Steward requests/Miscellaneous

< Steward requests(Redirected from SRSD)
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) Archives
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 requestsEdit

See Global sysops/Speedy delete requests.

Manual requestsEdit

150 spam ?Edit

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)

@Arroser: Simple Wikipedia has local sysops, GS or Stewards can't help you. simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@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)
Could you please link articles that are at global sysop-enabled wikis then? THanks! Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
@WikiBayer I agree Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
.:@WikiBayer I agree as well. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

billinghurst the problem i'm seeing is that this is a massive crosswiki borderline hoax :/ Praxidicae (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@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)
Sorry I wasn't advocating for doing anything, it was just a comment in general. Praxidicae (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@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)
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)

Help with a long-term spammer requestedEdit

Status:    In progress

In recent weeks, :slwiki has been a target of a relentless spam campaign involving more or less convoluted links to some junk book ("Threelogy") and to what appears to be a collection of files mentioning Katyn massacre. Judging by spam blacklists and other mentions on Meta, it's a cross-wiki issue. The spammer(s) use(s) different IPs each time and different ways to link (old diffs from various wikis, archive.is pages etc.), sometimes edit-warring with admins who revert, and it's been impossible to permanently block this activity. This has been going on for months, but now it's ramped up a few notches. Just earlier, the attempts got so persistent that :slwiki's abuse filter got throttled! Can someone help? — Yerpo Eh? 13:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yerpo: I'm not a global sysop, but I am extremely familiar with this spammer. The person behind the spam is a cross-wiki vandal, sockpuppetteer and harasser who has been permanently banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing any Wikimedia site. More information can be found at w:en:WP:LTA/GRP. As the edits of this person are subject to revert at sight, and as the edits are inherently disruptive, I believe that global sysops may help you block and delete nonsense created by this prolific vandal. I believe you can make requests to GSs here to deal with the vandal's disruption through protection of pages, deletion of added vandalism and blocking of IPs, especially as the vandal abuses open proxies to revert-war with vandal fighters till protection is applied. JavaHurricane 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@JavaHurricane: I had a feeling that the issue was this big, yes, but I couldn't find any discussions here, so thank you for pointing it out to me. Actually, :slwiki has plenty of admins and deleting/reverting this trash and blocking is not technically a problem, but it's rather draining, so I was hoping for some advice on how to prevent it, or possibly some more efficient global filter/block. Reading the rest, I have a hunch that it isn't technically feasible, though, so if anybody from the small wiki monitoring team or any other global sysop would keep an eye on :slwiki to help reverting at least, we'd be grateful (even if we're not so small). The person's current obsessions are boxing and Katyn massacre/Stalin. — Yerpo Eh? 05:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Also read w:pl:WP:CHICAGO (use Google Translate if you don't know Polish). He's been going on like this on a lot of WMF sites, in particular simple.wikipedia. He's gone on with the Katyn massacre on the English Wikivoyage, but we put in a filter that prevents the word "katyn" to be typed. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This page is generally not for full-fledged discussions. The header suggests "Formal or controversial requests can be filed at Steward requests/Miscellaneous", so I'll be moving this there. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
00:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yerpo: I have introduced w:sl:special:abusefilter/5 simple and targeted and left it in detect only—it will only be a start recipe. Feel welcome to turn it on for disallow when you feel comfortable that there are low false p+ves. The issue is going to be that when they are stopped, that they are just likely to adjust their behaviour to something a little different. About the only way that I have managed to truly scare them away is to set these filters to block, which here at meta I set to 2hr blocks, so it places an immediate inhibitor, and they don't get to probe the filter to work their way around it. Adding blocking to AF requires a consensus of your community to activate that component of AF and to have it activated via a phabricator site request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Import template used by twinkle from enwikiEdit

Status:    In progress

We recently imported a direct version of Twinkle gadget from enwiki to our local kswiki. However, we have not imported all templates used by two twinkle. I request you to kindly import templates from en:Category:Templates used by Twinkle to ks wikipedia kindly don't import the templates that are already present as most of them have been translated. I know this may be hectic, If this twinkle is discouraged for small wikis like kswiki, Then can you kindly install Global twinkles as a gadget. I will leave the change upto you as you are more experienced than me. Thankyou. --Iflaq (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iflaq: If there is only one or two people going to use this, then it would be better for you to install it through your special:MyPage/global.js per the instructions at User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal. We can set it up as a global gadget if there are going to be plentiful users. Running the English version is not the best idea.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW There are a massive 848 templates at enWP in play with Twinkle and that is just crazy. Seems gross overkill, and setting a rod for your back, to coin a phrase.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Billinghurst, Thankyou for your advice. Can you please create Global twinkle as a Gadget for our wiki. Since the enwiki needs many templates which are not present and translated it seems odd to use it. I will be importing and localising them one by one till then we can ise global twinkle as a Gadget. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
TwinkleGlobal is a cross-wiki script. It doesn't require any local templates. And it doesn't follow any local administrative process. So it's better to install twinkle from enwiki then localize it. Xiplus (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The key point is how many functions do you want to use? For example, if you don't need to tag articles with Cleanup Tempaltes, you don't need to import those templates. Xiplus (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
If i get it right Xiplus, You are suggesting to Import and translate Enwiki Twinkle not Global Twinkle ? If so it would be better if someone can import all templates from the enwiki and the we will translate them according to our needs. Though some of them may not be used currently but can be used in future. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
How is the AFD process on kswiki? I can't find any related pages. I think there is no such process on kswiki, so you should not import AFD-related templates. Xiplus (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance Xiplus. So the question Iflaq which functions are you're wanting to have Twinkle using at your wiki? Maybe Xiplus can guide you on the required components for you wiki, as it seems that all the functionality of Twinkle is not required on a less complex wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The function (component) list is here. Xiplus (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure Xiplus, Billinghurst got it. I have created a page that depicts our need ks:User:Iflaq/Research. Is there a way to import these templates faster than manually importing them one by one. Iflaq (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Interface of fa.wikibooks.orgEdit

Status:    In progress

I raised the issue on the VP and no one opposed it: fa:b:Special:Permalink/113740#تغییرات_رابط_کاربر

Please see b:fa:بحث_مدیاویکی:Common.js#Request_for_changes_moved_from_meta for the requested chnages.

My previous request was archived unsuccessfully: Steward_requests/Miscellaneous/2021-10#Edit_Interface_of_fa.wikibooks.org

Please note that the proposed changes have been taken from the English Wikibooks. If the English Wikibooks can have them, then Farsi Wikibooks can have them too. I'm not a regular editor of that project. I was asked to take care for this change, and I did that as a favour. I am a volunteer and not going to invest more time to look for better solutions. So, let's just copy&paste what I have prepared so far. I miss the old days when you could simply ask a local admin to edit the interface :(

Thanks, 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for mass deletion of Fair Use imagesEdit

Status:    In progress

Can someone please delete just over a hundred unused FU files on cy-wikipedia please? Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: Hello, cywiki has 15 sysops (including you) able to do this. I'm not understanding the reason for this request, since stewards perform actions only when there is no local users able to do something. stanglavine msg 15:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I've been through 'Special pages': we can mass delete an user's files, but there's no mass deletion of files in the above category, unless the tool has been translated wrongly. Can you give me the link please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: there is no such special software function. Some user scripts have batch-delete helper functions, such as Twinkle - but you would need to localize it for your project first. — xaosflux Talk 12:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I use this script for mass delete, but you'll need install it yourself. As xaosflux said, there is no native MediaWiki function for this, just gadgets and scripts. stanglavine msg 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi both, and thanks for your time on this! If you have time to delete, I'd be very grateful, otherwise it's gonna take me yonks to get my head round this! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not a matter of time: It's a matter of rule. We do not enter an wiki where there are active admins. Even more so when the wiki is not an GS wiki. Period. — regards, Revi 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: I have installed the enWS's gadget script into your global.js file special:mypage/global.js. You will now have a w:cy:Special:Massdelete page where you can load a page list and delete, this will also work for any WMF wiki where you are an admin. Feel free to comment out the line 2 when you have finished with the script. Noting that you will need to use your own delete reason, it is populated with enWS's in the dropdown  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Whow! That's great! Thank you billinghurst! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Case "Vami" (harassment and bot performing "problematic editing")Edit

Status:    In progress

User "Vami" also has a bot, operating through the main account, and performing "problematic editing". Vami created a useless dupe of an existing language-independent template, defined a privileged role for Russian for it, and switched all Russian pages to it by bot. There are 345 languages in the central table (created by me). As a (former) sysop I am responsible not only for removing piracy, but also for a sustainable development of the wiki. Turning one language-independent template into 345 separate templates doing same work is bad for maintainability and sustainability. Thus I (politely) opposed the idea, and got the full loathing in return.

Upon arrival at eo wiktionary, user "Vami" had less than 200 global edits. Few days later I noticed that Vami performs advanced template edits, and soon it turned out that "Vami" even has a bot! Most likely "Vami" is a new account for an old LTA blocked somewhere for a very long time.

The Esperanto wiktionary is in bad condition (but less bad that 2017 when I emerged), and full of piracy (but I succeeded to delete a part of it before I got banned as a result of Vami's pressuring). WMF TOS prohibits piracy thus I consider it as a duty of a sysop to delete pirated content: Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto.

Since eo wiktionary now officially has no sysops, the stewards and global sysops are reponsible for cases of severe misbehaviour. User "Vami" has been harassing, hounding and offending me for several weeks. Please take suitable action. Evidence of toxicity:

All this certainly would have given a long block on en wiktionary.

The toxic user Vami did not see the condition of the wiki back in 2017, and I do not want to be accused and hated for faults that I have not caused, actually on the contrary, for faults that I have repaired partially only during past 4 years in my spare time. And I do not want to be accused and hated for removing piracy because this is a duty of sysops, and fault of those who had inserted it. Pirated content has no right to exist.

Harassment and hounding is prohibited by both TOS and UCOC. Please resolve the case "Vami" now. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is operating a bot process, or something equivalent through their account, and where there should be a consensus for actions/edits, then would those users please put those operations aside until the community can work out an agreed process.

I would also hope that the eoWikt community as a whole could look at Meta:civility and look that as a means to get the wiki back on track. It seems that the words spoken have caused hurt on both sides and hardened the resolve to actual listening and cooperation. Strident behaviour won't resolve this situation. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Recovered section accidentally tagged as "Done" and subsequently removed without having done anything. Getting my bot banned whereas Vami's bot can continue is a strange outcome, based on a very superficial evaluation missing among other the fact the Vami has a bot at all. Please review the case. The fact that Vami is horribly rude should also be possible to address some way. Please let me know how if this is not the right place. Taylor 49 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
There has been an unfortunate amount of incivility involved in this (from both users involved), to the point that the vast majority of content I'm reading while trying to catch up is completely unrelated to the actual dispute. Vermont (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please rate and restore.Edit

Status:    In progress

Full content deletion was performed by the user Taylor_49(02:38, 13 nov. 2021)

https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=kuko&type=revision&diff=1016848&oldid=1016830
A request has been made about this and similar deletions. (12:43, 16 nov. 2021)
Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2021-11#EoWiktionary requests
There were no technical actions on the part of the administration, in connection with these I canceled this deletion
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=kuko&type=revision&diff=1018010&oldid=1016848
and at the same time began a discussion on this issue
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Diskuto%3Akuko&type=revision&diff=1018012&oldid=1016866
Thereafter, all content was re-deleted by the user Taylor_49 by editorial action (05:36, 20 nov. 2021)
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=kuko&type=revision&diff=1018387&oldid=1018011

  • Please rate the complete removal of the content again.

And also completely removed the content
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=envii&type=revision&diff=1018390&oldid=1011169
I ask you to restore the data, in connection with the fact that for reasons unknown to me, the system refuses me to perform the restore. This article does not belong to the PIV dictionary, since it is a complete copy from the PV dictionary, published earlier than the PIV and has no citation restrictions. These questions have already been discussed here
and here, on both RfCs a definite decision has not been made yet.

  • Please restore the content of page envii for the editors.

Va (🖋️) 09:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Vami is right that the 2 tiny main definitions of "envii" are already in PV (year 1930, presumably public domain by age), but the moderately long list with derivatives and their definitions is NOT in the PV, thus there is still evidence of copying of non-trivial quantity of text from PIV (editions 2002, 2005, 2020) and thus copyright infringement. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


Please take into consideration
Deletion of information by user Taylor 49
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fondo&type=revision&diff=1018389&oldid=1017045
For my part, i canceled this action
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fondo&diff=next&oldid=1018389
and at the same time i started a discussion
https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Diskuto:fondo#202111200755_Vami
Instead of discussing and proving the legality of actions, the information was deleted again by user Taylor 49
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fondo&diff=next&oldid=1018423
Va (🖋️) 19:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


Please take into consideration.2
Deletion of information by user Taylor 49
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=viza%C4%9Do&type=revision&diff=1017870&oldid=1017083
For my part, i canceled this action
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=viza%C4%9Do&diff=next&oldid=1017870
and at the same time i started a discussion
https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Diskuto:vizaĝo#202111170457_Vami
Instead of discussing and proving the legality of actions, the information was deleted again by user Taylor 49
https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=viza%C4%9Do&diff=next&oldid=1018087
Va (🖋️) 19:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I propose deletion is exactly same in both above cases: content is copied from copyrighted PIV as revealed in the "delete" template and reiterated in the local discussion. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
No final decision has been made for either RfC or RfC
Therefore, you acted arbitrarily, only on the basis of your opinion, the correctness of which has not been confirmed.
You ignored the discussion - you did not discuss, but deleted.
You force to restore your vandalism again in manual mode. Va (🖋️) 07:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for mass deletionEdit

Status:    In progress

There are over 150 articles marked as speedy deletion in ceb wiki. Please have somebody helped to delete them. --Tomchiukc (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(just a passer-by) It seems that Hoo man's AS doesn't work on cebwiki. Do anyone know why? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
BTW, did you mean to type ceb:Template:Delete? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 09:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry for quoting the wrong template. I think somebody did the deletion, but that wikipedia is still have nobody maintaining.--Tomchiukc (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems that most of the pages are bot-created articles. I have contacted the operator, which is a local admin.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 17:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

eowikt: if rollback is not possible, then you need help at least in retrieving the lost informationEdit

Status:    In progress
  • Involved accounts eo:wikt:User:Taylorbot, eo:wikt:User:Taylor 49.
  • The bot operation log, user Log - these two actions are interlinked.
  • In the German section of the project, information on dialects has been destroyed. All articles where the template "Dialektaĵoj (germana)" was used are affected (the information has not been moved to another section of the article, not marked as a comment in order to exclude the display of information and to be able to process the information in the future).
  • Restore request closed with no result.
  • I am asking for help in extracting diffs containing information about the pages and the full text of the parts removed from it. In any text format. For contact - mail and Telegram

Va (🖋️) 06:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not again?! Stewards are not SQL queries. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
de.wiktionary.org . Does not need any advanced rights. But please do not flood Esperanto wiktionary with non-Esperanto text (outside of examples) copied in industrial scale from "de.wiktionary.org" without attribution like Pablo did. But I have a better idea: you can move to "de.wiktionary.org" and stay there. I promise that I never will persecute you there. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Taylor 49, You do not understand what is written here, you violate what is written here. The problem is not in the rights for action, but in the amount of destruction caused by your bot, this amount is such that I am not able to restore it all manually. Va (🖋️) 12:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@User:Vami Please stop lying, spamming and trolling. There is no destruction. Taylor 49 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Taylor_49, but the protocols of your actions exist regardless of my opinion. The statement that the logging system is lying or trolling is meaningless.
Besides, I was not talking to you. Because my appeal to you was without result.
You are trying to unleash a discussion here. This place is not intended for discussion. Your goal is to get this request denied precisely because a discussion has started here. There is an example where you have successfully achieved this. Va (🖋️) 08:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Bashkir WikipediaEdit

Status:    In progress

Good evening. On January 16, 2022, I was blocked from the Bashkir Wikipedia for a week, allegedly for making edits. Although, there was no discussion on this issue, I was blocked even with restricted access to discussions. On January 16, I renamed the article Siberia Tatar language from Sybyr tele to Seber Tatar tele and Sybyrzar to Seber Tatarlary, referring to the Bashkir Encyclopedia. Since Sybyr Tele is an original study, and there are no sources for it. The administrator of the Bashkir Wikipedia, ZUFAr, asked me about these edits, to which I explained to him that the title of the article was brought according to authoritative sources, and also asked me to correct the name of Seber Tatarlary to Seber Tatarzary, as I made a mistake. There was no reaction to this. And without any discussion, he deleted my contribution, explaining that there was no such text in the source, I returned the text, specifying the source again, but the administrator began to reject without explanation, to which I indicated a quote from an authoritative source on his discussion page. And he calmed down. Then another participant started adding text to the article referring to the VKontakte social network and an interview with a resident of the village. On the discussion page, I explained to her that social networks and texts from it cannot be authoritative and deleted the unauthorized text. I also explained to her that the interview of a resident could not be authoritative, and pointed out specific errors and original research in the source she added. There was also no realisation. And in the evening, the second administrator of Ryanag, who is indefinitely blocked in the Russian Wikipedia for numerous violations of the rules and bypasses the blocking anonymously still violates the rules, just blocked me from the first time for a week, for a certain war of edits and imposed a topic ban on cancellations and changes of articles. At the same time, all the text I added was left, the names of the articles were also left according to the source that I gave. And the administrator of ZUFAr deleted this source, although he left the text from it. At the same time, those who added the original text and deleted authoritative sources along with the text, including one of the administrators, did not receive any warnings. And the second administrator, violating the rules himself, blocked me and imposed a topic ban.--Ilnur efende (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Configure a Wikiset to opt out fawiki from GIBPEEdit

Status:    In progress

Based on local community consensus at fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی/اصلاح_وپ:معاف#مستثنی_شدن_ویکی‌پدیای_فارسی_از_دسترسی_سراسری_معافیت_از_قطع_دسترسی_آی‌پی, I am requesting on behalf of fawiki that a Steward sets up a Wikiset here on Meta using which fawiki is opted out of GIPBE permission. All users who wish to bypass local or global IP blocks on fawiki shall request it locally at fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست برای دسترسی/معافیت از قطع دسترسی نشانی اینترنتی.

I also suggest that GIPBE be edited to mention the above and provide a link to fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست برای دسترسی/معافیت از قطع دسترسی نشانی اینترنتی. Furthermore, I propose that MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked-range is edited to include the following phrase: "If you have Global IP block exemption right, you may still need to request and receive local IP block exemption right on some projects".

The second paragraph consists of suggestions only; the community's wish, expressed in the first paragraph, would best be granted regardless of whether those suggestions are agreed to or not. Please {{ping}} me if you have any questions. Huji (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Was the community informed that GIPBE only applies to global blocks and for local blocks people need to apply for local IPBE anyway? --Base (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Huji, ^. --Base (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Base: yes. Fully aware. Huji (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I voice my opposition to this. Global block means global. Global IPBE is to cover stewards actions. If you wish to locally block someone use local blocks. gIPBE is not circumvent any local blocks of a person or an IP address.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: of course you can! And User:Martin Urbanec also shared some similar comments which you can now find in User_talk:Martin_Urbanec/Archives/2021#Global_group_opt-out_configuration. In short: (a) proxy blocks are often at the global level only, and for good reason (why repeat thousands of blocks on every project?); (b) fawiki is "special" in the number of its users who use proxies; (c) users who almost exclusively edit on fawiki have evaded proxy blocks by obtaining GIBPE and at least on two occasions, this has had negative consequences on local CUs' ability to run investigations on said users; and (d) if Stewards decide to reject the local community's wish, which I hope they don't, their decision would only be symbolic because fawiki will move on to the next option which is to import all global proxy blocks as local blocks, whereby GIPBE will become practically ineffective at fawiki.
So, you all are free to do as you wish. The outcome, one way or the other, is that fawiki will not allow anyone to circumvent blocks on open proxies unless they have locally been given IPBE access. Huji (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
What I am hearing is that there is something broken in the allocation of gIPBE that people have got through who should not, rather than allowing stewards to let through people are affected by their blocks. Your proposal is contrary to the whole scope and current design of global blocks and stewards' management of their blocks. It becomes a management nightmare. I believe that that this should be a global RfC due to what it could portent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
AND two occasions of slipping in the gIPBE is truly minor. How many socks do you have all the time, and people using unblocked proxies. It is an unproportional response to the problem and using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
AND I wonder whether it is possible to omit a wiki, as the permissions look to be set by an extension, and not by a wikiset, so what ability is there to withdraw them with a wikiset?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Starting from your last point: I was told that Wikisets can be used here; if that is incorrect, I am happy to explore a way to modify the extension code or WMF config for it.
Your first point is accurate: part of the issue is GIPBE is given out not to users who are editing cross-wiki and are impacted by non-proxy IP blocks, but to users who are nearly exclusively editing in one or two projects and who are impacted by proxy IP blocks. But another part of it is that GIPBE may work for many projects, but its cost-benefit tradeoff is not the same for all projects. Specifically, for projects in which sockpuppetry through proxies is more common.
Again, I refer you to the discussion I had with Martin, in which I explained the three-step solution. Step one: reach consensus GIPBE should be given out more thoughtfully (Requests for comment/Global IPBE guidelines was created, but failed). Step two: reach consensus that GIPBE should not apply to certain projects in which the rate of open proxy use and sockpuppetry is high (consensus achieved on fawiki, request presented here is getting push back by you and formerly by Martin). Step three: make GIPBE obsolete on those projects (starting with fawiki) by importing hundreds of thousands of blocks (retrospectively and prospectively).
And guess what: if a user complains about the local block of a proxy where the block is imported from a global block, local community will not take responsibility for it and will refer the user to Meta to discuss the global block. So, once again, I emphasize that you all are free to choose what you want to do. The outcome is the same. The third option is just produces more workload for no good reason. Huji (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please do not expect any user to go to a user talk page to read about a proposal, and its history, the proposal should be a standalone proposal presented to the community in its entirety. This approach is a de facto attempt to circumvent the principles and fundamentals of global block and gIPBE and it should be put before the community to see whether any wiki has the right to opt-out of that system. Such changes belong as global RfCs. Your proposal simply makes it harder to explain the global system and so far this is due to two identified users, and where it relates to the application of rules of gIPBE by stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
zhwiki (which has a high rate of usage of open proxy due to GFW) choose the third option, we have an adminbot blocking OP. Since nearly all global blocked OP has a hard block locally, this seems not a problem if you guys reach the consensus of option 2. Stang 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Stang: would you think that if this proposal is implemented for fawiki, zhwiki would also seek to be in the opt-out and stop importing the blocks? Huji (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the community's decision, but imo unlikely because a lot of locally blocked OP range is not blocked globally. Stang 17:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that a simpler solution is that you should track the applications for the GIPBE and raise an objection in any questionable case. I actually have not recently seen a lot of users from fa.wiki requesting the GIPBE. Ruslik (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: It should be the user's responsibility to prove that they are impacted by a global non-proxy block; it should not be our job to prove that they are not, and are getting GIPBE to abuse proxies. If Meta fails to ascertain that, and fails to adopt a guideline to do so (see RfC link above), then instead of arguing with those individual users on Meta when they ask for GIPBE, I'd rather just do the obviously defensible thing: blocking all proxies locally.
Anyway, it seems like the gravity of the situation is not understood despite my multiple tries. Clearly, the other large wiki that I know would benefit from it (zhwiki) also has given up on Meta already and taken option #3. I am going to start importing blocks in a few days. It is up to Meta to decide if they think that should be the end of it (and close this request) or if all aspects of proxy blocks should be actively managed globally, in which case exemptions from them should be very selectively given.
Another option Meta may want to pursue: work with Extension developers to separate global proxy blocks from other global blocks, and then use GIPBE to exempt users from non-proxy global blocks only (and possibly use another very selectively given right to allow some users to globally evade proxy blocks).
I am keeping this request open because it seems like Stewards are choosing the overrule a local consensus, and this needs to be explicitly stated here and kept in the history.Huji (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Huji Please stop accusing stewards of overruling/ignoring consensus. No steward ever said anything like that in this discussion (nor elsewhere) and there was no decision made yet. As you can see, some of the wikimedians sharing their thoughts here are not stewards and as such, they can't speak on behalf of the stewards. The only stewards (me and @Ruslik0) who shared their opinion on this matter made it crystal clear it's their personal opinion only. As the SP says, "[stewards] do not lose the ability to think and feel because they have access to more buttons". Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure what it has to do with the local consensus? Stewards decide, which IPs are globally blocked, and they also can exempt some users from their own global blocks. In addition, stewards are under no obligation to block all open proxies and moreover can unblock some of them if necessary. So, one wiki cannot dictate how global blocks are applied and who is exempted from them. Ruslik (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: Your point is fair: I should have used a conditional statement ("if the Stewards choose to overrule the local consensus ..."). Huji (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: the reason of blocking webhost IP (i.e. proxy) in zhwiki is excessive proxy abuse by LTA, which is unrelated to GIPBE. See also local discussion. Thank you. SCP-2000 16:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The reason for fawiki asking to be exempt from GIPBE is the same.
I think part of the problem is that a few projects have a much higher rate of proxy use than most other projects.
Another part of the problem is the way proxy blocks are executed (globally) and exemptions are executed for them via GIPBE (also globally, without considering impact on specific local communities). Huji (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
BUT All gIPBE does is reverse the impact of a stewards' action. It does nothing more or less. One gIPBE puts ONE specific account back to the status quo of the account, so that ONE account has the same editing rights as anyone not impacted by a steward's block. Stop beating this up to be more than it is. We all have problematic users, we all have users who abuse from dynamic ranges that cannot be blocked. Your wiki can use its granted rights and block problematic ranges just like any other. You have not been talking large numbers, and you have every opportunity to identify improvements to the system to the allocation of gIPBE WITHOUT having to change the bedrock of what global blocks and gIPBE are meant to be doing globally.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  CentralAuth developer note: Technically speaking (not commenting on if this is a good idea to implement) this can be done by creating an opt-out wiki set with fawiki in it, and then changing the GIPBE group to use that wiki set. Majavah (talk!) 15:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For context, please see prior discussion about this at my talk page. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Huji: I've sent an email to the stewards internal mailing list to discuss this. Would you mind waiting at most two weeks (probably less than that, but giving us a reserve here) to go ahead with the local blocks? Thanks, —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tks4Fish: yes, I find that agreeable. I will use the time between now and Feb 7 to write and test the code for the block importing bot, but I will not run it broadly until then (or sooner, if this discussion comes to a conclusion sooner). Thanks for the constructive suggestion. Huji (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of diluting the term “global”, to be honest. The reasoning is weak, too. A local community could neither decide to remove the stewards' ability to assign local user rights on every wiki. Seems like an issue to be taken to WMF what they consider stewards to be. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I share sDrewth's concerns and I've just asked WMF to give its opinion about the matter. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I also would like to hear WMF's opinion, specially regarding the risk of privacy violation involving this change. Global block exemptions are many times discussed by stewards using private information. How is that going to be handled locally? I feel that we are creating a bigger problem instead of working on a simpler solution. This is the first time I am aware of that issue with block exemption on fawiki and believe we can come up with easier solutions. For instance, creating a better communication with local checkusers before approving exemption from users from fawiki or even other interested projects.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 22:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    Your idea sounds like a much better solution. Letting a wiki opt-out of GIPBE seems like a significant overreaction. Legoktm (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Teles: the point about privately discussing the reasons for GIPBE is valid; however, note that any wiki can decide to imports all global blocks as local blocks too, in which case the user inevitably has to discuss their reasoning for getting local IPBE with local sysops/CUs of that wiki too. I don't think Meta can disallow that, can they?
    The point about having a better system for assigning GIPBE is one already raised at Requests for comment/Global IPBE guidelines. Aside from a user who is active on fawiki, I see no other supporters. I also don't see much involvement from Stewards in that RfC. I cannot see a path forward for this argument.
    I also don't see much of a path forward with the current request. I am keeping it open just for the sake of fawiki seeing a clearly written decision on it. Huji (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

OAuth permissionsEdit

  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 alsoEdit