Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2017-12

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

Manual requests

Soft close of Norwegian Wikinews

Status:    Done

See Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Norwegian Wikinews 3. I need to have n:no:Wikinytt:Forside/soft moved to n:no:Wikinytt:Forside, and then for that page to be semi-protected. Thank you. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete, vandal removes request template

Status:    Done

Dear steward/global admin, please speedy delete w:new:विक्की कादियान. Article made by and about global locked spam and sock account Vicky Kadian. Sockpuppet investigation archive, example of global locked account [1]. User is removing local deletion request (as he usually does). Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for reporting.--HakanIST (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge history in

Status:    Done

Local sysops are not active.

Thanks you. --Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 21:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to merge? Both pages continue to exist. Ruslik (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
See the history, I matched the contents to make it easier for you to work. The main page is lixtenctain (which is the one that is linked in Wikidata) the other should be redirected. lictenctain was created first, but in 2010 a user copied its content in lixtenctain and since then that is the main page. That user did not use the move option and the history was lost. About the speedy deletes, jbo:lo si'o lo facra'a lo sajra'a cu frica was tagged on July 2016. It's been over a year since anyone decided to delete or keep that page. -Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Edittools - kowikt

Status:    Done

A current version of MediaWiki:Edittools in Korean wiktionary is like that. As you can see, it's so messy and long. So, when editing an article, it interrupts editors. Not helpful.

It should be changed with reference of enwikt or kowp. There isn't any local admin. Nuevo Paso (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, provide clear instruction what should be done. I can not make the choice for you. Ruslik (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Then it would be better to switch to the kowp version. It's simple, and there is no need to translate. But the leftmost thing in the last line, {{토막글|}}, is a kowp local template. You need to skip it. Nuevo Paso (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Status:    Done

Please delete w:User:Mason1213 with the reason [[WP:CSD#U5|U5]]: [[WP:NOTWEBHOST|Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host]]; it has more than 5000 revisions so enwp admins are unable to delete. Thanks, FASTILY 21:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that Drmies already asked for this above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Vituzzu (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete Vicky Kadian spam

Status:    Done

Dear steward / global admin, please speedy delete the following articles. All are (repeatedly deleted) crosswiki self promotion about global locked sock account Vicky Kadian [2], [3]. The user keeps removing the deletion templates.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Vituzzu (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Very briefly: need NOTWEBHOST deletion of user page

Status:    Done

Got 5000+ edits on a user page, en:User:Mason1213. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I would send this page to en:WP:MFD. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether it's right to delete or not, it meets en-WP's speedy deletion criteria. But it is in excess of 5000 revisions. Fish and karate (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I only expressed my opinion as an English Wikipedia sysop that if I had handled this request I would have denied it. Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Then I'd like to invite you to explain your reasoning. Four enwp admins (me, @Drmies, @Dlohcierekim, and @Maxim) have indicated that we would speedy the page if we could. Additionally, the creator has been indef'd by @RHaworth for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Now as I understand, Stewards are tasked with executing the wishes of local communities, as opposed to editorializing them. -FASTILY 21:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0 just expressed his/her opinion (see above). Is he obliged to act or is this a discussion? --Vejvančický (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Neither. We're all volunteers with no obligations, and this is not an enwp deletion discussion. -FASTILY 00:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see almost any real attempt to help or assist a completely harmless editor (here is one exception), I see only threats and then block. Why such a hunt? Comment by uninvolved en:wiki administrator --Vejvančický (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done from a technical point of view.
You may undelete last revision and go to MFD, though I think it wouldn't be useful.
I concur the editor is completely harmless, but they didn't understand what Wikipedia is, I cannot access UTRS so I lack some fundamental information. [voice announcing the shop is about to close]Btw the discussion, if needed, should continue at the relevant noticeboard(s).[/voice announcing the shop is about to close]
--Vituzzu (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete Vicky Kadian spam 2

Status:    Done

Dear steward / global admin, please speedy delete the following article. It is (repeatedly deleted) crosswiki self promotion about global locked sock account Vicky Kadian [4], [5]. Also see request above. The user keeps removing the deletion templates.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Stryn (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete Vicky Kadian spam 3

Status:    Done

Dear steward / global admin, please speedy delete the following article. It is (repeatedly deleted) crosswiki self promotion about global locked sock account Vicky Kadian [6], [7]. Also see request above.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--HakanIST (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Import requests

Status:    Not done

Please import all subpages of MediaWiki:Lang to Some modules and templates need them to work.--GZWDer (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: is this still required? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Feel free to make a new request if required. Matiia (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Bertrand101 sockpuppets creating pages on Cebuano Wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Hello could please delete all of pages created by Bertrand101 on Cebuano Wikipedia due to massive creation of pages made by Bertrand101 so it must stop permanently creating all of hoax stations so it won't be continue all of creation of pages by Bertrand101 thanks. -- 17:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide more details, like the account names or a link to their local contributions? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Matiia (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Global deleted contributions

Status:    Done

Do you stewards have a way to search a user's global deleted contributions, i.e. a version of that works with deleted? Over at Commons, we have a user asking for an image (commons:COM:AN#Graphic that I Cannot Find), and while I've checked his deleted contributions there and at en:wp (it's in neither of those places) and his live contributions with this tool, I don't have a way of knowing that it wasn't uploaded to some other wiki. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't have any. But we can see the deleted contributions special page in every wiki. I checked all where the user had an account and found none results. So either they used another account or they didn't upload the file at all. Stryn (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion closure issue

Status:    Not done

Hi all, I created a Wikipedia page in November that was nominated for AFD under a source reliability question. The discussion began on November 17th and ended on December 19th after being relisted 3 times. Link to the AFD. The discussion garnered 3 opinions with little participation, a relist, a delete, and a keep, but was closed as a delete. I spoke to the admin who made the close on his talk page and asked him why there wasn't more discussion and why the article wasn't closed as a no consensus. He criticized my English and asked me to post a deletion review. Deletion review here. I posted an opinion there and then posted to the wikipedia-EN IRC as I did not want the discussion to end with less than 5 unique participants after 33 days the way the AFD did. I made this exact post to the IRC "Any editors want to weigh in on a deletion review? I believe an admin closed an AFD as delete when the discussion warrants a no consensus close." and was immediately met with backlash and criticism by users there for canvasing. I explained that I wasn't looking for anyone to vote, that I just wanted more eyes on the page because of how the AFD dragged on with little participation. Users immediately posted to the deletion review that I had canvased users to the page. I posted a response on the deletion review that transparently used the my quote above and stated that I was looking for a wider discussion, but I was met with backlash on the IRC again. Specifically, "Rocckker13_, you clearly don't get it or aren't sorry if you are still trying to defend your canvassing." as well as a private message from a user that stated that the admin in question was forceful but widely liked so going after him would be a bad idea. I would like to clarify that I am not after the admin, he seems to do a lot of good work, I just think the AFD close was made as a super vote rather than a consensus decision.

I would like a review into the process by which the AFD was closed and the brigade that appeared on the deletion review. A user on the deletion review page suggested restoring the article to draft and then running it through AFC, which seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise to the situation that allows more users to hash out and validate sources. Thank you for your time. --Rocckker13 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rocckker13: This is not something that is remotely appropriate for bringing here. Not only will the Stewards not go against community consensus as you are requesting here, this is not a task that they are going to handle (they don't handle DRV requests). You were told to avoid canvassing; it is apparent that you did not get the memo. Nihlus 06:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This is one of the users from the IRC in question who has followed me here to comment on this request. At what point does it become targeted harassment? There was no community consensus on the AFD, I am asking for a review into both the AFD and the Deletion Review Rocckker13 (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have this page on my watchlist and am active in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect, so it wasn't that hard to see your request here. Nonetheless, I will let a steward explain it to you as you have demonstrated multiple times that you refuse to get the point. Nihlus 06:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rocckker13: Stewards don't really have a role in dispute resolution when the scope of the dispute is confined to one large project (the English-language Wikipedia, in this case). Accordingly, I'm afraid you'll need to take your concerns to the English Wikipedia community, rather than here. Mz7 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done - this isn't an issue that stewards can help you with. Please use the appropriate discussion locations on the English Wikipedia instead. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7:@Ajraddatz: My mistake, my research said that the stewards resolved conflicts with the admins. Where would be the proper place to file a complaint against an admin's ruling and behavior and also potential brigading/harassment? Thank you. Rocckker13 (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rocckker13: The go-to place for those kinds of behavioral concerns is generally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, please be mindful that your own behavior will also be scrutinized if you decide to report an incident there. Mz7 (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the proper place to appeal a disputed deletion discussion result is deletion review, which is a discussion that you have already started. There's no need, in my view, to start a second discussion about the same issue at a different location, if that is the issue you wish to bring up. Mz7 (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A good place to start would be to let the deletion review run it's course. Experienced users from within the community will look over the AfD and decide whether it was appropriately closed. I know it can feel like harassment when users follow you from location to location, but they are just trying to help you understand where the appropriate avenues of appeal are, and why the article was deleted. I would strongly recommend against opening a section on ANI. The best recommendation I have here is for you to read the opinions presented in the AfD to understand why the article was deleted, and apply that knowledge when making articles in the future. – Ajraddatz (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7:@Ajraddatz: I appreciate the help. I'll wait for the deletion review to run its course, but I continue to be concerned by the way these things are being handled. Is everything done by direct court of peers or is there an outstanding body to go to when there are grievances between higher users? Even the dispute resolutions have to be opted in to to go forth. There is no guarantee of experienced users coming in and weighing opinions. More commonly its a general user that presents an opinion without any background, like the user that came to the deletion review upset with me for trying to get more discussion in the IRC. Thank you for your time. Rocckker13 (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There are ways to elevate unresolved issues, but I don't think you should worry about them in this case. Disagreements between users should be resolved at the lowest level - either between the users themselves, or going to the immediate next step up. In the case of contesting an AfD closure, the next step up is opening a request on w:WP:DRV as you did. If you have a problem with a user's behaviour, such as if they follow you from wiki to wiki, you have a number of options. My recommended one is to just explain to them that you don't appreciate their behaviour, and that you are trying to find more information. If they don't go away, then you could contact local admins on the wiki that they have followed you to. But that shouldn't be necessary here - Nihlus was trying to help, even if he was being a bit abrasive in doing so. Unfortunately, it's easy to misread behaviour on this website just because of the nature of online communication. It's best to give people the benefit of the doubt, try to not get defensive, and always try to seek understanding before making yourself understood :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: Just for clarity and posterity, there was a rather protracted discussion in IRC with Rocckker13 here where many users and administrators went to great lengths to to explain to him canvassing and forum shopping and why they are frowned upon in addition to the fact that the clear majority was not on his side in this case. One person even suggested he ignore the DRV and cool off for a bit; he responded by ending up here somehow. So my "abrasion" was more exhaustion than anything else. Nihlus 07:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I expected that it went down in such a way, and I'm not trying to criticise your behaviour. He was probably mad and not really listening to what was said on IRC, and having a group of people trying to explain why he was wrong probably wasn't helping with that either. Conversely, the group responding was probably annoyed that he wasn't taking the good advice being given. Such is the nature of wiki interactions sometimes :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
If by protracted discussion he means that I came into the IRC asking for help and was immediately greeted by users upset with my asking. This included one user who asked me to refine my position on the issue saying he was playing good cop, to which I replied "I'm not looking to talk to you about my thoughts, I just want people to look at the AFD and add to the conversation;" Nihlus who directed me to the Wikipedia canvasing page saying that my question was aimed at swaying a response who then posted to the deletion review; and another user who said that they were heading to the deletion review to complain about my presence in the IRC as well. Then I responded to Nihlus on the deletion review and he posted "Rocckker13_, you clearly don't get it or aren't sorry if you are still trying to defend your canvassing." to the IRC and then proceed to follow me here. I've posted what I said in that IRC here and on the deletion review, there was no coercion or sway to any of it. To the last point, I haven't posted to the DRV in any overbearing capacity whatsoever, the only things I've done recently there are respond bolded notes that users threatened to leave me. This is why I came here. There is something wrong with the way that parts of this have been handled from the start and experienced users don't seem capable of mediating it. Rocckker13 (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I beg pardon, but "Any editors want to weigh in on a deletion review? I believe an admin closed an AFD as delete when the discussion warrants a no consensus close" to me sounds like you are soliciting a "no consensus" close. And thus inappropriate canvassing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I transparently explain why the review was started. At no point, even when directly asked by the IRC users, do I ask anyone to vote or close on either side. If you call a lawyer and say, "Hey I believe my landlord broke my washing machine, want to weigh in?" you arent soliciting them to come down against the landlord, you're asking for an opinion or insight. This was the core disagreement in the IRC and turned antagonistic quickly. Rocckker13 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Owner-only OAuth consumer approval

Status:    Done
Yes check.svg Done--Vituzzu (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

zu:Template:Dead link broken

Status:    Done

If this isn't the correct place to report this problem, kindly advise further. --Deborahjay (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem? Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
On the page zu:Template:Dead link, the syntax appears to be the words {{Dead link}} in double brackets. The text appears in red and there's no listing in a zu:Category:All articles with dead external links. I've used this template in other WPs, don't understand what's wrong here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not know but template zu:template:Fix/category does not exist. Ruslik (talk)
I created the template and now the category is filled up. Ruslik (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for closure

Status:    Not done

Would a steward assess the consensus at Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation? The RFC has been open for almost 3 months. I was advised to make the request here after initially posting at WM:RFH. --Rentier (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has nothing to do with stewards. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I'm the one who asked him to come to the stewards. It's a cross-wiki RFC. Who's supposed to close it, then? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no any specific rules about this. So, I do not know. I only known that this does not concern stewards. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I would expect most stewards to be qualified and trusted to assess the consensus in a difficult RFC such as this. This is just a request, no one can be forced to close it, rule or not. Rentier (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There's precedent for RfCs with a global scope like this being closed by stewards. I cannot personally, as someone involved in the discussion. But I disagree with Ruslik's assessment here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not the right venue to make this request per 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. since Meta has active administrators and there is no clear consensus on that Rfc. Inlinetext (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
As Ajraddatz said: There's precedent for RfCs with a global scope like this being closed by stewards. Global RfCs can be closed by stewards (and most of the time they do) and if there's consensus or not, it's something the closer should decide. Matiia (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If there isn't a closure of that discussion by January 1st then I will boldly volunteer to do a non-administrator close on it, possibly in consultation with RexxS who has also expressed a willingness to participate in closing that discussion. Regards, --Pine 20:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, there has already been a non-admin close of the RfC, but that was reverted by User:Rentier because it wasn't by an admin. - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out, Bilby. It seems to me that the RfC is ripe for closure, and as no steward or Meta admin has closed the RfC, someone else should do so. Almost two months have passed since Rentier's reversion of the previous close. If a steward or Meta admin closes the RfC by January 1st then my services won't be required. In the meantime, RexxS and I have begun to communicate via email about our thoughts concerning how to close the RfC if we do it together. Happy new year, --Pine 07:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, although it does feel a bit odd - if they had a problem with a non-admin closure before, that should still be the case. If they no longer have a problem with a non-admin closure, then perhaps the original closure should simply be reinstated. - Bilby (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
My own subjective reading of the comments opposing the closure is that, while they specify the non-admin closure as the reason of their concern, their larger issue was that they disagreed with the "no consensus" result. I certainly hope that Pine and whoever else is closing this keeps in mind the precedent set by past global RfCs, with broad discussion and a support range around 80% typically being required to pass a proposal that will affect multiple projects (unless there is a good reason, such as poor arguments on the opposing side). This range is consistent with any barrier for global permissions - all of which are set at roughly 80%. You don't need to take my word for it either; look through the RfC archives and find anything big. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)