A nonadmin closure that didn't take into effect the fact that an indeffed sock not only trolled the entire discussion, but also pasted a bunch of irrelevant articles and claimed them as sources. The initial closing administrator reopened it upon hearing of this and the first comment on the relisting showed an understanding of the issues, but the nonadmin closure has kind of mucked up the whole thing from a consensus standpoint. I'd like to see this get a clean hearing, but I think, at this point, a simple renomination would do more harm than good. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reopening the discussion is enough and that we can proceed from where we are now that the closure has been undone. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Premature speedy deletion by one administrator (User:Scott) with no valid CSD reason or reference to WP:CSD, before consensus was reached
I added a note underneath the closing admin's closure (not in it), and contacted the admin with this edit here and a few before (I tend to revise my own edits as I tend to ramble). The closing admin has removed my remark which was a courtesy note (with this edit and the one before it saying on the ES "Please don't make me reply in two different venues", yet has in fact replied in two different venues: on his talk page, and by changing his own closing remarks.
An article is brought for discussion, it is being disucssed, but before consensus was reached (and by the way I was in favour of deletion), an admin takes it SPEEDY saying "racism isn't funny" as the closing reason, then adds "it is vandalism" into their closing argument (listing CSD G3) into their closing remarks – they had not listed a CSD reason in the original closing remarks.
There are plenty of articles on racist terms. It was premature to speedy close it just because one is an admin one doesn't need another's opinion for a SPEEDY, and the administrator should not have changed his own closing remarks to justify his actions. How can others have a discussion (and RFD stands for Redirects for Discussion, not Deletion) in these kind of cases? Sorry Scott, but it was premature for you to delete it while it was under discussion at the appropriate place. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Someone may think of a suitable place to which the redirect can link. Short-cutting the discussion prevents this. In general, a speedy close like any admin action is only justified if the consensus would obviously agree, and I don;t see enough discussion to see what the consensus would be. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Si is incorrect. This was not "an article on racist terms". It was a repulsive racist term (if you must, put it into Urban Dictionary; I won't link to that here) being used as a redirect to a legitimate topic (Mass racial violence in the United States). A nasty bit of subtle vandalism that had gone unnoticed. It shouldn't have been brought to RfD in the first place; it should have been tagged for speedy deletion. If I had seen the redirect at the time of its creation, I would have instantly deleted it. If I saw the term added into an article, I would not only remove it but revision delete it as grossly offensive material. Si seems to be upset that I didn't explicitly mention that the deletion was because it was vandalism. Well, I thought it was patently obvious at the time; evidently it wasn't. And no, I didn't "reply in two different venues". I replied at one place, my talk page, and then expanded the rationale based on that conversation. Not to "justify" anything, but to clarify my reasoning following an editor expressing concern about not understanding it. — Scott•talk 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has redirects for most of the repulsive racist terms I can think of. I've just checked. Is there something that makes this one different?—S MarshallT/C 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked too before I brought it here, but deliberately didn't list the terms I could think of (and I have been called many things) since I thought that would be adding salt to the fire. (but dago is a DAB with a link to Wiktionary where it is described as offensive slang, but for example Guappo exists, and I thought Guappo (slang) existed but perhaps I was mistaken in my research). I said it should be deleted, because it is not mentioned at the target; the nominator said that sources vary on it, and Eric Partridge is long dead. So we have to achieve consensus first. Si Trew (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to S Marshall - and are any of them racist terms for valid topics? That go mysteriously undiscussed in the target article? All of the redirects beginning with N—r, for example, have germane targets relating directly or indirectly to the slur. I think there needs to be some evidence presented here that this redirect was anything but vandalism; I'm not seeing any. If this had been speedy tagged earlier in its history it would have gone instantly. — Scott•talk 13:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for example Nigger, which is simply from the spanish for Black. "Black" itself was once considered quite a racist term but now is not. What about queer or gay] or homolesbo or whatever? They count by the same token. Just because a word is used pejoratively doesn't mean they don't exist. No consensus was reached — that is the point. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't "mean for example Nigger". Read my comment again. — Scott•talk 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't "all articles beginning with N—r" is it: you piped it to Speciial:PrefixIndex/Nigger. Just cos you don't like the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is quite an interesting article and well written, most of which I already knew. If I added Nigger minstrel I imagine that already exists, that would also be valid if WP:RS and WP:N and so on but I imagine it is already there. You can't even be bold enough to say the word yet you come here objecting to others. At RfD the other day there was a discussion about what to call a town in Serbia because in broken English a Bosnian I imagine said it was a Serbian word used pejoratively – and by the same reason I voted delete because it is an unlikely search term in English Wikipedia, not because it is pejorative. WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't like people saying fuck every fourth word where I come from, but they do (I don't) and I have to put up with it. WIkipedia can change the world, but not by moralising: by adding knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are completely incoherent and you don't seem to have understood what I wrote at all. Hopefully S Marshall, to whom I was replying, did. — Scott•talk 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave it there. Things have to achieve consensus. That means they have to be discussed, and they can be discussed by any editor, not just high-and-mighty administrators; it is a public discussion. IPs can contribute to it to. Where did I say "it is an article on racist terms", which you put in quotes to suggest that I had said that? I said merely it should be deleted because it is not mentioned at the article. Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be in your original post at the top of this page, where you said There are plenty of articles on racist terms. If you weren't implying that this redirect was somehow comparable, then it was an irrelevant comment. — Scott•talk 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand it, which is why I said it is an abuse of power. You shouldn't go around the XfD discussion boards and then removing others' comments – how is any other editor going to comprehend what anyone else actually said. I said above "There are plenty of articles on racist terms" and you quoted me below as "it is an article on racist terms", which is not what I said. You ask me to read up, but you don't read up yourself: those mean different things: I said nothing on whether any particular article itself was racist. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It really appears that you need everything spelled out to you in the simplest possible terms. I'll add some extra words to my original comment for you. Si is incorrect in his reasoning. This was not "an article on racist terms" so that observation is irrelevant. And with that, I think I shan't reply to you any further here. — Scott•talk 14:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, back to the topic. I think the questions we should have been asking are:- (1) Is it possible that a good faith user might type "chimp out" in the search box, and (2) If they did, what are they actually looking for? If the answer is no, it's completely implausible that anyone would ever type that in the search box, then we should agree that it's vandalism and move on. If it's yes, it's plausible that someone might type that in the search box then there should probably be a discussion at RfD about whether there's a useful redirect target. I genuinely don't know. If Wiktionary covered it then I would say we should have a soft redirect to Wiktionary there. Wiktionary doesn't, so I suppose I'd like to ask Si Trew: where do you think this could point?—S MarshallT/C 17:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that could have been supported at the original RFD. It is not up to one admin to take his own opinion and abuse the power of being an admin. I supported the deletion in the first place. But no consensus had been reached, the discussion had been there for eighteen hours. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that I need to reply one final time. Take a look at WP:CSD, where you'll notice that the first sentence is The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. You're within your rights to dispute whether the page in question was vandalism, but your accusation of me "abus[ing] the power of being an admin" is unfounded. — Scott•talk 14:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion. No need to keep this crap for a full discussion. There were no incoming links so nothing broke, and Mass racial violence in the United States was a silly and racist target. If somebody can create a meaningful article about the racist expression or redirect it to a more meaningful target like an article about racist expressions then the deletion doesn't prevent that. The same editor created the same redirect at Chimp out. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. So that I don't get any more accusations hurled at me (and to back up my assertion that the first one was also vandalism), I'll let another admin get that one. — Scott•talk 16:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested deletion in the first place. The point is, the admin should not have SPEEDied it when it was under discussion, then after speedy closing it with the comment "racism is not funny" THEN add "Do I have to explain it? It is vandalism" whereas actually the only time it was said it was CSD:G3 was on the user's talk page but I was told not to put the same thing twice. So the record does not have anything saying it was closed as CSD:G3, the record has been vandalised by the admin by altering his own closing remarks, and so I bring it here thinking the admin should be less hasty. I went through due process: talked to the admin, replied on the WP:RFD page, and then came here. It is not as if the admin didn't read the messages because I get constant edit conflicts whenever I try to reply. But it should not go so SPEEDY, other editors may have other views. An editor brings something in good faith to an XfD and an admin SPEEDYs it by his own de facto but not de jure authority. That is not right. I don't know why that point, which I have spelled out several times, is not understood. I am not arguing whether the article should be deleted or not (I argued that where it should be argued) I am arguing that it should not have been SPEEDied on the whim of an admin when there was no consensus to do so. Wikipedia works by consensus. I didn't hurl any accusations and suggested we leave it at that some hours ago, and yet every time I try to add my opinion there is an edit conflict. Just stand back and let others have their opinion, Scott. Si Trew (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if you think I "hurled accusations at you" take a look at what I said. I said it politely, I said it intelligently, I gave examples, you thought I didn't understand those where they were perfectly pertinent examples in my opinion, I told you to leave it you, you didn't, you are WP:CANVASSING, and I pointed out where I thought you were wrong, in the proper venues at the proper times. I am often wrong. Are you the only person in the world who is always right? Si Trew (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I can't create a redirect page for "Nigger minstrel" because it is blocked for this reason:
You do not have permission to create pages, for the following reason:
The title "Nigger minstrel" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*nig{2,}er.* # nigger
Yet Blackface exists. This is not helping the creation of an encyclopaedia. "Nigger minstrel" exists in numerous articles. The fact it is offensive to some does not mean the term does not exist. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted message sounds like you have changed away from the default language "en - English" at Special:Preferences. Users with that see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit which explains what to do. If you have chosen en-GB or en-CA as language then note they are not recommended at Help:Preferences#User profile (written by me). We do have several valid article names with the N-word, but hundreds of other pages have been deleted as racism and vandalism so the word was blacklisted. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If this had been an actual, reasonably sourced article about the racist term, or a redirect to an article about racist epithets more generally, speedy deletion would likely have been inappropriate. But the redirect really had no point except to pejoratively equate the term to "unrest in African-American communities, such as the 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.", which is absolutely loathsome. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This also has elements wikipedia doesn't do "Things I just made up", and as long as it stays within the Stormfront (and the like) forums, this is the result that should happen.Naraht (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not a good target, not common enough slang it needs a redirect anyways (AFAICT). Hobit (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion Doing book searches shows that "chimp out" as a verb phrase has a variety of meanings, largely without racial implications. It's also not that much used. In any case the original target is wildly inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I don't see a problem with not waiting around for a lot of process before deleting. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - but recommend Scott (talk·contribs) cites a CSD and minimizes editorializing in future when he speedy deletes something up for XfD Storkk (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome - Scott (talk·contribs), I think something like snow close, G3. Pure vandalism, or G10. Pages that disparage some other entity, and serve no other purpose, would be more administrative than citing 'because racism isn't funny.' Also, the redirect had been there since 14 July 2013, so I don't see the administrative harm from having let the RfD run its course. As for the outcome, I could not find any reliable sources using the term "chimping out" and none that would link the chimping out redirect to its target. What's done is done and there's no need to undo it, so I endorse the outcome. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the original RFD nominator. The redirect appeared to be blatantly racist, and there doesn't seem to be a major procedural error that would've changed the outcome. KJclick here 02:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- could not have closed any other way. ReykYO! 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
