User talk:Pppery/deletions

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Pppery in topic Grouped by admin

Review comments edit

  • BD2412's "not a sort name" deletions look like G7s and possibly G6s (created in error), although I've only spot-checked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • @Thryduulf: These redirects in particular were not created in error, but the nature of the redirect target was changed at some point (the target article was deleted and retargeted, or moved), and the incoming redirects were not addressed at that time, which they should have been. BD2412 T 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Sro23's SPI page deletion look to be relating to merging archives so G6. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Sir Sputnik's deletion of Masheal Al-Hamdan was an error - they undeleted it and redeleted it citing G5. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • @Thryduulf: Do you intend to continue reviewing these? * Pppery * it has begun... 03:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, but it's going to be a few days before I next have time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Thryduulf: Any update on this? It's been almost a month. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, I will get to this but I've been ill so it wont be today most likely. Thryduulf (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jumping ahead to today's deletions:

* Pppery * it has begun... 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some examples of deletions that look clearly invalid edit

I looked at each entry cursorily (and am a non-admin so can't see the actual deleted text), so this should not be taken as implying anything about the validity of any entries I did not list. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC) (edited 04:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC))Reply

More from today's update:

* Pppery * it has begun... 03:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

More from the last two updates:

* Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Grouped by admin edit

  Drmies (46.7%)
  Liz (10%)
  Acroterion (7.2%)
  Anthony Appleyard (4.1%)
  Graham87 (3.4%)
  Ser Amantio di Nicolao (2.6%)
  Other admins (26.1%)
Admin Total deletions in table
Drmies 366
Liz 78
Acroterion 56
Anthony Appleyard 32
Graham87 27
Ser Amantio di Nicolao 20
Other admins 204

* Pppery * it has begun... 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are we asking User:Drmies and User:Liz why they do not cite CSD criteria? Is it too hard? Would they appreciate a CSD deletion assistance tool? Do they not think that logging is important? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
No one asked them until you did, and the lack of response to your ping makes it clear that they don't find the question worthy of an answer. Meanwhile, I'm going to post similar stats for February 2022 so far: * Pppery * it has begun... 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  Primefac (53.6%)
  Wbm1058 (6.9%)
  Acroterion (5.2%)
  Anthony Appleyard (5.2%)
  Graham87 (5.2%)
  Liz (4.4%)
  Kinu (4.4%)
  Jimfbleak (2.7%)
  Drmies (1.3%)
  Other admins (11.1%)
Admin Total deletions in table
Primefac 279
Wbm1058 36
Graham87 27
Anthony Appleyard 27
Acroterion 27
Liz 23
Kinu 23
Jimfbleak 14
Drmies 7
Other admins 58

Both sets are dominated by one specific mass deletion done using Twinkle (by Drimes in one case and by Primefac in the other). Aside from that, most deletions listed here seem to be done by roughly the same small cohort of 3 or 4 admins. Interesting ... * Pppery * it has begun... 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that Special:Nuke lets you specify a speedy deletion criterion [although I believe that in practice G5 is the one that most nukes happen under] so mass deletes would not give a CSD criterium.

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_54#Deletion without placing a CSD tag first eight years ago touched on the question of whether it's OK to perform a speedy deletion w/o citing one of the formal criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's no dropdown menu like with Special:DeletePage, but there's nothing stopping you from typing "G5" or "creation of banned User:Example" or whatever in the deletion summary field. —Cryptic 15:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Actually, a dropdown menu was added for nuke a few weeks ago in phab:T25020. But I'm not sure what the relevance of Nuke here is since I said mass deletion done using Twinkle. Nor do I personally see a problem with unexplained "mass deletion of pages added by Foo" when Foo is blocked as a sockpuppet; the reason for deletion is obvious to anyone after a cursory investigation. They show up here because I deliberately used no human judgement in compiling this report and included all output from the raw database query. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The relevance of Nuke is that some of the entries on your list have the deletion summary "Mass deletion of pages added by Foo", which is the Nuke autosummary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stats for March 2022 so far:

  Acroterion (18.2%)
  Liz (11.1%)
  Widr (7.4%)
  Jimfbleak (6.4%)
  Graham87 (4.4%)
  Materialscientist (3.4%)
  Drmies (3.2%)
  Zzuuzz (3%)
  Explicit (3%)
  Wbm1058 (2.7%)
  Jo-Jo Eumerus (2.7%)
  Other admins (34.5%)
Deleting admin count
Acroterion 74
Liz 45
Widr 30
Jimfbleak 26
Graham87 18
Materialscientist 14
Drmies 13
Zzuuzz 12
Explicit 12
Wbm1058 11
Jo-Jo Eumerus 11
Other admins 140

As before, it seems to be mostly the same cohort of 3-4 admins. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stats for April 2022:

  Acroterion (17%)
  Liz (12.6%)
  Zzuuzz (6.7%)
  Jimfbleak (6%)
  Widr (5.1%)
  Ad Orientem (4.2%)
  Jay (3.7%)
  Deepfriedokra (3.3%)
  Graham87 (3%)
  Other admins (38.4%)
Deleting admin count
Acroterion 73
Liz 54
Zzuuzz 29
Jimfbleak 26
Widr 22
Ad Orientem 18
Jay 16
Deepfriedokra 14
Graham87 13
Other admins 165

* Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Other ideas for sets of deletions to review edit

  1. G6 deletions that don't fail into any of the segregating criteria I listed at Special:Diff/1066071534 (927 deletions)
  2. Deletions using a process that only applies to pages in a different namespace than the deleted page (97 U1s in user talk space, 109 U5s in user talk space, 96 others)
  3. R3 and A10 deletions to pages that are more than X time old (arbitrarily setting X as 2 months produces 9 deletions)

All numbers refer only to deletions in 2022. If someone else thinks one of these lists would be useful, I would be happy to post it. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Additionally (inspired by a content dispute I got into about the scope of G8): G8 deletions where it's not clear what nonexistent page the deleted page depends on (896). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

U5 deletions where the user in question has made more than X non-deleted edits outside user/user talk space (setting X=10 produces 67 deletions in March 2022). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adding to U5 - very short main user pages. I often see U5 deletion requests where the user wrote a short description of himself (allowed by WP:UPYES) and little else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Defining "very short" as less than 500 bytes of Wikitext produces 624 deletions in March 2022. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Posted both U5-related lists to User:Pppery/deletions/U5 * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply