Jump to content

Steward requests/Miscellaneous

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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

Sinhala Wikipedia GS policy

Status:    On hold

Hi fellow GS/Stews, think this can be discussed here, rather than on the ML. On siwiki, a local sysop linked to some GSs a local policy, in which there are some limitation in the use of the flags. You can read the discussion here. The point is that, imho, GS can't start to work on several projects with different local limits, e.g. on a wiki they cannot delete "test page", maybe or another wiki they cannot revdel, or delete "non notable people" and so on. In the long run it would become difficult to manage all the limitations that are created. Notwithstanding that the policy seems to still be in draft, but it is still applied, so I consider it applied, given that the local sysop agrees with it, do you think there is an alternative solution to the application of this policy, other than the removal of the wiki from the GS wikiset? Thanks. --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With an entire 1 active admin my first pass is that this project is not large enough to self-manage, certainly not large enough to withdraw from the GS set. If they have identified some special conditions (like an IP range that they would like to avoid blocks on, they can advertise that on the block dialog page (even their local admins would want to be reminded about that). GS's don't act only for "emergencies", they act because the community hasn't grown sufficiently to be able to deal with their own issues. If they actually have enough local contributors, they should work on getting them promoted to admins - the GS's won't have anything to do if the local admin team is on top of everything. Note, these are general comments and not a review of any specific action. — xaosflux Talk 16:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Superpes15 We can of course cater to individual local specifics, but we can't have a different policy for every wiki.
Where GS are active is (global) regulated. There is no need for a local policy here, and a local GS-policy cannot be binding because it is not possible to read 800 guidelines. Either there is a Wiki in GS or not. If a wiki is large enough to manage itself, we will not or rarely intervene. If a wiki is small and GS is active, we will treat all small wikis equally. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with both! "If a wiki is small and GS is active, we will treat all small wikis equally"! Exactly, in this case this is the issue, since the local (draft) policy was linked to at least 5 different GSs, explicitly asking to threat it in a different way. The project is very small and GSs are necessary there (in my humble view). But this policy can create problem between local and global community. The sysop also said that the community is scared of GS's power, but I didn't get what they were referring to, neither did they explain it. Hope they can do this here, because we don't want to impose anything, we just work for the serenity and well-being of all the users and communities! Superpes15 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the negative comments here. The page in question is from 2009(!), apparently a draft created with the help of respected Meta-users Kylu and Pathoschild. It contains some mild suggestions even with explanations for why it is requested to not block certain IP ranges (even though the ranges are not specified) or not to delete English pages because users will translate it later. Probably the page, being from 2009, needs to be checked by local users whether all of it still applies. But in general it is merely a request to global sysops to use their rights with caution and courtesy. --MF-W 13:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MF-Warburg: The problem is that local sysop used this page as limitation for GS. They said "Why bring up global sysops, especially when there exist a global sysop policy that request them to help in counter vandalism and not to interfere with ordinary maintenance work". Also, local policy seems older than global one, I don't think is doable to ask GSs not to do maintenance work (while global policy allows GS to perform routine maintenance). Superpes15 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like the *support* from the global community in our projects. But if anyone start a vote to opt-out, I will support it. Regarding LTA, we sure cannot defend ourselves from the global sysops exercising their powers by deleting valid pages because they have editorial opinions, that such pages should be considered test pages and deleted ASAP. Anyway if a global sysop or a steward cannot respect the local communities, should they really be allowed to hold such powers? I sure miss the days when the global community helped us instead of forcing their opinions on us. -- Lee (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee: where are the valid pages? Nobody imposed anything. The pages that have been deleted on siwiki are normal test pages. The elimination fits perfectly into the policies that govern the activity of GS. Obviously if they are considered valid they must be restored, who disputes that? If siwiki intends to host such content, I think that local policies are not compatible with the activity of GS. --Mtarch11 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A page that has a valid title and valid content is not a "test page" in our project. -- Lee (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee: Please don't change your words, you clearly said twice that GS cannot perform "maintenance work" on siwiki, and you also started saying that the GSs intimidated you or that I scared you (and this, from my point of view, is problematic, since I clearly didn't say anything scary), and that's precisely why I suggested an opt-out and opened this discussion. In your word ""suspected test page", is not a global sysop emergency" and "Why bring up global sysops, especially when there exist a global sysop policy that request them to help in counter vandalism and not to interfere with ordinary maintenance work?". You criticized a deletion made almost 2 years ago only after I pointed out that it's possible to opt-out, while it is not possible to limit the scope of GS intervention, and you restored only today the page, after almost 2 years. Just to be clear for anyone, this was the content of the deleted page. Title is "List of Sub Post Offices in Sri Lanka" and content is "මුරුතලාව". Please note that everyone can make mistakes or wrongly delete valid pages, but I don't understand why this deletion becomes the excuse or pretext to support the thesis that GSs/Stews impose things on a small wiki, where they aren't active as editor, neither partecipate in local discussion! As I already said, I no longer want to participate in an unconstructive discussion, if you think there are issues with the GSs, you know the procedure. Thanks Superpes15 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee, I'm really sorry that you're not having a positive and constructive experience here, but to resolve this we will need to be talking about the same thing. If you can specify the action you are concerned with, we can discuss that and hopefully come to an understanding here. Fundamentally, we (steward and global sysops) are here to support siwiki and other small projects with maintenance tasks and routine cleanup. Deleting pages for editorial reasons, or for other controversial reasons, is out of our scope. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee I understand what you are trying to say here. I feel much has changed, now GSes assume that their only responsibility is clean up and anti-vandalism. In the past they would solve technical problems and actually let the community deal with most things. However, these talks can actually help people understand what the communities expects from Global sysop and stewards. So, please offer what you see as a solution in your opinion. It will definitely be considered. BRP ever 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, I personally do not feel that comfortable about the opt-out path. In a small wiki, when people are trying to build up things, deleting a page is very destructive. What about the backlog size? I mean our project is a project with active local sysops. You may note that the other local sysop has not done an administrative task since a long time, while he always visit and read things. That's because there aren't any issues left in backlogs. The global sysops can can see our deletion backlog; isn't it? Is there a possibility to make global sysops not delete things when there is only a small deletion backlog? May be there is a possibility to include that information in places where global sysops make the decision to go on a deletion rampage? -- Lee (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee: There is already this page for the backlog. The issue here is that a lot of deletions on small wikis are made after a request on GSR, or maybe because a global sysop is patrolling recent changes, so they immediately delete the pages after the creation when the case is obvious, and they don't do it just because there is some backlog of pages tagged for deletion. Indeed, the case you provided is an example of a live deletion. Personally I think it's obvious that, if there are active local sysops, they should be contacted before any deletion, unless we are talking about spam/cross-wiki vandalism/LTA, but in this case I don't know how to inform the GS not to delete the pages on siwiki in general (also because the GS team is constantly changing). Superpes15 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. But isn't that the issue we are trying to fix in this discussion? -- Lee (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth, the original problem is the local policy which (according to you) contrasts with the global one, and we still haven't resolved it. I repeat, I personally would contact an active admin, but if another GS believes that there is a clear reason to delete for routine maintenance, I don't think they can be forced to ask a sysop first, unless we update the policy. If there are problems or abuse, you can contact or report that GS, that's for sure. I hope someone else can think of a solution, which doesn't come to mind for me, also because I've always been in a hurry in the last few weeks in RL. Superpes15 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LeeThere is a consensus for global policy. This sets the rules. No minority within Wikimedia projects can reject the policy. If they want different rules, they must create a general consensus to change the policy. Global rights are global and not local, so the use of these rights must be regulated by a global consensus. Far-reaching intervention at local level would compromise the use of global rights too severely and negate their purpose. A local policy would disrupt the global process and therefore everything must be handled uniformly.
If you have any problems, you can contact the respective GS; this will most likely solve your problem. Projects have a very high degree of freedom of decision, but you must bear in mind that siwiki, like any other language version, is not its own independent project, but part of a large community. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 16:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair: There are other projects with global rights policies as well [1] (but these usually opted out of the global sysop wikiset). And it seems like this policy was written at at time when the project had more active sysops than now [2][3]. If a project has enough active local sysops we usually don't interfere with them (e.g. leaving routine cleanup for the local community) and only act on ongoing spam/vandalism.
But it's true on the other hand that it is impossible to expect global sysops to know special rules of each local project, especially since so far no specific deletion has been presented which was actually controversial. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping the use of tools limited to dealing with spam/vandalism/copyright and similar important issue, and not getting into how the community manages rest of the wiki unless requested by the community might do the trick. A lot of cases just need case-by-case attention. Can't really come up with anything specific in general. This is why communication and language skills were prioritised in GS requests, much has changed ever since.--BRP ever 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the face of it the restrictions doesn't look that bad and it does appear to be created in good faith. That being said I'll have to agree with Superpes15. My experience is that GS (and even some stewards) tend to be unnecessarily conservative, fearing that they'll be in violation of some policy or the other. As a result I won't be opposed to a rule saying that small wikis are treated equally by global sysops, because if this continues it's going to be difficult for global sysops to determine what's OK and what isn't - we have enough of these problems already. Similarly, we need the opt-out criteria for GS to be quite strict - I don't agree with those who say that any (small) wiki should be able to opt-out if they want. Leaderboard (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to remedy piracy and harassment

Status:    On hold
  • eowikt was filled by pirated content (copyright violation) from other wikis without atribution as well as from other online sources (PIV, ReVo, ...) between 2010 and 2020 by "Pablo Escobar" Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_the_EO_Wiktionary and Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto
  • copyright problems created by "Pablo Escobar"
    • example: [4] pirated from [5] -- more (Pablo is good at inventing words, but bad at writing definitions)
  • desperately poor quality of contributions by "Pablo Escobar"
  • my attempts to address the piracy and poor quality of the wiki in 2017 and 2018 attracted user "RG72" who attacked me 2018-10-20 for first time (after I had criticized the state of the wiki and proposed improvevent, but without attacking anyone, not "Pablo Escobar", and even less "RG72")
    Ĉu vi ne vidas diferencon inter krei kaj detrui?
    Don't you see the difference between to create and to destroy?
  • since then RG72 has always been rude to me
  • in 2021 account "Vami" appeared and harassed me for 3 months at the end of year Requests_for_comment/I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project#Two_months_of_harassment,_horrible_incivility,_trolling_and_false_accusations with the chief content "you are a vandal and you have destroyed this wiki" (actually, I invested much time into the opposite)
  • at that time "RG72" made a few rude posts too (example)
  • "RG72" is sysop at eowiki and usually not rude, but occasionally YES, if someone dares to criticize Russia (example: "Mi forigis paranojajn fantaziajxojn" "I removed paranoiaful fantasy"
  • Most likely "RG72" and "Vami" is the same person, due to same style (rudeness and accusations with "you are a vandal and you have destroyed this wiki")
  • Uzanta_diskuto%3ATaylor_49&diff=1185333&oldid=1184939 recent example of harassment by "RG72"
    Do kiam vi likvidos viajn fuŝojn? La artikolo edzo plu enhavas 16 "nekonatajn" lingvokodojn, vandalitajn de vi. Same en la aliaj artikoloj. Ĉu vi mem likvidos viajn vandalaĵojn aŭ tion devos plenumi iu alia? Ĉu vi komprenas ke vandalismo estas punenda per forbaro?
    So when will you annihilate your botchery? The article edzo still contains 16 "unknown" language codes, vandalized by you. Same in other articles. So will you annihilate your botchery yourself, or does anyone else have carry out this task? Are you aware that vandalism must be punished by ban?
  • after makig this threat, "RG72" applied for adminship at eowikt: kandi
  • vote stacking and canvassing: wikipedia -- wikt, support vote of "Vami" arrived only 15 hours after RG72's RFA, after Vami had been absent for more than 1 year -> either same person (-> sockpuppetry), or RG72 phoned (or similar) Vami and asked for the vote (-> meatpuppetry) (same for the account "Amikeco", also from Russia)
  • "RG72" also wrote 97% of an article about emself
  • in 2017, eowikt did not have any help pages (it had several pages in the Help: namespace, copied from German wiktionary, though, still in German), now it has such
  • in 2017, eowikt barely had a category structure (almost all categories were redirected or empty), now it has such
  • in 2017, eowikt did not have any templates or modules beyond most primitive ones (but 5 to 10 instances of every template as compenation), now it has such, with documentation in Esperanto and self-test, [11] [12] [13] [14] and many others
  • piracy violates WMF TOS
  • harassment violates WMF TOS and UCOC
  • "RG72" intends to ban me for personal reasons (maybe parts of my identity, maybe my attempts to clean out piracy, maybe some comment of mine criticizing Russia, maybe ...)

Taylor 49 (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(прошу прощения, что пишу на русском языке) Хочу дать несколько комментариев:
  • Я точно знаю, что участники RG72 и Amikeco являются разными людьми: я лично знаю Amikeco и много знаю про RG72. И хотя я лично не знаком с ним, но могу уверенно сказать, что это разные люди.
  • Я являюсь активным противником написания статей о себе (и несколько раз отвечал отказом о предложении написать статью про меня). Однако я внимательно изучил статью об участнике RG72 и могу сказать, что статья написана по авторитетным источникам и не содержит фактов восхваления самого участника. Я не поддерживаю его участие в данной статье, но я не вижу в этом признаков преследования или харасмента по отношению к участнику Taylor 49.
  • Я уверен, что вопросы пиратства или нарушения авторских прав в eowikt не имеет отношения к преследованию или харасменту по отношению к участнику Taylor 49.
VladimirPF (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More harassment available:
anstataŭ klarigi siajn agojn elverŝis histeriajn fantaziojn
instead of explaining eir actions, ey poured hysteric fantasies
Se tia obseda detruado, politike motivitaj histerioj kaj vandalismo estas normo
If such obsessive destruction, politically motivated hystery and vandalism is the norm
... written at the occasion of a discussion to desysop RG72 at eo wikipedia (NOT started by me). Taylor 49 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically reject all Taylor79’s accusations and ask him to clarify that Wiktionary, Wikipedia, as well as other wikiprojects, were created so that participants would create, respectively, a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., and not satisfy their painful passion for power , or throwing tantrums about their own political fantasies, sexual identity, etc.

A few years ago, I discovered that Taylor79 had arbitrarily renamed my article [15], as a result of which she lost Wikilinks to similar articles in other Wiktionaries, besides making serious mistakes - he wrote the proverb with a capital letter, and put a period at the end. When I asked him about the reasons for such a ridiculous, arbitrary and obviously wrong decision, he began to pour out his political fantasies about Russia, declaring that En Ruslando malsamopiniuloj ĉiam alfrontis ne nur forbaron, sed plej ofte ankaŭ malliberejon, torturon kaj mortigon. Mi ne forbaras vin nun ĉar mi ne estas tiel perfortema kiel vi, sed mi forlasas ĉi tiun fiiĝintan discuton. [16] (In Russia, people with different opinions always face not only blocking, but most often also imprisonment, torture and murder. I “don’t block you” only because I’m not as violent as you , but I leave this completely spoiled discussion).

Later, I also accidentally discovered that he had removed dozens of translations into other languages from another article of mine. When I asked about the reasons for such vandalism, Taylor79 replied that they had no place here, they should only be in articles about the Esperanto versions of these words. When asked why he didn’t move them to the corresponding articles in this case, Taylor79 replied that those interested could find the translations... in the history of the articles from which he deleted them. If this is not madness, then what is it?

At my insistence, he still moved these translations into the corresponding articles, but recently I discovered that dozens of them are reflected as belonging to languages \u200b\u200bwith unknown language codes. When I created these translations, I simultaneously created corresponding templates for all languages. However, Taylor79 is obsessed with deletion and endless, chaotic edits (Wiktionary history shows that the same templates and articles are edited by his robot endlessly and chaotically) When I asked what happened and why he continues to spoil articles created by other users, he fell into hysterics again: Bv paciencu, kaj ĉesu ataki min (la agresemo de via prezidanto estas pli ol sufiĉa, ĉu ne?) [17] (Please calm down and stop attacking me (your president’s aggressiveness is more than enough, isn’t it?).

Every time, faced with his hysterical statements, I answer the same thing: Mi sugestas al vi koncentriĝi je laboro, ne malŝpari tempon kaj fortojn por sentutila babilado kaj plendado (I advise you to concentrate on your work, not waste time and strength not useless chatter and complaints). I did this many times, but it was all to no avail - Taylor79 continues to attack me, now on other wikis, demanding that I be blocked due to differences in political views and regularly talking about his sexual identity, which, as I have repeatedly told him, he is not at all interested in the people who have gathered here to create a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., and not to discuss anyone's personal life or political views.

Several years ago, Taylor79 was stripped of his status as a Wiktionary administrator by stewards precisely because of his endless conflicts with members, massive edits and deletions, which turned the project into his personal playground. Having lost his administrator status, he demanded that the Esperanto-Wiktionary be completely eliminated. I think this is enough to understand who we are dealing with.

I will add that his statements about “spreading Russian propaganda” are completely ridiculous, which is clear to anyone familiar with journalism. The examples he gives are interviews and reports, respectively, in the first case the point of view of the interviewee is stated, in the second - the events that the author of the report became a witness and/or participant in are described. It is impossible to find a report in any news project whose author does not reflect his own views, since an absolutely neutral text can only be created by an absolutely neutral person - and such people do not exist. However, these are the basics of journalism, which hardly need explanation. RG72 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive accusations like " with his hysterical statements " brutally expose the personality of RG72 on their own, and do not need any reply or denial. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In Russia, people with different opinions always face not only blocking, but most often also prison, torture and murder. I'm not blocking you only because I am not as prone to violence as you are, but I leave this completely spoiled discussion" [18]; “Please calm down and stop attacking me (your president’s aggressiveness is more than enough, isn’t it?)” [19], “Please stop telling me as if you are a KGB or NKVD employee, and I am your prisoner” [20] etc etc. And all this madness followed in response to comments related to the defacing of Wiktionary articles. If this is not hysteria, then what is it? RG72 (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another (potentially hysterical) attack of user "RG72" against other users:
bunch of politically motivated fanatics and xenophobes
Also, RG72 has published blatant Russian propaganda on wikinews: terrorism, refugees welcome. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor 49, I don't have the time to properly look into this at the moment, but...well, your latest edit here describes RG72's edit as "hysterical", and your previous edit in this section is a complaint of RG72 referring to you with the same word. If the personal attacks are two-way, the enforcement actions will end up being two-way as well. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: I used the word only one time, put it in brackets, and prefixed it by "potentially". So no, it is not the same level from both sides. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another one:
bunch of bigots and xenophobes
The considerations of enforcement actions above are unfortunately purely theoretical given that 3+1/2 months of massive daily harassment did not result in any enforcement actions at all. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review for recent deletions at km.wiktionary

Status:    In progress

I noticed that many pages at km.wiktionary were nominated for deletion at GSR, including some that were created by a former admin (log) with 60k+ edits. It might worth a review for recent deletions there, e.g. The translation of km:wikt:ខ្លាភ្ញីថ្មកែវ looks like Phin Pheak: A medium-sized marble tiger, with a long body, round ears and a long tail, bulging skin, the upper and lower parts are short brown (I can only see part of it in the deletion log). The characters may look bad and they might not follow conventional Wiktionary editing practices, but based on the translations it's likely not completely out of project scope. (Deletion log: km:wikt:ពិសេស:កំណត់ហេតុ/delete) Courtesy pinging @LR0725 and Yahya:--94rain Talk 04:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes may happen, but I only nominated the pages that are encyclopedic articles for deletion. For instance, the page 'km:wikt:ប្រចៀវស៊ីសាច់' is an article about bats. I believe this is beyond the project's scope (correct me if I am wrong). I have avoided those with the least relation to Wiktionary.
Since small wikis lack a community, you can make thousands of edits without supervision, even becoming an admin. Therefore, pages created by former admins may not always adhere to policies. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@94rain: Deleted pages are appropriate for wikipedia, not wiktionary. If you want, you can make new pages based on wiktionary manual of style. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these pages seem a bit encyclopedic. I was saying that they "might not follow conventional Wiktionary editing practices". There's no universal rule to build Wiktionary and I don't really feel they are completely out of scope. It's possible that, when the community becomes more active one day in the future, they might opt for a rewrite rather than deletion. 94rain Talk 06:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then should we just leave them all, without any intervention? I will accept if there was any previous community consensus of kmwiktionary, but if not, we should follow general manual of style from wiktionary. You said "might not follow conventional Wiktionary editing practices" and "might opt for a rewrite rather than deletion", but that's assumption without promise. Deletion was based on common sense of wiktionary, that's all. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 09:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, rewriting is favorable than deletion if possible, but I don't think it will be possible in the near future. Pages which I deleted were made more than 10 years ago, and completely abandoned. Considering this, my conclusion was complete deletion of request pages. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 09:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely true that "Deletion was based on common sense of wiktionary". English Wiktionary does not delete pages that are written like Wikipedia articles but instead keeps the dictionary entry itself.
But my point was that I don't think we should intervene in local content matters to this level. Inclusion criteria can be very contentious topics on projects where there's a community. That former admin also seems still active in a month and they have been creating content that actually follow Wikt MOS. 94rain Talk 15:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@94rain: Then we should ask that user if user can remake deleted pages, following wikt MOS. I can provide deleted contents when user wants.
Also, please consider 'out of project scope' is very common deletion reason at GSR. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 03:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have just left a message on their talk page. I think "Out of project scope" is a very borderline deletion reason and should be used with extra caution. There are definitely some clear-cut cases, but for other cases, many wikis still require a dicussion to delete what's mentioned in their NOT policy (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Q4345841)). 94rain Talk 09:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not speaking about this case. But most of the Global sysop acting Wikis has no local community for discussion or to establish policies. GS works based on common sense about what this project is for. As policy describes, our work is for the purposes of anti-vandalism and routine maintenance. —MdsShakil (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no local community to discuss such case usually. Anyway, I will assist when deleted contents is required. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying such deletions are out of GS scope or something, but should be treated with caution (I think that was what I meant all the time). The problem is that no definition of common sense readily exists, as I mentioned about English Wiktionary's attitude towards Wikipedia-like articles. Also there's a case regarding "test pages" above. If there's any doubt, it's always better to be conservative than not to.
Anyway, thanks all for your input in this matter, and I appreciate all the excellent work you have done over the years. 94rain Talk 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a valid point made by 94rain. Even if it is a point to be discussed, I think that at least the point that 94rain pointed out, that there is a need to be careful, is definitely valid. I'm not sure what wiktionary manual of style is being claimed here. Who decided that? --Sotiale (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LR0725: Most wikis don't delete content that don't fit MOS, they tag it or users just eventually come and fix the pages as it stays. Unless the content is clearly harmful or obviously nonsense, I don't think use of GS tools in this such a case is valid. I suggest taking the time to check what you deleted or restoring the pages where you are uncertain about the content.--BRP ever 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me that page (ភ្ញីថ្មកែវ) should not be deleted. Certainly from the way it was written it didn't conform to a wikitionary but with a minimum of work it can be made compliant (reducing the contents for example). We cannot apply policies in this way on local projects, each project manages itself, we just have to help. I suggest that those who made the deletions evaluate each of their deletions one by one, as I would expect from any functionary, restoring the pages about which there is even the slightest doubt. Nothing serious has happened, but I ask you to check and eventually fix it, and to always act with the minimum of responsibility that is required of all functionaries when they click the advanced buttons! Thanks :) Superpes15 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will review deleted contents ASAP. Thanks for advice. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LR0725: Many thanks, absolutely no issue here and take your time to review everything carefully, feel free ping me or any other GS/Stew if you need some help or have some doubts :) Superpes15 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@94rain: Per above, LR0725 is going to review the deleted content and restore those which they are uncertain about. You can discuss the specifics in their talk page if needed. Other GSes can assist in the task as well. Thanks,--BRP ever 06:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation on homosexuality in swahili wikipedia

Status:    On hold

Hi, there seems to be a pretty egregious violation of Wikipedia’s rules over on Swahili Wikipedia by @Riccardo Riccioni, who is an administrator I believe. The page on homosexuality (ushoga in swahili), although mostly accurate information, is interspersed with unsubstantiated and irrelevant information, and highly opinionated statements. For example, at one point the article states: 

“watetezi wa ushoga wanataka hao vijana wapewe dawa za kusimamisha ubalehe ili baadaye iwe rahisi kuwafanyia upasuaji wa kubadili vyungo vya uzazi

English: advocates of homosexuality want young people to be given drugs to stop puberty so that later it will be easier to perform surgery to change the reproductive organs"

Not only is this a very opinionated statement, it is completely unrelated to homosexuality. Another example is: 

“mara nyingine ni kwamba mtu ameathiriwa na tukio ambalo amefanyiwa hasa utotoni au amekubali mwenyewe kujaribu kufanya hata akazoea kiasi cha kushindwa kujinasua

English: sometimes it is that a person has been affected by an event that happened to him especially in childhood or he has agreed to try it (homosexuality) out until he gets used to it to the point of being unable to break free."

Another example: 

"Binadamu, akiwa na akili na utashi, halazimiki wala hapaswi kufuata mielekeo yake yote, bali anatakiwa kuidhibiti, la sivyo ataharibika upande wa afya ya mwili na ya nafsi vilevile, mbali ya kuharibu maisha ya jamii.

English: Humankind, having intelligence and free will, is not forced nor should follow all of his inclinations, but must control them, otherwise he will be damaged in terms of physical and mental health, not to mention destroying social life."

Personal opinion and moral prescriptions don't have any place on Wikipedia.

The article also cites at several points Neil E. Whitehead as an authority on the psychology of homosexuality, who has not only been repeatedly discredited, but is not even a psychologist, and does not represent the general view amongst psychologists.

Those are a few examples. I saw this and took it upon myself to go and make corrections to these highly moralizing and factually dubious claims in the article. Upon making these changes, I got a message from Riccardo, an Italian, inexplicably accusing me of “ubeberu” (imperialism) by making these changes. He further stated that homosexuality is unacceptable and thus the article has to maintain the unsubstantiated claims and moralizing statements present in the article. Speakers of Swahili are intelligent enough to arrive at their own conclusions on social issues, I don't understand how presenting a purely neutral and opinion-free encyclopedic source is "imperialism". It is not as though I replaced the anti-gay moralizing with pro-gay moralizing. As an aside, he also quite condescendingly repeatedly referred to “us Tanzanians” and “you Americans” despite him not even being Tanzanian (he's Italian).

Swahili wikipedia doesn't really have the infrastructure to deal with these complains, so I was hoping that this could be dealt with here. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kisare (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kisare, thank you for reporting this. I will note that this isn't something stewards can deal with directly. I understand and entirely agree that this is a problem, but we are not an authority on local content decisions.
That said...I fail to see how this article conforms to any of Wikipedia's standards:
  • The third paragraph of the lede quotes and interprets the Bible and how 'souls' of opposite genders 'complement' each other.
  • Though the body of the article does include reliable sources' points about how homosexuality is not considered a mental illness, and how hundreds of animal species have been observed to be homoseuxal, among other things...it introduces these points and then immediately argues against them. And those arguments are unsourced, purely the author's personal, hateful opinion.
  • It includes lengthy, unsourced commentary about LGBT people's values and worth to society.
  • Includes bad-faith, rhetorical questions such as "If we allow people to do whatever they feel like, what will society be like?" to justify homophobic perspectives.
  • Equates homosexuality with rape.
  • Blatantly totalitarian statements in justifying homophobia: "it is necessary to protect the values of the society so that it can flourish against the desires that do not build it."
  • Argues that LGBT people seek to "destroy the very foundations of community life"
  • ...among many other problems.
And, the admin who reverted your attempts to fix this content is also the person who wrote most of this.
Basically, Kisare, you have two options:
  1. Make a global RfC. I don't recommend this option, it'll take a while and would require a lot of work gathering information about this and presenting it for broader community discussion.
  2. Wait for the U4C to be elected, and sent this to them for investigation. The U4C enforces the Universal Code of Conduct, and to me this seems to be a clear violation of section 3.3, specifically "imposing schemes on content intended to marginalize or ostracize" and "language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs".
Let me know which one you're interested in, as I'd be happy to help. If you're not interested in pursuing this further, I'll make a note to report it to the U4C when the time comes. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your help, I greatly appreciate it. I think the second option you provided is the best. It seems like the election completes in May? Once the U4C is elected, what will be the process of sending this to them for investigation? Best, Kisare (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 @Riccardo Riccioni: Please explain your revert and link us to the apparent discussion the community had to keep this misinformation. The content on the page violates Pillar 2 & 4 and should be removed as a whole. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if Google translate is accurate, what imperialism are you talking about? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding that the contents appear to be a significant violation of Pillar 1, deliberately using Wikipedia as an opinion soapbox. ArkHyena (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that the translation of "ubeberu" as "imperialism" is correct. For those who are unfamiliar with Swahili, the official TUKI dictionary defines "ubeberu" as:
"Swahili: Ubepari uliokomaa na kuvuka mipaka ya nchi yake na kuingia nchi nyingine kwa madhumuni ya kuunyonya uchumi wa nchi hizo
English: Capitalism which grows and crosses the boundaries if its country and goes into other countries with the intention of exploiting the economy of those countries."
Swahili-English dictionaries also translate ubeberu as imperialism. There's no other meaning of that word. Kisare (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax not sure if quoting en:Wikipedia:Five pillars is useful, as this is technically a local enwiki policy. But I agree with your assessment, the article seems to violate Neutral point of view (which is an official xwiki policy covering all Wikipedia projects) and wmf:UCoC#3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects („systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view“). Johannnes89 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swahili Wikipedia has broadly similar guidelines to en:Wikipedia:Five pillars. See sw:Wikipedia:Mwongozo (Kumbuka). Regardless, as you say, the NPOV and UCoC apply universally across all Wikipedia projects. Kisare (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I would like to apologize to @Riccardo Riccioni for referring to him as a mzungu mwitalia ("a white Italian person"). I was aggravated by him accusing me of imperialism for removing his personal political and religious opinions from the article Ushoga, and was further aggravated by him acting like he's better than me because I was born and raised outside Tanzania, even though he wasn't born and raised in Tanzania either. However, I could've expressed those feelings in a more respectful way. That being said, all the aforementioned criticisms regarding the misinformation and proselytizing in the Ushoga article, and Riccardo's inappropriate response to my corrections, still remain. Kisare (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kisare, I have no problem to forgive you for how you expressed your feelings. Moreover, I did not call you yourself imperialist, but I was accusing a general negative attitude about African way of thinking and living. As I said, my intention was not to refuse your contributions but require a prior dialogue respecting not my personal political and religious opinions but local culture which is very sensible to such question. Moreover, I have to repeat that I'm Tanzanian and bureaucrat of Swahili Wikipedia and tried to follow what agreed with fellow sysops. May be it would be better to inform you before reverting your changes, but I was discouraged by your previous response (or not response) to my messages. Peace to you! Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
==Homosexuality==
Dear Minorax, I'm here to answering your request of information about my work as bureaucrat and main contributor in Swahili Wikipedia. First of all, I'm proud of being Tanzanian and since 1997 not more Italian like user:Kisare insists to call me. I live in Tanzania for 40 years now and am very well inserted in this people. The expression "imperialism" is very common here in referring to efforts by foreign countries to change our culture and dominate us. Using it, I was not directly accusing Kisare and his contribution to the article, but his country, the USA. All the same, from the start of his contributing to our Wikipedia, he has shown not only competence and attention but also an attitude to dominate and impose his points instead of accepting discussion with us. After seeing that he doesn't like to answer my question, I left him go on in his changes, also when they are problematic. He said has Tanzanian ascent and is learning Swahili but this is not enough to know our culture and its convictions about homosexuality and related matters. This is not a reason to refuse true science, of course, but our perspective on today's Western civilization is very critical. We Swahili sysops discussed this question during a video meeting on January 20th, 3pm-4pm East African Time. All agreed on a common attitude. We don't refuse positive contributions, but the way Kisare did is not very good. For example, instead of asking me about the removal, or informing a local sysop, he at once denounced me to an external authority. Moreover, after my first answer to his denounce, inviting him to dialogue, he go on adding arguments to you against me and insisted in calling me "Italian" (the term he used to me is "Mzungu", "White man", that may be used as an insult, similar to "colonialist"). We in Swahili Wiki are not used to editing wars. We are peaceful people ready to reach agreement, but our history shows that we are very contrary to being imposed solutions from outside. Peace to you! --Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that in writing for an encyclopedia I have to be neutral, and I try to be so. The problem is that other peoples with another culture think that their vision is the only correct and do call it scientific, while the conclusions of their researches or their findings are very much directed by their culture (if not by interested funds). Riccardo Riccioni (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't be here if you had written a well-sourced, neutral section about Tanzanian cultural views on homosexuality. The problem is the presentation. You wrote an article that actively seeks to proselytize readers, preaching to them from the Bible, presenting your ideas about how queer people are a threat to society. You actively argue with, and make personal value judgements about, the few reliable sources presented in the article. It isn't an encyclopedia article, and it isn't neutral. There are ways to write about contentious topics that you disagree with, and this isn't it. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear violation of the principals.
sw:Special:Diff/1328553 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for comment/Sysop abuse in the swahili Wikipedia 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It additionally seems this is not an issue just in the article on homosexuality. It appears that other articles, he also writes very opinionated, declarative statements on social issues as though they are fact. For example here, the article on utoaji mimba (abortion), he fails to neutrally describe religious views on abortion, and refers to people who get abortions as a muuaji (murderer, killer) who dishonor god, and says that contraception leads the way to mauaji ya halaiki (mass murder, genocide). Or here, the article on transgender people, in which he on several instances proselytized, and similarly undid people's changes when they attempted to remove such content. I will make corrections to these articles, but it seems this has been a pattern and I imagine this has occurred on several other articles as well that I'm not aware of. Kisare (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activity of "LTA Pakkoruotsi" on eo wiktionary and other wikis

Status:    In progress

The globally banned obsessive abuser "LTA Pakkoruotsi" AKA "LTA Nenoniel" [21] is still active:

The user suffers from following obsessions:

  • "pakkoruotsi" (obligatory Swedish in elementary schools in Finland)
  • baldness / alopecia (in Esperanto "Kalvulo", in Finnish "Kalju", in Swedish "Flintis")
  • d:Q5477226
  • d:Q29230
  • people whose name is similar to some vulgar/problematic word (for example Peter Rumpa)
  • history of the educational system in Finland (this is not inherently malicious, but can become a problem if large quantities of encyclopedic content are fed into wiktionary)

Please block the relevant IP ranges for at least 6 months, and activate a filter blocking (case insensitive, discarding possible [ | ]):

  • "hintti pervonen"
  • "gejo perversuleto"
  • "martti oiva kalevi ahtisaari"

Please delete and lock for 3 years [26]. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Processing a long queue of requested deletions at Galician Wiktionary

Status:    In progress

The only administrator in the whole project is inactive since 2022. Most pages in gl:wikt:Categoría:Wiktionary:Páxinas para borrar have awaited for a year or two to be deleted; some examples: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. It is evident no one is around to monitor the pending requests since at least 2022 AFAICT from the quick glance I made. Please empty the queue. Too Classy for This World (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done some of them, others are taking more time to check they are valid deletions MarcGarver (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unlicensed files and orphan non-free files on ur.wiki and mr.wiki

Status:    Not done

Hi! I'm not sure where to post because my request/suggestion does not follow usual policy.

I have been discussing with users on ur.wiki and mr.wiki about deleting files without a license and orphan non-free files. My first comment was about 1 year ago on ur.wiki and more than 12 years on mr.wiki.

The latest discussion can be seen here:

They are friendly enough but language is a problem for me. I managed to get my bot blocked for a few hours due to a misunderstanding. I can easily ask for a bot flag and tag more files but deleting files will help more.

At the current speed of deletion it will take years to delete the rest of the files. Much more than the usual 7 days. I think fighting vandalism and maintaining the quality of the articles are of higher priority for local admins.

So I wonder if global admins or someone else could offer to help the local admins? --MGA73 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; unfortunately neither urwiki nor mrwiki are GS wikis so we should generally not interfere there (except in emergencies or some other exceptions like cross-wiki actions etc). Therefore, asking local users might be your best bet here, if this regards deletions of the files in question? EPIC (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EPIC: I know it does not follow usual policy. But keeping unlicensed files and unused non-free files is a violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy. I wonder if that could qualify for an exception? --MGA73 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not too sure - but it's also the first time I've seen a request like this so I will leave it open and see what others have to say. EPIC (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's the first time I made such a request. Years ago I had similar issues on a handfull of wikis and there the outcome was that they made me an admin so I could clean up myself. That kept me busy for a few years :-D This time I hope someone else can fix ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both urwiki and mrwiki have active sysops that are capable of handling this. Every project has administrative backlogs, some that are years old. Where this would be handled on an urgent file-by-file basis would be if WMF got a copyright takedown request. In your notes you mentioned that you don't read these languages. Additionally, your generic list of "here are some users that made uploads I think may be bad" has not been curated against this problem thoroughly. I took a random user from one of those lists as an example and looked at a random file they uploaded; while it doesn't have a license template on it, it was identified as just a shadow copy of a commonswiki file that is licensed (see w:ur:فائل:Moenjodaro.jpg); so it may be able to be deleted as redundant, but that is a very low priority for anyone. At the very least, this is going to be Not done as there is no specific request that requires only a steward right now. Any editor can perform a through investigation and produce a report of specific issues - doing so may also make it easy for the active local admins to act. — xaosflux Talk 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xaosflux Thank you for your reply. I once noticed this old comment by Jimbo: "I am hopeful that a major push to sort through these two categories with an aim of eliminating everything in them can be completed in two weeks. If this policy change isn't enough to change the direction on these issues dramatically, we'll have to take some further steps to disallow uploads except to people who have somehow earned the right."
I read it as a a hint to act now and if not WMF will close the wikis so local upload is not possible. It is far away from only act in case of "a copyright takedown request". If it is generally accepted now only to delete files in case of a take down notice I think many wikis would like to know. Especially FOP and URAA have caused many to ask if we really have to delete.
I agree that anyone can check copyright. I think local admins should do that. If the community can't handle the work they should close down the opportunity for local uploads. --MGA73 (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been almost 20 years and the foundation doesn't seem to want to shutter a project over this; it is certainly ideal to have correct licensing available everywhere - but just like volunteer time WMF's Legal team also must prioritize how they spend time. If the WMF board wanted to make a big deal about it, they may also increase priority. To summarize, there just aren't enough people that care to prioritize what you are interested in right now; you are free to work on it and to recruit other volunteers to your cause. This request is being closed as not-done, as it is not directly actionable. If you think that the governance of certain projects has collapsed such that they should not be allowed to maintain any new future files, you can start a global RFC for each to revoke their local upload status. — xaosflux Talk 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did not ask for the project to be closed down. I asked if someone would help them delete the hundreds of files marked with "no license" or "oprhan non-free". I thought that was directly actionable. But now I tried and thank you for your time. --MGA73 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2024 (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 of this section.

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=26953645"