Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MFD)

Talk pages nominated for deletion

[edit]

Sometimes at MFD we see talk pages nominated for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should look very carefully at whether the nominator appears actually to be trying to nominate a talk page for deletion, for instance, to delete a record of discussion. Deleting a talk page is probably not in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If something was said that is so offensive that it should be removed from view, it is almost certainly better to ask an administrator to revision-delete the offensive post rather than delete the talk page. However, when I have seen talk pages nominated for deletion, it has usually been good-faith user error, in that the user was looking at the talk page for an article, and then clicked the XFD tab in Twinkle. Twinkle then does what it is asked to do, and nominates the talk page for deletion, but the user meant to nominate the article for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should ask the nominator if they were trying to nominate the article for deletion when viewing the talk page. These nominations are usually closed as Wrong Venue, and we should ask the nominator whether they made a good-faith error. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal scope

[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Portal_scope about a proposal for a guideline to use empirical data to help determine whether a topic has sufficient scope to merit a portal. Please head over there for more detail and to join the discussion. WaggersTALK 10:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy pages?

[edit]

Are these pages created because of some bot error? The double slashes make me think so. The content in all pages appear to be the same. I was looking at the "What links here" of "Alex Austin" and saw these. Wanted an opinion first.

Jay 💬 09:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also flagged by Wikipedia:Database reports/Bizarrely subnested userpages – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious bot error caused by users not following instructions and configuring archiving in a manner expected by the bot. I ran into this at Special:WhatLinksHere/"Alias" (2013 film). Ss0jse is far from the only editor failing to properly conform to this bot's complicated configuration requirements, but they're the one who's gone most off the rails. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do? Ss0jse (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some 69 edits I made, cleaning up after the bot's edit fails. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reported the problem(s) at User talk:ClueBot Commons#ClueBot III fails in dealing with unexpected bad user archiving configurations, making obviously bad edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed MfD request

[edit]

I apologize, I am unsure of why my MfD request is malformed. I think it's possible that my request is in the wrong venue, given the specific type of user page I am requesting for deletion, but I do not know enough about user subpages to be able to find the correct venue myself. I would appreciate someone assisting me with either fixing my request here, or sending me to the correct venue. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what went wrong in the first place, but I believe I was able to fix the issue and have reopened the MfD here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Викидим/Entity list using WP:TWINKLE. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assistance. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of transcluders of the MfD-ed userboxes

[edit]

It appears that the notification of transcluders, of a userbox nominated for deletion at MfD, is controversial.

I submit that it is required. The deletion of a userbox is not merely the deletion of a template, but a consensus decision that a particular image and statement is unacceptable on a user’s main userpage. It is a behavioural matter, and the transcluders are collectively accused of unacceptable behaviour, and the decision is considered binding on doing the same thing again.

Some are concerned about this being canvassing or votestacking. That concern is well alleviated by labelling the notified users as involved. In defending their Userpage statement, they have a natural right to be heard, to have a chance to explain their intention. This is necessary for a consensus decision-making discussion to be sufficiently informed. This does not mean that the transcluders can vote as a block and have the result determined by the vote count.

For many years, offensive and borderline-offensive Userboxes have been brought to MfD, to largely random results, due to wild variability in who turns up. Consensus is not served by limiting those who turn up.

The best way to inform those directly affected by the discussion is to explcitly WP:Ping them from the MfD. That way, everyone can see what was done, and when. The users are named, and if they post, they are readily identifiable as a transcluder. It’s better than talkpage notifications, which are less transparent, and alert friends of the transcluders.

Ideally, the nominator will ping the transcluders.

The sorts of Userboxes nominated are typically sexually offensive, of overt religious bigotry, or advocacy of extreme politics. Should all sexual, religious and political advocacy be declared unacceptable? These are important discussions, to determine where the line lies.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jdvillalobos/beautifulwomen. The user box in question (which displayed a naked woman) was deleted. The controversy concerned whether people who displayed that userbox should be notified. One side said that someone affected by a deletion should be notified. The other side said that such notification would invite a bunch of ILIKEIT keep votes. There is some merit to both arguments although, for example, lots of people have links to articles in their user space, and they aren't notified if an article is nominated for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also the current Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster/religion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the context, it is quite helpful here. However, this MfD discussion is quite unbelievable to read. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 00:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this as an evidence-gathering step. Better decisions can be made when the facts are clear. There should be a clear question, not just a notification to participate in general. But if there is no fact-finding issue and there is no question to ask, maybe it should not be done. —Alalch E. 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is proposing making a brightline rule to notify the talk page of every page that translcudes a page nominated for deletion -- no way. — xaosflux Talk 18:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xaosflux, it proposes that users in good standing should be WP:pinged from the MfD page that proposes the deletion of a (*) userbox transcluded on their main Userpage.
(*) borderline-acceptable Userboxes. Eg includes Userboxes that have been around, and accepted, for many years. Would not include NONAZIS violating Userboxes, or other SNOW delete cases, or SNOW keep cases.
It weighs the right to be informed of a discussion to remove statements from your Userpage highly. Note that unless you are in the habit of looking at your Userpage, you will not see the userbox-mfd-tag.
It specifically states that notification is by ping, not by user_talk page post. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if the pinged transcluders were to post only in their own special section? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boxes could have hundreds of transclusions, putting a banner on them should be sufficient. We survived the Userbox wars and Userbox migration without all those notification being needed. — xaosflux Talk 09:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Userbox wars and Userbox migration was achieved without deletions. Here, we have people going back to deletions, piecemeal.
Do you do a weekly check of your Userboxen to check for any carrying MfD banners? Putting a banner on a userbox is not sufficient. A ping would be sufficient.
If the banner was sufficient, then why is anyone suggesting an additional ping is votestacking?
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were many deletions prior to GUS, thus the wars.... 13:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC) — xaosflux Talk 13:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> If the banner was sufficient, then why is anyone suggesting an additional ping is votestacking?
Because banners are visible to all (including, e.g., people who think that the userbox is inappropriate), and pings are visible only to supportive individuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox banners clearly do not serve their purpose. People don’t see them. They don’t generate notifications. Main user pages are slow changing low view pages.
The pings are to be visible to the mfd, by being done from the MfD.
Why do you assume transcluders of old provocative Userboxes are auto-supporters? Do you think they haven’t noticed social change over twenty years? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they noticed (and agreed with) those social changes (assuming that's relevant), then presumably they would have removed the userbox. That they didn't indicates that they support it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, they should be invited to the discussion.
Agreement with social change is undoubtedly relevant. All of the non-SNOW userbox MfDs for several years are examples of social change in the Wikipedia editor community. Social change is not genuine if some stakeholders are not welcome to participate. Not removing an old userbox is a negligible level of participation. Perhaps old transcluders of the challenged userbox should be invited to remove the transclusion, they may have completely forgotten about it.
In the beautifulwoman userbox MfD, I pinged 23 editors. Reviewing, 17 were inactive, 4 barely active, 3 active. One responded. Do you argue that that one should not have been pinged? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your premise here is based on their "natural right" to be notified, but I couldn't really care less about that. This isn't a justice system or a democracy. Either something is a negative for the project or it isn't, and that can be decided through uninvolved editors weighing in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MfD does frequently serve as a type of justice system, with the nominator accusing another editor of doing something bad.
I agree, the MfD should be decided by uninvolved editors, but they need to be informed, and for that, the accused needs to be able to explain. Often, MfD-ed Userboxes are fixed by editing, to the satisfaction of all involved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother pinging any inactive users? Isn't that a complete waste of effort?
The problem with pinging users is Wikipedia:Canvassing.
  • Limited posting vs mass: You propose pinging large numbers of people.
  • Neutral or biased content: It's mostly neutral, or at least could be.
  • Nonpartisan vs partisan: This is definitely votestacking. This isn't even telling all the people who ever used it; it's only telling the ones who still use it.
  • Open vs stealth: I think this is a little difficult to classify. The TFD banner is visible to everyone (even IPs; even editors who don't know that the discussion is happening). The list of pings is visible, but only to people who are already aware of/watching the discussion. Imagine, e.g., that you leave a note on someone's talk page to suggest they remove some content you believe is inappropriate. You might watch their talk page to see if they reply, but you wouldn't get notified by the ping.
I think that a fair comparison would be pinging anyone who had ever added content to an article to its AFD – but not those who removed content from it, tagged content that concerned them, or discussed problems with it. If it's just a couple of folks, maybe it's okay, since content contributors tend to have what AFD needs (e.g., sources). But to do so systematically, for everyone holding a favorable view of the XFD target and nobody holding an unfavorable view, is not okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not canvassing, it is advising users who are being judged that they are being judged, and allowing them to respond. These MfD nominations are more like ANI threads casting aspersions on editors.
Large numbers? The deletion of a userbox with a large number of tranclusions is quite an unusual thing. It should not be done lightly.
Votestacking because you are not telling people who once used the userbox but then stopped? This is a known limitation, it is very hard to find past uses of any template. You have to search histories.
Its not votestacking because mfd is not a vote, and the stakeholders will be incentivised, and thus not mistaken for impartial commenters.
The TFD banner is effectively invisible.
The pings are to be from the MfD. Explicit and visible. Did you not see that part?
It is not fair to compare MfD userbox deletion with AfD. Userboxes, as templates, are not real content. The image won’t be deleted, and the statement will be copied into the MfD.
MfD userbox deletion is an attack against the editors transcluding, a behavioural allegation of unacceptable statements on their Userpage.
The responses of the transcluders should not be considered votes. They should be considered information for the uninvolved editors to consider. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're doing the best you can with the tools at hand, but I still think it's votestacking, and I think MFD – even more than the other XFD pages – frequently does use a voting model, in actual practice (though not in theory. We tell ourselves fairy tales about our processes, and "not a vote" is one of the fundamental myths). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The many deletions prior were not a good solution, were they? Why would anyone think that deletions now, done without notifications of stakeholders, would be a good way to go, now? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can quickly think of many problems with notifying and of very little upsides. Userboxes are fluff, purely bonus stuff that is there because the community (me included) likes them, not because we need them. If a userbox is ever so slightly controversial than deleting or keeping it needs discussing, it means it should not exist because it is wasting community time. On the other hand, if I submit a batch of conspiracy nutjob or overly political userboxes for deletion because they are in obvious breach of policy, automatically attracting the attention of dozens of people who think it is actually appropriate to display these things would be a terrible move in terms of self-preservation. I ended up here precisely because I just found an enormous trove of just this kind of boxes, and this kind of discussion honestly is making me feel twice about helping with something that should be seen as basic clean-up. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 23:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I answered xaosflux above, 05:14, 26 March 2025, I do not suggest auto pinging for obvious breach of policy Userboxes, but only for borderline-acceptable cases.
Have you found a trove of obvious policy breaches? Are they transcluded by multiple currently active editors?
I doubt that removing statements from other users’ userpages should be considered basic cleanup. Changing the “This user supports Senator Barack Obama for President” to “This user supported Senator Barack Obama for President in 2008” is basic clean-up. And MfD is not for basic clean-up. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a major disagreement that we won't bridge there. If you evaluate that bad content on Wikipedia is problematic proportionally to its odds of being seen instead of its usefulness to build an encyclopedia, I really cannot get it. Your Obama example touches right on that: I think updating politician support userboxes is a complete waste of time, because these userboxes are entirely pointless and should not exist, that's all. Maybe that's indeed not basic clean-up that is needed if the argument is that far gone, but an actual purge. The "beautiful women" discussion linked above is frankly embarrassing enough to make one wonder. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 03:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“If you evaluate that bad content on Wikipedia is problematic proportionally to its odds of being seen”?
I do not.
Being frequently seen does exacerbate a problem.
Do you have an opinion on WP:Editors matter?
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually, as I have read this essay before. You might be surprised to hear that I actually agree with it in its almost entirety, so I am going to try to explain myself. I do believe user retention is paramount, especially net positive editors or editors that are getting there. I also think that the deletion of whole user pages or sub-pages is a very drastic step that should be taken only in extreme scenarios, and so as such is almost never warranted. Another thing I agree with, is that there is value in all the user space fluff we have, and that customization of your own space as a new editor is both a great way to learn and to start feeling home. I myself very much started like that, and if you visit my own page you will see that I care a lot about it feeling nice to me, because I use it as my home base on this site. Therefore, I am perfectly happy and unbothered with the immense majority of this stuff: if you want to transclude pretty pictures you found, nice; a big drop-down box of every country/US State you have visited or want to, please do; or even a massive userbox wall about all your hobbies, favorite apps/web browser/OS, the ten different ones saying you love cats, or jokes and silly gifs, by all means, go for it. I am fine with all this stuff, have no hard feelings against it, and understand its value to the people putting it there.
Now that this is out of the way, let's get to what I am talking about. The thing in common with all the stuff I described before, is that it is fluff that in no way will prevent anyone from WP:AGF about anything anyone does on the space that really matters, which is main space. Everyone has their biases, and being familiar with your own is essential to help proactively ensure neutrality, and not only reactively from other editors. There are a few established editors that I respect a lot who consider that preemptive disclaimer of bias is helpful. Even then though, you will only find on their page boxes about their general political and philosophical leanings, things that one might disagree with but not be incensed by. Now, if on the other hand, I encounter a new-ish editor with a flurry of detailed political standpoints, black-and-white historical positions, conspiracy theories, overtly religious signaling, and worse of all, the ones that explicitly state that their mission here is to save Wikipedia by reinterpreting every policy we have in complete alignment with everything else they believe in, then good faith assumption is impossible. These boxes are not meant to clarify discussion or positions: they are meant to demonstrate which WP:BATTLEGROUNDS an editor cares about, signal virtue over promoting collaboration, and poison discussions. These boxes do not make people feel at home, it does the contrary and is a net negative to the project. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 13:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Choucas0, I think I am in complete agreement with that.
> “Now, if on the other hand, I encounter a new-ish editor with a flurry …”
Here, with the WebHamster/religion MfD, we have a new editor, account less than one month old (and got blocked today for disruptive editing), who is nominating for deletion very old Userboxes, transcluded by many users very long ago. I see a problem with this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we can agree on that. I do not think the age of an editor in respect to the age of what they are trying to change should matter though. As you may have seen on the nomination, while voting to delete, I mostly took issue with the framing of the nomination, which was obviously based on emotion rather than policy. We probably agree on more than we disagree regarding this stuff, but I expect that we will remain at odds regarding the specifics of what to keep during MfDs, and that is fine. Cheers, Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 23:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Age of the editor. The new account very likely has an ax to grind. New accounts getting hyperactive with deletion nominations should be viewed with suspicion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:DotesConks.
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jdvillalobos/beautifulwomen, User:Vanamonde93 made a good nomination, bringing things up to modern standards.
At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster/religion, User:DotesConks, 3 days later, made an over-the-top nomination.
I pinged stakeholders on the first, which included only three active editors. I think this is very reasonable. The second was troubling in multiple ways. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1282678777"