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This is an archived version of this page, as edited by JarBot (talk | contribs) at 00:08, 9 July 2021 (Bot: archiving 1 request to Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2021-06). 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


Bot-reported requests

See Global sysops/Speedy delete 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.

150 spam ?

Status:    In progress

All 150 contributions/articles on Studio 54 Network (here in "simple english" for example) appear to be spam ? --Arroser (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arroser: Simple Wikipedia has local sysops, GS or Stewards can't help you. simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiBayer: : Simple english was only an example, to have links on the article, on the others WP. The real problem is not only this language, but the 150 articles i think. --Arroser (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please link articles that are at global sysop-enabled wikis then? THanks! Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Wikidata d:Q39841 Article created by Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino. Article are in ak:Radio_Studio_54_Network bm:Radio_Studio_54_Network ca:Radio_Studio_54_Network and more.𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete these pages. The content is 1 line + Links. This is not Useful for the projects. Please more opinions. --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiBayer I agree Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.:@WikiBayer I agree as well. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking Radio Studio 54 Network (Q39841) then really shouldn't they be raised with the individual wikis. It is not up to this place to determine the notability nor whether pages that have been considered a reasonable addition for 8+ years after they were created. That has not been our role previously, and without some broader discussion through an RFC I don't think that we should act. Different from asking stewards or GS to act as administrators at these wikis where a legitimate conversation has taken place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

billinghurst the problem i'm seeing is that this is a massive crosswiki borderline hoax :/ Praxidicae (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: The item is visible at so many major wikis so who are we at this wiki to make that determination with the scope that we have been granted by the communities in our rights allocation. The processes for deletion of out of scope material is set to belong to local wikis. If the major wikis went about their investigations and came to their determinations, then these determinations flowed out to the wikis, then we have the scope to act. Tell/show me where it is in scope for this forum to be the instigator for such actions. Yes, it means more work, yes it is a PITA, but once we start that slippery slope of granting ourselves the power, then … No thanks, let us act within scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't advocating for doing anything, it was just a comment in general. Praxidicae (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@billinghurst Quote "The item is visible at so many major wikis ... The processes for deletion of out of scope material"
I don't see that as "Out of Scope". One line and the web links is not useful content. Pages with useful content should not be deleted by GS, but pages like in the akWP can, in my opinion, be deleted using Reason "Crosswiki Spam/no useful content". --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 13:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am making zero judgment on the articles. I am talking about the community specified roles of global sysops and stewards.

Out of scope for global sysops and stewards to speedy delete 8 year old articles. Out of scope for Steward requests/Miscellaneous to determine local wikis deletion processes. If you were doing works added today, maybe. Works added in 2012 should go through due process at the wikis. These wikis, they own their issues, we don't. Don't start making this role to be more than we have been elected to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions on suwiki

Status:    In progress

Evading, puppetteer, crosswiki spam

Status:    In progress

Hi.
Last week, we found at es wiki an user creating the article Patxi Lezama. A quick check showed the use of images from data loaded by Sorginak. Finding out it had been locked globally, we got the situation to the administrators and after deleting the page, a checkuser was started with the account who loaded it, Scespond and some IPs that had been including images or content about that same sculptor.
Today, we got the result, [1] relating to Sorginak the IPs and accounts listed, that I reproduce here.

To those, the checkuser added Wadisdust, Scespond, Netherfort y Steelfall. This would be just a blocking issue, but then gets to the global affaire.
There about 30 wikis with page about this author, and many can be linked to this ranks... or to a rank started with 83.213 like 83.213.82.56 y 83.213.209.237, for which he had not enough data. [2]

I haven't made it complete, but just made it to the et, until then at least every creation has fallen in one of those groups as listed. If needed I can ask for the checkuser for those two (but sorry, but it it's not here, I wouldn' know ). Either ways, there were more falling into the rank too for what I recall.
It seems the locked account wouldn't be the first and it was working it around way before it was caught.--Lost in subtitles (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in subtitles: Some questions. Have esWP determined that the subject/person is not notable per their criteria? Do you know if there are other wikis that made a similar determination of lack of notability. For clarity, what are your expectations and requested actions for stewards and global sysops? Reverting edits? Setting blocks? Global filters? Deletion requests? Deleting of articles? Do you know if any of the articles about the person were created by anyone other than this sockpuppeteer? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae, ProtoplasmaKid, Mike Peel, Sporti, Jura1, and Eru: Adding some pings to those who have some xwiki edits and additions of articles to Wikidata to seek their feedback prior to any action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At first it was already erased by not relevent and promotional. Es:Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier In any case, the original detection of the puppetteer wasn't ours, but from en wiki. it seems he didn't try to create the article as himself in ours. We just found it when one of the accounts created it and started the investigation.
I guess it would be needed for the puppets being blocked. There are many verssions of the article that seem created by the rank whose deletion should be studied at least. And there is a second rank that couldn't be studied locally. But maybin another level it could be. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lost in subtitles (talk)

Comment Comment I had a look at enWP and there was a draft article, though the same article had already been through a RfD and been deleted. I have blocked the sock account there and deleted the draft. I have also left a message with one of the caWP checkusers to ask them to give some feedback on the notability issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User groups for Ks Wiki

Status:    Not done

Hello, I am an Adminstrator at ks wiki. Can someone please help me to create following user groups there Rollbackers, Template editors and Page movers. There are some users that can help in performing following tasks. Currents a user can their be either autoconfirmed or adminstrator. Which makes it difficult for maintenance. I hope you will look into this matter --Iflaq (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iflaq: The process is to have a community discussion, reach a consensus, and then lodge a request at phabricator: as a site request. That said, your proposal seems horribly complex for a small wiki. For a site with 532 content pages and a total of 2.6k pages, to go to a setup more complex than English Wikisource with 3.5M pages seems like overkill. Why do you need a class for template editors? Anyone can make templates, you don't need special rights. Similarly any autoconfirmed user gets move rights, and for your wiki that is 4 days and 0 edits; so I don't think that you need a cohort of those. w:ks:Special:ActiveUsers doesn't particularly show a cohort of people who would get rights, noting of that 20, 2 are bots, and a handful have global rights already. People can undo almost as easily as rollback, and you don't have much call for that from my looking. I would think that if there are people there that can be trusted and they need special move rights, or rollback that they are probably contenders to be administrators, and think that would be a better path to take for a small wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as not done because stewards can't change wiki configurations. See requesting wiki configuration changes. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst, Since changes to templates can cause a serious issue, I am of the view to protect hight usage templates and modules. The protection can be set for other editors except template editors user group and administrators. Appealing for adminship just for template editing seems a bit off the grid. If you think this is not a good idea this time then I will wait. Thankyou for taking time to reply. Have a good day and Happy Editing. Iflaq (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iflaq: Come on, think who you are talking to here! You are not talking to newbies, we know and understand. Autoconfirmed is a reasonable means to manage numbers of general user templates, with protection and use of {{editprotected}} for critical spaces. How many are you talking about that need editing, how often is it really being done? If you have some other concerns, then we can use a light abuse filter that restricts that namespace to accounts of an age, or numbers of edits, for example. As I said in my previous post, better to get more admins for an active, vibrant community. I still think only increase complexity as truly needed. Is there an existing issue that needs managing?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 8 July 2021 (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=21708890"