Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2014

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Translation pages

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by PiRSquared17. Trijnsteltalk 14:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Unused; cannot be edited directly:

Thanks in advance. --Ricordisamoa 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Done both, but why delete redirect template? Redirects are cheap (and it would let old versions of the page display properly). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[]
There was no reason to delete them if this breaks the redirects. These pages will be using in some near future the Translate extension too, once converted, and the items will be recreated identically as they were before the deletion ! verdy_p (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia's child protection policy

The following discussion is closed: Gone. At request of the author. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]

I created this page and think it should be kept, but User:MZMcBride unilaterally redirected it to child protection, an article about a proposed global policy (as opposed to child protection policies on specific Wikimedia projects, which is the focus of this essay). I was also warned not to revert the redirection. Since the redirect is pointless and misleading, either the redirection should be reverted, or the page should be deleted.

I'm listing the page here to clarify what is the broader consensus. Meta:About#Purpose states that purpose #3 of Meta is to serve as a forum for personal essays about Wikimedia projects; these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, nor are they expected to. Meta:Inclusion policy#Acceptable states that Meta is a wiki about the Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia Foundation and that as such, relevant essays or advocacy are acceptable. If someone disagrees with the essay, they are free to write their own essay or comment on the talk page, but since it's on-topic, I see no reason why it has to be deleted. Leucosticte (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Deleted. Move on. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Closure of Kurdish 2 Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Trijnsteltalk 12:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[]

This redirect is probably taking up space for a future second proposal for closure request enacted against Kurdish Wikipedia should the need ever arise, which I hope not. Previous proposal for closure was at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Kurdish Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: I fixed the only two links to point to Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Kurdish Wikipedia in case this is deleted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[]
A correct new request would be named "Closure of Kurdish Wikipedia 2". --MF-W 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[]
Perhaps, but then regardless it should be recreated at a later time to point to the new request, shouldn't it? There is no need for this particular redirect to exist anywhere at all. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Calendrier des imports GPS T1 - 2012

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[]

This page was created in 2011 by an anonymous user. Its purpose is unknown, but seems to be unrelated to Wikimedia, and it may have been meant for another wiki. Since it is not clear what kind of "GPS" or "imports" are being referred to, this page only creates confusion. If anyone knows what it means, please tell us. BTW. I tagged this page as "looking useless" just over a year ago. Nobody has commented since. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Delete - Does not appear to be relevant or needed. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Visibly it was intended to be created on the OpenStreetMap wiki and the user confused MetaWiki and fif not kow the wiki site for OSM. I wuld have transfered the page to the OSM wiki before deletion, however the current content does not even contain enough relevant data or the OSM Wiki and I won't endorse it for the OSM project itself as it has never been updated for any actual use and there's visibly nobody interested and nothing indicating that and OSM user will endorse it (additionally there's no way to conact the submitter to ask him what to do). verdy_p (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Delete - Does not seem to be needed here. Nothing links to it's never been edited since the author made it (except for PiRSquared this month). --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Grants:APG/FDC portal/FDC recommendations/2013-2014 round2/en-gb

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Billinghurst on 25 June. Trijnsteltalk 10:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

The FDC recommendations from the last round have been partially translated into en-gb from the original english, which unfortunately isn't too helpful for the audiences that will be reading the document. It would be better to stick with the original text here rather than providing a duplicate copy with some spellings changed. As such, please could this translation be deleted? (the other translations, and the original page, should be kept.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[]

@Mike Peel: While I understand the desire, now that it is there, is it really necessary? Picking apart translations is a nightmare. One has to get all the bits from Special:PrefixIndex/Translations:Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2/ and for this I see little real gain. I totally agree that en-gb (en-xx probably) translations are a pointless waste of time, and it would be preferable that the ability to do so is terminated.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Searching through the prefix index is actually not required. If you go to Special:PageTranslationDeletePage, you can delete all the translations at once. However, I would not recommend to do so. As long as we enable translations into English dialects, it would be hypocritical to delete them. I honestly don't see a reason for deleting these pages, although I would not have created them in the first place. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Maybe it's not worth the effort to delete them if doing so is complicated, but it doesn't sound like it is that complicated to do so? The two pages are essentially the same, apart from minor spelling differences, so it doesn't make sense to me to have two nearly-identical copies of a page - particularly given that this is an 'official' page that shouldn't change in the future (e.g. through vandalism), so the presence of this page will make long-term maintenance a bit more difficult. (Is there a good place to argue against the use of en-gb [or en-usa] as a translation for content at all, btw?) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Seriously, while a "British English translation" makes sense in some contexts where words really differ, here we're talking about 15 words being copy-edited to change a z into an s, half of those 15 being actually one word (organiZ/Sation). This is *not* a translation, it looks to me to be more of a joke. Moreover, I agree with Mike that it is confusing for the reader. I also find it unnecessary and frankly unprofessional. Please delete, thanks. notafish }<';> 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
@Mike Peel: The only English dialect codes here are en-gb and en-ca. Apparently whoever decided the list of languages thought 'en' would be synonymous with 'en-usa'. I can't really think of any other reason to have British and Canadian, but not American. Anyway, I would recommend you open a new section on Meta talk:Babylon if you wish to discuss this. I do not think it is at all difficult to delete them with Special:PageTranslationDeletePage, but I haven't used it for a while. (Also, any translation, or almost any page on the wiki for that matter, could be vandalized. That is not really an argument for deleting it, IMHO. However, maintaining two copies seems unnecessary, especially since the differences are so small. Perhaps a gadget or transliteration script could be created to make these minor adjustments automatically, rather than having users spend time making these tiny changes.)
@Notafish:: Hmm, I'm not sure why you say having a copy with different spelling is unprofessional. Even if changing spellings does not constitute a "translation" per se, it seems that a large number of en-gb and en-ca pages would just be minor spelling differences like this. Perhaps we should have guidelines on when to create en-gb and en-ca translations. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
PiRSquared17 if this translation was anything remotely professional, it would for example correct the spelling of the word program/me in the (no less than) 36 places it appears. And I'm sure that Mike, who unlike me, is a native speaker of English *and* British to boot would probably find about 20 other words that made him cringe when we wrote them in "American English" and he had to go against his natural grammar :D. This version has been marked as complete, and it is not (note the "partially translated" used by Mike in his opening request). Again, this is not about being against having a version of something in British English at all, but about having this in two English versions. For all we know, half the sentences are somewhat Polish, Bengali, Swedish etc. since we're a rather international crowd, so "translating" into en-gb is just weird. I would have understood a copy-edit to change everything into en-gb, but a translation? I'd much rather see this translated into Spanish, Russian or Japanese. Oh well... notafish }<';> 23:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[]
Anyway, for this component about WITH we do these translations, I have started a conversation re this matter at Meta_talk:Babylon#Proposal_to_not_translate_.2Fen.2F_to_.2Fen-gb.2F_..._.2Fen-xx.2F @Notafish, Mike Peel, and Pundit:
  • While I generally support translating into any dialects, as long as some people want to do it, I have to say that I find this effort quite wasteful. In the recommendation we all use the dialects we're familiar with and we do not aim at sticking to us-en or uk-en. I agree with notafish that if this translation is to stay, it should be done professionally (the difference and language accuracy should justify its existence). Pundit (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[]
  • If they are easy to delete, let us just get them done. They are rubbish pages anyway. There is no official difference between [en] [en-gb] and if you want to start getting pedantic, [en-au] (which we don't have) etc. At meta, it is a waste of time to have people blundering away with translations to en-gb for no other purpose than non-qualified semantics. Guideline is "don't bother, do something useful".  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[]
    @PiRSquared17: are you refusing to respond to this request? Noting that extra rights than I have currently are required if someone other is to respond on this page. Alternatively I will put in redirects for each subpage to the main version.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]
    For the record, you need to have both 'delete' and 'pagetranslation' rights to use Special:PageTranslationDeletePage, but you may be able to delete it in another way (I haven't really checked). You could just grant yourself translation admin rights; they're no big deal. Either way, I am not avoiding this, I am just busy with other things. Also I suggest you find an uninvolved admin/translationadmin to close this request (and carry out the deletion if that is the result), because I personally don't want to act in a case where I am involved, per policy. Sorry if I seem to be "refusing to respond". PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[]

User subpages of User:Discasto

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, out of scope. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[]

All subpages of User:Discasto, verified sockpuppet of Ecemaml, has an infinite block on eswiki, all pages are intimidation or harassment to another users and out of metawiki scope --Esteban (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: list --MF-W 20:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support All pages contain personal attacks and slurs against other users.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support As affected user in these subpages, I invoke the Inclusion policy as innapropiate content: "Dedicated attack pages". The pages are totally in Spanish language, because the Discasto's goal in Meta as using as container for attack the es.wikipedia community and local administrators. --Taichi - (あ!) 05:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support. I agree with Taichi. These pages don't have any useful content. мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (let's talk) 12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support. Dedicated attack pages are not acceptable Jaontiveros (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support All pages is to attack others admins. Also it's a sockpuppet.-天使 BlackBeast Do you need something? 18:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support For the reasons stated by Taichi and others. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 22:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose. There are no personal attacks in those pages, but complaints about procedures in Wikipedia in Spanish that function very bad since a long time. I guess the user simply thought it was easier to express this in their native language, but I think it would be enough to ask him to translate his pages (and I'm available to help: my English is not perfect, but understandable). No need to delete anything. Regarding the user Taichi, namely all that is said is that he is "the master of inadequate blocks" (el 'maestro' del bloqueo inadecuado) because he blocks for six months a dynamic IP address each time he suspects it is Ecemaml's. Mar del Sur (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Well, Mar del Sur (just above) normally works with Ecemaml, coming to defend the right to insult other users in Wikipedia. Of course, Ecemaml was also blocked in the Wikipedia in English ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manu Lop (talk)
Comment Comment Yes, Manu Lop as you say, I usually work with Ecemaml, as well as with Xabier, with Jaluj and scores of other users whom I almost prefer not to name, so you do not harass and chase them. I work with them because they are dedicated to the goal of the project and do add great free content. As does Discasto, whose very good articles I translated into German and coordinated our work here with him. I would gladly work with you too, provided you are willing to destinate your efforts to something else than pursue Ecemaml or me myself. And BTW, I have never “defended the right to insult others in Wikipedia”. On the contrary, I was expelled for denouncing that in the IRC admin- channel the admins of Wikipedia used to insult users. ¿Is'nt it , Laura? Mar del Sur (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose No insults or personal attacks on that page. Also willing to translate if necessary. A good photo of the reign of terror and constant harassment at --Maragm (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
"Reign of terror", "constant harrasment"? Maragm please, your strong and blatant words have only a truly reason: you're associate to this deeply with Discasto and Mar del Sur, because your major desire is the desysop of the majority of the es.wikipedia administrators, for very personal and particular reasons (with this diff maybe you gain a block in es.wikipedia for disruption). So, please, don't say every word about "terror" or "harassment" because the real sabotage come from your side. And a last words: I don't fear about your harrasments, I believe with the truly and real users from es.wikipedia that always collaborate about the article editions, and not from a group of exiled and non-constructive persons. This is my last intervention. --Taichi - (あ!) 08:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment My side? I thought there was or should only be one side in wikipedia, and that is all contributing articles and useful edits. Was is not you who congratulated and warmly welcomed an ex-sysop who misused his oversight tools to cover-up his own sock-puppet when he came in the other day to insult various users and was blocked for one month? Apparently his insults to your collegaues in did not bother you and you even voted in his favor during his desyspop process. And if you believe in "real users from that always collaborate about article editions" (sic), then you can have no complaints against me since my collaborations are mainly in the main space, editing, creating, and correcting articles in three wikis (es, en, and pt) and I have never sabotaged wiki from an outside blog like others I see above me in this list who were expelled and graciously readmitted.--Maragm (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Page containing an essay that does not match the MetaWiki purposes and could be used to intimidate administrators of the wikipedia in Spanish that are mentioned in it. --Roy 22:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment An essay criticizing procedures currently used by some administrators with contributors "could be used to intimidate administrators"? could be used by whom? how? why? In Wikipedia in Spanish things seem to work in a very odd way... If someone is insulted, he is expelled for reporting it (I know well), if someone discusses and analyzes methods and procedures in an essay, such as these, written by an excelent contributor and published here in Meta on his own user page, administrators may feel "intimidated" Mar del Sur (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support All Pages are clearly out of Meta's scope.--Jcaraballo 13:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --Phoenix58 (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Of course. HArassment and trolling must stop. Using meta to continue eswiki trolling is abuse of meta's pages. es:Magister Mathematicae 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose It's not possible, in es.wikipedia, to publicly prepare a case against an administrator by compiling examples of allegedly wrong administrative actions. Administrators catalog those pages as harassment and trolling, and summarily delete them and usually even block their authors. I support Meta being the place where those pages can exist. (The irony of having arrived to this status-quo in es.wikipedia in part because of this same ex-administrator's (Ecemaml) actions doesn't escape me.) --Angus (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment Every community, when it reaches a certain size, will have internal critics and opposition. It is a normal and a very good thing for the deveolpment of the community and its volunteers. Critics need to have the corresponding panel to express. This is a very basic knowledge of sociology that has already been fully incorporated into the common sense of our age. IMHO, the community of Wikipedia in Spanish has showed a systematic difficulty in understanding diversity as a value and in tolerating criticism as normal thing. I do agree with Angus: It would not be healthy to transport this error from the Spanish Wikipedia to Meta. Discasto's pages are, like any other page published elsewhere in Wikimedia projects, visible for all users and sysops (unlike, for example, IRC logs, where these people who want to delete agree to do so) so that the author could be sanctioned if he writes something that is a personal attack, or may be asked to delete some edition or version. Why is this not done? Perhaps the reason is very simple: because there is no such personal attacks. I would insist on my proposal to translate, so that we can get more opinions and ideas. Yesterday I left a note to Discasto as well, as so far none of the users interested in deleting these files has had the courtesy to notify the author. Mar del Sur (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose This RfD is, in itself, symptomatic of the very same problems and behaviour Discasto denounces. First of all, contrary to the accusations made here by most of the people supporting deletion, I have not yet found one instance of Discasto having insulted anyone in these subpages. Admittedly, I haven't read through each one, but it seems he merely enumerates a series of diffs in which he denounces cases he considers abusive. Whether or not that means Discasto's User subpages are to be deleted in accordance with Meta's policies, is for the community to decide. In the meantime, maybe someone can actually provide specific instances in these subpages of "personal attacks", "slurs", "insults", "intimidation", "harassment and trolling" instead of merely taking them for granted and/or making wild claims.
On the other hand, Taichi's comment above, in which he threatens a user here at Meta with being blocked at es.wikipedia, where Taichi is a sysop and bureacrat, is wholly unacceptable, by any standard. Not only is that threat deplorable in itself, but Taichi goes on to make unfounded statements such as the user's "major desire is the desysop of the majority of the es.wikipedia administrators" of "real sabotage" and of belonging to “a group of exiled and non-constructive persons”.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of slander we are accustomed to over at Wikipedia in Spanish, but I would like to think that the Meta community is less tolerant of such behaviour and would therefore appreciate the intervention of a Meta-Wiki administrator here to insist on the immediate retraction of such personal attacks at this RfD. BTW, my intervention here is made despite my serious concern that it may lead to intimidation and harassment over at the Wikipedia in Spanish. But that's par for the course. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment Thanks for pointing that out, Technopat, something that on the other hand was quite obvious. The threat of a block at for something said here underscores the reign of terror and harassment I mentioned before and I certainly have no intention of taking back those words. And, as to "sides", again it was not I who classified the community as "us vs. them". Sad that such a great project has become a battleground for some where the objective is to destroy the "enemy" and chase them throughout all related projects even if it means, as was the case months ago, disclosing personal info. --Maragm (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose An excellent editor. And otherwise support Maragm and Technopat, --Enrique Cordero (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose per Angus and Technopat. --Cocolacoste (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support, Il est très évident que ces sous-pages sont incompatibles avec les objectifs de Meta et avec les plus élémentaires normes de bonnes conduites. Meta n'est pas un endroit pour continuer les batailles locales de certains utilisateurs en situation de blocage sur d'autres Wikis. Bernard (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Comment Hi all, sorry for not joining this discussion before. I'm actually on holidays and I was warned about this discussion just two days ago (and not by the opener of this deletion request, something that I can't say it's surprising).
As I'm on holidays and without proper connection, I'll share with you just some thoughts in order to clarify the content and purpose of my user pages (additionally, I'd like to beg your pardon for using Spanish in my analysis pages... I've always thought that Wikimedia is really a multilingual project and therefore there's no obligation to use English; anyway, I'll translate all the pages to English to increase understanding and awareness).
First of all, I have to do some introduction. In spite of what's constantly said by some of the admins of the Spanish Wikipedia (my former colleagues) and other users, I'm a really committed contributor. I've been an admin in both the Spanish Wikipedia and commons for years. You can have a look to my figures (here and here) or to my last contributions (some selfpromotion here: have a look at w:es:Podemos (partido político), especially before it was vandalized, to w:es:Caridad Mercader or to w:es:Marina Ginestà; they have been duly translated into German, but a translation into English would be fine... I'm looking forward to your efforts as English speaking contributors). That is, provided that I'm allowed to, I'm a capable contributor with some merit. Unfortunately, I'm constantly harassed and therefore I have to waste a lot of time and effort in creating new users that allow me editing (no worries, as the admins acknowledge, there's plenty of editors actively using sockpuppets to create content... that's not a problem, but in some specific cases as mine).
Secondly, it's important to have in mind that the Spanish Wikipedia works in a very different way to the English Wikipedia. Unlike the English Wikipedia, where Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users, in the Spanish Wikipedia, blocks purpose are just the opposite. That is, mainly retaliatory. A common sense statement as In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate is totally ignored (in fact, I was expelled from the Spanish Wikipedia for matters that took place years before). At the same time, the Spanish Wikipedia works in the same way as Animal Farm, where All wikipedians are equal, but some wikipedians are more equal than others (finally, the finish this introduction, it's fair to say that the community in the Spanish Wikipedia had the chance to have a say in my indefinite block. When asked, 18 out of 25 wikipedians supported the end of my indefinite block. 12 out of 21 admins supported also the end of the indefinite unblock. Anyway, I wasn't unblocked arguing "lack of consensus" :-O.
Having said that, I have to declare that I strongly believe in transparency and accountability as key elements of the governance of any project or organization. My main purpose with my user pages is to publicly expose facts, situations and conducts (usually related to admins, but not always) that are usually concealed, hidden and even removed. As a result, the community in the Spanish Wikipedia is kept in a permanent blind status, as if they were minors. I could have created a blog or the like, but our experience in the Spanish Wikipedia, where hate blogs, such as "la marrana", have been insulting, calling names and dumping on a small group of users (mainly me) is a very bad precedent and therefore, I've thought it's better to use the Wikimedia means in order to make the community aware of issues that are usually swept under the carpet. I've tried to be descriptive and not qualify any person. I've been possibly not able to always stick to that principle and therefore apologize.
Next, I'll try to explain the purpose of each entry and its contents:
  • User:Discasto/27 de junio de 2014 describes how some admins in the Spanish Wikipedia, even if explicitly warned, have blocked several IP addresses of the main Spanish ISP for six months!!! Their only purpose seems to be sort of harassment against me, since all the IP addresses were allegedly used by me with the usual productive editions. It's interesting to see what the English Wikipedia says about this: Blocks should be based on the protection of Wikipedia rather than the punishment of offenders. Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires and IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time. I haven't had the time to review them, but I guess that the same admins that have rushed here to make this page deleted haven't been able to reconsider their misuse of blocking and unblock said IP addresses. Mind that these measures haven't been publicized anywhere (such as the Village Pump, in order to know whether these measures are supported by the community). As described, instead of unblocking the IP addresses in order to avoid unnecessary damages, the admins have rushed here to erase the traces of their mismanagement.
As a reminder, here you have some of the IP addresses (for sure there will be more) that keep on being blocked. Both Taichi and Manu Lop have rushed here to have their traces erased, but none of them (or any of the other admins willing to delete here what they don't allow in the Spanish Wikipedia) have unblocked the addresses:
  • User:Discasto/3 de julio de 2014 describes how some admins vandalize articles (see this, for example) and even delete articles (see here), just because they suspect that the editions where made by me. They are perfectly aware of the community not supporting the deletion of constructive editions regardless of its authorship. Anyway, without asking the community, they have done so.
  • User:Discasto/11 de junio de 2014 is possibly the more "meta-related", as it describes how the checkusers in the Spanish Wikipedia aren't able to find any match in t=0, but are able to find them in t=t0+3 months and a half. Surprising, isn't it? (BTW, the checkuser referred to in the analysis is Bernard, and I fully understand he thinks that exposing the way he manages the CU verifications is "incompatibles avec les objectifs de Meta et avec les plus élémentaires normes de bonnes conduites"; I'm still waiting for a plausible explanation about his astonishing CU verifications). I really suspect that the management of checkuser verifications and checkuser information is seriously defective in the Spanish Wikipedia, but as the Ombudsman Commission does not work at all (it took more than a year for the commission to simply read it and, when it was finally read, they asked for a summary, LOL... it described how checkuser information was used in external fora to harass other users and surprisingly, it was considered that it didn't bleach the WMF privacy policy, I can post the complain to describe better the way the CU information is handled in the Spanish Wikipedia) and there is no independent Audit Committee, there is no way to control how it is done it. In fact, it has been stated that the Wikimedia Foundation is bleaching its own policies and allow free sharing of CU information among projects beyond the three months publicly stated (yes, the same user that above talks about harassment and trolling, publicly states that The foundation provides a space for securely and centrally storing checkuser data (also allowing interwiki verification between all checkusers) [...]. And to be even more precise: such data do not expire, it is only inaccessible via this tool (and the 3-month period is simply a value that is specified in the configuration file, there is nothing special about the number from the technical point of view, it is simply the value that was decided on for the scope of the tool (and not the data, because I insist, the WMF itself provides a place for checkusers to store this type of information and Checkusers, with the WMF endorsement and facilities, since two years have a special place to store checkuser information 'precisely because the [CU] tool will no longer be available at three months' time'. This practice, again, is done with the WMF consent and facilities).
  • User:Discasto/8 de julio de 2014 and User:Discasto/23 de julio de 2014 describe how to call me names is for free in the Spanish Wikipedia. Anybody can call me names and say I'm a scumbag, a psycho or whatever (Phoenix58, above) without the slightest consequence (for him, at least). The insults are usually deleted, but as openly stated, also to protect the offender. Again, the issues are carefully hidden to the whole of the community with unknown purposes.
All of these issues cannot be discussed in the Spanish Wikipedia. They're deleted on a regular basis without the community having the opportunity to have a say. I think it should be the opposite. An informed community is a stronger community. The community have the right to know always how the admins use the powers the community has conferred on them. If the community is prevented from knowing about the facts in the right place, maybe meta is also a good place, without the right to delete that the admins in the Spanish Wikipedia seem to believe they have.
And last but not least The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and global. I fully commit to this mission and therefore will go on contributing to this fantastic project and expose the misuse of the admin powers strongly believing that the more the community knows, the sound the project will grow. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC) PS: has this request been publicized in the Spanish Wikipedia Village Pump or just the usual small group of admins and friends have been warned? PS2: I'll resume my holidays, therefore I won't be able to answer in due time. Sorry.[]
  • Support Support I don’t know what his intentions may be, but I think that he has stuck on something that makes no sense. His last edits on Spanish Wikipedia have proven that he has lost any purpose of contributing and improving the encyclopedia. It seems to me that he now seeks to get even with those he does not like (see Link's CADs, for example), and that should be stopped. Nixón (wop!) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment Well, this is my last contribution to the Spanish Wikipedia. And these my last uploads to commons. Sorry to refute your futile arguments. --Discasto (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment Don’t you think, Nixón, that if Ecemaml had been readmitted and unblocked when he requested it (2x), that perhaps he would have no need to use any sockpuppets to create or edit articles? Because that is the only thing that he has done, never sabotaging Wikipedia and (since you mention CADs - candidates for featured articles) even sharing the star of a featured article thanks to his almost complete remake of such article. You were blocked for six months instead of expelled as in other cases, for participating, when you were a sysop at, in that blog that sabotaged Wikipedia from outside trying to manipulate a Sysop election, organizing desysop processes, RfDs so that the author of the article would jump and he would be blocked, etc., etc. On two occasions he asked to be unblocked and his request was denied both times. Had the community been as generous and forgiving as it was in your and other cases of users involved in that blog, perhaps we would not be here at this point. It seems to me that it is all vengeance and not really anything to do with protecting Wikipedia since, I repeat, all he has done is contribute good quality articles that any Wikipedia would be proud of.--Maragm (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]

All non-esWiki editors: welcome to the (at least 8-year-old) Spanish Wikipedia Civil War! I really think that someone should open a RFC here about the countless issues on Spanish Wikipedia... 13:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Comment Comment Let's see if Ecemaml will be unlocked, why not also unlocks Mar del Sur, Vitamine, Rapel and Diegusjaimes? the four users are also blocked by less serious things about Ecemaml
Maragm, Assume good faith, well what did Nixon was less serious than Ecemaml. Nixon had no puppets in Wikipedia, Ecemaml did have puppets for six years. Nixon acted outside Wikipedia, Ecemaml acted within Wikipedia.
Comment Comment q.e.d. -> In the Spanish Wikipedia, blocks are retaliatory and not preventive. On the other hand, in the Ecemaml case, the community had a say and decided by majority that no indefinite block was needed. In the Nixón/Torune case, his friend Saloca took the place of the community and decided, on his own, that no indefinite block was needed (BTW, as in the Cheveri case). --Discasto (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Comment Comment Not like that. First at all, I don't think we can certainly believe in word of mouth spread by a user who previously said on his user page: " this is Discasto, a user expelled from the Spanish Wikipedia, allegedly because I'm a sockpuppet of another expelled wikipedian, Ecemaml.", implying that the request for checkuser did with positive relation found, was unreal and unprocedent. According to his words: "I ask my unlock because I consider the request for checkuser was irregular and unreliable".[1] Then, he continued to spread word here at Meta about his "unrelation" with the expelled user (see his user page), but now here he confirmed he was always that expelled user ("I've been an admin in both the Spanish Wikipedia and commons for years.") This behavior isn't completely relegated to Discasto puppet, but all the other sockpuppets (proved on his user page on es-wiki:[2], for instance "It's a little absurd the obsession you have with the defunct Ecemaml. I did well by leaving this project [... It's an honor. He (Ecemaml) was always an exceptional Wikipedist"], "(I'd been) accused of being a sockpuppet of three users, all of them expelled (apparently because they're related to the same Wikipedist -Ecemaml-). I don't have idea whom are them, but I do know that I've received a "positive relation" (request for checkuser)".
Before his expulsion from es-wiki, he used a sockpuppet to participate with both registered accounts on simultaneous ballots. Even when a user got evidence about his misuse when he was an admin and abuse of sockpuppets, the user was blocked because "defamation". And Ecemaml never confessed the charges imputed (but always expressed his "innocence") although the charges would been, some years after, revealead to be true.[3]
After his expulsion, he defends his right (with the users above, majority close friends during his active time on es-wiki), to "add valid content as a expelled user", arguing that "[sysops on es-wiki could invent whatever they want but their actions are not supported by any politic or even have the support of the community. The only cases something under a valid licence was massively deleted happened after it was proved they were plagiarized content or content that infringe the principles of the project". That would be right if this was his perception when he was an admin on es-wiki, because at that time he blocked other users because evasion as they were adding valid content to articles. See the evidence at some of his actions right here: evasion of one user to add valid content + blocking from Ecemaml; evasion of other user to add valid content + blocking from Ecemaml; evasion of other user to add valid content + blocking from Ecemaml.
Nowadays, he uses Meta to continue expanding his word of mouth about "misuse of the admin powers" of specific es-wiki admins. Saying he is innocent and this is a kind of mission for him (?). Saying he has the right to add valid content as an expelled user (although as an admin he denied this apparent right to other users' evasions). Saying his expulsion was one of "retaliatory not preventive" exceptions to the politics.
Given those various facts I gave you, that anyone could examine at the different pages' revisions on es-wiki. Nothing is invented. As you can compare with the words said by this other sockpuppet (Discasto), you can determine what's all this about. You can have a better idea why are some users/close friends of Ecemaml here comparing es-wiki to a "reign of terror and harassment", and arguing about all of this, right now, on the Village Pump on es-wiki: just to defend and justify the actions of this expelled user, in spite of ignoring what the politics clearly say. Told by one of the harassed users of this expelled former admin. Thank you for your reading. [4][5]. --Phoenix58 (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Just two remarks (I'm leaving right now): Phoenix58 is the user whose actions are listed in User:Discasto/8 de julio de 2014 and User:Discasto/23 de julio de 2014; he's used to call strong names on other users (such as "scum", "pycho" and the like... and he does it with full impunity and with the protection of the admins, as described in the links he and his friends wishes to remove). On the other hand, Ecemaml was never indefinite blocked because of any kind of defamation. That's other of the imaginative inventions of Phoenix58 (which, on the other hand, always greeted and supported users such as Rosymonterrey and Torune/Nixón, also voting above, which sabotaged Wikipedia from outside trying to manipulate a Sysop election, organizing desysop processes, RfDs so that the author of the article would jump and he would be blocked...). Of course, as Taichi tells above, "good" users, as Phoenix58, are allowed anything, while "bad" users have to be expelled and harassed by any means, including blatant misuse of the admin (see User:Discasto/27 de junio de 2014 and User:Discasto/3 de julio de 2014) and checkuser tools (User:Discasto/11 de junio de 2014). I end up quoting Angus (he was right, at the end of the day, being desysoped and expelled made me notice what kind of arrogant plonker I was :-)):

It's not possible, in es.wikipedia, to publicly prepare a case against an administrator by compiling examples of allegedly wrong administrative actions. Administrators catalog those pages as harassment and trolling, and summarily delete them and usually even block their authors. I support Meta being the place where those pages can exist.

Best regards --Discasto (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC) PS: and, BTW, don't try to teach me how to play the admin role. I've been an admin for years. The diff you provide above (you miss to provide also this one) is a contribution of a POV-Warrior (IvánHistoriador, Ostegesis, EQUOeditor and the like). Even if some individual contributions could be fine, the most of his contributions were just propaganda and didn't deserve the time of reviewing all of them. An example of his way of working is here. So, please, stop comparing this with this guy's contributions (BTW, once Ecemaml was expelled, this POV Warrior could do whatever he wanted without any problem)[]
Since I’ve been quoted by a party above with whom I have an interaction ban, I take also the liberty of quoting him and clarifying that the question of “a reign of terror and harassment" does have its basis, especially when such party writes messages like the following in the discussion page of one of the sysops above, a messsage (which I'm translating) that is quite cryptic and sort of scary and leaves one speechless and puzzled and wondering if we are participating in an encyclopedia or in some type of diabolic sect:
“It’s what one sees …
When you allow something that should not exist coexist. How much longer must we wait, we who want to coexist without those who do not wish to exist but only de-exist and leave the other who should cease to exist? With justice, I must claim: Enough! When will it be that we will finally be able to exist. Today or never. The hand that rocks the cradle.--Maragm (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Unfortunately, Ecemaml/Discasto forgot to mention I apologized for "calling strong names", the only time I did (so it's not a habit as he tries to ensure) and telling us that "I (Phoenix58) am allowed anything [avoiding blocking]", except for the fact I've been blocked before (so where's the "allow" faculty he expresses?) May adding a new inconsistency on this declaration, once I mentioned what he had done before, wouldn't be a good choice. Clearly, and admitted twice by him, his reasons to create those subpages are exclusively related to a matter concerning to es-wiki management, not Meta. But, he came to Meta because he is expelled on es-wiki. Not difficult to understand.
Also, he definetely distorts my words to call "imaginative invention" from myself: I don't ever suggest Ecemaml was blocked because of defamation, but for using sockpuppets both on ballots and to harass users[6], previously lying about his inputed charges and letting other admin (who proved at the moment the misuse of Ecemaml's admin faculties and abuse of sockpuppets) to be blocked accused of defamation against Ecemaml "without evidence" and blocked by other admin (who said then: "Not asking or inquire more about contributions of the alleged sockpuppets [of Ecemaml] but he [the user who is "defamating Ecemaml"] was ready to do a serious defamation"[7]). Even, he labelled it as a "reflexive blocking", something Ecemaml at the moment not considerated a "retaliatory not preventive" blocking. But now, he argues his own blocking has to be label as a retaliatory one. Why? So the politics, as he suggests, have to change according certain user, his "global contributions" or experience as an admin before, like him now? First with evasions topic and "adding valid contents as a expelled user", and now with the "retaliatory not preventive" blockings. What else remains to justify his actions, evasions and distorted word of mouth (supported mainly by his close friends, not to forget)? One of this friends suggests above if Ecemaml was never expelled, then this evasions and harassment wouldn't exist. But is not that considered a sabotage to "try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed"? As expressed on Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point politic, translated on our own local wiki as Wikipedia:No sabotees Wikipedia para respaldar tus argumentos politic. Is then suggested he has to be readmitted just to stop this behavior? What's all this about? And incredibly this was suggested by the same person that compared on this topic es-wiki to "A good photo of the reign of terror and constant harassment". Also calling "fratricidal wars" all situations regulating behaviors related to Ecemaml, his close friend. And even threatening es-wiki admins because again of his friend, with this message: "Maybe one day the Bullysysops at, most of whom do not even contribute content, will be desysoped and will be able to grow with good articles and editors will be able to edit in peace". Judge it by yourself. Evidence is there. Not me the one evading blocking to "add valid content" or lying every time/pretending to be other different person as he evades blocking/expulsion with sockpuppets to justify his actions or to consider every of his sockpuppets' blocking as a irregular just because it's all about him. The one who declares to be "fully commited to this mission", although this is not at all related to Meta concernings but for his own personal interests: intimidation and harassment as told by the es-wiki admin who created this section. --Phoenix58 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Comment "supported mainly by his close friends, not to forget" Well, it could be, regardless the trivialization of term "friendship". Supported mainly by his close friends"... or "fans"? "groupies"? "people who give more value to their excellent edits in articles than to his conflicts and occasional friction with guys-he-doesn't-get-in-touch"? "people with tunnel-vision who support blindy Ecemaml's actions"? "Ecemaml's lovers"? "people thinking in Ecemaml as a Messiah"? and opposed mainly... by his... "wiki-enemies"? "long-standing opponents"? "bloggers"? "rivals"? "people don't like him"? "people getting panicked about their featured articles nominees being criticized"? "people who Ecemaml treated awfully a long time ago"? "people who give more importance to the rules of the encyclopedia than to the encyclopedia itself"? "people who don't know how to turn over a new leaf"? "antiamigos" (sic)? Help me to find the exact definition, please. All I see is the typical manichean speech about right people vs wrong people. What about a piece of relativistic thinking? I'm not sure about these pages since I'm new in Meta, and I don't know the rules around here, but I also think there's is a big #%&ng problem in es-Wikipedia (for years and years) and it's not gonna be solved simply deleting them. Also... is there anyone here who thinks this RFD represents by any means an unbiased statistical sample of es-Wikipedia (or meta.wikimedia community)? Well, I guess not. Come on, cheer up and relax.—Totemkin (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Comment To attribute a "friendship" easy to verify on the messages between them, doesn't mean the es-wiki admins being his "wiki-enemies or opponents". At least, from my own point of view, the word of mouth spread before by the expelled user can't be taken with objectivity because he continues to unmatch what he says with the actions he did/had done (to go no further: first saying and defending he is not the sockpuppet of Ecemaml, but then now declaring he truly is the expelled user as told by himself: "I've been an admin in both the Spanish Wikipedia and commons for years", just to not explain again about his perception of "evasion as expelled user to add valid content" denied when he was a former admin on es-wiki to other users evading). It's not neccesary then to call me a "wiki-enemy" just to be discussing what the facts and pages' revision from es-wiki imply about the actions did by him. Interpretation of "sides", "war" or "reign of terror" was not provided by me neither here at Meta or es-wiki before. Is that the politics of Wikipedia can be also labeled as a "long-standing opponent" to this particular user, justifying his evasions and misuse of Meta for personal interests/harassment? If you ask me, I'm going to definitely support an admission of this user if circumstances are completely different, starting with the constant evasions to "try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed", a topic always regulated by the same way on es-wiki (new blocking for evaders regardless the value of the content added by them while evasion) even by Ecemaml when he was a former admin. Politics have not to change because of a certain user and his interests. As this behavior to "aim of getting politics chane by trying to enforce a rule in a unpopular way (evasion)" or creating this kind of subpages remains, my opinion can't be other. Facts told us more than any word of mouth spread. Simple like that.--Phoenix58 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
So you are not a Ecemaml's enemy. Well, then... you're a neutral (sic) and unbiased voice in this debate. (?) Or maybe a hidden Ecemaml's friend trying bitterly to help him? Aren't you? Let me guess... I don't know what facts told us, but these are facts too, and they told us "stuff", other thing is you don't wanna consider them. And your words here aren't "word of mouth spread", not. They are special and different. Phoenix's words are facts, for sure. But I'm not gonna "vote". I'm not gonna argue more, neither, life is short and full of turnips, that trendy book series say. Well, not exactly, something like that. So ciao.—Totemkin (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Comment As requested in my previous intervention, does anyone actually intend, if only for aesthetic reasons, to provide an instance –with the corresponding diff– with which to substantiate the claims of "personal attacks", "slurs", "insults", "intimidation", "harassment and trolling" in any of the subpages or are we merely condemned to take the majority of the people’s word for it and accept that if something is repeated often enough it becomes a “truth”?
As far as I can see, none of the diffs provided recently refer to any of the subpages up for RfD though they do provide an excellent example of the lengths to which certain users are prepared to go in their vendettas, to the detriment of content creation & basic maintenance at es:wiki.
So, let’s try once again: given the vehemence with which the charges are being made by several people, could someone please come up with an instance of the subpages up for RfD containing "personal attacks", "slurs", "insults", "intimidation", "harassment and trolling". Is that really asking too much? Regards, --Technopat (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Note to all users: this is not the place to snipe at each other. Any further personal attacks or uncivil discussion, or unsubstantiated accusations, will not be tolerated here. --Rschen7754 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Duplicate grant request page

The following discussion is closed: Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC) []

This draft grant request is a duplicate and I am requesting it's deletion. The grant request that was actually submitted is here. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[]

Duplicate grant report page

The following discussion is closed: Done. If speedy deletion applies, tagging it with {{delete}} is easier. Savhñ 13:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC) []

This draft grant report was never filled out and I am requesting it's deletion. The final grant report page is here. Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: deleted

This page seems to be out of scope for Meta. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Delete Page has nothing to do with the user. Eurodyne (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Wikimedia Foundation Forums

Extlinkspam for editor's personal site. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[]

See also Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#User:Allen2. The creation is in violation of editor's self-imposed wikibreak (or logged-out edit to avoid scrutiny or confuse the historical record), which seems aimed at avoiding being blocked. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Yes check.svg Deleted. --Stryn (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Request by Technopat

Hi, please see here. Thanks for your help! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]

Done. It could have been marked as a speedy deletion request. --MF-W 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]
Thanks a lot ;) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[]



The following discussion is closed: Deleted by PiRSquared17. Trijnsteltalk 14:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Unused and was mostly created as a test, the working processes we have at Steward requests/Permissions largely supersedes its original purpose. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Speedily deleted as redundant to the existing processes, but (to other admins) feel free to restore if you think my speedy deletion was incorrect. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: deleted

Very old template intended to be used at VR, which is not, and whose content IMHO is very outdated. Looks useless to me. Not linked anywhere. Thanks. — M 12:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[]

deleted as redundant  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[]


Category:English Language Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Rschen7754. Trijnsteltalk 11:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Should this category be merged to Category:English Wikipedia? IMO, the topics don't look very distinct to me to warrant two separate categories. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[]

I think this meets WM:CSD#G4. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[]
Deleted. --Rschen7754 03:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[]


File:IMG 5801.jpg

This file has no license and it does not qualify for fair use --MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Delete This has neither a source nor a licence. As the file is unused, WM:CSD permits speedy deletion in a week, unless a source is provided before then. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • It doesn't belong on Meta either. I found a similar photo, which while not exactly the same, appear to have been taken by the same photographer, which says "All Rights Reserved". I'm definitely leaning toward deletion unless the author licenses it freely within one or two days (per CSD). PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[]

Speedily deleted. Out of scope. --MF-W 17:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[]


This file has no license and no source and it does not qualify for fair use. --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Delete No source and no licence. I have now tagged the file as having no source. As the file is unused, it should be possible to speedily delete it due to the lack of a source in one week. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Uploader/subject comment. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[]
Done since the author agreed. --MF-W 17:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed: moved to commons

This file has no license and no source and it does not qualify for fair use. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]

  • Delete A licence was provided after you nominated the file for deletion, but there is no source. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[]
    Keep Missing information now provided. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Keep/Withdrawn - Uploader have now added a source and author (own work). --MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[]
  • It was also moved to Commons (locally deleted). PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[]


The following discussion is closed.

These should be replaced by LaTeX (for example, for "Lala2") and then be deleted. Also note that I have nominated the only page using the files for deletion above. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[]


Too many versions of page

The following discussion is closed: Moved to SRM and subsequently deleted by Mathonius. Trijnsteltalk 14:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Because of too many edit-wars on a page now considered not-notable and scheduled for deletion (see RfD on [8]) we cat't delete it and the system said we shoul ask stewards to do it. Please remove that ru:Bridge-TV page. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Not the correct venue, for future reference. This page is for requesting deletion of pages on Meta-Wiki. You should request that on SRM, which is for steward requests, next time. Thanks for notifying at least. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[]


Posted to correct place Steward requests/Miscellaneous#RfD ru:Bridge-TV. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Thank you! PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[]


Please delete User:Geraki/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js. It seems that blanking it is not enough. -Geraki TL 15:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[]

Yes check.svg Done. In the future, you can just use {{delete}} for speedy deletion requests. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[]



CNBanner:ChangeToU2014 v1-close/qqq

The following discussion is closed: Kept. While I'm not a translation admin, the explanation of Verdy p looks reliable. Trijnsteltalk 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Err, I'm not sure what the purpose of this message, but I doubt it would help me translate. Perhaps it's a user justifying his translation into "ta" language a certain way, in which case it could probably be kept somewhere else. But I don't know what it's supposed to do here... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[]

The "qqq" is the easiest place to talk about individual translation items, it gives hints to translators as well as initial authors aout ambiguities of their initial terms. We can't easily use talk pages of translation units for each language.
So I see no reason to delete this; as this does not hurt at all. The "qqq" pseudo-code is useful and appropriate to keep a track of common translation issues, in any language.
Even if we prefer putting at top of these "qqq" subpages the comments about the source (English) message explaining what it means, how and where it is used, and how to translate it; nothing prohibit adding other comments related for other non-English target languages, notably when they explain why some choices were made by translators (we need to keep these useful traces). ! verdy_p (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Delete Useless, IP was translating into ja, "neko" means cat in Japanese. This will not help anyone to translate, but may confused others. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Keep - new version is acceptable and will help translators. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]
    Is it okay to have messages in languages other than English in /qqq pages? --Glaisher [talk] 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[]
    Even though I technically "nominated" this page for deletion, I'm really unsure what to do with it. I would probably agree to some extent that questions about the validity of a translation in a language other than English should be left to other translators to interpret (provided they can read the language) but I'm wondering if it's not better off a the Translators' noticeboard or something similar. Placing it in documentation space just seems kind of... odd. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[]
    Glaisher qqq pages was supposed to be notification that needed for translation, if and any notification is needed for certain kind of language it's fine to leave /qqq in many languages as possible to notify the translator about things they need to know when translating. Example when some words regarding laws about certain countries is not allowed to be translated because it going to change the exact meaning (kind of related to De minimis). It is important to leave the specific message for notifications.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[]
    It may not help much, but I doubt it will hurt. Maybe ask on translators' noticeboard or Meta talk:Babylon. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[]
  • DeletePer PiRsquared. That was cute by the way.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 12:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC) It's fixed, should be fine now.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[]
  • Delete per PiRSquared17 --Glaisher [talk] 13:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons

The following discussion is closed: Kept, per TeleComNasSprVen. Also: talk redirects are usually redundant, while that's not the case for main redirects. Trijnsteltalk 12:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[]

What's the idea of deleting a talk redirect while keeping the main redirection? If different admins arrive at opposite decisions something with the deletion rules might be unclear. My preference would be (1) delete both redirects as bogus, (2) keep both redirects for consistency, (3) keep as is, i.e., bogus+inconsistent, nobody really cares. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]

As I'm assuming this is a request for deletion proper, I've moved your comments up a few sections. I don't agree with the deletion of this redirect, but I've already fixed the appropriate links to point to the target title instead. As noted by others, this particular discussion is linked to from a few off-wiki places such as Bugzilla tickets and comments, which generally cannot be edited after they've been posted, so I think this redirect should remain for the benefit of those still reviewing the Bugzilla tickets. (For example, bugzilla:4676 and bugzilla:61431.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]
Makes sense. Maybe the rule should be as long as "A" redirects to "B", and "talk A" to "talk B" as it should, leave the "talk A" redirect alone.Be..anyone (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[]


Quote templates

The following discussion is closed: Kept as long as the transclusions aren't fixed so still in use as of now. Trijnsteltalk 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[]

These offer redundant functionality to the already existing template at Template:Cquote, and they have been very little used so their passing will not be missed. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Could you please fix all transclusions to use the new template, or perhaps just redirect to the new one? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[]
Trijnstel, the second template Template:Quote2 does not appear to be in use judging from a quick Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Quote2 report, so could that one be deleted? Or alternatively redirected to the other template Template:Rquote, which currently shows use in the Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rquote report? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[]
Yes check.svg Done, redirected Trijnsteltalk 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]



File:Frieda col mattarello.png

The following discussion is closed: Kept, and image relicensed into CC-BY-SA per confirmation of Iron Bishop and Valepert. Trijnsteltalk 19:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[]
Kept - falls within scope and, as noted, has permission. Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[]

The file is licensed under CC-BY-ND, which I don't think is a free licence as you can't modify the image. Other projects speedily delete files under this licence, for example by using Commons:Template:Nonderivative or Wikipedia:Template:Db-f3, but WM:CSD doesn't permit speedy deletion of these files as criterion I1 is limited to non-commercial images and images with permission only for Meta-Wiki, which is not the case here.

I see that the file is a modified version of it:chapter:File:Frieda col salame.png (she is holding a different thing in her hand), so this might actually be a copyright violation as the licence doesn't permit you to change what she is holding in her hand. Also, the resolution is different, which may count as another disallowed modification. We don't know whether the copyright holder approved any of these modifications. It is also claimed that the file previously was uploaded at it:File:Frieda col mattarello.png where it was deleted for violating it:WP:EDP, and the file name on Italian Wikipedia suggests that Italian Wikipedia had the same version as the one on Meta. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[]

It's not a copyvio because wmit:File:Frieda col mattarello.png states the author authorised the derivative. --Nemo 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[]
  • File is not a copyvio and is currently in use, so hold (or keep) until discussion on WM:EDP is conclusive. Deryck C. 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[]
    • wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy doesn't allow non-free photos of notable people who are still alive. If I remember correctly, Frieda is involved in the case where an Italian politician sued Wikimedia Italia because the Wikimedia Foundation hosted an article on Italian Wikipedia, so she is arguably notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Any comment by the copyright holder? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[]

Who is the copyright holder of the original image? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]

According to wmit:File:Frieda col salame.png, the copyright holder to the original image is wmit:Utente:Iron Bishop. The file wmit:File:Frieda col mattarello.png suggests that the derivative was made by wmit:Utente:Valepert. Did wmit:Utente:Valepert take the photo of the rolling pin? If not, do we have any evidence that CC-BY-ND covers the rolling pin in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
I contacted the users on itwiki. This was going nowhere, so hopefully they can help. But they may just ignore it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
the rolling pin is File:Rollingpin.jpg. --valepert (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
You can't combine a GFDL+CC-BY-SA photo of a rolling pin with other images and publish the result as CC-BY-ND as this violates the SA part in CC-BY-SA and similar terms in GFDL, unless you get explicit permission from the one who took the photo of the rolling pin. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
in 2006 (!!) the file was uploaded with a (sarcastic) "fair use" licence (before this). a sysop on (instead of delete the file) changed the licence in "CC-BY-ND" because the ND clause in the former one. I have no idea that after several years we are debating about "copyright violation". --valepert (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
You can't combine images under certain licences with images under certain other licences. There is some information about this at Commons:Commons:Collages#Compatibility and there is also some information at w:Licence compatibility. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]

I don't see any consensus to delete. I'm inclined to close as "no consensus", but I'll give the copyright holder some time to respond. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]

This is really a silly case in my opinion, even if it does technically break the rule. Can we just leave it as an archive? Anyway, nobody would really care if it's deleted now (over 6 years later...) PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free images can't be kept, unless the project has an EDP which covers the image. This project doesn't have an EDP, and the image doesn't meet the definition of "free" in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to all projects, and no project can opt out from it. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[]
Stefan2, in 2006 such a global policy probably did not even exist. There is no really need to explain how the rules of our sites work to users who have been around for a long, long while :) Just remember, there was no such orthodoxy back then. I don't have any doubts that the people involved will settle this quickly, since they are actually champions of free contents. --Elitre (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[]
The ND license was supposed to avoid inopportune derivative works: Frieda is a VIP after all. Since these images were not inopportune in any way, as the copyright holder I gave my permission to Valepert and Cryptex (asking Frieda opinion, probably via IRC). I didn't know what the File:Rollingpin.jpg license was. This issue is a bit preposterous, however it's true: these licenses are not compatible. The image is indeed important, for historical and cultural reason, for italian wikipedians: it's an inside joke. We can probably find another rolling pin :) --Iron Bishop (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[]
Iron, I think the derivative work was licensed as ND, the rolling pin is fine ;) If you want we can get Frieda here to declare she's totally fine with a really free picture of hers, even a "photoshopped" one, since there are hundreds of them around already! --Elitre (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[]
User:Frieda, any comment on that? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[]

ROTFLOL. Excuse me, but I can't stop laughing, this whole discussion on a joke image is too much for me :-D Iron Bishop & Valepert could you please agree on relicensing both your images with CC-BY-SA? For me it's fine allowing derivative work ;-) Thank you,

--Frieda (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[]
@Iron Bishop and Valepert: now would you do so? This discussion should eventually be closed, which will never happen at this rate. ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[]
no problem on relicensing my image with CC-BY-SA. --valepert (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[]

  • Why was this kept? It looks like a blatant copyright violation of File:Rollingpin.jpg and therefore speedily deletable per WM:CSD G5 and also a blatant violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. On what are you basing the claim that Peter Kammer has authorised the use of his copyrighted photo of a rolling pin without having to respect the attribution and share-alike elements in CC-BY-SA? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[]
    • Re-opened. @Varnent: this was obviously wrong and besides, you're only a temp admin and this isn't why you got the rights. Trijnsteltalk 14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[]
      • I disagree - but do not feel strongly enough about this image to stop you all from continuing the argument. Have fun! --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[]
  • For goodness, fix the licensing and close it as keep and move on. Clearly the intention of all people is the file should be kept. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[]
    • The problem is that the licensing can't be changed unless User:Iron Bishop and User:Valepert both agree to change it. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[]
      • Currently waiting for a reply from User:Iron Bishop. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[]
        • @Nemo bis: Can you please contact Iron Bishop? This has been here since May. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]
          • I asked Iron Bishop one more time on itwiki. I suggest a deadline in February, so we don't keep this open forever. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[]
            • @Nemo bis, Valepert, and Frieda: Could one of you please contact Iron Bishop? There's no reason to keep this discussion around forever. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[]
              • I'm sorry, I didn't see the messages; now I re licensed the image. --Iron Bishop (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Template:T pdc

The following discussion is closed: Not undeleted and nothing more to be done here. Trijnsteltalk 11:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

This template was deleted with some others in this discussion: Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2011#Template:Tts. However, the template is referenced in Help:Advanced templates#Branching techniques without ParserFunctions (perhaps someone should have checked the links before it was removed). It is quite frustrating to encounter red links on Help pages; please undelete the template. Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[]

No it doesn't, meta is not a home for redundant templates, nor templates without purpose. I removed the reference from the Help page, which sounds more reasonable. I have also suggested that the section be culled from that page, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2014‎








Not undeleted






The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed. Not a Meta request. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[] In informatica e telecomunicazioni una sottorete, o subnet, è una parte della suddivisione di una singola rete IP (Internet Protocol). Tale suddivisione è realmente visibile solo dalla parte logica della rete, ciò vuol dire che la differenza tra una rete e una sottorete sta nel tipo di configurazione di rete che si dà al proprio [1]. [1][2]

proprio [1]. [1][2].... when click on 1 it goes to

Nella pagina sopra indicata (, quando si clicca sul testo riportato al 3° rigo mi prta su, il che non è bello - prego cancellare la connessione a


Rimosso. Grazie per aver segnalato questo. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.