Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2024-07

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in July 2024, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Review for recent deletions at km.wiktionary

I noticed that many pages at km.wiktionary were nominated for deletion at GSR, including some that were created by a former admin (log) with 60k+ edits. It might worth a review for recent deletions there, e.g. The translation of km:wikt:ខ្លាភ្ញីថ្មកែវ looks like Phin Pheak: A medium-sized marble tiger, with a long body, round ears and a long tail, bulging skin, the upper and lower parts are short brown (I can only see part of it in the deletion log). The characters may look bad and they might not follow conventional Wiktionary editing practices, but based on the translations it's likely not completely out of project scope. (Deletion log: km:wikt:ពិសេស:កំណត់ហេតុ/delete) Courtesy pinging @LR0725 and Yahya:--94rain ^Talk 04:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes may happen, but I only nominated the pages that are encyclopedic articles for deletion. For instance, the page 'km:wikt:ប្រចៀវស៊ីសាច់' is an article about bats. I believe this is beyond the project's scope (correct me if I am wrong). I have avoided those with the least relation to Wiktionary.

Since small wikis lack a community, you can make thousands of edits without supervision, even becoming an admin. Therefore, pages created by former admins may not always adhere to policies. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@94rain: Deleted pages are appropriate for wikipedia, not wiktionary. If you want, you can make new pages based on wiktionary manual of style. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these pages seem a bit encyclopedic. I was saying that they "might not follow conventional Wiktionary editing practices". There's no universal rule to build Wiktionary and I don't really feel they are completely out of scope. It's possible that, when the community becomes more active one day in the future, they might opt for a rewrite rather than deletion. 94rain ^Talk 06:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Then should we just leave them all, without any intervention? I will accept if there was any previous community consensus of kmwiktionary, but if not, we should follow general manual of style from wiktionary. You said "might not follow conventional Wiktionary editing practices" and "might opt for a rewrite rather than deletion", but that's assumption without promise. Deletion was based on common sense of wiktionary, that's all. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 09:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, rewriting is favorable than deletion if possible, but I don't think it will be possible in the near future. Pages which I deleted were made more than 10 years ago, and completely abandoned. Considering this, my conclusion was complete deletion of request pages. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 09:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not entirely true that "Deletion was based on common sense of wiktionary". English Wiktionary does not delete pages that are written like Wikipedia articles but instead keeps the dictionary entry itself.

But my point was that I don't think we should intervene in local content matters to this level. Inclusion criteria can be very contentious topics on projects where there's a community. That former admin also seems still active in a month and they have been creating content that actually follow Wikt MOS. 94rain ^Talk 15:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@94rain: Then we should ask that user if user can remake deleted pages, following wikt MOS. I can provide deleted contents when user wants.

Also, please consider 'out of project scope' is very common deletion reason at GSR. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 03:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just left a message on their talk page. I think "Out of project scope" is a very borderline deletion reason and should be used with extra caution. There are definitely some clear-cut cases, but for other cases, many wikis still require a dicussion to delete what's mentioned in their NOT policy (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Q4345841)). 94rain ^Talk 09:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not speaking about this case. But most of the Global sysop acting Wikis has no local community for discussion or to establish policies. GS works based on common sense about what this project is for. As policy describes, our work is for the purposes of anti-vandalism and routine maintenance. —MdsShakil (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is no local community to discuss such case usually. Anyway, I will assist when deleted contents is required. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying such deletions are out of GS scope or something, but should be treated with caution (I think that was what I meant all the time). The problem is that no definition of common sense readily exists, as I mentioned about English Wiktionary's attitude towards Wikipedia-like articles. Also there's a case regarding "test pages" above. If there's any doubt, it's always better to be conservative than not to.

Anyway, thanks all for your input in this matter, and I appreciate all the excellent work you have done over the years. 94rain ^Talk 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a valid point made by 94rain. Even if it is a point to be discussed, I think that at least the point that 94rain pointed out, that there is a need to be careful, is definitely valid. I'm not sure what wiktionary manual of style is being claimed here. Who decided that? --Sotiale (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• @LR0725: Most wikis don't delete content that don't fit MOS, they tag it or users just eventually come and fix the pages as it stays. Unless the content is clearly harmful or obviously nonsense, I don't think use of GS tools in this such a case is valid. I suggest taking the time to check what you deleted or restoring the pages where you are uncertain about the content.--BRP ^ever 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  For me that page (ភ្ញីថ្មកែវ) should not be deleted. Certainly from the way it was written it didn't conform to a wikitionary but with a minimum of work it can be made compliant (reducing the contents for example). We cannot apply policies in this way on local projects, each project manages itself, we just have to help. I suggest that those who made the deletions evaluate each of their deletions one by one, as I would expect from any functionary, restoring the pages about which there is even the slightest doubt. Nothing serious has happened, but I ask you to check and eventually fix it, and to always act with the minimum of responsibility that is required of all functionaries when they click the advanced buttons! Thanks :) Superpes15 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will review deleted contents ASAP. Thanks for advice. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @LR0725: Many thanks, absolutely no issue here and take your time to review everything carefully, feel free ping me or any other GS/Stew if you need some help or have some doubts :) Superpes15 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@94rain: Per above, LR0725 is going to review the deleted content and restore those which they are uncertain about. You can discuss the specifics in their talk page if needed. Other GSes can assist in the task as well. Thanks,--BRP ^ever 06:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@LR0725 can this topic be closed? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Yes. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 18:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

AI Math

This user introduces cross-wiki links to a single blog. The vast majority were reverted as spam. --Strainu (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC) @Strainu Here wrong. Please request global (b)locks on SRG --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 07:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Warri Times (Q116981413) and Isaiah Oghenevwegba Ogedegbe (Q119401625)

Someone please delete the Wiki articles so Wikidata can get rid of this obvious crosswiki spam.--Trade (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

done by Minorax https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Q119401625— The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk)

More Isaiah Ogedegbe spam

• https://pcm.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asabor
• https://pcm.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Ogedegbe

--Trade (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Cactusisme

Global user: Cactusisme (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA)

Reason: User is vandalizing bug.wikipedia with content not related to the language. User is also known to have vandal sockpuppet accounts based on their ban at en.wikipedia. Please block this user globally to avoid future issues. Thank you

Ultron90 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ultron90: I moved this to SRM as RfH is for reports related to Meta-Wiki. Could you give some examples of the apparent vandalism? If you have some evidence it could help us consider a block (as bugwiki has no local sysop). Not sure about a global lock at the moment as the user has over 2,000 edits at simplewiki with no blocks there. EPIC (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The user's posts appear to be Indonesian. Therefore rollback all edits and nuke + block in the bugwiki. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

User has been blocked by a GS so I don't think there is much else to discuss here. Closing as actioned on. EPIC (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Bigdelete needed for enwiki page

Please delete en:User:Schminnte/CSD log, which has more than 5,000 revisions. Thanks! --DanCherek (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. EPIC (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Add dewikibooks into opt-out GS-wikiset

Hi, dewikibooks meets one for a global sysop wiki (less than 10 admins). The wiki currently has many problems, including a large number of vandalism reports that remain unresolved (example: [1]) and other vandals are not blocked either. Furthermore, quick deletion nominations often remain executed/rejected days later. I would therefore very much welcome it (to comply with the policy) if this project would become a GS-wiki. Regards Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Dewikibooks is already in the opt-out wikiset, see Special:WikiSets/7. EPIC (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but Wsm is requesting to get dewb removed from the Opt-out wikiset. TenWhile6 12:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay, sorry for not understanding correctly. In either case, unfortunately, this cannot be processed as dewikibooks has explicitly opted out of global sysops, see de:b:Special:Permalink/980485#Enabling global sysops on this wiki and Global sysops/Local discussions. If a wiki has a previous consensus to opt out of global sysops, we cannot opt them in without their consent, meaning a new local discussion will need to be opened at dewikibooks with consensus to opt them in. EPIC (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)