Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFU)
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.


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

New request[edit]

These files were moved to corrected titles. Please remove:

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Support/test2 ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 22:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done
User:Мастер теней/global.css.
User:Мастер теней/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js

Hi! Please delete this page. Мастер теней (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I was looking for a template equivalent to speedy deletion on wikipedia hehe. Found this while watching #cvn-mediawiki. [

All content in Category:Indefblocked Meta users[edit]

Now that the category is gone, maybe we should just nuke all its entries there. Ping @Herbythyme, Trijnstel, and Billinghurst. I've been testing a deletion script recently. I can delete them all using either my admin account or creating an ad hoc bot admin account for that only purpose. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that some need to be retained, and those retained need a suitable category. Some are clear community level bans that happened through discussion and such pages should not be deleted, which is why I stopped the other day and left comment with my pings. So at this stage, my retention thoughts are anything that has a user page, and a user talk page with {{unblock}} definitely, and anything that is a size above a minimal level size (not yet worked out what size, but something that has a discussion and not just a template with warning).  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe some can be kept, but all? I don't think so. Any ideas? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
From flicking through random pages in category, there are a lot of spambots, and they should go, all of those makes it harder to see those we may want to keep. Gut feel that as a first cut we do NOT want user talk pages on list that are less than 1800 bytes, and do not contain {{unblock}}. Though we may want to get there in a couple of steps. Firstly clear just those with {{warning message}} but not {{welcome}} and not {{unblock}} and less than 1000 bytes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
And using special:massdelete gadget (s:MediaWiki:Gadget-massdelete.js) with account on flooder with a select list is how I was going to do it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it an idea to manually start deleting pages we definitely want to get rid of? Trijnsteltalk 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I can pull a list of user/user talk pages no longer than, say, X bytes long, paste the output on a file and run a deletion script for them if that helps. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please. @Billinghurst: you will communicate with MarcoAurelio about this, I assume? Trijnsteltalk 18:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Selecting all talk pages whole length => 600 bytes returns ~60k results. I guess I need some sort of join with members of that category or if anyone has a better idea? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst and Trijnstel: I made a query: -- does the results look right to you? If so, I can delete them. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

All IP talk pages older than 1 year[edit]

Some time ago MZMcBride did cleanup old IP talk pages. I guess we should do the same once more. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's ok for me, we can keep several of them if needed.--Syum90 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Why they should be removed? The old discussion from 2009 is here btw: Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-01#Old_IP_talk_pages. Stryn (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't see the value in doing it. So unless there is a good argument put forward, not in favour.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
To me, the value in doing it—always assuming that the pages are quiet for a year—is that IP talk pages almost always reflect warnings of one sort or another, but not warnings that necessarily apply to a new IP coming to the project. Why start someone off with a negative perception? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleting IP talk pages never made sense to me, they could serve as warnings and might indicate if an IP is abusive in the same manner as before, if their would be consensus to delete I would move the IP talk pages to an archive and don't leave a redirect. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I would suggest that archiving (not deleting) any IP talk pages (not currently blocked) with messages more than six months old, leaving a sharedIP notice and a note linking to the block log if there are any past blocks. That would balance the need to present a more friendly talkpage for innocent new users and the need to keep track of previous warnings and blocks. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I support Green Giant's suggestion as a more reasonable alternative to deletion. Archiving without redirect is effectively the same as deletion as it just buries it from sight. --mikeu talk 16:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
By 'archive' here I hope we mean 'archive to history' , not creating actual /archive subpages. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Sorry, I didn’t see your comment but yes leaving it in file history, not subpages. Green Giant (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Old IP talk pages typically aren't needed and they add unnecessary clutter to the live wiki and to database dumps. The idea that you'd need to reference a warning to an IP address from 2009 is pretty silly. And without any means of knowing whether the same individual is associated with the IP address, it's almost entirely meaningless whether the user was warned so long ago. Even if we could know it's the same person now as it was ten years ago, such an old warning would usually be stale and inapplicable so much later. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: I agree. Do you keep by chance the script you used to do that in the past? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

delete my user page[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC) --Mr.Polaz (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done

User:Akb Consultants1/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js

  • Please delete this JS page which only contains spam. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg DoneAjraddatz (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done


  • Please delete this JS page created by a Crosswiki spammer, which gives advice on removing some software. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done

User:Marco Castagna 1/global.js

  • Please delete this JS page, which contains only an out-of-scope, self-laudatory CV. Green Giant (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

deletion request[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Yes check.svg Done

auto request of new pages

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Support/వాడుకరి:విశ్వనాధ్.బి.కె.
Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Support/వాడుకరి:విశ్వనాధ్.బి.కె.a

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viswaprabha (talk)


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


The following discussion is closed: Done by MF-W in January. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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 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)
You can discount my beliefs if you want too but if Kumioko/Reguyla had not been bullied out they would likely now still be editing at a high rate and improving Wikipedia rather than being an enemy. But not everyone in the community agrees with the decision! 2601:5CC:100:697A:A061:E024:1056:8FBD 02:41, 3 February 2018 (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)

    • And there never will be an unblock discussion for Reguyla because James Alexander won't allow it. It was his decision to ban them and he isn't about to admit he was wrong. 2601:5CC:100:697A:A061:E024:1056:8FBD
    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)

Can we focus on the template again? This is not the place to review blocks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the consensus is for deleting or redirecting. --MF-W 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I'd just note that the template is transcluded on six user (talk) pages, so if the template is deleted, someone has to address that. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the occurrences with Template:Indefblocked and deleted this template. --MF-W 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


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


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.

User talk pages deleted outside of policy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Not done. Deletions in line with the policy & no consensus to undelete. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to request the undeletion of user talk pages I had created when I welcomed new users, the reason given for these deletions was that the deleting admin (Vituzzu) didn't feel comfortable with a user "on probation" (which doesn't exist see Meta:Probation) welcoming new users, I am simply not the only user who welcomes new users but for some reason an admin decided that if I welcome a new user that this should be deleted even though other users like Ottava Rima and Liuxinyu970226 welcome new users so deleting these pages purely because I made them without citing any policy is an abuse of tools and these deletions should be reversed. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 13:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Abuse_of_tools_by_Vituzzu. — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose undeletion. Your signature is deliberately inflammatory, and I understand why Vituzzu thought it shouldn't be included on the talk pages of new users. And since you're from enwiki, I'll give you a bit of a pass on this one, but Meta (unlike enwiki) does not have hard-and-fast policies. Our deletion policy is a guideline which gives administrators latitude in how they apply it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
How is it inflammatory? Towards whom? You can’t just make a statement and not back it up, nor did any non-steward seem to have commented about my signature being “inflammatory” before, and I'm from Wikimedia Commons (also a place where I'm one of the most active users) and the deletion of those pages at no point mentioned my signature only that I'm supposedly on “probation” (something which doesn't seem to count for users like @INeverCry: who are allowed to call users “Nazi pedophiles” without getting globally locked), my signature is the way it is to show hope to users who are currently globally locked that not all locks are forever and since there’s no Meta:Guide to appealing locks get some insight in what stewards like you do and don't like (such as using the e-mail or IRC functions for contact), so again who does my signature harm? The fact that this steward calls my signature “linkspam” (despite it not being an external link) has more to do with the fact that they do not wish to see my account unlocked rather than anything else. Why is it acceptable behaviour on Meta to keep telling people that they should’ve never been unlocked/unblocked? On any other wiki this would've been seen as harassment. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 10:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)