This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legacypac (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 15 February 2016 (→RfC: Should *comment-free* *indiscriminate* MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:09, 15 February 2016 by Legacypac (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Should *comment-free* *indiscriminate* MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | On February 2011, it was proposed that this page be moved from Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for discussion. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Trouble
I'm having some trouble with some pages I nominated. I placed {{mfd|Rayrayzone}} on several userpages of a blocked user (Rayrayzone), and clicked "this page's entry" to start the discussion, but something went very wrong, and now the discussion page looks like this. Can anyone help sort it out? Thanks, Azealia911 talk 10:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Azealia911: Sorry for the late reply; it seems that no one watches this page. Simply by adding the tags to the pages, you cannot expect the discussion page to automatically list all the nominated pages. For that, you have to manually produce the list in the
:{{pagelinks|Name of page with namespace}}format (one on each line). In addition, the MfD discussion should habe taken place at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rayrayzone since it was a userpage you were nominating (and hence the tags to be placed on the pages should have been {{mfd|User:Rayrayzone}}) 103.6.159.76 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ancient half-finished MFD
Resolved
I'm not an MFD-regular and I don't really know the processes around this stuff, so perhaps someone here can tell me what to do. I came across this weird page earlier, which has an MFD on it from September last year, with one vote from two days later and another from six months afterwards. Six months after that, the MFD tag is still on the page and, as far as I can tell, it has never been posted. Should the tag be deleted, or should it be listed here properly? Thanks for your advice. Relentlessly (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have just transcluded it. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Close please?
Resolved
An MFD on a userpage that has run for about two weeks. Vote's are running about 14-4 at the moment and it's acrimonious. Thanks.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion is ongoing. This normally would suggest not closing. However, given the result is unlikely to change with continued discussion and it's been acrimonious all along and there is no hint that this will change, cutting off discussion mid-stream may be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. But to whatever admin closes this, be prepared for push-back. Disclaimer: I participated in the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- And it has now been closed. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Fantasy Reality Shows?
Does anyone have any insight in to the trend of "new" primarily single purpose users with fully formatted fantasy reality show tables as their only contributions? What are these being used for? I'd assume some sort of wagering, but not sure how. — xaosflux 17:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Current MfD discussions not showing if earlier than the 18th
I am not seeing any of the pre- Jan 18th MfD discussions at WP:MFD. They are generally unclosed. I can't work out why. I can't see that it is Legobot. I see the same thing using different browsers, different devices, and different service providers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Resolved
- There were some bad closing templates placed by SwisterTwister when doing some NAC closures; I think I got them all removed. — xaosflux 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Grumping about some relistings of MfD discussions.
They were down the bottom where they belong, where they have already been reviewed as a waste of time and passed over. Taking a Jan 26 nomination and putting it up in the Feb 05 nominations only stuffs up the reviewing process. It will cause new nominations, which might be important, to be lost with the old.
Please stop it.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's literally no discussion there or no discussion with any real consensus there. The bottom is the Old business section which "should be either closed or relisted above" and I'm relisting them in my admin capacity. I could close them all as no consensus but if this was AFD, CFD, TFD, that would not be proper and a no consensus vote is one that allows for speedy nominations so I don't see what's harmed by relisting. A number of people expressed concerns here over basically nomination-only deletion discussions. In the past, those were deleted since there's no objections (the admin closer isn't supposed to be a vote). Here, I'm at least waiting on someone else to support them. I'm not going to keep these up for 2-3 weeks. If there's nothing after one relisting, I'm going to close it as no consensus but some have gotten more discussion in the second go-around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well please stop it. It is disruptive with no advantages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive. The advantage is that people do see the discussions at the top of the page and add comments there, notifies admins of when they should be closed plus the "old business" section gets cleared up and is only left with the backlog for admins to close. It's no different than resolving backlogs in AFD, CFD or the like. If you want, take it to ANI as "disruptive relisting" or DRV or whatever. The old business section now only has a few discussions left, all of which are specifically ones in which I've commented not by coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Please stop it. Don't do it again. The backlog is where they get more attention. Shuffling the order is disruptive. If something needs more attention, find a useful way to advertise it further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not disruptive. The advantage is that people do see the discussions at the top of the page and add comments there, notifies admins of when they should be closed plus the "old business" section gets cleared up and is only left with the backlog for admins to close. It's no different than resolving backlogs in AFD, CFD or the like. If you want, take it to ANI as "disruptive relisting" or DRV or whatever. The old business section now only has a few discussions left, all of which are specifically ones in which I've commented not by coincidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well please stop it. It is disruptive with no advantages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is absurd. Are you going to complain about relisted AfDs taking up space on the daily log? More discussion is a clear advantage in relisting. clpo13(talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. Absolutely. Relisting at AfD has made the daily logs useless for browsing, which is why AfD needs tools such as User:Snotbot/Current_AfD's. It is absurd to think that a relist at MfD is going to cause someone to see a discussion that they would not otherwise see. Instead, it means that the notices are out of any logical order, and thus less useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Based upon this notice removal, I've taken this discussion to ANI. To me this is the equivalent of removing a relisted AFD from the current day's log and demanding that it be left on the week-old log in the bizarre off-chance than someone will go looking there for the discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewing a backlog from the tail end is not bizarre. Do you do new page patrol from the newest first? Thinking that shuffling the listings helps reviewing is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you believe that relisted AFDs should be kept on the original page or should be they move to the section for the date of relisting? For relisting at AFD, TFD, RFD, CFD, they are removed from the page when they were originally nominated and put on the page of the date of relisting. Why not at MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The AfD daily logs have been swamped for so long that it is a lost point. Relisting at WP:RfD, TfD and RM similarly randomises the listing, makes it nearly impossible to spefically review the backlog from the tail end, and is completely a bad idea. WP:CfD get it right by *only* relisting with very good reason. DRV and MR don't relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you believe that relisted AFDs should be kept on the original page or should be they move to the section for the date of relisting? For relisting at AFD, TFD, RFD, CFD, they are removed from the page when they were originally nominated and put on the page of the date of relisting. Why not at MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It also introduces a lot of visual clutter with no meaningful message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- In all other XfD processes, a relisted discussion is located as though it was a new discussion at the time of relisting. (As someone who occasionally relists at CfD, I tend to know.) And at CfD, we generally relist once any nomination where there was no response by anyone else. Due to the way MfD is handled, placing the relisted discussion at the top can only be done by placing a new timestamp at the top of the discussion. If you don't believe me, I invite Legoktm, the operator of Legobot, to give hi/her response. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a question of how it works, I know how it works. It's an issue of indiscriminate relisting, without meaningful relisting comments, for the purpose of emptying the "backlog" section.
- In all other XfD processes, a relisted discussion is located as though it was a new discussion at the time of relisting. (As someone who occasionally relists at CfD, I tend to know.) And at CfD, we generally relist once any nomination where there was no response by anyone else. Due to the way MfD is handled, placing the relisted discussion at the top can only be done by placing a new timestamp at the top of the discussion. If you don't believe me, I invite Legoktm, the operator of Legobot, to give hi/her response. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I have been away from CfD for a while, but as I remember, relisting was only done in practice for cases such as when new information was discovered that could change already given opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions is pretty clear that little participation and when it's lacking in policy are two grounds for relisting. The reason CFD is so backed up is in part because relisting has to be manually done and partially because it's actually quite a bit after you close a discussion (which can be complicated, see things like this discussion where only one of the three voters other than the nominator actually discuss the mergers). TFD was so bad (deletion of templates can be a mess) that we now allow NAC delete votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I have been away from CfD for a while, but as I remember, relisting was only done in practice for cases such as when new information was discovered that could change already given opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Boy we are some of the few editors interested in cleaning up this area. Why even debate this? Just get in an vote delete so that that all important delete vote is included and someone can kill off the page. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not directly related to relisting, except through a common drive to not just delete stuff now, but right now, reckless deletion of other contributors workspace is rude, confronting, and unwelcoming for returning contributor. Consider Misplaced Pages:Editors matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which is a fair opinion to have but (a) other than general naval-gazing commentary on it, there hasn't been actual consensus for that and (b) as I've suggested, the solution is then to restrict and better define what is "unsuitable" under provision 2 of WP:STALE so that MFD is more restricted. For everyone who thinks I'm some crazy deletionist, I was the one who pushed to make stale mean one year rather than the six months that people were using based off G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. What is the best location for that discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- That talk page. WT:UP. I'd then put a notice at WP:VPP and here probably and deletion policy I'd guess. I already moved deletion to number 5 as it should be the last option. "Unsuitable" is too vague for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. What is the best location for that discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which is a fair opinion to have but (a) other than general naval-gazing commentary on it, there hasn't been actual consensus for that and (b) as I've suggested, the solution is then to restrict and better define what is "unsuitable" under provision 2 of WP:STALE so that MFD is more restricted. For everyone who thinks I'm some crazy deletionist, I was the one who pushed to make stale mean one year rather than the six months that people were using based off G13. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Editors matter but this stuff shows up in search engines and some of it is downright inappropriate. Sometimes we can find good stuff to promote to article space but that is hard when we have to wade through garbage that will not go away easily. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence? User space is supposedly unindexed by reputable search engines. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I use Google. When I search for info on stale drafts sometimes (not most of the time) the draft space comes up in Google, mainly when the content is unique/hoax. Scrapper sites and mirrors can also pull and publish garbage from userspace. So that non-notable band gets a few hundred mirror hits even from a draft article. 10:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Since they aren't being relisted, I'm closing them as keep. Feel free to take these to DRV in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.228 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think some where kept, and some were reverted since this is a banned user. So have we resolved anything? There's quite a backlog now with a number of them having zero discussions or a nomination and one opposing view. Should we (a) continue to let them remain there until an admin looks at it and makes a decision (likely no consensus and thus relisting anyways) or (b) is relisting with them being put back on the top of the page actually a prudent idea? -- 21:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose allowing closing unattended MfD nominations by an IP.
- Oppose relisting so as to list on the current date in the absence of a good reason to relist, such as significant new information. Marking old discussions in particular need of new attention, and categorizing them to enable easy navigation is probably a good idea. However, a very weak nomination, no identification of any actual problem, or any reason to not just blank, means to me that it does deserve distracting any other Wikipedian from other tasks. Especially considering that there is activity at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts without shame in their intention to separately nominate tens of thousands of old userpages.
- There was some talk somewhere of "soft deletion" being appropriate for unopposed MfD nominations. If "soft deletion" mean "blank", it has my support. You may assume that I support blanking of nearly every "stale" nomination in which I don't comment otherwise. It is very tedious to repeatedly !vote "just blank, no good reason for administrator deletion given" on seemingly endless nominations of harmless old pages.
- I am still attempting to review, looking for things that are more important. It is very difficult given the frequent minimal nomination rationales, and weak cursory supports (eg "questionable", or "not needed") cheaply given by other reviewers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look, technically, it's up for admins to decide how to resolve these MFDs and even IPs are allowed to NAC discussions. This is written in deletion policy and other than this discussion here, it's been followed as since for probably a decade. The fact is, unattended MFD discussions either should be closed as no consensus or relisted not just kept down there for wherever someone eventually gets around to them. The fact that you personally don't approve of either of these is fine and all but you aren't able to go and demand that all AFD relistings be reversed or demand that NAC closures be overturned as will because of the closer absent DRV or a more serious discussion. At this point, I'm going to go back to closing these as any admin would, which does include relisting those discussions that aren't resolved. If you still disagree on them, that's fine and all but your views are a very minority opinion on how these should be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look?! Patronising me?
- IPs lack accountability. They even lack an implied single identity. Closing these unattended MfDs is contentious. The IP should not be closing them, and I am astounded that you don't agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look, technically, it's up for admins to decide how to resolve these MFDs and even IPs are allowed to NAC discussions. This is written in deletion policy and other than this discussion here, it's been followed as since for probably a decade. The fact is, unattended MFD discussions either should be closed as no consensus or relisted not just kept down there for wherever someone eventually gets around to them. The fact that you personally don't approve of either of these is fine and all but you aren't able to go and demand that all AFD relistings be reversed or demand that NAC closures be overturned as will because of the closer absent DRV or a more serious discussion. At this point, I'm going to go back to closing these as any admin would, which does include relisting those discussions that aren't resolved. If you still disagree on them, that's fine and all but your views are a very minority opinion on how these should be resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with SmokeyJoe on this. IPs should not be closing MfDs (or any other XfD, for that matter). WP:NAC notes that a registered editor can close deletion discussions in certain cases. Even established editors should not NAC close a discussion that is, or reasonably could be, contentious. No comment on the relisting issue for now. - Becksguy (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should *comment-free* *indiscriminate* MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
 |
|
Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Relisting discussions.
Relevant discussions: Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion#Grumping about some relistings of MfD discussions., Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#MFD relistings, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings.
Cunard (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a question of "allowed". The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list.
- I maintain that it is not appropriate. By sending the discussion to the top of the list, it doesn't get new views. Relisting adds significant visual clutter, and meaningless relists only serve to shuffle list thus disrupting an orderly review.
- A meaningful relist, such as with a re-focusing comment, or due to significant new information, is an appropriate relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support relisting of MFD discussions. If consensus hasn't been reached, I feel like this is a logical MFD process that should be allowed to be done in order to try and help achieve it. It's allowed (and regularly done) at other deletion discussions such as AFD; why would we disallow it at MFD simply because less people participate in them? ~Oshwah~ 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AfD is already overburdened with so many daily nominations that is has not been practical to review them in list format for many many years. AfD effectively requires deletion sorting and/or one of a variety of navigation tools, such as User:Snotbot/Current AfD's.
- Other XfDs do not have the custom of indiscriminate comment-less relistings for no purpose other than making the backlog appear empty. CfD, for example, handles a huge number of discussions over 1 week old, see: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Older_discussions. And it has a navigation tool for old closed discussions at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Discussions_awaiting_closure, which does not involve scrambling the list order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support allowing relisting. I see no reason whatsoever that MfD should be treated any different from any other XfD. BMK (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support as MfD closers need all the tools they can get. Further the vast majority of stuff going to MfD is utter junk which most editors must find boring and therefore don't spend time at MfD. Any random one time "contributor" can create a page of nonsense in a few clicks but it takes at least 3 editors and more then a week to get ride of junk. One to nominate, one or more to vote, and an Admin to close and delete. Let's not make MfD even harder to manage. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- comment-free* *indiscriminate* relistings.
"The RfC is asking the wrong question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- At RfD very few relisting actions come with a comment - we all know relisting is to get more input. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)