did specify multiple reasons that called for action by stewards. To delete all files was just a proposal to save time, as 4 of these wikis have less than 10 main space pages and the fifth is probably never to be re-opened. Some stewards agreed with the call for action and enforcement of the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, and some deletions were carried out. All you do is to sabotage the request. I am happy if you stick to the second part of your latest comment "I will consider this request closed and will take no further action." and leave people willing to enforce the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy alone. Thanks for your helpful work in other places. Here you were only causing disruption of the clean-up process. 91.9.112.193 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you are lying about this resolution - it has nothing to do with your request. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik "you are lying about this resolution" - can you quote the text where you think I did? "it has nothing to do with your request" - can you explain how this is possible, taking into account that I used it in my request. 91.9.112.193 01:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not had the chance to look over this request, but can both sides please stop accusing the other of lying? Surely we can resolve this through discussion, rather than assumptions about intentions and degrading levels of civility. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    This IP persistently refusing to provide a valid reason for deletion of these files. Ruslik (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    That is not true. Copyright violation is a valid reason. 91.9.100.63 08:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ajraddatz "can both sides please stop accusing the other of lying" - no, both can't. Only Sysop Ruslik can, since only Sysop Ruslik did make such accusation. 91.9.100.63 08:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says:
  • 6. For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken:
    As of March 23, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted.
    The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it.
    By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted. Matiia (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @NahidSultan, Vogone, Vituzzu, Matiia: Could you review iiwiki, both files have equivalents in commons, and there they are correctly labeled. chowiki and mhwiki seem also to be easy clean-up cases. 91.9.109.229 12:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    As those wikis are closed, I can't do anything, sorry. Matiia (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Matiia, thanks for answering. Vituzzu could delete files, no idea why he could, when you can not. 91.9.109.229 16:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Vituzzu is a Steward, they can use their special tools on closed wikis. Matiia (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    You are again deliberately misrepresenting the policy. You have produced no evidence that any files are under unacceptable licences. Moreover the files that has duplicates on the Commons are under acceptable licenses by definition. I strongly object to deletions of these files. Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    I am unsure what you are trying to say. mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg for example clearly lacks an acceptable licence, because it is not tagged with any. The proof is to be given by the uploader, nobody else. --Vogone (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruslik 1) "You are again deliberately misrepresenting the policy" - No. 2) "You have produced no evidence that any files are under unacceptable licences." - That is irrelevant. Relevant is that they don't violate the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. 3) "Moreover the files that has duplicates on the Commons are under acceptable licenses by definition." - No. 4) "I strongly object to deletions of these files." - That is irrelevant. Relevant is the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. PS: You wrote "I will consider this request closed and will take no further action." - Could you please stick to that and "take no further action" here? 91.9.109.229 21:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    '"Moreover the files that has duplicates on the Commons are under acceptable licenses by definition." - No' -- This only means that you do not understand copyright law and should not be doing any copyright reviews. Ruslik (talk) Ruslik (UTC)
    Ruslik, can you cite a copyright law that defines that every media in Wikimedia Commons is under an acceptable license as defined in the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? 91.9.96.243 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    The majority of the files are in public domain and according to the law do not need any licences (and can not be, in fact, licensed). The remaining were released under an appropriate licence when they were uploaded by their authors (uploaders). Ruslik (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ruslik, the task was citing a law, not doing original research. So, can you cite a law, that supports your statement from 01:35, 24 April 2016? 91.9.102.3 19:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    You are not in position to give me any tasks. From you answer I infer that you do not understand what the public domain is. Ruslik (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    "You are not in position to give me any tasks" - the task wasn't philosophy either. "From you answer I infer that you do not understand what the public domain is." - What you claim to infer about other Wikipedians is irrelevant. So, can you cite a law, that supports your statement from 01:35, 24 April 2016? 91.9.110.206 01:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    You are again lying. I never said this. Ruslik (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Which statement of mine did you classify as being lying? What did you never say? 91.9.100.242 11:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ruslik "The majority of the files are in public domain and according to the law do not need any licences (and can not be, in fact, licensed). The remaining were released under an appropriate licence when they were uploaded by their authors (uploaders)." - in which of the two groups (majority or remaining) do you put mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg? Also does "authors (uploaders)" mean, that you think the uploader of a file is its author? 91.9.102.3 19:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    So, this file is the only one under an inappropriate license that you can find? Ruslik (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    You made a claim that all files can be put into one of two groups that you specified. Then you have been asked to state in which of the two groups you would put mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg. In your reply you didn't answer the question, but you ask about the result of an activity of another Wikimedian. Does this mean that you recognized that your claim that all files can be put into one of the two groups specified 01:28, 26 April 2016 is not true? 91.9.110.206 01:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vituzzu: could you delete the two files in chowiki and one file in mhwiki if they are not under a free license, since per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." 91.9.109.229 22:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is a low priority task for a simple reason: those images have been online for years, some days won't make any difference. For this reason I'm trying replacing when possible while I already deleted unused files. All of them will be deleted within a couple of days though I'd plan to contact uploaders (if still active) about relicensing. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Vituzzu, thanks a lot for your help. mhwiki has 4 articles and mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg is not used in any of them, nor anywhere else in that wiki. es:Guabina says it is a dance from mostly Spanish-speaking Colombia. I couldn't find any connection to Marshallese. mh:Special:Contributions/HeKeIsDa~mhwiki lists 4 edits, 3x user page, 1x upload of that file. User page says: "I do not speak marshalles, but I have the curiosity to know it and to learn it" and "I normally speak in Spanish". 91.9.109.229 02:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @NahidSultan, Ajraddatz: could you delete mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg, no license. It is the only file in a 4 article Wikipedia. 91.9.102.3 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg[edit]

Status:    Done

mh:File:Coreografia de la Guabina.jpg uploaded 2006-01-16 violates wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which was adopted 2007-03-23. --91.9.100.242 11:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a global abusefilter[edit]

Status:    In progress

As known from the #wikimedia-stewards channel, we have a lot spambots. So my proposal is, to add this abusefilter:

user_editcount < 5
& added_lines rlike "</a>"

I made good experience with this kind of filter. Why? </a> is not wikisyntax, but a lot of spambots are using it still, for html weblinks. I'm working with this king of filter at the beta-cluster and at test2wiki, for example see beta (only one false positive, depends on the beta conditions), test2 (no known false positives). I guess a warning only filter should be enough, the most spambots don't try it again after a warning. For questions please ping, I'm not often at meta, but via croswiki notifications I can see it. Cheers, Luke081515 23:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, well written spambots will not attempt to do this as it is useless. On the other hand, new users sometimes attempt to add links this way. Ruslik (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well-written spambots would not spam. It does happen regularly that spambots introduce HTML-tags (1, 2, ...) but they are usually already stopped by other filters. Savhñ 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think they are usually stopped by other filters: Take a look at test2wiki abuse log, and compare, which users, who got catched by filter 6 there, got catched by other filtes. I guess about ~33%. Concerning the argument with new users: That's why the filter should be "warning only", because if a new users uses that tag, he can continue, but spambots who are using the HMTL-Tag don't continue after that warning. Cheers, Luke081515 13:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OAuth consumer for CopyPatrol (web tool for Plagiabot)[edit]

Status:    Done

Hi, please approve this OAuth consumer request.
This is a simple web tool for showing possible copyright violation edits and letting users to mark them as True positive or False positive.
Code at: https://github.com/Niharika29/PlagiabotWeb Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. RadiX 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

not article[edit]

Status:    In progress

Can you delet all in here I'm not admis, and how to become admis. Terimakasih Murbaut (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Murbaut, could you provide more context for those delete requests? As I understand tthe pages are in the user namespace, and no such users exist. Are those pages anyway for deletion or one could move them to the main namespace and they could stand as articles (are those people notable?)? You can apply for admin access at the local wiki's relevant page according to local procedures, if they do not exist, nominate yourself in the local village pump and then at Steward requests/Permissions. —Ah3kal (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Why have all those pages been moved to the user namespace by StefanusRA? Savhñ 09:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Savh: maybe user stefanusRa don't know or made mistake. I also don't know why he move to user namespace, althought the user not register. Murbaut (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OAuth consumer for ReplacerTool[edit]

Hi, please approve this OAuth consumer request for *ReplacerTool*.
This is a (still beta) tool to help fixing misspellings in Spanish Wikipedia, for the editions of BenjaBot that must be reviewed manually.
Thanks in advance. --Benjavalero (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

mo.wikipedia - files having no license and only used in the user page of the uploader[edit]

Status:    In progress

Project has no EDP, all files must be free per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which was adopted 2007-03-23. Therefore either add proper license tags for free files or delete:

  1. mo:File:Молдонистрень.png - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  2. mo:File:140452.jpg - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  3. mo:File:Elk19.png - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  4. mo:File:Romania Baner.jpg - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.
  5. mo:File:Dacoromânia.jpg - no license information, only used on the user page of the uploader.

--91.9.106.207 09:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done All these files are either in public domain or appropriately licenced. Ruslik (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0, which of the files are in public domain? Why you close as "not done" when the request was to properly mark those files that are free? 91.9.106.207 19:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

See also[edit]