Meta:Requests for deletion: Difference between revisions
restored + link |
m →Requests for comment/Gwen Gale: archive |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
*'''Keep''' - It's an essay, and allowed on meta. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 19:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - It's an essay, and allowed on meta. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 19:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''': normal essay, might be a bit confused but it only expresses a point of view, nor seems attacking to me (it assumes good faith, for instance). [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''': normal essay, might be a bit confused but it only expresses a point of view, nor seems attacking to me (it assumes good faith, for instance). [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
=== [[Requests for comment/Gwen Gale]]=== |
|||
{{closed|Invalid RfD, not within deletion policy. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)|text= |
|||
* {{remove}} English Wikipedia has robust dispute resolution processes. A banned editor has brought a vendetta here in the form of this page. It is an attack page complaining about long ago matters long ago settled. No discussion here will have any weight on the English Wikipedia's handling of these matters. On the English Wikipedia ArbCom has the final say in matters related to administrators. As such, the page serves no legitimate purpose and should be deleted to spare the subject from needless stress and embarassment, and to deter banned users from misusing this wiki for defamation and harassment. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{keep}} Meta is coordination project of all wikis, also en.wiki. RfC here is the only possibility for banned users to be heard by the worldwide community and where stewards can act (if there is a need) in such matters, or to contact the local ArbCom and ask them for consideration on that matter. Such requests will not be deleted. I can´t see any harrasement in this request, just links provided to public logs and talks. Already the first request for deletion was rejected because of that, so please stop posting it over and over again. Thanks. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 07:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*: ArbCom heard and rejected Mbz1's appeal. This discussion needs to continue. Don't try to impose your individual view on the community by closing the discussion prematurely. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{keep}} and strongly per WizardOfOz. I have no views on the right or wrong of the case but that is one of the functions of Meta to allow folk a voice if required. In addition I object strongly to sundry folk coming along and not accepted the fact that two Meta admins have now removed the tag and I agree with their actions. If a Meta admin wishes to remove the tag again I will support them - this is Meta business not en wp. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 12:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{remove}} Per reasons given [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion&diff=3388903&oldid=3386005 here]. This is allowing a user in bad standing to abuse of a poorly designed and seldom-trafficked part of the WMF. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] 13:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* Under the current Meta-wiki RfC rules, this page is unfortunately allowed. Which doesn't imply that it's a good idea. I have started a RfC to tighten the rules for these meta-wiki RfC/Us; see [[Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users]]. Now for the RfC/U at hand here, assume for a moment that Stewards rule in Mbz1's favor. In that hypothetical scenario, what are they going to do in practical terms? Desysop the entire en.wp ArbCom? Or maybe fire them from their Arb seats? That would be a first. Or maybe go over the heads of the en.wp Arbs and desysop the admin in question? That would probably be a first too. What if a local en.wp crat resysops Gwen after that. Is there going to be a cross-wiki wheel war? [[User:ASCIIn2Bme|ASCIIn2Bme]] 14:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
** Stewards can do none of the above actions. They would immediately lose their access if they did for blatant abuse. Every process can be abused by bad faith users. Damn the rules. If they didn't anticipate an abuse, the abuse should be stopped. We are under no obligation to follow rules when they produce a stupid result. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] 17:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{remove}} per local guideline [[WM:NOT]], points 9, 10 and 11. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{remove}} per WM:NOT 11. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{remove}} per WM:NOT 11 as cited by CIreland and Sven Manguard, and because the keep statements are based on a mistaken conception of what Meta is about. Contrary to what WizardOfOz says above, Meta is not an appellate court for individual disputes on individual projects. It is ''not'' a place for "banned users to be heard by the worldwide community", and the role of its own administration and stewards is ''not'' to act as super-judges in such matters. The coordinating role of Meta is something different. A Meta-RfC would make sense if a case were being made about a general, systemic problem pervading an individual project (e.g. a project's admin corps systematically refusing to enforce foundation policy in some way), or conceivably if there were a case of an individual dispute of a strongly cross-project nature. Neither of these is the case here. It's an individual dispute within the jurisdiction of an individual project, period. The very suggestion hinted at by WizardOfOz, that stewards might overrule a dispute resolution outcome from en-wiki in such a matter, even just as a theoretical possibility, is, frankly, disturbing. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[en:User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{remove}} Per Future Perfects well stated comment above, such RFCs have no teeth, and serve only to inflame a situation that has already been dealt with at the local level. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] 19:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*{{comment}} Just for information, the next RFD tag on the RfC will end with block. This is not a threat, but promise. There is no deletion of a RfC here. --[[User:WizardOfOz|<font face="Monotype corsiva" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:blue"><i>WizardOfOz</i></font>]] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:blue">[[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]]</span></sup> 19:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::You are an absolute disgrace of an admin. I put it back. You gonna block me now? Do you have no shame? I can't say I'm super familiar with how adminship works here but the way you are acting, using your admin status as a lever to try and bully other users in a conversation you have participated in, is disgusting and I'd be thrilled to be blocked by you because it will haten the day when you are desysopped here. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Please stay on topic in the RfC itself if you wish to comment. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* This close is against consensus and policy. Your actions will be reviewed by WMF, I guarantee it. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] 19:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
Closure readdressed and issue resolved at [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat&oldid=3420825#Deletion_request]. (A couple later comments removed from here.) [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 23:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Templates== |
==Templates== |
Revision as of 23:58, 11 February 2012
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.
Pages
Submit your request at the bottom of the section.
- Per author request. Not sure if this qualifies for a speedy deletion so I did not put {{delete}} there. Bencmq 14:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted per author request. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just an old false start that only has the empty template in it. Its presence in the grants lists is just a distraction and a time waste for those wishing to review past withdrawn/cancelled requests. This is solvable by just removing the category, but really it should just be deleted. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 17:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and can be created again if user needs it. --WizardOfOz talk 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nominator. It can be recreated if needed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a happy page. Now I'm not terribly familiar with the historical context here, but I like to think I do know enough about the mediawiki to say that what it says about that, at least, is largely inaccurate. The rest just seems needlessly inflamatory, and not the sort of thing that's at all productive for random users/visitors to chance upon when the entire goal here seems to be coordination and the like, not propagating suspicion and paranoia. Granted, I thought the entire thing was a joke until I saw the author's userpage, but the person who linked me to it apparently really did take it seriously and was using it as a justification for his own actions on another site (hence why he'd linked it), so... yeah. — Isarra (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It's an essay, and allowed on meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: normal essay, might be a bit confused but it only expresses a point of view, nor seems attacking to me (it assumes good faith, for instance). Nemo 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Templates
Submit your request at the bottom of this section.
Deprecated by {{linear-gradient}} (including /doc). Nominated by Edokter on 11:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC). Trijnstel 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Still used. Needs to be delinked. --WizardOfOz talk 13:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- All templates delinked. I failed to notice all direct transclusions. — Edokter (talk) — 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- All transclusions delinked. — Edokter (talk) — 16:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done per unused and this request. Thanks for your work. --WizardOfOz talk 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories
Submit your request at the bottom of the section.
- Requested for SD but not empty so I transfered it here. --WizardOfOz talk 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Must be a caching issue; none of the members in the category right now have the category listed on the template page (after purging). They've been moved to Category:Intricate templates by amending {{Intricate template}}. Rd232 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's empty now. Btw, if a page is displayed in a category where it shouldn't be, a null edit usually does the trick. Jafeluv 08:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try and remember that. :) Rd232 08:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Typing ?action=purge onto the end of the url is even faster ;) Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try and remember that. :) Rd232 08:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's empty now. Btw, if a page is displayed in a category where it shouldn't be, a null edit usually does the trick. Jafeluv 08:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Must be a caching issue; none of the members in the category right now have the category listed on the template page (after purging). They've been moved to Category:Intricate templates by amending {{Intricate template}}. Rd232 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Images
Submit your request at the bottom of the section.
Possible copyright violation. Screenshot from iPhone application presumably copyrighted. No source or license either. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 04:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- delete out of project scope for meta a×pdeHello! 17:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete after seven days per the normal process. Unless a credible license is provided, I don't think this requires discussion. Jafeluv 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Currently our deletion policy on images is quite conservative and allows only for orphaned images to be speedied cfr. Meta:Deletion_policy#Images. I think that our deletion policy needs rewritting :-) —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 07:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, it basically says we can host no license/source/permission images indefinitely as long as they're in use, which means that our non-free criteria are in effect "anything". This needs to change. Courcelles 08:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Currently our deletion policy on images is quite conservative and allows only for orphaned images to be speedied cfr. Meta:Deletion_policy#Images. I think that our deletion policy needs rewritting :-) —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 07:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Requests for undeletion
Submit your request at the bottom of the section.
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation