Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2019-01

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 January 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Manual requests

Please perform a small history-merge in the English Wikipedia, which I cannot do because it involves temporarily deleting more than 5000 lines

Status:    Not done

Please move the 01:54, 30 October 2015 edit of User:LavaBaron/sandbox 2 (whether it is currently deleted or undeleted) and insert it into the history of 2020 United States presidential election. (This arose while I was obeying a long history-split request.)

--Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: en:Special:MergeHistory says "No revisions can be merged." You want the old manual way? — regards, Revi 05:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @-revi: I tried to do this history-merge myself, but it caused a fault message saying that "I cannot do it because of the 5000-edit limit on deletions and undeletions; ask a steward". I have ocasionally run into this 5000-edit deletion/undeletion limit before. The "01:54, 30 October 2015 edit" mentioned above seems to be edit 688165527 . After thinking again, it does not need to be done. I am sorry to take up your time. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. Have a nice day! — regards, Revi 06:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

request deletion

Status:    Done

one admin ask me to delete sandbox,and i agree --Zyksnowy (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has its own admins who can handle requests on their own. — regards, Revi 05:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: it has > 5000 edits, so it cannot be done by normal admin rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done deleted.--HakanIST (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Request to delete a comment which is false and damaging my reputation

Status:    Not done

I dont really know where I should ask this, and I hope this is the right place. In 2017 in the midst of the WMFR crisis I was a candidate to the board and some aggressive and unfounded comments were posted on my candidate page publicly here 1 and here 2 Another candidate also had negative comments from the same person, but a board member intervened in his case see here: his was not done 3. Although I have asked that the same comment be made officially everywhere to be fair and to make sure this public page cannot be used in the future to damage somenone's reputation or even be used in a legal procedure, this was not done. To be fair, and to make sure no one will use this in the future to damage anybody's reputation, I would like these diffamatory comments to be deleted. I think I gave sufficient time after the crisis for everyone to regain composure, and this is really important to me. Kind regards, Nattes à chat (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This belongs @ WM:RFH, it seems. Not a steward domain. — regards, Revi 05:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Too many edits

Status:    Done

en:User:Patryk777pt/sandbox is tagged for speedy deletion but has more than 5000 edits. — RHaworth (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Revi. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OAuth approval request for Fatcat

Status:    Done

I'm hoping to allow "OpenID Connect" (OIDC) style login for wikipedia editors to this catalog, particularly wikidata editors (though I didn't constrain request to that project). This is peripherally related to the Wikicite project. If it were possible to add a second allowed redirect ( in addition to that would be great, though I didn't see an option for that and this probably isn't the place for feature requests. I've found most other OAuth providers allow multiple redirect URLs for the same application (not requiring two applications). --Blnewbold (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Already Yes check.svg Done. Ruslik (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

deletion @ wikimania

Status:    Done

Please delete wmania:User:Ahmad21S7167, it’s spam. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. -- Tegel (Talk) 23:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OAuth approval request for SpeedPatrolling

Status:    Done

SpeedPatrolling 1.0 has the “rollback” grant, but it turns out that this grant alone is not enough to roll back edits, since that also requires the “edit” right, which is not included in that grant. This may be resolved in the future (see T212851), but in the meantime I’ve requested this new version of the consumer with the “editpage” grant as well, which should be enough to rollback changes. Pinging MarcoAurelio, who approved previous versions of this consumer already. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Already Yes check.svg Done. Ruslik (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions about deleting and undeleting and moving edits

Status:    Not done
  • After my experiences with history-merging, I feel that these enhancements (perhaps for use only by admins) to Wikipedia's software would be useful:-
    1. Selective delete of edits. That would avoid much waste of admin time and internet time and Wikipedia server time deleting the whole of a long edit history and then undeleting most of the edits, merely to delete a few of the edits. In preliminaries to history-merging, that includes late edits (often a bot edit) added to the source after the cut-and-paste event, and edits (redirects and miscellaneous) that were at the destination's name before the cut-and-paste event.
    2. Selective move of edits.
    3. Ability to move (move-all or selective) deleted edits while keeping them deleted. That would make it much easier to extract deleted edits out from under a long non-deleted edit history. Pre-existing deleted en:WP:Parallel histories edits sitting under a visible non-deleted edit history are a common trap and landmine when carrying out operations that need temporary deleting of a page.
    4. Idea for enhancements for en:Special:MergeHistory: Option whether or not to leave a redirect where the source was.
    5. Idea for enhancements for en:Special:MergeHistory: Option to call for a list of edits of the destination, letting the user mark "first edit which is to be kept": edits before that would be deleted. After obeying that, the list of movable source edits would have to be updated and re-displayed.
    Comment Comment Generally such code requests would be lodged into phabricator, rather than put at SRM. If unsimple, they would usually get discussed by the community in the annual requests period for priorities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Not a request. Closing. — regards, Revi 17:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Upload XML on Punjabi Wikisource

Status:    Not done

We need this feature to import templates into Punjabi Wikisource.

Discussion: here

--Gurlal Maan (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are requesting? Ruslik (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gurlal Maan: do you know if this is a MediaWiki feature that needs to be enabled on your wiki (i.e., currently no one can do this, so a configuration setting will need to be changed to allow it), or whether the feature is already enabled but there are simply no users on your wiki who have the correct "user rights" to perform the action? If it's the former, then I think you need to submit a "task" at the Phabricator to request this configuration change. (See mw:Phabricator/Help for general info and Requesting wiki configuration changes for more specific instructions about submitting this kind of task.) If it's the latter (a user-rights change), then I guess this is indeed the correct page to ask a steward to grant those rights. Just clarify what you need. - dcljr (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Small correction: User rights have to be requested at SRP and require prior community consensus on your wiki. --Vogone (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Import has already been enabled (see phab:T185982). So you don’t need any additional permission or configuration; simply go to s:pa:Special:Import and select the page to import. (It requires admin, importer or transwiki importer rights, but you are already an admin.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Special:Import has already enabled but on this page there is no option to upload XML (templates) file. On bengali wikisource there is a option in special:import to upload XML files. I request to add or enable this option in s:pa:Special:Import-Gurlal Maan (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Gurlal Maan: And do you really need it? The currently available import options also include importing templates used on the page to import. While I think it’s more convenient to skip the download and upload of the XML file, it’s also safer from Wikimedia’s point of view, as it can be used to import only from other WMF wikis. Currently import from XML is only available for members of the importers group (search for “importupload” on s:pa:Special:ListGroupRights), so if you need it indeed, you can either request importer rights or request to have this right given to administrators too (of course backed with community consensus in either case; I don’t know whether the one linked above will be accepted by the bureaucrats/developers, as it’s not specifically about the change you will ask for). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Importupload is, as I said on SRP, 'super duper hyper' sensitive right. It probably won't be granted to sysop by default. — regards, Revi 06:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Closing stale request. — regards, Revi 05:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

deletion @ Wikimania

Status:    Done

Please delete wmania:155, it’s nonsense. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that I have imported {{delete}}. There are probably a range of other basic mintenance templates that we probably should import from wm2018:.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

OAuth approval request for Videowiki

Status:    Done

We are requesting a new consumer because our URLs shifted from to due to migrating to the WMF Cloud.

VideoWiki ( ,a proposed sister site , aims to add a visual layer to Wikipedia, ensuring that, in the future, the 'sum of all human knowledge' is not limited to just text.

VideoWiki acts as a tool that allows users to create a video by dragging and dropping images and videos from Wikimedia Commons onto Wikipedia text, thereby visualizing Wikipedia.

For further information, please visit:

If you require any further information, please let me know. --Hassan.m.amin (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent to see this moved onto WMF servers :-) Exciting progress. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneAjraddatz (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

Status:    Not done

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. Another fine page recently "contributed" by Pablo (efter having banned me) Kaiser - note the red links and the script errors, as well as the dominance of DE and lack of EO. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there. Some weeks later Pablo deleted those 2 pages after "some extra pressure" organized via EN Wikipedia. All other pirated pages are left. Can any steward agree with such a sysop?

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary (bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo bad edits by Pablo).

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

  • "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
  • "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not at all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.
An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there (it used to be a red link, later some IP-user created it with content "M"), Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to King Jimbo. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it. I tried to contact King Jimbo. Result: no answer User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232 [ATJ_Misbehaving_sysop_%22Pablo_Escobar%22,_piracy,_and_permanent_ban_at_the_EO_Wiktionary User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_233].

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. The "unblock" template is deliberately defective. The 2 instances suggested at the local sysop page are both deliberately defective (red link to Arbitration Committee, and King Jimbo who gives a f**k about answering). There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. Neither by the Grace of God, not by the grace of an incapable bureaucrat who left Wikipedia 6 years ago. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Taylor 49, may you copy or move the whole above content to Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the EO Wiktionary please? If you decide to move, i.e. cut-and-paste, the whole content, you can remove this comment if you wish. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Closed Closed This is a request forum, not a discussion page. Please see the role of stewards as they have no ability to override local administrators or local consensus in the normal sense of operations. Closing as redundant as there is no specific action to be undertaken; with the means to be discuss being through an RFC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that George Ho already has copied the text to the RFC page. Unfortunately nobody bothers to deal with the complaints there. So far I have gathered 2 answers, one of them useless and one silly.
@Billinghurst: You are missing the point and you apparently have not read the text before closing. There is no "local consensus" there. Oddly people did care about the case Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel with bad behaviour at AM wikipedia and the (more important) EN wikipedia and desysoped the offender. Should this mean that as long as Pablo behaves badly only on eir own private EO wiktionary the stewards will continue to give a f**k about the issue? You did not even bother to answer at the RFC page about Pablo. What a shameful attitude. Instead of linking to "role of stewards" again, you could reveal how abuse of sysop rigths can be dealt with on wikies lacking a community. Or do you agree that Pablo should have a right to own a public wiki? Taylor 49 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: You are missing the point, please reread Stewards and tell us how that role, with their delegated powers, which was set up by the community enables their action, especially based on your post. The stewards are agents of the communities with designated roles, they are not omnipotent. If you have a concern that the Wikimedia community lacks a process and powers, then take it through an RFC or address it to the Board. Please don't dump it here and expect others to take up your baton and run with it. This is not the place for your complaint.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the answer. Stewards do have the power and the right to desysop people if there is no local community. Please clarify what "Board" you mean. And I really would prefer to dump this at the right place. Please point me to such. RFC does not seem to work. And you avoided again the crucial question whether it is considered as great that a single ill-behaving person can totally control a formerly public wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Taylor 49:Board  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: This is a new idea. I will try the board now. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI User talk:-revi/FAQ#desysop. — regards, Revi 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2600:387:a:15::4c deletions required

Status:    Done

IP address 2600:387:a:15::4c appears to be creating articles titled 1, 2, 3... 10 on lots of small language wiktionaries with the content "1". I've tagged the ones I can find with delete but guc is lagging for me. I don't know if this is an LTA or good faith. --SITH (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: regardless of the language or the number, the contribution always reads:

'''1''' [[number]] [[Category:num]]

SITH (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If you look at Special:CentralAuth/StraussInTheHouse, and choose the ones with 10 edits in the edit count column you should be able to see at least 30 of them. SITH (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
NB: for global block request, please see concurrent report at SRG. SITH (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Comment findable through luxo:2600:387:A:15:0:0:0:4C
Yes check.svg Done as best as the current guc dataset represents. I will recheck later. Good catch, thanks for the report.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

OAuth approval request for GSoW Tools and Analytics

Status:    Done

Requsting approval of new OAuth consumer. The application is a set of tools to help members of a Wikipedia editing team assess the impact of our work. I would like to use WMF accounts for AAA since everybody on the team has such an account by definition. Our team's work is multilingual, so choosing a single site (e.g. en.wikipedia) is not feasible. --Poorlyglot (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that does not exist. Is this the correct url? Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I'm in the process of shuffling hostnames; should be resolvable for you within 60 minutes of the timestamp of this edit. That is the correct name going forward. Poorlyglot (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Mohamed Ouda and paid editing

Status:    Cannot be undertaken

Hi. Mohamed Ouda is a bureaucrat at arwiki, holding lesser permissions on some other projects. It has been raised on enwiki that Ouda has been performing undisclosed paid editing. en:WP:AN#Contentious Deletion Discussions of EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell and User:Mohamed Ouda. This further includes sockpuppetry, as detailed in his block log. I'm not entirely sure what steward action needs taking, but there's clearly a problem here that you need to be aware of, as the problem likely extends cross-wiki. --Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Just to point out that this may not be sockpuppetry but meatpuppetry; however what is not in doubt is that Ouda has moved three drafts created by a blocked sock of a banned user into mainspace, and has overlapping edits with at least two other blocked socks, in addition to the substantial number of paid editing issues that started the whole AN posting. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Ummmm --Alaa :)..! 23:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@علاء: Sorry, what is that suposed to mean? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: that arwiki community aware about this discussion, plus that I don't well understand what is the steward role here --Alaa :)..! 13:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@علاء and MarcoAurelio: I actually see that there is a gap in the guidance about breach of Terms of Use. Breach of ToU would be a global issue, as it is against a WMF policy, rather than a local wiki policy, especially in light of the statement in the ToU

So one presumes that the issues was placed here for consideration, and at least notification, as it is unclear what is the point of escalation for such a matter. If the stewards do not believe that they own breaches of ToU and their escalation, then please identify the correct pathway, and consider updating your documentation to give the guidance that it is out of your scope, and the means to address it appropriately. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I've alerted the WMF T&S of this incident i.r.t. the potential ToU violation by a bureaucrat on a major project. Re: your quote from the ToU, my reading has been that individual projects are free to enforce the ToU locally and this is certainly the case at that enforcement of this particular provision is enforced by admins and functionaries/ArbCom. i.e. the WMF Office reserves the right to enforce it, but it does not preclude local projects from also enforcing. Having also recently dealt with the Ciphers situation I know that their stance there was that they removed CU access as an office action but left other issues up to the local projects to determine how to proceed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I was always considering the reserved right to be additional to anything that the local wiki did. Thanks for upwardly notifying. I still would like to see the clarity through codification on whose responsibility it is to resolve such matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Can't we let arwiki community manage, each community is on it's own and there isn't massive misuse of admin or crats rights. There's noting at this stage stewards can do. Undisclosed paid editing can be violations of TOS. If it's severe enough, it should be addressed to T&S. Recommend to close as not actionable by stewards.--Cohaf (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would expect that arwiki would have a look at the string of examples, and review their local matters for puppetry, and problematic editing, and it would seem that arWP is aware of the matter. I would hope (expect?) that stewards would inform WMF about a substantive case of undisclosed paid editing, and between the parties to work out under whose jurisdiction it would belong. I don't think that inaction should be the preferred approach as breach of ToU is up there as a disciplinary matter, beyond single wiki abuse. If it is unclear who does, then resolving that promptly seems pertinent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I got your point but now it's arwiki first to sort out their local paid editing, sock policies or apply them to the accounts. After that an escalation to global block for crosswiki abuse, or global ban (foundation) on violations of TOU can be issued? Can someone inform T&S about this?--Cohaf (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In practice UPE in enforced at a local project level even if it is a TOU violation. I have not looked deeply at this case, but I will tomorrow. I don’t know why this has been raised with stewards: this is either an issue for the local community or for the WMF. As an aside and speaking from personal experience as an sysop who has done substantial work with cross-wiki socking and UPE between ar and en, I have confidence that this local community is capable of policing this on their own without the intervention of stewards. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC is required to revoke GRN membership: GRN#Removal of access. — regards, Revi 12:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, nothing actionable has been requested. --Vogone (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OAuth approval request for NjsBot

Status:    Done

I'm updating my:User:NjsBot to use OAuth for login. --NinjaStrikers «» 03:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"owner-only OAuth consumer" does not require approval: It is automatically approved. — regards, Revi 08:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting my sandboxes

Status:    Done

Hello, I am requesting for my sandboxes to be deleted because my total edits there exceeds 5,000 and requires steward assistance. They are w:User:TheGracefulSlick/sandbox and w:User:TheGracefulSlick/Sandbox. Thank you.--TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this user is community banned on enwiki (where they're requesting deletion), I'm asking for comment from local admins signing off for this deletion. — regards, Revi 08:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with this. There's no administrative need to retain the pages. Fish and karate (talk) (en wp admin) 11:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I see no problem with this deletion. I'd CSD them under U1 if the request came up. GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thirded; pages don't seem used anyway, and there's nothing I see particularly untoward in the history/logs. ~ Amory (utc) 11:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thakns, Symbol wait.svg Doing... — regards, Revi 12:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. Second one threw an error "[*] 2019-01-22 12:38:36: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError"" but it was in fact queued for deletion and deleted. — regards, Revi 12:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Wikipeia vandalism

Status:    Done

Vandalism (to ips) in (SWMT) --WikiBayer (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@WikiBayer: Yes check.svg Done, IPs blocked. Esteban16 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot activity in Turkish Wikinews

Status:    blocked for a year, which should give time for further review

Over in the Turkish Wikinews, GrondinBot has created thousands of empty "daily" project pages and categories, and apparently will continue to do so forever into the future, despite the fact that the wiki has almost no editing community left and no admins, the bot was seemingly only explicitly approved to maintain interwiki links, and the users who were involved in the approval process (AFAICT) have not edited the wiki for about 5–8 years. See n:fr:User talk:Grondin#Daily pages, where I challenged the bot's operator on the necessity and validity of this bot work and was completely unsuccessful (the discussion includes more links to evidence — although to understand all of it, it would help if you read French as well as Turkish [I read neither]). I believe the work this bot does is no longer needed on that wiki and that the vast majority of pages it has created there should be deleted. Steward opinions on this? I posted a comment nearly identical to this one on the wiki's equivalent of the VP two weeks ago, and have gotten no response. - dcljr (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You argument is basically that trwikinews is dead and should be closed. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Um, no, my argument is that the wiki has no real editing community and no admins, but has a bot that will be filling the wiki up forever with useless, empty pages. The bot should be stopped and the worthless pages deleted, but the wiki can sit there inactive forever, as far as I'm concerned. Inactivity is not a valid reason for closure, anyway. - dcljr (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, IMO, "no real editing community and no admins" are sufficient to close a wiki and bring them back to the incubator, but langcom won't buy my arguments, so... back to the discussion, if there is no community as you describe and there is no objection for few weeks (or a month), I guess bot can be blocked (to stop them). Deleting the debris will take more time than I want to, so if someone wants to do it, they should do it after getting temporary adminship. — regards, Revi 05:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Despite the fact that no one has commented on my n:tr:VP post (mentioned above), I know that won't be sufficient evidence for some people that the bot is no longer needed there. So I have notified several users on that wiki directly on their talk pages (namely, a handful of users who have edited in the main namespace in the last 30 days, as well as the three I linked to in my comment above who seemed to have something to do with getting the bot approved in the first place, years ago), pointing them to the VP discussion about the bot. We'll see if anyone comments, and if so, what they have to say. - dcljr (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, well, I have not been able to drum up any discussion at all on that wiki about the bot activity there in the intervening 2 months. I have notified the bot's owner about this and again asked him to stop the bot's work on that wiki. - dcljr (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dcljr: Any update on this? The archival of emptiness indeed seems useless to me, albeit not necessarily harmful. That being said, I do not think an intervention should happen if the bot operator indeed believes continuing his bot's operation is beneficial, considering the absence of protest by any local user. --Vogone (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Crickets. Next month (December 2018) will be the next time the bot is due to add hundreds of new useless pages, BTW. I can't help thinking that the bot owner is more interested in seeing his bot work on wikis than in determining whether that work is actually helpful. - dcljr (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, no page creations so far this month by GrondinBot in the Turkish Wikinews, but just FYI, here are some stats to provide more context. Since December 2009, the bot has created 4,871 pages in the wiki (not counting its own user and user talk pages, which were created 4 months earlier), which is 46% of all pages currently on the wiki. When split up by namespace, we find:
  • The bot has created 3,254 pages in the "Vikihaber" ("Wikinews") namespace, 90% of all pages in that namespace; of these, 1,613 (50%) have not been touched (by other users or by the bot itself) since they were created by the bot (these are marked as "current" revisions in the list of contributions by the bot — I have no easy way to determine how many of these pages have only been edited by the bot itself and no other users, although a random sample could provide an estimate).
  • It has created 1,617 categories, 52% of all existing category pages on the wiki (not of all categories in use, whether pages for them exist or not); of these, 472 (29%) have not been modified since being created by the bot. Of course, category pages often do not need changing once they are created, so the last stat is not very informative (it appears that the vast majority of the post-creation edits to the category pages are by bots modifying/removing interwiki links). I don't know how to easily tell for sure how many categories created by the bot are currently empty, but there are 1,168 unused categories on the wiki, of which 1,111 (95%) are named after dates, which is true of all categories created by the bot (IOW, it looks like at least 1,111 of the 1,617 categories created by the bot are currently unused, which would be 69%).
So, that's what we're dealing with in that wiki ("we" meaning Wikimedians in general — I don't actively contribute to the wiki). I hope the reason the bot has not yet created any pages this month is that the owner has decided to stop its activity over there. We'll see… - dcljr (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I have stuck a block on the bot for a year, in the hope that it will start a conversation. The block message points to this conversation at meta.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It appears that your block message accidentally links to a (nonexistent) page on the Turkish Wikinews, not here on Meta. - dcljr (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Damn "m" key on keyboard is jiggered. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Issues on Bulgarian Wikinews

Status:    Not done

See discussion at Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews. I have been trying to provide time to see if this project could be resuscitated rather than closed or deleted. There are now questions about conflict of interest, neutrality and licensing that have been brought up. Neither I nor any other LangCom member speaks Bulgarian, so I could use some assistance with this. LangCom generally favors trying to keep projects open, as you well know. Still, if the content being introduced here is inappropriate, or inappropriately licensed, then we don't want that. Thanks to anyone who can help. — StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: None of us speak Bulgarian either so if what it is requested here is an evaluation of the content of the project based on linguistic quality I don't think we'll be able to provide that. As for copyright issues, there are pywikibot scripts and tools to check its contents, and certainly copyright issues, if proven, would be concerning. Maybe someone could help scanning random pages to see if there are issues. Iliev's claims about the project's being abused to add fake news and propaganda seems to supported by several users, yet none of us seems to be able to read/understand Bulgarian so I don't think we can help with that either. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Vassia, you know many people from the global community; can you think of somebody, who could possibly help here? By the way, guys, I don't want to move the discussion here, but I should still probably emphasize one thing. The real issue is not the past of Wikinews, but its future—I think I can safely say this is the opinion of at least the active wikimedians in Bulgaria. Stanqo's reaction to the proposal—People who are not edited in Wikinews have no right to vote for Wikinews—got buried under a pile of other comments (I'm sorry for taking part in this too), but I think it was very telling. Stanqo's former „news“ project on Wikipedia was a prime example of a well-organized disinformation campaign: the fakes—sometimes even presented as genuine articles of well-respected international media—were insidiously hidden inside a huge stream of otherwise fine, engaging news. Even on Wikipedia, with the incomparably more active community, it took us quite some time and effort to deal with this.
— Luchesar • T/C 10:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

None of us read bg, it is not clear what the request is asking for. Closing as not done. — regards, Revi 08:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletions on crwiki

Status:    Done

Please see cr:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

block IP and delete Site

Status:    Not done

Vandal in the sqWiki xwiki-contribs xwiki-date ST IP info WHOIS robtexgblockglistabuselogipchecker--WikiBayer (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been handled locally. Esteban16 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Large history merge/deletion needed on enwiki

Status:    Locally handled

Copy-paste of a post that Anthony Appleyard made on en:WP:AN: In en::Category:Candidates for history merging, page en:Magic mushroom needs to be history-merged into page en:Psilocybin mushroom. I cannot use the old type of history-merge, as that would need deleting and undeleting page en:Psilocybin mushroom, which has much over 5000 edits. I cannot use en:Special:MergeHistory, as it would need first deleting and undeleting page en:Psilocybin mushroom to get rid of 2 early redirect edits (16:26, 24 September 2003‎ by Jimfbleak, and 16:20, 24 September 2003‎ by Liftarn). (As a complication, en:Psilocybin mushroom has 2 deleted edits already (19:35, 13 May 2010 by Giftiger wunsch, and 00:02, 28 March 2007 by Peter G Werner).) (This shows that ability to selectively delete edits is needed.) --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • In page en:Magic mushroom, the latest meaningful edit is 16:07, 16 June 2004‎ by User:TUF-KAT ; its edits after that are merely an accumulation of redirects and are not needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't see that anyone is yet working on this, as "Status: In progress" clearly doesn't indicate that a steward has acknowledged the task and are in the process of doing it. So, as I think there is an alternative way for administrators on the English wiki to accomplish the task, I'm going to take a stab at it. My plan is to Special:MergeHistory all the en:Psilocybin mushroom revisions before 21:28, 13 May 2010‎ back into the redirect at en:Psilocybin mushrooms. Then there will be fewer than 4K revisions there so the page may be deleted there, then after restoring all but the oldest redirect revsions blocking the desired history-merge, I'll histmerge en:Magic mushroom into en:Psilocybin mushrooms before histmerging en:Psilocybin mushrooms back into en:Psilocybin mushroom. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • step #1 done: 3,666 revisions of en:Psilocybin mushroom were merged into en:Psilocybin mushrooms. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • step #2. Oh Oh. Database error A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. [XFG2TgpAAEQAADs-EvIAAACK] 2019-01-30 14:36:12: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"
      • I often get timeout errors when deleting long page histories, and just plow right thru them. It looks like the deletion succeeded on my second attempt. Now there are 3,672 deleted edits.
      • en:Psilocybin mushrooms is now deleted , time to restore it. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • step #3. This is the message I often see. When I see it, I just try again, and it almost always succeeds on the second try. Database error To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (7.0186576843262) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead. [XFG5nQpAICwAAIzbhp0AAAAX] 2019-01-30 14:50:39: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError" Well, yes I am trying to get this done via multiple smaller operations! Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
      • OK, I restored 1591 revisions (just guesstimated about half when I checked the boxes). Still over 2,000 left to restore. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes! The restore succeeded by doing it in two pieces (2,073 revisions and 1,597 revisions). The two blocking redirects are now in the deleted history at en:Psilocybin mushrooms. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I'll leave it for someone else more familiar with the procedures here to update the status template at the top of this section. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)