Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 12

November 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 12, 2008

Redirects created en masse by a now-banned user[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete all that haven't yet been retargeted or already deleted.Tikiwont (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally propose that we consolidate the many highly similar deletion discussions below. They are all arising out of various investigations into the contribution history of a now-banned user. I believe that we could be more efficient if we consolidate, then cluster the redirects similar to the process that was successfully used in June (here). (We can exclude discussions below that have already received substantive feedback.)

Is there consensus to treat this as a single case? Rossami (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - even if one of those really was a legit redirect (as far as I can see they are all SNOWs or R3s), we can restore that one. But they seem all to be nonsensical. So Why 00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. At least for the ones where an obvious new target hasn't been proposed. Just nuke 'em. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree looking at his user history is very frustrating, so many bad redirects. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone should also look into the categories created by this user. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I'm still having flashbacks from the group we did in June. I would even advocate speedying all those that even smell of spam. Those that might be in a gray area should be brought individually, though. B.Wind (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appearing to be consensus to a consolidated approach, here's a start. Rossami (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - we should eliminate the proprietary redirects with all due speed, plus the nonsensical ones. The rest need to be checked on a case-by-case basis. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Looks pretty unambiguous by now,none of these serve any purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - at least a few of the redirects are obviously keepable. To be honest, I don't know enough about these topics to know whether most of the redirects are any good without doing research. But I don't believe that Mac was attempting to vandalise. If all his edits were intentionally disruptive, he hid it well. The redirects ought to be considered on their merits and not judged by the user who created them. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if you read the "ground rules" of the list, you'll see that your concerns are accommodated. Any valid redirects in the list can be struck; disagreements on validity can be discussed on an individual basis if the redirect in contention is presented for its own RfD discussion. I agree with Richard Cavell in that it doesn't appear that Mac's redirect creations were malicious in nature, but many, if not most, were questionable and require oversight after having a few dozen of his redirect brought here. It's not the 500+ that we had to do at once in June, but Mac's lack of interaction after repeated requests for comment triggered all this, it seems. Speaking for myself only, I believe that all of Mac's edits were in good faith. B.Wind (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between these 'ground rules' and what would be done if each redirect were brought to discussion in the usual way. Each redirect ought to be considered on its own merits. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The argument in favor of consolidation is based upon the experience shown below (some still visible but some now hidden in the pagehistory for this and the prior day). I agree that every redirect needs to be individually researched and investigated. What I kept noticing, though, was that the investigation kept yielding the same results. I copied essentially the same write-up of findings into several dozen discussions.
      This user created literally hundreds of redirects and if the initial trends hold true, the majority of them will end up deleted and the remainder retargetted. The time and repetitive edits needed to nominate, list, discuss, close, etc. is high. The intent of this exception process is that we individually investigate but then cluster the results in order to reduce some of the overhead load on our discussion process. No one, for example, should take my word for it that a particular redirect is an example of a "non-notable company being inappropriately redirected to one of it's products". But if, after your investigation, you find exactly the same thing, it would be efficient to not have to repeat yourself 25 times. That's the idea, anyway. It seemed to work back in June. Rossami (talk)
Agree Seems pretty straight-up way of dealing with the mess. And a hat-tip to Rossami for taking the time on this. Eusebeus (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Useful ones can be seperated and dealt with individually. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]