Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) →User Space MFDs (not AFC): no need |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
* '''Support''' in the same way I'd support the relisting at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Andrea Ramos]]. It's a relisting with the nomination and the sole voter in ''agreement'' and I still think that's fair. I have no idea what's at issue here. If the issue is the close, then dispute the actual close when it comes and take it to DRV. If you think there's a consensus and the admin relisting it is being lazy about it, that's another matter. The relisting doesn't mean anything until it's closed and we have a final result anyways. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' in the same way I'd support the relisting at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Andrea Ramos]]. It's a relisting with the nomination and the sole voter in ''agreement'' and I still think that's fair. I have no idea what's at issue here. If the issue is the close, then dispute the actual close when it comes and take it to DRV. If you think there's a consensus and the admin relisting it is being lazy about it, that's another matter. The relisting doesn't mean anything until it's closed and we have a final result anyways. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''[[Mu (negative)|Mu]]'''- This question is phrased poorly. The issue is not about indiscriminate relistings, but about whether relistings at all are appropriate. But to answer the relevant half of the question, no, there is no need to add commentary about why you're relisting a poorly-attended XfD. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
*'''[[Mu (negative)|Mu]]'''- This question is phrased poorly. The issue is not about indiscriminate relistings, but about whether relistings at all are appropriate. But to answer the relevant half of the question, no, there is no need to add commentary about why you're relisting a poorly-attended XfD. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
* '''No''', nobody should be '<u>indiscriminately</u> relisting poorly attended discussions, full stop. NOQUORUM requires editors to use judgement (=''not'' just choosing the same option for nearly all the poorly attended MFDs) in choosing what to do. The presence of a meaningful comment would be a useful signal that the re-listing isn't indiscriminate, but another useful signal would be one editor not mass-re-listing nearly all of the poorly attended discussions. Or mass-listing ~90% of the discussions with expired RFC tags, for that matter. Speaking of which: Cunard, when you spam this RFC to ANRFC, please do recommend that it only be closed by an admin who is familiar with MFD. We'll only get a mess if it's closed by someone who doesn't know what ''typical'' MFD participation levels have been for years. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===A history lesson=== |
===A history lesson=== |
Revision as of 20:12, 24 February 2016
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Current MfD discussions not showing if earlier than the 18th
I am not seeing any of the pre- Jan 18th MfD discussions at WP:MFD. They are generally unclosed. I can't work out why. I can't see that it is Legobot. I see the same thing using different browsers, different devices, and different service providers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- There were some bad closing templates placed by SwisterTwister when doing some NAC closures; I think I got them all removed. — xaosflux Talk 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Grumping about some relistings of MfD discussions.
They were down the bottom where they belong, where they have already been reviewed as a waste of time and passed over. Taking a Jan 26 nomination and putting it up in the Feb 05 nominations only stuffs up the reviewing process. It will cause new nominations, which might be important, to be lost with the old.
Please stop it.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's literally no discussion there or no discussion with any real consensus there. The bottom is the Old business section which "should be either closed or relisted above" and I'm relisting them in my admin capacity. I could close them all as no consensus but if this was AFD, CFD, TFD, that would not be proper and a no consensus vote is one that allows for speedy nominations so I don't see what's harmed by relisting. A number of people expressed concerns here over basically nomination-only deletion discussions. In the past, those were deleted since there's no objections (the admin closer isn't supposed to be a vote). Here, I'm at least waiting on someone else to support them. I'm not going to keep these up for 2-3 weeks. If there's nothing after one relisting, I'm going to close it as no consensus but some have gotten more discussion in the second go-around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well please stop it. It is disruptive with no advantages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive. The advantage is that people do see the discussions at the top of the page and add comments there, notifies admins of when they should be closed plus the "old business" section gets cleared up and is only left with the backlog for admins to close. It's no different than resolving backlogs in AFD, CFD or the like. If you want, take it to ANI as "disruptive relisting" or DRV or whatever. The old business section now only has a few discussions left, all of which are specifically ones in which I've commented not by coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Please stop it. Don't do it again. The backlog is where they get more attention. Shuffling the order is disruptive. If something needs more attention, find a useful way to advertise it further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive. The advantage is that people do see the discussions at the top of the page and add comments there, notifies admins of when they should be closed plus the "old business" section gets cleared up and is only left with the backlog for admins to close. It's no different than resolving backlogs in AFD, CFD or the like. If you want, take it to ANI as "disruptive relisting" or DRV or whatever. The old business section now only has a few discussions left, all of which are specifically ones in which I've commented not by coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well please stop it. It is disruptive with no advantages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is absurd. Are you going to complain about relisted AfDs taking up space on the daily log? More discussion is a clear advantage in relisting. clpo13(talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. Absolutely. Relisting at AfD has made the daily logs useless for browsing, which is why AfD needs tools such as User:Snotbot/Current_AfD's. It is absurd to think that a relist at MfD is going to cause someone to see a discussion that they would not otherwise see. Instead, it means that the notices are out of any logical order, and thus less useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Based upon this notice removal, I've taken this discussion to ANI. To me this is the equivalent of removing a relisted AFD from the current day's log and demanding that it be left on the week-old log in the bizarre off-chance than someone will go looking there for the discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewing a backlog from the tail end is not bizarre. Do you do new page patrol from the newest first? Thinking that shuffling the listings helps reviewing is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you believe that relisted AFDs should be kept on the original page or should be they move to the section for the date of relisting? For relisting at AFD, TFD, RFD, CFD, they are removed from the page when they were originally nominated and put on the page of the date of relisting. Why not at MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The AfD daily logs have been swamped for so long that it is a lost point. Relisting at WP:RfD, TfD and RM similarly randomises the listing, makes it nearly impossible to spefically review the backlog from the tail end, and is completely a bad idea. WP:CfD get it right by *only* relisting with very good reason. DRV and MR don't relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you believe that relisted AFDs should be kept on the original page or should be they move to the section for the date of relisting? For relisting at AFD, TFD, RFD, CFD, they are removed from the page when they were originally nominated and put on the page of the date of relisting. Why not at MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It also introduces a lot of visual clutter with no meaningful message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- In all other XfD processes, a relisted discussion is located as though it was a new discussion at the time of relisting. (As someone who occasionally relists at CfD, I tend to know.) And at CfD, we generally relist once any nomination where there was no response by anyone else. Due to the way MfD is handled, placing the relisted discussion at the top can only be done by placing a new timestamp at the top of the discussion. If you don't believe me, I invite Legoktm, the operator of Legobot, to give hi/her response. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a question of how it works, I know how it works. It's an issue of indiscriminate relisting, without meaningful relisting comments, for the purpose of emptying the "backlog" section.
- In all other XfD processes, a relisted discussion is located as though it was a new discussion at the time of relisting. (As someone who occasionally relists at CfD, I tend to know.) And at CfD, we generally relist once any nomination where there was no response by anyone else. Due to the way MfD is handled, placing the relisted discussion at the top can only be done by placing a new timestamp at the top of the discussion. If you don't believe me, I invite Legoktm, the operator of Legobot, to give hi/her response. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I have been away from CfD for a while, but as I remember, relisting was only done in practice for cases such as when new information was discovered that could change already given opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions is pretty clear that little participation and when it's lacking in policy are two grounds for relisting. The reason CFD is so backed up is in part because relisting has to be manually done and partially because it's actually quite a bit after you close a discussion (which can be complicated, see things like this discussion where only one of the three voters other than the nominator actually discuss the mergers). TFD was so bad (deletion of templates can be a mess) that we now allow NAC delete votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I have been away from CfD for a while, but as I remember, relisting was only done in practice for cases such as when new information was discovered that could change already given opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Boy we are some of the few editors interested in cleaning up this area. Why even debate this? Just get in an vote delete so that that all important delete vote is included and someone can kill off the page. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not directly related to relisting, except through a common drive to not just delete stuff now, but right now, reckless deletion of other contributors workspace is rude, confronting, and unwelcoming for returning contributor. Consider Wikipedia:Editors matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which is a fair opinion to have but (a) other than general naval-gazing commentary on it, there hasn't been actual consensus for that and (b) as I've suggested, the solution is then to restrict and better define what is "unsuitable" under provision 2 of WP:STALE so that MFD is more restricted. For everyone who thinks I'm some crazy deletionist, I was the one who pushed to make stale mean one year rather than the six months that people were using based off G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. What is the best location for that discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- That talk page. WT:UP. I'd then put a notice at WP:VPP and here probably and deletion policy I'd guess. I already moved deletion to number 5 as it should be the last option. "Unsuitable" is too vague for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. What is the best location for that discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which is a fair opinion to have but (a) other than general naval-gazing commentary on it, there hasn't been actual consensus for that and (b) as I've suggested, the solution is then to restrict and better define what is "unsuitable" under provision 2 of WP:STALE so that MFD is more restricted. For everyone who thinks I'm some crazy deletionist, I was the one who pushed to make stale mean one year rather than the six months that people were using based off G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Editors matter but this stuff shows up in search engines and some of it is downright inappropriate. Sometimes we can find good stuff to promote to article space but that is hard when we have to wade through garbage that will not go away easily. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence? User space is supposedly unindexed by reputable search engines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I use Google. When I search for info on stale drafts sometimes (not most of the time) the draft space comes up in Google, mainly when the content is unique/hoax. Scrapper sites and mirrors can also pull and publish garbage from userspace. So that non-notable band gets a few hundred mirror hits even from a draft article. 10:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Since they aren't being relisted, I'm closing them as keep. Feel free to take these to DRV in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.228 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think some where kept, and some were reverted since this is a banned user. So have we resolved anything? There's quite a backlog now with a number of them having zero discussions or a nomination and one opposing view. Should we (a) continue to let them remain there until an admin looks at it and makes a decision (likely no consensus and thus relisting anyways) or (b) is relisting with them being put back on the top of the page actually a prudent idea? -- 21:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose allowing closing unattended MfD nominations by an IP.
- Oppose relisting so as to list on the current date in the absence of a good reason to relist, such as significant new information. Marking old discussions in particular need of new attention, and categorizing them to enable easy navigation is probably a good idea. However, a very weak nomination, no identification of any actual problem, or any reason to not just blank, means to me that it does deserve distracting any other Wikipedian from other tasks. Especially considering that there is activity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts without shame in their intention to separately nominate tens of thousands of old userpages.
- There was some talk somewhere of "soft deletion" being appropriate for unopposed MfD nominations. If "soft deletion" mean "blank", it has my support. You may assume that I support blanking of nearly every "stale" nomination in which I don't comment otherwise. It is very tedious to repeatedly !vote "just blank, no good reason for administrator deletion given" on seemingly endless nominations of harmless old pages.
- I am still attempting to review, looking for things that are more important. It is very difficult given the frequent minimal nomination rationales, and weak cursory supports (eg "questionable", or "not needed") cheaply given by other reviewers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look, technically, it's up for admins to decide how to resolve these MFDs and even IPs are allowed to NAC discussions. This is written in deletion policy and other than this discussion here, it's been followed as since for probably a decade. The fact is, unattended MFD discussions either should be closed as no consensus or relisted not just kept down there for wherever someone eventually gets around to them. The fact that you personally don't approve of either of these is fine and all but you aren't able to go and demand that all AFD relistings be reversed or demand that NAC closures be overturned as will because of the closer absent DRV or a more serious discussion. At this point, I'm going to go back to closing these as any admin would, which does include relisting those discussions that aren't resolved. If you still disagree on them, that's fine and all but your views are a very minority opinion on how these should be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look?! Patronising me?
- IPs lack accountability. They even lack an implied single identity. Closing these unattended MfDs is contentious. The IP should not be closing them, and I am astounded that you don't agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look, technically, it's up for admins to decide how to resolve these MFDs and even IPs are allowed to NAC discussions. This is written in deletion policy and other than this discussion here, it's been followed as since for probably a decade. The fact is, unattended MFD discussions either should be closed as no consensus or relisted not just kept down there for wherever someone eventually gets around to them. The fact that you personally don't approve of either of these is fine and all but you aren't able to go and demand that all AFD relistings be reversed or demand that NAC closures be overturned as will because of the closer absent DRV or a more serious discussion. At this point, I'm going to go back to closing these as any admin would, which does include relisting those discussions that aren't resolved. If you still disagree on them, that's fine and all but your views are a very minority opinion on how these should be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with SmokeyJoe on this. IPs should not be closing MfDs (or any other XfD, for that matter). WP:NAC notes that a registered editor can close deletion discussions in certain cases. Even established editors should not NAC close a discussion that is, or reasonably could be, contentious. No comment on the relisting issue for now. - Becksguy (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Two questions:
1. Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions.
Relevant discussions: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Grumping about some relistings of MfD discussions., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#MFD relistings, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings.
Cunard (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
- It is not a question of "allowed". The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list.
- I maintain that it is not appropriate. By sending the discussion to the top of the list, it doesn't get new views. Relisting adds significant visual clutter, and meaningless relists only serve to shuffle list thus disrupting an orderly review.
- A meaningful relist, such as with a re-focusing comment, or due to significant new information, is an appropriate relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- What comment do you want? Do you want an opinion? Give me an example. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You're demanding that an admin only relist the discussion if there is something for them to say when the admin is supposed avoiding being a WP:SUPERVOTE and not actually comment on the discussion. If I'm closing a discussion, you want me to add a "comment" which I presume is a vote and then close it myself? How is that not a super admin vote? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support relisting of MFD discussions. If consensus hasn't been reached, I feel like this is a logical MFD process that should be allowed to be done in order to try and help achieve it. It's allowed (and regularly done) at other deletion discussions such as AFD; why would we disallow it at MFD simply because less people participate in them? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AfD is already overburdened with so many daily nominations that is has not been practical to review them in list format for many many years. AfD effectively requires deletion sorting and/or one of a variety of navigation tools, such as User:Snotbot/Current AfD's.
- Other XfDs do not have the custom of indiscriminate comment-less relistings for no purpose other than making the backlog appear empty. CfD, for example, handles a huge number of discussions over 1 week old, see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Older_discussions. And it has a navigation tool for old closed discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Discussions_awaiting_closure, which does not involve scrambling the list order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- What is indiscriminate comment-less relistings? What comment do you want for the third relisting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emídio_Brasileiro? It was relisted a week prior and no one said a word. "Hey, I'm relisting for the third time because ..." what? You're making a lot of crazy demands on admins to close these discussions, all of which really belong at DRV if you're actually disputing these closes. Instead, it feels like it's just complaining for the sake of complaining, to make up busywork for other people to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Other XfDs do not have the custom of indiscriminate comment-less relistings for no purpose other than making the backlog appear empty. CfD, for example, handles a huge number of discussions over 1 week old, see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Older_discussions. And it has a navigation tool for old closed discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Discussions_awaiting_closure, which does not involve scrambling the list order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support allowing relisting. I see no reason whatsoever that MfD should be treated any different from any other XfD. BMK (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support as MfD closers need all the tools they can get. Further the vast majority of stuff going to MfD is utter junk which most editors must find boring and therefore don't spend time at MfD. Any random one time "contributor" can create a page of nonsense in a few clicks but it takes at least 3 editors and more then a week to get ride of junk. One to nominate, one or more to vote, and an Admin to close and delete. Let's not make MfD even harder to manage. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Support the ability to relist MFDs, but with the understanding that MFDs having had no opposition, and possibly only the nomination, may instead be closed as consensus (of 1) to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:SOFTDELETE. A soft delete equals a PROD delete that can be WP:REFUNDed. Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- comment-free* *indiscriminate* relistings.
"The RfC is asking the wrong question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- At RfD very few relisting actions come with a comment - we all know relisting is to get more input. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have added a second question to the RfC. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- At RfD very few relisting actions come with a comment - we all know relisting is to get more input. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Offering no opinion because the references to "indscriminate" relistings are non-neutral and bias this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The question as asked is not at issue. Of course MfD relistings are allowed. That has never been questioned. Please close discussion on this question, it is irrelevant and distracting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is helpful to reaffirm that MfD relistings are allowed. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not if is confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of what relisting should be allowed and what shouldn't? I've seen nothing but reverting of relistings so I have no idea what you want other than for them to be "discriminate" and "with a comment" without an explanation as to either of those requirements. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think we could agree on a single location to discuss? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you just going to be reverting while calling me names otherwise? You have been arguing about this for close to two weeks now. Can you just give an example of what you are looking for? I may not agree but I simply cannot understand what you want. You've gone from "no relisting" to "no relisting that isn't indiscriminate and without a comment" to arguing about the location on the log to arguing this is some deletionist strategy of mine to delay I don't know what with a wild variety of blank votes all over the place. I get the overall view that every one of these discussions are a complete and utter waste of time and counterproductive and whatnot. I have no idea how fighting relisting these discussions accomplishes anything in either direction for that. It's no different than any other typical policy fight here. However, what do you want? You should be able to point to a single example, something more concrete than "SmokeyJoe can identify it when he sees it". And why are you renaming the header? It's been reverted by the bot but I'm guessing there's some rationale you have. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support- I don't see any good reason why this should be disallowed. Most relistings do get new comments. Reyk YO! 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Personally I believe relisting is simply a waste of time as unlike AFD/RFD etc no one rarely comments on the MFDs .... Too me (and I don't mean this in a dickish way) but IMHO Rickys time could be better spent elsewhere but I know I'm the minority on this so as much as I'd rather make a song & dance about it it'd be pointless - If the community's happy with it then I guess we're all happy... or we'll have to be anyway . –Davey2010Talk 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: No worries. That's fair. For me, I see more relistings resulting in discussions like this one than no new comments. It still ended up with no consensus but we do have more people keeping a watch on these. That's why I find that relisting to put these discussions in the middle of the page better than just ignoring them and leaving them down like here in the hopes that someone else goes down there and sees them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - MFDs that have had no participation other than the nominator should be closed as Delete, not relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The real question should be whether MFDs that have no consensus should be closed as No Consensus (default Keep) or relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is that the question? The relistings that cause the most issues so far have been the "nominator says delete, one vote says something else" ones. Those could be either be 'no consensu" or "keep, ignore the nom" votes but I'd prefer relisting. I think I've had one go keep with more votes, the other go delete with more votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disallowed We give the deletionists too many tools, as is. If there's no consensus for deletion, close the discussion "no consensus." Maybe I'm not understanding the process but we shouldn't be re-listing deletion discussions because no one wants to weigh in on the merits. If it can't be speedy deleted then it is a default keep. Go bemoan the fact that the entry exists on Wikipedia somewhere else. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?
The second question of the RfC (quoting SmokeyJoe): "The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list." Please write "Yes" or "No" in response to the question. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Oshwah (talk · contribs), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), Legacypac (talk · contribs), and SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) who have already commented above, so they are aware of this second question. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Question How is this a fair question? "indiscriminately and without meaningful comment" is like the "do you still beat your wife, yes or no" question. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear that ricky and Ricky's relistings alone are indiscriminate and without meaning. Other admins are different though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.46.130 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- 166 is apparently a community banned user, per WT:AFD. ansh666 01:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support, or Yes. It's very well-known that relisting a discussion with poor input (like at AFD, TFD, FFD, etc.) is to get more input and achieve consensus. Why require administrators to do this and make the process harder or make it take longer? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support no extra comment is needed to relist any XfD, in fact it is uncommon to see a comment on a relist. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard, I am disappointed at your filing of two inappropriate questions. The first was completely the wrong question. The second is phrased so non-neutrally that is should be immediately closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is what you had changed the RfC title to. I reverted your change to the original question and moved it to a subsection so it wouldn't distract from the original question I posed. If you, Legacypac (talk · contribs), or Oshwah (talk · contribs) have a more neutral way of phrasing the question, feel free to close this section and open a third section. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm really good with Smokey's own question which he now says is "phrased so non-neutrally that is should be immediately closed". Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- A good question is one phrased in the positive, describing an appropriate style of relisting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I have stopped beating my wife... I mean no, I haven't stopped ... I mean I never beat my wife -- yeah, that's it.Look, if there's not been sufficient discussion to determine a consensus, then a re-listing is in the community's interest, so I'm not seeing where the second question -- which is, in fact, a piss-poor RfC question -- has any real relevance, since it assumes facts not in evidence. If any particular MfD gets relisted when the circumstances shouldn't have allowed it to be, bring that specific problem to the noticeboards and ask for the relisting to be overturned, but there's no way that the second question is going to end up with any kind of reasonable and usable policy. BMK (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Relisting due to lack of comment is not in the community's interested because it makes a systematic review of nominations harder. There are so many perfunctory nominations of worthless but harmless junk pages that a reasonable reviewing action is to pass them over. Having someone indiscriminately relisting, that is adding viaully confronting lines, colours and text, and sending them up to the current data is disruptive to anyone attempting to review nominations systematically.
- Relisting with a comment worth reading, that would be fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, what comment do you want? There's nothing to comment about other than "hi, I don't see a consensus here" or "can someone else speak". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are asking about Wikipedia:Publicising discussions? Scrambling the MfD list will attract more attention from the few who review? I keep telling you it disrupts an orderly review of the nominations. Your need to advertise for immediate resolution unproductive discussions on worthless useless pages will be unappreciated by any advertising method. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you actually serious here? You want what, a notification at AN, at village pump that no one commented about the deletion of User:ARMendez/The ILLZ? Why in the world should MFD have such bizarre rules rather than just relist these things and move on? Do you want a category for relisted MFD discussions? That at least makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- No. Advertising unworthy discussions is not worthwhile. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are you actually serious here? You want what, a notification at AN, at village pump that no one commented about the deletion of User:ARMendez/The ILLZ? Why in the world should MFD have such bizarre rules rather than just relist these things and move on? Do you want a category for relisted MFD discussions? That at least makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are asking about Wikipedia:Publicising discussions? Scrambling the MfD list will attract more attention from the few who review? I keep telling you it disrupts an orderly review of the nominations. Your need to advertise for immediate resolution unproductive discussions on worthless useless pages will be unappreciated by any advertising method. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, are you objecting to the template? The coloring? That it distinguishes between week-old discussions and the recent commentary? If that's your issue, just say it. If it's a general "I hate the template and want it changed", go make a suggestion. Maybe someone will change it, maybe someone will agree to a separate MfD relisting template but I wouldn't. You're acting like this is some complicated difficult project. It should be easier to tell if you can see which discussions are week-old and which aren't visually on the page not harder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, what comment do you want? There's nothing to comment about other than "hi, I don't see a consensus here" or "can someone else speak". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support doing it once for any specific discussion. The reason fr lack of attention may be no more than the fact that the users who would have expressed an opinion were away that day (especially around holidays). However, repeated relistings are unlikely to be any more successful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support in the same way I'd support the relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Andrea Ramos. It's a relisting with the nomination and the sole voter in agreement and I still think that's fair. I have no idea what's at issue here. If the issue is the close, then dispute the actual close when it comes and take it to DRV. If you think there's a consensus and the admin relisting it is being lazy about it, that's another matter. The relisting doesn't mean anything until it's closed and we have a final result anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mu- This question is phrased poorly. The issue is not about indiscriminate relistings, but about whether relistings at all are appropriate. But to answer the relevant half of the question, no, there is no need to add commentary about why you're relisting a poorly-attended XfD. Reyk YO! 07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, nobody should be 'indiscriminately relisting poorly attended discussions, full stop. NOQUORUM requires editors to use judgement (=not just choosing the same option for nearly all the poorly attended MFDs) in choosing what to do. The presence of a meaningful comment would be a useful signal that the re-listing isn't indiscriminate, but another useful signal would be one editor not mass-re-listing nearly all of the poorly attended discussions. Or mass-listing ~90% of the discussions with expired RFC tags, for that matter. Speaking of which: Cunard, when you spam this RFC to ANRFC, please do recommend that it only be closed by an admin who is familiar with MFD. We'll only get a mess if it's closed by someone who doesn't know what typical MFD participation levels have been for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
A history lesson
The current marker appears to be the closest thing we have to policy (excluding the Admin instructions for XfD which allow relistings) and looks like this:
In 2009 the box was changed [[1]] to say "Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above." however I'm not convinced that wording change was a policy change because before that it more vaguely said "Everything below this marker should be dealt with and removed from the workflow." [2], a phrase in use since the template was created [[3]] in May 2008. Therefore since at least 2009 the prescribed procedure has explicitly allowed/encouraged relisting. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- While I disagree with limiting the number of relists, there are situations where relisting is pointless (unlikely to gain more comments). In such situations, I would encourage more use of "no consensus - due to lack of comment" closures. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- My view is at least try once. Else, just close it rather than keep on trying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is an older discussion, and was about AFD not MFD, but may be of some relevance here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also a parallel RFC was heavily rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#RfC:_Should_AFD_relists_be_allowed_or_disallowed.3F. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should an MfD nomination be deleted at the discretion of the closing Admin if there is no objections after 7 days?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Various editors keep bringing up this idea, so here it is
Rational: The vast majority of stuff brought to MfD is obvious junk. Any random person can create a page of garbage with a few clicks, and if they copy paste from elsewhere, they don't even have to write a word. Current practice requires a lot of editor effort: 1. Find and identify the junk 2. Consider an appropriate CSD 3. Maybe be turned down on the CSD by an Admin who interprets the guideline differently 4. List at MfD 5. Wait for one or more other editors to say delete, and often that never happens so it falls in the backlog 6. Maybe see the nomination relisted, with no more comments 6. Admin reviews and closes. If no one else voted delete, current practice defaults to keep regardless of what the Admin thinks! (we need to change this)
It is hard to get editors to participate in evaluating junk, and the ones that do participate often copy paste delete votes on listings just to clear obvious junk. Time voting on junk would be better spend on analyzing potentially notable material.
Precedents: Redirects for Discussion already default to delete with no objection and an Admin that agrees. The same junk in Article Space can be PROD'd and deleted if no one objects and an Admin agrees. In both cases the Admin makes the call on a good faith nomination. MfD should be the same.
Support
- Support as proposer Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly for Drafts in draftspace. Possibly only if they would meet a CSD:A criteria if in mainspace. Prod should not be the standard because Prod assumes that Wikipedians have the page watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose for userspace pages. Interfering with other's userspace is rude. We have a recent run of deletionists roaming userspace, and they are not be trusted deleting other's work without review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Other comments
The recent trouble with MfD being overrun with junk nominations seems to come from recent invigoration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Noting the POV of the WikiProject name, it is to be expected that this WikiProject is has members that overrepresent deletionists. These deletionists are very quick, even non-discerning, in nominating individual pages, and do so with perfunctory rationales.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts would be less of a burden (note that the undeveloped drafts are not a burden) if it could develop criteria for when a page requires deletion at MfD, and if it would collected near identical cases into group nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've thought about grouping nominations into batches - glad you suggested it. The practical problem is that little ties MfD noms together - rarely the same subject, creator, or issue (other then stale). Grouping anything about dissimilar topics (even from the same creator) at RfD always leads to trouble. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- There have been very large groupings at MfD before. It does not necessarily lead to trouble. It does, however, lead to trouble, or failure, if it rapidly becomes apparent that the nominator is non-discerning in nominating. If the deletion rationale doesn't hold true for all listed paged. NB. This is currently the issue at MfD, you are listing many pages with the same rationale, some hold true, some don't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is your own opinion only. My nominations are quite similar to those of other editors in my estimation. I've put well over 100 grouped redirects to the same target in RfD in one go, but they were all slight variations of each other created together. Please point out any noms at MfD you feel should be grouped, I'm all for it. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not talking about your nominations at RfD. At MfD, there are several editors similarly nominating junk pages with perfunctory rationales, and supporting each others' nominations. Noms that should be grouped are noms that share identical nomination statements. If the only difference is the page name, and the mainspace page that makes it redundant, then that is close enough to identical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is your own opinion only. My nominations are quite similar to those of other editors in my estimation. I've put well over 100 grouped redirects to the same target in RfD in one go, but they were all slight variations of each other created together. Please point out any noms at MfD you feel should be grouped, I'm all for it. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- There have been very large groupings at MfD before. It does not necessarily lead to trouble. It does, however, lead to trouble, or failure, if it rapidly becomes apparent that the nominator is non-discerning in nominating. If the deletion rationale doesn't hold true for all listed paged. NB. This is currently the issue at MfD, you are listing many pages with the same rationale, some hold true, some don't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding SOFTDELETE it has been stated that does not apply to MfD and it is not being practiced at MfD. My proposal would remove most of the need to relist MfDs. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that you restate your proposal to clarify that when an MfD has a WP:NOQUORUM after seven days, an administrator has the option to close with a WP:SOFTDELETE. Unscintillating (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd suggest we not make these propositions here. It's going to accomplish nothing when these discussions go to DRV if they get overturned there. I've proposed a Draft proposed deletion idea which I suspect will accomplish Legacypac's concerns better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not imagining that an editor who has not logged in for years to work on their stale draft, copy of a real article, resume, or random collection of junk is going to be trying to overturn deletions at DRV. If they do, it's going to be tough. If they are successful, they will get a XfD again if it's still junk. I really like anything that will automate things though. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SOFTDELETE allows a WP:REFUND. DRV will quickly close an attempted discussion and refer the editor to WP:REFUND. Unscintillating (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The actual soft deletion section states "If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page." If people want to propose that MFD allow for soft deletion without a relisting that's fine. Hell, I'd probably do it after one relisting if no one cares to argue for it after two weeks but the point all around is that policy is to give more than a week. Plus the fact that I'd restore it if asked. So what's the actual problem here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point. As I suggest relisting unattended MfDs is unhelpful, I would support you SOFTDELETING a discussion with no new comments after a week or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Legacypac above proposed action after seven days. So we have quickly converged in this small sample that an MfD softdelete might occur somewhere between one and two weeks. However, that one week difference remains unclear. This might be a question for WT:Deletion process? Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- We don't have an agreement on relisting at all. But if relisting is agreed upon and considered appropriate, we can propose a note added to deletion policy there for soft delete after one relisting at MFD due to the low participation in general here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Legacypac above proposed action after seven days. So we have quickly converged in this small sample that an MfD softdelete might occur somewhere between one and two weeks. However, that one week difference remains unclear. This might be a question for WT:Deletion process? Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point. As I suggest relisting unattended MfDs is unhelpful, I would support you SOFTDELETING a discussion with no new comments after a week or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The actual soft deletion section states "If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page." If people want to propose that MFD allow for soft deletion without a relisting that's fine. Hell, I'd probably do it after one relisting if no one cares to argue for it after two weeks but the point all around is that policy is to give more than a week. Plus the fact that I'd restore it if asked. So what's the actual problem here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SOFTDELETE allows a WP:REFUND. DRV will quickly close an attempted discussion and refer the editor to WP:REFUND. Unscintillating (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not imagining that an editor who has not logged in for years to work on their stale draft, copy of a real article, resume, or random collection of junk is going to be trying to overturn deletions at DRV. If they do, it's going to be tough. If they are successful, they will get a XfD again if it's still junk. I really like anything that will automate things though. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Recent Issues Involving MFD
In the recent past, Miscellany for Deletion has been the largely invisible XFD process. Articles for Deletion has always had controversial nominations. Every now and then CFD and RFD have provoked discussion. MFD has, in general, just been there, until the past few weeks. It appears that two or three editors have started going through user space and draft space, nominating pages for deletion, and that this has resulted in controversy, basically yet another deletionist-inclusionist quarrel. Two RFCs have been opened. One has been speedily closed, and the other, in my opinion, asks the wrong question. However, I will try to summarize what I think the issues are, and will also try to provide my own comments. I will try to provide a neutral summary of the issues, and I understand that other editors may disagree with my comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisting
There seems to be an issue that I don’t entirely understand concerning the relists of MFD discussions. The issue may be whether MFDs which have had very little comment should be relisted or closed. Is that the basic issue? The RFC is obscured by the fact that it uses non-neutral language, having to do with relisting “indiscriminately and without meaningful comment”. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It is my personal opinion, first, that every MFD, like every other XFD, that runs its seven days and drops below the line should be dealt with, either by closing or by relisting. Is there disagreement, or is the only question whether relisting is a valid alternative to closing? If the question has to do with when to relist, then there seem to be two cases. The first is MFDs that have had no participation. Should they be relisted? My own opinion is that they should be closed as Delete. If no one but the nominator has spoken, that is a consensus of one. Others may disagree. The second is MFDs that have no consensus. Should they be relisted, or closed as No Consensus? The latter amounts to Keep by default. Since MFD has always been a low-participation forum, I personally see no need to relist; just close as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Robert, I used to close them as delete but this came up at DRV and WT:DRV seems to be of the consensus that people would vote to overturn and relist those. In the alternative, if you close as no consensus, they'll almost immediately be renominated (who really cares about a 3-year-old draft that's already in mainspace) at which point there's more votes. Relisting seems like a middle ground. If no one else speaks (like what happened with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaron Booth/Myles Erlick), I'll close by I always lean towards keeping since they could just as easily be restored upon request making the MFD moot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think they should be relisted once; if there appears to be significant amount of discussion going on with no clear consensus, a second relist may be appropriate, but not otherwise. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's my belief too. If there's no result after two weeks and it's died down, then it's died down with no consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think they should be relisted once; if there appears to be significant amount of discussion going on with no clear consensus, a second relist may be appropriate, but not otherwise. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree with relisting, unless there is a good reason to ask the usual reviewers to review it again. Relisting doesn't attract new attention. I note the many supporting indiscriminate relisting are not usual reviewers at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like you are trying to WP:OWN MfD SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. Note however, there are an awful lot of pages over many years deleted with only the nomination and my support, I am not just some new random troublemaker. If feel like people concerned about old drafts are not realising they are killing MfD as a viable process. Thanks for trying multiple pages in one listing, as discussed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Airship-Knight/The Ranger. Hopefully User:BrownHairedGirl's advice there can help the method become less painful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's still painful, and there are very few truly connected pages to list together. I appreciate that you continue to vote away at MfD. I just wish that you would not make such as big deal about relisting, something that is clearly allowed and encouraged. Better for all to spend effort on making sure that every nomination gets enough attention it does not require relisting for lack of participation. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your longer more comprehensive nominations. They much more inspire confidence that the nominator has checked, and make reviewing a pleasure. I said that if many nominations are to have identical nomination statements, they should be grouped. If the nomination statements are different, single is the thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's still painful, and there are very few truly connected pages to list together. I appreciate that you continue to vote away at MfD. I just wish that you would not make such as big deal about relisting, something that is clearly allowed and encouraged. Better for all to spend effort on making sure that every nomination gets enough attention it does not require relisting for lack of participation. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. Note however, there are an awful lot of pages over many years deleted with only the nomination and my support, I am not just some new random troublemaker. If feel like people concerned about old drafts are not realising they are killing MfD as a viable process. Thanks for trying multiple pages in one listing, as discussed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Airship-Knight/The Ranger. Hopefully User:BrownHairedGirl's advice there can help the method become less painful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like you are trying to WP:OWN MfD SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Guidelines on When MFD is in Order
The guidelines for when MFD is in order are somewhat vague, partly because MFD applies to such a large variety of spaces. However, the large majority of MFDs are either in User space or in Draft space. These may seem on their face to be very different spaces, but they overlap because of the way that Articles for Creation is used, in that Drafts are always meant to go through AFC, but that user sandboxes and user subpages can also go through AFC. In my view, user sandboxes that have been more than once submitted to AFC, and user subpages that have been submitted to AFC, should be treated as if they were in Draft space. (User subpages that are submitted to AFC are usually moved by the reviewer into draft space, so that there are relatively few user subpages in MFD that have gone to AFC. Sometimes user sandboxes may not be moved to Draft space by the reviewer, because it may not be clear what their title should be or even whether they have a title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The guidelines became unworkable when someone unilaterally added "stale" language to UP#NOT, and others proceeded with a broad definition of "stale", and read the guideline as an imperative to MfD stale things. Also significant was the invention of AfC and then DraftSpace. These things are magnets for useless cruft, mostly, and they serve to keep the cruft out of mainspace, keeping some control on AfD. The notion that the cruft must now be fed through MfD is illogical. MfD cannot handle individual nominations for 40K pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- They aren't unworkable or new. The concepts have been extensively discussed and were inserted around August 2011], review the actual archives, that is far from unilateral. There's old MFDs from 2008 where one-year old drafts were deleted as stale. It's been a part of the discussion forever. No one is planning on nominating 40k pages for deletion immediately. It's a slow systematic process. I think we've reviewed probably 6k pages since November with a large number deleted by CSD and a small number relative to that going through MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- It feels recent. The "stale" language appeared unilaterally earlier and has been problematic ever since, including in the threads linked in the summary of the version you cite.
- Unworkable if all nominated in a short time. Are you planning on nominating 40k pages, just not immediately? According to what criteria? You have a low poor nomination rate (statement in the nomination is found to be in error and the page is not deleted), but I am more concerned that helpers will have an increased nomination rate with a higher poor nomination rate co-inciding with an inability for nominations to be properly reviewed. If you could point to criteria or method used to choose from the 40k, that would be very helpful to this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not all those pages are problems and not all of them are problems that require MFD so drop the strawman nonsense and discuss this honestly. We went from roughly 46k in November until now and no, not every single one went through MFD. It only bothered you the moment I started relisting some MFDs for discussions I didn't even participate in. I'm not the only one reviewing these so I have no idea what criteria people are using but most likely they are checking for CSD violations, moving some to draftspace and suggesting the most problematic ones for MFD. There's healthy debate on these as some are kept, some are blanked and others are deleted. Some people think too many are kept, others think too many are blanked and others think too many are deleted but those are all in line with when MFD is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- They aren't unworkable or new. The concepts have been extensively discussed and were inserted around August 2011], review the actual archives, that is far from unilateral. There's old MFDs from 2008 where one-year old drafts were deleted as stale. It's been a part of the discussion forever. No one is planning on nominating 40k pages for deletion immediately. It's a slow systematic process. I think we've reviewed probably 6k pages since November with a large number deleted by CSD and a small number relative to that going through MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- “drop the strawman nonsense and discuss this honestly”
- Answer the question then. You and WikiProject Abandoned drafts, what are your criteria for nominating at MfD? Noting that you have already identified an overwhelming backlog, I think it is an important question. You have no idea, because you are not the only one nominating? I suggest that is a problem. You appear to be doing it randomly, with a low error rate, but others will follow you style, and without effective review, due to MfD overload, their errors will pass.
- “It only bothered you the moment I started relisting”
- Absolutely not. I was severely bothered by the recent rush, 2015, of many nominations, all with perfunctory nominations. By you. By Legacypac. By TwistedSister. Then you three, mostly, adopted simply shallow perfunctory mutually supporting !votes. Tag teaming, low quality reviews, overloading of a backwater process, it is highly objectionable. I proceeded to ignore nominations on worthless harmless pages, my complaints getting not traction (it is a backwater, after all).
- It bothered me that unattended nominations with perfunctory rationales began being deleted by default (by you). I was very pleased that someone else raised objections to that, and that many have subsequently raised objections in many places. For me, it is déjà vu, the long ago lost attempt to expand WP:PROD into userspace.
- Relisting deliberately ignored nominations, with zero meaningful comment (akin to the shallow perfunctory nomination rationales) was just too much, especially where I had already made a counter argument. You (or anyone) could have just disagreed with me.
- The systematic problem with relisting excessively is that it removes things from the backlog, which is an important place to begin reviewing. When relisted, it is then prone to being closed before, well before, again returning to the backlog. When reviewing from the tail end, which I continue to submit should be recommended practice, it means that the discussion can be entirely missed by systematic review. “Disruption” is an appropriate word. Separately, it is also an issue that the new nominations are mixed with old nomination with visually compelling markup drawing attention to them.
- So, with you failing to engage in meaningful conversation, asking that we discuss in one place but you initiating parallel threads on several pages, all while failing to answer simple question, a targeted revert was required to call attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- What simple questions? You keep bringing up a new every argument every day about your personal issues with MFD, your personal dislike of the coloring, your personal offense at the sorting, all in opposition to stuff that's been policy for half a decade after you keep saying "this is a new idea and there hasn't been enough discussion" and I show you it's been around for three, four years with these things, you just respond "well, that may be consensus but **I** was never consulted". You have yet to even propose a coherent RFC question on why one particular relisting of mine you insist on reverting while others you are perfectly fine with other than you bizarre repeated attacks on my integrity by claiming that this is some nonsense deletionist tactic. If all the RFCs were closed today, what exactly have you gained here other than waste pages and pages of discussions arguing about every minute detail with no end in sight? Is your questions the "don't you think MFD would explode if you list 40k pages for deletion today!!!" routine? Again, I'm not the one doing this, I'm not leading this charge, no one is proposing that idiocy but it is considered a backlog and has been around as a backlog for decades. And it's clear your solution is "I'm opposed to this and I'm going to make everyone's life difficult to get my way" here. If you fundamentally admit that some relistings are appropriate, then tell me when it is appropriate to you and when it is not and "relistings are not ok when ***I*** say they are indiscriminately done" is not an answer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Articles for Creation MFDs
When should a page that has gone through AFC be nominated for MFD? My own opinion is when it is hopeless, when it is clear that the page will never make it to mainspace, but its presence in a sandbox or in draft space is a nuisance. That can happen in two situations. The first situation is that the page is being tendentiously resubmitted without improvements. This wastes the time of the reviewers. It can be dealt with either by nominating the page for MFD, or by sanctioning the author, and the former seems the less harsh action when a harsh action is needed. If other editors think that a block is the better action, they may state that opinion. (If so, we may then go to situation two.)
The second situation is when the author has been blocked indefinitely, e.g., as purely promotional, or as a vandal. (I am aware that at least one editor disagrees with me on this point.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- What makes you think mere presence in a sandbox is a nuisance? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say that the mere presence of a sandbox is a nuisance. You may have misunderstood my words (or may be conflating two situations). I favor the deletion of a sandbox, or user subpage, or draft, in two situations, only one of which is because it is a nuisance. The first is if it is being tendentiously resubmitted to AFC with no effort to improve it. In that case, it is a nuisance because it wastes the time of the reviewers. The second is if two conditions are met. The author should be blocked or banned, and the page will never be a candidate for article space. In that case, I favor deletion, not because it is a nuisance, but because it is cruft. I will point out that I do not always favor the deletion of drafts by blocked or banned users. See Draft:Geopolymer concrete and its MFD. Its author has been indefinitely blocked. However, it appears to be a high-quality draft, although it needs attention from a neutral expert to ensure that it does not contain biased language (because there seems to be an ugly scientific controversy between two scientists). A sandbox is only a nuisance if it is tendentiously resubmitted without being improved. A sandbox is useless cruft if its author is blocked or banned (and so doesn't have the privilege of having a play area) and there is no hope of its content becoming an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
User Space MFDs (not AFC)
When should user pages that are not AFC drafts in disguise be nominated for MFD? I would include non-sandbox pages that would warrant CSD if they were in article space (e.g., patent nonsense, not in English) and fake articles. (A few user pages qualify for CSD even in user space, such as attack pages, spam, and copyvio.) I would also include user subpages of users who have been indefinitely blocked, unless they can be moved to another space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I really dislike the idea of deleting drafts from user space. The whole idea behind user space is that the stuff there "belongs" to the user. It is the one place where WP:OWN does not apply (it is the one place where an editor can claim ownership of the text). If an editor wants to draft a potential article in his/her user space... That is his/her right. If he/she takes years to work on it... So what? If he/she begins the process, stops for a year and then starts again... So what? There is no time limit in user space. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Same here. That's why I added noted 2 toWP:STALE which is explicit in that the editor must also have stopped for a year along with the draft. And stale isn't just deletion, it's for blanking or moving the page around. It's basically "if the person hasn't been here a year, check their stuff and if it's useful, feel free to use it." The deletion is an afterthought and perhaps we can continue this at WT:UP where SmokeyJoe and I started a discussion on wording when deletion is appropriate. There's no real push to delete drafts from active users (other than a lot of duplication of current articles). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think there is a good case for a CSD criterion for draft or userspace that was wholesale copied from mainspace. For nearly everything else, blanking or redirection is appropriate and you have never responded anywhere as to why you think not, except for invoking the possibility that an inactive user will obstinately unblank. MfD is good for questions where there is any evidence of disagreement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Same here. That's why I added noted 2 toWP:STALE which is explicit in that the editor must also have stopped for a year along with the draft. And stale isn't just deletion, it's for blanking or moving the page around. It's basically "if the person hasn't been here a year, check their stuff and if it's useful, feel free to use it." The deletion is an afterthought and perhaps we can continue this at WT:UP where SmokeyJoe and I started a discussion on wording when deletion is appropriate. There's no real push to delete drafts from active users (other than a lot of duplication of current articles). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes there are 40k pages at Stale Drafts, no they are not all coming to MfD. Many are CSD'd and a few are moved to draft or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- And large chunks of those belong to active users so the fact that the draft is stale is irrelevant. That's why I created a hard-copy of the category, since so much there is just going to be there forever for the most part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is a distinction between user space and draft space... The first belongs to the user while the second belongs to the community. Something in user space can not go stale until the user who owns the space says it is stale. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- The question is line-drawing. First, if the person isn't here any more, can their stuff be reviewed and considered stale? There was an argument at MFD last week about someone who lasted edited here nine years ago. Now, if someone has a draft in userspace for an article that was already deleted at AFD as not suitable, shouldn't that be deleted if they stop editing here? So we all agree that those drafts aren't suitable to keep around but why then is it wrong to look at very old drafts and ask the same question? If it's feasible or could be a plausible draft, then the people at MFD can vote to keep it or request to keep it or ask to restore it or whatever you want. But that's actually a very rare situation precisely because no one is out there blindly deleting decent and good drafts for no reason. It's just a difference of opinion on what is and what isn't likely to become something useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- In principle it is fine to have "people at MFD can vote to keep it or request to keep it or ask to restore it or whatever". However, when no one at MfD comments on it, while commenting on nominations aboce and below, consider that people at MfD are choosing to not review it. Ignoring that, comment-free relisting, scrambling the list order, is then offensive and disruptive. An example of a much better way to deal with a much more serious list of old discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Discussions_awaiting_closure. If you were to go through that list, relist everyone of them without case-specific comment, and then declare the CfD backlog dealt with, do you think the CfD regulars would be pleased? How would that be different to what you started doing here recently? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- If this was AFD, if this was CFD, TFD, RFD, no one would say "it's been a week with no comments, giving it another week by relisting it is 'offensive' or 'disruptive'". Your language is way out of scope compared to actually what I've been doing here. How many discussions do you imagine would need relisting? At worst, there's a day with maybe 50 discussions and maybe 3-4 need to be relisted and that's generous. And it's not about the CFD "regulars" only, new users come by when they have a discussion they care and they vote up and down. They'll more likely to make a opinion if the discussions are interspered rather than knowing to go to the very bottom of the page looking to figure out what needs further discussions. Do you start at the bottom of the page and go up? No one does that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- In principle it is fine to have "people at MFD can vote to keep it or request to keep it or ask to restore it or whatever". However, when no one at MfD comments on it, while commenting on nominations aboce and below, consider that people at MfD are choosing to not review it. Ignoring that, comment-free relisting, scrambling the list order, is then offensive and disruptive. An example of a much better way to deal with a much more serious list of old discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Discussions_awaiting_closure. If you were to go through that list, relist everyone of them without case-specific comment, and then declare the CfD backlog dealt with, do you think the CfD regulars would be pleased? How would that be different to what you started doing here recently? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- The question is line-drawing. First, if the person isn't here any more, can their stuff be reviewed and considered stale? There was an argument at MFD last week about someone who lasted edited here nine years ago. Now, if someone has a draft in userspace for an article that was already deleted at AFD as not suitable, shouldn't that be deleted if they stop editing here? So we all agree that those drafts aren't suitable to keep around but why then is it wrong to look at very old drafts and ask the same question? If it's feasible or could be a plausible draft, then the people at MFD can vote to keep it or request to keep it or ask to restore it or whatever you want. But that's actually a very rare situation precisely because no one is out there blindly deleting decent and good drafts for no reason. It's just a difference of opinion on what is and what isn't likely to become something useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes there are 40k pages at Stale Drafts, no they are not all coming to MfD. Many are CSD'd and a few are moved to draft or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have experience with CfD? It is no place for new users. (my long standing position is that new users should not be allowed to create categories)
- New users are more likely to comment on old discussions if they are interspersed? Randomly? Sounds like spamming. Sounds like Shotgun email. Not particularly effective spamming either. I guess you have decided to ignore my suggestion that if old discussion advertising is needed, the CfD method linked is much more effective without disrupting systematic reviewing.
- Yes, absolutely, I start from the oldest and work towards the newer. I have told you this directly, but you don't listen? By starting at the oldest, review is more effective because there you can presumably benefit from earlier comments of interested stakeholders. I have done this at AfD, DRV CfD and WP:RM. CfD is nice how it has clear colour coding.
- No one does this? Clearly your working assumptions are flawed.
- Did you ignore my previous comment to you that new page patrol is recommended to be done from oldest to newest? It is a very standard concept for how to deal with a backlog.
- You suggest my language is hyperbolic? Do you not sense my frustration with you not listening? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- If your issues are with their placement in the log then why the hell are you reverting the entire idea of relisting discussions and creating page-long arguments about relisting at all, about comments in relistings and whatever your issue is? Make an RFC question about relisting not changing the location in the log. But you won't. Even single comment from you have another problem you've come up with, from relistings in general to "indiscriminate" relistings to "comment-free relistings" to the actual relisting template to the location in the log when it's relisted. It's impossible to have any meaningful discussion when I'm certain that no matter the resolution here, you'll find another excuse to dispute relisting a discussion and just argue about this again and again. Just make a single statement or hundreds of separate questions with all your concerns. I don't care. It's been literally two weeks of you personally calling out in edit summaries, discussion headings and the like and you won't just once post every single problem you have. Instead, it's literally a new argument after a new argument with you as you complain about coloring, placement, wording, lack of comments, whatever the hell problems you come up with all the while arguing that these relistings are some part of a giant deletionist scheme around here. Meanwhile you complain about the volume of discussions, something I literally have nothing to do with, and you oppose relistings to extend and delay discussions in favor of arguing to dump the work on a half-dead project that you have never done anything with and that I've been involved with for months now simply to create more and more methods to stall. I get it: you vehemently disagree with this whole idea but at some point the solution is not to make more and more nonsense demands and requirements to drive everyone else away but to actively make a viewpoint based on some reasoning instead of trying to drive everyone else nuts with new procedural wonkery. And yes I have been actively involved in the creation of thousands of category pages, numerous discussions, including some exceedingly complex closing and a lot of technical requirements that are required in those closes. Similarly I have been involved in some exceedingly complicated, esoteric TFD discussions involving multi-layered templates and the like. And none of that matters because you have yet to find evidence of whatever bizarre bias you claim I have in regards to MFD discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe that's a fair rant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- If your issues are with their placement in the log then why the hell are you reverting the entire idea of relisting discussions and creating page-long arguments about relisting at all, about comments in relistings and whatever your issue is? Make an RFC question about relisting not changing the location in the log. But you won't. Even single comment from you have another problem you've come up with, from relistings in general to "indiscriminate" relistings to "comment-free relistings" to the actual relisting template to the location in the log when it's relisted. It's impossible to have any meaningful discussion when I'm certain that no matter the resolution here, you'll find another excuse to dispute relisting a discussion and just argue about this again and again. Just make a single statement or hundreds of separate questions with all your concerns. I don't care. It's been literally two weeks of you personally calling out in edit summaries, discussion headings and the like and you won't just once post every single problem you have. Instead, it's literally a new argument after a new argument with you as you complain about coloring, placement, wording, lack of comments, whatever the hell problems you come up with all the while arguing that these relistings are some part of a giant deletionist scheme around here. Meanwhile you complain about the volume of discussions, something I literally have nothing to do with, and you oppose relistings to extend and delay discussions in favor of arguing to dump the work on a half-dead project that you have never done anything with and that I've been involved with for months now simply to create more and more methods to stall. I get it: you vehemently disagree with this whole idea but at some point the solution is not to make more and more nonsense demands and requirements to drive everyone else away but to actively make a viewpoint based on some reasoning instead of trying to drive everyone else nuts with new procedural wonkery. And yes I have been actively involved in the creation of thousands of category pages, numerous discussions, including some exceedingly complex closing and a lot of technical requirements that are required in those closes. Similarly I have been involved in some exceedingly complicated, esoteric TFD discussions involving multi-layered templates and the like. And none of that matters because you have yet to find evidence of whatever bizarre bias you claim I have in regards to MFD discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, Robert McClenon, thank you for summarizing the issues and creating this (hopefully) central discussion. It's clear you have been thorough and fair in your review of the issues, although I don't agree with all of your positions. This is the question where I differ with you the most, and with the best cause. Your analysis is good, but your solution—to delete some non-AfC userspace pages not eligible for CSD (as blatant hoaxes, recreations of deleted pages, attack pages, blatant webhosting, etc) at MfD—is suboptimal because you fail to consider a critical option: blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked or Template:Inactive userpage blanked. The advantages of this are fourfold:
- Addressing all legitimate concerns with non-CSD-eligible userspace content: A blanked page does not clutter any categories, will not have its content copied by Wikipedia scrapers, cannot be used to spread misinformation, etc.
- Saving admin and MfD time: Much has been said about how much garbage is in userspace, and what a task clearing it out is. Blanking and replacing with a template is much quicker than making an MfD nom, only requires a single editor, and requires no admin to assess consensus and delete.
- Automatically and effortlessly detecting true inactivity: There has been some discussion of how long an editor must go without edits to be considered "inactive". Replacing page content with an inactivity template solves this problem. If the editor is truly inactive or doesn't care about the page, it will stay blanked. If they do, they can easily revert the blanking and indicate that the blanker was mistaken, even without knowing the policy or realizing that they are participating in the process.
- Editors matter: Editor retention is a high priority. Userpages have traditionally been considered a "private" space that the user has total control over (as long as they are doing nothing damaging, which is covered by CSD). Deleting userpages has the potential to scare away new editors (who I know from personal experience sometimes dabble a bit, leave for years, and then return; and who are also unaware of WP:REFUND) and remind jaded editors considering returning why they left. Blanking, while still unfriendly, is nowhere near as much of a disruption and affront.
- Finally, in addition to these four main advantages, I would argue that blanking and replacing with a template has no disadvantages. Do people consider this to be a better option than MfD deletion for all non-damaging (i.e. not CSD-eligible) userpages? A2soup (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Blanking is an option. I do vote that way. It's been suggested for a number of pages and a number of discussions have closed with blanking. Please consider reviewing MFD and making votes for that as well. However, if the page is very promotional or a recreation following a delete AFD or other scenario, blanking and hoping the editor doesn't return is not the most popular solution so I as an admin have to close with the way the votes are and they often are simply to delete. One issue is the number of drafts that either are later created or were created at the exact same time as the draft pages (WP:UP#COPIES). Should those be deleted or blanked? Policy says that they are unacceptable in part to encourage the editor to actively work on the mainspace version so I support deletion of those pages. I've dealt with editors who create their own versions of mainspace pages and it's frustratingly difficult to figure out and then to find out that they are in fact unblanking and repeatedly working on their drafts. But that are per se violations and have nothing to do with staleness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response - if I can find the time, I'll try to come by and make some votes. If the page is promotional to the point of being spam, it falls under G11. If the page is a recreation following AfD deletion (and is not being actively improved), it falls under G4. I honestly can't think of any other scenarios in which the editor returning and unblanking the page would be a bad thing. The one example you mention that I agree is appropriate for MfD is the fork of a mainspace article (and then only in the case that it is actually a fork, not a draft-like thing on a related topic or subtopic that fails WP:N and would be redirected to the main article were it in mainspace). I see that many userpages currently at MfD meet this description, but plenty of others do not. Would you agree that userpages not meeting this description are better blanked or (if applicable) speedied? A2soup (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the blanking of user pages (whether AFC or otherwise). Because of the ambiguous nature of user pages, which sort of belong to the user, but do not entirely belong to the user, their blanking could be construed rightly or wrongly as vandalism. I think that it is better, when necessary, to MFD them than to run the risk of being taken to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, rightly or wrongly. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- When you leave an appropriate template (mentioned above), it's clear that it's not intended to be vandalism. In fact, the good-faith nature of the blanking is communicated by the friendly template more effectively the good-faith nature of the corresponding deletion can be communicated by the deletion summary. If you think that blanking pages with good intentions could be construed as vandalism, then deleting them with good intentions is even more likely to be - it's more disruptive and the good faith is not as obvious. (For the record, I don't think that either of these are vandalism.) A2soup (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the blanking of user pages (whether AFC or otherwise). Because of the ambiguous nature of user pages, which sort of belong to the user, but do not entirely belong to the user, their blanking could be construed rightly or wrongly as vandalism. I think that it is better, when necessary, to MFD them than to run the risk of being taken to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, rightly or wrongly. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response - if I can find the time, I'll try to come by and make some votes. If the page is promotional to the point of being spam, it falls under G11. If the page is a recreation following AfD deletion (and is not being actively improved), it falls under G4. I honestly can't think of any other scenarios in which the editor returning and unblanking the page would be a bad thing. The one example you mention that I agree is appropriate for MfD is the fork of a mainspace article (and then only in the case that it is actually a fork, not a draft-like thing on a related topic or subtopic that fails WP:N and would be redirected to the main article were it in mainspace). I see that many userpages currently at MfD meet this description, but plenty of others do not. Would you agree that userpages not meeting this description are better blanked or (if applicable) speedied? A2soup (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Blanking is an option. I do vote that way. It's been suggested for a number of pages and a number of discussions have closed with blanking. Please consider reviewing MFD and making votes for that as well. However, if the page is very promotional or a recreation following a delete AFD or other scenario, blanking and hoping the editor doesn't return is not the most popular solution so I as an admin have to close with the way the votes are and they often are simply to delete. One issue is the number of drafts that either are later created or were created at the exact same time as the draft pages (WP:UP#COPIES). Should those be deleted or blanked? Policy says that they are unacceptable in part to encourage the editor to actively work on the mainspace version so I support deletion of those pages. I've dealt with editors who create their own versions of mainspace pages and it's frustratingly difficult to figure out and then to find out that they are in fact unblanking and repeatedly working on their drafts. But that are per se violations and have nothing to do with staleness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Any suggestions for how to handle this new subpage? I noticed it because the page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It is a copy/paste of lots of articles, with categories, and without attribution. If someone has an hour to spare, please engage the user if you think there might be some encyclopedic benefit. IMHO the page should be blanked and a polite message put on the user's talk explaining the situation, backed by admin action if necessary. Or, we could try discussion then waste a week at MfD. No good solution as far as I can see. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good example. Based on only the linked page, we would need to go through a week of MfD. Based on them turning their userpage into an WP:G10 attack page with 'I am here to stand up against social conservatives like the evil --- and ----') on their user page and some disruptive editing already...NOTHERE block? Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- MFD it. We could have a snow delete. It doesn't have to take a week. It's a UP#COPIES issue and absent more evidence than their idiocy on their user page and that, I'm more lenient about NOTHERE blocks than most though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good example. Based on only the linked page, we would need to go through a week of MfD. Based on them turning their userpage into an WP:G10 attack page with 'I am here to stand up against social conservatives like the evil --- and ----') on their user page and some disruptive editing already...NOTHERE block? Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is it not a textbook failure of WP:POLEMIC? It could even be U5-able? G10, maybe. No sign or history of the user being productive. The username is suggestive that the user is not here to contribute neutrally. Why ask in this thread? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Re why ask here, my point is that some user pages obviously should be deleted, yet the normal grind of MfD is not appealing. Imagine the frustration of doing it the right way: start with a discussion asking the user to request deletion; set up an MfD when the discussion fails; wait a week and possibly get no support for deletion so the page defaults to keep. This user has possibly had their fun and won't return, but a more determined troll could tie up MfD with junk. There is no good way to handle all MfDs, and I guess I'm pointing out to the those who want to keep as much as possible that they should nevertheless provide a mechanism to deal with cases like this where it's not quite a speedy delete, yet it should be. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Johnuniq. It is a bit too polemic, with that title. As a polemic, it is welcome at MfD. MfD is normally a fairly quiet plodding place, with occasional big proxy battles ostensibly over a project space or userspace page. There has been a bit of fuss lately, I am involved, but I felt compelled.
- Leaving POLEMICs to lie way they lay could give the impression that polemics are acceptable. Blanking is always an option I urge you to consider, to see if the user get's your message or whats to push it. If they push it, certainly come straight to MfD. Sending it straight to MfD can be justified by the argument that you are clearly saying that this sort of thing is unacceptable. Quite a justified position. A downside of doing to too much, of a few people inspecting, investigating and policing others' pages is that they start to resemble thought police in a police state. Too much is a bad thing. However, we haven't seen that sort of thing much for a long time, the last I remember was a purge of userspace "academic" records of commons files of pornography. Recently. there is just a bit of enthusiasm over old redundant stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- So you're suggesting blanking it, watching the page in case they return and if they return, and then list it to MFD? The first issue is that you're giving a lot of power to the people patrolling to decide whether or not to blank a page of someone else's. I'd prefer taking it to MFD (I think we should consider renaming it against to discussion versus deletion) rather than individually deciding what is and what isn't polemic conduct on their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, suggesting that. I think page blanking is less confrontation than the record of am MfD nomination on their talk page followed by deletion of the article. I think that page patrollers, if trusted, will be responsible. You "think we should consider renaming it against to discussion versus deletion"? Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_6#Requested_move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are suggesting that Wikipedia should host a user subpage titled "people I don't like" and that editors should monitor the page forever? It's great to avoid confrontation with newbies but promoting that view in a case like this sounds more like a mantra than a reasonable approach to develop the encyclopedia. Keeping such pages from drive-by trolls may avoid confrontation but it also promotes the view that anything goes and that people are free to push the boundaries as much as they like. We should be clever enough to provide a reasonable way to deal with obvious cases like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- No. You have changed a few words. And I had wandered into the general case where one person's opinion is another's polemic. I suggest that any mildly problematic page can be ignored, and it you should consider ignoring it. If it offends you, you should nominate it, and in such a case I support deleted, and have already done so. I believe that not far above I noted your same concern "Leaving POLEMICs to lie way [where] they lay could give the impression that polemics are acceptable". I think I agree with you in all important respects. For offensive things short of CSD#G10 of #U5, use MfD. My wish, as an MfD reviewer, is that nominators make the effort to say why it is offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you consider this "mildly problematic"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Johnuniqs mentioned subpage? Yes. More than mild. It is not related to an intention to improve content. It is bringing in blatant political opinion on current US politics. I would be bothered less if it were historical. And the copying of mainspace content I always oppose. Note that I was quick to !vote "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that I was quick to !vote "delete". That's not something to be proud of. It's precisely why it's frustrating here. When asked generally, you oppose the idea but when it's actually done, you support deleting it. It seems like you just want to create process for the sake of process or just for the sake of argument I can't tell. I presume that your views here are the same views you plan on offering in discussions about the particular pages we discuss when it seems like the opposite with you. When someone says "how about this page" and you respond "I'd support blanking not deletion" and then when proposed for deletion you say "I support deletion not blanking", what is the point of discussing it with you here? For amusement? I think Johnuniq was expecting an actual discussion here about that page, not "here's my view for MFD talk page on how these should be handled if they are taken to MFD but if they are taken to MFD, I have different views since they have been taken to MFD" as if anyone cares about that. You want to blank those pages? Fine, blank them. You want them deleted? Take them to MFD. You want other people to blank them but if they don't agree with you, you'll argue here that they should have blanked them but if taken to MFD you'll support deleting them? Then pound sand and quit lecturing everyone else. What is the point of discussing relistings here which was the entire point of this 100k series of arguments when you won't express any opinion that you actually seem to support and will later just back-track for whatever reason without explanation? There's a half dozen discussions over a week old with no comments. I hate going "no consensus" and want to relist them. There's no support for the proposals expressed above and absent your opposition to "content-less relistings" no one has a single idea what you want other than to be the single person who decides what happens here and for everyone else to just go away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)- It is really not that complicated. Would you like me to try again to explain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm just striking this for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is really not that complicated. Would you like me to try again to explain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Johnuniqs mentioned subpage? Yes. More than mild. It is not related to an intention to improve content. It is bringing in blatant political opinion on current US politics. I would be bothered less if it were historical. And the copying of mainspace content I always oppose. Note that I was quick to !vote "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you consider this "mildly problematic"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- No. You have changed a few words. And I had wandered into the general case where one person's opinion is another's polemic. I suggest that any mildly problematic page can be ignored, and it you should consider ignoring it. If it offends you, you should nominate it, and in such a case I support deleted, and have already done so. I believe that not far above I noted your same concern "Leaving POLEMICs to lie way [where] they lay could give the impression that polemics are acceptable". I think I agree with you in all important respects. For offensive things short of CSD#G10 of #U5, use MfD. My wish, as an MfD reviewer, is that nominators make the effort to say why it is offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are suggesting that Wikipedia should host a user subpage titled "people I don't like" and that editors should monitor the page forever? It's great to avoid confrontation with newbies but promoting that view in a case like this sounds more like a mantra than a reasonable approach to develop the encyclopedia. Keeping such pages from drive-by trolls may avoid confrontation but it also promotes the view that anything goes and that people are free to push the boundaries as much as they like. We should be clever enough to provide a reasonable way to deal with obvious cases like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, suggesting that. I think page blanking is less confrontation than the record of am MfD nomination on their talk page followed by deletion of the article. I think that page patrollers, if trusted, will be responsible. You "think we should consider renaming it against to discussion versus deletion"? Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_6#Requested_move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- So you're suggesting blanking it, watching the page in case they return and if they return, and then list it to MFD? The first issue is that you're giving a lot of power to the people patrolling to decide whether or not to blank a page of someone else's. I'd prefer taking it to MFD (I think we should consider renaming it against to discussion versus deletion) rather than individually deciding what is and what isn't polemic conduct on their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Re why ask here, my point is that some user pages obviously should be deleted, yet the normal grind of MfD is not appealing. Imagine the frustration of doing it the right way: start with a discussion asking the user to request deletion; set up an MfD when the discussion fails; wait a week and possibly get no support for deletion so the page defaults to keep. This user has possibly had their fun and won't return, but a more determined troll could tie up MfD with junk. There is no good way to handle all MfDs, and I guess I'm pointing out to the those who want to keep as much as possible that they should nevertheless provide a mechanism to deal with cases like this where it's not quite a speedy delete, yet it should be. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Summary
Those are my thoughts for now. I welcome other opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Userspace does not belong to the user. See WP:WEBHOST. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Userspace belongs to the user, subject to the material not violating WP:NOTWEBHOST. A user has a presumption of ownership of information about themself as a Wikipedian, notes and records related to their contributions, tools related to their contributions, and project-related opinions. The amount of material, and amount of leeway afforded, is taken to be in proportion to the value of their contribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- We can make changes in anyone's userspace for all kinds of other reasons. An attack page for example. Many editors are managing Neelix user space now for another.Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not "all kinds" of reasons. Of course there are restrictions, but within the restriction, OWNership is tolerated in userspace. Who or what is Neelix? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:Neelix was a former admin with a large history of redirects created, so many problematic that he earned his own special speedy deletion criterion. His talk page has been redone because of the RFD notices even though he's no longer actively here (but is on other projects). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not "all kinds" of reasons. Of course there are restrictions, but within the restriction, OWNership is tolerated in userspace. Who or what is Neelix? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- We can make changes in anyone's userspace for all kinds of other reasons. An attack page for example. Many editors are managing Neelix user space now for another.Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've long been opposed to having "encyclopedic text" be part of normal MFD's, but there has been no support to make yet another deletion board, so we kind of inherited them here by default. Maybe a subboard would work like WP:MFD/A for all the article-related miscellany that ends up here? — xaosflux Talk 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Daily subpages and substitution
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion should have separate subpages for each day and Template:Mfd should be substituted rather than transcluded. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. The listing and the logs are working just fine, and having active MfD discussions added to WP:MFD at nomination enables very easy monitoring of activity at MfD by watchlisting it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral I could care less but SmokeyJoe above disputes the locations of relisted discussions, although he doesn't actually make an RFC about it so whatever the result, he'll have that in his back pocket for the next round of arguments. It could be helpful or not but it's not going to be when we're just here awaiting the next excuse for reverting relistings. Relistings should be conducted like literally every other discussion page, a relisting means that the discussion is re-listed to the current day's log, however it is organized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see how that had anything to do with relistings. Not sure why an RfC is needed for every improvement in making the place work smoothly.
- He wants to create an extra level in the heirarchy: MfD / date / MfD_discussion. I opposed it at WP:MR, but JC went ahead and did it anyway. It means that if you want to watch activity, you have to manually add all future dates into your watchlist. Not a huge deal, just stupid. Having the discussions in date subpages does nothing to help the archiving. Making a change in the archiving, why, what is the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Separating these adds nothing at the moment. I imagine this is related to the relistings dispute above or else it's only an issue of the length of the MFD page. An RFC would be productive if you are going to revert all current consensus because of your personal concerns, expressed one by one, so that we can hash out the actual consensus here rather than drag this out as long as humanly possible. You don't get a veto on all activity here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure of the pros or cons of substituting the template. Can you explain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that the main pro is to make MfD more similar to the other XfD processes - to tag, you add a substituted template and follow the instructions on it. It also tends to make the daily page proposal work more smoothly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- If all the MfDs for a day were on one page (like RfD is organized) a person could do their checking, then open the day page and vote for multipe MfDs with one edit. It would make combining listings way easier too (in RfD we send each title to RfD then remove the extra headers and sigs in a final edit). It would also reduce the number of pages created in MfD to one per day rather then one per nom. Hopefully I am understanding correctly. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree on both these parts. {{mfd}} is never meant to stay on a page for long, subst'ing it just dumps extra wiki text to the page. As for list on MFD, watch listing the main page is so useful to watch for nominations, so no change. — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss making this page less busy, I'm still in support of moving any sort of DRAFTs to any other process. — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- As they are nominally mainspace content, they could be sent to AfD, where I expect the AfD would be very unimpressed.
- I suggest a process on a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But I actually think that WP:AfC should be shut down, DraftSpace done away with as a bad idea, and autoconfirmed, which is required for mainspace page creation, changed to require 100 mainspace edits. The hypothetical newcomer with a great article on their finger tips can use {{help}}, but almost always, a newcomer is far better advised to learn about contributing by editing existing articles first. AfC is producing very little quality material compared to the amount of cruft, and dealing with the cruft is taking more volunteer time than the little bit of quality material is worth. Either that, or just ignore the cruft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let's just semiprotect the entire project, then. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not the same. Anyone can edit. Restrict new article creation to users with 100 edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's a wild idea but feel free to propose that if you want. I have no idea how you plan to stop the creation of new pages if new users can edit. They'll just take over current pages and we're stuck policing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is an old and supported idea. WMF is against it. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. Note the opposition to the opposite idea here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anonymous_page_creation.
- It is already the case that newcomers can't create pages until they have made 10 edits and they are 4 days old. Changing 10 to 100 mainspace is not, I think, wild. More importantly, newcomers are over-facilitated by AfC encouraging them to create new drafts and not under-encouraged to get some editing and content building experience first.
- Does AfC require a reference for new articles? How about speedy deletion of AfC pages that are old and never had a reference? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's a wild idea but feel free to propose that if you want. I have no idea how you plan to stop the creation of new pages if new users can edit. They'll just take over current pages and we're stuck policing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not the same. Anyone can edit. Restrict new article creation to users with 100 edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Let's just semiprotect the entire project, then. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- As to the claim that {{mfd}} isn't meant to stay on a page for long, neither are any of the other XfD tags, yet some of them are subst'ed; and we can simplify the MfD template in a similar way to what I did with the {{cfd}} template - moving most of the code to a different template, while the directly-used template would have source-comments telling users not to remove the tag. It should be noted that currently, all non-speedy deletion, other than MfD and FfD, uses substituted templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm all for improving dealing with drafts, but making mfd less busy is not a good reason as mfd is not very busy now. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
MFD when page qualifies for speedy deletion
I see a number of pages that have been nominated at miscellany for deletion where speedy deletion is in order. One is a re-creation after a formal deletion discussion at WP:AFD. Why not tag it as G4? It is true that the author keeps making minor but not substantive tweaks to it, and that I can't see the originally deleted article. (Maybe the invisibility of the deleted article, except to admins, is why MFD is being used in place of CSD.) There are numerous stale drafts currently at MFD. Why not mark them for G13? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Those aren't usually recreation of the same content, more like userification after AFD. In that case, if the purpose of that was for improvement, then it's not a G4. Also G13 is explicitly only for Articles for Creation drafts. The current proposal to expand it is largely going opposed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Use of G4 on old unaltered deleted then userfied content I think would be broadly approved.
- Use of MfD where G13 will eventually apply to me is contrary to the consensus established when we created G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- We don't G4 userfied copies of AfD'ed content because we do allow for the possibility that a user may actually succeed in improving the article enough to prevent G4ing it in the mainspace. The time delay in G13 is designed to allow the user time to work on the article, so we shouldn't delete it it until the time has passed - 6 months currently, although I wouldn't be opposed to reducing it to 3 months. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The issue comes up when it's repeatedly resubmitted on a weekly or more basis which will prevent any G13 deletion. I think article deletion is preferable to blocking the user (harder if the problem is IP users) and then waiting it out. Otherwise, no I
don'tthink "MFD this so we aren't waiting another month before G13 comes into place" is a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)- MfD it once; after that, resubmissions are subject to G4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- MfD and what? MfD to delete it? Or MfD just to have it taken to MfD? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry I just closed as keep even though it was an issue of repeated submissions and the MfD at least seems to have knocked some sense into the editor to slow down but I don't know if that ultimately will be better or not, we shall see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- If these pages tend to survive MfD, we certainly shouldn't speedy delete them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- MfD and what? MfD to delete it? Or MfD just to have it taken to MfD? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry I just closed as keep even though it was an issue of repeated submissions and the MfD at least seems to have knocked some sense into the editor to slow down but I don't know if that ultimately will be better or not, we shall see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- MfD it once; after that, resubmissions are subject to G4. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- The issue comes up when it's repeatedly resubmitted on a weekly or more basis which will prevent any G13 deletion. I think article deletion is preferable to blocking the user (harder if the problem is IP users) and then waiting it out. Otherwise, no I
- We don't G4 userfied copies of AfD'ed content because we do allow for the possibility that a user may actually succeed in improving the article enough to prevent G4ing it in the mainspace. The time delay in G13 is designed to allow the user time to work on the article, so we shouldn't delete it it until the time has passed - 6 months currently, although I wouldn't be opposed to reducing it to 3 months. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I promise to try to be receptive of nominations that include the words "unimproved resubmissions". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it's minor. A lot of those could also be solved by blocking the user for being disruptive but I'm not certain that's a better approach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I promise to try to be receptive of nominations that include the words "unimproved resubmissions". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)