Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 521: | Line 521: | ||
:Well, [[Narendra Modi|Modi]] falls under the India subheader, but I don't see anything that would make "all religion" (particularly Western religions) fall under DS. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
:Well, [[Narendra Modi|Modi]] falls under the India subheader, but I don't see anything that would make "all religion" (particularly Western religions) fall under DS. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:No they're not. All removed except for the Modi tag. We're not tagging every India and/or Pakistan-related article with discretionary sanctions. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
:No they're not. All removed except for the Modi tag. We're not tagging every India and/or Pakistan-related article with discretionary sanctions. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed: Minor change to inactivity policy notifications]] == |
|||
Interested parties, please see [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed: Minor change to inactivity policy notifications]], an RFC which seeks to modify how and when administrators are given notification regarding pending removal of administrative permissions. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:20, 20 March 2017
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 17 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Closure review of The Telegraph RfC
(Initiated 11 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 78 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 76 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 76 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Done, much belatedly. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- 6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 June 2024) Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus.
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 15 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 27 | 31 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 6 days ago on 14 July 2024) Already has absurdly unwieldy number of comments. Needs an experienced closer who is familiar with copyright policy for files. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 53 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 31 May 2024) No new comments in a week, discussion open for several months.CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done Tom B (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 25 June 2024) appears this can be closed. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done Tom B (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review of an improper RfC closure
An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [1], [2], [3]).
In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome.
Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
" When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).
First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).
Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry about the misunderstanding. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This is now the oldest discussion on this page. The RfC closure really needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Doing...—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree with this quite a lot. Firstly, the close was procedurally flawed because it was made by an editor who had participated in the discussion. Secondly, I don't agree that "No consensus" accurately reflects the discussion. I feel that the consensus was to reject the proposal on the basis that the copyright status of the content could change in future. Thirdly, ironically, I don't actually agree with the consensus on this point. It would be simple (and it would be standard Wikipedian practice) to create a template that says "PD-because-no-copyright-agreement-with-USA", tag the affected files with this template, and use the template to populate a category which tracks such files and enable their removal if the copyright status changes in the future. But with my RfC closer hat on I would have to say that illogical though it seems to me, there was a consensus and it was to reject the proposal.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: Your third point is irrelevant and semantically speaking, "there is no consensus to host such content" and "there is consensus to reject the proposal" which was to host said content, is the same thing. As for the closer, Wikipedia really needs to get over the whole "involved" nonsense. As indicative of the ever growing list of requested closures, if the result is obvious there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone just doing it. That is what being bold is. In any case, the original closure's decision was in direct opposition to what they wanted anyways. I could see a problem if they ruled in favor of what they wanted but, come on. This nonsense has been going on for well over a month now. It is time to drop the stick and move on with our lives. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, neither of those points is correct. "No consensus to host" and "consensus not to host" are not equivalent, and the fact that the consensus doesn't make sense is not irrelevant.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant in the vein that you did not participate so your opinion on the matter is moot. And in terms of English, those two ideas are equivalent. Whether or not Wikipedia views them as equivalent is different (and another layer of pointlessness that doesn't need to be there). --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- S Marshall: As mentioned in the OP, consensus is not merely tallying votes as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus:
"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
Here, there were many quality arguments given for allowing the images with specific copyright tags with no response by those opposing (so there wasnt't really any attempt at reasoned discussion or consensus building). There was also basically no discussion about the status quo that allowed such images on a case-by-case basis. The semantic issue about consensus is better explained this way: there was no agreement through reasoned discussion about how to proceed forward (keeping in mind the principles mentioned in the first sentnce of this comment). This is a problem because of the way the RfC was phrased (in the positive, even though such images were already allowed). - It may be easier to understand this argument in a different context. Let's say someone starts an RfC about repeated wikilinks in articles that says "Should articles be allowed to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes?" Since this is phrased in the positive, any result other than a clear yes would be a change to the current policy (WP:DUPLINK:
Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.
). If there is a lot of disagreement about the appropriate circumstances for when multiple links are appropriate, then using the result of the closure of the copuright RfC, the result of the RfC would be "there is no consensus to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes" and the status quo would be changed. AHeneen (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- S Marshall: As mentioned in the OP, consensus is not merely tallying votes as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus:
- It is irrelevant in the vein that you did not participate so your opinion on the matter is moot. And in terms of English, those two ideas are equivalent. Whether or not Wikipedia views them as equivalent is different (and another layer of pointlessness that doesn't need to be there). --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: Your third point is irrelevant and semantically speaking, "there is no consensus to host such content" and "there is consensus to reject the proposal" which was to host said content, is the same thing. As for the closer, Wikipedia really needs to get over the whole "involved" nonsense. As indicative of the ever growing list of requested closures, if the result is obvious there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone just doing it. That is what being bold is. In any case, the original closure's decision was in direct opposition to what they wanted anyways. I could see a problem if they ruled in favor of what they wanted but, come on. This nonsense has been going on for well over a month now. It is time to drop the stick and move on with our lives. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support systematic nuke/ revision of X2 to enable this mess to be cleared up. It's not fair that @S Marshall: is being prevented from improving the encyclopedia like this. Amisom (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy
Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)- I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Needed: Another closer please!—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: thoughts? Nobody else is stepping up.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree. :)—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll go back to what I said 4 comment above. The milieux can be very difficult to close because of the wording. I thought the reverted close was a very good attempt to make sense out of M.3 in that it focused on what the consensus there actually agreed on, but that aroused a storm and nobody seems to be able to agree on what was actually agreed on. Concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, is very much the opposite and I think can be easily closed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
RfC close review please?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, Wikipedians. Three days ago I closed an RfC about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Since then an IP editor has raised some additional points on my talk page, which are clearly meant as a challenge to my close, and so I'd be grateful if some independent editors could check and confirm whether I got it right. If I was mistaken then I'm very happy to be overturned, and any sysop should feel free to replace my close with their own.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was an excellent close and should be respected. The IP should be advised to seek consensus for improvements by making the case on the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
One of the main points I raised was that the GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report has the following disclaimer: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- My view is a non-admin closure is not appropriate as the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) with no consensus reached and is controversial and the closure is better left to an administrator. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable initial position, but User:S Marshall/RfC close log contains links to many excellent closes demonstrating extraordinary experience in quality contentious closes. The solution is the bluelinking of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- In my view, the closure was fine with the exception of how much to put in the lead. There wasn't much consensus on the amount of details to put in the lead. As correctly mentioned in the summary, the relevant part of WP:LEAD is:
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
Several support votes simply mention/imply support for mentioning Russian interference in the lead (not explicit support for the paragraph), there was some discussion about the weight given to the subject by including an entire paragraph in the lead, and there was some discussion about the neutrality of the wording of the paragraph. - I think that the better close is that support for inclusion was well-supported by the WP:LEAD policy I quote here, but that there was no consensus about the exact wording and how much to mention in the lead. Since the wording in the lead is bound to be contentious (beyond what the closer should do), the best thing to do is just leave the issue out of the lead for now and open a second RfC on how to word the mention of Russian interference in the lead. While not a comment about the close but rather about the outcome, in my opinion, an entire paragraph gives far too much weight to the issue and it should be just a single sentence. AHeneen (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- A two sentence version is currently suggested at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Suggested_wording. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- My view is a non-admin closure is not appropriate as the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) with no consensus reached and is controversial and the closure is better left to an administrator. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Following a brief readthrough, the close looked excellent. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- The close looks sound to me. I reject utterly the notion that we admins are somehow better placed to make closes of difficult discussions like this. User:S Marshall consistently shows excellent judgement in his closes and is really a poster child for why non-admins should be encouraged to take up these sorts of leadership roles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to have a WP:Close review page for reviews of contested closes, in the same vein as WP:DRV and WP:MR, for discussions that are not deletion or rename discussions. I'd support expanding the scope of WP:MR to include RfC closes, but DRV should be left separate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Funny, I didn't expect WP:Close review to be bluelinked. User:SMcCandlish, what do you think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've long thought that the lack of a "WP:CLRV" or "WP:RFCRV" page is a problem, since we have DRV and MRV for deletions and moves, but all other closure review gets shunted into AN, where it's almost always interpreted as noise. Or people ignore what WP:Close review presently says (because most haven't seen it?) and make attempts at challenging closures they don't like by firing up ANI complaints or "re-RfCing" (forum shopping) at Village Pump, or whatever. It's chaotic and unhelpful. The problem with AN as the venue is that AN/RFC is already a backlog, so admins do not want to deal with RfC review; once closed forever closed is the attitude. It really should be a community-input process like DRV and MRV, with some ground rules, e.g. that the process's purpose is to determine whether the closer incorrectly assessed consensus, policy, or provided evidence, not to re-litigate the details of the matter, e.g. by presenting new rationales or evidence. Most of that can be ported directly from MRV. While ANI is, despite its name, a community not admin venue in practice, it is very poorly suited to such matters, as it is almost entirely a disciplinary board about disruptive behavior, which flawed closes are not unless they're obvious and pointed supervotes. It's worth noting that an any obviously faulty close can be reverted, like any other edit. I don't see people do it very often, but one shouldn't hesitate to take this approach with, especially, an NAC that objectively is wrongheaded. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just do it. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive makes the justification for WP:RFCRV pretty obvious. Let's not have an RfC about whether to create a venue for discussing RfC's.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hey. What about the failed WP:discussion review? BTW, the closing layout at that talk page needs a change, like using {{discussion top}} and {{consensus}}. The rationale looks too long and narrow for {{archive top}}. George Ho (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC); edited. 20:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, why not WP:requests for comment review instead? "WP:Close review" looks vague at best. George Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps spinning it off as a subpage of AN would work? Something like WP:AN/RFC closure reviews? Tazerdadog (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just do it. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive makes the justification for WP:RFCRV pretty obvious. Let's not have an RfC about whether to create a venue for discussing RfC's.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've long thought that the lack of a "WP:CLRV" or "WP:RFCRV" page is a problem, since we have DRV and MRV for deletions and moves, but all other closure review gets shunted into AN, where it's almost always interpreted as noise. Or people ignore what WP:Close review presently says (because most haven't seen it?) and make attempts at challenging closures they don't like by firing up ANI complaints or "re-RfCing" (forum shopping) at Village Pump, or whatever. It's chaotic and unhelpful. The problem with AN as the venue is that AN/RFC is already a backlog, so admins do not want to deal with RfC review; once closed forever closed is the attitude. It really should be a community-input process like DRV and MRV, with some ground rules, e.g. that the process's purpose is to determine whether the closer incorrectly assessed consensus, policy, or provided evidence, not to re-litigate the details of the matter, e.g. by presenting new rationales or evidence. Most of that can be ported directly from MRV. While ANI is, despite its name, a community not admin venue in practice, it is very poorly suited to such matters, as it is almost entirely a disciplinary board about disruptive behavior, which flawed closes are not unless they're obvious and pointed supervotes. It's worth noting that an any obviously faulty close can be reverted, like any other edit. I don't see people do it very often, but one shouldn't hesitate to take this approach with, especially, an NAC that objectively is wrongheaded. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Funny, I didn't expect WP:Close review to be bluelinked. User:SMcCandlish, what do you think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The close was a clear, well reasoned, and very defensible reading of a complex discussion. I see no reason that it should be overturned and commend S Marshall for being so thorough on a difficult and complex issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Admin stupid?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello everyone, I've got a bit of a problem; as you can see when you look at my userpage (scroll down a bit), my adminstats have been disabled, and I am gone from "category:administrators". All the admin functions are still there, though. I am too stupid to find the cause for that. Cheers and thanks in advance. Lectonar (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- You still have admin status; for some reason the bot thinks you don't. User:cyberpower678 maintains that particular bot, you'll need to ask them what's happened as Adminstats is a particular script, not a WMF or Mediawiki function. ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Will to that, Thanks and Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, it looks like the bot has shut down for everyone, not just you. I wouldn't worry about it; I doubt anyone in the history of Wikipedia has ever actually cared about adminstats. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just thought my userpage looked different :). And I am grinning, actually. Perhaps we'll all be desysopped shortly. Just the first step now. Lectonar (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- If that were true, then this bot wouldn't exist. There are people that care about their stats.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I care. Just noticed this a few minutes ago myself, and wasn't sure where to report it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- If that were true, then this bot wouldn't exist. There are people that care about their stats.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Will to that, Thanks and Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't know this existed. El_C 11:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I added it to my vanity, but it didn't work. Neither does my gallery for some reason. El_C 11:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- gallery uses file: not image: and also you didn't close the gallery with a /gallery tag. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not in those days it didn't! (Those were the days?) Thanks for the fix! El_C 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression
I believe I've identified a situation where page move redirect suppression (or sometimes G6 deletion) is being used improperly. For background, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation).
User Widefox converted the disambiguation page to a set index article and moved it to an appropriate title (List of Västra Frölunda IF sections). A redirect was left behind at Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation) which he flagged for speedy deletion under criteria G6 & G8, with the reason "dab converted to SIA and moved - so no dab to redirect to". I objected because we almost always keep redirects from page moves when the former title is very old (this one since 2005) because of the potential for breaking incoming links to Wikipedia from external sites. Widefox disagrees, and said in the discussion that in the future he will simply suppress the redirect, as he holds the pagemover userright. As far as I can tell he has not done so, although he previously requested G6 speedy deletion in this situation at £5 (disambiguation) which was then deleted by Graeme Bartlett.
Wikipedia:Page mover spells out an explicit list of uses where redirect suppression is allowed; none cover this situation. One comes close, WP:PM/C#7, "Moving pages from a title that is an implausible typo or misnomer, only when the page is a recent creation (WP:CSD#R3)" (emphasis in original). Several suppression criteria also reference WP:G6, such as WP:PM/C#3: "Moving pages from a title unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". Since a very old page title is neither a recent creation nor unambiguously created in error, redirect suppression should not be used when moving such a page to a new title, and administrators patrolling CSD ought to be careful to check the history of the moved page when deletion is requested on a page tagged with {{R from move}}.
On the other hand, Widefox's move created a redirect that might otherwise be deleted, because redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title are expected to point to disambiguation pages, and set indices are not disambiguation pages. However, that point is very debatable; the function of a set index is certainly similar to that of a disambiguation page, so there could be merit in having a "(disambiguation)" title pointing to a set index. I suggest that G6 should never be used on these, but instead they should be discussed individually at WP:RFD.
Does any of the wording at Wikipedia:Page mover need to be modified because of this situation? Personally I think it's pretty clear. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, to contextualise this...I don't consider this an appropriate measure: Taking this to a drama board without discussing with me first, when User:Ivanvector is WP:INVOLVED in discussions instigated by me at two locations already about exactly this issue to clarify this underlying issue of disambiguation redirects to achieve possible guideline change/clarity at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_9#V.C3.A4stra_Fr.C3.B6lunda_IF_.28disambiguation.29 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29 seems wholly inappropriate, and a fishing exercise, and WP:FORUMSHOPPING before letting the issue be discussed in the current appropriate venues. I will deal with the substance next. Widefox; talk 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) User:Ivanvector I'm uncertain what your aim is here? What's the urgency for an ANI listing, what needs protecting?, and why should this be brought to another location when I've been explicit that I'm trying to clarify best practice already? Surely you'd appreciate this isn't appropriate as it may give the impression of attempting to get an upperhand in discussions started by me?! Widefox; talk 13:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Ivanvector I see no diff above for an improper edit. Until you say what it is, I cannot defend against "Possible improper use" / "used improperly" / "As far as I can tell he has not done so". Even if you do list one, being as I've instigated discussion on this, I am tempted to just ignore this ANI. Widefox; talk 13:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- The only reason such redirects from "(disambiguation)" exist is to mark intentional links to disambiguation pages. Were it not for that, such redirects would never have been created. There already is a lot of confusion regarding set indices and disambiguation pages. IMO, keeping such redirects only compounds this confusion. If there is in fact a distinction between set indices and disambiguation pages, keeping these sorts of redirects only blurs that distinction. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ivanvector: The first thing WP:PM/C says is "Page movers can suppress a redirect during a page move if the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion." The seven criteria outlined there are the most common uses, not the only ones. Therefore, I think this is a CSD issue, not one regarding the page mover user right; either G6 "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes '(disambiguation)'" applies or it does not, it would need to be clarified at WP:CSD#G6. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Its a terminology issue. Normally a disambiguation page that has been moved is because it is no longer disambiguating (hence the CSD criteria). This has been renamed to an index article that is essentially a still a disambiguation page by another name (a wikipedia page designed to link to other articles). So the redirect is a plausible redirect/alternative name for that page given the length of time it was named (disambiguation). It should probably still be kept as a redirect by IAR if necessary. I dont think this specific set of circumstances crops up that often. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well I guess you hit the nail on the head there. When a disambiguation page gets moved to another title, we ought to have a discussion about whether or not the new title and/or content of the page now being redirected to serve the function of disambiguation. Especially if the disambiguation page is old, G6 should not apply. I guess this is really a thread about whether or not G6 is appropriate, as Godsy is correct that redirect suppression is valid in any case that a CSD would be. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- This conflation that list articles are dab pages is unhelpful. An SIA is explicitly not a disambiguation page, but is explicitly a list article. We have it in bold in many places that a list is not a dab page. In this scenario, it is never that a disambiguation page is just a move. It stops being a dab. Period. As the " (disambiguation)" is only valid to target a dab (implicit, not explicit anywhere I know), this is logically invalid. The merits of breaking clarity and edit consensus / normal dab work needs consensus, but the fundamentals always come back to lists aren't dabs. A longstanding title with " (disambiguation)" invalid redirect is still an invalid one. Arguably G6 and/or G8 should apply. Widefox; talk 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just find it unconstructively pedantic to insist that a set index is not a disambiguation page (to which I don't disagree) while the set index perfectly serves the function of disambiguation. We can serve the various ways that readers browse our information, or we can needlessly sever links for silly reasons of our own invention. It should be obvious which one I prefer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Luckily we go by consensus: WP:SETNOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page" (original emphasis, this is in bold in several places). That's not pedantic, it's just the definition! It doesn't matter what I personally think about those that wish it different, until they conflate such clarity at RfD, and not follow the spirit of that editing guideline (disagreement on particulars always acceptable). Normal, uncontroversial dab cleanup work should not be held up by those who disagree with a long-established editor guideline. At RfD an admin is still insisting SIAs are only 3 years old! This has gone too far. Widefox; talk 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Those bolded SIA=/= DABs are for the purpose of what formatting guidelines apply to what pages, not where redirects can or cannot point. Readers and most editors don't know the difference, nor do they care. Many SIAs, as noted below, are literally just DABs with a few extra wikilinks, which really should be DABs or merged back to a main DAB page. Denying users the ability to directly navigate to those SIAs because they're technically not DABs is pedantry, and pedantry that makes it more difficult to navigate the encyclopedia. That's the crux of my (and other's) argument, that you avoid by strawmanning my language used to describe the recent trend to convert DAB pages into SIAs into a claim that I'm saying SIAs were newly created concepts. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not just formatting no...SETNOTDAB is formatting, MOS:DABNOTINDEX mostly, MOS:LIST says SIAs are "fully-fledged articles", WP:NOTDAB is not just, no. Generally they appear so similar, but it's hardly pedantry to say they're not the same, as it's by definition that they're pedantically different but are allowed to be very different, and as fully fledged articles are subject to WP:V. That's way more than a dab by another name. I wholeheartedly agree with you it's pedantic though. It's not the messenger, it's the pedantic difference. "Denying" is strong, seems more like "this exact niche navigation use case circumventing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that by definition navigates against the flow, and has no consensus of how important it is, is the main objection because it's a freedom which shouldn't be denied by a pedantic difference". It's a corner case, it's not denied, but just has unknown importance, repeating it doesn't reveal how widespread. Users can navigate directly. What trend? Maybe that explains the change I'm unaware of so took it literally, don't know. I see no consensus to create such redirects to SIAs. In fact, implicitly the opposite - G6 excludes creating them, so is against what little we have, so we have to agree to differ, as I'm not convinced. (see below - this use case is a hack and not disambiguation so should be struck as offtopic) Widefox; talk 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Those bolded SIA=/= DABs are for the purpose of what formatting guidelines apply to what pages, not where redirects can or cannot point. Readers and most editors don't know the difference, nor do they care. Many SIAs, as noted below, are literally just DABs with a few extra wikilinks, which really should be DABs or merged back to a main DAB page. Denying users the ability to directly navigate to those SIAs because they're technically not DABs is pedantry, and pedantry that makes it more difficult to navigate the encyclopedia. That's the crux of my (and other's) argument, that you avoid by strawmanning my language used to describe the recent trend to convert DAB pages into SIAs into a claim that I'm saying SIAs were newly created concepts. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Luckily we go by consensus: WP:SETNOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page" (original emphasis, this is in bold in several places). That's not pedantic, it's just the definition! It doesn't matter what I personally think about those that wish it different, until they conflate such clarity at RfD, and not follow the spirit of that editing guideline (disagreement on particulars always acceptable). Normal, uncontroversial dab cleanup work should not be held up by those who disagree with a long-established editor guideline. At RfD an admin is still insisting SIAs are only 3 years old! This has gone too far. Widefox; talk 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just find it unconstructively pedantic to insist that a set index is not a disambiguation page (to which I don't disagree) while the set index perfectly serves the function of disambiguation. We can serve the various ways that readers browse our information, or we can needlessly sever links for silly reasons of our own invention. It should be obvious which one I prefer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- This conflation that list articles are dab pages is unhelpful. An SIA is explicitly not a disambiguation page, but is explicitly a list article. We have it in bold in many places that a list is not a dab page. In this scenario, it is never that a disambiguation page is just a move. It stops being a dab. Period. As the " (disambiguation)" is only valid to target a dab (implicit, not explicit anywhere I know), this is logically invalid. The merits of breaking clarity and edit consensus / normal dab work needs consensus, but the fundamentals always come back to lists aren't dabs. A longstanding title with " (disambiguation)" invalid redirect is still an invalid one. Arguably G6 and/or G8 should apply. Widefox; talk 15:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment before opening more discussion of the redirect deletion topic, be aware that this is a duplicate debate of the Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_10#Communist_Party_of_Nepal_.28disambiguation.29, and I consider it
WP:FORUMSHOPPINGby anWP:INVOLVED admin. In overview WP:G8redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles
- the merits of which are better discussed at the RfD, rather than this second forum. Widefox; talk 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) was just fixing copy/paste duplication below. OK, AN. My mistake. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've made a couple of edits Wikipedia:Page mover to emphasize that redirect suppression is appropriate only where the redirect would be eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion. This was already stated in the policy and I think the added emphasis is uncontroversial. WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I contest that User:WJBscribe. User:Godsy has already softened the edit [4]. As someone has pointed out, G6 doesn't (and can't) detail exact exclusive criteria, so given the intrinsic subjectiveness about eligibility, wording around revoking pagemover must match that subjectiveness somehow, else it acts as a chilling effect. I say chilling effect, as there's logs of several editors here to show G6 / G8 is routinely used, there is no consensus that G6 / G8 does not apply. If the purpose is to stop suppress for this case, it would be better to just do so explicitly rather than chill suppress for all CSD. My 2nd RfD is exactly an attempt to clarify this point. There's no evidence that suppress has ever been used (despite the section title describing it), and there's a misconception that G6 {{Db-disambig}} is an issue. It seems the wrong direction when requests to get clarification for current G6 / G8 by several editors for this situation, that a chill is put on it. Given that, it's currently inappropriate for me to edit Wikipedia:Page mover myself as COI, so I lodge strong disagreement here. Widefox; talk 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am happy with Godsy's amendment, as it wasn't my intention to suggest that the rights would be revoked for a single incident which is now made clear. The debate over the applicability of G6 is to some extent a side issue - if you are right that G6 applies, the suppression would be appropriate and there would be no issue. If in doubt, don't suppress the redirect and take to WP:RFD instead. Although this thread prompted me to look at the policy, my edits are not solely a response to it. I think the policy failed to make it clear enough that page movers suppressing redirects (effectively allowing non-admins to delete pages) is a serious responsibility and misuse will have consequences. I think "chill" is a bit strong, but I do think we should advise page movers strongly to take care when using this feature. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying your intention WJBscribe. It was important, and warms. A parity of a responsibility with admins does, but should also come with comparable scrutiny and due process. The context of this section being that I don't believe anyone is now claiming anyone has ever done such a suppress, despite G6 G8 routinely deleting them. Widefox; talk 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am happy with Godsy's amendment, as it wasn't my intention to suggest that the rights would be revoked for a single incident which is now made clear. The debate over the applicability of G6 is to some extent a side issue - if you are right that G6 applies, the suppression would be appropriate and there would be no issue. If in doubt, don't suppress the redirect and take to WP:RFD instead. Although this thread prompted me to look at the policy, my edits are not solely a response to it. I think the policy failed to make it clear enough that page movers suppressing redirects (effectively allowing non-admins to delete pages) is a serious responsibility and misuse will have consequences. I think "chill" is a bit strong, but I do think we should advise page movers strongly to take care when using this feature. WJBscribe (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I contest that User:WJBscribe. User:Godsy has already softened the edit [4]. As someone has pointed out, G6 doesn't (and can't) detail exact exclusive criteria, so given the intrinsic subjectiveness about eligibility, wording around revoking pagemover must match that subjectiveness somehow, else it acts as a chilling effect. I say chilling effect, as there's logs of several editors here to show G6 / G8 is routinely used, there is no consensus that G6 / G8 does not apply. If the purpose is to stop suppress for this case, it would be better to just do so explicitly rather than chill suppress for all CSD. My 2nd RfD is exactly an attempt to clarify this point. There's no evidence that suppress has ever been used (despite the section title describing it), and there's a misconception that G6 {{Db-disambig}} is an issue. It seems the wrong direction when requests to get clarification for current G6 / G8 by several editors for this situation, that a chill is put on it. Given that, it's currently inappropriate for me to edit Wikipedia:Page mover myself as COI, so I lodge strong disagreement here. Widefox; talk 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle about this issue recently. My suggestion would be to take them to RFD at the moment, but if a clear consensus develops there that these types of redirects are always deleted (and I can see that argument, considering they don't redirects to disambiguation pages) then using G6 on them will be uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- In my interpretation/experience of admins, G6 {{Db-disambig}} doesn't apply to the redirect. G8 "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets" does apply as target is not a dab page (the issue at RfD - lists are explicitly not dab pages, and conflation is ASTONISHing. I've leaned more towards tagging G6 and G8 which IFAIR Twinkle "multiple" doesn't allow selection of db-disambig, just the generic G6 which fits better, although less specifically. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Its a list that contains two blue links and one red, which (from admittedly brief googling) is unlikely to get any larger and is substantially the same as the previous disambiguation page. Not every lists serve the purpose of directing readers to other articles, this one does. Frankly it doesnt need to exist, a hat at the primary sport page being more than sufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:Only in death, would appreciate if you took that particular disambiguation layout to the 1st RfD, I've reverted [5] as it breaks the best setup I could arrange - WP:INCOMPDAB which has (at least one other) supporter at the RfD, and has survived the considerable scrutiny so far. Widefox; talk 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Per this I would rather you just dont intentionally link from an article to a REDIRECT to a disambiguation page. Apart from being intentionally obtuse it serves no benefit or navigation aide to the reader. I am starting to think this is a competence issue on your part. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: Use of such a redirect is standard practice per WP:INTDAB. That in fact is the ONLY reason such redirects exist. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: firstly, your edit goes against the rough consensus to do exactly that at the RfD. I've reopened so you may contribute there. Did you read WP:INCDAB where a redirect is used (as requested)? WP:INTDAB is standard practice per Bkonrad. See {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (uncivil ignored). Widefox; talk 16:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: Use of such a redirect is standard practice per WP:INTDAB. That in fact is the ONLY reason such redirects exist. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Per this I would rather you just dont intentionally link from an article to a REDIRECT to a disambiguation page. Apart from being intentionally obtuse it serves no benefit or navigation aide to the reader. I am starting to think this is a competence issue on your part. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:Only in death, would appreciate if you took that particular disambiguation layout to the 1st RfD, I've reverted [5] as it breaks the best setup I could arrange - WP:INCOMPDAB which has (at least one other) supporter at the RfD, and has survived the considerable scrutiny so far. Widefox; talk 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Its a list that contains two blue links and one red, which (from admittedly brief googling) is unlikely to get any larger and is substantially the same as the previous disambiguation page. Not every lists serve the purpose of directing readers to other articles, this one does. Frankly it doesnt need to exist, a hat at the primary sport page being more than sufficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- In my interpretation/experience of admins, G6 {{Db-disambig}} doesn't apply to the redirect. G8 "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets" does apply as target is not a dab page (the issue at RfD - lists are explicitly not dab pages, and conflation is ASTONISHing. I've leaned more towards tagging G6 and G8 which IFAIR Twinkle "multiple" doesn't allow selection of db-disambig, just the generic G6 which fits better, although less specifically. Widefox; talk 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is no guideline that says that these redirects [with " (disambiguation)" in their title that no longer have a dab page to point to] must be deleted. Consequently, there is no CSD criteria that cover this specific situation.
- I have been slowly working my way through hundreds and hundreds of these, retargeting them if possible and nominating them for CSD WP:G6 if not. I use the "housekeeping" rationale, and very few of the CSDs have been denied. I have been thinking that we need to codify something in the guidelines that says that such redirects should be deleted. I believe we need an RfC on this issue.
- Ivanvector, I know this seems pretty off-topic from your original question, but I bring it up because if the guidance were clear about deleting these redirects, then page movers would be justified in suppressing the redirects. — Gorthian (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I would disagree, quite strongly, with those advocating deletion of these redirects. Functionally, most SIA are basically DABs that happen to list entries of the same kind, and which don't follow the strict MOS:DAB formatting requirements (i.e. no wikilinks, no references, no images, etc.). This nuance is so minor, that we shouldn't expect anyone but those who have experience with DABs and SIAs to know this. Concurrently, at this point in time Wikipedia's use of "X (disambiguation)" to title pages where examples of articles named or referred to as X are listed is so widespread, that most editors and some readers should be aware of this naming practice. There are also cases where people will explicitly want to land on a SIA or DAB page, and would use a search term with (disambiguation) if they know or are unsure whether the base title would get them a term they don't want (e.g. searching Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) because they know that the primary topic is the 1916 battle and they want to immediately find other battles without navigating to that long article).
It seems profoundly unhelpful that people performing this search should get a page of search results, which may or may not be helpful, when there's a perfectly good page they would have wanted to end up on, but didn't because of a nuance in Wikipedia guidelines that they did not know about. For example, if the obscure film The Battle of the Somme (film) didn't exist, Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) would be a set index of battles of the Somme, so proponents of deletion would argue that the page should be moved and the former name no longer redirect there, penalizing those who don't' simultaneously know about the obscure film and about Wikipedia guidelines. Our goal here is to make an encyclopedia, not to try and train all of our readers into expert Wikipedians.
The existence of a (disambiguation) redirect to an SIA is also only one extra link, the target SIAs are generally unlikely to be moved or deleted, and many bots [6] [7] perform the required maintenance tasks if they are, so an argument that these are WP:CHEAP would also apply. Given these recent debates, a well-crafted RFC on what types of pages (disambiguation) redirects should target would be welcome. I would also recommend a moratorium on move redirect suppression or G6 tags on these types of redirects, since CSD criteria are only meant for clear, unequivocal cases, and the existence of the RFD threads linked above, and this AN thread show that this is not the case until that is done. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think this really illustrates the confusion. Set indices are not disambiguation pages. Now, it may be that some editors are unnecessarily (and IMO inappropriately) tagging pages as set indices that should be disambiguation pages, but that is another matter. The principal reasons for a set index are to include content that normally would not be appropriate on a disambiguation page, such as references, redlinks, and explanatory context. The main issue is that there are no maintenance protocols in place to routinely identify and fix mistaken links to set indices as there are for disambiguation pages. One of the original arguments for set indices was that unlike disambiguation pages, links to a set index are not presumed to be incorrect. That is why intentional links to disambiguation pages are marked by use of redirects with "(disambiguation)". older ≠ wiser 14:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- No one is trying to make MOS:DAB apply to SIAs or remerge the concept of SIAs and DABs. The fact of the matter is that most SIAs are basically DABs where all the disambiguated entries are of the same type and don't follow the strict formatting and content requirements of DABs. We shouldn't punish people trying reach pages they want because they didn't know that Wikipedia's topics on topic X are all of the same type, and so technically not a DAB. These redirects make searching and reaching specific pages easier for our readers.
- I'm not sure the presumption that links to SIAs are correct is a good one. Links to USS Alcor or Rheumatism root, both set indices, should almost always directly point to one of those entries instead, and it would be pretty unlikely for a wikilink to deliberately refer to all entries there as a group. If they are referred to as a group (e.g. "After the bad luck of ships named USS Alcor, Foo Man, who was Secretary of the Navy at the time, decided to abandon the use of the name, Foo Botanist proposed a more detailed naming scheme after discovering several plants were called Rheumatism root), having the (disambiguation) redirect to the SIA could be used with WP:DABSOLVER to indicate that the link is correct by replacing the bare base title with one with the (disambiguation) parenthetical, like what's done with intentional links to DABs. Presumably, the criteria for choosing what entries are shown to users of DABsolver are category based, then throwing in redirects to pages in set index categories could do the trick.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Dispenser: Would the above workaround for SIAs be possible? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can force Dab solver to disambiguation with
&link=: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Alan_A._Brown&link=Schwab — Dispenser 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)- @Dispenser: Sorry I should've been more specific, would it be possible to get links to SIAs to show up as entries to be solved in DABsolver if the SIAs are properly categorized as such? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, with some code changes. Dab solver has three implementations for finding disambiguation links:
- Templated used on disambiguation pages (slowest, see MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage)
- Category based, would use the hidden Category: All set index articles for SIA disambiguation (How the example was found)
- HTTPS API using __DISAMBIG__ magic word from mw:Extension:Disambiguator. (Current and most reliable).
- Of course, with SIAs there's the problem of duplicating work. That might be solved by tracking only new links—work beyond my willingness. — Dispenser 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Dispenser: So it looks like this could be done relatively easily. If we don't limit this to only new links, the only duplicated work would be links to SIAs that have been manually edited to point there would have to go through DABsolver again? Those instances should be relatively rare, so this shouldn't create too much extra busy work. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, with some code changes. Dab solver has three implementations for finding disambiguation links:
- @Dispenser: Sorry I should've been more specific, would it be possible to get links to SIAs to show up as entries to be solved in DABsolver if the SIAs are properly categorized as such? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Both USS Alcor or Rheumatism root are IMO prime examples of pages that should be disambiguation pages rather than set indices. There is absolutely no value added by classifying them as set indices and significant detriment in that these pages will not show up on WP:Disambiguation pages with links. Some pages that better illustrate where a set index adds value are List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise or List of peaks named Signal or Little Lake (Nova Scotia). In the case of the Enterprise list, there are additional details than what is needed for disambiguation and the other two are intended to be comprehensive lists, regardless of notability or whether there is an existing article. In particular with Little Lake (Nova Scotia), no further navigation is even possible. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- That comment perfectly illustrates why users should be able to find both disambiguations and set index articles by searching for "Title (disambiguation)" as which one a page is can easily change based on the the opinions of editors and are just different presentations with the same goal - providing a list of articles that someone searching for "title" could be looking for. Anyone looking for that list should be able to find it without knowing in advance what type of page it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they do not want. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, although all dab pages at the basename should have redirects with (disambiguation) in the title targeting them, they don't. That search would miss those dabs too. Bad lists and bad dabs can be improved. If I wanted to search both lists and dabs, I'd just use "Title". A more advanced search would also do it, maybe a phabricator? Widefox; talk 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Further, as this has now been extensively discussed, it seems clear to me that the main thrust of argument is not about relevance of deletion of redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their title, but the utility of actively having them to target lists, which is in effect about creation, maintenance, and being able to rely on them to target all dabs and SIAs. That is far from current practice, so a new proposal, in effect to go back to little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs more than 10 years ago. A use case given to support this being users may want to search lists (specifically SIAs) and dabs together by using a search term with "XXX (disambiguation)". That use case would only consistently work if all dabs and SIAs had such redirects, which dabs should have and don't, and SIAs shouldn't have, and do only as vestigial as they generally are deleted G6 or G8. Just searching for "Title" solves this use case now, without dependence on one or extending to two sets of imperfect redirects. Widefox; talk 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, claiming that the distinction between set index articles and dismabiguation pages will be removed is a straw man argument. This is entirely about readers being able to find the page they are looking for without needing to know which it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they don't want - something nobody has actually presented a good reason to prevent. Bots can and do create the (disambiguation) redirects to disambiguation pages, and could very easily do the same for set index articles. Whether these redirects should be created and not deleted or deleted and not created is the exact same discussion with the exact same reasons on both sides in most cases (the only exception is following page moves, and policy is already clear that redirects following page moves should not be routinely deleted unless both article and redirect are recently created or the page was obviously created in the wrong namespace). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by "little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs" (more specifically, in this respect no distinction, but not in all ways). That is correctly what you're advocating, right? It's not a straw man). I think there's an inversion here, nobody is forcing anything, disambiguation is to assist navigation not force it, SIAs may also assist agreed, but they're not solely there to aid navigation, and deleted when not assisting navigation. In the same way, vestigial "(disambiguation)" redirects to non-dab targets is WP:COSTLY not WP:CHEAP due to any use case expecting dabs but WP:ASTONISHingly not getting one, rather than this specific use case/navigation pattern being a specific workaround for how we consider users will navigate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -> dab. If by saying "bots can a do create" you're asserting they are all there, then that's just incorrect. I add them all the time, the latest one I fixed Put a ring on it created as redirect 2009, converted to dab 2013 [8], I created [9] the redirect Put a ring on it (disambiguation) 4 days ago. It had gone 4 years without it. As I said, better to search "Title" than assuming dab is perfect, it isn't, sorry about that. The problem with saying policy is clear, is that there is no exact policy on exactly this, and they are routinely deleted G6 / G8 as logs of several editors have given. G6 is already explicit to not create such redirects, so this is all about WP:SIANOTDAB. Widefox; talk 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- By deletion these "(disambiguation)" redirects, you are in fact, forcing them to navigate Wikipedia in your prefered manner, which is less convenient for those using those search terms. WP:ASTONISHed does not apply here at all, because most users will not care/do not know the difference between SIAs and DABs, and if they are, they'll generally get a page that is the closest approximation to what they wanted to search for. What might be astonishing is if people search for terms that they definitely know should have a page which disambiguates between articles, and get (probably unhelpful) search results instead. Looking through your logs and Gorthian's logs, I stumbled upon this conversation where Treaty of London (disambiguation) was kept after Gorthian's arguments were rebutted by DuncanHill and pdfpdf. WP:G6 does not explicitly allow the deletion of these redirects, and the consensus on these redirects is clearly not as black and white as you make it out to be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then isn't that a good place to change consensus? Same for SIANOTDAB? As I'm not an admin, I can hardly be responsible for any deletion, eh? I also didn't create and don't enforce navigation, but abide by consensus. Consensus. It's a matter of fact above that that niche use case is fallible currently for just dabs. Would I recommend a provably fallible navigation route generally? No. If it works mostly, great. Can you link to consensus anywhere that this use case is an issue? As for ASTONISH - I've explained why per guideline . Same for when one splits this use case by general user and advanced user. As to "allow" (the opposite of "force"), did you see the tally of my " (disambiguation)" redirect creation to deletion? 100:1 1000:1? Should be in that ballpark. I cannot speak for Gorthian and don't know about that one, but an exception doesn't IMO disprove the rule that the vast majority are deleted (I believe all of mine) which you must have seen now. Widefox; talk 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- This use case has been repeated often now, despite it a) proven not reliable b) no assertion of level of use c) it isn't even disambiguation - it's a hack - See WP:D
It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek.
. It is outside the scope of disambiguation, and such it should be struck as offtopic. Widefox; talk 09:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC) - The only reason "xx (disambiguation)" redirects exist is 1. as dabs can't be directly linked and possibly 2. WP:INCDAB. 1. as SIAs can be directly linked, and should be (else they are orphans), this is an invalid use 2. INCDAB is only valid to target a dab. Both serve no purpose targeting SIAs per current SIA/dab arrangement. I welcome revisiting the split, given the clear desire for some navigational desire above (although not the hack as stated). Widefox; talk 10:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- By deletion these "(disambiguation)" redirects, you are in fact, forcing them to navigate Wikipedia in your prefered manner, which is less convenient for those using those search terms. WP:ASTONISHed does not apply here at all, because most users will not care/do not know the difference between SIAs and DABs, and if they are, they'll generally get a page that is the closest approximation to what they wanted to search for. What might be astonishing is if people search for terms that they definitely know should have a page which disambiguates between articles, and get (probably unhelpful) search results instead. Looking through your logs and Gorthian's logs, I stumbled upon this conversation where Treaty of London (disambiguation) was kept after Gorthian's arguments were rebutted by DuncanHill and pdfpdf. WP:G6 does not explicitly allow the deletion of these redirects, and the consensus on these redirects is clearly not as black and white as you make it out to be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by "little or no distinction between SIAs and dabs" (more specifically, in this respect no distinction, but not in all ways). That is correctly what you're advocating, right? It's not a straw man). I think there's an inversion here, nobody is forcing anything, disambiguation is to assist navigation not force it, SIAs may also assist agreed, but they're not solely there to aid navigation, and deleted when not assisting navigation. In the same way, vestigial "(disambiguation)" redirects to non-dab targets is WP:COSTLY not WP:CHEAP due to any use case expecting dabs but WP:ASTONISHingly not getting one, rather than this specific use case/navigation pattern being a specific workaround for how we consider users will navigate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -> dab. If by saying "bots can a do create" you're asserting they are all there, then that's just incorrect. I add them all the time, the latest one I fixed Put a ring on it created as redirect 2009, converted to dab 2013 [8], I created [9] the redirect Put a ring on it (disambiguation) 4 days ago. It had gone 4 years without it. As I said, better to search "Title" than assuming dab is perfect, it isn't, sorry about that. The problem with saying policy is clear, is that there is no exact policy on exactly this, and they are routinely deleted G6 / G8 as logs of several editors have given. G6 is already explicit to not create such redirects, so this is all about WP:SIANOTDAB. Widefox; talk 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Once again, claiming that the distinction between set index articles and dismabiguation pages will be removed is a straw man argument. This is entirely about readers being able to find the page they are looking for without needing to know which it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they don't want - something nobody has actually presented a good reason to prevent. Bots can and do create the (disambiguation) redirects to disambiguation pages, and could very easily do the same for set index articles. Whether these redirects should be created and not deleted or deleted and not created is the exact same discussion with the exact same reasons on both sides in most cases (the only exception is following page moves, and policy is already clear that redirects following page moves should not be routinely deleted unless both article and redirect are recently created or the page was obviously created in the wrong namespace). Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- That comment perfectly illustrates why users should be able to find both disambiguations and set index articles by searching for "Title (disambiguation)" as which one a page is can easily change based on the the opinions of editors and are just different presentations with the same goal - providing a list of articles that someone searching for "title" could be looking for. Anyone looking for that list should be able to find it without knowing in advance what type of page it is and without being forced to navigate via a page they know they do not want. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- You can force Dab solver to disambiguation with
Boomerang forumshop by involved
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Ivanvector is already involved in discussing this topic at my request at another forum RfD (two other places, links above). This seems FORUMSHOPPING by an WP:INVOLVED party going fishing. The admin exemption of "purely in an administrative role" does not apply as this is normal editor discussion at RfD. There's no diff here for supposed improper use, and so I can't defend an unidentified edit here at ANI when in reality I'm already attempting to clarify this at RfD for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? It's not leaving a good impression per WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (ec) Widefox; talk 14:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ivan is involved in a dispute with you over interpretation of Wikipedia:Page mover. This seems to be the first thread on an administrative noticeboard (no FORUMSHOPPING). Asking for broader review and discussion when INVOLVED, via a thread on AN, VPP or a talk page, is not only acceptably, but recommended. Ivanvector did the best thing by opening this thread to allow admins to discuss the differing interpretations of what WP:Page mover allows or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
for policy purpose at RfD. No discussion with me was made prior to this ANI about any edit. There's no page in edit dispute. There's no indication of imminent editing on this issue (in fact the contrary it's at RfD by me). Why is this at ANI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs)
- (edit conflict)It's not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Widefox: this is AN, not ANI, and it's not a thread about misconduct. There's room for a possible misinterpretation of a guideline, of which I'm raising notice for wider discussion and resolution. Yes, I used your request as an example of what I think the misinterpretation is, but if I thought you were misusing your userright I would have just removed it. I do apologize for the misconception. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Independent of, but related to, this discussion I have proposed a tightening of the CSD criteria to exclude those cases which are controversial. See WT:CSD#G6 and redirects ending in "(disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Current policy in general
There are lots of issues above. I would just like to clarify one of them.
It seems to me that, in general, when an article is moved, redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so, and that these reasons are listed at Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria and linked to from MediaWiki:Movepagetext. And WP:Page mover refers to WP:G6.
There is a particular reason for suppressing talk page redirects in multiple move and round-robin situations, see phab:T12814. This should be explicitly mentioned (probably at both WP:Page mover and wp:G6) and isn't. But the resulting redlink is only temporary. The talk page redir in question needs to be suppressed or deleted to make way for another talk page move.
(Are there any other vital or even relevant policy or guideline clauses I've missed?)
It seems to me that WP:G6 is being taken far too broadly with respect to deleting (and/or suppressing) talk page redirects. I've seen two in the last day or so where there seems no reason to suppress or delete the talk page redir, other than that the admins didn't think the redir achieved anything, and that they thought this was the standard practice. I'm taking their word for it that it is common, and that the resulting long term redlinks are seen by them as a good thing.
This needs to be cleared up. If the policy is wrong and we need to change it, that's a matter for another talk page. What we need to decide here is, what is the current policy? Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Even if phab:T12814 was fixed, round-robin moves would still have to done suppressing the redirect by page movers. And for admins, it would probably make sense to do it that way too, just to avoid cluttering the logs with unnecessary deletions. As an aside, I look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts most days I'm active on Wikipedia to see which RMs have been closed and there are a lot of times that talk page redirects aren't left simply because of round-robin moves where the target page did not have an existing talk page. I'd support anything to make it clearer to page movers they need to create a talk page redirect in that situation.
- For anyone else reading this, the main thrust of this section seems to have derived from User talk:Jenks24#Kremlin and I am one of the two admins mentioned without name by Andrew. I actually agree with the premise that "redirects should be created for both the article and its talk page unless there is a reason not to do so", but I think listing every single instance there may be a good reason not to have a redirect is unworkable. G6 will never cover every single example of times it can be used, there are simply too many ways something on Wikipedia can be done incorrectly or made obsolete and no longer be necessary. I think any admins who regularly monitor G6 deletions would agree with that. However, if you want to add a line somewhere that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points, then that would be fine by me. See the discussion at my talk page for why I think redlinks are more useful for readers than confusing redirects in this specific case. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that suppressing the redirect is appropriate for round-robin moves and many multi-moves, rather than allowing its creation only to then delete it. That was what I meant to say and thought I had.
- Disagree that it is standard practice to delete talk page redirects when they point in a different direction to where the article-space redirects points. If that is what current policy indicates, IMO it should be changed, and I'll take it up in the appropriate forum. But I don't see any justification for it as the rules stand, and that's the question here.
- Jenks24 stated on their talk page A redlink with a log entry is actually easier to make sense of than having a talk page redirect point in a different direction to where its companion article-space redirect points, especially for less experienced users who often don't even know they've been redirected somewhere. It also has the added advantage, as you've noted, of not needing to be deleted for a future move.... Agree, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that anyone create a redirect that will need to be deleted to complete the move sequence, or leave a redir pointing to the wrong place. What I'm suggesting is that we should avoid long-term redlinks. In some cases soft redirects giving a choice of several talk pages are necessary, if the move history is particularly messy. But I can't imagine any case where the best solution is a long term redlink. Can anyone? Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- You said it was because of the technical issue detailed at the phab ticket, and I'm saying that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed.
- Agree that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed. These are not long term redlinks. There are several valid reasons for creating short term redlinks, including the technical issue, round robin moves, and many (but not all) multi moves. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Can you see why I was confused that you brought up the phab ticket though? Whether it is fixed or not will have next to no impact on the issue we are discussing here. That's all I was trying to point out. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed. These are not long term redlinks. There are several valid reasons for creating short term redlinks, including the technical issue, round robin moves, and many (but not all) multi moves. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- As for the rest, are we talking at complete cross-purposes here? I have just made my argument here and at the talk page for deleting the talk page redirect, i.e. leaving it as a "long-term redlink" in some specific instances. To boil it down to one sentence: A redlink with a log is easier to make sense of in these cases, especially for newer or less experienced users/readers or anyone coming from an old link (internal or external). Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. And this is where I disagree, and think that current guidelines support me. The crossed purpose was about short term redlinks, and I agree that they are valid (and always have). Long term redlinks are the issue. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose it suffices to say I disagree with your interpretation of G6 that it can only be used for things that are explicitly listed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- That is not my interpretation of G6, and I disagree with yours which seems to be that it authorises the deletion of redirects which clearly by this discussion are at least controversial. But in that you and others do in good faith interpret it in this way, it needs to be clarified. See #Possible update to CSD below. Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose it suffices to say I disagree with your interpretation of G6 that it can only be used for things that are explicitly listed. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. And this is where I disagree, and think that current guidelines support me. The crossed purpose was about short term redlinks, and I agree that they are valid (and always have). Long term redlinks are the issue. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- You said it was because of the technical issue detailed at the phab ticket, and I'm saying that it will still be necessary to suppress redirects for round-robin even once that technical issue is fixed.
The talk page of a redirect should either point to the talk page of the target, or (my preference) be used for wikiproject banners (these support the article alerts system should the redirect be nominated at RfD, be involved in a page move proposal, etc), discussion of the redirect, etc. including a pointer to the talk page of the redirect target if anyone thinks it beneficial. If you find a talk page that is out of sync with the main page without good reason* then either fix the redirect target or replace the redirect with project bannners, etc. There is no reason to delete it.
*The only reason I can think of for this is where the main redirect is to a page whose talk page is redirected to a central talk page, which is very uncommon in article space. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is it worth adding a reminder (for both page movers and administrators) to the interface itself, next to the checkbox for "Leave a redirect behind" along the lines of: "(only uncheck if the redirect would eligible for speedy deletion)"? WJBscribe (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Only if that giant box on the filemove page is shrunk considerably, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just so long as we are clear on what should be said, we can then discuss how it should be said. To me the guidelines are already clear, but not to everyone it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus, WJBscribe, you both seem to agree that long term redlinks are generally to be avoided, is that a fair statement?
- The problem with referring it back to CSD (as at present) is that the admins concerned think that G6 authorises the long term redlinks to which I am objecting. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would agree that something like this should be mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with Jo-Jo that it is probably already too big. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would agree that something like this should be mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Only if that giant box on the filemove page is shrunk considerably, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Replying to Thryduulf 12:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC): Exactly. And thank you, that's a very good reply to my challenge to come up with a scenario in which a long term redlink is appropriate, well done! But as you say, it's an extremely rare scenario. None of the recent examples fit it, and I doubt we even need to mention it in our policies and guidelines etc.. Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: To be clear, the scenario I describe is one where a talk page would redirect to a target other than the talk page of the main target - e.g. Wikipedia:Foo → Wikipedia:Foos but Wikipedia talk:Foo → Wikipedia talk:Central page about Foos, Basr and Bazzes (if Wikipedia talk:Foos → Wikipedia talk:Central page about Foos, Bars and Bazzes). I cannot think of any reason why any page that exists should have a redlinked talk page for any length of time. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not a new issue, rather it's one I've meant to clarify for years. I've regularly run across examples in which a long term talk page redlink was deliberately left, and the admins concerned have generally agreed to fix it or to let me do so. What has brought it to a head is two recent cases in which the admins have defended the long term redlink (one did agree to recreate the page in question, but the other now says I badgered them to do it).
And it was possible that they were right. But the discussion above indicates to me that they are not. One of the admins in question is the only one here who seems to think that these long-term redlinks are justified, either by common sense or by G6. Or that's my reading of the discussion. I've left some pings above to try to make sure.
I agree that it is a common practice, and let us not split hairs about exactly how common. What I am saying is that it is a wrong practice.
And either way, it needs to be cleared up. Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've made hundreds of these moves in five years as an admin and you are the only person who has complained. I also watchlist every move I make for at least several days afterwards and I have cannot recall ever seeing anyone recreate one of these "talk-page-redirects-that-points-to-a-confusing-target" before you. Could you please explain exactly why you think a redirect that either a) points to a completely different target to where the article-space redirect goes, or b) points to a talk page that will likely have no explanation as to what happened to the old page (e.g. an old link to Talk:Joe Bloggs (footballer) ends up taking them to Talk:Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)), is more useful than a log page that shows why the old page was moved (and doesn't redirect them anywhere – newer users are often unaware they have been redirected at all)? The reason this is different to article space is because in those cases there will either be a hatnote or a list of links on a dab page to help the reader/editor. You don't get that with talk pages. Just reciting that these types of deletions are not explicitly listed at G6 does not explain why your proposed change to the current practice – which is simple for the admin dealing with it and the future reader – is actually a positive thing for the encyclopedia. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The point I am trying to make, and that I think Andrewa is trying to make, is that talk pages such as you described should be fixed (i.e. pointed to the correct target, or undredirected and used for project banners) not deleted or left as they are. G6 does not list every possible reason to delete a page, and we are not arguing that it should, we are arguing that this specific reason is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, then why is that better? This has been my frustration with this discussion. I think I have made at least reasonable points for why I think what I'm doing is both simple and useful. And it feels to me as if the argument coming from yourself and Andrew is simply "it's wrong" without explaining why you think your way is better. Do you honestly think it is a good use of admin time in an area that is already under-resourced to add project tags and several lines of explanation of what happened has happened in the history, when the logs already tell the same story in a simpler manner? If you still think yes (and fair enough if you do), do you think this will incentivise any admins to a) start working in this area, or b) continue working in this area? Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think that this is worth the admin time because it benefits people in the long run to have the history available to everyone (not just those who can see the deleted history) and made aware (via article alerts) of relevant discussions. If the page history is not self-explanatory then all you need do is put a single sentence on the page or in an edit summary explaining it or pointing to where it is explained. If you are deleting something simply because it's less work then you really need to re-read deletion policy as that is a fundamentally incorrect use of admin tools. Adding project banners to the talk page of a redirect is the work of a simple copy and paste and 1 minute changing all the class= statements to redirect, changing the target to the correct one is less useful but even simpler and quicker. It is always worth the time of an admin to avoid deleting something that does not need to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, come on, it's not fair to imply these deletions are hiding anything in the history or making anything more difficult for non-admins. All there is a one-line entry that's exactly the same as in the log, there is nothing an admin can see that a non-admin can't. As for the rest, I appreciate you making your case. I maintain that a redlink is, in this specific scenario, a more useful way to go about things for all involved – wikiprojects are rarely useful to partial dabs and the logs tell the same story as writing a comment. But perhaps the consensus is against me. I'll refrain from making any more comments in this thread unless someone directly asks me a question. Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is perfectly fair because it is indeed making things more difficult for non-admins and for admins too. One of the reasons I came here in the first place was that you had suppressed a talk page redirect and as a result I couldn't find the move discussion I was watching on a talk page you had moved, remember? Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, come on, it's not fair to imply these deletions are hiding anything in the history or making anything more difficult for non-admins. All there is a one-line entry that's exactly the same as in the log, there is nothing an admin can see that a non-admin can't. As for the rest, I appreciate you making your case. I maintain that a redlink is, in this specific scenario, a more useful way to go about things for all involved – wikiprojects are rarely useful to partial dabs and the logs tell the same story as writing a comment. But perhaps the consensus is against me. I'll refrain from making any more comments in this thread unless someone directly asks me a question. Jenks24 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think that this is worth the admin time because it benefits people in the long run to have the history available to everyone (not just those who can see the deleted history) and made aware (via article alerts) of relevant discussions. If the page history is not self-explanatory then all you need do is put a single sentence on the page or in an edit summary explaining it or pointing to where it is explained. If you are deleting something simply because it's less work then you really need to re-read deletion policy as that is a fundamentally incorrect use of admin tools. Adding project banners to the talk page of a redirect is the work of a simple copy and paste and 1 minute changing all the class= statements to redirect, changing the target to the correct one is less useful but even simpler and quicker. It is always worth the time of an admin to avoid deleting something that does not need to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, then why is that better? This has been my frustration with this discussion. I think I have made at least reasonable points for why I think what I'm doing is both simple and useful. And it feels to me as if the argument coming from yourself and Andrew is simply "it's wrong" without explaining why you think your way is better. Do you honestly think it is a good use of admin time in an area that is already under-resourced to add project tags and several lines of explanation of what happened has happened in the history, when the logs already tell the same story in a simpler manner? If you still think yes (and fair enough if you do), do you think this will incentivise any admins to a) start working in this area, or b) continue working in this area? Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The point I am trying to make, and that I think Andrewa is trying to make, is that talk pages such as you described should be fixed (i.e. pointed to the correct target, or undredirected and used for project banners) not deleted or left as they are. G6 does not list every possible reason to delete a page, and we are not arguing that it should, we are arguing that this specific reason is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- As a tangential point, I just noticed while going over my watchlist that Federal Executive Branch Continuity of Operations Plan (a redirect) was deleted under G6 today. My point is not that it was incorrect, but that G6 will never include a comprehensive list of the ways it can be used even on redirects and I think that was clearly the intention when it was written. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, nobody is saying that the list is exhaustive, so that is a straw man. The example you give is so clearly non-controversial that it has not only been deleted, but protected against re-creation, as the title includes a banned character string that causes software problems. The examples we are discussing here are clearly controversial. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Possible update to CSD
In view of the above discussion, and particularly to the comments by Thryduulf, I think the following should be added to the bottom of wp:G6:
Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if either the corresponding page in the main namespace does not exist, or the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it.
This will need to be discussed at WT:CSD, but I'd like to be able to report consensus here when doing that. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The first clause is not necessary as that is covered by G8 (which notes that exceptions are possible, e.g. it's the only record of some early VfD discussions ending in delete). Other than that this has my support. Thryduulf (talk)
- Good point, so it would read Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it. Much neater. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Now raised at WT:CSD#G6 should not be used to create permanent redlinks in namespace 1. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Block review request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have just revoked talk page access for user L'honorable for continued inappropriate ramblings while blocked, for possible outing, and for ignoring warnings from many editors and administrators about discussing conflicts from other projects on this Wikipedia. I've previously raised issues involving this user at the noticeboards before in a way which may make me involved but I think with the outing this ticks the "any administrator would do the same" box. Posting here to have some admins take a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The thread I'm referring to is here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seeing that the content has been oversighted, and you're not an oversighter, someone else clearly agreed that this was highly problematic content. That, by itself, would be enough reason to block if the user weren't already blocked, and it's enough reason for any admin to revoke talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Move Discussion Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an uninvolved Admin please take a quick look at this? An editor is objecting to a speedy close of a move discussion where there were nine supports with no oppose !votes. I am involved so I can't act as an administrator here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh. I really didn't want this to come to AN. The truth of the matter is that Guy Macon made an undeclared non-admin close[10] of an RM they were already involved,[11] fully 6 days before the listing period ended. While there was unanimous support in the first day it was opened and Guy invoked WP:SNOW, few participants (including Guy) made any policy argument, and I believe there are additional matters that need to be considered vis a vis WP:COMMONNAME and the article title criteria, and asked Guy to do so here. I was unable to participate initially because the discussion was closed so early. It is really a very simple, reasonable request that this out-of-process close be reverted to allow for further participation.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It appears that Guy Macon has rejected my request to self-revert,[12] so escalation is necessary after all.--Cúchullain t/c 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was notified of this discussion by Cúchullain. SNOW is pretty clear on this: "if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place". Re-open the RM and let the discussion go the full week. If the consensus is as clear as some are suggesting on the talk page then six extra days won't change it and the article can be moved then. The article has been at the previous title for at least several years as well, so I don't see why this should be so urgent. Jenks24 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It appears that Guy Macon has rejected my request to self-revert,[12] so escalation is necessary after all.--Cúchullain t/c 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just a point: If one editor objects over 10 editors agreeing, then there's really no doubt. That's about as solid a consensus as one can expect to get on the internet. That being said, I'm not opposed to it being re-opened, I'm just pointing out that the arguments put forth thus far for it being an improper close are pretty spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen situations where nine or so people think something is straightforward, and concur, then a tenth raises a point the other missed. Subsequent contributors might agree with the tenth, and some of the earlier ones might reconsider in light of information they hadn't considered. I don't know whether that is the case here, but it is far too strong to assume that " there's really no doubt".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Sphilbrick. All I've been asking for for the RM to be reopened to post some thoughts. There was little discussion of some policies and I expect that some will find that edifying. Considering that the RM should have been open for another 6 days, I don't understand why there has been such resistance.--Cúchullain t/c 20:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have seen situations where nine or so people think something is straightforward, and concur, then a tenth raises a point the other missed. Subsequent contributors might agree with the tenth, and some of the earlier ones might reconsider in light of information they hadn't considered. I don't know whether that is the case here, but it is far too strong to assume that " there's really no doubt".--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
This should be closed as premature. The issue is in active discussion on the article talk page, and no administrator intervention is required while we are still discussing the issue at Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've been working at RM for a lot of years, and I don't think I've ever encountered behavior like this before. Guy Macon, your close is a near textbook example of how not to close an RM. You made a very unorthodox call despite not being an admin. You closed it despite having participated in the discussion and thus having a conflict of interest. You closed it six days early and would not reopen when you were approached in good faith, despite what WP:SNOW, WP:RMCI and simple collaborative spirit would recommend. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump through hoops and get involved in secondary "post-move" discussions on the talk page when the RM should just be re-opened for those of us who could not participate due to your early close. Unfortunately, admin action is necessary here, as you refuse to reopen the discussion you closed out of process.--Cúchullain t/c 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You guys, what happened to using WP:move review? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that Ad Orientem wasn't familiar with the MR process when they made this post. I was planning on bringing it up with them when this was settled. I had initially hoped Guy would just revert their own close, but they have refused. Given that the close was so out of process, it would be simpler for it just to be reverted and the RM reopened than to drag everyone back to MR, which is not a terribly effective process.--Cúchullain t/c 20:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You guys, what happened to using WP:move review? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Re-opened and move reverted. It's clearly not SNOW any more. The outcome may be the same, but there is enough of a request to undo that I'm doing it. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:SALT - or block?
Ross Campbell (Vocal Coach) which I just prodded should be at Ross Campbell (vocal coach), but that has been slated. The creator noted he has a COI on his talk page, and has a history of creating this article, getting it deleted, ditto for few others. Since they have taken to recreating it under a new name, meaning that WP:SALT is not effective... someone may want to consider a more drastic solution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Have salted the new article, as it is substantially the same as the one deleted at AFD. Have also blocked its creator - multiple editors have explained the notability criteria but they're ignoring the advice and simply recreating the same articles, over a fairly lengthy period. The COI is also relevant - even if these were notable, they shouldn't be being created by this editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Massive deletion request
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion currently has 407 pages for deletion. Most of those are User:ShadowBC and that user's subpages. It looks like these were proposed by Mélencron as U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. I'm wondering if there is a bot to handle this. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll look into it, and batch-delete if necessary. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Beat me to it. It looks like a large amount of election results and parliamentary articles from what I saw so far. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Aye, and from the half-dozen I've checked they're either completely inaccurate (e.g. elections that didn't exist) or factually dubious (i.e. doesn't match what's currently on the page). They'll be refundable, but I see no compelling reason to keep them and will be deleting them shortly. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Beat me to it. It looks like a large amount of election results and parliamentary articles from what I saw so far. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism in articles on Macedonian politics
The articles about the political parties in Macedonia and some other articles related to Macedonian politics are subject to persistent vandalism by the user Finki2014 (talk · contribs) and the IP addresses 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The disruptive editing consists of removing cited content, making inappropriate replacements, miscitation of newly added content, use of libellous statements and favouring political positions. I have reported the case here for the first time in March 2016 after noticing persistent vandalism in the article on the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity, which resulted with a block for 24 hours, and for the second time in April 2016 after noticing that the persistent editing had continued on the same article, which was archived unanswered by any administrator. I have later noticed that disruptive editing by the same user and IP addresses has been conducted on the articles on the 2016 Macedonian protests, Social Democratic Union of Macedonia and Liberal Democratic Party (Republic of Macedonia). I hope that the administrators are going to overtake preventive measures, because it becomes very difficult to review all the changes made by these users and properly handle with the problem. Thanks. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- A few suggestions: 1) to help Admins sort through the problem, consider posting links, especially "diffs" (from article's edit histories) pointing to the problematic edits; 2) Post a short message on the talk pages of users involved, with a direct link to this thread - let them defend their actions, if that's the case; 3) If anyone is revert-warring over the perceived issues, discontinue. Quite simply: make the problem easier to see. If a user is pushing a POV, for example, this will become apparent enough once they re-edit a few times. There is no need to demonstrate that they will revert any given edit numerous times, and it will make it harder for Admins to go through the evidence. Everything that was done is logged. Post the diff link, and the Admins will get to it. Redux (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Redux: Thanks for your response. The users are notified on their discussion pages. A detailed list of diffs made by the users is presented in turn:
- Disruptive editing made by Finki2014 (talk · contribs)
- favouring a political position by misciting a BBC news (7 October 2015);
- adding uncited quotations (10 November 2015); Warning: Please note that the same content was later added by the user 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to another article on 26 May 2016 (see [13]).
- adding uncited political ideology (10 November 2015);
- adding uncited political ideologies (27 November 2015);
- adding uncited political ideologies (14 December 2015);
- adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
- adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
- adding uncited political ideologies (9 January 2016);
- uncited political labelling of a television channel (12 January 2016);
- adding uncited political ideology (12 January 2016);
- adding uncited political ideology (13 January 2016);
- uncited change of a political ideology (2 February 2016);
- uncited change of a political ideology and removal of a reference (10 March 2016);
- removal of a reference (10 March 2016);
- adding uncited political ideology and removal of a reference (15 March 2016);
- misciting of a political ideology and adding an uncited one (15 March 2016);
- removal of cited content (14 May 2016); and
- removal of references (17 March 2017).
- Disruptive editing made by Finki2014 (talk · contribs)
- Disruptive editing made by 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- uncited change of a political ideology (14 May 2016);
- uncited change of a political ideology (26 May 2016);
- adding uncited content (26 May 2016);
- adding uncited quotations (26 May 2016); Warning: Please note that the same content was previously added by the user Finki2014 (talk · contribs) to another article on 10 November 2015 (see [14]).
- uncited change of content (16 March 2017); Warning: Please note that similar change of the party colour was previously made by the user 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs) on 25 February 2017 (see [15]). and
- adding uncited political ideologies (16 March 2016).
- Disruptive editing made by 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Disruptive editing made by 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- uncited libellous change of a political ideology (to Neo-fascism) (19 December 2016);
- favouring a political position by an uncited change of a figure (13 March 2017); and
- adding uncited political ideologies or cited with an unreliable source (13 March 2017).
- Disruptive editing made by 95.180.219.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Disruptive editing made by 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017);
- uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017);
- uncited change of a political ideology (25 February 2017); and
- uncited change of content (25 February 2017). Warning: Please note that similar change of the party colour was later made by the user 194.149.148.1 (talk · contribs) on 16 March 2017 (see [16]).
- Disruptive editing made by 77.29.178.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- The list of diffs indicates to apparent similarities in the editing behaviour of these users (my first doubt for such similarities can be found here and here), while their edit log reveals that more than 90% of the edits made by these users consist of biased changes in articles on Macedonian politics. I will refrain from proposing measures against the involved editors and will leave the administrators decide on it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Request deleted pages
Would it be possible to get the following pages which were deleted moved to my user space so I can incorporate them into the national teams page?
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1950
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1991
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1995
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1997
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1999
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2001
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2003
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2005
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2007
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2009
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2011
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2013
- Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2015
Thanks so much!! - GalatzTalk 18:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Working Primefac (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!!!!!!! - GalatzTalk 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Massive series of unexplained deletions on one list
I've recently done some maintenance and improvement of the List of Jewish feminists. Just now I discovered the list gutted by a series of dozens of unexplained deletions by an IP editor: Special:Contributions/84.162.71.228. How can all this content best be restored? I performed one "undo" and haven't posted an info warning to the (as-yet-nonexistent) IP User talk page - I've never encountered this situation before and need advice on how to proceed. Thank you, -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- If the deleted entries are all or mostly valid, you could just restore this version from beforee the IP edits and edit from there. All of the content added by the IP seem to be flagicons and no one else edited the page since, so no additions to the list should be removed by this method. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- As the several individually added flag icons were for the USA, I improved the page format by adding boldface and starting a new line for the second explanatory sentence at the top of the page: "Nationality is indicated for those outside the USA." -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Restored to last version prior to their string of edits and left them a talkpage template regarding unexplained deletions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Victuallers and User:Sander.v.Ginkel - questions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More of a request for information, this.
On 23 January User:RHaworth blanked this user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE. It was unblanked by admin User:Victuallers on the 26 February with the edit-summary "it's a user page". It was promptly nominated for deletion at MfD and deleted on the 6 March.
User:Victuallers has unilaterally overridden the MfD and restored the article (with a few parts removed). This is clearly wrong, even without the possibility of WP:INVOLVED because he had previously unblanked it. I am minded to simply re-delete it and point User:Victuallers to WP:DRV, but a few points remain. (1) Would I technically be wheel-warring? (2) Why does an admin not know about deletion policy (or even worse knows about it and thinks it's OK to ignore it)?
Incidentally, two other editors have posted at his talkpage since asking about it, and have not received an answer despite the fact that he has edited since. Not what I'd expect from an admin, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- To answer the first general question - you would not be wheel-warring. Victuallers would be the one. You are merely maintaining the result of the MFD (performing what is essentially a G4 deletion). Primefac (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's why I asked. G4 deletions are usually (delete)->(article re-created)->(delete) which is fine, but this would be (delete)->(restore)->(delete) - 3 admin actions, even if Victuallers is wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but from my perspective it's (at least) two admin's opinions vs one as far as the suitability of the userpage goes. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am recreating a page of a member of en:Wikipedia. I have made changes to the text that remove the objections. This is "de facto" a new page. I have recreated deleted pages before where I can improve them and make them of benefit to the project. Removing the traces of a keen Wikipedian is IMO counter productive to the project. SvG is not "my mate", but I do feel that he is being metaphorically kicked whilst on the ground. This does not reflect well on this project. If the consensus is that we behave in this way then it is regrettable. Hopefully not in my name. Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: You implemented an admin action while WP:INVOLVED, complete with an insulting editing summary, after not bothering to participate at the MFD at all. --NeilN talk to me 21:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- We already had consensus, which was to delete the page. I am unsure why you think that deletion policy doesn't apply to you. (I couldn't care less about the page by the way, but if we all went round undeleting pages removed by consensus there would be chaos). Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am recreating a page of a member of en:Wikipedia. I have made changes to the text that remove the objections. This is "de facto" a new page. I have recreated deleted pages before where I can improve them and make them of benefit to the project. Removing the traces of a keen Wikipedian is IMO counter productive to the project. SvG is not "my mate", but I do feel that he is being metaphorically kicked whilst on the ground. This does not reflect well on this project. If the consensus is that we behave in this way then it is regrettable. Hopefully not in my name. Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but from my perspective it's (at least) two admin's opinions vs one as far as the suitability of the userpage goes. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's why I asked. G4 deletions are usually (delete)->(article re-created)->(delete) which is fine, but this would be (delete)->(restore)->(delete) - 3 admin actions, even if Victuallers is wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would consider it wheel-warring (which is partly the reason why I didn't re-delete). Victuallers reversed my admin action with another admin action. --NeilN talk to me 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- It would be wheel-warring. Admin action to delete, admin action to restore, third admin action would be wheel-warring. Frankly this is ridiculous however as the page was deleted via MFD. So in order to have a third admin action (re-delete) it requires *another* consensus discussion to do so as re-deleting a previously deleted page does not fall under any of the exceptions at WP:WHEEL. Which *gurantees* this would be raised at an admin noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is wheel warring in one sense, because you are reversing an admin action that another admin opposes. However, the first admin action was done through proper channels, with the weight of consensus behind it, so just restoring a page against the wishes of the community means you would probably be in your rights to speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G4. Oh, I love it when two policies contradict each other! Anyway, if consensus here is to redelete, I would say you are on safe ground, though if you want to be absolutely cast-iron sure of avoiding a stupid desysop, ask Arbcom as well. I think the page is harmless myself, but as you rightly say, we have consensus on these things to stop us all playing "admin tennis" all the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think I'll leave it to someone else - the last ArbCom had enough people on it who wanted to desysop me, even to the point of misrepresenting facts on case pages, so I don't think it's worth the risk. Taking it to DRV would appear to be the safest option, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What is it about Sander v Ginkel that makes administrators override clear consensus based on their own whims? It's the second time now. Reyk YO! 23:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- If the position of the involved administrator who unilaterally overturned an MfD is that he refuses to undo his action, this shouldn't go to DRV. It should go to the Arbitration Committee. This is rather blatant abuse of the administrator tools. But before we get there ... Victuallers Is there any reason you can't undo your action and seek deletion review as a less controversial route? This could be as easy as getting agreement from the MfD participants at deletion review that substantial changes will make the page acceptable. ~ Rob13Talk 03:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since the page was deleted as the result of a community decision, there needs to be a damn good reason for an admin to undelete it. When Victuallers undeleted it on their own authority, they did so in order to edit it. If it were metaphysically possible to do the opposite (i.e. edit it and then undelete it), Victuallers would have been classically WP:INVOLVED and the action would have been an abuse of tools. Since this is the real world, it happened the other way, but the result is exactly the same, so my take is that by his two actions (undeleting and then editing) Victuallers was using his admin tools to override a community decision in order to make an INVOLVED edit. That's a non-no, and Victuallers should very seriously consider reversing their undeletion before this is brought to ArcCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just to say there is no need for this to go to Arbcom. WP:WHEEL makes it clear that a consensus discussion can re-instate the admin action (and it wouldnt be wheel-warring as there is clear backing for the action). So either here or DRV. It should be noted that any discussion should focus on if the orginal deletion was correct according to the process, not re-running the MFD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is a blatant abuse of the sysop tools.I don't know what gives User:Victuallers the impression that he is more far sighted and intelligent than the participants at the discussion and unilaterally overturn a deletion discussion even though he is WP:INVOLVED--with such a glorious edit summary.If somebody wants to challenge a close, DRV is the way to go and I don't know if Victuallers is ignorant of the policy.In short, I believe it's high time he reverses his actions or expect to take a ride to the ArbCom.Winged Blades Godric 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Technically any User could recreate their own user-page after its been MFD'd as long as it doesnt repeat the same issue that caused it to be MFD in the first place, MFD would not supersede the right of a user to have a userpage at all. I personally wouldnt do it for *another* user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm reading this situation and delved into user talk pages and SvG's user page. Right now I'm seeing provided options: 1) DRV, 2) ArbCom. Why not 3) WP:consensus can change, i.e. re-nominate for deletion; 4) per WP:CONEXCEPT, contact the Wikimedia Foundation about this in writing at Meta-wiki (or somewhere)? Victualler's actions... are less than excusable. However, I'm concerned about the consensus from the MfD nom. WP:FAKEARTICLE is cited, but it is used to delete a user page of a sanctioned user, who is trying to redeem himself. Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.
" Did any of us contact SvG about changing his user page before the MfD nom? --George Ho (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive 5#Courtesy blanking (version discussed on 21 Nov 2016) and User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive 6#User page, which was right after the blanking and before the restoring and then MfD. In other words, I see that the user page was discussed just once in Nov '16. There wasn't any other attempt to discuss his userpage since; just reminding SvG that his userpage was "blanked". --George Ho (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Smartse clearly pointed out the perceived issues with the user page. There's no need to rinse, recycle, repeat before proceeding to MFD. --NeilN talk to me 12:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...WP:deletion policy mentions "user page" just once, not elsewhere. It also mentions "Alternatives to deletion". Has anyone done the AN discussion on his user page? Or any other alternative methods to deletion before MfD? --George Ho (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)- "done the AN discussion" - seriously, why? Why come here when MFD is the standard route? Are you suggesting that all potentially inappropriate user pages be discussed here? --NeilN talk to me 13:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- From what I see, it is "miscellany for deletion", not "miscellany for discussion". Regardless of who did or undid the deletion, the MfD mess would have been prevented. A mutual AN discussion and inviting SvG into the discussion before MfD would have prompted SvG into changing his content. If AN (or ANI) is not a suitable venue for inappropriate talk pages, there might be other alternative non-deletion venues to MfD. What happened to "preserving" the user content? Wikipedia:Editing policy, including "Try to fix problems" section, doesn't mention editing user pages literally. However, I think the spirit of the policy should apply to user pages, doesn't it? --George Ho (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think a case of "hindsight is 20/20" is prompting you to make unnecessary/poor suggestions here. I'm willing to bet that 99% of MFD or speedy deletes of user pages do not provoke any notable controversy. --NeilN talk to me 13:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nevertheless... regardless of "statistics", we are discussing the user page of the long-established editor here. BTW, I scanned the MfD archives, and I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mathmensch, whose user page is of another long-established editor. I could find others, but that's a long search. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think a case of "hindsight is 20/20" is prompting you to make unnecessary/poor suggestions here. I'm willing to bet that 99% of MFD or speedy deletes of user pages do not provoke any notable controversy. --NeilN talk to me 13:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- From what I see, it is "miscellany for deletion", not "miscellany for discussion". Regardless of who did or undid the deletion, the MfD mess would have been prevented. A mutual AN discussion and inviting SvG into the discussion before MfD would have prompted SvG into changing his content. If AN (or ANI) is not a suitable venue for inappropriate talk pages, there might be other alternative non-deletion venues to MfD. What happened to "preserving" the user content? Wikipedia:Editing policy, including "Try to fix problems" section, doesn't mention editing user pages literally. However, I think the spirit of the policy should apply to user pages, doesn't it? --George Ho (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- "done the AN discussion" - seriously, why? Why come here when MFD is the standard route? Are you suggesting that all potentially inappropriate user pages be discussed here? --NeilN talk to me 13:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah... So it's resolved, hopefully. Still, I wonder whether alternatives were attempted. George Ho (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, the outcome (the current version of the user page) may be acceptable to the community but the path taken to get there was definitely sub-optimal. Recommend this be closed with a trout for Victuallers and a reminder not to unilaterally undo admin actions in situations they are WP:INVOLVED in. --NeilN talk to me 12:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some acknowledgement from Victuallers that he messed up. His only response so far in this thread is hardly confidence inspiring and reads like it was written by a new editor. The lack of respect for consensus is appalling and makes it hard to trust this individual as an admin. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- In favour of Victuallers it must be said that the quoted "consensus" at MfD was seriously out of whack with human decency. Other answers but deletion would have achieved the desired result. Agathoclea (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see nothing in that discussion that is
seriously out of whack with human decency
. Regardless, it's not his job to make and impose that kind of value judgment on the consensus of other editors. Lepricavark (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)- After looking at one of MfD's "Before nominating a page" guidelines, saying "
Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems
," and WP:USERTALKBLOG, I see that the page blanking was attempted, which is considered "normal" editing to most eyes. Even the blanking was discussed at RHaworth's talk page. However, the blanking was reverted, and the revert wasn't discussed explicitly by the one who blanked it and the one who reverted the blanking. Rather RHaworth jumped into MfD nom. Ah... speaking of which, the "consensus" didn't describe how "fake article" or "biography" or "self-promotion" the user page was before the undeletion mess. The third-person narrative or any sections like "Personal" or "Academic career" were not mentioned specifically. I'm not trying to undermine all your efforts, though I said the MfD case situation became a mess. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)- I an not intending to wheel war over this and I'm pleased that one editor at least shares my views that this is not in line with human decency. It could be that others do not agree that the action could be seen as far short of the the standards that we hope to achieve. This page was/is the evidence of someone who contributed to this project and we have deleted the obvious record of their existence. Victuallers (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Victuallers. I appreciate your defense on Sanders v. Ginkel. Curious: why hadn't you and RHaworth contacted each other about the blanking and the reverting before the MfD took place? Also, why did the "consensus" not comment much on SvG himself? George Ho (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Why are you putting scare quotes around "consensus"? Whether you liked it or not, the MfD reached a legitimate consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Still more unhelpful questions. Both Victuallers and Sanders v. Ginkel had ample opportunity to participate during the MFD. And "why did the consensus not comment much on SvG himself" - unless I'm totally misunderstanding what George Ho is asking - shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what MFD is for at best and advocates a horrible, horrible idea at worst. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I did participate in a few MfD discussions, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review, which was five years ago. This... I'd rather not talk about. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Victuallers. I appreciate your defense on Sanders v. Ginkel. Curious: why hadn't you and RHaworth contacted each other about the blanking and the reverting before the MfD took place? Also, why did the "consensus" not comment much on SvG himself? George Ho (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I an not intending to wheel war over this and I'm pleased that one editor at least shares my views that this is not in line with human decency. It could be that others do not agree that the action could be seen as far short of the the standards that we hope to achieve. This page was/is the evidence of someone who contributed to this project and we have deleted the obvious record of their existence. Victuallers (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- After looking at one of MfD's "Before nominating a page" guidelines, saying "
- I see nothing in that discussion that is
- In favour of Victuallers it must be said that the quoted "consensus" at MfD was seriously out of whack with human decency. Other answers but deletion would have achieved the desired result. Agathoclea (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Requested Opinion, Maybe
User:George Ho asked me to comment here. I am not entirely sure why I am being asked for my opinion. I have concerns that his request to me to comment may be canvassing, but, if so, I am not sure what I am being canvassed to say or do anyway. This appears to have been originally a dispute over deletion of a user page that, in its state as the subject of an MFD, was, in my view, definitely a fake article, and I would have !voted to Delete. The consensus was Delete. It appears that admin User:Victuallers, acting alone, chose to reverse the action and restore the deleted article. So far, a good result at MFD, and a questionable admin action hardly worth the tempest in the teapot. Then we have comments that the consensus violated human decency. Huh? Huh? I fail to understand, and the "human decency" comments are hyperventilation. I also see that the current restored trimmed user page is shorter. What is the main issue? Why was I canvassed? What does this have to do with morality, courtesy, or human values? Does anyone think that anything is in order other than a trout for Victuallers? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable balanced summary to me. Victuallers (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- As I said yesterday, "Recommend this be closed with a trout for Victuallers and a reminder not to unilaterally undo admin actions in situations they are WP:INVOLVED in." I've also posted a question on George Ho's talk page, asking for an explanation for his two notifications. --NeilN talk to me 15:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, I was not canvassing you, Robert, and another person. I just posted a notification on your talk page for invitation and merely your comments on this. I didn't do this for an agenda or a goal or anything like that. I have very great respect for your opinions. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Given there was a finding of fact in an arbcom case last year that you canvassed, [17] I suggest you refrain from posting such notifications in the future. --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was the other editor George notified and, in his defense it should be noted that both Robert McClenon and I are heavily involved in dispute resolution work and I would hope that George simply thought we could be relied upon to take an unbiased look at this. In any event, my thoughts are much the same as those of Robert and NeilN. I am, perhaps, a bit more disturbed that Victuallers has sought here to defend his action on the basis of equitable considerations (in effect, "what happened just wasn't right") rather than offering a technical defense ("I didn't become INVOLVED until after I undeleted, and then I took no further admin actions") or, better, an admission and repentance ("Oops, I can see how some would think that I messed up, wasn't thinking, won't do it again, but dang it seemed unfair"). On the other hand, I would note that this was largely a technical violation: if Victuallers had asked another admin to undelete a copy into his user space so he could try to cure the problems raised by the MFD, someone almost certainly would have done so and he/she would have been free to modify and restore a version he thought to be compliant. Unless this is part of a pattern of questionable administrative use of tools — and I see no one alleging that (and I certainly have no knowledge one way or the other about that subject) — this seems like a momentary aberration and anything more than a trout or mild warning would seem to me to be far, far too much. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Given there was a finding of fact in an arbcom case last year that you canvassed, [17] I suggest you refrain from posting such notifications in the future. --NeilN talk to me 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
please move this page to template:titin without leaving redirect 79.185.7.250 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done. If you have an issue with the deletion discussion, the take it to WP:DRV. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Protected PANDAS
A bunch of new accounts and IPs are removing well referenced content and adding copy and pasted material. Have thus protected the page for two weeks.[18]
Feel free to unprotect if people feel it is unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers
There is an ongoing discussion about combining AfC reviewers into the new page reviewer user right. Your comments and opinions would be welcome. ~ Rob13Talk 03:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Request to overturn administrator's decision
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 14 March 2017 User:Primefac overturned and reverted a WP:SNOW close that I made, renaming Black Knight satellite to Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory .[19] At the time there were 9 support !votes, 0 oppose (let's call it one oppose even though it wasn't formatted properly). It has been three days, and now there are 15 support !votes and 2 oppose !votes. If this isn't an example of the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, I don't know what is.
I am making a formal request that one or more uninvolved administrators review and overturn Primefac's decision. This article does not have a snowball's chance in hell of not being moved, so there is no need to run it through the entire requested move process. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Um, this just happened, ten sections up. Barring gross incompetence or bad faith (neither of which you appear to be alleging), I don't think it's a good idea to keep litigating the subject without a bunch of time passing, perhaps some weeks. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. It does not work that way. You cannot use a section that Primefac closed at the same time he overturned and reverted my WP:SNOW close as a reason to reject my request for an independent administrator review of Primefac overturning and reverting my WP:SNOW close. Primefac does not get to review his own decision. And just to be clear, I am not alleging gross incompetence or bad faith nor am I asking for sanctions. I am alleging a wrong decision, and asking that the decision be overturned. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it's quite possible that the decision to reopen was good at the time it was made, and does not need to be reviewed, but that the current status of the !voting now indicates that a new SNOW close, made by an uninvolved admin or editor, is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. I don't want to criticize Primefac, who from what I have seen does a consistantly good job. I just want to put this time waster of a discussion to bed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was alerted by Guy Macon. This is pretty silly, I'm afraid. There's no call to reverse Primefac's action, which entailed only re-opening an RM discussion that had been closed prematurely by someone who was involved in the discussion and refused to re-open when asked. RMs are open for 7 days, we're on day 3, and discussion is ongoing. Let it go.--Cúchullain t/c 04:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Closed prematurely? My answer to you was quite reasonable: "Tell you what. If one other editor who has sometime in the past posted a comment to the article talk page or who has sometime in the past edited the article agrees with Cuchullain I will revert the close. Cuchullain is free to increase the chance of someone agreeing with him by posting a couple of those "points that need to be considered that haven't been yet" in response to this comment."[20] The !vote is now 16 to 2, and the discussion has been closed by someone else. If you had simply done as I suggested, I would have self-reverted my close and let it run the full amount as soon as I saw that second !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was alerted by Guy Macon. This is pretty silly, I'm afraid. There's no call to reverse Primefac's action, which entailed only re-opening an RM discussion that had been closed prematurely by someone who was involved in the discussion and refused to re-open when asked. RMs are open for 7 days, we're on day 3, and discussion is ongoing. Let it go.--Cúchullain t/c 04:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. I don't want to criticize Primefac, who from what I have seen does a consistantly good job. I just want to put this time waster of a discussion to bed. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it's quite possible that the decision to reopen was good at the time it was made, and does not need to be reviewed, but that the current status of the !voting now indicates that a new SNOW close, made by an uninvolved admin or editor, is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. It does not work that way. You cannot use a section that Primefac closed at the same time he overturned and reverted my WP:SNOW close as a reason to reject my request for an independent administrator review of Primefac overturning and reverting my WP:SNOW close. Primefac does not get to review his own decision. And just to be clear, I am not alleging gross incompetence or bad faith nor am I asking for sanctions. I am alleging a wrong decision, and asking that the decision be overturned. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have re-closed this per BMK above as SNOW. Its clear from the subsequent voting that this is still a SNOW issue, (Snow does not require no dissent at all, it just requires overwhelming certainty) I make no comment on Primefac's close above. If someone wants to take it to move review feel free. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- With page snow moved and the discussion on the article talk page closed, I withdraw my request for an independent evaluation as being moot. Please close this section as "resolved/withdrawn" so that it itself does not become more of a time-sink than it has already become. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Motion on Arbitration Enforcement logging
A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions
The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here
Discussion is invited from all interested parties.
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Adminship following a clean start
Please see a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Adminship following a clean start. Sam Walton (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin please accept my edit request on Template talk:Navbar? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 00:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note, multiple admins are already involved in the discussion on that page. — xaosflux Talk 01:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor adding discretionary sanctions notice to religion articles talk pages
I don't know if this is the right place to ask about this but an editor is adding a notice at the top of a lot of religion articles talk pages that says "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages", see [21]. I looked at [22], which is a list of current topics under these sanctions, but do not see religion articles listed with the exception of "Pages relating to Muhammad". But maybe I missed something. Can anyone tell me if Jesus, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are really under discretionary sanctions? Thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Modi falls under the India subheader, but I don't see anything that would make "all religion" (particularly Western religions) fall under DS. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- No they're not. All removed except for the Modi tag. We're not tagging every India and/or Pakistan-related article with discretionary sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)