Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) NotReallySoroka ( talk) 03:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

User:Qwerfjkl/preservedCategories

User:Qwerfjkl/preservedCategories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

(also including all subpages, of which there are too many to list here)

Per WP:G4, we do not allow content that has been moved to user space [...] simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. This project is a near-textbook example of that, implemented unilaterally despite a lack of consensus at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted. It is furthermore a violation of Wikipedia:Bot policy since bot tasks that run without approval are required to be not otherwise disruptive; the existence of these lists is, both by making people like User:Fayenatic london waste time when updating backlinks and indirectly by rendering one of Wikipedia's major discussion venues toothless. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural Close - This deletion request is the wrong venue to address what appears to be a real problem. Deleting the list will only delete the content that is currently in the list. The bot is updating the list periodically. If the list is deleted, the bot will probably continue adding to the list. I see that the bot has already removed the {{ mfd}} tag from the list once. The tag says that it should not be removed. The bot can't read and understand English; it is a bot. The ability to read and understand English is a requirement to be competent to edit Wikipedia -- unless you're a bot, which is why there is a bot approval process. It appears that this list is being produced by an approved bot running an unapproved task. What we need to do is to stop the bot from producing the list, which is not within the scope of this process. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Robert McClenon, @ Pppery, I operate the bot. If consensus is found to deactivate this task, I will stop it (maybe tag its subpages for deletion). Regarding the deletion rationale, I have.no intention of circumventing Wikipedia 's deletion policy; as.mentioned at the discussion, the intent is to preserve.categories so that the information they represent can be used elsewhere. Regarding by making people like User:Fayenatic london waste time when updating backlinks, what do you mean by this (can you give an example)? I will update the bot to retain the MfD tag later today. ―  Qwerfjkl talk 06:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • User:Qwerfjkl - You write:

          If consensus is found to deactivate this task, I will stop it (maybe tag its subpages for deletion).

          Was there consensus, or bot approval, to start the task? Where in the bot policy is there an authorization for an approved bot with approved tasks also to run unapproved tasks? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
          At WP:BOTUSERSPACE is such authorization. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • The matter of overwriting the MFD tag is not important, but only symbolic. The bot is overwriting the MFD tag because it is editing the list in a bot-like manner because it is a bot. That illustrates why bots are regulated; otherwise they do bot-like things. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
          • @ Robert McClenon, I started this task per Enterprisey's request. Enterprisey is a BAG member, so I trust their judgement on whether or not the task is suitable. Userspace tasks in general do not require consensus, though perhaps this case may be an exception. Finally, on the matter of the bot mindlessly doing the task, as you say, it is because it is a bot. I have modified the code so it should re-add the mfd notice soon - I am happy to modify the code as necessary. ―  Qwerfjkl talk 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Qwerfjkl: he means e.g. [1]. When categories are listed at WP:CFDW for bot processing, I check "what links here" after the move, and fix red links in other pages – including user pages – where it appears that links to categories are intended to remain useful. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not understanding how this is the wrong venue; I am requesting this list be deleted as an affront to Wikipedia's consensus building process, so I think MfD is the correct venue. And indiscriminately recreating categories that the community has chosen to delete as lists is circumventing deletion policy, whether intended or not. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to User:Pppery - This sounds like a disagreement as to whether the bot should be producing the list, since User:Enterprisey thinks that it is needed, and you think that it should not exist. When you have a hammer, any problem looks like a nail. Are you trying to hammer screws rather than looking for a screwdriver? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for lack of a valid deletion reason This looks like someone threw in everything they could think of in the hopes something would stick. I don't think any of it does.
    • Per WP:G4, we do not allow content that has been moved to user space [...] simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy On the other hand, G4 specifically does allow content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement, which this is claimed to be. The intended improvement is that the content would be better recorded in Wikidata than in our category structure.
    • implemented unilaterally Several people seem to have been involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 187#Preserve at Wikidata? linked from the page in question (but not, for some reason, from this MFD).
    • despite a lack of consensus at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to preserve categories about to be deleted But WP:BOTREQ is not really a place for establishing consensus. WP:VPR is, and most of the (few) people participating there seemed in favor.
    • the existence of these lists is [disruptive], both by making people like User:Fayenatic london waste time when updating backlinks I'm sure User:Fayenatic london could quickly learn to ignore that bot's pages. Chances are he could ignore all of userspace with little repercussion. The bot operator has also offered to change the bot to avoid generating internal links in the first place, to completely solve this "issue".
    • and indirectly by rendering one of Wikipedia's major discussion venues toothless The categories are still deleted, so far from "toothless".
    IMO the best argument against this bot task would be if no one is actually making any use of the data or doing anything to review it or clean it up. But that has not been claimed here, nor as far as I can tell have the people in the original VPR discussion even been asked. Anomie ⚔ 02:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Some of them are being renamed rather than deleted. I was assuming that updating the link to the new name would be a gain rather than a detriment. As for other users' pages, I generally get thanked for updating redlinks. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • As the user who filed the BOTREQ request, I don't think the page violates policy, although there's room for further evolution for the current implementation. On the narrow question of whether this violates G4, I don't think the lists are recreations of the original categories, most importantly because they aren't categories. Feel free to call this splitting hairs, but I wouldn't even say they're lists in the WP:LIST sense: there is no intention to ever put these in mainspace, as the idea is to just preserve the category member data. Toolforge might be a better place for these lists, though - at least due to the eventual size of the dataset. I also agree with what Anomie said. Enterprisey ( talk!) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, categories get deleted because we don't want them as categories. After deletion they can be difficult to recover, one would have to go over the edits of the account(s) that removed the category from various pages. If for example consensus would be overturned on the deletion of a category, these preserved category pages will possibly make it easier to repopulate such a category. In many ways this is different from articles. An article, unlike a category, exists on only one page so it could be accessed/undeleted by an admin or could be indexed by Deletionpedia or archive.org. This doesn't work for categories. Articles are frequently deleted because we don't want the article itself here, typically because it's spam, copyvio, factually inaccurate, etc. Again, none of these typically apply to categories. Qwerfjkl, as the page length limit is 4MB IIRC, I assume you'll split the start page at some point? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There has not been a reason shown why the generation of this list is harmful. There has been discussion of it, previously at Village Pump, and now at Bot noticeboard, and one or more editors think that the list is useful, and no one has said that the list is harmful. The nominator is citing an abstract and general principle rather than a specific reason, and there appear to be at least weak specific reasons why the list should be kept. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I still think that this is not the proper venue to object to a bot task. The Bot noticeboard also thinks that they are not the place to discuss the task, which may be because they think that it is a reasonable userspace bot task that is not doing any harm. So either go back to Village Pump, or find a fourth venue. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is not a violation of bot policy, as it is not "otherwise disruptive". It does not violate WP:G4, as it is not meant to "circumvent" WP's deletion policy. A deletion of a category is meant to take pages out of the category system, not to prevent people from knowing the page was ever in a category. As far as I understand, this does not make things more difficult for people maintaining the category system. No correct policy-based reason for deletion, and no non-policy-based explanation for how this is a harm to anyone in any way (except possibly Fayenatic london, who has specifically said it is not a problem for them). -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weakish-Delete-but-there-is-a-bigger-problem. Edits made by a bot are considered as made by their operator-editor. In this case we have an editor that is continually creating pages, then asking them to be speedy deleted - and using automation to do this more than casually. Now, that's not really a MFD question specifically about this one page - but more of an editor conduct issue that should prob be dealt with at AN. But this is now forked to many places, so commenting about what I see as a problem related to this page - though it is really more of a problem related to the process. I see the main problem that admins are having to be constantly engaged to clean up subpages of this page. If this was just dumping data to a single page that was maintained, and not creating and deleting all these other pages consistently I don't think I'd really care so long as it was low-volume. — xaosflux Talk 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Xaosflux, While, yes, I did tag about 500 pages for speedy deletion after another user requested it be restricted to categories with more than 3 pages. I have no intention of doing this in the future, unless the situation calls for it. As to the edit rate, the bot has so far made 7 new pages today, with 16 edits total. You say I see the main problem that admins are having to be constantly engaged to clean up subpages of this page - do you mean anybody other than Fayenatic Lodon, above, with whom the situation has been resolved? ―  Qwerfjkl talk 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Qwerfjkl - my main concern was that if your workflow was going to be (a) create a page (b) wait a little bit (c) request an admin delete the page. If that's not going to be happening anymore this seems like much less of a problem. I think I'd still rather see a "log" page (like one page a day or less) instead of you creating new pages for each entry - and even in that case I don't think that this is a good process to run long-term. What is the useful lifecycle of the pages you are creating? Are they still going to be useful to Wikipedia in 1, 5, 10 years for example? Are these pages all going to end up needing to still be dealt with by admins in the future? — xaosflux Talk 20:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Xaosflux, I suppose I could just have a series of pages (1 would rapidly get too big), listing all the categories, one after the other e.g. PAGE contains Categoties Foo, Bar, and Foobar, one after the other. Depending on how big these pages are, there probably wouldn't bee too many of them. Then it would only create pages very slowly (hopefully once a week, though it's hard to calculate). This might also help with Alexis Jazz's concern above. ―  Qwerfjkl talk 20:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Qwerfjkl any ideas on what they useful lifespan of these reports is going to be? (i.e. are we just putting of the "delete" problem to the future?) — xaosflux Talk 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Xaosflux, not really. This might be a reason to shutdown the task. ―  Qwerfjkl talk 13:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Qwerfjkl rather than tagging individual pages, twinkle has a batch deletion feature so you could have the bot generate a list of pages to be deleted and have one admin batch delete it. That should make deleting the pages eventually fairly easy, though I would still try to ensure they're going to be used (and maybe limit the number of pages generated). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 03:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - To follow on the comments of User:Xaosflux and User:Qwerfjkl, if the bot is generating pages that need to be deleted, then that seems more like an issue for the Bot noticeboard than for MFD. Again. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep/Close I fail to see a reason why these pages should be deleted. "content that has been moved to user space [...] simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy" is there to prevent people from hosting articles (and some things like userboxes that exist to disparage/attack others) in their userspace. A temporary) documentation of what a category was prior to deletion hosted in userspace isn't that. And as a userspace bot, there's also no issue with the bot policy (see WP:BOTUSERSPACE).
If this somehow causes maintenance headaches, WP:BOTISSUE seems like a good start. Discuss it with the operator. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: I have temporarily deactivated this task, pending the outcome of this discussion. ―  Qwerfjkl talk 16:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Qwerfjkl/preservedCategories&oldid=1109731780"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE