Steward requests/Miscellaneous

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) Archives
This page is for requesting that a specific administrative action (such as page deletion) be performed by a steward or global sysop on a Wikimedia wiki having no active administrators. (If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.) If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the page (but above the See also section) using the format below:

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

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

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

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

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Manual requests[edit]

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

OAuth approval request for IFX[edit]

Status:    In progress

(Thank you for the ghelp with 1.1 - I still get `wikibase-api-permissiondenied` errors. I probably need to limit this to - requested in v.1.2 again. ) Thank You! --אודי אורון (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-free content[edit]

Status:    In progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm amazed at how much you've already achieved there.
But idwiki is just one example (and perhaps one that is more capable of addressing it than average). Is there a desirable general approach to this issue, e.g., for a wiki with no (or many fewer) local admins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Yeah, you could fork my script by changing the wiki database name ("idwiki_p"), the fairuse category name ("Gambar_berlisensi_penggunaan_wajar"), and the BLP category name ("Orang_hidup") to the local names. Kenrick95 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Kenrick95. I'm not very familiar with Quarry, but I might give it a try.
OTOH, I'm wondering whether a much more ham-fisted approach would be appropriate, given that copyright violations are involved. For example, instead of manually reviewing and tagging hundreds or thousands of images, we could leave a general note to at a few Village Pumps to report problems. We could say that there are obviously problems, and if local admins don't report that it has been addressed to their satisfaction in <number of days>, then all of the local files will be deleted and uploading will be disabled.
Also, at wikis without any (active) local admins, uploading should probably be disabled anyway. (It may already be the case; I don't know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Funfact, we even have it on our recent changes for warning to them to review their own files (since year[s] ago), then do single warning for multiple files that uploaded by same person, not a single reply (except from the minority of the [still] active senior user, One of the reason why we muddling it so long, I even left same kind of warning on my own talkpage so every visitor will read it, we kinda wanted those old user return and tend to their own uploads/files)), of course because the files are so old, the person who own the account are also went inactive for year, I don't know how it is with en.wp or other Wikis, but this was the heritage from the old times when the old local laws still don't require user to to give any rationale for the upload. Number of days? More like number of years. Mass deletions are just last resort, not a good way but still a 'way', a better way to avoid legal liability. (Which kinda weird, it's almost complaining why a wiki being old is kinda bad).--AldNonymousBicara? 23:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Improper content on Khmer-Wiki[edit]

Status:    In progress

As raised the issue of the fact of being a not maintained wiki-page here, before, and comming "back" to the most, for my person most obivious issue, Copyright violations - Tipitaka Khmer, my person likes to remark also here (on recommentation of a wikimedia-member), that it would be proper to act on it in the know cases but also to "insure" as much as possible, that there is a maintaining and care afterwards. Aware of the fact that it needs a lot of sacrify, may it be of best use for all and by those able and willing to act proper seen as a possibility for merits, if well done. --សមណៈយុហាន់ (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Holder generously and obligated, has started to work through it, sure for only one person and no additional support, also in teaching at the same time, might be a brudensome undertaking, possible at least with less gain for all involved benefit. --សមណៈយុហាន់ (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@សមណៈយុហាន់: I don't see that there is any request to be actioned by global admins or sysops, I believe that this request should be closed as not done. If you believe that there is existing actions, then please identify specific actions that are required at Khmer wiki. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
denying or not, a giver has responsibility on his "gift" and it's not the case that having given birth to something is enough for release, yet at least nurishing on it. If abounding that a holding on strings makes what one would ever face as, direct or indirect as effects of carelessness. Neither to hold on nor to abound is thereby advocated, but just a "this requires that" or "with that, this will need to come along" so that it will not have bad effects for those act and willing to enjoy fruits. Ones own choices mr @Billinghurst:, ones own fruits from them, according to ones selected relations. No wishes, no demands, just pointing. Maybe just bringing "Note: When you edit this page, you agree to release your contribution under the CC0.", or likewise, to more awareness might help, on the other side, even with this words, my person could not confirm with it's requirement, since this is not given for any normal exchange or trade... but for release. May your good choices bring their fruits always quick and possible to trace, may bad choices effects to always bearable with ease and pull to better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by សមណៈយុហាន់ (talk)

OAuth approval request for lvwiki[edit]

Status:    In progress

It currently will be used for two tools, which has to be developed :) a) View list of articles, that are missing in lvwiki and do some edits to list (in tool side), like translating name of article. These rights of course can't be given to all users. b) Second tool is new page review for one of lvwiki users. Doing some actions on tool side (mark pages, import pages to list etc.) and on Wikipedia side (add maintanence tags to articles for example).

But first of all, this OAuth is for testing/learning. Can't use "Edgars2007-only-OAuth", because I will need authorize functionality. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing has been developed yet as I understand? Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: --Alaa :)..! 13:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jbowiki Sitenotice[edit]

Status:    In progress

Please add the following code to jbowikipedia and jbowiktionary's MediaWiki:Sitenotice pages:

<div style="color:white;background-color:black;text-align:center;"> {| |[[File:WP SOPA banner full.png|155px|link=]] |<span class="plainlinks">'''ko klama lo le kibjo'e pelji [ savethememe] lo ka sisti tu'a lo cnino ropno kapirait flalu fi lo nu cu daspo da zifre to poi vasru lo medi'auitkis gi'e uitkipedi'as toi'''</span> |} </div>

which produces:

WP SOPA banner full.png ko klama lo le kibjo'e pelji savethememe lo ka sisti tu'a lo cnino ropno kapirait flalu fi lo nu cu daspo da zifre to poi vasru lo medi'auitkis gi'e uitkipedi'as toi

For more info, see this LinuxJournal article. Lojbanist (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a consensus from the respective communities to display this banner? Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lojbanist: --Alaa :)..! 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request - hi.wikiversity[edit]

Status:    Not done

Requesting unblock of RileyBot (talk · contribs) on; blocking reason was "This username contain Bot Suffix. And This is not an approved Bot" The bot has never edited on the project, inactive admin seems to have blocked the account due to it showing up in the creation log. --~riley (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done. The admin is active, please contact them. Matiia (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

OAuth approval request for WikitanvirBot[edit]

Status:    Not done

Thank you! — T. 13:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitanvir: Why can not you use mw:OAuth/Owner-only_consumers? Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know about that Ruslik, but that's exactly what I was looking for. Therefore, I withdraw my request. Thanks very much for informing me. — T. 07:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

See also[edit]