Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Shut down just like WP:PAIN, and without prejudice towards starting a new process that is more productive. As with PAIN, I'm going to flag the ruleset as historical, and salt the archive, and it would be nice to have an essay explaining the history. Also as with PAIN, if I were to delete part of it someone would surely overturn that without discussion, so I'm not going to bother. >Radiant< 11:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard for the reason why this page needs to be deleted as well. Very same reasons apply. This page is just a magnet for an abuse and is being abused. It is permanently backlogged too since the really worthy cases take indefinite time to investigate and we simply do not have enough people willing to do so. The page has been turned to Wikipedia:Request to block all too often and attracts the wrong people with all sorts of reports aimed at blocking their opponents and onlookers eager to provide uninformed opinions that only inflame the matters further. Reforming would have been preferable but impossible. Hence, deletion is suggested. Obvious abuse will go to WP:AIV, opinions would be solicited at WP:ANI and complex cases end up at WP:RfArb anyway. Time to shut this detour down. --Irpen 01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complex cases of vandalism do not end up at Arbcom. These are generally cases that any established user could decide, they just require time to look into them and sometimes observe any developments over time. Most cases where established users are reported at RFI should simply be removed, but that is not true of the IPs, single-purpose accounts, and new accounts that make up the overwhelming majority of the cases at RFI. —Centrx→talk • 07:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This subthread is a perfect example of what is wrong here. Piotrus is an admin and quite capable of creating a sufficiently detailed dossier for RfC, or of recruiting an uninvolved admin via the noticeboards to help with a problem editor. What was this case doing here in the first place? A simple case of an editor who needed a bit of firm guidance from an uninvolved admin. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:ANI#WP:RFI_.27kangaroo_court.27_accusation for admin noticeboard discussion of Irpen's actions. - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Delete this was probably the most negative experience I had as a new user. I couldn't find my way around, and this was the first place I got to: so I reported what was a user engaging in persistent and ongoing heavy POV pushing (incidentally, the user seems to have become a productive member of the community since). Anyway, someone came along about 20 days later and simply archived most the current disputes and did nothing about them, and told me "it was only their place to archive the disputes, not do something about them". If I'd been shown to WP:AN/I, things would have gone much smoother. And that's precisely the thing: almost anything on this board could easily go to AN/I. So, unless I can get some strong commitments from several more admins to watch this board more attentively, than this does worse than it does good. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the board became another WP:PAIN a place where people who game the civility rules are trying to get their opponents in the content disputes blocked Alex Bakharev 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Irpen, Patstuart, and Alex Bakharev. This page has no usefulness and only leads to more instruction creep, not to mention hurt feelings. Cowman109Talk 02:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No usefulness"? Having processed hundreds of these requests, that is simply false. There is no long-term system on ANI; discussions are archived after one day of inactivity; some of the entries on WP:RFI need someone to look back at them after weeks. —Centrx→talk • 06:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Any problems here can be dealt with at WP:ANI. This is a cesspool of broken discussions and chaos. PTO 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral • Leaning towards delete - I haven't really seen much useful come of the board, and it's not really utilised by many administrators. The backlog is proof of this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A backlog would be an argument for deleting most of the things in Category:Administrative backlog, such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Requested moves. There are admin backlogs across the wiki—that there is a backlog is irrelevant to whether a page should be deleted; all of these backlogs just need more attention. —Centrx→talk • 06:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but a backlog with cases ignored can do more harm than good, whereas the RM and CP backlogs don't have huge problems if they die away. See my comments above. Like I said, if I thought cases could be handled in a timely fashion that helped them, then I would be all for it; but as it stands, most of the cases here are too stale to deal with by the time someone gets around to them. Patstuarttalk|edits 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that no one is discussing here, they are just voting. WP:RFI clearly has problems because it gets ignored, but moving it to WP:ANI also has serious problems. The qualities of RFI and ANI are just being ignored, with me-too votes. Three-quarters of this MFD currently could just be deleted with no loss of information. Keeping RFI in its current form would be bad if there is no new attention paid to the page, but deleting it would also. The MFD needs discussion, not votes. —Centrx→talk • 07:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then what do you propose to amend the situation? I've seen many calls at WP:AN for help at WP:RFI, and they seem to go largely unheeded. And I'm not convinced that moving the discussions somewhere might not be a better, even if still ugly, solution (choose the best of two bads, in other words). I've given my reasons above why I think leaving this at its place could end up hurting more than helping. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've stated in other comments here some ideas, such as having a list of watchlisted pages and questionable users that warrant monitoring but with discussion still taking place on an admin noticeboard, or being more assiduous in removing requests about established users and requests that turn into arguments. I don't know the answers, but in a discussion you have various people exposing the good and bad and contributing to an evolution of ideas. Neither Delete nor Keep are actually solutions here. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centrx, the backlog wasn't the thrust of the reason for deletion. The point was that, not many admins actually use this board, and therefore it seems somewhat redundant with other boards. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if this page has some theoretical usefulness (which I'm not convinced of), the backlog and general lack of attention it's being shown seems to demonstrate that it's of no practical use. Tevildo 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WP:AN/I. No reason to have a separate page for essentially the exact same thing. All this sort of stuff should be on WP:AN/I - there are far more eyes watching and things are handled much faster. --- RockMFR 04:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the same thing. There needs to be a list of IPs and new users that need to be checked up on. WP:ANI is archived after one day and is already hugely over-crowded. —Centrx→talk • 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately the current page is no longer properly maintained, so the best solution would be to redirect to a page where users could post their requests and actually receive a response. If a group of admins devotes the time to reform RFI into something useful, we can then unredirect. --- RockMFR 14:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe rename to "long term vandalism" or the like, since this is where you're directed for long term vandalism. If you want it merged into ANI, I suggest you figure out a way to deal with the fact that it is extremely overcrowded already, even with Essjaybot archiving as fast as it can be set to do so. -Amark moo! 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massively refactor or delete. As it stands, this is a place for people to flag up the edits of someone they are in dispute with. There are some valid cases, albeit in some of them the poster simply can't be arsed to do the legwork (so why should we care?), and an awful lot of baseless ones. If kept it needs to be clerked to within an inch of its life (no, I'm not volunteering). Suffers from exactly the same problems as PAIN did. One possibility: a page to whihc cases from the main admin noticeboard can be moved if they are under active investigation, thus clearing the main boards and allowing patient spadework on the few really tricky cases of long-term or subtle edit problems. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sofixit" If there's unfounded accusations flying around, someone should spend time deleting those instead of trying to have the entire page (including valid cases) deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The administrators' noticeboard is overcrowded as it is. Redirecting these requests there too won't handle them any more effectively. Also, handling vandalism attracts vandalism, you can't get around that. But if someone commits vandalism that needs investigation, we really shouldn't be worrying about hurt feelings. If you end up on that page for a good reason, you called it onto yourself. If it's not maintained it can be marked inactive, or a call for maintainance workers can be made. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Cowman - instruction creep. I think most of these would be better off on AN/I with a header requesting investigation into a complex vandalism pattern of incidents. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 13:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I'm neutral on this MfD, can I just point people towards Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Update where I've pointed out the problems with deletions of projectspace pages, rather than archiving by putting up a 'closed' or 'shut down' or 'rejected' notice and blanking and redirecting subpages. If people mean 'shut down', they should say this, and not say delete. Imagine if one day WP:AN or WP:ANI degenerate to the point where it they are put up for deletion? The contents of those noticeboards are meticulously archived and fairly frequently referred to later. Why should WP:PAIN and WP:RFI and other spin-off noticeboards be treated any differently? I'll repeat here my argument that people in future proposing to recreate something similar should have more history to look at than just the MfD page. And for those about to say "but admins can look at deleted pages, and non-admins can ask an admin to restore the history for them", please follow the link I provided above and read for yourself what Brion Vibber said, and say what you think should be done in light of that statement. (For those who didn't follow the link, he said "Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING.") My position is that anything that might be needed in the future, history, evidence, whatever (even if it seems it is not needed now) should be archived properly, and stuff that was deleted in the past should be undeleted and archived properly. Either that, or have a proper debate about how to deal with this sort of thing. Put these bureaucracies and systems and boards in a category (such as 'failed noticeboards') if need be, but don't just delete them and doom future generations of admins to make the same mistakes and produce the same failed bureaucracies. Bequeath the history to them so they can learn from it. Carcharoth 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but hold on. I agree with the proposal and the assertion that it has become another WP:PAIN or Wikipedia:Requests for block and I'd endorse the deletion on such grounds. But (before or after that) we really need a reform of WP:AN and WP:ANI: they're difficult to browse, it's difficult to find anything in the archives, they're large. I don't have any sensible technical proposal at the moment which would make them more usable, but we should seek to find an alternative solution (splitting into subpages like WP:RfA? Collapsible headings like WP:DRV? Combination thereof? Avoiding WP:CREEP? KISS?) Splitting of WP:AN into multiple boards has been proven not to be good (only the main AN and ANI seem active enough, but they have a lot of topic overlap). So, I wouldn't mind if it's kept for a while until we find another workable solution, provided those few admins that still watch it are able to get it under control (no, I'm not volunteering, so I wouldn't mind being called a hypocrite). Duja►
  • Change or Delete the WP:RFI is an inefficent process and should change significantly.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review |
  • Neutral leaning towards delete (or shut down, whichever). There's a need for this kind of central clearing house for complaints; the problem, I think, is the execution and the fact that the backlogs that are common on this particular page make one question the value of the current system. We do have issues with people trying to game the system through reports on multiple pages; this one is a regular part of that process. I know that the admins who have regularly managed RFI are very dedicated to it, but there hasn't been much of a group handling it, and everyone has to sleep, work, etc. at some point. Redirecting these complaints to ANI could be the best option, since it's got lots of eyes on it at all times, but then the question becomes whether that's the most efficient system available. I can't come up with a better idea just now, so perhaps a shutdown with a redirect to ANI is the best possible option currently - but we need more discussion to come up with some community-based ideas on how to manage the reports that would be coming in afterwards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Fox (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wow. That bot was just waiting to pounce on my caffeine-lacking forgetfulness. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massively refactor or delete/Esperanzify - per Guy. However, redirecting to ANI is not really viable. ANI routinely gets massive and archival is set to just one day. Possibly move to a subpage of ANI or AIV called "Complex IP vandalism?". I think it might get more attention that way, and reports of "Incivil user that I just so happen to be having a content dispute with! Block him!" should get removed by a clerking system and sent to ANI, or just laughed off. Moreschi Deletion! 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but leaning delete. While I don't know if WP:RFI is overly useful in its current form, Moreschi has a point that just redirecting to ANI is not a viable option. When there is a heated debate going on there it is already impossible to post anything there without getting edit conflicted numerous times. This would just compound the problem. Maybe a subpage on ANI would be a better option. Regardless, if deletion is the consensus I'd suggest we hold off actually carrying out the sentence until a decision on a viable alternative.--Isotope23 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Irpen, Alex Bakharev, and PTO. The backlog of this page is currently at an absurd level, and increasing every day, with no indication of being seriously dealt with. Issues can be (usually) quickly dealt with at ANI, sockpuppets at ANI and/or RFCU, and blatant vandalism and abuse at ANI or AIV. RfI is an obsolete behemoth. TheQuandry 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but be more proactive about removing/closing issues that are really just edit conflicts. Something that serves this function needs to exist. --BigDT 23:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if "reformed" it seems it would be good to start from the ground up with such an idea. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the please-watchlist functionality needs to survive in some form. If RFI goes down the chute, please split off the watchlist requests into a unique page or incorporate it somewhere else. ANI is too fast-moving for this; it needs a fairly slow, dedicated system. — coelacan talk — 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete' next up WP:SUSPSOCK? I've tried to develop Wikipedia:Simple sock puppets and Wikipedia:Complex sock puppets to replace that, but received little feedback. Both are horrible wastes of time. --Robdurbar 11:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Then, we should expand the policy of what should NOT be reported to these places. Who reports such things, first gets a warning, that it will be considered vandalism, and treated as it. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 11:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tried to whittle at the backlog recently and found almost every request was completely stale or a content dispute or inappropriately placed, etc. Too much WP:CREEP and CAT:ABL. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some cases are too complex and Wikipedia needs to deal with them somehow. We cannot post everything on the administrators' noticeboards. If we do, they would be flooded and the response time after simple requests would dangerously decrease. Rfi was a good idea and its inneficiency was caused mostly by ambivalent formulations and the small number of admins active here. I believe that can be fixed. Tankred 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but tag as {{historical}}. While it was Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress a long time ago, it is an administrative process that simply was outgrown by the wiki. There's no reason why the page itself should be deleted, though, as Carcharoth eloquently explains. Titoxd(?!?) 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refactor/make more structured. I think if we adopted some of the structure at places such as AfD it would help keep things more organized. If there were daily or weekly pages, it would be easier to find something, and anything current could be transcluded to the bottom of the page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My negative vote is primarily due to a rush to judgement by an administrator who lacked the courtesy to allow me a 48 hour delay to answer my acuser, and blocked me for 24 hours with a snide and sarcastic side remark. To me, if this is a representation of what this forum is about, it needs to go. Although absolute incivility is not to be encouraged, censorship, witch hunts, inquisitions, and the like should be strongly discouraged at WP. If a contributor does not have an opportunity to respond to an accusation, and some "some good old boy's club" type of judgement is to result out of this, I say delete, and say strong delete. As to my opinion regarding my own "investigation", I do not consider that it ended unfavorably for me or any one else for that matter. Sorry, that's my opinion. When I apologized for my "incivility", it was not to say that I felt that the other side had acted otherwise. Quite the opposite. I still say there was plenty of equal blame to go around. The failure of my accuser and his friends to answer my accusations demonstrating a barrage of falsehoods and attacks on me and others, leaves me with deep dissapointment. But that's all over. I was surprised by what I felt was a low and base attack against me, and the result is that I will not have any further personal interaction with them. But not because of this forum, but because of their behavior. I mistakenly thought that a little humor with some sarcasm made for some better articles and discussions (what we all had accepted as Dr. Dan's style). Boring people enjoy boring people, and as far as I'm concerned they can continue to interact with each other on a "plethora" of boring subjects and POV regarding them. However, I will continue to work to keep Wikipedia devoid of propaganda and falsehoods. Dr. Dan 03:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This epitomizes the problem I have with most of the delete opinions here. Why do you think that moving discussion over to a obscenely bloated page will in any way change the content of the discussions? I'd very much love to be able to do that, but problems do not have such simplistic solutions. -Amark moo! 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think you were addressing my remarks. I have absolutely no idea of what you were trying to say here, or what point you were trying to make. If anyone else understands what he meant here, please explain it. Dr. Dan 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in agreement with comment by user Tankred above. -- IslandGyrl 08:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards Keep. Wikipedia has a serious problem. If you violate 3RR, you're blocked almost instantly. However, if you resort to trolling, personal remarks or other types of generally disrupting behaviour, there is little that can be done to punish you or force you to change your ways. WP:PAIN does not work as efficiently as it should, nor does simple admin's conscience. I support any initiative that helps in dealing with users who make content creation more difficult - including this one. As Dan put it, absolute incivility is not to be supported - and any force that fights against it is by definition on the good guys' side. //Halibutt 14:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=1138700109"