Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2016-04

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 April 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Manual requests

History merge of large-history page on EnWP

Status:    Done

Hello. I've just noticed that en:User talk:Essjay had parts broken off by moving in 2006/7, to en:User talk:Essjay/History1 and en:User talk:Essjay/History2. These were subsequently blanked. This is the kind of historical obfuscation that I usually clean up myself via history merging without batting an eyelid, but I can't in this case - the main talk page has too many revisions for me to be allowed to delete it. Could one of you please perform a history merge? Many thanks. — Scott talk 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a user talk page. Why is it so necessary to merge its history? The moves in 2006/2007 were a form of archiving. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Essjay was a highly notable figure in the history of Wikipedia whose deceptive practices created a scandal that was widely reported in the media in 2007. It's not unreasonable to imagine his former talk page being involved with any study of the affair. That would be facilitated by gluing it back together. As it stands, you have to be a fairly competent follower of history trails to correctly work out what's going on. The /History1 talk page is attached to a deleted chunk of user page history. Simply put, it's a mess that would be better cleaned up. — Scott talk 23:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I still do not think that there is any reason to dis-archive the archived talk page. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand, Scott wants the histories to be centralized, not necessarily unarchived. Perhaps this could be accomplished with a en:Special:MergeHistory instead if it allows for it? That would duplicate the histories, but it would be easier for Wikiarchaeologists to sort through the old revisions. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Scott: I've just checked, and it should be possible to use MergeHistory to do this. You'll also be able to do that as a local admin, but let me know if anything is missing that you need us to patch in. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: Thanks for that - I'm such a dinosaur that I had forgotten that MergeHistory is actually enabled now. I fixed the two talk archives into one, en:User talk:Essjay/Archive 1, to use MergeHistory on. Unfortunately, it seems to be severely buggy - the first time I tried it, using the list of revisions it said could be merged produced an "overlapping revisions" error. Setting the limit a little further back seemed like it would work, but just produced a "taking too long, giving up" (paraphrased) error. So then I thought I'd do it in chunks and started by just merging the oldest 150 revisions. It worked; but now MergeHistory says "No revisions can be merged." What a mess :( So I guess I'll have to ask if you could fix it the old-fashioned way. Cheers, — Scott talk 12:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Scott: enabled, yes. Functional, I guess not. It works on smaller settings I suppose. As to resolving the issue, I'm concerned with potential drama from this, just in terms of the "is this needed" argument that Ruslik put forward. Perhaps a brief local discussion would be beneficial, maybe on w:WP:AN? I'd be glad to implement or ask another steward to do it with some broader input, which is also in keeping with our typical procedure for using bigdelete for any tasks. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, given that I've already started the process, a discussion would be pointless now. Identifying and extracting affected revisions to recreate the former "archives" would be extremely difficult and time-consuming. Sorry; if you have qualms, it would have been better to have brought them up before suggesting that I try MergeHistory. — Scott talk 21:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
My qualms weren't with the action itself, but just making sure our own process was followed. But you're absolutely correct; no point leaving it half done, so I've done the history merge. I noticed some deleted revisions on the archive 1 page, but they were all move-related, so I didn't bother with them. I've done a look around for "stragglers", but can't find any - if you see some let me know. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

OAuth consumer for Wiki Ed Dashboard development

Status:    Done

Please approve this OAuth consumer: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:OAuthListConsumers/view/6e171fe7c5fc549ecce52471d22a6b0a&name=&publisher=Ragesock&stage=-1

It's an auth-only consumer intended to be included as the default for a development environment for the Wiki Ed dashboard for a vagrant configuration:

For a similar situation, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:OAuthListConsumers/view/0fde3e1e451907e9653ea612f7b30a5a&name=&publisher=Tgr+%28WMF%29&stage=1

--Ragesock (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Trijnsteltalk 22:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Status:    In progress

Hi, could you please take off the protection from this page. The information in it must be updated. Cheers. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC).

Please contact Cekli829, the local administrator of this project. Thanks, --Vogone (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nolantron

Status:    Not done

Hello, I've been sent here by Oshwah. I was wondering if I could get some help in globally locking a number of socks of Nolantron. Also, is it possible to prevent certain account names from being created? He is currently in the pattern of creating accounts (ex. Nolantron5, Nolantron14 [which is his latest]) with numbers after the username. Also, here's the SPI. Thanks for the help. --TJH2018 talk 15:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Global locks should be requested on SRG. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit Wikisource MediaWiki interface edits

Status:    Done

Sanskrit wikisource does not have an active administrator (see here). Can you please add MediaWiki:Gadget-WSexport.js as described here, so that sanskrit wikisource users have the same wonderful epub experience you have at english wikisource?-- Vishvas vasuki (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! One small thing needs to be fixed: Upon clicking "Download as EPUB", the language code which is populated by default is "en" - can you please change it to "sa"? I think it needs to be done in the copy of MediaWiki:Gadget-WSexport.js that was used? Vishvas vasuki (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an active local admin there.--Syum90 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sbblr0803 is not really active: only 2 edits since September 2014. Some more MediaWiki interface edits are needed. Please see s:sa:Wikisource:समुदायद्वारम्#Proofreadpage header template. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Regards.--Syum90 (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

我爱演唱会 on‎ wuu.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please CSD this page,it's an advertisement.--James970028 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.Linedwell (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

爱作秀‎ on‎ wuu.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please CSD this page,it's an advertisement.--James970028 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.Linedwell (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

云道智造‎‎ on‎ wuu.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please CSD this page,it's an advertisement.--James970028 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid Talk

高祥大‎ on‎ wuu.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please CSD this page,it's an advertisement.--James970028 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done ~ Nahid Talk

na:MediaWiki:Monobook.css

Status:    Done

na:MediaWiki:Monobook.css contains background-image:url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/na/b/bc/Wiki.png), this brings the logo out of sync with the logo in other skins. Fix by changing the url to //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Wikipedia-logo-v2-na.svg --91.9.102.3 20:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I just commented it out. The logo should be consistent now (purge your cache). PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WMF licensing policy violation and vandalism in closed Wikipedias

Status:    Not done

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, and 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 and 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)

WMF licensing policy violation and vandalism in closed Wikipedias

Status:    Not done

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, and 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 and 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)

WMF licensing policy violation and vandalism in closed Wikipedias

Status:    Not done

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, and 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 and 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)