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 (just above the categories) of the form:

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

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

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

To report vandalism issues, please use Vandalism reports instead.

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.

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. 92.227.229.171 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)

Can somebody Delete all pages and categories in this category[edit]

Status:    In progress

Please delete all pages and categories in this this category. It's candidates for speedy deletion. tgwiktionary has not active administrators year -79.170.185.103 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless they are obvious spam or vandalism I am not sure we can delete them. Ruslik (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
FYI, apparently the original poster meant wikt:tg:Гурӯҳ:Мақолаҳои номзади ҳазф (in case anyone wants to look through the category for "easy cases"). - dcljr (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge history in zu.wiki[edit]

Status:    In progress

No local sysops.

  • zu:Melilla is a duplicate from zu:iMelilla (correct name). I matched the content. iMelilla is the main entry but Melilla is most complete. Inhabited places are prefixed with i in Zulu language (i.e. zu:iSpeyini - Spain).
  • zu:Usuku basebenzi is a duplicate from zu:Usuku Lwabasebenzi. Usuku basebenzi is older but Usuku Lwabasebenzi is most complete. I matched their contents. It is strange because in Usuku basebenzi is written that your name is Usuku Lwabasebenzi. I think that is a posible typo mistake to create the article, but now there are two different pages for the same concept.

--Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note: I've been working on the zu.wiki daily since 27 July this year (2K edits in ca. 4.5 months), mainly doing cleanup for consistency. The Special pages (e.g. Pages/Categories wanted) are unreliable, largely due to variant spellings and the intrusion of English, so I use a dictionary and consult with native speakers. In the absence of active editors and maintainers (Admin, sysop, et al.), the Small Wiki Monitoring Team patrols the zu.wiki and provides on-call global sysop support. I'd appreciate being involved in Merge requests for the zu.wiki due to my familiarity with its existing vs. optimal page and category structure. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Deborahjay: This thread is not about the wanted categories, that is another issue that we can continue discussing in zu.wiki. I am sure that we will be able to help each other, especially because we both have good intentions :). We agree that Usuku basebenzi (old article) is a duplicate from Usuku Lwabasebenzi (new article), but I do not believe that empty and redirect is the solution because it hides the old history. I am happy to find a user with my own interest, from now on we can start working as a team. --Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Much as I appreciate the value of keeping the Edit history of the old page - it's preserved and appears when you go to that page by name (linked in Redirected from... under the new page name when the old is requested). So how do we accomplish a Merge preserving both pages' Edit histories? I'd like to understand Merge better, though I expect it's a major hassle. Teamwork will be great! Are you ever on IRC? And what's your local time zone? -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking for the previous authors in the history of redirects does not seem like a good idea nor do I think it's something usual, although I could be wrong. I will answer the rest on your user page, it's nice to meet you. --Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

Status:    In progress

Would a steward assess the consensus at Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation? The RFC has been open for almost 3 months. I was advised to make the request here after initially posting at WM:RFH. --Rentier (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has nothing to do with stewards. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I'm the one who asked him to come to the stewards. It's a cross-wiki RFC. Who's supposed to close it, then? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no any specific rules about this. So, I do not know. I only known that this does not concern stewards. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I would expect most stewards to be qualified and trusted to assess the consensus in a difficult RFC such as this. This is just a request, no one can be forced to close it, rule or not. Rentier (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There's precedent for RfCs with a global scope like this being closed by stewards. I cannot personally, as someone involved in the discussion. But I disagree with Ruslik's assessment here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not the right venue to make this request per 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. since Meta has active administrators and there is no clear consensus on that Rfc. Inlinetext (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
As Ajraddatz said: There's precedent for RfCs with a global scope like this being closed by stewards. Global RfCs can be closed by stewards (and most of the time they do) and if there's consensus or not, it's something the closer should decide. Matiia (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If there isn't a closure of that discussion by January 1st then I will boldly volunteer to do a non-administrator close on it, possibly in consultation with RexxS who has also expressed a willingness to participate in closing that discussion. Regards, --Pine 20:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, there has already been a non-admin close of the RfC, but that was reverted by User:Rentier because it wasn't by an admin. - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out, Bilby. It seems to me that the RfC is ripe for closure, and as no steward or Meta admin has closed the RfC, someone else should do so. Almost two months have passed since Rentier's reversion of the previous close. If a steward or Meta admin closes the RfC by January 1st then my services won't be required. In the meantime, RexxS and I have begun to communicate via email about our thoughts concerning how to close the RfC if we do it together. Happy new year, --Pine 07:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, although it does feel a bit odd - if they had a problem with a non-admin closure before, that should still be the case. If they no longer have a problem with a non-admin closure, then perhaps the original closure should simply be reinstated. - Bilby (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
My own subjective reading of the comments opposing the closure is that, while they specify the non-admin closure as the reason of their concern, their larger issue was that they disagreed with the "no consensus" result. I certainly hope that Pine and whoever else is closing this keeps in mind the precedent set by past global RfCs, with broad discussion and a support range around 80% typically being required to pass a proposal that will affect multiple projects (unless there is a good reason, such as poor arguments on the opposing side). This range is consistent with any barrier for global permissions - all of which are set at roughly 80%. You don't need to take my word for it either; look through the RfC archives and find anything big. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:09, 27 December 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)

Delete This Page[edit]

Status:    In progress

Please delete This Page, It has more than 5000 revisions due to bot. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@امین اکبر: could I know the reason? Matiia (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A request for deletion[edit]

Status:    In progress

Kind time of the day. I think, it's time to delete in vepwiki. Logically to block the spammer. We don't have an admin still. -- Koiravva (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think that User:Produção_Independente is a spammer? Ruslik (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

See also[edit]