Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2017

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.





The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't want since I don't know what to put here. I was prompted on X!'s tools after I wanted to see the time cards but no need anymore. Thanks. MechQuester (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Speedydeleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This page contains wrong translation. "翻訳依頼" means "Translation request(s)" --Shirayuki (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Page deleted. Translations to other languages should be deleted also.--Syum90 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This page should not have been translated because it's a discussion page, but I've translated it by mistake. Thank you for any help you can provide. --WwLMvm (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As far I can see there are translations in other languages and your translation is ok, so I think deletion is not needed.--Syum90 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly I'm afraid. There is nothing that we can translate, because the page is a kind of a talk page. And translated page doesn't show a latest version of the original Tech somehow. Also, the original Tech doesn't include <languages/> tag and other translation tags although the “Translate this page” option shows. I should have not translated it but connected Japaese text version through Wikidata. --WwLMvm (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see. In this case this translation and also the others should be deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Actualization: All the translations have been deleted and the page Tech has been removed from translation.--Syum90 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Bandjalang

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by revi.--Syum90 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • May you delete the page Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Bandjalang? According to the president of Wikimedia Australia (could be seen here [1]), the language used on the page is insulting and if we are going to have Wikipedia in Bandjalang at all, they shouldn't see that the request has been started by a person who wanted to insult them. --Millosh (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Done; I think it was CSD eligible. — regards, Revi 13:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Stryn.--Syum90 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Stryn (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Stryn.--Syum90 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Page deleted and account blocked.--Syum90 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This user page: Personal attack. For Naming convention, I guess this user may be w:ja:LTA:ISECHIKA. --Kyube (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Only spammed page with phone numbers and sexual related content. Refers himlself as being the same as User:Poetlister (see diff: may be tested by IP check admins) which has already been globally banned and permanently blocked. But he's back, only posting spam and blanking important pages (Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/Final) or talks in public forums under his new account name...

Note: I reverted his edits, but he created a page ([2]) that I have been nominated for speedy deletion. See his edit history. Probably he is now infecting other wiki sites, so it's time to review the rules for his global ban. May be he's changed to another ISP. verdy_p (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Done. It is better to request this privately, through email.--Syum90 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

[3] Please hide these edits I forgot to login. (hidden IP) 12:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

and also this edit itself. (hidden IP) 12:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Tegel. Matiia (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


User page is just promotional spam - it's been blanked but could do with being deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted. Matiia (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Phillip Schurer

User page is promotional spam. Same content was published on English Wikipedia and deleted as misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. --Drm310 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted by Tegel. Matiia (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Nermine maher222

User page is promotional spam. Same content was published on English Wikipedia and deleted as misuse of Wikipedia as a web host.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Speedily deleted by Defender--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Personal TEL number.--Los688 (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Tractopelle-jaune, Yes check.svg supprimai. --Base (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Page créée il y a 10 jours (mais que j'ai vu aujourd'hui seulement) par une IP auquelle je n'ai rien demandé, j'ignore ce que « #cochise sid 10-05-17 » veut dire, mais c'est probablement un vandale ou pénible de frwiki (seul wiki sur lequel j'interviens). Je ne souhaite pas avoir de page utilisateur globale pour le moment. Merci. --Tractopelle-jaune (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per author's request--Jusjih (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


Please delete this page - I created it without thinking. I then created a new page, Wiki In Africa without remembering to move the old page. This page is now redundant. Thanks! Islahaddow (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted first by Stemoc, but re-created while the user is globally blocked, thus deleted again with the user page fully protected from being re-created.--Jusjih (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


Userpage added the four tildes which is now added by Yunoselect sock please delete the page 01:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Many zh variants

Template:Help translate/Content/zh-hans

Might be a duplication of Template:Help translate/Content/zh as [4] is probably enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between zh and zh-hans? If none, why do we still support two language codes? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: In my memory those zh-hans/zh-hant... pages were created due to phab:T51898, where disabled language codes can also be translated via a bypass way. Now as gerrit:306959 merged, we could just focus on translating pages to one /zh on Meta/Wikidata/ etc. So those zh-* pages are not required anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I see the tabs above in /zh. How users can translate in those variants without /hans/hant/classical subpages? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
phab:T150083& phab:T106131. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: To be stringent, there's early comments from Deryckchan:
  1. The issue at hand is that the we want to encourage zh variant translations to be done as a single zh translation plus Chinese conversion tool. But the interface is really clumsy. I think we're going down the right route, and there are few details to iron out.
  2. this is disabled on purpose to reduce the number of redundant zh- translations. The solution here should be that
  1. Users whose interface language is zh-* (rather than zh) should jump straight to the appropriate Chinese variant when they click on a page on which Chinese character and phrase conversion is enabled
  2. Fix any specific issues on Chinese conversion extension, not by re-enabling direct translations to zh- variants on multilingual Wikimedia projects.

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


dupe Wikimedia_Foundation/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia movement/zh-hant

dupe Wikimedia_movement/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe IRC/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Wikimedia_chapters/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Vision/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Help:Contents/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Help:Contents/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Help:Help/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Help:Help/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Global_user_pages/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Terms_of_use/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/zh--Shizhao (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe MediaWiki/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Data_retention_policy/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Data_retention_policy/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Feedback_privacy_statement/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Feedback_privacy_statement/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Subpoena_FAQ/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Call_for_input_(2013)/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Definitions/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/FAQ/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Glossary_of_key_terms/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Glossary_of_key_terms/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Glossary_of_key_terms/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/Summary/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Privacy_policy/what_policy_doesn't_cover/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe User_language/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Fundraising_2012/Translation/AdrianneW_Appeal/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Fundraising_2012/Translation/AdrianneW_Appeal/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Fundraising_2012/Translation/AdrianneW_Appeal/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Stewards/Elections_2016/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Admin_activity_review/Notice_to_inactive_right_holders/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Fundraising_2012/Translation/Isaac_appeal/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Fundraising_2012/Translation/Isaac_appeal/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


dupe Fundraising_2012/Translation/Isaac_appeal/zh--Shizhao (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Shizhao This turns to be insane. I am figuring out a smarter way to just list all of them. --Base (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thx @Base:. Some pages not used content translation should not be deleted--Shizhao (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Template:Indian Banner

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by MarcoAurelio.--Syum90 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This template was created by the IP with the only order to add it arbitratily in several user pages (see IP contributions) and not see any useful. I'm not sure if applied for speedy deletion, so I ask the opinion of other users. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 15:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. See also Special:Contributions/, the same. Probably worth reviewing all of the contributions of both addresses and nuke them all where appropriate. —MarcoAurelio 18:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)



File:Education and WGIG.pdf

The following discussion is closed: Deleted: Fair use --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No source or license. Unused. Asking the uploader only gets the answer for "fair use". [5] --Jusjih (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Without any kind of source, license and author information the file should go. We don't allow fair use at Meta. —MarcoAurelio 11:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


A couple of things

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. I've redirected Meta:Suspected sockpuppets to Meta:Requests for CheckUser information. Matiia (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Meta:Suspected sockpuppets (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Suspected Sockpuppet Notice (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
I don't think we need any of these. —MarcoAurelio 21:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm agree on deleting both page and template as they have been not used for many years, or deleting the template and redirecting the page to RfCU or to RFH as suggested by Billinghurst.--Syum90 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both as they apppear to be unused and redirect them as appropriate. Green Giant (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)



Miguel Gorjão-Henriques

The following discussion is closed: No action required. This page is intended to manage deletions on this wiki only, any action required to be performed at w:pt: should be requested there.--Syum90 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This relates to a page in the Portuguese wiki. I am being blocked for being called a transgressor by the name O'Neil. More important, someone put my sons and daughters names in the page without my consent and I was blocked from removing them. If they are not removed I will consider legal action. Please, in alternative, remove my entire page, given it may be called publicity. 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Per Vituzzu: not deleted, a RFC has been opened to discuss this topic.--Syum90 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sänger (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
I had tagged for thıs user page for speedy deletion because of the political message and standing which has nothing to do with Meta-wiki. Please see the user's talk page after my speedy deletion request has been reverted. I do think that kind of political messages has no place here --Mskyrider (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This MoM has tagged quite some pages for speedy deletions, that had a banner for free speech and against censorship on their user page. Please put a break on him/her. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what MoM is but I think to promote "personal political views or standings" in meta-Wiki has no place. --Mskyrider (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
MoM is Man on a Mission. And standing up against censorship and for free speech is no personal political standing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, so in that case my mission is not "defend" the censorship but defend what I see the real aim of wiki. Wiki should be a place to promote access to free information, not to promote any political standings. --Mskyrider (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
here as well: Please use proper indentation! I don't know what your aim is, as I can't look in your brain, but your actions are in support of censorship. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said my aim is clear, not to let use meta wiki pages to promote political messsages pro or con censorship, this is not the place. And I think I cans use any indentation as I would, or is not free "not to use the proper indentation" should it be censored ?--Mskyrider (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done This is definitely a bordeline case which must be handled in a consistent way. A huge series of rfd (or even worse of speedy deletions) is not the right mean. The right mean is probably rfc instead. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)











Not undeleted



The following discussion is closed: Not done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot what was on the page... can someone send a copy of this to me to check what was there before the page get deleted?C933103 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It hadn't been created by you, but by some sort of spambot. The content is the usual spam nonsense:

And so when I was ready to use the element of exemption losing from social club, locomoting on. Finney's voice lacks the sentiency of abusive relationships. So the 7:30pm bus that was made into its old home in Chicago in 1933 as part of what is ritual. It's worth remembering heroine Hermes risks death by turning down to hook up with Demetrius, be admonished. Their emotional sports are organized by James Laing's nerveless alto Oberon, Titania Isabelle Quigley P. Note, too, will use flip-lock shooting irons and Kate will strip down to au naturel metallic element and ...

That goes on for a while. Savhñ 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

National Action (Australia) - en.wp

The following discussion is closed: Nothing to do here, not a Meta affair.--Syum90 (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

wish to alter page 'national action (australia)' at point 2. Michael Brander accused of assaulting 'an Asian'. Was convicted of assaulting William James Luxford, not an Asian. Simple error, why not simple correction? If not would prefer to have entire article deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BranderFan.1 (talk) 07:23, 17. Apr. 2017‎

I think this is about an article on enWP, thus this page here is not the right place to ask anything about it. Here is Meta, and Meta doesn't interfere with the projects on content. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)





Bot archived

Grants:TPS/zh-cn and Grants:TPS/zh-hans

The following discussion is closed: Both deleted.--Syum90 (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Both are 0% translated and just use or is enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete both that were translated much earlier, only to be replaced by a bot into newer English versions.--Jusjih (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:User groups/zh-hans and Template:User groups/zh-hant

Dormant now, use Template:User groups/zh is enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete or merge both that were translated much earlier, only to be replaced by a bot into newer English versions.--Jusjih (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Language committee/zh-hans

Per above, use [6] is enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


0% translated, use [7] instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


0% translated, use [8] is enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

3 unused personal photographs

The following discussion is closed.

These three photographs of users from 2012 are unused images

as they are personal shots, they are not particularly in scope for Commons, and should be deleted (not that I have any particular issue with them migrating to Commons).  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Dschungelfan/Inaktive Admins/Datum 50 Artikel

The following discussion is closed: delete. While within the broad scope of what metawiki may contain, it is not primary content as expressed at Meta:Scope. Content is seen as contrary to deWP's purposes — their local conversations — and a significant irritant to that community without serving a clear purpose to the deWP or meta community. The information collected serves no specific community service and the collective opinion expressed heavily favours delete.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This list was first created at de:wp, multiple times speedy deleted and then protected against recreation, then recreated at Meta where requests for a speedy deletion were reverted multiple times ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), likewise all attempts to opt-out ([15], [16]). At de:wp this list was speedy deleted on grounds of the guidelines for user pages and a landmark decision by the local arbcom. Point is that at de:wp the arbcom ruled that on user pages other users may not be named against their will, i.e. whoever objects to it must be free to opt-out from such a list. This list was created at Meta to circumvent this restriction at de:wp. Meta should not serve as ground to recreate contents which has been deleted on an individual project and which is not covered by the inclusion policy. --AFBorchert (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Comment There is an ongoing discussion regarding this list at de:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - AFBorchert is right cause this so called extension of one part has nothing to do with the older RFD on de:WP mentioned above. Its nothing but violation of several guidelines on de:WP (as stated by AFBorchert), transferred to meta after being deleted in de:WP. --Rax (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC) / See also the discussion on speedy deletion: User talk:Dschungelfan/Inaktive Admins/Datum 50 Artikel. --Rax (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few similar lists on Meta. Generally something like this in the userpage is allowed. I think it's only reasonable to allow users to opt-out of their name being on it here too, if it is kept. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
But there is no opt-out policy on meta and the displayed information is not an aggregated one, which might infringe data protection guidelines, but just using the simple standard filter of Wiki software. I can do the same for you: Uhhh! What a secret revealed!
As a background information you have to know, that a group of users in dewiki (Rax and AFBorchert and some of them) are strongly opposing the idea to bundle re-election votes for admins who had less than 50 edits in the last year. So they are trying to delete all statistical information about inactive admins. There were numerous offences (some of them documented here: I was even physically threated. The deletion requests of Rax and AFBorchert are just another episode of this story. -- Dschungelfan (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
"The deletion requests of Rax and AFBorchert are just another episode of this story." - Jo, man, this is just another episode of a physically threat °° to non German speakers: Jemandem etwas um die Ohren hauen means to sharply criticize someone with his own words/actions. And as far as I know: neither AFBorchert nor me had ever before said something against Dschungelfans rude actions - up to now. --Rax (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more an issue of courtesy - as you say, the information can be very easily obtained, so is it really necessary to maintain a list of it like that? Your behaviour probably makes them defensive, as humans tend to be when our actions are publicly examined. Meta does not have an explicit policy for opting out, but we do have Meta:Urbanity, and I think that allowing users to remove themselves from that page would be very much covered under it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dschungelfan: Please stay honest. I have never insulted anyone on any project, nor did I ever campaign against your admin monitoring pages. I just opened this deletion request to end the fruitless edit-war at that page and as I indeed believe that lists like this are toxic for de:wp. We are working there towards a better encylopedia, not an improved monitoring of the volunteers working for it. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dschungelfan is a man on a mission against Admins, and this list with all its inherent bad faith is part of it. He's a main organizer of such hostile and vile actions against admins, and this is one part of his mission, that he now tries to conceal from the deWP-community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete its a violation against User rights. There is no duty do work permanent and thiss list is a deep watching list. --Itti 05:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What is this list of? --Rschen7754 05:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Nothing. It controls the aktivity of de-Admins. When the user Dschungelfan is thinking the Admin is not working enough he than write on de talk page of the Admin and aks for more aktivity. If the Admin does not work more, he give him a note on the Admin-page for reelection. After 25 notes of different Users a Admin must go to reelection or he will lose his Admin-Flag. Lots of Admins in the past year lost their Flag after an aktion of User Dschungelfan. But this list is knew, know he trys to get a permenent watch on aktivities. The list has been deeletet on de-wiki. --06:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: deWP has requirements to be eligible to vote (de:WP:Stimmberechtigung), which are also required to apply for the sysop flag. Within those requirements it is necessary to make 50 edits in the article namespace per year. There is also a system which allows users to force a re-election of a current sysop (de:WP:Adminwiederwahl). If a sysop were to be forced to get re-elected but did not fulfill the requirements to do so, his sysop flag would be removed. The page to be deleted tracks when the requirements of 50 edits in the last year would no longer be fulfilled. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete--Fiona B. (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Deletei couldnt see the sence behind the list besides listing admins. Also, that are around the half of admins of de:wiki, so it shouldnt be very usefull to keep. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and global ban, solely used for pestering half of the de-admins. Moved here to avoid deletion of unwanted content in de-wp. --Wassertraeger url=User_talk:Wassertraeger 06:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This highly problematic user is pursuing an agenda by deliberately shaming "lazy" administrators. A global ban would be appropriate. --voyager (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly - this is a case or transforming conflicts from one project to another so a global measure would be OK as well. -jkb- 06:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Gegen die allgemeine Datensammelei in diesem Projekt ("Transparenz", "Nachvollziehbarkeit") ist diese Liste Pipifax. --MrsMyer (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
And this from someone who was blocked, because she was using massive sock-puppets to rig elections and doesn't want this personal disruptive and completely anti-wikipedian behaviour forgotten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Da Da Da. --MrsMyer (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The list does not seem to violate any policies on meta and is clearly within the project's scope. Allowing individual users to opt out would be courteous. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete --Andrea014 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Bubo 07:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete because of cross-wiki-abuse and a global ban for the really problematic unsocial user to safe the scope of the projects. --Hic et nunc (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hic et nunc: Dschungelfan has not been banned or blocked indefinitely on any Wikimedia project. Therefore the criteria for global bans are not met. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
not yet ...--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So what? I've suggested a de:WP:BSV just this morning as I would also prefer a global ban for Dschungelfan. Actually a de:WP:VM is in progress and a indefinitely block is presumably the result. Even his followers ("Dschungelclub") are not yet supporting him there. --Wassertraeger url=User_talk:Wassertraeger 08:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the de:WP:VM was closed without taking any measures against the user.--Mautpreller (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list has nothing to do with Meta, but has the only intention to poison the atmosphere on de-wp. The refusal of an opt-out-possibility is a nogo.--Zweioeltanks (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and block global. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and block global if possible. Unsocial admin hunting since years and disturbing the project for a long time. --Codc (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - user statistics from one project only to discredite users are out of focus for meta and poisonous behaviour in a definition User:Jimbo Wales brought up in London 2015. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete according to Meta:About: neither a discussion and formulation of Wikimedia projects nor an interlingual/international coordination nor a personal essay. NNW (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The matter is concerning de:WP only, and was deleted there as not complying with its rules.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, if compatible with meta-guidelines. A list of statistical information relating to the date, the voting right of an admin is (presumably) lost, should conform with the guidelines on de:userspace. Provided, that an opt-out wil be respected, of course. On meta:userspace I know little about the prevailing guidelines. --Gunslinger 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • speedydelete there is no rule expressis verbis against Dschungelfan opposes, but it contradicts to WQ, fairness and community sense Majo statt Senf (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete --Apraphul (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep No valid reason for delete. --Hardenacke (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete acc. to Meta:About + poisenous behaviour - Squasher (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not on meta-wiki --Brackenheim (talk)
  • Delete. No matter for Meta, out of scope for the project, wiki-hounding, poisoning the working atmosphere. —viciarg414 17:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As stated by AFBorchert Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per AFBorchert, Codc, Achim Raschka and viciarg -- Ra'ike (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ra'ike --Alraunenstern۞ 19:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Dito. --Xocolatl (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keelete (Portmanteau of Keep/Delete). Print it out, fold a paper plane and let it fly. Attention: Zee Germans are on Meta-Wiki and make a storm in a teacup. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Protest! I am NOT a German!--Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chief tin cloud: Extra für dich: die Benutzer der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia sind hiermit gemeint. Also auch die Schweizer und Österreicher. Und auch, wenn ich deren jeweilige Rechtschreibung und Sprache achte. Es gibt Fussballspieler, keine Fußballspieler und manche sind im Jänner geboren und nicht im Januar. Die meisten davon werden nie Redakteur, geschweige denn Redaktor. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep due to »Who is hunting whom?« –Plagiat (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hunted are users who do nothing that is not tolerated by rules. Sanctioning users who proceed in an allowed practice is a No-Go.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Ach, aber Dschungelfans Liste, die erlaubt ist, die wird auf *.de gelöscht und wenn er sie dann hierher bringt, wird gleich nach GlobalBan geschrien. Doppelmoral vom feinsten. Ich finde sie auch überflüssig, aber mir zu blöde. Gepflegtes Ignorieren wäre gut gewesen, aber da wurde der Pawlowsche Reflex ausgelöst... --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't want a global ban, not even a user deletion for Dschungelfan. I just do not agree that a list that was deleted on de:WP appears here instead. Because that's no good for the project. That's all.--2A02:1205:34C4:3840:93B:B39F:9E21:50AC 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry. Here I am.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Meta-Wiki ist nicht deWp und Fehlentscheidungen in der deWp müssen nicht auf Meta durchschlagen. Diese Liste ist, wenn überhaupt auch nur Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Hier wird mir mit zuviel Mimimi abgestimmt: beim Austeilen sind die de.Wp-Admins Weltmeister, aber beim Einstecken Kreisklasse. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
English, short version: Meta is nor the henchman nor de.Wp 2.0. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep, but only under the condition that an opt-out is accepted. All data on this page is openly available. I find many statements on user pages and user subpages questionable, but this is still user space. I neither have to like the intention of this page, but I don't see it worthy of deletion either. --Gereon K. (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete This page is part of an ongoing canvassing effort of the user. The user engages in organizing coordinated votes to trigger forced reelections of German admins (see de:Benutzer:Dschungelfan/Inaktive_Admins and de:Benutzer:Dschungelfan/Inaktive_Admins/Opt-In). Unlike wp:en the German wikipedia has no explicit policy to prevent votestacking. So this is legal as a matter of form. Still it is destructive behavior.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, no reference on meta; just another try to sow discord by this user, --He3nry (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page does not violate any Meta policies. The page might have been created to circumvent a de.wp decision to delete the corresponding page there and might have been intended to facilitate some kind of witch-hunt. But at face value this page is acceptable for Meta as a list of inactive admins on a WMF wiki. It would not be proper for Meta to go out of process to delete this. Deryck C. 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Responding to some comments that this page is here to "sow discord" and "escalate a de.wp issue to Meta" - actually Meta is the appropriate place to voice your frustration with a particular Wikimedia project. Discussions on Meta generally cannot override local decisions (particularly large projects like de.wp, with their much larger volunteer base than Meta discussants, is right to be able to decide their own rules) but discussion, analysis, and suggestions for other Wikimedia projects ought to be welcome on Meta. Deryck C. 13:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep If this was an attack page, I could see deleting it, but this is a list of statistics. That dewiki has bizarre policies about "personal information" that is available for all to see is not relevant here. FWIW other similar pages exist on Meta for various other inactivity tracking. --Rschen7754 21:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself" (not Winston Churchil) - Rschen, that can be changed very simple in "statistic can be manipulated by everybody for the own puposes (originally here by -jkb- :-) ) the purpose of this statistics, avaiable free to all, is to discriminize other users and to poison the atmosphere in the project. Sincerelly, -jkb- 21:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"the purpose of this statistics... is to discriminize other users and to poison the atmosphere in the project" jkb, this is a very serious accusation of bad faith and should either be backed up or retracted. --Rschen7754 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Rschen, pls, read the comments of the about 95 per cent of users above. Thx, -jkb- 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
So that's what they think, but that doesn't make it right. I'm sure that if we posted a link on w:en:WP:AN asking admins to vote a certain way on Meta that we'd get a lot of votes that way too. What do you believe? I believe that inactive admins should be removed by vote, does that mean I get blocked on dewiki if I say that? --Rschen7754 22:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen: "I'm sure that if we posted a link on w:en:WP:AN asking admins to vote a certain way on Meta ..." - perhaps you're right - and wrong, because this list isn't an export of a problem from en:WP to Meta but a list created in a single project (de:WP) to enhance problems there. It has been deleted in accordance to de:WP guidelines for speedy deletion, so normally it (the list and the deletion) would have to be discussed within the frame of directives an de:WP - not here. --Rax (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
But this is Meta-Wiki, not de.wikipedia. Why can't we at Meta have our own rules? mr.wikipedia doesn't allow any discussion in anything but Marathi - do we have to delete any discussion in English (or any other language) from Meta? --Rschen7754 23:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
agree, there are own rules on Meta, and if this list is within the scope here, we'll have to accept it and we will. But on my first attempt to get the list deleted (s. [17]) I referred to Meta:Deletion_policy#Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, point 2: "Reposted content previously deleted according to this deletion policy, unless it was significantly rewritten in a manner that calls into question the deletion reason." And point 7: "Pages or media files clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation or to the Wikimedia editing community, unless they have a known and definable historical context." - I believe that this reasoning still is true - regardless of that it is just an export of trouble out of a single other wm-project. --Rax (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"Reposted content previously deleted according to this deletion policy" - not just any deletion policy, but this one on Meta. And "Pages or media files clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation or to the Wikimedia editing community" - well, it is clearly relevant to the Wikimedia editing community as it discusses the editing (or lack thereof) of Wikimedia editors (dewiki admins). --Rschen7754 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: What you consider to be “bizarre” is based on the right on informational self-determination which was established in 1983 in a landmark decision by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Please be also refered to Requests for comment/X!'s Edit Counter where similar concerns were raised which led to an opt-in solution. Wikimedia is a global movement, please do not name anything bizarre just because you are not familiar with it. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. Just because one country rules one way on something doesn't mean we have to go with it (think freedom of panorama for example). --Rschen7754 22:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
again right - and wrong again, because your example ("freedom of panorama") indeed belongs to all projects - in a legal sense, a list of activity of sysops in article namespace doesn't - among other considerations mentioned above because the idea of "voting rights" doesn't exist on Meta or on all (? most of?) other projects exept de:WP. --Rax (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"voting rights" may not exist, but I could just as easily spin up a list of admins with no edits to articles in the last year on enwiki and it would be just about the same. --Rschen7754 23:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
mh - ok, and that one would be brought to Meta to extend the conflict ...? Regards --Rax (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: That dewiki has bizarre policies Wow. Yes. Spiel, Satz und Sieg = Game, set and match. Thx. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754 and Gereon K.: verstehe ich euch richtig, Sinn von Meta-Wiki ist es, Seiten, die lokal gelöscht wurden aufzunehmen, um sie vor erneuter Löschung zu schützen? --Itti (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That can be one of the use cases as defined in Meta:About#Purpose: "A forum for personal essays about Wikimedia projects. Because these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, they should be summarized on neutral issues pages from multiple points of view using formats such as TIPAESA or its subset IPA. There is a degree of freedom in determining what is related to Wikimedia projects, which makes Meta also a meatball wiki of sorts, discussing such matters as wiki culture and patterns. Documentation of MediaWiki is mainly excluded now (see below). This role includes more formal research and related discussion." Analyzing activity patterns of sysops can certainly be seen as formal research on Wikimedia projects. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
SCNR, in this case we could storage here some more hundreds of in dewp deleted articles written by User:Messina (banned). Deal? -jkb- 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As you very well know that is not allowed on any Wikimedia project. It is also explicitly excluded on Meta:About#What Meta is not. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Itti: Natürlich ist das nicht der Sinn von Meta-Wiki. Was für eine suggestive aussgagenverdrehende Frage ist das denn? Translation: Of course this is not the purpose of Meta. What kind of suggestive intention-bending questions is this? Nobody is talking about making a general rule of this singular case here. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Welchen anderen Sinn macht das hier dann? --Itti (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Nicht jeder Löschdiskussion ist ein Grundsatzurteil, sondern meistens eine Einzelfallentscheidung. So auch diese hier. So wie bei den Löschdiskussionen auf de.wikipedia. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ja, da stimme ich dir auch zu, nur beantwortet das meine Frage nicht. Welchen Sinn macht diese Liste auf Meta, außer, dass hier versucht wird, eine Löschung auf dewiki zu umgehen. Wenn das der einzige Sinn ist, dann ist Meta nur ein Ort, um lokale Entscheidungen zu umschiffen und das halte ich für falsch. Der Diskussion muss man sich da stellen, wo sie hingehört und auf dewiki haben wir Regeln, auch um gegen eine vermeintlich falsche Löschung vorzugehen. Hier wurde dieser Weg jedoch nicht beschritten, sondern es wurde eine Auslagerung in ein anderes Wiki getätigt, um die Löschung ad absurdum zu führen. --Itti (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Auf enwiki führten solche Vorkommnisse schon zu Admin-Sperren und Arbcom-Urteilen. -jkb- 19:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is just used as a means to undergo the German community's consent - not only ref. such a list but also ref. the administrators' election system on de-wiki. Meta must not be misused for undergoing politics on the single wiki-versions. --AnnaS.aus I. (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Ongoing opinion-war. Since the list is simply reproduction of public content, it should be kept. -- 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Donald Trung

This section was archived on a request by: Base (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Donald Trung, I did not create that page in bad faith and just want it restored so I can archive the old appeal purely for historical reference and to remind myself not to repeat those mistakes. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Since you are not a banned contributor now, it makes sense to cancel that deletion in my opinion. Take care. --Base (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Various redirects

I've moved some pages, but without their translations. Then, I've created some redirects that stop me to fix it. Please delete the following redirects:

Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks billinghurst, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicated pages

Following the previous request - some users have re-translated the newsletter and I need those translations units to be deleted and re-link the former translations to the new ones.

Items from the Translation: namespace may not allow deletion. Delete the main pages may be enough.

Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Trizek (WMF): apologies for late response, I hadn't notice the request. If you think that you are going to have numbers of these sorts of these matters, then I am happy to look to get you the means to do this yourself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia AR User Group

I request the undulation of the page Wikimedia AR User Group Mounir Touzri (WMTN) (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stemoc: ^ Syum90 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Stemoc 04:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Dupe of Steward_requests/Global/Header/zh. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Submitted. Fuzzybot does it through a job queue, so it may take a few minutes. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Indefblocked Meta users

The following discussion is closed: Deleted: Discussion seems exhausted and category of no real value --Herby talk thyme 13:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this category serves any useful purpose and goes against What is a troll?#Not feeding the trolls. Automated lists of indefblocked users are avalaible at Special:BlockList. I propose that we: 1) stop adding the category, 2) remove it from pages of said users via a bot or blank them and 3) delete the category. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MA. It has been merely used to glorify long-term vandals/abusers. Revert, block and ignore them instead. RadiX 03:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree. Here's my only contrary thought:
It seems that some of the subcategories might be useful, and then having a container category for them might therefore also be useful. But if so, (a) the container category should have a more useful, descriptive name, (b) the container category should have no contents except for subcategories, and (c) it should probably be made a hidden category.
If you don't think the use that I just described is necessary, then by all means delete. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the subcategories are useful. Rarely, if ever, do past socks need to be identified. And if they do, there are other ways of finding out. I support deletion on the grounds of not feeding the trolls. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that those tagged accounts should also be deleted, it won't be a good idea to remain, this will intend the trolls at behind. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This category is used inconsistently. The category instructions page says the pages will be removed from the category after a few months per w:WP:DENY, but there are 2000+ pages in this category and many of them have been there for several years. At the same time I think some kind of tracking category is helpful. I suggest convert to hidden category so these banned users have no "hall of fame" to look at by default. Deryck C. 13:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep, the above arguments argue that WP:DENY should be used here assumes that the majority of the people indefblocked here were “trolls”, while it's probably true that many established users have been indefinitely blocked here as a result of expressing frustration in less than civil manners or repeatedly using Meta to host encyclopedic content or anything, not everyone who gets indefinitely blocked is a troll and probably the majority of “non-established” meta-editors have their user and talk pages deleted so this template wouldn’t be used on it anyhow.As of now I saw this template here from Reguyla who clearly wasn't a troll but a frustrated user who didn't follow meta policies. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 07:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Conversation is a little stale, but I support deleting this as it doesn't really convey useful information. Additionally, I can use my bot en:User:NihlusBOT to remove these categories (after bringing it over to meta). Sub-categories can be kept or deleted. Nihlus 06:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
* Comment Comment I propose to close this as delete. Admins are not using the functionality, and as noted there are 2000+ categorised accounts where it states that the accounts will be deleted after a week. The process is years old and not followed, and redundant. Stewards and checkusers have better means to manage problematic users than existed 10+ years ago when this process eventuated.

Noting that the removal of this category will also affect the blocking and labelling of accounts by administrators.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC) struck by contributor

  • Comment Comment This category does have some apparent use, however, is so filled with dross that such use has been obfuscated. The category also holds banned/indef blocked users where Meta knows and directs their blocking, rather than by admin action alone. It is rare for these to be done, however, they do need to be tracked and fall outside much discussed above. What I think we should do is get rid of the rubbish and then review the use. I will start deleting the accumulation of rubbish build-up.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Herbythyme and Trijnstel: back in a time you both have a high prevalence of labelling user talk pages with {{warning message}} and categorising to the identified category. Do you believe that the user talk pages are still useful, as we have a choice to delete them, or to just remove the categorisation. Your feedback would be useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    Nope - not useful simply a by product of placing the blocked notice on the talk page. --Herby talk thyme 15:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    We seem to have a variety of talk pages, some just labelled, some where there are unblock requests. I would suggest that anything that is plain vanilla can be a candidated for deletion, and anything with conversation worthwhile for retention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yep, I agree with both you and Herby. Trijnsteltalk 22:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist

The following discussion is closed.

Not done. The deletion was made in line with the deletion policy. Additionally no consensus to restore the page in question. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by a steward with (G7: Out of project scope: please read Meta's inclusion policy: LTA files aren't "studies")

talk log

The reason given is not a reason under the policy cited. What was on the page is information routinely allowed in handling Long Term Abuse, on individual wikis, where individual wiki LTA activity is involved, and on meta, where cross-wiki abuse is involved, as in this case.

I placed the page in user space because it is a study, a draft, collecting data and considerations, and the plan was ultimately to redact it, boiling it down to remove unnecessary historical commentary, (much was in collapse already) and move it to the space on meta for LTA information, or to use it for a global ban request. The page asked for specific concerns to be expressed, on Talk or by removing problematic content, but there was only attack on it by apparent -- obvious and then checkuser-confirmed -- socks of the LTA, hence the semiprotection (also by a steward, and after removing a libelous edit by a sock). The documentation was on-wiki so that (1) errors could be found and corrected and (2) so that it could be used in filing future global block and checkuser or lock requests, and many had been filed, with many blocks and locks resulting, as the page documented in one place.

The deleting steward made a comment that then puzzles me, because he states that "this kind of list is generally allowed on meta." So why did he delete it?

Please undelete for review, pending a undeletion/deletion decision here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Abd has been warned by several admins to stop hosting 'studies' which are inappropriate. In his study that was deleted was innocent people's IP addresses that he falsely accused of being the same person. Emails have been sent from multiple people to the Wikimedia foundation complaining about these "LTA" studies Abd is performing. See discussion here [18]. Abd has been told to not engage in "investigations" that mimic checkuser activity.
I would also note Abd has been linking to his LTA study on his website to attack several Wikipedia users. [19]. This is long term abuse from Abd that appears to be going on for a few months. Meta-Wiki is not a place to host personal grievances.
The link given does not have any reference to the LTA study. A small section of the study covered IP addresses, most of which had been globally blocked, but some that were mobile IP, constantly shifting. However, they were included in the study because of reasonable suspicion, based on behavior. (which stewards consider less, because it's complicated ... without a study like the one I was preparing. An IP SPA with no history other than attacking users or me or the study, on issues and in a manner that has been typical, can be included on that basis. No user who is not disruptive would be sanctioned, merely because of suspicion like that in the study, and IP blocks for IP like the above are mostly useless, symbolic, unless they become range blocks -- which create collateral damage, which is why they are avoided. The study, from the collection of suspected accounts, can form a basis for requesting range blocks. (And that was beginning to appear, and it appears even more strongly when one knows the likely location of the LTA -- from many evidences, some of which are private.) So why does this user care so much? It's obvious.
He refers to a discussion on Wikiversity. His comment there was removed by an administrator and that discussion closed. It was disruptive, obviously. So is the above. However, I'm not removing it, but someone else could. (In which case this comment could also be removed.) --Abd (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
You have attacked Wikipedia users on your website such as JPS [20],[21] You also host an "LTA" study on AngloPyramidologist which you did on Meta-Wiki [22]. If you want to harass Wikipedia users on your website you can do that I guess but you should not be bringing it to Meta-Wiki. You are no Check-User. Leave the checkuser stuff to admins and Wikimedia staff. You have accused innocent IPS on your deleted study of being the same person. You have done this with my O2 IPS and another innocent user, so you are using your study to defame people.
You also said Mu301 removed my comments for 'disruption', this is false. If you look at the archived conversation [23] this is what Mu301 wrote about you "Abd: I'm very concerned about your global edits. There is a clear pattern of excessive, frivolous, and nuisance abuse of checkuser requests on meta and commons". You clearly do not know when to stop. Your 'LTA' studies should all be deleted. You are using these LTA studies to host a personal grudge against someone you blame for creating your RationalWiki article. It is problematic because you have put my IPS and other innocent people's on this study. 02:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
None of the links show what was claimed. It's all irrelevant. IPs like those being used here don't belong to people, they are not personally identifying, and the IP will be different for the next edit session anyway. But the behavior is clear. As to the Wikiversity discussion, what I wrote was incorrect, I did not read the diff properly, but the admin closed the discussion, asking people to stop commenting (except for admins -- and I had been pinged, asked to respond there. The IP was not), so .... the IP only saw that page because he was following my contributions, and Mu301 asked him to stop. And, of course, he found this Request, the same. Mu301 was new to this situation and not aware of the scope of it. He had only seen the most recent global block and checkuser request (initially both denied, then the first partially done, the other might still be granted, I don't know) and was not aware of all the prior ones where AP socks were blocked and locked and thus he referred to "frivolous ... requests." It was simply an error.
I know who created the RationalWiki article, it's completely clear. That happened after the studies were begun, and was retaliation for the study, so could not have been the cause of it. The cause was very simple, and not a "grudge" at all. The socks had impersonated a user, causing others to go to Wikiversity to demand deletion of a resource the user had created there, and to get that user blocked. It worked -- until I figured out what had happened and filed checkuser requests and blew up the whole scheme. And this page then looks at the history and what this puppet master has done, so that other users and projects are protected. And I was threatened with retaliation if I didn't stop, so that is also playing out, because .... I ain't gonna stop, I'm generally bully-proof. Trying backfires.
All this IP commentary is irrelevant here and should be removed, but, as I have been saying since the beginning of this, if anyone is concerned about my behavior, or has questions, please, my talk page: --Abd (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Your LTA study that stalks different Wikipedia users and confuses different people and their IPS as being the same person is already being hosted on your personal website. You have given no valid reasons to why you need to host it on meta-Wiki. It is not the purpose of this website. It says here you have been perm banned from RationalWiki for "repeated doxxing as well as harassment, now attacking rationalwiki users on his personal blog" [24] . There seems to be a pattern here with your behaviour Abd. You also wrote "LTA" studies on Wikiversity that contained personal information about users and they were deleted [25]
mmm.... should I request admin assistance here? Is RationalWiki disruption relevant here in any way? The study has already been used to help identify socks of this user, with many successful requests for locks and IP blocks, and the claims here being made identify this user by the duck test. The study of SPA disruption began on Wikiversity -- notice the title, and when it was massively attacked, I blanked it and moved the content to meta. I wanted it left because the page history showed the massive sock attack. Not really a problem. That study wasn't needed any more. Wikiversity will handle Wikiversity issues. The study here is on meta because the disruptive LTA -- and there is definitely an LTA, and the page shows many socks locked as "LTA" -- is cross-wiki.
My web site does not host the LTA study under discussion here. Notice no link. I never put that study there. I might have linked to this one in discussions of other disruption. I don't remember, and my site is massive. I deliberately avoided such linking, because it can create suspicion like the IP is attempting to create here, that a WMF wiki is being used to support some external agenda. However, the recent IPs have been extensively linking off-wiki to support their attacks, and those attacks are actually based, on review, on external grudges.
That Wikiversity study as deleted did not contain personal information. It had contained one external link originally, which was revision-deleted, which contained a claimed real name (I had not noticed that). Again, not a problem. If it's okay to cite external sites, should I start doing that? (It is not okay! But citing them to attack users is one of the common sock characteristics. That is being documented elsewhere.
  • You have now re-created another page that an admin submitted for deletion Friends and enemies. Lol friends and enemies. You are obviously using this website as some sort of battle ground. 16:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I recreated no deleted page. Rather, I removed two speedy deletion templates and the person who had placed them accepted that. He is not an administrator here, he is a Wikiversity administrator reacting to a situation he doesn't understand yet. Wikiversity will work this out. That page mentioned already had a section. The user commonly creates user names which refer to other persons, it's a quickly recognizable behavioral trait.
The LTA is claiming outing, i.e., personal identification. The reality is that this LTA is widely discussed on the web, and that discussion does name names. None of that belongs here, unless it becomes necessary. What is trickier is geolocation data for IPs. It is common on Wikipedia to look at that, however, in Sock Puppet Investigations. Checkusers consider that kind of data, but so do ordinary users who file reports. I have never seen a user sanctioned or even warned for it, if justified by reasonable suspicion of socking. At this point, with the LTA report still deleted, this discussion cannot address the specifics of content, which is why I requested undeletion for consideration. I am avoiding creating the same content elsewhere to allow this to play out.
I have data the equivalent of what checkusers look at, from off-wiki. Again, because of privacy policy here, I have not disclosed that, but occasionally mention it when the sock lies about there being no technical evidence, as he does. For WMF purposes, the duck test is adequate, but stewards don't usually follow it because actually applying the duck test takes more specific knowledge than stewards generally consider. Hence the need for an LTA study. It could not be used at this point to justify range blocks for the mobile IP the BON is using here, but moved to mainspace and validated by consensus, it could. --Abd (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Over at Wikiversity your LTA "investigations" were deleted and you are under sanctions [26]. I know for a fact at least several people have sent emails to the Wikimedia foundation complaining about your LTA study because they were incorrectly put on it. I believe they should all be deleted because of the problems they have caused. I have said all I wanted to say on the matter. It is unlikely admins or users involved in your study or with this recent drama will respond here for a while due to Christmas. But pinging them if they happen to show up and take interest in this @User:Mu301, @Dave Braunschweig, @JzG, @Vituzzu, @, @Manul, @, @User:ජපස. 00:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This is nothing other than canvassing and none of this is relevant to the issue for the deletion, whether the study is in scope or allowable, and irrelevant and misleading arguments are simply being repeated. No specific allegations have been made of people incorrectly put in the study, which is largely a list of accounts and only most recently IPs, which are not people and which do not, in themselves, identify people. Wikipedia maintains SPI archives, which contain many accounts which were "incorrectly suspected." Or correctly suspected but the evidence was inadequate. These are useful for future investigations, because patterns may be developed. All accounts listed in the study were indef blocked, and more recently many were locked. If they were "incorrectly" involved, there is an error on Wikipedia or here, and it could be corrected, but not without specifics. It has been claimed, though, that the study attacked Manul. That claim is, then, the duck quacking. There is nothing like that in the study. He was mentioned in an historical description with no claim that he was Anglo Pyramidologist or that he had done anything improper. (And this would not be kept in the ultimate form of this study, if moved to mainspace or used in a global ban request.) AP tries to get people fighting, it's part of his behavior, and he sometimes succeeds. --Abd (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete I just received an email from another user that I was included in Abd's study so I will respond here. Abd has now ported this study to his personal website Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist. I did a handful of edits in regard to the Wikiversity article on parapsychology back in 2015. I am a skeptic who has published a handful of papers debunking psychics. I am not a fan of the parapsychology article on Wikiversity, it was written Abd's friend Ben Steigmann a banned Wikipedia user and neo-Nazi. I am not a troll or a sock, vandal that Abd claims. I have never heard of AngloPyramidologist (what a stupid username!) so I would appreciate if Abd would please remove my username from your "study" which is now on your website and contains false information. This is defamation and I will email the Wikimedia project about this. You are not a steward here so I am not sure why you are hosting these personal investigations!? My username is now blacklisted on your personal website. Please remove. MrRowser (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing to that page. First of all, what is linked above is a blog "page," quite obscure unless you know to look for it. It was not intended to be published, the page was created two days ago to hold the study for my reference as an archive and what is linked is an inadvertent copy. Sometimes WordPress does that. Seeing the above, I immediately removed the page from view, and I will probably delete it.
  • The history of this is given very incorrectly above, but this is what the LTA has been saying -- and telling many, publicly and apparently privately.
  • MrRowser, the study does not "blacklist" anyone. Most accounts listed are blocked on the English Wikipedia, many are globally locked, but there are some accounts and IPs that have merely been suspected for one reason or other. This is common in LTA studies. Being listed could never be a cause for block or ban, in itself. Rather, an LTA study merely helps identify possible sock puppets of the LTA. It might also be used in a global ban, but this would not extend to all the accounts, necessarily, unless they become disruptive in the future and so reveal themselves.
  • MrRowser is not in the list of accounts on the current meta page, User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist/User data. He was mentioned in an historical study, part of an early draft, in a list of accounts under a heading, "The older Wikiversity SPA accounts possibly involved (listing here is not necessarily a claim of disruptive behavior)" That did not call him a "troll, or vandal." This is far, far from a "blacklisting" or even an unfair accusation. The main way that sock puppets are discovered is by a pattern of interests, and MrRowser activity does fit that; on Wikipedia you'd readily be added to a Sock Puppet Investigation case, which is harmless unless you are actually a sock or editing from the same service provider as a sock. Nothing would come from that old listing, in itself. Someone may have coincident interests and this does not, by itself, create strong evidence. Other actions or conditions may strengthen suspicion. I will simply notice here MrRowswer's full WMF contributions which is why he was listed in the first place. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I think text walls are a strategy to get everyone giving up quarreling, so I'll keep my reply as short as possible.
A list of *proved* sockpuppets is something which is generally accepted, a weird "study" is not.
Anyone of those in charge of taking any kind of action will hardly rely upon a list built around the idea "there's an evil, single, mastermind with thousands names opposing my attempt to shape en.wikiversity". They will surely not rely upon a "study" which also is actually an hodgepodge of different sockmasters, legit users, personal comments and theories.
Meta is not a blog, any content must have a reasonable use within WMF projects.
Finally, unproven claims are close to libel, turning the "useless" into "damaging", even if I generally don't care so much about libeling sockmasters/trolls.
--Vituzzu (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete (and also other User:Abd/LTA subpages) per G7: no known and definable historical context.. There are too many questions about the accuracy of the info and en-wv has received complaints that these "studies" have unfairly tainted the reputation of legitimate good faith critiques of his attempts "to shape en.wikiversity." These pages and other activity (cross-wiki) have contributed to an uncivil environment at en-wv leading to our imposition of local sanctions.[27] His stated purpose is to protect the wiki "from attack by those who come from outside"(ibid.) demonstrating a lack of AGF in pursuing these "investigations" and he has shown an obsessive focus on squelching discussions aimed at improving our content. The presence of these pages on meta encourages this unproductive behavior. --mikeu talk 14:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • vote delete and to any other like pages. From my past experiences , I have no confidence in Abd's abilities in this area, and I find little to no value in having these pages as public pages. I support Vito's action in this space.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I should make it clear that I don't personally care if the LTA study is here. It simply makes access for WMF users easier, and also correction of errors, if there are any; the intention was to redact it and move it to mainspace as an LTA subpage -- or to likewise move it and use it for a global ban request (the sockmaster is assertably eligible, long-term abuser, even if some identifications are not correct, on more than three wikis). I can and will continue the study elsewhere, it's much easier for me, but it was here precisely so that it could be corrected. So far, correction has only been attempted by known and locked or blocked socks, or, in one case, one plausibly alleged to be a sock. The effect of confirmed deletion here will be to move the study outside of any WMF restraint, not to actually eliminate it.
Because my request that the page be undeleted for review, few users would be able to see to confirm/disconfirm that it is as described.
One user wrote "there are too many questions about the accuracy...." Questions raised by whom? As can be seen in page and talk page history, there were indeed many questions, raised by users then globally locked as socks under checkuser identification, with the only exception being one single SPA, who is not mentioned on any currently visible page and who was only mentioned in passing in the actual LTA study, not accused of any misbehavior. Obvious is obvious, but if nobody looks at it, it becomes obscure.
I am done debating this. The matter is clear if anyone actually investigates. I'm basically done with WMF wikis entirely, because, long-term, it is too difficult to create reality-based discussions, instead they become piles of opinions. I will keep email open. --Abd (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Syum90 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)