Requests for comment/Mass deletion request on Haitian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The request was successfully resolved.

Volkov and VolkovBot flagged some 3500 stubs on ht:wp for speedy deletion a year ago. They clearly aren't speedies, but ht:wp doesn't have much of an AFD process. Volkov also talked with the creator of those stubs [1], who indicated his interest in cleaning them up. There is something of a language barrier making clear discussion harder. Right now this dominates the full toolserver list of "articles tagged for speedy deletion" (and has done for the past year)...

ht:wp also only has one admin, despite its size, so acting on those deletion requests is a bit uncertain. An ambassador to ht should help clean up the templates, if they are not meant to be deleted, or find people to help with deletion if they are.

I'm looking for other cross-project language & communication issues to add to RFC, for lack of a better place for them -- we certainly need to find better ways to support young projects. -- sj | help translate |+ 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For right now, I'd strongly recommend removing the template, since it hinders efforts to manage the "real" deletion process on htwiki, and on small wikis more generally. I happen to think the pages shouldn't be deleted, but that is really up to the local community to decide.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I've added a sitenotice to htwiki pointing to this discussion.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the interest for ht wikipedia; we are making effort to remove those templates;every time an article is modified by an other user, who makes a contribution to the article (correcting information, bringing new contents ..etc) i bring new information or develop the discussion for this artcicle and check for the presence of the template {{deletion}} and remove it;there is a lack of contributions for the wiki but i continue to make call for contributions in educational fields and maintain contact with linguists, teachers, researchers, mainly in the USA and organizations such as YELE, SODA, OLPC; the number of contributors has increased, but it is still weak for the work it requires. Many thanks for your attention, ht:user:masterches
OK - do you want help to remove the templates? It'd be nice to have them removed sooner rather than later, I think.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be very helpful if more hands could help to do this task; thank you for your proposal, ht:user:masterches
  • I have commented the issue here. Yesterday NuclearWarfare blocked the bot on whithout even asking me a word or leaving a message on my talk page and reverted some bot's edits. These reverts are not correct as they restore wrong (missing) interwiki links and the block is not justified at all. If guys on decide to keep these articles as is rather than to edit or delete them, it would be better to ask me to remove these tags automatically rather than to block the bot without any notice to the bot owner. --Volkov 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment comment about the blocked bot Hello, I am sorry, I did not see this issue until I got notified about the blocked bot on my talkpage, I undid the block, because 1. there was no urgent need to block it in the first place (no vandalism (of course not), no ongoing malformed edits), 2. the user who blocked is not a regular sysop on and has no rights to ban a regular user or his bot. (I also left the local sysop an explaination about the unblock here, I am really sorry for this mess and hope the locals are not fed up now for this intrusion, IMHO it is really their decision if they want to keep an article or not, if they need help with the cleanup it is no problem, but I hope that in the future this could be made with a little more care, thanks) Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really really sorry about this whole mess; it is my fault entirely. That night was really busy for me, and I had thought I could go through and block, rollback it all, and then leave a message for the bot owner. When Razorflame and I started going through, Mike.lifeguard interrupted us and told us about this RfC. I got really flustered, and in my haste to "clean up", I forgot to unblock it or even leave a notice. I also missed a bunch of important things which have already been talked about here. Spacebirdy (and Mike, who talked about it with me) are completely right, I acted poorly and offer my humble apologies to Volkov and their entire Haitian Wikipedia community. NuclearWarfare 21:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do give you credit for taking responsibility for this action, however it was unjustified from the get-go. There was zero need to block the bot since it was not continuing - the block was wrong regardless whether you ever intended to remove it. As well, that was really not what you were given temp sysop status to do (& I have questions regarding the appropriateness of doing that too - this reinforces my belief that such requests really need to be made in public on-wiki and not in IRC except in actual emergencies such as ongoing vandalism).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly learned from this experience; I won't ever do something like this in the future. Also, from now on, I agree, I'll keep rights requests onwiki only. NuclearWarfare 00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for this rapid solution to the problem; we'll do our best to cleanup the wrong tags created, Volkov has proposed moreover to help removing them :-) ht:user:masterches

Great; glad to hear that things are moving along quickly. NuclearWarfare 00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am sorry for the intrusion into your Wikipedia. It was unfounded and I was unjust in my reverts of VolkovBot. I, too, have learned from this experience. Thank you to Mike.lifeguard for stopping us and pointing us to this RfC. Cheers, Razorflame 23:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]