On February 2011, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

/Archive 1: Aug 2005 – Dec 2006
/Archive 2: Jan 2007 – Dec 2007
/Archive 3: Jan 2008 – Sep 2008
/Archive 4: Oct 2008 – Sep 2009
/Archive 5: Oct 2009 – Dec 2010
/Archive 6: Jan 2011 – Dec 2011
/Archive 7: Jan 2012 – Dec 2012
/Archive 8: Jan 2013 – Dec 2013
/Archive 9: Jan 2014 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?

CLOSURE

After reviewing these two proposals, I find that there is enough consensus to support the two following actions:

Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?, There is strong consensus to support relistings of MfDs, when used in good faith. Nakon 02:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?, Yes, there is consensus to support relistings of MfDs, regardless of contributions to the discussion, when done in good faith. This procedure is already in effect at WP:AFD, which does not significantly hinder resolution of deletion discussions. Nakon 02:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two questions:

1. Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions.

2. Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?

Relevant discussions: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Grumping about some relistings of MfD discussions., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#MFD relistings, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings.

Cunard (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?

It is not a question of "allowed". The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list.

I maintain that it is not appropriate. By sending the discussion to the top of the list, it doesn't get new views. Relisting adds significant visual clutter, and meaningless relists only serve to shuffle list thus disrupting an orderly review.

A meaningful relist, such as with a re-focusing comment, or due to significant new information, is an appropriate relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What comment do you want? Do you want an opinion? Give me an example. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You're demanding that an admin only relist the discussion if there is something for them to say when the admin is supposed avoiding being a WP:SUPERVOTE and not actually comment on the discussion. If I'm closing a discussion, you want me to add a "comment" which I presume is a vote and then close it myself? How is that not a super admin vote? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support relisting of MFD discussions. If consensus hasn't been reached, I feel like this is a logical MFD process that should be allowed to be done in order to try and help achieve it. It's allowed (and regularly done) at other deletion discussions such as AFD; why would we disallow it at MFD simply because less people participate in them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD is already overburdened with so many daily nominations that is has not been practical to review them in list format for many many years. AfD effectively requires deletion sorting and/or one of a variety of navigation tools, such as User:Snotbot/Current AfD's.

Other XfDs do not have the custom of indiscriminate comment-less relistings for no purpose other than making the backlog appear empty. CfD, for example, handles a huge number of discussions over 1 week old, see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Older_discussions. And it has a navigation tool for old closed discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Discussions_awaiting_closure, which does not involve scrambling the list order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is indiscriminate comment-less relistings? What comment do you want for the third relisting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emídio_Brasileiro? It was relisted a week prior and no one said a word. "Hey, I'm relisting for the third time because ..." what? You're making a lot of crazy demands on admins to close these discussions, all of which really belong at DRV if you're actually disputing these closes. Instead, it feels like it's just complaining for the sake of complaining, to make up busywork for other people to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support allowing relisting. I see no reason whatsoever that MfD should be treated any different from any other XfD. BMK (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as MfD closers need all the tools they can get. Further the vast majority of stuff going to MfD is utter junk which most editors must find boring and therefore don't spend time at MfD. Any random one time "contributor" can create a page of nonsense in a few clicks but it takes at least 3 editors and more then a week to get ride of junk. One to nominate, one or more to vote, and an Admin to close and delete. Let's not make MfD even harder to manage. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the ability to relist MFDs, but with the understanding that MFDs having had no opposition, and possibly only the nomination, may instead be closed as consensus (of 1) to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOFTDELETE. A soft delete equals a PROD delete that can be WP:REFUNDed. Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment-free* *indiscriminate* relistings.

"The RfC is asking the wrong question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At RfD very few relisting actions come with a comment - we all know relisting is to get more input. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second question to the RfC. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Offering no opinion because the references to "indscriminate" relistings are non-neutral and bias this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question as asked is not at issue. Of course MfD relistings are allowed. That has never been questioned. Please close discussion on this question, it is irrelevant and distracting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful to reaffirm that MfD relistings are allowed. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not if is confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of what relisting should be allowed and what shouldn't? I've seen nothing but reverting of relistings so I have no idea what you want other than for them to be "discriminate" and "with a comment" without an explanation as to either of those requirements. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could agree on a single location to discuss? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just going to be reverting while calling me names otherwise? You have been arguing about this for close to two weeks now. Can you just give an example of what you are looking for? I may not agree but I simply cannot understand what you want. You've gone from "no relisting" to "no relisting that isn't indiscriminate and without a comment" to arguing about the location on the log to arguing this is some deletionist strategy of mine to delay I don't know what with a wild variety of blank votes all over the place. I get the overall view that every one of these discussions are a complete and utter waste of time and counterproductive and whatnot. I have no idea how fighting relisting these discussions accomplishes anything in either direction for that. It's no different than any other typical policy fight here. However, what do you want? You should be able to point to a single example, something more concrete than "SmokeyJoe can identify it when he sees it". And why are you renaming the header? It's been reverted by the bot but I'm guessing there's some rationale you have. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I don't see any good reason why this should be disallowed. Most relistings do get new comments. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Personally I believe relisting is simply a waste of time as unlike AFD/RFD etc no one rarely comments on the MFDs .... Too me (and I don't mean this in a dickish way) but IMHO Rickys time could be better spent elsewhere but I know I'm the minority on this so as much as I'd rather make a song & dance about it it'd be pointless - If the community's happy with it then I guess we're all happy... or we'll have to be anyway . –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: No worries. That's fair. For me, I see more relistings resulting in discussions like this one than no new comments. It still ended up with no consensus but we do have more people keeping a watch on these. That's why I find that relisting to put these discussions in the middle of the page better than just ignoring them and leaving them down like here in the hopes that someone else goes down there and sees them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MFDs that have had no participation other than the nominator should be closed as Delete, not relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The real question should be whether MFDs that have no consensus should be closed as No Consensus (default Keep) or relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the question? The relistings that cause the most issues so far have been the "nominator says delete, one vote says something else" ones. Those could be either be 'no consensu" or "keep, ignore the nom" votes but I'd prefer relisting. I think I've had one go keep with more votes, the other go delete with more votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disallowed We give the deletionists too many tools, as is. If there's no consensus for deletion, close the discussion "no consensus." Maybe I'm not understanding the process but we shouldn't be re-listing deletion discussions because no one wants to weigh in on the merits. If it can't be speedy deleted then it is a default keep. Go bemoan the fact that the entry exists on Wikipedia somewhere else. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when used in good faith. ~ Rob^Talk 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?

The second question of the RfC (quoting SmokeyJoe): "The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list." Please write "Yes" or "No" in response to the question. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Oshwah (talk · contribs), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), Legacypac (talk · contribs), and SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) who have already commented above, so they are aware of this second question. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this a fair question? "indiscriminately and without meaningful comment" is like the "do you still beat your wife, yes or no" question. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clear that ricky and Ricky's relistings alone are indiscriminate and without meaning. Other admins are different though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.46.130 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Cute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

166 is apparently a community banned user, per WT:AFD. ansh 666 01:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, or Yes. It's very well-known that relisting a discussion with poor input (like at AFD, TFD, FFD, etc.) is to get more input and achieve consensus. Why require administrators to do this and make the process harder or make it take longer? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support no extra comment is needed to relist any XfD, in fact it is uncommon to see a comment on a relist. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I am disappointed at your filing of two inappropriate questions. The first was completely the wrong question. The second is phrased so non-neutrally that is should be immediately closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you had changed the RfC title to. I reverted your change to the original question and moved it to a subsection so it wouldn't distract from the original question I posed. If you, Legacypac (talk · contribs), or Oshwah (talk · contribs) have a more neutral way of phrasing the question, feel free to close this section and open a third section. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really good with Smokey's own question which he now says is "phrased so non-neutrally that is should be immediately closed". Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good question is one phrased in the positive, describing an appropriate style of relisting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have stopped beating my wife... I mean no, I haven't stopped ... I mean I never beat my wife -- yeah, that's it.
Look, if there's not been sufficient discussion to determine a consensus, then a re-listing is in the community's interest, so I'm not seeing where the second question -- which is, in fact, a piss-poor RfC question -- has any real relevance, since it assumes facts not in evidence. If any particular MfD gets relisted when the circumstances shouldn't have allowed it to be, bring that specific problem to the noticeboards and ask for the relisting to be overturned, but there's no way that the second question is going to end up with any kind of reasonable and usable policy. BMK (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to lack of comment is not in the community's interested because it makes a systematic review of nominations harder. There are so many perfunctory nominations of worthless but harmless junk pages that a reasonable reviewing action is to pass them over. Having someone indiscriminately relisting, that is adding viaully confronting lines, colours and text, and sending them up to the current data is disruptive to anyone attempting to review nominations systematically.

Relisting with a comment worth reading, that would be fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what comment do you want? There's nothing to comment about other than "hi, I don't see a consensus here" or "can someone else speak". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking about Wikipedia:Publicising discussions? Scrambling the MfD list will attract more attention from the few who review? I keep telling you it disrupts an orderly review of the nominations. Your need to advertise for immediate resolution unproductive discussions on worthless useless pages will be unappreciated by any advertising method. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually serious here? You want what, a notification at AN, at village pump that no one commented about the deletion of User:ARMendez/The ILLZ? Why in the world should MFD have such bizarre rules rather than just relist these things and move on? Do you want a category for relisted MFD discussions? That at least makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Advertising unworthy discussions is not worthwhile. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you objecting to the template? The coloring? That it distinguishes between week-old discussions and the recent commentary? If that's your issue, just say it. If it's a general "I hate the template and want it changed", go make a suggestion. Maybe someone will change it, maybe someone will agree to a separate MfD relisting template but I wouldn't. You're acting like this is some complicated difficult project. It should be easier to tell if you can see which discussions are week-old and which aren't visually on the page not harder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support doing it once for any specific discussion. The reason fr lack of attention may be no more than the fact that the users who would have expressed an opinion were away that day (especially around holidays). However, repeated relistings are unlikely to be any more successful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the same way I'd support the relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Andrea Ramos. It's a relisting with the nomination and the sole voter in agreement and I still think that's fair. I have no idea what's at issue here. If the issue is the close, then dispute the actual close when it comes and take it to DRV. If you think there's a consensus and the admin relisting it is being lazy about it, that's another matter. The relisting doesn't mean anything until it's closed and we have a final result anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mu- This question is phrased poorly. The issue is not about indiscriminate relistings, but about whether relistings at all are appropriate. But to answer the relevant half of the question, no, there is no need to add commentary about why you're relisting a poorly-attended XfD. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody should be 'indiscriminately' relisting poorly attended discussions, full stop. NOQUORUM requires editors to use judgement (=not just choosing the same option for nearly all the poorly attended MFDs) in choosing what to do. The presence of a meaningful comment would be a useful signal that the re-listing isn't indiscriminate, but another useful signal would be one editor not mass-re-listing nearly all of the poorly attended discussions. Or mass-listing ~90% of the discussions with expired RFC tags, for that matter. Speaking of which: Cunard, when you spam this RFC to ANRFC, please do recommend that it only be closed by an admin who is familiar with MFD. We'll only get a mess if it's closed by someone who doesn't know what typical MFD participation levels have been for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing and for the comment part? Is there some comment that should be made? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't look like you're mass-re-listing MFDs, then no one is likely to care whether you add a comment. Note the presence of the word "and" there: The POV in the question opposes someone who is both engaging in indiscriminate relisting and not adding a meaningful comment. I'm saying that the "meaningful comment" is a red herring: you shouldn't be indiscriminately relisting anything. You should not indiscriminately relist MFDs with a comment; you should indiscriminately relist MFDs without a comment. As I said, "nobody should be 'indiscriminately' relisting poorly attended discussions, full stop".
If the point of your question is to inquire what a meaningful comment might look like, then "I've just left a note at WikiProject Related to this MFD" would be a good example of a meaningful comment that obviously explains why this poorly attended MFD can reasonably expect to be less poorly attended in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, when done in good faith. A limit of one per discussion seems sensible. ~ Rob^Talk 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A history lesson

The current marker appears to be the closest thing we have to policy (excluding the Admin instructions for XfD which allow relistings) and looks like this:

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC) ended today on 13 April 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

In 2009 the box was changed [[1]] to say "Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above." however I'm not convinced that wording change was a policy change because before that it more vaguely said "Everything below this marker should be dealt with and removed from the workflow." [2], a phrase in use since the template was created [[3]] in May 2008. Therefore since at least 2009 the prescribed procedure has explicitly allowed/encouraged relisting. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with limiting the number of relists, there are situations where relisting is pointless (unlikely to gain more comments). In such situations, I would encourage more use of "no consensus - due to lack of comment" closures. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My view is at least try once. Else, just close it rather than keep on trying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older discussion, and was about AFD not MFD, but may be of some relevance here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also a parallel RFC was heavily rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#RfC:_Should_AFD_relists_be_allowed_or_disallowed.3F. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change

I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report Special:Diff/706678161#Why Do We Need Something New?. Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. 78.145.31.82 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This morning's Daily Telegraph reports:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said people who create false profiles ... could face charges including harassment. New draft guidelines published by the CPS set out how prosecutors should take tough action against anyone who attempts to humiliate or undermine someone else by publishing false information online ...

"... an online footprint will be left by the offender."

A CPS spokesman said the guidelines cover the use of false online profiles ... which are set up to publicise "false and damaging information".

For example, it may be a criminal offence if a profile is created under the name of the victim with fake information uploaded which, if believed, could damage their reputation and humiliate them," the spokesman said.

... "This may amount to an offence, such as grossly offensive communication or harassment."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.33.254 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion request here is unlikely to succeed; for legal disputes you could try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. The page you refer to wasn't created for harassment, but to document a suspected pattern of disruption and to be linked to, to provide context when dealing with it. I wouldn't call what is documented there "abuse"; it should probably be moved into user space or into the sockpuppet investigations case. Are you User:Vote (X) for Change or not? Peter James (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try something here

What we've been doing clearly isn't working, though I think after the ANI thread it's becoming clearer that we all actually have rational expectations and want stability. However, as SmokeyJoe has rightly said, the overboldness that we're experiencing right now is proving a hindrance to ongoing, level-headed discussion... and moreover is giving us a mess at MfD. Looking at just about any nom right now, we're starting to get a war of boilerplate: "Delete because it's stale." "Keep: No valid reason for deletion given." "Delete: Stale, abandoned, user disappeared, no hope of becoming an article." With each of these engagements, we're taking time away that we should be spending discussing with one another, and sacrificing our cool heads for entrenched positions. In that vein, I want to suggest we voluntarily agree to the following for the time being:

No more draft noms on purely STALEDRAFT grounds. If there's something truly problematic, nominate, but give a proper analysis in the nom. Look at other arguments.
No more keep votes on purely "no proper reason given for deletion" grounds. At least take a look at whether there is something problematic and give a rationale on the merits.

I'm not saying there should be a moratorium on draft MfDs, and I'm also not asking for anything enforceable at this point. I'm more asking that we all agree to turn the thermostat down a few degrees, and try to avoid turning it back up for a little while. If there's an outlier who won't consent, then we can talk about something more severe. My hope is to just give us all time and space to individually lay our cards on the table and come to some kind of consensus on what our biggest point of disagreement is. (Hint: I don't think it's as simple as disagreeing on whether notability guidelines are enforceable in draftspace)

Can we do this? Legacypac, SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682, A2soup, VQuakr, and anybody I've left out? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) QEDK VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: I am being as honest as I can here, and would appreciate it if it was used as fodder for discussion rather than ammunition against me. An agreement such as you propose is dependent on trust, at right now I do not really trust Legacypac to stick to the spirit of any such agreement. The pattern I have seen repeated with them several times over just the last few days of interaction with them has been that raising an issue with them is met with sneering contempt and acceleration of the problem behavior. That's no way to work in WP, and without pillar #4 the system breaks down to the point that progress becomes nearly impossible.

Now, my whining about behavioral stuff doesn't really have any place on the MfD talk page. If there's a better forum than here or ANI, I am open to suggestions.

Back on point, right now I personally don't see any path forward that doesn't involve losing both the sense of urgency on years-old user drafts and the mentality of completionism regarding elimination of every single one beyond an arbitrary age. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be quite busy in real life for the next few weeks. You may have already noticed my !votes trailing off. So it shouldn't be a problem for me to just not !vote at MfD for a while, I was heading that way anyways. However, I find it a bit odd that you are asking us to "At least take a look at whether there is something problematic and give a rationale on the merits." as if that's something we don't already do. At least for my part, I always look over the draft and its history before !voting, and tailor my !vote accordingly. I sometimes !vote flat Keep, sometimes Keep but okay with Blank+template, sometimes Blank+template, sometimes Redirect, etc. My !votes are well-considered and tailored to each situation (which is why my real-life busyness is keeping me from making them), and I don't appreciate the implication that they are knee-jerk and not based on the merits (or lack thereof) of the nom. A2soup (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my issue is if people here are going to support deleting pages like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society, then when I asked at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Wording_for_stale_userspace_drafts for what line you have and the only response I get it is "it's entirely harmless and nothing should be deleted", I don't see the point is playing these games. It looks like you're just screwing around here out of a personal vendetta rather than a serious attempt to protect these pages or these editors. If there is consensus that something can be deleted, then demanding that everything be stopped unless the false argument that there is no consensus for anything to be deleted is just obviously another game. It would be prudent for the people who argue that certain things should not be deleted to come up with an actual line in the sand where they will agree to deletion, especially when they do support deletion. When you argue to keep clearly promotional articles by non-notable rappers that stupidly showing up in google searches regardless of noindex, I'm having a hard time believing that people are actually serious about anything other than reflex opposition to everything based on a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Otherwise, I don't care if every single page gets voted keep. At some point, I'll stop and if we come back in a year because the pages are ten years old and not nine years old and still promotional rapper garbage showing up in google searches, maybe someone sensible will come up with a middle ground here. Anyone who has ever dealt with AFC reviews or the IRC chat knows how much absolute time and energy is wasted on pure promotional lunatics who care only about posting their page and nothing else and yell and scream and call you names all day and know that the volume of those people drives away good editors. Demanding that the worst of the worst of that garbage be kept here under the nonsense of not driving those "editors" away is not going to convince anyone that you have a clue because AFC's six month stance is being more common than the one year that WP:STALE used to be and people are getting more hardened by the fact that so much time is spent coddling bullshit garbage. And I'm moderate in comparison to Legacypac. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight thing, ((u)) is not a ping template. But I appreciate the fact that I was linked, although Mendaliv thought to leave Legacypac's (apparent) opponents out for no good reason. In my opinion, we should carry out a site-wide RfC (running for a full 20 days atleast) to garner more opinions. If an RfC, reform or clarification fails to materialize, we gotta kick it to ArbCom and rest our horses. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: What do you think of the RfC I drafted at User:A2soup/MfD RfC? It's a bit old, so it's not to ally current with the current state of the debate, but do you think it would make a good basis? A2soup (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A2soup: Most of the subsections you have are not the context of the arguments here (except GNG) since they are CSD#G criterion. I made this within 5 minutes, take a look and help if you want. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for a proposal on new policy wording. So far we have "Keep everything in userspace indefinitely" or "ban/sanction/block Legacypac" but those seem to be the only agendas involved. Various editors have made loud attacks against CSDing, AfDing, MfDing, moving to mainspace, moving to draft, and sending to AfC. Right now one Admin is threatening to block me for sending a page to AfC while an editor is at ANi trying to restrict me to sending drafts to AfC. I see a lot of noise but no solutions being proposed. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, there's a reason Cryptic's an admin and you're not.

--QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he applied and I have not. What does that have to do with this topic? Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only reason and again, you were just supposed to think about it. So, there's no need to reply to this message. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC for your consideration

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD overloaded by trivial nominations, and reviewing messed up with over zealous pointless relisting.

It is again ridiculous, with:

(1) an overload of trivial nominations, of pages unworthy of discussion, pages that are harmless and for which the best outcome is (a) ignore, no action required or (b) blank as the content will never have any purpose to anyone including the author, or (c) redirect to the place where associated interested should be directed;

(2) routine, over-zealous, indiscriminate comment-free relisting, making it more difficult to watch over the nominations for anything worthy of review.

I would like to re-iterate that userspace and draft PROD is firmly rejected, and the MfD mustn't be allowed to turn into defactor PROD, meaning that unsupported deletion nominations must be closed as no consensus.

Further, I propose a restriction on nominators with very poor success rates of validated nominations. They are detrimental to the MfD process, their nominating is a net-negative to the project.

Also, I would like to ask the incessant indiscriminant comment-free relisters to stop it. If supposedly two pointless relists are OK, let's just change standard listing time to 3 weeks, and leave the nominations in order, so as to facilitate review by the few who review. Old unattended nominations are actually easier to find by their shortness at the bottom of the list than decorated with the relist template randomly amongst new nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the relistings I have performed, they were done in full compliance with WP:RELIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were indeed. That doesn't make them good. WP:RELIST could use some improvement. What are the merits, as you see them, of relisting? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting discussions with no or little input as a means to obtain a clearer consensus is superior compared to administrators performing unilateral, executive decisions regarding Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia decisions about deletion are often guided by WP:CONSENSUS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure we all know the generic high level theory of WP:DEL. The theory is clearly failing in current circumstances. Relisting discussions with no or little input is not superior to doing nothing, because relisting obscures the fresh nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We heard these complaints before. Two simple solutions. 1. Vote delete on the crap. 2. Admins Follow the policy at WP:QUORUM that allows uncontested deletion nominations to be deleted or soft deleted (2 of the 4 suggestions there) barring some good reason to keep them. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that you are putting on the agenda a lot of crap. If deletion were easier, would be well deleted. But deletion is not easier. And there is so much crap that some non-crap may be shafted alongside the crap. As most of the crap is harmless crap, I really wish that you would follow the low overhead options for the harmless crap and save MfD for where deletion is actually more justified than the overhead cost.

WP:QUORUM is, I guess, an allowed WP:Supervote option. It means serious overhead cost for administrators to deal with your harmless crap.

Alternatively, Legacypac, how about making a category for every page you think should be deleted, and then we discuss deletion of it all at once, perhaps weekly. It would, of course, require you to be accurate in your decision that every page should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting idea. How would you notify all the contributors as is required by policy? How many pages per batch would be acceptable? Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are selecting pages from the abandoned draft list. The authors are long inactive and the situation is far from that anticipated by standard policy. It may be sufficient to not notify, or we could have a bot written to do it. The point is to triage similar cases to not overwhelm the standard process. I don't see why there would be an upper limit, the problem will be on your head to not include pages that shouldn't be included. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this time and time again, this is because of a community split on what basically comes down to protecting things under the shield of "drafts" vs deleting them under "notwebhost" etc arguments - hopefully the latest RfC on dealing with drafts will help solidify this. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The RfC is still being closed by three admins. Rushing heaps of individual pages ad hoc through MfD right now doesn't seem helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Seraphimblade, Ymblanter and I are in the process of evaluating the RFC for closure. No more comments now, please. We'll have a statement in the next couple of days. Thanks. Katie^talk 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)"</blockquot>

No one is doing anything unusual at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ricky & Legacypac clean-up-abandoned-drafts drive, since 2015, is unusual, and the current listings are I think the longest ever list. That is unusual. More unusual is that there are so many listing during the Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring formal three-administrator closure process. There should be a moratorium on stale draft nominations until at least the close of the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, stale draft maintenance categories have existed since the start of Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monthly_clean_up_category_(Userspace_drafts)_counter I'm working several different list and categories. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, No, it is the drive to empty them partly through use of MfD that is new and unusual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace pages have long been brought to MfD. if you follow the link, you will find many months are now empty so this is nothing new. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 188 MfD transclusions I believe is a record. New. An overburden. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's disruptive, WP:ANI is that way. Monster backlog doesn't get better by being ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would worsen the disruption. Please limit nominations to articles for which you can articulate a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 21:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion → Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion – It's been over five years since the last discussion but since then, a number of projects have moved to a broader discussion. FFD has expanded its scope quite a bit but the only remainder is AFD which makes some sense. Similarly, there are number of discussions here that aren't directly deletions but also blank/userify/draftify or AFC discussions and other perspectives. In that line, I think we should be more broad in the naming to reflect more than just having a page be deleted but also whether a page should be blanked or userfied or draftified or moved to mainspace or merged or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose But the way it has been used lately it might as well be renamed to Wikipedia:Drafts for deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which I am wholly in support of being a thing, primarily so I can never go there. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of Split , specifically moving (pages in Draft: space) and (pages in User: space that primarily contain article-type content). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of forbidding "draft management" from MfD. Actual WP:NOT violations are fine, "stale" is not a reason for deletion.

MfD is very important for Project Space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although he seems unable to see it, the nominator's proposal to a step to destroying MfD as being functional at all. There are plenty of other ways to advertise discussions, WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc. If drafts are driving this, create a WP:Drafts for discussion noticeboard. I predict it will be at viable as the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard, except worse, because there are now many less active editors.

More importantly, it is deletion that is the main exception to the principle that Wikipedia is a wiki that anyone can edit where decisions are made by consensus. Deletions is the administrative removal of content from access from the ordinary editor, and needs special forums. AfD and MfD specifically. Redirects, templates, categories, they are not even content, they are nowhere near as serious an issue when it comes to needing to protect the wider community of small groups of deletionists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above - I personally prefer "deletion" over discussion", Having looked at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Step-by-step_instructions_.28all_discussion_types.29 It seems this and AFD are the only ones to use "deletion" so I'm not entirely sure but I'm more or less with Oppose atm. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and strongly disagree with the "drafts for deletion" assessment. That might be what's been numerically "popular" lately, but that has little to do with importance of function. One of the most important uses of MfD is dealing with anti-consensus essays and other claptrap, and this is most often userspaced, and nominated explicitly for userspacing, not deletion. Merges also come up, and marking moribund pages as ((Historical)), and various other things. This, like so many other XfD's that started with a "deletion" name, has long been about much more than deletion. The current name is simply inaccurate and misleading. There would also be considerably less WP:DRAMA without such a panic-inspiring page name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD for ProjectSpace essays is justified because the nomination is to delete them from ProjectSpace, including the redirect. Userfication is an option for the author, but as pages are never put in userspace against the wish of the user, userfication is an option for a user. The !vote "userfy" (from ProjectSpace) effectively means "Delete but allow userfication".

Marking moribund pages as ((Historical)) etc is not an example of good use, but process wonkery, because moribund pages can be so tagged by any editor. Disagreement on tagging should be a matter for discussion on the talk page. MfD discussions resulting in "delete" can't be held on the talk page because the talk page is to be deleted.

Agree that "One of the most important uses of MfD is dealing with anti-consensus essays and other claptrap", but the proposal is to allow a huge increase of other unimportant matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic about renaming it to Wikipedia:Drafts for deletion - but I am agree that this page is important for dealing with the type of content you specified above, that is why my recommendation is to move all the "article" type content out of this venue to its own. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As Mr McCandlish notes above, the result of many MfDs is something other than deletion, such as userfication, merging, &c. Given that these results are possible, and enacted on a daily basis, there seems to be no reason to keep the "deletion" label, which simply does not describe the totality of what this process does. I'm not sure what this "drafts for deletion" business is about, and don't see how it is relevant here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both supporters, why don't you review the existing list of MfD nominations to get an idea of what the nominator wants to add? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding anything. I think the name should better reflect the current variety of discussion. The majority of CFD closes as delete/keep but that doesn't mean it isn't worth calling it categories for discussion rather than deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have, since 2015, added a very large number of things that lacked a WP:DEL#REASON. You appear to want to broaden / defocus MfD to include management discussions for individual drafts. MfD already has too few reviewers, defocusing will only make that worse, things that should not be deleted will start being deleted just due to lack of review.

I have experience at WP:CfD. At CfD, there are a lot of discussions that are for deletion but require admin actions, upmerging, renames, etc. These CfD discussions are very serious, in terms of consequences to the category system, and work required to clean up bad decisions, so these things are definitely best discussed in a formal environment. This is very different to a discussion what to do with an orphan worthless harmless draftspace draft. CfD is actually so serious, an overburdened, that my considered opinion is that category creation should be a special privilege, an opinion so far agreed by a few CfD regulars and disagreed by none.

TfD and FfD similarly involve technically significant discussions that are best centralized, not left to talk pages, even if deleted. RfD is pretty unimportant. Redirects are cheap, unimportant, and often superfluous due to the improvements to the Wikipedia internal search engine.

But draft management discussion are by far the most unimportant. Unworthy drafts can be very safely ignored, and if they can't, then DraftSpace was one big bad idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of your incessant arguing, they have been deleted, not just here but in thousands on the basis of speedy deletion criteria that are quite similar. Just because you don't agree with the reasons doesn't mean there weren't any provided. Your repeated !votes for "speedy keep" citing the instructions for Articles for deletion does not inspire confidence that you are actually acknowledging the prior consensus of appropriate reasons instead of just trying to bully your view into place. If you truly think that no reason for deletion was there, I suggest taking those cases to DRV and asking for them to be overturned. If you can obtain a consensus that these are not things that should be deleted, then they won't be. Otherwise, just because you ignore the reasons provided doesn't mean other people have to as well. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the actual name of the discussion system, just as none of the RFCs you so demanded about relistings had anything to do with actually improving the procedures here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep but then deleted? Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ttina2894/Kane. That was a proper SK point, the nomination did not set out a rationale for deletion. Subsequently, you came along, discovered a deletion reason and noted it. After you did that, it was proper to delete, but is it really reasonable for someone to nominate random looking userpages but leave it to reviewer to discover for themselves the problem? I think deletion discussions, whether for articles or someone else's userpages, are serious matters that should be discussed in a high profile place, and to initiate that discussion the nominator should at least articulate a deletion rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disingenuous. The things that should have been deleted were deleted, others were not. Subsequently, you have go the message and have been blanking things that don't need discussion. Virtually nothing in draftspace needs discussion. CSD criteria for drafts should be expanded, and we'd have long since done that if you could understand what WP:UP#COPIES says. NB your most irritating nominations are when the page should be deleted, but one can't guess the reason from the nomination statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: Apparently, even AfD was supposed to have been changed after a consensus to do so was reached but wasn't due to "technical reasons". Well, those certainly don't exist here and now. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - makes more sense than the current name given the reality of the results handled there. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this move happens, Legobot (run by Legoktm) may need to be updated to accommodate the name change since it manages the discussion archiving. Otherwise, "stuff might break". Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while MfDs obviously don't always result in deletion, the reason they're there in the first place is to work out whether they should be deleted or something else. Renaming it to "discussion" is pointless change for change's sake at best and downright misleading at worst. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to bring MFD in line with the other non-article XFD forums and per SMcCandlish. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this passes, someone please notify WP:TW about the page change. We wouldn't want this to break it or any other existing automated tools that make us so productive. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People only bring things to discuss here if they think it should be deleted. Even though other outcomes are possible, the most dire outcome is almost always whats the nominator wants. Other things can be discussed on talk page or done on a WP:BOLD basis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.