Steward requests/Miscellaneous

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

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

=== Very brief description of request here ===
{{Status|In progress}}
Give details about your request here. --~~~~

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

When reporting cross-wiki vandalism, the following template calls can be used to link to a user's contributions across all Wikimedia content wikis (these are for logged in users and non-logged-in users, respectively):

* {{sultool|Username}}

* {{luxotool|IP.address}}

Template {{LockHide}} can also be used in appropriate cases.

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

Old requests are archived by the date of their last comment.

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests


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.

Copyrighted works on the Esperanto Wikisource[edit]

Status:    On hold

The works of Kazimierz Bein (Kabe) are not yet in public domain. The author died in 1959. The pages should be deleted now and undeleted in 10 years. There is no active community on this wiki and there are no admins.

Pages containing copyrighted material:

Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet: As these works have been there for years (2012), they should at least have the semblance of a deletion discussion with whatever community may be there, and for at least a month so allowing suitable opportunity for comment. Though it will be a forlorn hope, please ping the contributor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I informed the creator of most of those pages here, but I don't really see what we should discuss. The pages constitute a clear copyright violation. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They have been there six years, waiting through a discussion is not problematic. The community should be given the right to have that discussion. It allows a local record to exist for others to see, it educates, it informs and allows a community to be a community. It allows a local permalink to be used on any deletion, and a clear authority for people to act to delete. What is so urgent or imperative that a discussion cannot be held.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also noting that some of the works have been added by Frglz (talk · contribs), so please ping them in the discussion. Thanks..  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I also pinged them in the discussion. For me personally it's not a problem to wait, I am just accustomed to how copyvios work on Commons. When I nominate something there, it gets deleted in an instant without any discussion, that's why I was surprised when you said "at least a month". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to this page, because there are a lot more copyrighted works stored on the Esperanto Wikisource than I first noticed. I linked all I could find in that new page. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikisources work differently to Commons, especially in sporadic editing. I am also unsure exactly the copyright rules they apply, it may not be Commons rules. Being pre-1923 works, if eoWS are working only to US copyright alone, they will not be copyright violations. This is why the community conversation should be taking place by those who know the local rules, rather than applying another wiki's rules.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
If they require the texts to be PD also in the first publication country, the texts should be moved do Multilingual Wikisource before deletion. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What is the status of this request? I am ready to import files to oldwikisource, but I will not do that if their deletion is not due or if it is not to be performed soon (to avoid duplication). Ankry (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Esperanto does not have any native country. They will not be copyright violations. --Sharouser (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not how copyright works. Vermont (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Because Esperanto does not have any native country, they only require the texts to be PD in the United States --Sharouser (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
What language it's in has literally zero effect on whether it's a copyright violation. I could make my own language (or even creative random characters), write something, and if you copy it and put it onwiki it's still a copyright violation. Vermont (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Because this problem happened in a Wikimedia project, It follows Wikimedian policy. --Sharouser (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It is evident that you don't know Wikimedia policy or the legal rules around copyright that we abide by. The three statements you have insofar written are all false, and not based in fact. If your hope was to contribute copyright advice to this discussion, it is unnecessary for you to do so. Vermont (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining what Wikimedia policy and the legal rules around copyright that we abide by are? Because the rules the English Wikisource and English Wikipedia abide by are that any work PD in the United States is fair game, and I see no reason why the Esperanto Wikisource should be any different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Further cleanup issues related to the closure and deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews[edit]

@User:George Ho has done a lot of work looking at this, as you will see below. Because of the possibility that some content from here will be incorporated into a different Wikinews project, we are looking to finish cleaning up policy problems before making the content available, and before otherwise (effectively) deleting the wiki. By all means delete the pages that George describes that you think should be deleted. If you think some of the pages should be templated as "possible copyvios" instead, we will make a template available for that purpose. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to check if they are copyvios or not. It is better to have sentence to sentence comparisons. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Post the comparisons on-wiki or off-wiki? George Ho (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
On wiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
How many sentences per article may I sample without risking copyright infringement? –George Ho (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sampling for this purpose is not a copyvio, especially since you are directly comparing to original source. But I'm thinking this ought to go on a subpage, because it's really going to clutter this page up. @Ruslik0, what do you think? The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenJ81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 October 2019‎ (UTC)
Yes, subpage is better. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sampling the first bundle... George Ho (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Currently, I'm getting busy with my college work, so I may have to compare other articles at very later time. Seriously, if the stewards won't be able to detect copyvio, why not delete the whole project itself and its content? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews[edit]

Status:    In progress

Now that bg.WN is closed/locked and that there are no admins as of date, before transferring remaining content to ru.Wikinews, I would like you to draw attention to the below list of articles that I think are likely copied from third-party sources, like BBC and CNN. The ones that I'm unsure about would be mentioned in separate subsection.

Copied from one of my subpages:

List of articles mentioned in Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews:

Most likely

More likely

List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:

Definitely / Most likely

More likely

Likely

Slightly likely

--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles seen in another revision:

Definitely / Most likely

More likely

Likely

Slightly likely

--George Ho (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles taken from another revision:

Most likely

More likely

Likely

Slightly likely

  • n:bg:Тръмп ще направи опит да купи Гренландия — (detector) most of content looks similar to portions of either mediapool.bg or dnes.bg. The articles were posted on the same day, 19 August 2019. However, bg.wn article was created on 16:47 UTC; the mediapool.bg one was published on 07:28 local time (04:28 UTC), twelve hours prior; dnes.bg one, on 07:40 local time (04:40 UTC). Also, the article summarizes Danish PM's response characterizing Trump's idea of buying Greenland as "шега" (joke). The article didn't say that Danish PM used "joke" or "шега" in quotes; I think the paraphrase was POV, wasn't it?

George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot: the revisions from oldid 23418 to oldid 24555 should be deleted or suppressed from public view because, as noted earlier, there is the comparison table comparing one bg.wn with a BBC article. George Ho (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, wouldn't it be sufficient to just delete/blank the table? I'd really prefer to have the history of the village pump readily available if the closing of this project is ever discussed again. I don't think anyone is going to sue WMF (well, at least not anyone reasonable enough) for content that is available only from the edit history and then clearly without an intent to infringe the copyright (in fact, exactly with the intent to stop infringing the copyright).
— Luchesar • T/C 07:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Other bg.wn content (undetermined)[edit]

Status:    In progress

Other articles mentioned at #Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews I'm certain are likely copyvios. The ones below I'm very unsure about, so I figure that further evaluation is needed. If any one of them is copyvio, it should be deleted. One of previous requests was rejected because, at the time, bg language wasn't understood. I wonder whether the lack of understanding the language would impact this request.

Copied from one of my user subpages:

List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:

Other articles seen at list of bg.WN articles

--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles seen in another revision:

George Ho (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles taken from another revision:

  • n:bg:Рекордни пожари в Амазония — (detector) Most of one paragraph's content looks similar to some portions of either nova.bg article or the clubz.bg one. Some other areas of the bg.wn article look similar to portions of the news.bg article. Just one paragraph of the detailed bg.wn article wouldn't reach to the level of huge copyvio, but it needs rewrite. I couldn't determine whether the rest of the article infringes other sources.
    In my view this content is OK (no copyvio) --Ket (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • n:bg:Иран задържа британски танкер (created 21 July) — the detector partially matched one paragraph and another sentence with partial content of the news.bg article (published 20 July). However, I'm not confident that just one paragraph would make the case big enough to be copyvio, but I could be wrong.
    IMHO this isn't indeed problematic in terms of copyright. That being said, I also see the typical Stanqo's style of presenting such events in a biased way—the article covers almost exclusively the Iranian POV. — Luchesar • T/C 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • n:bg:Почина Фидел Кастро (created 27 Nov 2016) — I can't tell whether the any of the first three paragraphs of the article were taken from the BBC article (pub. 26 Nov). However, the expression looks to brief to tell. The second paragraph erroneously claimed that Fidel Castro died at 19:00 unspecified time zone (02:00 EET / 00:00 UTC). However, according to BBC article, Fidel's brother Raul verified that Fidel's time of death was 22:29 local time (03:29 GMT/UTC). I don't know where the last paragraph originated. However, more importantly, would ru.wn accept the article containing such error about Fidel's time of death? Should it be transferred there?
  • n:bg:Цунами по крайбрежието на Япония: огромни разрушения — (detector) — looks to be translated from article by VOA Russian (old revision). VOA content has been released into public domain right away. If that's okay, then I guess my copyvio concerns would be invalid. However, VOA's content has been questioned, and VOA is deemed by some as "propaganda". If the bg.wn article didn't translate from VOA Russian, then where else?
    I agree that there is text translated from Russian based on mistakes in the text like "нефтепрерабатващия" and "източното крайбережие на Японии" - it should be "нефтопреработвателния" and "източното крайбрежие на Япония" respectively --Ket (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

License compatibility of one bg.wn article[edit]

Status:    In progress

The article n:bg:Научен пробив: земни скали от най-древната епоха могат да се намерят на Луната! was copied from cosmos.1.bg article, which is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.5, though somehow the link directs to the CC-BY 2.5 license. As of now, the link to the original source is down, but I hope it works again later as it did hours ago. Just in case, here's the archive link from Wayback Machine. The CC-BY-SA wouldn't be one-way compatible with CC-BY, especially per n:en:Wikinews:Copyright. If importing the CC-BY-SA into Wikinews is not legitimate, then the bg.wn copy should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, IANAL. But bgwn is not unique in having content with different license than the default CC BY-SA 2.5. For instance there is such content on ruwn and having that in mind we had such content created on ukwn too (I am a part of the latter community thus "we"). In my opinion it should be fine as long as the license is explicitly mentioned. That is done by explicit "additional terms may apply" in the footer and a license template in the article. That being said, again, IANAL. --Base (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Base, George Ho, and Iliev: IANAL either. But if what you say is true, then all we need to do is to change the license template at the bottom of that page to reflect CC-BY-SA 2.5. (Original is back up here, and I can confirm it says CC-BY-SA 2.5, but that the link points to CC-BY 2.5 [BG].) Iliev, please confirm what I am copy-pasting from Creative Commons's website:
StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
StevenJ81, probably „Криейтив Комънс – Признание-Споделяне на споделеното 2.5 България“ to be more precise—but I'm concerned exactly about this confusion between the text and the link. There are two CC BY-SA 2.5 licenses relevant to Bulgaria: an unported and a localized one. The link in cosmos.1.bg is to the localized license (but, indeed, to CC BY 2.5 BG, not to BY-SA as expected), while the text of the link itself seems to refer to the unported “CC BY-SA 2.5” (otherwise it should've been “CC BY-SA 2.5 BG”). So, if we decide that the text has precedence over the link (it makes sense to me, though, yeah, IANAL as well), we should probably change the template this way:
— Luchesar • T/C 14:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So long as the source is CCBY or CCBYSA it should be acceptable on wiki projects, isn't it?13019891ahs (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussion on ro.wp[edit]

Status:    In progress

Since we have no bureaucrats, I would like to request the help of a steward who is willing to read through 2 discussions @ ro.wp and decide if consensus has been reached in either of them:

Please comment directly in the respective sections, so the community can see the conclusion.Thank you! --Strainu (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, Strainu, closing local discussions is not what stewards are for, sorry. Stewards act upon local community consensus, not define what that consensus is. While you do not have local bureaucrats you can find an uninvolved administrator or even a trusted non-administrator from the local community to do the job. --Base (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, local closure is not going to happen. Such important decisions will be contested if done by a sysop. I understand that this is not what stewards are normally for, but I was hoping that one of you could act as a trusted, independent party that could play the role of a bureaucrat.--Strainu (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I see this as a request for an opinion from stewards on whether a consensus has been reached, and the community is asking a steward to put on that independent 'crat hat. Seems that an opinion from an outside, considered party can add value. If it is guiding to a community, rather than determinative, that sounds reasonable to me. @Strainu: Might be worthwhile having this request seconded by another admin or any existing 'crat at roWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no bureaucrat active at ro.wp. I have asked for another sysop to support this request.--Strainu (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
What Strainu says is true, our community is small and any decision taken by any administrator would be contested, that's why our local Wiki bureaucrats had to resign in the first place. There are some people that will oppose any admin decision, so that's why we really need the help for these discussions. The first case is one of the few where broad consensus has been achieved, but any other admin is afraid to close them to avoid starting long time-consuming discussions (and the ostracization for the admin who close it) that would deviate from the matters proposed.Ionutzmovie (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hijacked domain and predatory spam[edit]

Status:    In progress




I came across repeated additions of blackwell-synergy.com on a small wiki only to find out that this domain has more than 5000 occurrences x-wiki. It was at one point in time a reputable journal which I believe merged with en:Wiley (publisher), however the domain was sniped and it is now a host of predatory supplement spam/scams. I don't know a reasonable way to solve this problem aside from someone creating a bot task xwiki to replace the url with an archived version (if possible) or remove it entirely. I'm not sure what protocol is here because I've never seen a domain with this heavy use hijacked. Apologies if this isn't the appropriate place to ask this, I honestly am not even sure where to begin. --Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Cyberpower678, could you tell us if perhaps InternetArchiveBot can be of any help here? --Base (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't there some sort of way you can use w:en:WP:AWB to do this? --Rschen7754 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been unable to find a way to use AWB on more than one project simultaneously, but I suppose we could do runs on individual projects. Vermont (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the meanwhile, it's fine to blacklist this domain globally: the publisher never needs to be linked. On the English Wikipedia, if you use citation bot, the redundant URL is automatically removed; elsewhere, where the URL is not in a template or the bot is not available, using Citoid/VisualEditor with the DOI will usually produce the correct result. InternetArchiveBot is probably the most global of the relevant bots but may need some manual tweaking for the URLs outside templates perhaps. Nemo 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Started cleaning el.wiki. I'll prefer to do some by hand as in many cases I think it would be prefered to recreate the link (almost certainly in a cite template) using doi and a refgenerator as http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py but this doesn't mean I think a bot solution won't be a good solution for our wikis.—Ah3kal (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Another problem is that the xwiki link tool is limited to 40 projects (top projects) and many of the smaller wikis that won't appear there and COIBot link report maxes out. Beetstra is there a way we can get a full report for all projects? Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: Full report is not really going to help you, you just have to find all existing links. Running a query on it is going to take way to much time on the server and is going to be unreadable (you would get the addition diffs .. but you don't know if it is still there). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and created this for now so we can mark off what has been fixed. I'm hitting some of the smaller wikis just by searching alphabetically through the list of projects. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Did anybody raise a blacklist request? Putting a stop to more additions would be a good idea. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged, the domain has been blacklisted in IABot and I ran it on the wikis it is approved to run on. They should either have an archive URL attached to it now, or they should be marked as dead.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Sadly that doesn't do much, for instance in [1] the archived version is itself broken. I know it's not IABot's main aim and strength, but the URL should just be removed outright from the "cite journal"-like templates where the DOI is already filled. Nemo 19:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, some links to this domain were being marked as dead already in 2017. Maybe the squatting happened later. Nemo 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
      Nemo bis It happened on 10/20. Also relevant. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
      Thanks! Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up manually on the Italian Wikipedia. Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, I am also manually fixing and noting at User:Praxidicae/DOI fix. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We've now got a second hijacked domain, gaylesbiantimes.com Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-free content on Ingush Wikipedia[edit]

Status:    requires a phabricator ticket

Hello! I am an administrator at the Ingush Wikipedia. We created criteria for using non-free content on our wiki. Who can help us, what needs to be done next so that the ability to download and use non-free files is enabled in the Ingush Wikipedia (of course, subject to the criteria for fair use)? Thank you! Sincerely, Adam-Yourist (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You should go to Phabricator:. Ruslik (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

delete blank pages from hu.wiktionary.org[edit]

Status:    In progress

Please, please delete the first 1400 pages from this list, as they are all blank, and there are no active admins on the project, as far as I can tell:

https://hu.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Speci%C3%A1lis:R%C3%B6vid_lapok&limit=1500&offset=0

Csd81 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Csd81 in my opinion, not all of them are suitable for deletion I have delete some empty pages. Many pages were simply emptied and that is a lot of work to control them. Please reset the emptied pages and submit delete requests ({{delete}}--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 06:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The reason I am asking you to do this is because there were around 300 pages in the requests for deletion category for more than a year and no one seemed to care. I simply removed the content but since I do not have admin privileges, that is all I could do, cannot delete them. If I put back the {{delete}} tag I will simply fill the category again with junk and it will remain there for indefinite time, as the admins rarely come to the site. Csd81 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The other circa 1000 blank pages are various Latin medical terms deemed unnecessary for this dictionary as they are out of scope.
I put back the {{delete}} tag and separated them into categories. Those in https://hu.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kateg%C3%B3ria:El%C3%ADr%C3%A1sok (typos) and https://hu.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kateg%C3%B3ria:Spam can be deleted for sure. Csd81 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

OAuth permissions[edit]

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

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

A few recommendations and remarks:

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

See also[edit]