Questions re: specific G6 and copy/paste draft scenario
I'd like some feedback regarding a specific scenario involving G6 and drafts:
- Kaumudi Nemani was previously draftified at Draft:Kaumudi Nemani
- Blalithk, the article originator, performed a copy/paste move of the draft back to Kaumudi Nemani; but only after a not-insignificant number of contributions from several other editors
- Mori Calliope fan tagged the copy/paste as G6
- I took this as a good faith maintenance request and deleted the copy/paste article
- Mori Calliope fan did not move the draft to mainspace, but did leave a note at User talk:Blalithk explaining the problem with unattributed copy/paste moves within Wikipedia; and in doing so, explained to Blalithk that they can move the draft themselves using the move function.
- If it matters, it looks like Blalithk has never communicated w/ other editors via any means, be it talk page or edit summary.
- Mori Calliope fan did not move the draft to mainspace, but did leave a note at User talk:Blalithk explaining the problem with unattributed copy/paste moves within Wikipedia; and in doing so, explained to Blalithk that they can move the draft themselves using the move function.
- I took this as a good faith maintenance request and deleted the copy/paste article
- Pppery subsequently left a complaint on my talk page requesting that I restore the deleted copy/paste because G6 does not apply to copy/pasted drafts. This is apparently something Pppery is doing with all draft-related G6 deletions based on a log entry alone.
- I realize that G6 states, "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." Whether this is a should or a must, I concede that follow-up may be a good idea.
- Questions: What should happen in this scenario?
- Do I, as the admin who deleted the copy/paste per the G6 tag in good faith, automatically endorse the move from draft to mainspace?
- In other words, am I obligated to move it rather than assume Mori Calliope fan would?
- For the record, I don't think the draft is ready for mainspace and could use better sourcing. I believe the original draftification is a good alternative to straight deletion/AFD.
- The possible outcomes, that I can see:
- Remind Mori Calliope fan to complete the move, since Blalithk did not perform it themselves
- Accept an obligation on my own part when performing a good faith maintenance deletion on behalf of Mori Calliope fan's request, in which case:
- I would need to publish to mainspace whether I agree that it is ready or not, and perhaps PROD or AFD it if I felt strongly enough about it
- Or, ignore the G6 maintenance request entirely because I don't agree that the article is ready, and leave the copy/paste in place for someone else to deal with.
- Note that this isn't really a histmerge situation because the deleted copy/paste was just that: one copy/paste edit, and one edit for the G6 tag. Nothing substantive to merge w/ the draft history.
- Do I, as the admin who deleted the copy/paste per the G6 tag in good faith, automatically endorse the move from draft to mainspace?
Any clarity on the matter would be greatly appreciated! --Hadal (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- As someone who does a lot of these, you have three general options:
- Perform a histmerge.
- Move the original page to the new location.
- Decline the CSD and perform no histmerge
- Note that these options are valid for Draft → Article but also Article → Article. In this particular circumstance where the only article-space edit was the original creator doing the copy/paste, I would do the second and just move the draft over the article. Much of the time (I would say ~75% for me) I end up doing a histmerge. The rest of the time I am doing #3, largely because there is no content editing by anyone other than the original editor and thus there are no attribution issues. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Primefac Wow, that was a quick reply! So you would agree that rather than delete via G6 and assume the nominator will perform the move, that I should (must?) perform the move myself? Does the language of G6 need to be amended to be more explicit, i.e. "must ensure" rather than "should ensure"? --Hadal (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- The page was tagged (and deleted) three days ago; clearly there is no inclination of the nominator to move the page. I will note that {{db-move}} has a
(link to perform this move)
pipe to Special:Move to make the move that much easier; {{db-copypaste}} should probably also have that... - Regarding your query specifically, I do occasionally delete without moving but I will then leave a note with the nominator along the lines of "page deleted, move away". Primefac (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- The page was tagged (and deleted) three days ago; clearly there is no inclination of the nominator to move the page. I will note that {{db-move}} has a
- @Primefac Wow, that was a quick reply! So you would agree that rather than delete via G6 and assume the nominator will perform the move, that I should (must?) perform the move myself? Does the language of G6 need to be amended to be more explicit, i.e. "must ensure" rather than "should ensure"? --Hadal (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- It appears most of this has been resolved without the need for further comments from me, but I did this because the situation here looked exactly like what was just rejected at #Proposal: CSD for copypaste articles of drafts declined by AFC. And yes, I plan to keep challenging those deletions whenever they show up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G6, because that's what the community has asked me to do in that section. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think "the community" has asked you to make drive-by complaints based on bot-generated logs that can easily be misinterpreted, and should therefore demand more care than you have shown. Context is king. If you don't have access to the deleted edits to actually know what's going on, ask for clarification first. Please don't go straight to assuming impropriety, and don't link to a withdrawn proposal as some kind of blanket justification for attempting to read other peoples' minds. --Hadal (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- ... but my interpretation of what happened appears to have been perfectly correct here? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you believe the copy/paste article should be "restored" you should either ask Mori Calliope fan to move the draft after the maintenance deletion occurred, or move the draft into mainspace yourself. But instead you went straight to requesting the (technically copyvio) copy/paste version be restored, which does not appear to make any sense. --Hadal (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- It makes perfect sense, because I'm enforcing deletion policy, not making a judgement about the suitability of the article for mainspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize you were an enforcer. Please elaborate. If you're requesting an article be restored, and given that it is a copyvio, what possible justification do you have? --Hadal (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Because it was speedy deleted in a scenario in which there was explicit consensus several sections above not to speedy delete such pages. Oh, and it's not a copyvio, because nobody other than Blalithk has made significant edits to the draftspace version. We're clearly talking past each other here. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly ignored a perfectly reasonable option: If you want the draft in mainspace, move it yourself. The G6 accomplished two things: It removed a copy/paste move that violated policy; and, as the G6 indicated, made way for the clean draft to be moved to mainspace. The tools are in your hands. Fix it yourself. --Hadal (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Because it was speedy deleted in a scenario in which there was explicit consensus several sections above not to speedy delete such pages. Oh, and it's not a copyvio, because nobody other than Blalithk has made significant edits to the draftspace version. We're clearly talking past each other here. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize you were an enforcer. Please elaborate. If you're requesting an article be restored, and given that it is a copyvio, what possible justification do you have? --Hadal (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- It makes perfect sense, because I'm enforcing deletion policy, not making a judgement about the suitability of the article for mainspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you believe the copy/paste article should be "restored" you should either ask Mori Calliope fan to move the draft after the maintenance deletion occurred, or move the draft into mainspace yourself. But instead you went straight to requesting the (technically copyvio) copy/paste version be restored, which does not appear to make any sense. --Hadal (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- ... but my interpretation of what happened appears to have been perfectly correct here? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think "the community" has asked you to make drive-by complaints based on bot-generated logs that can easily be misinterpreted, and should therefore demand more care than you have shown. Context is king. If you don't have access to the deleted edits to actually know what's going on, ask for clarification first. Please don't go straight to assuming impropriety, and don't link to a withdrawn proposal as some kind of blanket justification for attempting to read other peoples' minds. --Hadal (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is rarely necessary to pre-delete (justified by G6 or otherwise) a redir that is blocking a page move, or even to use the
{{db-move}}
tag. Follow the directions at WP:RM#T, and the admin who takes it will simply use the normal "move" option, when they will be presented with a warning box reading 'The destination page "Foobar" already exists. Do you want to delete it to make way for the move? (Check the edit history.)' and one extra checkbox: "Yes, delete the page" which they enable before clicking Move page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for your feedback but, nobody was talking about redirs here. I don't see the relevance of your statement. Yet, I think you've raised even more interesting questions. Forgive me, I know this has already been a thrilling journey through language and meaning, but:
- You appear to be saying that non-admins cannot use G6 - delete to make way for a page move/fix move - in CSD nominations, and therefore admins must decline these nominations. They must use RMT.
- Or, a non-admin can sometimes (?? when do you think this is OK?) use db-move; however, the admin is then obligated to perform the move rather than simply delete it in good faith.
- Perhaps G6 needs a rewrite if any of the above are becoming common interpretations, as you are suggesting here. --Hadal (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily a redirect, although that is the most frequent case. It could be any page that is blocking a move. The opening post of this thread includes
I realize that G6 states, "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it."
I am pointing out that the admin shouldn't need to delete the blocking page and hope that the move is performed: whether it's a redirect or not, an admin can move another page to take its place merely by passing through an extra step of the page move process, there is no need to delete the blocking page first, and therefore no need to tag it either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)- Your logic rests on an explicit assumption that is not borne out in policy: That an admin is obligated to perform a G6-related move, be it via db-move or not.
- This is not the case, is it? Yet the only logical conclusion to be read from your statements is that you believe an admin must perform the move, which is an entirely separate act from the target deletion. You are also implying by extension that an admin is effectively endorsing the move related to the G6 deletion. Unless you believe that moving and deleting are the same act? In either case, can you support your position with a relevant policy? -Hadal (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are being very argumentative, and reading an awful lot into my comments that I simply did not say. No admin is obliged to do anything. If an admin disagrees with a G6 tagging, they can (a) de-tag the pages concerned; (b) leave a comment on the associated talk page explaining their concerns; (c) ignore it and wait for another admin to pass by. Similarly, if an admin disagrees with a RM#T request, they can (a) decline the request; (b) use the "discuss" link to turn it into a forml RM and say why they disagree; (c) ignore it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize if you're reading any tone into this that I did not intend, because I was sincerely trying to make sense of your comments. I work with a lot of legal documents, and sometimes it's hard for me to turn off the technical filter in my brain that sounds an alarm whenever something doesn't make sense to me. This is my fault, and I'll make an effort to be more mindful of it.
- Let's try this again, after stepping back for a minute: You said that it is "rarely necessary to pre-delete... or even use db-move" because these requests are handled at RMT. You said that "there is no need to... tag" an article, because an admin will be handling the move, and the deletion will occur automatically. But as far as I'm aware, there's nothing wrong with non-admins using G6/db-move tags to have target articles deleted, as good faith maintenance requests. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with an admin deciding to delete the tagged target article as a good faith maintenance request -- e.g., there's nothing in the wording of the db-move tag that says the move must be performed by the admin. There's a link for convenience, but this is not an imperative. I'm evidently not the only one who doesn't always perform the associated move after deleting the target per G6 request; perhaps opting to remind the nominator of the clear target instead.
- If you agree with this, which it now sounds like you might, then everything is in fact working as intended. But if not, we as a community need to have a larger discussion around G6, as there's a vibe around here from a growing number of people that are unhappy with the way G6 is being used or interpreted. Perhaps all such requests should be handled via RMT, which would remove a lot of ambiguity. We'll see. Your feedback is extremely valuable in sussing this out, and I thank you for sharing it. --Hadal (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are being very argumentative, and reading an awful lot into my comments that I simply did not say. No admin is obliged to do anything. If an admin disagrees with a G6 tagging, they can (a) de-tag the pages concerned; (b) leave a comment on the associated talk page explaining their concerns; (c) ignore it and wait for another admin to pass by. Similarly, if an admin disagrees with a RM#T request, they can (a) decline the request; (b) use the "discuss" link to turn it into a forml RM and say why they disagree; (c) ignore it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily a redirect, although that is the most frequent case. It could be any page that is blocking a move. The opening post of this thread includes
- Thanks for your feedback but, nobody was talking about redirs here. I don't see the relevance of your statement. Yet, I think you've raised even more interesting questions. Forgive me, I know this has already been a thrilling journey through language and meaning, but:
- "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it" was my addition. I requested an admin delete a redirect that was blocking a page move. They deleted the redirect but didn't move the page. I didn't get back online for more than a day, so that entire time, that article title was a dead link. That's why the admin who deletes needs to finish the job.
- If you have any uncertainty about moving the page, don't delete, but bring to a wider discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Requested moves Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is another situation caught by my out-of-process deletions report, and it found 6 cases in just the last 3 days of an admin deleting a redirect to make way for a move, and then the move not being finished (all of which I've just done now). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pardon me Oiyarbepsy, but are you saying that you added that language ("Admins should ensure...") to G6? If so, was it added as a result of any discussion or consensus-building? (I'm asking for my own reference.) I realize policy can be edited by anyone, but if this wasn't the result of consensus I think that the language should be removed. I may do this myself, because I think its inclusion encourages a fundamental misunderstanding of CSD and G6 as a venue for this sort of maintenance request.
- You say that admins "need to finish the job," i.e. they must perform the move. But this has never been the case since the inception of CSD. You (and others, such as Pppery) appear to be conflating G6/db-move reqs with RMT reqs: You seem to believe they are the exact same mechanism, when they are not.
- It is reasonable to suggest that you have misunderstood the purpose of G6/db-move deletion requests, as there has never been an explicit guarantee that the associated move will be performed by the admin. It is not always appropriate/ideal for the admin to perform the deletion. (AfC reviews being just one example.) If you wanted to guarantee that the move be made in your absence, you should have made the request at RMT instead.
- If this is a common mistake, then perhaps a G6 copyedit is in order -- to remind nominators that the move may not always occur immediately following the deletion, and to use RMT if they want to guarantee that the move happens in their stead. But if you want to compel admins to always make the moves associated with G6/db-move, I think that language needs consensus. Such a change in policy would likely have consequences that need to be assessed. -Hadal (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the difference between G6 and RMTR, but still shouldn't have to clean up after 5 sloppy admin actions in only 3 days, hence Oiyarbepsy's addition is necessary and I would oppose deletion. The aforementioned clause does not mean the admin has to personally press the move button; it means it is their duty to ensure that the deletion does not show up on my database report the next time it is updated, so it does allow for AfC moves (although personally I don't like the {{db-afc-move}} process, precisely because I keep having to clean up after it). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery While I always appreciate a sense of initiative, nobody is forcing you to "clean up" after anyone. Perfection is not required when editing Wikipedia. If admins are not compelled to make the moves, the language could instead be clarified to say exactly what you have said: That they are encouraged to follow up with the nominator, but are not required to perform the move themselves. Because what you and I think the clause means evidently is not what Oiyarbepsy believes it to mean. And it's likely they're not the only one who reads a sense of obligation into the language. I will make this change in the absence of a good reason (and "I have to clean up after them!" is not a good reason, because nobody has to do anything they don't want to do.) --Hadal (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I never thought that it would be controversial that an admin shouldn't leave a task half-done in a way that breaks the encyclopedia Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's "controversial" because you are asserting an obligation that never existed, and you have edited policy based on this erroneous belief. This is more of a "break" to Wikipedia than some "dead link" (the horror!) that nobody noticed for a day. You may not see it, but trying to force this belief onto others would represent some significant consequences that go beyond CSD.
- Admins are not wet nurses; we're not here to prevent editors from making mistakes, because mistakes are how we learn. The idea that an admin is responsible because you incorrectly tagged an article and then walked away is... absurd, frankly. I'm not seeing any good reason not to rectify this, so I'll start drafting some changes. --Hadal (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- The "obligation" takes ten seconds to complete, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask an admin to do it. And if the admin doesn't want to do it, they have the easy solution of not deleting and leaving it to someone else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to ask the admin to do it, ask them to do it. Don't expect the admin to read your mind. (This is generally a bad thing for anyone to do.) Don't put scare quotes around what you are demanding, as if to minimize it: You want to compel admins to make these moves. For no good reason at all. Again, please use RMT if you want to ensure the page is moved on your behalf, or if you don't want to do the move yourself. Please don't confuse your own expectations with the way the tools actually work. --Hadal (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, here goes:
- "For no good reason at all" - I consider avoiding having a high-profile title be a dead link to be a good reason, which I've said before. Are you saying that you don't?
- "You want to compel admins..." - Speedy deletion means that admins can delete, not that they must. They are always free to ignore it or to remove the speedy deletion tag.
- "Again, please use RMT..." - The bureaucracy of RMT is far more time-consuming than an admin (or anyone else) pressing the move button. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're creating a crisis out of nothing. You're grossly overstating something that really isn't a big deal. Perfection is not required when editing Wikipedia.
- Yes, please use RMT if you expect the page move to be performed for you. You're free to avoid CSD if you don't like how it functions; and you're free to avoid RMT if you don't want to take the minimal amount of effort required. CSD is what it is - and it's not RMT.
- It's perplexing to me that you're complaining about the "bureaucracy" of RMT while trying to create more bureaucracy here. You essentially want CSD to function the same way as RMT, and if that were to happen we'd end up shifting all move-related reqs to RMT, a concept which has been seriously floated. So you'd end up having to deal with RMT anyway. You're welcome to start an RfC if you believe this is really what you want. I will respect the consensus, as I always have. --Hadal (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to ask the admin to do it, ask them to do it. Don't expect the admin to read your mind. (This is generally a bad thing for anyone to do.) Don't put scare quotes around what you are demanding, as if to minimize it: You want to compel admins to make these moves. For no good reason at all. Again, please use RMT if you want to ensure the page is moved on your behalf, or if you don't want to do the move yourself. Please don't confuse your own expectations with the way the tools actually work. --Hadal (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- The "obligation" takes ten seconds to complete, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask an admin to do it. And if the admin doesn't want to do it, they have the easy solution of not deleting and leaving it to someone else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the difference between G6 and RMTR, but still shouldn't have to clean up after 5 sloppy admin actions in only 3 days, hence Oiyarbepsy's addition is necessary and I would oppose deletion. The aforementioned clause does not mean the admin has to personally press the move button; it means it is their duty to ensure that the deletion does not show up on my database report the next time it is updated, so it does allow for AfC moves (although personally I don't like the {{db-afc-move}} process, precisely because I keep having to clean up after it). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have always read that line to mean admins should make sure editors are not using it when they have no intention of actually performing the page move and just want the page deleted. In my view, this is a reasonable request. We are just asking the admin to ensure the CSD used – in this case, {{db-move}} – actually applies, like they do for every other CSD. I don't think this requires the admin actually do the move, just that they keep an eye out for potential misuse by disruptive editors. HouseBlastertalk 21:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is clear that several people were reading a sense of obligation into the language. The author of that clause clearly did not see it the same way as you. More generally, one could read your interpretation to mean that admins can't trust the editors making these nominations -- which is counter to assuming good faith. It could also suggest a lack of confidence in non-admins' competency, which is also unfair. (I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but it's a possible interpretation.) In the end, a couple of temporarily "broken links" (deleted redirs?) isn't going to "break" Wikipedia. Put simply, CSD is primarily a forum for requesting deletions, not moves. Misusing tags happens everywhere on Wikipedia, and this can be addressed as needed w/ the 'offending' nominator. --Hadal (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how one might interpret my comments in that way, so let me clarify: I believe that non-admins can be trusted – I would hope so, given I am a non-admin ;). I am saying that admins should follow a policy of trust, but verify when deleting db-moves. That is, it should behave like (almost?) every other CSD – e.g., if I tag an article as WP:A7, you are not going to just delete the article under A7 before you read the article to make sure that A7 applies. This does not mean non-admins are untrustworthy, but that they are human. HouseBlastertalk 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly reasonable on its face, but what more needs to be said that isn't already stated on the CSD project page? Admins are expected to follow deletion policy whenever they delete anything. There's a reminder about this under G6 too. If you want to add a new clause to the deletion policy that says... what? That admins responding to G6 reqs need to be exrra vigilant, not that they haven't been careful otherwise, because these deletion reqs are somehow more sensitive or worthy of extra scrutiny? I guess I just don't see this as some kind of exceptional threat to Wikipedia. If someone wants to misuse these tags, they're not going to do any irreparable damage. Wikipedia will never be perfect, and it will never be free of disruption.
- Recall that the clause we're discussing was added by someone who was disappointed because the responding admin didn't "finish the job" for them. I.e., they misunderstood the mechanism of G6, and tried to turn it into the same mechanism as RMT, purely for their own desire for their expectations to match reality. Admins aren't cops, we're not mind-readers, we're not anyone's teachers, and we're not here to protect editors from themselves. We're human too. Mistakes are rarely emergencies. --Hadal (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how one might interpret my comments in that way, so let me clarify: I believe that non-admins can be trusted – I would hope so, given I am a non-admin ;). I am saying that admins should follow a policy of trust, but verify when deleting db-moves. That is, it should behave like (almost?) every other CSD – e.g., if I tag an article as WP:A7, you are not going to just delete the article under A7 before you read the article to make sure that A7 applies. This does not mean non-admins are untrustworthy, but that they are human. HouseBlastertalk 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- It is clear that several people were reading a sense of obligation into the language. The author of that clause clearly did not see it the same way as you. More generally, one could read your interpretation to mean that admins can't trust the editors making these nominations -- which is counter to assuming good faith. It could also suggest a lack of confidence in non-admins' competency, which is also unfair. (I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but it's a possible interpretation.) In the end, a couple of temporarily "broken links" (deleted redirs?) isn't going to "break" Wikipedia. Put simply, CSD is primarily a forum for requesting deletions, not moves. Misusing tags happens everywhere on Wikipedia, and this can be addressed as needed w/ the 'offending' nominator. --Hadal (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Super crazy idea: remove "pages blocking a page move" from G6
Why is this even a part of G6 in the first place? Is there a reason that ROBIN moves are not sufficient to handle redirects blocking page moves (assuming they have more than one revision, in which case they are automatically deleted)? I realize those one-revision redirects are currently deleted with a log entry mentioning G6, but I believe my point still stands: we can just handle these cases at WP:RMT? It would cut down on G6 bloat. HouseBlastertalk 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The redirects are being speedily deleted so the speedy deletion policy needs to allow for that, also I believe the policy predates automatic deletion of one-revision redirects becoming a thing the software does - previously you had to delete them manually first. If you want to move this out of G6 to a new criterion where the detail can be expanded upon in the policy then you have my complete support - G6 is overloaded and widely abused (intentionally and otherwise), so splitting it up is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Genuinely, good luck. Every time a thread on the matter gets started, it is soon sidetracked or simply disappears without anything ever happening. Because heaven forbid we give administrators clear options to work with... Primefac (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hence my chivvying at #Proposal: C4 Empty maintenance categories - things idling out without resolution is a bugbear of mine! Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. Would this be a new CSD criteria or would we simply not allow it any more? Primefac (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- My first thought would be something like a new criterion but accompanied by a note saying something like "it is very rare that this tag should be added directly, in almost all circumstances it is better and easier to use WP:RM/T." As we do need to allow the speedy deletion of the page blocking the move and there might be occasions when RM/T isn't the best/a possible option (although I can't think of any off the top of my head, I don't do many page moves).
- A related issue is temporary deletions as part of a round-robin move. On the one-hand these would logically fit with the page-move criterion, on the other I don't like temporary and permanent deletions appearing the same in the logs (and this is another one of the many issues with the present G6). Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
temporary deletions as part of a round-robin move
-> round robin moves as typically performed don't involve deleting anything. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. Would this be a new CSD criteria or would we simply not allow it any more? Primefac (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hence my chivvying at #Proposal: C4 Empty maintenance categories - things idling out without resolution is a bugbear of mine! Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: just as a historical note, non-sysops could always move pages over redirects with no history, although sometimes in those early days following the implementation of Phase III the software could be buggy, and it would still be neccessary to request deletion at VfD. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Genuinely, good luck. Every time a thread on the matter gets started, it is soon sidetracked or simply disappears without anything ever happening. Because heaven forbid we give administrators clear options to work with... Primefac (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- For AfC acceptances it is better for the redirect blocking the move to be first deleted so the AfC reviewer can do the acceptance steps with the script. ROBIN moves can only be done by page movers also. Note not all redirects with 1 revision are automatically deleted, only ones that point back to the page being moved. Galobtter (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- "They can just be handled at RMT" is a bad reason for removing this from G6. What happens when they are handled at RMT often includes a G6 deletion. So removing this from G6 would make things more difficult/complicated/out of process for the admins handling RMT, with no practical benefit. Maybe what you want, instead, is to deprecate the template that tags pages as needing a G6 deletion, and instead push people to make those requests at RMT rather than through the template? But this would still involve an eventual G6 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The problem I'm seeing, especially in the parent section, is that there seems to be a push to make RMT the de jure (rather than de rigueur? but see my last paragraph) pathway for users to request technical page moves. I keep seeing G6 reqs and db-move described as "unnecessary" or somehow depreciated; and RMT described as "better" and "easier." Yet I don't think you can beat the simplicity of a db-move tag. And as you've pointed out, there are consequences to pushing more of these on to RMT by way of rewriting G6 that won't necessarily make things better. At the same time, G6 appears to be some kind of flashpoint (to risk overstating it) in a generally-expressed opinion that admins are frequently acting out of process.
- Maybe it's because I come from the ancient times when we had a text-only front page, but... there seems to be a kind of bureaucracy creep in many areas of policy interpretation in recent years, and shifting (almost?) all technical moves to RMT may end up adding to that creep. If we require non-admins to go through RMT (almost?) every time, I don't think this is necessarily helpful to them: It could be seen as taking agency away from them, as Galobtter alludes to with just one example (AfC reviewers). Essentially, every move that requires a target deletion would need to be 'endorsed' by an admin, because (presumably) only an admin would ever be making the move itself.
- At the end of the day, I don't see why G6/db-move reqs and RMT reqs need to be compared to each other, especially as a way of measuring their value. (I.e., I don't think language that amounts to "do this instead because it's better/easier" belongs in a CSD criterion definition.) One pathway is not ulltimately more neccessary than the other, and they both ultimately serve the same goal: they're tools for non-admins to bring attention to maintenance issues that they can't fix themselves. If we're going to consider the removal of some of these tools, we need to be very careful about it. --Hadal (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just responding to the G6/out of process part of your comment: at least personally, I am not concerned about admins acting out of process (deletion or otherwise), as long as their actions improve the encyclopedia. My concern is when admins erroneously cite G6 in the deletion rationale. To use an analogy, expanding articles is more than okay – it is encouraged. But when one is expanding an article, the edit summary should not be "fixed typo". I believe that some editors have other concerns over IAR-style deletions in general, but I wanted to clarify that (at least in my mind) IAR deletion and G6 misuse are two separate matters. HouseBlastertalk 21:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- To me, this proposal seems to be less about the speedy deletion criteria and more about the venue for requesting speedy deletion. I don't see a reason for fiddling with the venue and I concur that we'd still need a "pages blocking a page move" criterion even if we changed venue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- And any admin should be allowed to fix things if they notice (or are notified) that something is wrong by making page moves and deleting pages that block the move without going to WP:RMTR for everything. There is no need to invent additional bureaucracy. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and now I wonder: Is the root cause for many of these disagreements, including widespread assertions that admins are acting "out of process," the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of G6/db-move deletion requests? It seems to me that people are confusing these reqs with RMT reqs, believing that they are the exact same mechanism... despite clearly not being the same. We should always hesitate when further bloating our bureaucracy. --Hadal (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- And any admin should be allowed to fix things if they notice (or are notified) that something is wrong by making page moves and deleting pages that block the move without going to WP:RMTR for everything. There is no need to invent additional bureaucracy. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Changes to G6 per discussions above
I have made changes to G6 based on the discussions above, as it became clear that something had to be done. I waited at least two days for any reasonable objections, but found none. To summarize:
- The following language has been removed, which was self-attributed to Oiyarbepsy in the parent section:
- "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it."
- This language was added without consensus, and it arose from both a mistaken belief that administrators are obligated to perform moves associated with G6 deletions; and, an apparent misunderstanding of how G6 move-related requests function vis-a-vis WP:RM/Technical (RMT) requests.
- This language perpetuated these falsehoods, and I believe it was contributing to the growing conflation of CSD:G6 and RMT: These are similar, but not identical mechanisms. One is not more necessary than the other; one does not depreciate the other. They are both useful tools that compliment each other.
- "An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it."
- The section was reorganized and language was added with the intent to improve clarity:
- "Nominators are advised that the responding administrator is not required to perform the page move associated with the deletion request, nor is it always appropriate for the administrator to do so. If the nominator wishes to ensure that the page move is performed on their behalf, the request should instead be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
- If the responding administrator elects not to perform the associated page move after the requested deletion is performed, it is recommended that they follow up by informing the nominator of the deletion."
- I included the second line as more of a nod to courtesy than anything else.
- I hope that these changes make the functional differences between move-related G6 reqs and RMT reqs better to understand for everyone, but especially for nominators.
- Note that I have not created any new rules and G6 should function the same as it has, but with (I hope) less ambiguity. I ask that any objections be discussed here first, rather than simply jumping to reverts. I have tried my best to be clear and fair in my wording.
- If Oiyarbepsy or anyone else would still like to compel administrators to perform these moves, I think such a change would require a wide-reaching request for comment, and a firm consensus. Such an obligation would likely have consequences that go beyond CSD.
If you've read this far, I thank you for considering my thoughts. --Hadal (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you are going to have this much detail about considerations required for processing deletions to make way for moves then it no longer really fits in G6 and feels like an entirely new criterion. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's very helpful to have a long discussion about whether an administrator is or is not obliged to move a page as a result of a G6 request. I would have thought it was obvious that administrators are not obliged to move a page just because they deleted a page. The bit which says that in some cases "the request should instead be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests" is also misleading because any moves made as a result of requests there are also done under G6. I suggest we just get rid of the two paragraphs under "Move-related" to simplify things. Hut 8.5 18:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Since it seems clear nobody actually supports the changes Hadal made, I've reverted them (after having to clean up after yet another admin deleting something to make way for a move and the page still being red days later). This does not preclude any further changes to G6 if they obtain proper consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
How early is the earliest block or ban in G5?
WhichUserAmI has managed to test the G5 wording to destruction, as has appeared at Deletion Review[1].
Background: WhichUserAmI created that account. Then, a few months later, they created another account with a stupidly long name. This account was blocked indefinitely for having a stupidly long name. They then created some articles. Subsequently, they were found socking, and all their accounts were blocked as socks, including a re-block of the still-blocked long-name account. Liz then deleted a lot of articles they created, dating back to before the sock-block, but after the long-name-block. WhichUserAmI is now requesting at Deletion Review that these articles should be reinstated as the application of G5 was retrospective of their block for socking. Extraordinary Writ has pointed out that Liz's deletions are after the first block, and therefore still comply with G5.
G5's problematic wording
* When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
Question 1: Do we need to clarify that G5 applies only to articles that the editor was, by virtue of a ban, unentitled to make? For example, if someone got blocked or banned, subsequently the block or ban was lifted, and then they got re-blocked and did some socking, clearly the editing they did between the end of their first ban, and the point they started socking, was entirely legal and above-board, and shouldn't be retrospectively deleted. Another example, if WhichUserAmI had first created an account with a stupidly long name, and this had been indefinitely blocked as an unhelpful name, and they responded by abandoning that account and creating one with a more sensible name, then again it's not helpful to treat the first block on the stupidly-named account as the point at which they became a "bad editor" whose work should be deleted. There was, in fact, nothing else they could have done, to put right the error they made in choosing a daft user-name.
Question 2: Do we want G5 to go back to the point where socking began, or only to the point where the sock-block was made? This is where WhichUserAmI's situation is very unclear, because they created the long name account after their main account, so it was already a sock when it got blocked for being a silly name. The articles dating between the creation of the long name account and the sock-block were therefore created during the period that the socking had been going on, even though they weren't created in evasion of any particular ban.
Obviously some common sense is needed in situations like this, but I wonder if a change in the wording might avoid misunderstanding. I suggest:
* When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created in contravention of their block or ban, by any of their accounts, qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
Elemimele (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- The stupidly-long name account was hard-blocked rather than soft-blocked, so it controls (and should control) in all circumstances, even in the hypothetical in question 1, and the articles created after it was blocked were validly G5ed. That said, it's generally agreed that once someone is unblocked they are entitled to request restoration of any articles G5ed due to them, so the DRV itself is fine. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want to get side-tracked by that particular example, which is an odd one (a NOTHERE block for vandalism would have made more sense). My main concern is that the scope of G5 should be something that's obvious. When it reaches a situation that we are determining the deletability of an article by a detailed examination of the exact dates and technical natures of blocks buried deep in the block-logs of a set of sock accounts, then for the sake of the encyclopaedia it would be better to avoid G5 and send the articles to AfD, where they can be assessed on their merits rather than the merits of their creator. Elemimele (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sending stuff to AFD would undermine the point of G5. We don't want to decide on the merit because blocking/banning would be pointless if we kept stuff created in violation of a block/ban. In fact, it would just invite more socking. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion criteria explicitly only apply "in the most obvious cases", and this is very clearly not one of the most obvious cases (it's arguably one of the least obvious). A good standard for this is that if there is good faith disagreement about whether a page meets a speedy deletion criterion then it does not. Both of these mean that G5 does not apply here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sending stuff to AFD would undermine the point of G5. We don't want to decide on the merit because blocking/banning would be pointless if we kept stuff created in violation of a block/ban. In fact, it would just invite more socking. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want to get side-tracked by that particular example, which is an odd one (a NOTHERE block for vandalism would have made more sense). My main concern is that the scope of G5 should be something that's obvious. When it reaches a situation that we are determining the deletability of an article by a detailed examination of the exact dates and technical natures of blocks buried deep in the block-logs of a set of sock accounts, then for the sake of the encyclopaedia it would be better to avoid G5 and send the articles to AfD, where they can be assessed on their merits rather than the merits of their creator. Elemimele (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- So, I'm confused... Are we saying we can't give WhichUserAmI a WP:REFUND because their work was created while socking? If they have been reinstated, I think there's no problem with restoring the work. I don't think we need to change any wording to G5 to indicate that; on the first hand WUAI's block-and-reinstatement-and-REFUND-request is unusual to the point that I've never seen such a thing before, so I can't see there to be a pressing need to account for such sui generis situations by rewriting policy. WP:IAR covers weird situations like this; it doesn't benefit the encyclopedia to keep these pages deleted, so let them have the pages back to work on. That's sufficient for me. --Jayron32 17:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is already clarified in G5 that it only applies if the user was blocked (under any account, not counting soft username blocks) at the time the page was created regardless of their behaviour or if they get blocked/banned later, the 1st and 3rd bullet points clarify that. G5 can never be applied if the user wasn't blocked/banned at the time of the creation. See Alamgir Khan (singer) for an example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Let's deal with this from a "what's best for the encyclopedia" standpoint rather than by wikilawyering. I neither know nor care whether this person had been blocked at the time these articles were created. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I was getting at: forget the details of the nature and timing of different blocks, just use G5 common-sense to zap stuff that shouldn't exist. But I'm not going to make a thing about this, I think I got an unnecessary bee in my bonnet and I'm quite happy to drop this rather unattractive stick and do something more useful instead. As Jayron32 said, IAR allows an admin (or anyone) to use common sense. Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that exactly. G5 allows such things to be deleted, it does not mandate that they must be deleted. Admins are quite allowed to decline a G5 for as simple a reason as "Look, I get that this was technically a violation, but honestly, it looks like the encyclopedia is better if we just leave it". --Jayron32 11:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I was getting at: forget the details of the nature and timing of different blocks, just use G5 common-sense to zap stuff that shouldn't exist. But I'm not going to make a thing about this, I think I got an unnecessary bee in my bonnet and I'm quite happy to drop this rather unattractive stick and do something more useful instead. As Jayron32 said, IAR allows an admin (or anyone) to use common sense. Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion makes it look complicated but it is not. G5 was appropriately applied, and DRV did not overturn the speedy deletion. This user was blocked and after being blocked they created articles. When a user operates multiple accounts and one of those accounts is hard-blocked, the user is a blocked user, and as such is not allowed to edit per WP:ILLEGIT. The user needed to request unblock, not to create articles. Nothing needs to be changed or clarified in the policy. —Alalch E. 16:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Clarify R3 regarding misspellings of "(disambiguation)"
I think maybe it would be worth clarifying that R3 applies to cases where the term "(disambiguation)" is misspelled/mistyped. This follows a discussion (but not a consensus on this matter) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 20#Redirects with "(diambiguation)". ISTM that cases like "Term (diambiguation)", "Term (disabiguation)", and "Term (disambiguation" are very different from, say, "Tirm (disambiguation)" (where "Tirm" is a misspelling of "Term"). The worth of the last case (I'm assuming these are all redirects) depends on the "usefulness" of the misspelling "Tirm", while whatever logic you apply to the first three cases would apply equally to literally any "Term". This would seem to go against the "spirit" of R3, but because it is not explicity covered by that criterion (or G14, or G6 for that matter), people are relying on WP:RDAB, which is not official policy. It's also a little confusing, assuming you have this case in mind, having a caveat in there about R3 not applying to redirects ending with [a properly spelled] "(disambiguation)". Therefore, I propose adding to R3 wording that clarifies that the criterion does apply to cases where the typo is in the term "(disambiguation)" itself. Not sure the best wording to use. Note, BTW, that a search for, say, "Term (diambiguation)" or even "Term (diabiguation)" [two typos] will turn up the page "Term (disambiguation)", if it exists, so such redirects are completely unnecessary. - dcljr (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- No. That discussion has not closed yet, and so it's completely inappropriate to use it as the basis for a policy change, but even if it had been it and previous discussions makes it clear that deleting misspellings of "disambiguation" (and WP:RDAB as a whole, which is why it's not policy) is controversial and thus fails WP:NEWCSD point 2. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for it to be used as a "basis" for anything. It simply brought the issue to my attention, so I acknowledged that in the interest of "full disclosure". Sorry if I was unclear about that. As for your other point, a user in the other discussion noted the following cases where several such redirects were deleted: "1, 2 and 3". These three discussions from 2020 contain but a single "Keep" !vote that turned out to be based on a misunderstanding and so was struck out and replaced by a "Delete" !vote. I have found this discsussion from 2022 which contains multiple "Keep"s but ended up with a consensus to delete. Can you (or anyone) point to examples where such redirects have been kept? - dcljr (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support creating a new R5 criteria for RDAB errors. Yes I know there has previously been proposals on this but from the August 2022 discussion I think the consensus is clearer on this now. Many could arguably be deleted as R3, G14 and G6 but a separate criteria would probably be more helpful to deal with the (not infrequent) times R3 wouldn't apply at least for now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Dcljr Speedy deletion is only for things that are uncontroversial - i.e. everyone agrees that everything that could be deleted should be deleted, every time. Where deletion discussions gain good faith recommendations for a course of action other than deletion, as here, that criterion cannot be satisfied regardless of the eventual consensus of the discussions. Unless and until all proposals to delete these are unanimously deleted every time then speedy deletion is completely inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a ridiculously high bar. "Uncontroversial" does not necessarily mean "unanimous". Everything in these CSD guildelines were put there, or at least are being kept there, by consensus, and you can't tell me that every single one of them was unanimously agreed upon. Again, I ask: can anyone reading this point to a nomination of this kind that resulted in a "keep"? - dcljr (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- The standard isn't "consensus to keep" it's uncontroversial, the most obvious cases and everything that could be deleted should be deleted. Discussions that regularly get multiple good faith recommendations for something other than "delete" are not uncontroversial. Yes, this is a very high standard, but that's what CSD is - it's the exception not the rule. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- The criteria on this page are there by consensus. And in particular, the wording of those criteria are in their present state by consensus. I am merely asking that we consider an additional clarifying change in wording, not a whole new criterion. Anyway, I'll wait to see if anyone else weighs in here. - dcljr (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The standard isn't "consensus to keep" it's uncontroversial, the most obvious cases and everything that could be deleted should be deleted. Discussions that regularly get multiple good faith recommendations for something other than "delete" are not uncontroversial. Yes, this is a very high standard, but that's what CSD is - it's the exception not the rule. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a ridiculously high bar. "Uncontroversial" does not necessarily mean "unanimous". Everything in these CSD guildelines were put there, or at least are being kept there, by consensus, and you can't tell me that every single one of them was unanimously agreed upon. Again, I ask: can anyone reading this point to a nomination of this kind that resulted in a "keep"? - dcljr (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for it to be used as a "basis" for anything. It simply brought the issue to my attention, so I acknowledged that in the interest of "full disclosure". Sorry if I was unclear about that. As for your other point, a user in the other discussion noted the following cases where several such redirects were deleted: "1, 2 and 3". These three discussions from 2020 contain but a single "Keep" !vote that turned out to be based on a misunderstanding and so was struck out and replaced by a "Delete" !vote. I have found this discsussion from 2022 which contains multiple "Keep"s but ended up with a consensus to delete. Can you (or anyone) point to examples where such redirects have been kept? - dcljr (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- R3 is an unusually subjective criterion and it would make sense to address that. I would support adding a footnote after the word "implausible" along the lines of, "An 'implausible' typo or misnomer is one that is unlikely to ever benefit readers. If a redirect has a realistic chance of being kept at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (RfD), it is not implausible for the purposes of this criterion. Typos and misnomers often deleted at RfD include those containing multiple typos, very unlikely transpositional errors or mishearings of words, and misspelled disambiguators, although all of these may be valid redirects in some contexts. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes § Typos." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think most RDAB redirects that were recently created could already be deleted under R3 such as if London (Disambiguation) was created as there is a consensus (from the August 2022 discussion) to delete these but I still think a separate criteria would likely be helpful both for those not recently created as well as avoiding ambiguity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Fully protect this page!
Fully protect this page: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, so only any admin can edit! Also add the gold lock, like this: MihaiEdit (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @MihaiEdit: Please examine WP:Protection policy, and identify a good reason why the page should be protected. Then file a request at WP:Requests for page protection, stating your reasons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- To prevent vandalism and joke edits! MihaiEdit (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- As per the protection policy, protection is not intended as a preliminary measure against vandalism/disruption that has not occurred. To consider full protection, there would have to be a history of disruption by established editors or reason to believe that suboptimal edits could cause sitewide damage, both of which I think are highly unlikely in this case. Complex/Rational 13:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- To prevent vandalism and joke edits! MihaiEdit (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
TimedText pages
Are orphaned (TimedText:Bon_Jovi_-_It's_My_Life.ogg.en.srt and TimedText:Lady_Gaga_-_Telephone.ogg.en.srt) TimedText pages and these for files on Commons (TimedText:This-prounciation-audio-nonlabial.ogg.en.srt and TimedText:US_Army_Special_Forces_Dive_Team-1956.ogv.en.srt) eligible for speedy deletion under G8 and G6 (respectively)? The first seems to be straightforward, the second one not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes to the first and no to the second; if the file exists on Commons, but the TimedText does not, then shouldn't the text be copied to Commons? And only then deleted under a slight extension of F8? —Kusma (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- TimedText makes no sense without the original media file, so WP:G8 is imho the correct criterion to use for orphans. After all, it just says "pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", it does not limit the kind of page (the list is just of examples). If the file exists, eligibility to copying to Commons should be checked and if it exists on Commons, F8 applies. On a side note, I think we should change "Images" to "Files" in the header for F8 since the "F" already implies that it applies to all files. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking of F8 as well but TimedText isn't the File namespace, whereas G6 does encompass all namespaces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, given the absolute rarity of this situation, IAR applies. Now just as a thought exercise, assuming a strict CSD interpretation, then imo neither G6 or F8 legitimately apply; we'd either need to extend G6 to include TimedText or create a new CSD criteria for orphaned/trans-wiki'd TimedText content. -FASTILY 05:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- IAR is most definitely not appropriate. If you think something should be deleted but it isn't covered by a speedy deletion criterion and doesn't need to be oversighted then the only acceptable course of action is to take it to PROD or XfD. In this case it isn't eligible for PROD and MfD is the correct venue. You can propose a new or expanded speedy deletion criterion, but you are wasting your (and others') time unless your proposal meets all four of the WP:NEWCSD requirements. I can't imagine anything involving TimedText and not covered by one or more existing criteria being remotely frequent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The TimedText namespace is obviously an extension of the File namespace. Going through MfD for a TimedText page that should be on Commons like the associated File page would be a WP:TROUT worthy violation of WP:NOTBURO. —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- In your opinion. In my opinion, speedy deleting a TimedText page under an F criterion is the as deleting it using an A or C criterion - i.e. serious questions about your competency worthy. Remember that no admin may delete any page without an explicit consensus to do so, the speedy deletion criteria being the a list of the explicitly very narrowly worded exceptions where there is consensus in advance. As far as I can tell no such consensus exists for the TimedText namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding "no admin may delete any page without an explicit consensus", yeah sure, you're entitled to your own opinion, but that's definitely a minority opinion. -FASTILY 07:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's not just an opinion, it's the entire foundation on which the deletion policy is built. Deletions must either meet one of the criteria listed on this page or have consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says, "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." The deletion policy is not an exception where the rules must be understood ultra-literally. —Kusma (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain how following the exact wording of the policy, in several places, including
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion
Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other [non-speedy] deletions occur only after discussion, unless they are proposed deletions.
Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.
These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists
These [the File criteria] apply to files, images, and other media.
If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence.
- is understanding the policy "ultra-literally".
- Note also the very-long-standing consensuses that criteria must be interpreted narrowly and that if editors in good faith disagree about whether a page should be speedily deleted it should not. [all quotes taken from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion except the last from Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand your query. I understand "following the exact wording of the policy" to be the same as "understanding the policy literally". Doing that in all cases, even when it defies common sense, is wrong, as policies and guidelines are not there to be taken literally, but to be applied using reason and common sense. —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Applying policy using reason and common sense" is not the same thing as "applying policy in way directly contrary to how it is written". Applying a policy which applies to only "files, images, and other media." to something that is none of those is neither "common sense" nor "reasonable" - especially when consensus going back over a decade says that the policy should be applied very conservatively. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- You will not convince me with your argument that it makes a fundamental difference that TimedText pages are stored in a separate namespace instead of being sub-pages of the File page. TimedText pages belong to their corresponding Files, and just because nobody bothered to add them to F8 doesn't mean they should not be covered. But sure, if it makes you happy, you can add the TimedText namespace to F8 explicitly. —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- If namespaces weren't fundamental then CSD would not be split by namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Now reported at Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#Wrong namespace * Pppery * it has begun... 01:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- If namespaces weren't fundamental then CSD would not be split by namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- You will not convince me with your argument that it makes a fundamental difference that TimedText pages are stored in a separate namespace instead of being sub-pages of the File page. TimedText pages belong to their corresponding Files, and just because nobody bothered to add them to F8 doesn't mean they should not be covered. But sure, if it makes you happy, you can add the TimedText namespace to F8 explicitly. —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Applying policy using reason and common sense" is not the same thing as "applying policy in way directly contrary to how it is written". Applying a policy which applies to only "files, images, and other media." to something that is none of those is neither "common sense" nor "reasonable" - especially when consensus going back over a decade says that the policy should be applied very conservatively. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand your query. I understand "following the exact wording of the policy" to be the same as "understanding the policy literally". Doing that in all cases, even when it defies common sense, is wrong, as policies and guidelines are not there to be taken literally, but to be applied using reason and common sense. —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain how following the exact wording of the policy, in several places, including
- As Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines says, "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." The deletion policy is not an exception where the rules must be understood ultra-literally. —Kusma (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's not just an opinion, it's the entire foundation on which the deletion policy is built. Deletions must either meet one of the criteria listed on this page or have consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding "no admin may delete any page without an explicit consensus", yeah sure, you're entitled to your own opinion, but that's definitely a minority opinion. -FASTILY 07:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- In your opinion. In my opinion, speedy deleting a TimedText page under an F criterion is the as deleting it using an A or C criterion - i.e. serious questions about your competency worthy. Remember that no admin may delete any page without an explicit consensus to do so, the speedy deletion criteria being the a list of the explicitly very narrowly worded exceptions where there is consensus in advance. As far as I can tell no such consensus exists for the TimedText namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The TimedText namespace is obviously an extension of the File namespace. Going through MfD for a TimedText page that should be on Commons like the associated File page would be a WP:TROUT worthy violation of WP:NOTBURO. —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see no reason why G8, "pages dependent on nonexistent pages", doesn't apply. It doesn't say "pages dependent on non-existent pages in the same namespace or in the associated Talk namespace".Largoplazo (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- IAR is most definitely not appropriate. If you think something should be deleted but it isn't covered by a speedy deletion criterion and doesn't need to be oversighted then the only acceptable course of action is to take it to PROD or XfD. In this case it isn't eligible for PROD and MfD is the correct venue. You can propose a new or expanded speedy deletion criterion, but you are wasting your (and others') time unless your proposal meets all four of the WP:NEWCSD requirements. I can't imagine anything involving TimedText and not covered by one or more existing criteria being remotely frequent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, given the absolute rarity of this situation, IAR applies. Now just as a thought exercise, assuming a strict CSD interpretation, then imo neither G6 or F8 legitimately apply; we'd either need to extend G6 to include TimedText or create a new CSD criteria for orphaned/trans-wiki'd TimedText content. -FASTILY 05:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we should change "Images" to "Files" in the header for F8
Not just in the header. Clearly applies to all files, not just images; amended. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking of F8 as well but TimedText isn't the File namespace, whereas G6 does encompass all namespaces. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- TimedText makes no sense without the original media file, so WP:G8 is imho the correct criterion to use for orphans. After all, it just says "pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", it does not limit the kind of page (the list is just of examples). If the file exists, eligibility to copying to Commons should be checked and if it exists on Commons, F8 applies. On a side note, I think we should change "Images" to "Files" in the header for F8 since the "F" already implies that it applies to all files. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)