Deleted as an WP:R3, despite being too old to be eligible under that criterion. As an WP:RFOR from a language without a clear connection to its target of Dyshidrosis its retention at RFD is highly questionable. Nonetheless it was marked as reviewed by an experienced editor and the community has made its desire to weigh in on redirects more than a few months old at RFD clear. Deleting admin is largely inactive and archived the request for undeletion without comment, as such I am beinging this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95CE:1437:1591:A9E6 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. R3 specifically only applies to recently created redirects. This was deleted almost two years after creation. This can be sent to RFD if desired. FrankAnchor12:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. While the R3 itself isn't particularly egregious, I found the admin's conduct after the fact to be inappropriate. WP:ADMINACCT is a policy, and it lists, among other things, failure to communicate as improper admin conduct. This admin not only ignored a valid question/petition by a user, but then went on to archive that question away from his Talk page. If you are unable or unwilling to respond to legitimate questions and requests, then hang up the mop and step away from admin actions until you are ready to be accountable for your actions. Owen×☎13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
R3 is tediously out of date and should have been reformed years ago to split out foreign language redirects to their own criterion. The average lifecycle of those is: get created, get forgotten instantly, lurk around doing nothing for years on end, finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them. It's a colossal waste of everyone involved's time. WP:IAR is still a policy on this project, although most people seem to have forgotten that. Honestly, I do not care at all whether this redirect lives or dies. This is pure meaningless bureaucracy on the basis of a bad rule blindly applied. — Scott•talk22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like many of the elements of WP:NEWCSD are met. We've gone through and tweaked or eliminated several in the past year or so, no reason to not do another... my only concern is whether this situation is frequent enough to be worth documenting as a new/revised CSD. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not a popular enough venue for discussion, going by the fact that only 6 people commented. RFOR itself originated from a centralized discussion in 2008 and the recent discussion deserved to be similarly publicized.
I see the very obvious point of what the basic criterion for the need to retain a foreign-language redirect should be, that the target article demonstrates a connection to the foreign language, was completely missed. This is hardly a new idea - it just synthesizes this part of WP:R#DELETE #8 (added in 2011):
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.
Going by the RFOR talk page, the last time I engaged on this topic was a decade ago. I may have enough energy now to give it a better try. — Scott•talk15:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them?
How many such RfDs can you link. NEWCSDs need evidence to get people to agree. I reckon a dozen in a year would do it. If you can’t find them, generate them. IAR does not support CSD violations on cases that don’t matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The A in IAR is for All! It doesn't come with criteria. More seriously though I'm sure I could pluck out a whole bunch of RFOR deletions, it's just a matter of having the wherewithal to go do that digging and be prepared to follow it up with a bunch of arguing. I'll put it on my to do list for the next time I have a burst of energy. — Scott•talk12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were thinking IAR? So you knowingly made a false log entry?
Do you assert that every admin is entitled to delete anything, regardless of WP:CSD, if they think the deletion improves Wikipedia? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question has already been addressed in this discussion and I'm not going to rehash it. The answer to the second question is actually yes, according to IAR. But as you can see from the reaction to this unbelievably trivial deletion, nobody here actually follows the policy which makes the exact assertion that you're posing. I believe in our defined policies, do you? If not, why not? If you think IAR shouldn't be a policy, why don't you attempt to get it retired? Honest question. — Scott•talk13:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed, correctly, that the anonymous editor would bring it here. I did have a mea culpa lined up to post if they didn't within a few days but it turned out not to be necessary.
Why? Real talk: I looked at this unaccountable IP editor's full history, which is 50% dropping walls of castigating text and upper-case shortcuts on people's talk pages, and it gave me the creeps. I decided that I would much, much rather discuss this in a public forum than get that treatment directly. I also couldn't work out a way to say "take it to DRV" without getting a wall of text in reply. Is that off protocol? Yes. Am I a human being first, capable of being weirded out here and feeling awkward about replying, even after 21 years on the project? Also yes. It's very lucky for me that my instinct was on the mark.
Can't wait for someone else to roll up and call me a liar now. Love how AGF has completely fallen by the wayside here, by the way. — Scott•talk13:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a few days is not true see request and and DRV. I have yet to call you a liar, but given your definition of a few days and this odd out of the blue claim only appearing just now and that you archived the message without comment, I'll admit the claim strains credulity. Perhaps though the archival was inadvertant and you lost track of time as sometimes happens.
Secondly your claims WRT to my editing pattern are patently untrue and it should be obvious from a glance that I edit in articlespace more than any other, and indeed that the majority of my talkspace edits are merely tagging pages. As for user talk pages, edits to those are an even smaller fraction. A substantial number are leaving templates with consensus approved wording including links to information like this; sometimes I will instead type out a custom message like this. The information provided at the uppercase links in question is intended to improve editor skill if read.
Thirdly the usual interaction when asking people to undelete pages looks like this which could hardly be described as castigation. or this; I can only recall one instance in which I had an extended back and forth regarding a deletion and while ultimately it had to be overturned at DRV, the evidence suggests the provided information was taken to heart. In many cases there is no interaction whatsoever, a request is made and the page is subsequently undeleted. There is no time ever in my entire history when someone has said "take it to DRV" or anything similarly direct, and I have not promptly done so. Go ahead try to diff it, you can't. Ergo either you have not reviewed history as claimed, or you are confusing me with someone else. In sum substantiate all of your claims with diffs, or strike them.
Finally, "I don't think they would find any explanation satisfactory" even if true is not an exception to WP:ADMINACCT. Bluntly if you find yourself unable to deal with criticism of your action involving admin tools, even when the criticism is misguided, then you should refrain from using them. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:ADA6:D3F1:7636:24EA (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above giant wall of defensive text littered with links is the exact demonstration of what I'm talking about. — Scott•talk14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that diffs detract from rather than enhance the credibility of a statement, your views are well outside the mainstream of not only the Wikipedia community, but any body with reasonable standards of evidence. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:ADA6:D3F1:7636:24EA (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can respect honest and forthright IAR deletions even if I may not agree with all of them; nothing prevents placement of WP:IAR in the deletion log. I have less respect for deletions where first an incorrect criterion is cited and once this is pointed out the under pressure explanation shifts to IAR.
I really couldn't care less about the respect of someone who began this discussion by describing me as "largely inactive". Also I don't care for being called a liar in public, let alone by a nameless bureaucracy enthusiast with a paper-thin understanding of IAR who doesn't even have a consistent IP address. — Scott•talk17:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You edited 6 times over 14 days, and a bit over 200 in all of 2023, your activity has seen an uptick recently although I will admit I did not look at your full edit history in detail until just now as it is at most ancillary to any analysis. As a qualitative assessment without an agreed upon standard it is also fundamentally not worth quibbling over.
No one has called you a liar in this discussion, and you should diff it or retract the WP:ASPERSION. Referring to your fellow editors as "bureaucracy enthusiasts" is unlikely to further either your case or discussion in general during a dispute. Even when emotion cannot be avoided its energy is best channeled to elucidating relevant details. To your last point, users do not in general have control over the dynamicity of their IP addresses, and the relevancy to the points under discussion is likewise not clear, I mean what is the weather like right now in London again? In sum, I would advise greater care in composing your comments in the future. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:98F8:F906:1ADD:EC70 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently, actually I suspect that is quite common as a significant fraction of editing is done on mobile, note that as the mobile edit tags are not applied when one manually switches back to desktop mode the proportion is higher than one might surmise from simply glancing over page histories. But I confess myself once again at a loss to understand the relevancy of one of your comments. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:98F8:F906:1ADD:EC70 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this element of the conversation between you two, IP 2601 and @Scott should either cease or move to one of your Talk's. It's not helpful in determining the best course of action. StarMississippi22:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout (at least) the deleting admin. IAR is never a reason to speedy delete a page, especially when it is simply because one dislikes a policy that has an active consensus in support of it (as CSD does). Even if it were a valid reason to speedily delete a page then it must be cited as the reason for deleting the page, rather than lying in the deleting summary to hide your actions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now you're accusing me of lying? I picked R3 because it was close enough. You also don't understand IAR, which doesn't surprise me in the least. In summary, get stuffed. — Scott•talk19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Close enough" is simply not a thing with speedy deletion - the criteria are explicitly intended to be interpreted narrowly so if it is unclear whether a page meets a criterion or not it doesn't. If you deleted a page for any reason other than R3 and you put R3 in the deletion summary that is either an error or intentionally misleading (also known as lying). Given that my interpretation of IAR with regards to speedy deletion matches the consensus in every relevant discussion I've been a part of, and your view is getting no support in this one, I can confidently state that there is no need for me to get stuffed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The posture that everyone else but you does not understand IAR and that mere invective qualifies as argument is unlikely to advance the case you appear to be making. A thoughtful and intellectually honest analysis of the need for volume management as applied to foreign language redirects may be of value, however if this style is persisted in it will be more difficult to make that happen, and hence reduce the odds of consensus being found for a new CSD. I suppose it is possible your actual and stated preferences are at odds with each other, in which case I'll concede your rhetorical cleverness is greater then might be initially surmised, but the actual process of applied honest analysis will nonetheless be degraded. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F0D4:D1E3:653B:B44C (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the clear consensus above. One administrator is not entitled to put their personal interpretation of policy above the community's, and if they do so regularly they should be prevent from deleting pages entirely. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, the reason people get so upset about out-of-process deletions like this, compared to, say, unusual article content or page moves or even blocks, is that they can't see the same situation you did and verify that the deletion really did improve Wikipedia like WP:IAR requires. Even for admins who can look at what happened afterwards, deleted pages are deliberately made harder to find by many aspects of the software - they don't show up in categories, searches, etc - so unless an active editor happens to have the page watchlisted or see it get deleted as it's happening, it's likely to go unnoticed. It's worse when the deletion log comment is misleading: it's good that you labeled this as a WP:RFOREIGN deletion there, but not that you left the R3 boilerplate saying that the redirect was recently created; this is why multiple users above are accusing you of lying. This isn't about not having a redirect from the Portuguese word for dyshidrosis (or, for that matter, that its creator incorrectly labelled it as the Spanish word) - I'll be very much surprised if it gets anything but unanimous delete votes when it's restored and sent to RFD - but people will accept that, because they can go look at the RFD discussion, and see where it pointed, and see that there's broad agreement for this title to be red, and have some confidence that the next page to get quietly disappeared isn't one that they actually care about. —Cryptic14:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cryptic and thanks for actually taking a collegiate tone. I don't disagree with your points at all. As I was saying above to some other folks, R3 and its definition of "recent" fail to adequately address the reality of unused foreign-language redirects, which are possibly the most obscure objects in our system (even more than portal talk pages). The likelihood of the research you describe happening is multiplied by the demonstrated utility value of those objects... in the case of a redirect, the realistic chance of their being found and followed to an article which doesn't involve that language at all. It's something like zero point several zeroes one percent. This one fell into that micro-niche and I decided on the basis of IAR that R3 was "close enough". For the other 99.999...% of speedy deletions, of course a precise rationale is essential, for exactly the reasons you've outlined. Nothing of that nature has quietly disappeared, or will, thanks to me.
There is a lot of history at RfD of redirects being nominated for deletion that the nominator thinks will be slam-dunk deletes that end up being kept or retargetted, either because they've not understood something or because of some knowledge they didn't have. I'm not saying that this will happen to this redirect, but it happens enough that the speedy deletion criteria are deliberately written narrowly and interpreted strictly - i.e. it is not just to protect against bad actors but also mistakes from good actors.
If you think that there are redirects that should be speedily deleted but which don't fit any existing criteria, then the only correct course of action is to start a discussion at WT:CSD proposing a new or modified criterion that matches the four WP:NEWCSD requirements. Out-of-process deletions make that much harder as they actively distort evidence of frequency. As for why just IARing it in those circumstances are bad - see WP:IARUNCOMMON and having to spend time at DRV discussions like this one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding There is a lot of history at RfD of redirects being nominated for deletion that the nominator thinks will be slam-dunk deletes that end up being kept or retargetted... - are you specifically talking about unused foreign language redirects? If not, then that's irrelevant.
I've seen many things over the years, but someone citing a two-sentence-long comment that they themselves wrote, using an uppercase shortcut? That really is a first. Just be straightforward and say "I think that..." rather than attempting to anonymize your personal opinion and give it a halo. It's also wrong, by the way. — Scott•talk17:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that after the opinion had been explicitly endorsed and citied by someone else in a different context to where I'd expressed it originally. Both those uses then got multiple endorsements by others. It has since been cited multiple times by and independently of me, and this is the only time I'm aware anybody has disagreed with it - and you don't even have the courtesy to explain why in your opinion it is "wrong" (based on this discussion that is quite possibly because it doesn't allow you to speedily delete things in direct contradiction to consensus). You also completely ignore the entire rest of my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the direct equivalent of if we had a policy called WP:CATS which said "If in doubt, pet a cat." and you wrote an essay called WP:CATSACTUALLY which said "WP:CATS is intended for times when you are taking your second-year exam in algebra, or your elderly uncle is going to have surgery to remove a gallstone." Well, no. If that was the case the policy would have actually said so. You can't just make stuff up about when and where policies are applicable.
The first half of your comment was whataboutery (as you've chosen to ignore the question rather than answer it, that's the most charitable interpretation) and the second half was a classic example of arguing from a false premise - there's nothing to be said that hasn't already been covered on this page. — Scott•talk18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
