Steward requests/Miscellaneous

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) latest archive
This page is for requesting that a specific administrative action (such as page deletion) be performed by a steward or global sysop on a Wikimedia wiki having no active administrators. (If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.) If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the page (just above the categories) of the form:

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

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

To report vandalism issues, please use Vandalism reports instead.
Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Bot-reported speedy deletion requests[edit]

This section is for reports filed via Kimberley-nia Bot on the SWMT's IRC channel #cvn-sw (bot's irc nick is Dellieplagiat). They are submitted on this subpage. Please watch this page separately if you are a steward, a global sysop, or a local administrator.

It is possible to manually edit this list if you follow the bot's formatting. If you feel a request is inappropriate, please remove the lines containing that request entirely. (Leaving comments, modifying the header line, and striking out reports will confuse the bot.)

Example for the correct formatting:

* {{msd-link|ie.wikipedia|Talk:Europa}}
*: spam - IRC user DerHexer ~~~~~

Properly-filed requests that point to pages that have already been deleted or do not exist will be automatically removed by the bot. Note: It is unnecessary to remove requests for wikis where local admins "can handle it by themselves". If that is really so, the pages will surely be deleted within a small period of time and then be automatically removed from the list by the bot.

Manual requests[edit]

Please see this tool for a list of pages tagged with {{Delete}} and/or the local equivalent.


Since I am blocked on species and haven't even made a single edit there, I can not tag pages for deletion. This needs to be deleted. --Eurodyne (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Specieswiki have enough local sysops to deal with it. --Glaisher (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I don't know if they have the right admins considering I am blocked without having a single edit there... But whatever. --Eurodyne (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurodyne, please don't act like you're the innocent one and that there are no "right admins" in this project. Your accounts were blocked because, at the time of your socking and deception in en.wp, your main account was Xermano (for those who are out of the loop, the discussion can be found at here). There is no way anyone aside from yourself to decide which one of your sock account is considered to be the main account. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't decide to manipulate us with your ever-changing identity. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Eurodyne: If you are blocked, then best that you keep away from the wiki, and not worry that they are spammed/vandalised; it isn't your concern. @OhanaUnited: Pre-emptively blocking someone for behaviour at another wiki is somewhere between harsh and overkill; users have different behaviour sites, and sometimes it is fairer to let them hang themself first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm considered to be one of the harshest stewards, and even I think that the block was too harsh, as I have expressed previously. --Rschen7754 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This really isn't the venue for a discussion about the administrative policies and practices of Wikispecies. Snowolf How can I help? 04:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to make just one last comment here. I am not saying that there are "no right admins" for species, I am just saying that some of the actions made there are poor. (in my opinion) OhanaUnited, I have already sent you an email regarding this block and haven't gotten a reply yet... I have already gotten my unblock at enwiki and have agreed to a few restrictions on my account with the local CheckUsers and sysops. Perhaps you could make that same offer at species? Eurodyne (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Shush Eurodyne, take your discussion to the user's talk page. It has been indicated that this is inappropriate discussion for this page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[edit]

IP seems to be promoting content such as this and this. A lock may need to be put into place... --Eurodyne (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Globally blocked. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Move page with subpages on etwikiquote[edit]

I request a global sysop or steward to move q:et:Mall:Kuutsitaat with 39 subpages to q:et:Vikitsitaadid:Kuu tsitaadid. No need to leave redirects behind. I assume you can move all subpages at once. These subpages are former main page content and show up as unused templates. Hence it would be more appropriate to keep these in project namespace. Thanks in advance. Pikne 06:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. If something went wrong, please tell :) --Stryn (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ro.wikivoyage sitenotice[edit]

Please remove the dead link from the sitenotice and change voy:ro:Mediawiki:Sitenotice to:

<div align="center" class="plainlinks">
Bun venit la [[Wikivoyage:Despre|Wikivoyage]]!

Thanks.sumone10154(talk) 21:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W
I forgot, could you also remove the same line from voy:ro:Mediawiki:Anonnotice and change it to:

<div style="font-size:100%" align="center">[[Wikivoyage:Bun venit|Bun venit]] la [[Wikivoyage:despre|Wikivoyage]]! Dacă doriți să contribuiți vă recomandăm să vă [[Special:Userlogin|înregistrați/autentificați]].</div>

Thanks. sumone10154(talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. diff. --Glaisher (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

gan wp[edit]

Status:    Done

gan wp does not have any active sysops. Could a steward delete this? --Eurodyne (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Your work is appreciated! --Eurodyne (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

cy wikibooks[edit]

cy wikibooks has no active sysops. Please delete this page as it is spam and useless. Eurodyne (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done but if you leave the tag there, a global sysop will eventually delete it (see [1]). --Rschen7754 02:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahhh. The GS tools. Yeah just wanted to make sure this got deleted. Thanks! Eurodyne (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Romanian Wikisource[edit]

Hello, I am administrator at the Romanian Wikipedia, and I am here to seek advice: we have blocked an user (BAICAN XXX) from Romanian Wikipedia, and this has migrated to the Romanian Wikisource where he started a campaign of creating non sense pages, as can be seen here. Considering that the Romanian Wikisource doesn't have any active administrator at the moment, a discussion has started at Romanian Wikipedia's Forum (ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Wikisource în limba română se degradează repede. Cum procedăm?) about what shall be done to stop this situation? The discussion is conveying towards the conclusion that the Romanian Wikipedia's administrators to be granted with sysops rights to all sister projects. The reason why the discussion was extended to all Romanian projects is due to the suspicion that as soon as will block BAICAN XXX on Wikisource this will migrate to other wiki project lacking in active administrators. Could you please provide your thoughts on this situation? Thanks and regards, Silenzio76 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I answered elsewhere … rights are approved by local communities, not en masse to a group of Wikipedia admins. There are three admins at roWS, please contact one or all of them about your concerns.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello. My former user account in German Wikipedia has been deleted without valid reason. The account FMrz was created im March (German abbreviation Mrz) 2014 and FSept in September 2014 (hence the names and my new name FOkt). FMrz had that much edits that it became "passiver Sichter" and therefore for some edits with sensitive content I used FSept because that account needed a confirmation from another user before shown as "gesichtet". First my FSept account had been deleted and unaware of this FMrz has been deleted too with "Sperrumgehung". Both deletes/blocks lack vaild reason. I did not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Can you remit my case to the "Schiedsgericht" of German Wikipedia? --FOkt (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello FOkt!
WP:Schiedsgericht states: "Wenn du mit dem Schiedsgericht Kontakt aufnehmen willst, z. B. falls du Informationen geben möchtest, aber deine Privatsphäre schützen möchtest, oder wenn du dein Konto für eine Anfrage entsperren lassen möchtest, schreibe bitte eine E-Mail an arbcomde-l at Diese E-Mails können dann von allen Schiedsrichtern (und nur von diesen) gelesen werden."
I'd suggest you to follow that advise in order to get unblocked for a request to the Schiedsgericht. Regards, Vogone (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Vogone!
For me Wikipedia should be content-centered and not person-centered. I do not want to personalize (=aggravate) a conflict by using my e-mail address. If these unreasonable blocks could only be lifted by giving my e-mail address, then all I can say is: German Wikipedia isn't worth it. Regards, FOkt (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Spam on outreach[edit]

Please delete this page create by ip . Best regards Grind24 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another spam on Outreach wiki[edit]

Please delete this and block globaly User:LucianaTildesle .Hi spamming and post a promotional(pub) content on his user page.No actif admis on outreach wiki??. Regards Grind24 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are over 100 admins on that wiki, some of which are active. Anyway, already Yes check.svg Done. --Rschen7754 01:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks for your work. cordially Grind24 (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Please clear pending speedy deletions on om.wikipedia per request from MGA73. There are no active local administrators. —Pathoschild 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done they do need their own admin  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


Please delete all pending speedy deletions on vi.wikiquote. The only administrator there hasn't been active for days. Quenhitran (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thanks for reporting. Vogone (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi,please delete this page.Test wiki is for developers and not a place to put content or anything meaningful,not where nonsense articles will stick.This ip :2601:6:7500:5FC:2C25:C706:900A:FC9 create more spamming page, see this, this this, this and this. Oh my god i think i will need the admis right.I request for admis right since a week on Requests permissions page --Regards Grind24 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Test Wiki has local admins who can handle this, so there's no need to ask stewards to handle this (or to link to your request for admin rights either). Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, im sorry i just want to help.Excuse me soon i will request local testwiki sysops to handle this.Best Regards --Grind24 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia deletion, 5k limit[edit]

Status:    Done

this afc submission w:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2016 Formula One season is not deletable by admin because it contains, due to its incorrect linkage, more than 5,000 edits. I am nervous about attempting to de-link the submission. --Anthony Bradbury (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disable abuse filter[edit]

Please delete/disable on of these; they do the same thing. Special:Abusefilter/100 Special:Abusefilter/99. --Glaisher (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep 99, get rid of 100 if you have to. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Updated 99 in line with the help about article_articleid, and disabled 100 a few hours ago. Watching the stream of abuse for hours, and even resorted to turning block on, though would like to be able to do that globally, but won't/can't. Fairly large number of hacked PCs out there being zombified for this abuse. :-/  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of IPs getting indef-blocked. Also iirc, there was some discussion on not enabling block option on global filters. --Glaisher (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It is my plan to convert them in a day or so to something like a month or two, the are hijacked computers. :-/ Yep it is a bit of a shame that the system gblocks indefinite, and it is something that we should get amended with a bugzilla for IP addresses, maybe something like a week. Re not using, sure, it was an emergency measure, and not used lightly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see that Tegel has one made changes to block lengths at one wiki, I am treading through others.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Media wiki[edit]

Can a global sysop block globaly this ip : he delete translation Manual:Installation guide/id and vandalism them diff. Regards --Grind24 (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Only 3 edits globally (luxo:, all in mediawikiwiki (1 valid edition and 2 not valid). I see no reason to block globally or locally. Currently exists more than 20 active local admins, if he continuous request there a local block.
Note: The GS we can't globally block, is a capacity of stewards. Cheers, Alan (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you Alan . Regards --Grind24 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Global protect[edit]

Do you stewards have tool for proect page globally, or is it even possible? I was asking article Professor_Layton_vs._Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney to be protected globally because an IPv6 user (every time with different IPv6 address) inserts fake information into the article. 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no global protection tool currently. --Glaisher (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, no more then. 14:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy a page from frwiki to mediawikiwiki[edit]

Status:    Done

Could you please copy w:fr:Aide:Pywikipedia/ and its history to mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ I tried to ask on mw:Project:Requests#Import w:fr:Aide:Pywikipedia/, but nobody answered in two weeks. Orlodrim (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I pinged the local Importers there. --Glaisher (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, this is now done. Orlodrim (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Spam target b:cy:Arbennig:RecentChanges[edit]

To note that cyWB is being hit as a spam target, and has no active administrators. So eyes there would be useful. I have given it a clean today, and I may get back there to run some CU tests to see if we can stop the spambot creations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


@Billinghurst: Looks like this one is prone to FPs (like people trying to create articles in user space). [2] [3] [4] [5] I don't think disallow should be enabled at its current state. Some possible modifications: not match if <ref> {{templates}} are in wikitext. --Glaisher (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that any of those user page edits are primary material. We could look to utilise email_confirm which would have let one of the four through, we could also look to change the displayed rejection message rather than the default, so the edits being disallowed could be more helpfully supported. We could look to exclude subpages. Any person who has edited even remotely per a guideline will not be caught by that filter.
There is a whole load of blocked spambots in the abuse log, and its false positive rate had been very low for meta and small wikis. Let us find some worthy content that is caught, and we look ensure that is not caught by the log filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Global filters are supposed to be completely uncontroversial and I see some hits which may be considered as valid edits at some wikis and we meta users shouldn't be disallowing such edits unless it's blatant spam. This is not blatant spam, afaict. --Glaisher (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See also[edit]