Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Requests and proposals Requests for deletion Archives (current)→
This page hosts local (i.e., Meta-Wiki) requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Images with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. {{Deletion requests}} can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 180 days.

Pages[edit]

Submit your page deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Various redirects[edit]

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)

Duplicated pages[edit]

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)

Templates[edit]

Submit your template deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Template:Banned[edit]

We don't have any local ban policy, so what is a ban is unclear. Propose to redirect it to Template:Indefblocked I also propose to remove the "banned" option in Template:Indefblocked. For global ban we already have {{WMF-legal banned user}} and {{Community banned user}}.--GZWDer (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect makes sense. As far as the "banned" option in {{Indefblocked}} goes, I'm substantially indifferent, but do have one question. My understanding is that in some circumstances, a community-banned user is still allowed to edit in a limited way on Meta, if for no other reason than to appeal the community ban. So I wonder if that option should stay, in order to call out a situation when a community-banned user is not even allowed that limited editing on Meta. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Clearly not necessary to worry about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no banning policy alike w:WP:BAN here, yes. That doesn't mean that an indefblocked user can return with another account and we'll treat that as abuse of multiple accounts. I am indiferent as long as we don't start making things bureaucratic and difficult to understand. If any user is blocked on meta indefinitely for any reason, the user is not allowed to come back in general with any account. Obviously common sense apply and if the user was blocked because of their username, then if he returns with a valid username I'd say there's no violation here. —MarcoAurelio 10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge with {{Indefblocked}}, we don't actually "ban" a user locally, it's enough to either indef block or global ban. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, you can't be "banned from Meta-Wiki". --MF-W 13:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Better to let the whole template redirect, then, especially since redirects are cheap. That will remind anyone who actually has a thought about placing a "banned" template on someone's page that it's not a correct thing to do. (But then the banned option can be removed.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that would tempt people to a wrong use of "banned" as a synonym for "blocked". --MF-W 23:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The term "banned" is already being misused.--GZWDer (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not speak English so I hope you all can excuse me for that horrible mistake. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I don't mind your usage of it. A ban is defined (in English) as an official prohibition against using a service, I think an indef block qualifies as that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I also think that deleting the template is better in order to avoid confusion, and also removing the "banned" option from the template {{Indefblocked}}.--Syum90 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • substitute and delete; to avoid red-links. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment looking at how it is being used, I would recommend that we leave it as is. This template utilises "indefblock" and it is being used supplementary to either community or WMF-legal notice to indicate to users that the account should not be un(b)locked without further consultation. Each user with this template has been banned by one of the two processes, so it is the case that a ban has been applied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
billinghurst It's funny you say that and within the same few minutes then protect the user page of a user who's ban was a bullying tactic by James Alexander of the WMF to show the community what happens when editors stand up to admin abuse. Reguyla was routinely bullied, trolled and harassed by admins and functionaries including on this very project right in front of you and you all didn't lift a finger...you should be ashamed of yourselves. Reguyla's ban wasn't done by the WMF, everyone knows it was just Jamesofur/James Alexanders that did it. What better way to show that the term "banned" doesn't have any value here. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:3D95:A817:5B32:32B0 18:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, whatever alternate view of reality you wish to put on it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In five users using banned template, only one (PauloHelene) have local community discussion. The other four are blocked without community discussion.
  • For these "banned" users (except socks), in my opinion they may be unblocked if they promise to behave. I don't think a full community discussion is always needed. (There're no local unblock discussion of Reguyla either.)
  • For community or WMF-legal process of global ban, we have specific templates indicating it. I don't think a real community process of local ban is needed.

--GZWDer (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Three of those accounts are WMF blocks, so there is not requirement for a community discussion. They are still banned and the template applies. I cannot comment on the fourth account, you will need to talk to Huji but it does mention another account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    billinghurst which user are you referring to? I am quite confused. Huji (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: For users banned by WMF, we already have {{WMF-legal banned user}}. For account User:ظهيری, it is blocked for impersonating of other user (and later found as a sock of Mjbmr), both are grounds of only indefinite local block, so the term "banned" should not be applicable here.--GZWDer (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Submit your category deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Category:Indefblocked Meta users[edit]

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)

Images[edit]

Submit your image deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.