Steward requests/Miscellaneous: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:09, 29 January 2014

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
CheckUser information Global blocks/locks Permissions (global) Permissions (bot) Permissions (other) Username changes/ usurpation requests Miscellaneous requests URL blacklisting Title/username blacklisting Email blacklisting
Meta-Wiki requests
CheckUser information Deletion Permissions Requests for help

Bot-reported speedy deletion requests

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

Please see tools:~erwin85/delete.php for a list of pages tagged with {{Delete}} and/or the local equivalent.

Quick links: 0 sysops – 3 sysops / 1 month ago – 5 sysops / 3 months ago

cleanup required xwiki

The following accounts are all part of a sockfarm

Extended content

that have been uploading files to Commons and then writing articles to wikis, majorly small wikis. Article names like Tatarnikov Alexander, Alexander Tatarnikov, cyrillic variations, DiezelSun, ... We are going to need to do a hunt and tag for deletion, or delete the articles (circumstance depending). They seem to be linked through Wikidata, so we should be able to hunt and clean somewhat easier, though we may need to review after the first cleansing run. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I found and marked them all. I would appreciate someone doing some checking. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and changed the list to use {{Globaluser|Example}}. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While tracking the deletions through the Wikidata item, I noticed that Ravigasi (talk • meta edits • global user summary • CA) has been removing the deletion tags. I've restored them; just noting the user here for reference. The Anonymouse (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted a couple today, will go through more of the gs ones tomorrow. Ajraddatz (Talk) 07:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sawlens and Ravigas linked to issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Haflos (talk • meta edits • global user summary • CA). Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massive, 100+ project cross-wiki spam effort by Jose77

I am in the process of listing several dozen pages for deletion. All of them are translations of True Jesus Church, all created by a single editor, with no substantive edits by local editors of the projects. You can see the full list of pages this is on at Wikidata. Most (but not all) of those will be tagged for deletion very shortly. I'd very much appreciate any help I can get, as I have no small-wiki experience. Sven Manguard (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for deletion? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's cut and paste spam. Almost all of them are the same text, translated, apparently in some cases not particularly well. There's no citations in most of them, and those that do have citations are not citing to reliable third party sources, but to bible passages and the group's internal publications. There is no consideration for the local projects' notability standards (which in most cases, I would think, this fails significantly, as there aren't reliable third party sources for this organization). Sven Manguard (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After speaking with PiRSquared17 over IRC, I've pulled all of the deletion templates. I still think that the articles should be deleted, in bulk, for the reasons I stated above, but because it'd be such a major effort (there are 261 projects with a copy of this article), and because apparently these articles have a bit of a sordid backstory, there's going to have to be some sort of broader consensus to delete these, and therefore, a formal discussion somewhere. Sven Manguard (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some points to consider:

In favor of deletion:
1. Content has been "spammed" xwiki. Other spam is deleted on small wikis, even if the wikis don't have policies dealing with advertising. The page could be considered spam because it contains a link and seems to have been created for promotional purposes. I am not sure it is written from a neutral point of view, can someone check?
2. These pages don't have any third party references for content.
3. They do not establish notability.
4. This user has been asking many users on Incubator to translate the article into various languages and has created these pages on most Wikipedias, so it is clear he has a COI. This is not really a reason to delete, but is a reason to consider this request.
Against deletion:
1. These articles have existed for years and stewards have known about it. In fact, an admin was desysoped after he deleted one of these pages (see here). Note that the user made other mistakes, so this article's status was not really brought up there, but the user's own reasons for deletion.
2. Most small Wikipedias do not have policies about notability or verifiability, probably: Wikipedias with sitelink d:Q4657574 = 74, #open Wikipedias = about 276 I think, 74/276 = about 27% or just over a quarter. On the other hand, if we count sitelinks to the article in question, 261/276 ≈ 95% of Wikipedias. Notability is not mentioned in Founding principles explicitly, but I personally think all Wikipedias should have notability policies. Precedents [1] [2] "I don't think these are speedy deletion candidates. They've been around since 2008, and even though many started out as bad machine translations (or less), many of them have been corrected and expanded by now. Notability is not a global policy; different criteria apply in different projects. Any deletion requests should be made locally in the corresponding projects IMO. Jafeluv 11:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)"

PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In short all articles leaved untouched by locals should be deleted asap. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a lot of wikis, if global sysops/stewards don't delete the pages, nobody else will, due to there being no active admins. --Rs chen 7754 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysops are only supposed to act in noncontroversial cases, such as "for the purposes of antivandalism and routine maintenance". Do you think this is uncontroversial? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the origional two opposition to deletion arguments, my counteraguements are these:

1. Is there a reason why the global sysops and stewards have done nothing? The feeling I've gotten from my IRC conversations is that nothing has happened not because there is a reason for inaction based in policy (there may well be one; I am not versed in GS/Steward/Meta/Global policies), but rather because it's complicated and a big task and while no one is a great fan of the articles, no one wants to go through the trouble of dealing with them. If that's not the case, fine, but that's the picture that's been painted for me. If that is the case, it's a terrible reason for not dealing with crosswiki abuse, which is what I view this as.

2. Most Wikipedias are too small to have a lot of the policies we take for granted; this is true. At the same time however, the idea that Wikipedia should only include notable, verifiable information is, I believe, part of the core of what all of the WMF projects are trying to do. It's not curated in the sense that there's an editorial board, but it's still curated content, in that we don't allow everything in. If the smaller projects didn't care about the content of their articles, if they adopted a manta of "you don't have to be a member of our editing community, follow or rules and stylistic guidelines, and can post whatever you want", the global sysops and stewards wouldn't remove spambot-generated articles from smaller wikis, because hey, it's content, and it's about a commercial product. Instead, such postings are removed on sight. I'm not saying that Jose77 is a spambot, but I am saying that he's pushing the same exact content, irrespective of local policies and guidelines, and with a possible (in fact, quite probable) promotional intent, onto every project. That's really quite close to a spambot, and there's no problem among GSes and Stewards in going after those. Sven Manguard (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not familiar with this case, I've taken down a few notes based on a brief glance at this discussion: 1) Technically the Achinese Wikipedian sysop was demoted due to the flag being temporary, but Jose77 was the one who opened up the issue here on meta asking for desysopship. It's clear he has a COI obsession with the article in question. 2) It's quite possible that his bad machine translations for other language versions of the same article are creating massive cross-wiki disruption and work for the other translators because he replaced many significant aspects of the translated articles with these translations. Articles with long-standing histories such as the one from 2006 however could be manually checked and reverted to a previous version, and perhaps a stern warning about this should be issued to him. 3) If he did in fact copy the articles over, most likely he did not give proper attribution and thus would be violating copyright, as CC-By-SA demands attribution even when copying between Wikimedia wikis. In fact, that's what Incubator and the Import tool is designed for, importing whole article histories worth of revisions while crediting the original authors. 4) On the other hand though, leaving the articles as is might encourage other translators to come along and help rather than leaving a blank page and/or redlink on a topic no one cares about. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re to your note 2: I don't think they are machine translations, but I may be wrong. Why do you think they are machine translations? The precedents I linked were for different articles, but where Jafeluv gave an argument applicable to this case. I contacted Jose77 so he could comment here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that it is possible he can know all the languages of the Wikipedia versions he is translating into, especially concerning articles that he tried to create from scratch himself. The rest of my points still stand however, though they were but based on a brief glance at the situation. In particular, this edit which "untranslated" "kanisa" back to "church" was pretty interesting. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Google Translate and other machine translators support many of the languages he used. He may have contacted native speakers. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this situation is very similar to the paid editing issues which exist cross-wiki. There is really no policy on how to deal with this; the pages are unconventional advertising. Maybe an RFC on the matter to establish some policy would be beneficial, at least for wikis without local active admins. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these pages, but it's the same here as with Steward_requests/Miscellaneous/2013#Request_for_deletion_on_multi_wikis_of_articles_about_Kedar_Joshi_.28d:Q55704.29. If translations are proven to be abusively bad however, they can still be deleted by GSes on projects where nobody else is active. --MF-W 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about small villages, one hit wonders, local radio stations, little-known actresses etc., created by a single user... then, by the same logic, all of these ones may/should be deleted? (I'm not a steward, just came randomly) --Midnight Gambler (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also one of the oldest cities in Poland seems to be on many Wikipedias, even tiny ones. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean Kraków, although if I create pages about e.g. Izborsk (village founded in 862) on many wikis it will be surely perceived as geo spam. What about my examples? It's similar to situation shown in this request. --Midnight Gambler (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largedelete request for enwiki

Status: Done

Hi, can someone please delete w:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons in line with the consensus at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons? It has over 5000 revisions so exceeds sysop delete permissions. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largedelete request for jawiki

Status: Done

Hello. Please delete ja:Wikipedia:貝塚/サンドボックス, which is already deleted revisions of Wikipedia sandbox. To avoid too many deleted revisions in sandbox, Occasionally revert & move to ja:Wikipedia:貝塚/サンドボックス & delete have been done. But now, deletion of ja:Wikipedia:貝塚/サンドボックス resulted in an error exceeds admin previlege (regardless there is only 2,500 revs).--Jkr2255 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitenotice for simple.wikibooks

There is currently no sitenotice indicating that simple.wikibooks is closed - could one be added? --Rs chen 7754 05:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a local Sitenotice, however, there is also a bug. I've just fixed that so the Sitenotice should appear now. -Barras talk 05:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2013-07#Simple Wikiquote Sitenotice. --Glaisher [talk] 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this on the main page should be changed, imo. - "This means that this wiki will soon be closed". --Glaisher [talk] 06:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ruslik (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Wikimedia

See this created in October of 2012 which seems to be spam; similar disruptive activity could also be found by this user at commonswiki and trwiki back in 2012, but also recently tripped enwiki's filter today showing similar behavior. May need to keep a closer eye on this account. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a bit on WM-TR's wiki, including that user page. Sa vh ^ñ 11:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some additional cleanup. Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts but it look like the spam came back today. Well it looks like an earnest attempt by the user but maybe someone could email the person and tell him to stop? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Turkish chapter's wiki, let them manage it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki Vietnamese spam

Created from spambots Khanhthu and Mychily. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be managed, and can be cleaned by normal processes if local communities are unable. Accounts have been locked, and the spamming domains are monitored. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki bogus article creation

IP editor at 172.4.225.64 is creating bogus articles to push wikis past milestones reported at Wikimedia News. Hallmarks of longtime vandal. In particular, these edits (at wikis with no active admins) have created new pages that need to be deleted. Edits at a third wiki have been reported to a local admin. See Vandalism reports#172.4.225.64 for link to all recent edits from that IP. (In the future, should I only report here or only report there?) - dcljr (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MF-Warburg: is this who I think it is? --Rs chen 7754 04:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Google9999, but I deleted all the junk on the first two wikis you linked. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Vogone> *6666 --Rs chen 7754 04:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he from London? This IP is from Texas. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had the wrong one in mind, User:MF-Warburg/Decker. --Rs chen 7754 04:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely him after looking at old edits. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Decker. Gbloqué. --MF-W 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2013

wm2013:User:Littlegirlpu

Crosswiki spam from Special:CentralAuth/Littlegirlpu. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 :I did some additional cleanup. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 18:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::Thanks for your efforts but it look like the spam came back today. Well it looks like an earnest attempt by the user but maybe someone could email the person and tell him to stop? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 00:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
+:::It is the Turkish chapter's wiki, let them manage it. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 11:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 ===Crosswiki Vietnamese spam===