Steward requests/Miscellaneous

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Chalk19 (talk | contribs) at 06:50, 8 September 2020 (→‎Manual requests: +). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Shortcut:
SRM
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.
  • For non-controversial deletion requests such as empty page, simple spam or vandalism, and non-controversial or emergency requests to block vandals, spammers or other malicious users, you may use global sysop requests instead.
  • If a consensus is considered required to act, similar principles apply as expressed at Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements, and can be used for guidance to how and what should be done at small and medium communities to gain a consensus.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the "Manual requests" 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

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.

Abigor@Global

Status:    In progress

I would like to use my right to vanish / right to disappear.

Please rename my Account globally to a random string of numbers and letters, move all user pages and talkpages, and do not leave a redirect for privacy reasons. Many Commons images link my full name to my Wikipedia Account. After this please proceed and lock the account globally.

Please include also:

Thanks in advance. Abigor talk 06:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Abigor Renaming requests are wrong here. In addition, users are not renamed to disguise their history. Requests for global lock are handled on SRG. You can make your requests on the relevant pages, but they will most likely be rejected.--11:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk)
I'm not looking to hide or disguise anything, I'm looking to use my right to vanish. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish Abigor talk 11:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abigor! Nice to see you. I think the easiest would be to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Then you can choose the random sequence of letters yourself. --MF-W 12:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this should be done. The right to vanish is actually a courtesy issue and not an absolute right. I think that it is a bit rich to come and request courtesy vanishing when you were running all those accounts and avoiding restrictions placed on you, you did not display courtesy to the communities at that time. I also think that this may be problematic for some communities where you were causing issues, that they may not wish to see those accounts and the linking to discussions of issue disconnected from the problematic accounts, and no visibility of a request to vanish.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a bare minimum I would like to see comment from the wikis where advanced rights were held, and discussions took place for their removal. I know that nlWP and Commons being two wikis that have such discussions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is what stewards have to decide in the end, I'll leave a comment. Do you want to hide all of your abusive accounts and do you think you have the right to do so? You knowingly committed the abuse, you should also be aware that the abuse has negative effects. Read the Global rename policy "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct."--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Special:Redirect/logid/37655944 --MF-W 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Some of this has occurred by Nadzik. Not happy. Why aren't global renamers communicating so this didn't occur?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read old discussion pages of Abigor (including some here on meta, for example, a RfC from 2008) and got myself a bit acquainted with his situation. User asked about renaming his account and that he be blocked on all the projects. I've decided that this user (even with his history) is allowed a vanishing procedure if he wishes to leave Wikimedia for good. Other editors with advanced permissions even courtesy blanked his talk page. I hope I offered you some explanation. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nadzik: I would have accepted that you didn't see this conversation as an explanation for a move. I completely do not accept the reasoning that you saw this conversation and made a separate assessment, especially without joining the conversation. Such a decision and action is an abuse of your use of the tools. Global wikimedia actions are undertaken based on a consensus of the community based on the rules, not your opinion. It would seem that you have no comprehension of the results of your actions and the importance of consulting community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billinghurst: To be honest I have not seen this discussion until someone pinged me yesterday. If I knew about the discussion happening here I wouldn't have touched this request without prior consulting. It is one of the SR pages that I almost never visit because my work does not take me here. Since my first comment here I've added it to my watchlist to keep an eye on this discussion. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that clarification Nadzik. Then I come back to my question of whether global renamers saw this discussion and are communicating properly so that the rename could have been paused. When we started with global renamers we didn't automatically rename blocked accounts, so is that still the case?  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trijnstel: Can you please comment what is happening with this mailing list as I believe that you were coordinating that list previously. Why are global renamers not communicating? There is no absolute right to a rename.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn, I will change password, remove email and let it be. Sorry to see that after 10 years people still think you have no rights. Abigor talk 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see this request only now and I must say I'm far from amused to see that atleast a part of this request was actually done. It broke a block message transcluded on many pages because the previous name was used. With some work I could figure out it was now to be found here. Furthermore I agree that the rename shouldn't have been done based on fact this user is not in good standing with part of this community and renaming him to disguise himself. About what Abigot said above: I would like, like other already did here above, point you to fact that courtesy vanishing is actually, you guessed it, a courtesy granted to valuable users willing to vanish from the Wikimedia projects. --Wiki13 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wifhnwsouebwnkjebdhdjn192832901 and Abigor: Your actions of trying to close the conversation, and have comment indicates to me that you have not vanished at all. You are still wishing to have an opinion and direct the action of community. You still have rights; the right to be an adult and accept that you abused the community's trust. You have the right to own your mistakes and not slither away and try to obfuscate your actions. Your accounts and the actions that the community took are our responsibility, and the community was discussing it and attempting to reach a consensus; that is our and their right. You have rights, but not to a courtesy vanishing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: Two possible means to remedy this issue, either

  1. move the account back; or
  2. put redirects in place on all the places where Abigor had actively edited, especially where communities took actions against the user.

 — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly inclined to reverse the courtesy vanishing done by Nadzik, as the user is not eligble for courtesy vanishing under the current rename policy. In fact, they would not be eligble for _any_ rename. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for revert renaming-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was made clear to me that this action was wrong, I would also favour the back renaming. I am volunteering myself to help clean the mess I've created by accepting this request. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As last respond to this whole discussion that I have withdrawn btw. I have permission from the Dutch ARBCOM to request a global rename. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Deblokkade_Abigor states: Then I can do a request from global rename on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameRequest and that it would include a rename on all projects. A new discussion about this shouldn't be needed as there is already a ARBCOM decision here.

And yes I explicitly asked the Arbitrage Commision if I could get renamed, and they linked explicitly that it only could have been done globally. A local rename isn't allowed.

This is my last responds on Wikimedia. Abigor talk 05:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons? There was an desysop action against you there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resigned on Commons on 29 June 2011. I remained active their until 2015, not currently blocked their either. It's my choice to leave that project, nobody forced me. Abigor talk 05:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of whether there is approval from the NLwiki, suppressing the redirect is wrong.

There are many links in Commons that are now buggy.The completely exaggerated demand "lockhide" for all accounts shows that he mainly wants to hide his History. This is not possible according to our guidelines.-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that the Dutch ArbCom ended its conclusion with the fact that Abigor could ask for a rename by either global renamers or stewards. This doesn't mean these users should do a rename based on the fact that Dutch ArbCom said so. They (the Dutch AC) have no global jurisdiction on that; the global rename policy applies here. And this policy rightly so prevents users from being renamed to either conceal or ofuscate previous bad behaviour. --Wiki13 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jeff G.Please do not name users with the real name if they do not / no longer want to.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I received a request to revision delete the usage of the above-mentioned name. It is, however, not outing as multiple Wikimedia Commons uploads are under that name, tied to Abigor. I’m posting this publicly in the event other administrators are contacted about this. Regards, Vermont (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its ironic that the main issue people have with me is that I used somebodies real name on Wikipedia, a name that was also publicly tied to the user. It got me desysopped and banned for 10 years. However its fine to use somebodies full name here as a comment; And in a diff without issues. It says a lot about the law on the wiki. The name just mentioned isn't even a part of the request; As uploads under that name are fine. Wifhnwsouebwnkjebdhdjn192832901 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gone, this request has been completed and I thank you. I enjoyed the times I still did good work on all the projects, serving the commitees and doing moderator work. I did a wrong move and I'm greatly sorry. I'm very thank full for the rename and now I'm good. Thank you all. Wifhnwsouebwnkjebdhdjn192832901 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole block is for sock use; not privacy

I want to respond anominous to this topic. I do believe that the community of the Nederlandse Wikipedia is having a double standard. We had MMaerk that visited some Wikipedia users, released private information, and did personal attacks to Abigor (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/MMaerkk) That user just had to say sorry and he was welcome again after saying sorry. But Abigor is forced by the Nederlandse Wikipedia to leave all projects. And this while placing his name on a dossier page knowing it will be indexed. When the user wants to leave after a decade there is new drama. Let's grow up, how is leaving danger for the Encyclopedia? Why don't we remove his personal information when asked? What are we gaining by violating privacy after 10 year? 89.205.134.183 15:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think by how this reply has been written that this is Abigor talking about himself in the third person. But to get back on topic here.... I don't think that the Dutch Wikipedia really has a double standard. I can't say much about whether it is true or not that MMaerk visited people, as this happened quite some time ago and makes it hard to find anything written about that time period. Regarding the block, for me there is no double standard here. The user in question got an indefinite block for a severe personal attack. This one is certainly one that could give you a long block right now, but no indefinite block. I am therefor of the opinion that the reduced block, which still nearing 2 years in time, was reasonable. The person wasn't let of that easy.
Abigor on the other hand knowingly and willingly violated an users privacy by linking a picture onwiki with an IP address of this user, gotten by using the CheckUser tool on a wiki under control by him. For privacy violations our policies are clear: long or indefinite blocks can be given depending on the severity of privacy violation. The block duration for this can be decided by the blocking administrator. Doing what he did violated the trust he had from quite a lot of people. It was later decided by the Dutch ArbCom, after a unblock was requested, that he could not appeal the block again within the next five years.
Furthermore your statement that the page is indexed is simply untrue. Noindex is on the page, therefor it won't be indexed by search engines
Regarding the drama: that drama, is in honest opinion, created by the user himself. There was no issue with all this as far I'm aware of before this request came through.
Trying to downplay what happened by turning him into a victim seems hypocritic to me and is not a good way to argue for this request. --Wiki13 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn’t read the full history either. Abigor was blocked for a privacy violation. The ARBCOM decided that the block would remain 5 years, Abigor did his time and is currently blocked for using sock accounts. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Deblokkade_verzoek:_Abigor) So why do we keep bringing that up while he is not longer blocked for that. We are here talking about a user currently blocked for using sock’s to edit while blocked, those account weren’t even vandalizing the Wiki, they all got barnstars for the good work. So wouldn’t that say he had a bad period, but did good work before and after that?

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Delay - got credits for good anti vandalizing work.

The full dossier of his accounts that are socks included renamed account that in the old style remained as account and bot accounts.

We making a massive deal about nothing here. 89.205.128.82 09:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is entitled to opinions. Communities make decisions, not everyone agrees with the decisions. I just don't think that it is relevant to this action. This is about whether a global renamer should take the action with the consensus of the community. We are not here to rehash an old story.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, hence I referred to this request a few times in my reply. Some of the comments by the anonymous user in regard to this request were simply untrue. In order to explain why it needs some backstory. Calling it rehashing is not very civil in my opinion, as that wasn't the intention of why I wrote it. In regards to whether a renamer should do renames based on community consensus: I personally think most renames are uncontroversial and can be done without any community consensus. However, rename requests like these do not qualify for that. In this case we have an user that has quite the backstory with local blocks on their accounts. For these cases I would personally look at policy to see if rename is allowed. If a global renamer or steward still isn't completely sure if he should do something, put it up for discussion so the commuinity can decide if it should be done or not. I don't think asking community should be the first step in the process, but a later step. TLDR from this: First use common sense to see if the request should be done, if unclear then ask the community for input. --Wiki13 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were general to the subheading, not specific to yours Wiki13. I have been arguing the whole way that we do things by a community consensus. What is implicit in that is that a simple request non-controversial the community approves, and anything complex should be declined/deferred and be put before the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know, didn't know you intended it to be specific to the heading and not to any specific user. --Wiki13 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment comment to stewards there is no consensus for this rename. The preference seems to be to return to the status quo, rather than to leave it and add redirects. Would a steward please return undo the rename  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the community overrules ArbCom decission? When we read the links the ArbCom pointed to the right location for the rename. Besides that, there is nobody here from the Dutch Wikipedia opposing? 89.205.128.82 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have said this before: Local ArbCom only decided that Abigor could rename at the mentioned links. Nowhere it is said it must be done by the stewards or global renamers. Also, local Arbcom have NO jurisdiction on global renamers as global rename polcy applies. And if that says renames shouldn't be done conceal or ofuscate previouws bad behaviour and the community agrees with that then that's how it will be. --Wiki13 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. ArbCom told you it doesn't have jurisdiction to decide, and redirected you to global renamers and/or stewards. English translation of the ArbCom message (by Brimz, a nl.wiki ArbCom member): The Arbcom is not assigned to rename accounts. This is to be done by global renamers and or stewards. A request to this end can be submitted through this page (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameRequest). Please take into consideration that a rename has effect on all projects and need to be requested per user name. Stewards are not expected to determine the accounts the request is applying to.. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny, when a user asked the ArbCom if he can be renamed and the ArbCom goes ahead and tells him where to go for that; but then says we didn’t mean we would approve. This whole process is just crazy. 89.205.128.82 13:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No this processs exactly goes like it supposed to. ArbCom says you could ahead and ask here, but that that doesn't neccesairly mean the request will be done. We have global renaming policies in place which should prevent abusive rename requests. According to the community this is one, so a reversal is done. Considering multiple people have tried to explained this, you seem to fail to get the point made by them. Please stop the disruptive behaviour on this page. --Wiki13 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but when here is said there should be community approval first on the NL.WIKI... that would be kind of hard for a blocked user, and that is exactly why there is a ARBCOM to answer question by blocked users. 89.205.135.19 14:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @TonyBallioni, Track13, and Xaosflux: Could one of you please raise this matter with the global renamers mailing list. The silence from the list itself of noting community concern and resolving this by that group I see as initially troubling to me. Seems an element of tone-deafness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, that was already done - through there were no comments. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing reversed

I went ahead and reversed the vanishing per the above. There’s enough controversy and opposition that having the reversal occur at this point in time makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s good to know that we will behave like hotel california if people made a mistake, unless you have lots of friends then everything is possible. I think that we as community can be very proud. I will reconsider my Dutch Adminship; I can’t support this community anymore. 89.205.128.82 13:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solution

When the redirect is back in place it should be fine right? Let a steward rollback the remame and the rename it back to Deleted User XXX and the problem is solved? When I read the whole discussion the main thing is the full name on Wikipedia. When an account is closed that shouldn’t be needed? I would propose to rename it with redirects, and then remove the full name on Dutch Wikipedia? 89.205.128.82 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per Global rename policy, a global rename is only possible when "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.". That's not true, as you're AC-blocked. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Community blocked, not ArbCom Blocked. And per previous comment; I just felt that commenting under my username will get me kicked-out of that same community. 89.205.128.82 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there’s consensus on the Dutch Wikipedia (and possibly Commons) to allow a rename, that’s fine. As you pointed out, they’re blocked for community socking now, so the community should have the final say. My reversal restores the status quo. It can also easily be re-done if the Dutch community decides to allow it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t status quo, I have been informed that one of the stewards assisted the vanish and removed the email and changed the password. So the situation is now that a rename can never be asked for again. 89.205.128.82 14:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards can't remove email or change password. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec: assisted Abigor with removing the emailadres and password to complete the vanish. So your saying he didn’t do that? 89.205.134.125 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did – you (I believe you are Abigor) disclosed me your password via IRC private message, and explicitly asked me to remove your email address from the account, as well as to change your password. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo

Are we also going to give back the Account Abigor to the owner? The stewards are still the owner of the password and email to this account. 89.205.134.125 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering on who did give you that information, if it's actually true... Seeing as only two people can know this and that I doubt a steward would say anything about this, you must be Abigor talking about himself in the third person. I base this on the fact of all the information that has been supplied by the IP addresses on this page and the way they word their replies. So please stop misleading people. --Wiki13 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry this has occurred. The issue with the password and email is not something that I anticipated and is not normal as stewards don’t have the technical ability to do that. If the original operator of the account wishes to gain access so that they can resolve any local issues on commons or nl.wiki, they should be able to email ca@wikimedia.org with more details and control of the account should be able to be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what your romping about here is supposed to be.Why do you close your account when you still need it. You must have been aware that the discussion was still going on. On the one hand you want to disappear, on the other hand you are drawing a lot of attention with this discussion.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prachtig

Een echte vos verliest zijn haren, maar niet zijn streken, nietwaar? Ciell (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and other issues at siwiki

Status:    In progress

Hello. Can someone have a look at si:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin access please? As I have been doing on other projects, I'd like to help out with media files on siwiki. I have clearly identified longstanding mass copyvio/licensing issues, and can also understand the language up to a certain extent. But I find the response there (from the only admin) quite peculiar and troubling.

The Sinhala Wikipedia has no bureaucrats, and only 1 active admin. The other two admins should probably be removed due to inactivity, but that's not why I am here. The most active user (if not the only active user), is also the admin themselves.

I'm willing to let this go and focus on other non-siwiki work, but that latest response is not a good sign, and also a sign that other potential admins may have been shooed away in the past. Appreciate if someone knowledgeable in cross-wiki policies can comment on this situation please? Rehman 10:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the vios are from one user, though there are a LOT of them. I would think that our global copyright policy supersedes any sort of local policy. Praxidicae (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It actually appears to have been a group of students, see also this users uploads which include stock images that are subject to copyright and even has the watermarks... Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Praxidicae. I agree. Is that admin's reasoning valid though - can they stop someone (i.e. me) from going ahead, singlehandedly? And should such comments be tolerated at all from the sole admin of a project? To me IMHO, the last comment sounded like someone who wants to run a private project. Rehman 14:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, no. A single admin can't stop any person from requesting rights but I think they make a good point and you probably shouldn't. It's a GS wiki and deletions can be handled that way, as well as through their admins. Praxidicae (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will not push, in that case. For arguement sake though, considering that there are barely any active users there, a ton of bad files, and almost zero probability that the only admin can handle all that mess. What do we do in such a situation, when the only admin (and probably the only editor) comments against someone offering to help? For the sake of our brand reputation, we cannot let it run as a private wiki, can we? Rehman 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think encouraging non-SI speaking editors to seek adminship is the solution here. We also have capable global sysops who can assist should it be needed. SI has managed pretty well so far. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Just to clarify though, I do speak Sinhala, and currently live in Sri Lanka. I also am the founder of Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka. That being said, I also need to state that SI has not been managing that well - the bulk of the bad files dates back to 2008 (that's over a decade ago). Rehman 14:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify. The issue appears to also be a large amount of improperly licensed non free files. If you're a speaker of the language, you should create discussions about those files. There's no need for adminship for that and NFF isn't something that should be nuked without conversation imo. If you want to become an admin there, follow their RFA procedure because stewards cannot grant admin rights in local communities without a consensus there. Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rehman maybe another solution here is to start creating the right licensing templates? It looks like a lot of their NFF uploads (you can see in the file list and user logs) were uploaded as NFF via enwiki templates that don't exist on siwiki. You seem to be pretty good in that area, can they be imported? Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not being rude, but the RFA there is a copy of the enwiki RFA (si:WP:RFA), created by the same admin in 2010, and never used since. That is the only reason I posted at their VP - for better visibility (but that too has barely any visitors). I'm not trying to argue, Praxidicae. I just think this is not good for the health of our brand. What I exposed was just the tip of the iceberg from a single category. With the political situation of Sri Lanka, we're lucky those files are just junk and not something offensive/sensitive. Else a ban from the government would not have been too far away. I see that two volunteers from here has now commented there. Hopefully the message is passed, and things will be sorted. I'm just trying to help. Rehman 14:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm commenting from work. I will have a deeper look soon as soon as I'm done for the day. Cheers, Rehman 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I can fix at least the most used license types. Rehman 07:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman:, There is an active admin on the wiki who is willing to act on the pages/files if you tag them, you can make the request for specific administrative actions to the admin there. This page is for requesting specific administrative actions on wikis with no active administrators, is there anything else you need help with here?-BRP ever 08:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking of hundreds/thousands of files here. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in inflating this task literally two-fold when I already clearly showed him/her a stash of bad files to start with. This user didn't allow me to help by blocking the sysop process single-handedly (for a baseless reason, FYI), and is also not interested in cleaning the mountain of copyvios themselves. The project is a mess and literally run like a private wiki due to the odd situation we have here, and sadly no one seems to be able to do anything because there is no policy or guideline covering this situation. The sole admin there is clearly not working in good faith, and I'm sure that is already clear by now. Rehman 13:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency: Steward_requests/Permissions/2020-04#Rehman@siwiki. Rehman 06:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rd month update

I think my point here is made. We've now reached the 3rd month since my initial offer to help. In the single category I've linked as an example, there are still hundreds (if not a thousand+) decade-old files which are clearly copyvio or with no source details whatsoever - no change since I reported. And this is just that one category. The only admin at siwiki succeeded in unilaterally blocking my offer to help (so that they may remain as the only poweruser), but did not bother fixing the issue which I raised. If that user could block someone like myself - an experienced admin (on Commons and enwiki) who has been here for over a decade, and who also speaks Sinhala/lives in Sri Lanka, I don't think anyone else would be able to to volunteer as an admin on that wiki, and that wiki will continue to be run as a privately-controlled wiki. I hope the people responsible reads this, and either fixes this damaging policy loophole, or escalates this to someone who can. Rehman 11:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this thread should be treated as a personal attack on me. Please go through si:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Admin access again.--Lee (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what we are even discussing here. By what I see you are claiming that the wiki is being privately controlled just because the only active admin there opposed your RFA. They said that they will look into the issue if you go through the local procedure so please go through that. The top of the page says, Requests can be made here for specific administrative actions (such as page deletion) to be performed by a steward or global sysop. and I see nothing like that in this request. The copyvio files have been an issue in a lot of small wikis and I am glad that you are volunteering but by what is read, this request focuses more on the RFA than files. I am involved so I won't be closing this and this is just my opinion.-BRP ever 06:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate deletion categories filled for months

Status:    In progress

The following 'immediate deletion candidates' categories have already been open for months. Could someone please go through them and delete (or otherwise handle if more appropriate) those? - Andre Engels (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both projects have administrators. Please, ask them. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a massmessage to all uzwiki admins, asking them to review, two of them said they'll have a look soon. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on loginwiki

Status:    Done

At [1], please create with 

There is currently no text in this page.
You can [[Special:Search/{{PAGENAME}}|search for this page title]] in other pages, or <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:{{#Special:Log}}|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} search the related logs]</span>, but you do not have permission to create this page.

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACENUMBER}} | 2 | [{{fullurl:Special:CentralAuth|target={{PAGENAMEE}}}} View global account information] }}

This adds a link to the global user info for users from their user pages (the first few lines are to ensure that the existing default message content is still shown). Global abuse filter logs link to the user's page, and for loginwiki this is usually because of user names. This makes it easier to access the users global account information, eg to check contribs or to see if the account is already locked. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to change where the abuse filter logs link to. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its also where local account creation logs link to --DannyS712 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where it links to user pages? Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At Special:AbuseLog, for hits to global filters on other wikis, the user link goes to the user's user page --DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In loginwiki links go to user contributions. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, locally links go to user contributions, but links to foreign wikis, eg when looking at Special:AbuseLog here on meta links go to user pages --DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does it have to do with loginwiki? Ruslik (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When a filter is tripped on loginwiki, it makes it easier to get to the global account information --DannyS712 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: The links don't work for me. I think you need to use the relevant page name magic words instead of $1. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ruslik (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change project logo for https://zh.wikisource.org/ needs to modify s:zh:MediaWiki:Common.css

Status:    In progress

Discussion at s:zh:Wikisource:投票#结果. No interface administrator at zhwikisource. --Midleading (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To which logo should it be changed? Ruslik (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove all references to "/static/images/project-logos/zhwikisource-hans.png","/static/images/project-logos/zhwikisource-hans-1.5x.png","/static/images/project-logos/zhwikisource-hans-2x.png" from MediaWiki:Common.css. These files have been deleted (phab:T261076). New logo is https://zh.wikisource.org/static/images/project-logos/zhwikisource.png --Midleading (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Midleading: Can you confirm that this edit is what you were looking for? If it is, then I'll mark this as resolved. PiRSquared17 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it works for me, but other people might want to test it. --Midleading (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm...why is there a reference to /static files at all? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone modify the css file for mobile version? When using desktop Chrome to access https://zh.m.wikisource.org/ , the logo looks too close to the search box. Though it looks fine in a mobile phone.--維基小霸王 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@維基小霸王: Tell me, does this help or not? PiRSquared17 (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PiRSquared17:It seems Mobile.css is not loaded. When I applied "padding-right: 10px" to ".branding-box" using my Chrome DevTools, it does look better.--維基小霸王 (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a cache issue. It works on my end. I think it would be better with 15px or 20px maybe, though. PiRSquared17 (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish: CarbonicAcid et al

Status:    In progress

Several accounts posted a Synchbot request for their right to vanish:

I deleted the pages Synchbot normally handles, but the bot runs within strict limits to avoid causing any issues (e.g. it doesn't delete the global user page, user pages where the user has a block history, or user talk pages). I'm forwarding their requests here to handle the remaining pages as needed. —Pathoschild 17:48, 06 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion at el/Wikiquote

Status:    In progress

Please, delete this page of the Greek-language Wikiquote; there is no active admin in the project. Thanks in advance. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OAuth permissions

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

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Miscellaneous&oldid=20432747"