Steward requests/Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

To report vandalism issues, please use Vandalism reports instead.
Crosswiki requests
MetaWiki requests

Bot-reported speedy deletion requests[edit]

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

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

Example for the correct formatting:

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

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

Manual requests[edit]

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

cleanup required xwiki[edit]

The following accounts are all part of a sockfarm

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

I think that I found and marked them all. I would appreciate someone doing some checking. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I was bold and changed the list to use {{Globaluser|Example}}. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
While tracking the deletions through the Wikidata item, I noticed that Ravigasi (talk meta edits recent edits global user summary CA) has been removing the deletion tags. I've restored them; just noting the user here for reference. The Anonymouse (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted a couple today, will go through more of the gs ones tomorrow. Ajraddatz (Talk) 07:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sawlens and Ravigas linked to issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Also Haflos (talk meta edits recent edits global user summary CA). Jafeluv (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Closed Closed Either resolved or stale. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid we have to reopen this one. By chance, I found vo:DiezelSun pänan and min:Diezel Sun today, probably it should be worth checking for more. — Yerpo Eh? 06:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted those pages and locked Löf9 (talk meta edits recent edits global user summary CA) and Infora71 (talk meta edits recent edits global user summary CA) Bennylin 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
After investigating further, I've found these socks. Gonna block 'em all. Bennylin 12:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

One more: Special:Centralauth/Heňňam89. --MF-W 19:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that this sockmaster don't know when to stop. Here's the socks that've been created in the past 2 days:

Currently the stewards and checkusers are gathering the investigation on checkuser wiki. Bennylin 13:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Status:    Not done

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

What is the reason for deletion? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It's cut and paste spam. Almost all of them are the same text, translated, apparently in some cases not particularly well. There's no citations in most of them, and those that do have citations are not citing to reliable third party sources, but to bible passages and the group's internal publications. There is no consideration for the local projects' notability standards (which in most cases, I would think, this fails significantly, as there aren't reliable third party sources for this organization). Sven Manguard (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
After speaking with PiRSquared17 over IRC, I've pulled all of the deletion templates. I still think that the articles should be deleted, in bulk, for the reasons I stated above, but because it'd be such a major effort (there are 261 projects with a copy of this article), and because apparently these articles have a bit of a sordid backstory, there's going to have to be some sort of broader consensus to delete these, and therefore, a formal discussion somewhere. Sven Manguard (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Some points to consider:
  • In favor of deletion:
    1. Content has been "spammed" xwiki. Other spam is deleted on small wikis, even if the wikis don't have policies dealing with advertising. The page could be considered spam because it contains a link and seems to have been created for promotional purposes. I am not sure it is written from a neutral point of view, can someone check?
    2. These pages don't have any third party references for content.
    3. They do not establish notability.
    4. This user has been asking many users on Incubator to translate the article into various languages and has created these pages on most Wikipedias, so it is clear he has a COI. This is not really a reason to delete, but is a reason to consider this request.
  • Against deletion:
    1. These articles have existed for years and stewards have known about it. In fact, an admin was desysoped after he deleted one of these pages (see here). Note that the user made other mistakes, so this article's status was not really brought up there, but the user's own reasons for deletion.
    2. Most small Wikipedias do not have policies about notability or verifiability, probably: Wikipedias with sitelink d:Q4657574 = 74, #open Wikipedias = about 276 I think, 74/276 = about 27% or just over a quarter. On the other hand, if we count sitelinks to the article in question, 261/276 ≈ 95% of Wikipedias. Notability is not mentioned in Founding principles explicitly, but I personally think all Wikipedias should have notability policies. Precedents [1] [2] "I don't think these are speedy deletion candidates. They've been around since 2008, and even though many started out as bad machine translations (or less), many of them have been corrected and expanded by now. Notability is not a global policy; different criteria apply in different projects. Any deletion requests should be made locally in the corresponding projects IMO. Jafeluv 11:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)"
PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In short all articles leaved untouched by locals should be deleted asap. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
On a lot of wikis, if global sysops/stewards don't delete the pages, nobody else will, due to there being no active admins. --Rschen7754 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Global sysops are only supposed to act in noncontroversial cases, such as "for the purposes of antivandalism and routine maintenance". Do you think this is uncontroversial? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the origional two opposition to deletion arguments, my counteraguements are these:
1. Is there a reason why the global sysops and stewards have done nothing? The feeling I've gotten from my IRC conversations is that nothing has happened not because there is a reason for inaction based in policy (there may well be one; I am not versed in GS/Steward/Meta/Global policies), but rather because it's complicated and a big task and while no one is a great fan of the articles, no one wants to go through the trouble of dealing with them. If that's not the case, fine, but that's the picture that's been painted for me. If that is the case, it's a terrible reason for not dealing with crosswiki abuse, which is what I view this as.
2. Most Wikipedias are too small to have a lot of the policies we take for granted; this is true. At the same time however, the idea that Wikipedia should only include notable, verifiable information is, I believe, part of the core of what all of the WMF projects are trying to do. It's not curated in the sense that there's an editorial board, but it's still curated content, in that we don't allow everything in. If the smaller projects didn't care about the content of their articles, if they adopted a manta of "you don't have to be a member of our editing community, follow or rules and stylistic guidelines, and can post whatever you want", the global sysops and stewards wouldn't remove spambot-generated articles from smaller wikis, because hey, it's content, and it's about a commercial product. Instead, such postings are removed on sight. I'm not saying that Jose77 is a spambot, but I am saying that he's pushing the same exact content, irrespective of local policies and guidelines, and with a possible (in fact, quite probable) promotional intent, onto every project. That's really quite close to a spambot, and there's no problem among GSes and Stewards in going after those. Sven Manguard (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

re to your note 2: I don't think they are machine translations, but I may be wrong. Why do you think they are machine translations? The precedents I linked were for different articles, but where Jafeluv gave an argument applicable to this case. I contacted Jose77 so he could comment here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe that it is possible he can know all the languages of the Wikipedia versions he is translating into, especially concerning articles that he tried to create from scratch himself. The rest of my points still stand however, though they were but based on a brief glance at the situation. In particular, this edit which "untranslated" "kanisa" back to "church" was pretty interesting. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Google Translate and other machine translators support many of the languages he used. He may have contacted native speakers. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO this situation is very similar to the paid editing issues which exist cross-wiki. There is really no policy on how to deal with this; the pages are unconventional advertising. Maybe an RFC on the matter to establish some policy would be beneficial, at least for wikis without local active admins. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I hate these pages, but it's the same here as with Steward_requests/Miscellaneous/2013#Request_for_deletion_on_multi_wikis_of_articles_about_Kedar_Joshi_.28d:Q55704.29. If translations are proven to be abusively bad however, they can still be deleted by GSes on projects where nobody else is active. --MF-W 15:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Also one of the oldest cities in Poland seems to be on many Wikipedias, even tiny ones. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean Kraków, although if I create pages about e.g. Izborsk (village founded in 862) on many wikis it will be surely perceived as geo spam. What about my examples? It's similar to situation shown in this request. --Midnight Gambler (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So... anyone else interested to comment? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will comment to note that the article has been deleted from English Wikipedia, and I encourage other major projects to follow suit. Once that happens, I figure that the stewards and global sysops will have stronger cover should they decide to go after this problem. Sven Manguard (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Atheistic lobby? --Midnight Gambler (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so; if one makes such a claim just based on the deletion of this one article, one might as well ask whether an pro-trinitarian lobby was at work here. --MF-W 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nobody needs "cover" to delete an article, but reasons. That enwiki decides to do something in one way, and that maybe other big wikis do so as well, is no argument in itself which would make other communities think it's a good idea. --MF-W 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly would argue that the reasons have been laid out above. PiRSquared17 did a solid job of summarizing them as well. Sven Manguard (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I just logged in today and realized what had happened. Sigh.
The fact that an article exists in over 100+ language editions is not something to be surprised about. There are at least one thousand articles on English Wikipedia which encompass at least 144 interwiki links. Amongst them are topics such as ‏‎Curitiba, Uetersen‏‎, w:Concepción, Chile‏‎, Końskowola‏‎, Karlstad, Đồng Hới, w:Dong Hoi Airport, w:Almazán,‏‎ w:Corbin Bleu‏‎, w:Tan Son Nhat International Airport‏‎, w:Selena Gomez, simple:IMMAGINE&POESIA, w:Huang Xianfan, and so on. The current article on Russia already has 270 interwiki links. These articles do no harm to anyone and only a very tiny percentage of the millions of Wikipedia readers would ever come across these articles. And for those that do somehow see it, how many readers after viewing the Uetersen‏‎ article would be inclined to book a travel ticket to Uetersen? or visit Dong Hoi Airport? or buy literature written by Huang Xianfan? Unlike the ads thrust upon readers on Wikia, those Wikipedia articles can be ignored by readers if they do not wish to view them again. Problem solved.
As for the articles related to religion, the Christadelphians have also created numerous interwiki editions and it does not concern me at all because the language versions they created were translated properly by native speakers and is not written from a biased first person perspective. Take for example the Turkmen version.
A certain religious group's interwiki expansion should only be of concern if (i) the articles were poorly translated by machine and it was not fixed by any of the native speakers after a timeframe of say 1 year; or (ii) their sole or dominant aim is to for pecuniary profit; or (iii) it is a proven threat to the security to certain nation(s), for example the w:Eastern_Lightning cult. --Jose77 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Does someone want to close this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the pages will be deleted now. Does someone uninvolved want to officially close this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

After reading this, I think it's certainly no problem to have articles in various language versions. First, most language versions have no notability requirements whatsoever, mostly because they are small. Second, the quality of many small-wiki articles is not very good, which is a problem, but not a reason for a cross-wiki action. Therefore, request declined.  Not done --თოგო (D) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Persian Wikibooks Speedy Deletion[edit]

We need to delete pages tagged as "speedy deletion" in Persian Wikibooks. All the pages which should be deleted are stored here (including categories, simple pages and images): [3]. If there is need to a consensus I will establish one. Thanks in advance. --Doostdar (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should first try to ask the local sysops of the project (b:fa:ویژه:فهرست_کاربران/sysop). In case they don't react you could still return. Vogone talk 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask a newly coming admin into our project. He'll do that. --Doostdar (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance in WN-pt[edit]

Status:    Not done

What's up? I'm doing some fix and clean up at WN-pt:[4], but some things I can't fix, because I did not have tools for that, and this land do not have active sysops... More than that, I will need one of you able to do blocks of pages when publish because of the project of originals articles that will start to run is this mouth (n:pt:Wikinotícias:Revista).

And as you not give me permission to use administrative tools Steward requests/Permissions#Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton.40pt.wikinews in an almost inhospitable community, where the sysop just go there to say bad things about me and do not do his job. I'll have to ask you do my job. So, I made a list of things to do... and some of they you will need to open up, let me fixed and close, just because one of you (that do not like me) denied me tools to do that.

I already asked for unblocking some pages, but no answers ever since. Ie. n:pt:Wikinotícias Discussão:Redação/Arquivo, n:pt:Ajuda Discussão:Página principal, and one sysop had time to say bad things, but not solve that...

Requests for unblock pages[edit]

Redlinks to images (need to be blocked after the fix)

Request for block pages[edit]

That's it for now. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two active local sysops (Alchimista and Grondin). You have ask them first.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I already did asked to Alchimista, (via IRC), he did just one point, and he is not that active in WN.
And if they were active, they already have answered the requests made ​​in the discussion pages, since the recent changes do not have enough volume to messages get lost. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you also talk to the other admin? Maybe they don't see the necessity of those actions? I don't see a reason to believe that they wouldn't do it if they deemed it necessary. Therefore,  Not done --თოგო (D) 21:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam at zh.wikibooks[edit]

See b:zh:Wikibooks:互助客棧#Abuse_filter. If there is no opposition and local sysops does not act and if spam activity does not decrease in the upcoming days, I'd like someone from here to setup an abuse filter there. Note that three stewards ran CUs on that project. I have also notified the local sysops that seem to be active. --Glaisher [talk] 10:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What abuse filter do you want to establish? Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Special:AbuseFilter/43 modified to include ns3 (since ns2 and ns3 are being used for spamming; see b:zh:special:log/delete) and warning (maybe disallow?). I suppose we could implement this now as a local user has approved this. --Glaisher [talk] 10:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This will produce lots of false positives. Ruslik (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Any suggestions? --Glaisher [talk] 17:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Ping Vogone as he helped in setting up an abuse filter at Lithuanian Wiktionary, which effectively stopped spam there. --Glaisher [talk] 05:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok I created I a test filter. Ruslik (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

XML import to[edit]

Status:    Not done

I need to transfer over a hundred pages from plwikisource to, mostly in Page namespace. Tpt tried to do it manually, but it hurts as there is a problem with different namespace name and impossibility to import without manual namespace selection. So he suggested XML export/import as the preferred method in this case. Unfortunately, no user with importer rights in is currently available (importupload is required), so we need steward assistance.
The list of files to be transferred is here; the XML file prepared for import is here (according to Help:Import the namespace names & numbers are set to the values after export from plwikisource). Ankry (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I confirm. Tpt (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In case someone of you is experienced enough to handle the XML import at your own it might be worth filing a request for temporary importupload permissions for this particular task on SRP#Miscellaneous requests. Vogone talk 18:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got import rights so can do it myself. Please, close this request. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Remove useless system messages on wuu wikipedia[edit]

There are many local Mediawiki: system messages on wuu wikipedia that are the same as the Mediawiki default. And they are too many for me to delete by hand. I hope someone can run a bot to delete them.--Lt2818 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to reliably identify the "useless system messages", or provide a list? QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I saw them on this page. If the green message is the same as the yellow one, then the Mediawiki: page can be deleted safely. If you need the exact list, I will make it 3 days later, because I have no enough time now.--Lt2818 (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I was asking because a bot won't be a simple operation (comparing the translatewiki version with the local version). If you had a list of messages the bot could read it would be easier. I would wait until you get a volunteer before making the list. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list @QuiteUnusual:


--Lt2818 (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think local administrator Lt2818 is pretty active, since he's on the 特殊:活跃用户 (Special:ActiveUsers) list, and I recommend contacting him instead and then coming back here if, say, he doesn't respond within a month. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The active local admin also placed this request here. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I must not be paying enough attention today. Thanks Tegel. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, see bug 43917 comment 24. –Krinkletalk 17:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all.--Lt2818 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Esperanto Wikiquote[edit]

eo:Uzanto:Popcornjungle‎ Crosswiki spam from address presumably belonging to the same user that's locked right now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, reverted on another wiki, and globally blocked the IP. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cebuano Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, could a steward please speedy delete the unused redirect at ceb:C:SD - this is part of the cleanup process being undertaken at Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix#Next steps. There have been no administrators active on the Cebuano Wikipedia since last year. — Scott talk 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help with the commons interwiki prefix stuff, it'll be nice to finally get that implemented. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! And, you're welcome; the prospect of making it happen has been a great motivation in involving myself in this. It's been an interesting learning experience as well. If I ever run another cross-project RfC, it'll benefit from this. — Scott talk 20:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, while we're at it, could you also delete these 6 redirects and these 6 redirects at Estonian Wikibooks? That project doesn't even have any admins.(!) — Scott talk 20:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Removed all, nothing was linking to them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

See also[edit]