Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• Jump to bottom
• New topic
• All village pumps

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.

• If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
• For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after 7 days of inactivity. To keep this page's size accessible, discussions with more than about 100 comments should be split to a separate page.

« Archives, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

Continuation of ANI Discussion About MFD Relisting

There have been some issues raised at a discussion at WP:ANI about relisting of MFD discussions, and the discussion there seems to be winding down because maybe WP:ANI action is not required. I posted my questions a few hours ago to the MFD talk page, but I now see that it is not an active talk page, so I will mark these questions, which were not answered yet, as moved to VPP.

The original issue was that an MFD had been open for a week, and an editor relisted it, and another editor reverted the relisting, and the original editor objected, at WP:ANI. The conclusion appeared to be that the last time there was a discussion of whether MFD discussions may sometimes be relisted as in 2016, and an RFC concluded that relisting is still an option for MFD. There aren't very many MFDs at any given time, so that all of the MFD discussions are available on a single board, MFD. At least one editor objects to the relisting of MFD discussions because it rearranges the paperwork. At least one editor thinks that relisting of MFD discussions is sometimes useful because it rearranges the paperwork.

So I will ask here:

• Should deletion discussions at MFD sometimes be relisted? There has been an RFC which said that MFD discussions may sometimes be relisted, so if there is a view that consensus has changed, is a new RFC warranted?
• Should non-administrators be permitted to relist MFD discussions as a non-administrative closure?
• Should the editor who relists an MFD discussion be expected to provide a comment explaining why they have relisted the discussion?
• Should non-administrators be permitted to revert the relisting of MFD discussions? If so, when and why?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The answer to all of your questions is that MfD should not be treated any differently than any other XfD. Creating bespoke rules makes everything more confusing and there is no good reason for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

+1. Allow relisting. MFD closers shouldn't need to learn different rules about relisting than the other XFD venues. If a discussion has low participation or could benefit from more discussion, and hasn't already been relisted, then relisting is a standard and helpful tool in the toolbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

When all the discussions fit comfortably on a single page, relists are just needless paper-pushing, which is why they're not the norm at MfD, DRV, or MRV. MfD is different from the other XfDs because it doesn't use daily log pages. I disagree with the 2016 RfC (which I wasn't aware of until a few days ago) and would say as much if someone decides to start a new RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

While I take Voorts' point about consistency across processes, we do already use different layouts/structures for them, and subject nominations to a different set of deletion reasons. I guess I'm just not sure what the function of relisting is when there are only three nominations across the entire process. For reference, here's what MfD looked like on today's date in 2016, when that RfC took place, and here it is today. 62 nominations vs. 3 nominations. Now, 3 is low even by today's standard, but we haven't been anywhere near 62 in a long time, because drafts now have an automatic expiration date that they did not back then. To be clear, I don't think relisting hurts anything, either, but I just don't understand. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that maybe this relist wasn't particularly necessary, but I don't think that it hurt anything. I think reverting it was even less necessary. People shouldn't be getting verklempt over a single relist. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked four questions. I will summarize what I think is being said:

1. Should MFD discussions sometimes be relisted? This is the main question. The 2016 RFC said that MFD discussions are no different from other deletion discussions and may be relisted. There are reasonable arguments that consensus has changed and a new RFC may be in order.

2. Can non-administrators relist MFD discussions? I think that the answer is that this depends on whether MFDs may sometimes be relisted. Otherwise, we do occasionally see non-administrative closes at MFD, and a relist is a closing action.

3. Should a comment be provided when relisting an MFD discussion? First, this depends on whether MFDs may sometimes be relisted. Second, in my opinion, if MFD discussions should sometimes be relisted, a comment should be provided. I agree that comment-free relistings at MFD are not helpful.

4. Should non-administrators be permitted to revert the relisting of MFD discussions? This was the original topic of the ANI report, but has not been addressed. I think that the answer is an unambiguous no, but I haven't researched whether there are non-admin reverts of relistings at AFD, TFD, or CFD.

It probably doesn't matter that MFD is like AFD in one respect in which they differ from TFD and CFD. Each AFD and MFD discussion is its own page in project space, while the daily logs are the unit pages in TFD and CFD.

Should we have a new RFC on question 1? If not, do we need to address questions 2, 3, and 4?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As a non-contributor to MfD who has read this thread, my answers to your questions are:

1. MfD discussions may be relisted but most often probably shouldn't be, because it achieves little. There may be exceptions to the general rule where a relisting is beneficial so it would be counterproductive to prohibit these.
2. Yes. Everybody may relist a discussion, but in most cases nobody should, per the answer to question 1. For the exceptions to the general rule it makes no difference whether the person relisting is or is not an admin.
3. It depends. If it's unclear why a discussion is being relisted it should be accompanied by a comment, if it is clear then a comment is neither required nor prohibited.
4. No. If someone is relisting inappropriately this is a user conduct issue that should be dealt with as a user conduct issue. I can think of only three reasons why a discussion might be inappropriately relisted and in neither situation does reverting the relisting help:
   • If discussion didn't need relisting because consensus was already clear, then just close the discussion according to that consensus. There is no minimum time between relisting and closing a discussion.
   • If consensus was not clear but discussion was ongoing, then the relisting might have been disruptive to that discussion but unrelisting will be at least equally disruptive. One disruptive event is better than two so just leave it be.
   • If consensus was not clear but discussion was not ongoing, just leave it be. Either the relisting will attract more input (in which case everybody wins) or it won't (in which case nobody loses).

In all cases though, if a relisting breaks any incoming links, create some sort of pointer or redirect so that people following them can find where the discussion now is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: MfD notices target a discussion subpage (as opposed to dates and anchors at RfD) similar to AfD. Thus—when a transclusion of an MfD subpage moves within the list on the main MfD page, no incoming links are broken and nothing needs to be altered in that regard. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this, also as someone who rarely participates in MFD but is a regular at other XFD venues. My one amendment is that relisting comments should perhaps be more strongly encouraged at MFD than at similar venues. They should not be required but if the norm is to generally not relist, a brief explanation will be especially helpful. In one sense, this is the same approach that should be taken with all relistings—when the reason to relist is non-obvious, an explanation should be provided. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Extraordinary Writ, Rhododendrites, and Thryduulf. At such a small venue the main effect of relisting isn't to encourage further participation. MfD discussions are rarely poorly attended, and rearranging the order of discussions is not a fruitful way of pursuing that end anyway since old discussions aren't forgotten about. Relisting mainly functions to discourage closure for another week. That is generally most helpful where new information has arisen later in the discussion period that is likely to change participants' minds. I think in that instance a comment will always be useful. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Granted, it is often not the case in practice, but a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days (WP:RELIST). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

MFD is qualitatively different from every other deletion venue (unless you count DRV) in that it doesn't have daily subpages, so moving discussions around doesn't place them on a better-attended page. That's the sole benefit of relisting. With that gone, it's all downside. —Cryptic 00:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I am going to defend relisting at MfD for several reasons:

• Generality - After 7 days, relisting serves the purpose of bringing less-attended discussions, where consensus has yet to be achieved, back to prominence at the top of the page. Many times well-attended or complicated discussions tend to languish at the bottom of the list, despite having achieved a full or rough consensus. Separating these two major archetypes of discussions makes the ones that need attention more likely to get it, especially from contributors more familiar with other deletion venues. Relisting discussions also gives them a non-mandatory (relisted discussions may be closed at any time if a clear consensus develops as I quote from guidance to another comment above) additional 7-day time-buffer of sorts to allow a consensus to naturally develop without the discussion appearing in need of expedited closure in the old business section. Set time periods allow for a deeper, fuller consensus to develop (as opposed to a constant under-the-wire environment where, for example, a sudden change in direction prevails in a tight case where it otherwise would not have).
• Parity with other venues - Driving more participation and expanding ease-of-access for the maximum possible userbase is a boon in general. Relisting is an expected feature of deletion venues; the average user may assume that the old business section consists of discussions ready for closure and wanting of one. This misconception is avoided if a discussion is at the top of the list. Of special note, users also should not be treated poorly or chided if they attempt to relist something in good faith because of such reasonable expectations.
• Timelessness of venue - Whether or not MfD is experiencing a slump or boom, having a functioning relisting system makes the venue future-proof. The architecture of relisting (being slightly different from other venues and less automated) may otherwise decay and be unready when warranted. Take {{mfd relist}} and User talk:Legobot/2025#Miscellany for Deletion relisting which show an example of such deterioration. Right now, relists must be done manually.
• Non-adminstrator relists and comment-free relists - Non-administrators who are (WP:NACD) experienced[,] ... uninvolved[,] ... [and] registered (WP:NADC) may close (or relist) ... discussions (WP:NACD). Relisting is a determination of non-consensus (i.e. that consensus has yet to be achieved). Non-administrators regularly relist discussions at other venues; it should be no different at MfD. It is less explicitly officially documented, but comment-free relists are standard (and perhaps preferred) practice when it comes to relisting. This should also not be any different at MfD than any other venue. The relisting comment field exists for the following reason:

  In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result (WP:RELIST).

More often than not, on the first (especially the first) or second relist, it is clear that the discussion is being relisted because consensus is (likely) split in different directions (i.e. yet to be achieved due to lack of agreement) and 'no consensus' closure is not yet appropriate. If there is a special circumstance, or something to note, then a relisting comment would certainly be appropriate.

That just about encapsulates my thoughts on the matter (though I may have forgotten some sentiments and will post again later if that proves to be the case).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Mackensen made an argument regarding relisting comments being generally non-optimal in the discussion that this one stemmed from, which I elude to but do not explain in depth. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I would draw your attention to my fourth bullet point just above, with the hope of perhaps changing your opinion in regard to relisting comments. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Generality - After 7 days, relisting serves the purpose of bringing less-attended discussions, where consensus has yet to be achieved, back to prominence at the top of the page

Undesirable, if there is no point in the relisting except to move it back to the top. The pointlessness of the relisting is evident in the lack of relisting comment on why it is being relisted. Moving an MfD discussion back to the top does not get it fresh eyes, but tricks the few regulars, who already saw it, already commented or already ignored it, in to thinking that there is a new nomination.

Godsy has many many good contributions at MfD, but sometimes exercises poor judgement. When challenged, he goes on an on, as previously, and refuses to concede a single point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - If you don't know the gender of a user, you can use the singular they, which has been used since early modern English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that relisting is presently allowed at MfD per the RfC that has been cited, only a new RfC can overturn the old consensus, not discussion at VPP. I see no reason to discuss further rather than just open an RfC, assuming that nobody is going to change their mind at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

“Allowed” is a weak defence. Relisting is normal at MfD, but pointless comment-free relisting is not. Only Godsy does it. I object to him doing pointless comment-free relisting. It does no good, and it does some harm. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We all understand your position at this point. Your position is presently against cosnensus established by an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's true that only one (1) person does this (e.g., over the course of several months or a whole year), is what that person does really the community's practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just one person. I'm fairly certain I've relisted discussions at MfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisting at MfD is normal and fine. But is it normal and fine to sporadically do comment-free pointless relisting, be told that your pointless comment-free relistings are a negative, to insist that it’s “allowed” by some guideline, and to insist on continuing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Your view that comment-free relistings are inappropriate (especially in general) is a minority viewpoint (if not a vast minority viewpoint). It is overwhelmingly accepted that relists, on the first (or even second), have an inherent purpose that need not be spoken (or rather written) through a comment. I have expounded upon this at-length above. You are seemingly the only contributor that has a (at least major) problem with them, as evidenced here (aimed at others besides me). You have been a contributor at MfD for a long time and have done a lot of good work there. However, your viewpoint in this case does not overrule several well-documented discussion closes and guidelines etc. (again above) established through community consensus. Your view should not be conflated as more than that or be implied to be the view of the community. As far as sporadicity, I have periods of more or less activity, as do many contributors (appropriateness of relisting, however,—bar new community consensus—remains the same). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My particular view relevant is that most of your (singular you) comment-free relists at MfD are completely worthless, and of negative impact to people who pay attention to the size of the backlog.

I’ve asked you to stop.

You don’t reply to the substance, but respond verbosely off topic, ad nauseam, to use your word choice.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe nobody else thought that she needed to stop. Any editor can ask another editor to do anything. Sometimes the asking can be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge this point. It is a relatively low level issue. My previous challenge was rebuffed, which is why I felt the revert was justified. And here we are, still with the question unanswered, “why do this relist?”. And I believe that “Because rules allow it” is not a reasonable answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have started an RfC below. If you have already set forth your views in full in this discussion, I suggest distilling them into a concise !vote and referring editors to your comments above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC: MfD relists

Should comment-free relists be allowed at MfD? 02:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1228#SmokeyJoe - Relisting reversions at MfD and unwillingness to discuss
• See discussion above.

Survey re RfC: MfD relists

• WP:RELIST, which applies to all XfDs, states: "When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result." Otherwise, a relisting comment is not required. I do not believe there is sufficient reason to treat MfD differently from other XfDs. We shouldn't create arbitrary exceptions to guidelines, particularly procedural ones. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Someone is repeatedly removing my !vote from here. Please stop it.

  Of course. The question is the wrong question. A better question is: What should be done when an editor repeatedly exercises bad judgement in relisting? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is a wiki. Many things are “allowed”, technically, even if not a good idea. Good judgement is required. People without good judgement should be less bold. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I moved your "!vote" below and responded to it there, where you also responded. This is the "yes" section in response to the survey, not a place for you to continue to make inappropriate comments about other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Comment-free relists are standard (and perhaps preferred) practice when it comes to relisting. This should not be any different at MfD than any other venue; bringing a discussion to the top of the list is a valuable action which has a net-positive affect on the deletion backlog by being an attention-drawing boon for the vast majority of contributors. The relisting comment field exists for the following reason:

  In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result (WP:RELIST).

More often than not, on the first (especially the first) or second relist, it is clear that the discussion is being relisted because consensus is (likely) split in different directions or the discussion is under-attended (i.e. consensus has yet to be achieved due to lack of agreement or participation) and 'no consensus' closure is not yet appropriate. Otherwise, a constant under-the-wire environment with no semi-firm time limits is fostered (which serves as an adversary to achieving natural, full consensus). If there is a special circumstance, or something to note, then a relisting comment is certainly appropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. The question is whether they are permitted, and they should be permitted. Questions about when various types of relistings should encouraged or discouraged can be addressed later, after the current question is answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. Whether they should be encouraged, discouraged or neither are separate questions but there is absolutely no reason to prohibit them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. MfD shouldn't be different from other venues in this regard. FaviFake (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. As I said during the ANI discussion, comment-free relists are normal and speak for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. Allow relisting. MFD closers shouldn't need to learn different rules about relisting than the other XFD venues. If a discussion has low participation or could benefit from more discussion, and hasn't already been relisted, then relisting is a standard and helpful tool in the toolbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, there certainly are cases where a relisting does not need much of an explanation for itself. jolielover♥talk 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Relisting is an unusual action at MfD. Like at DRV, discussions rarely suffer for attention. As such a comment explaining why a particular discussion does in fact warrant further participation is normally helpful. Prescribing a comment serves to discourage thoughtless and otherwise unhelpful relists. I know I have done such relists at MfD, erroneously thinking its situation the same as at any other venue. It is ineffective to inform every editor to fall under this common misapprehension individually. I do not find the argument that the same relisting considerations should apply to all deletion venues convincing. Encouraging unfruitful relists is counterproductive. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  What makes a relist helpful or unhelpful? Where do we draw that line? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am currently drafting User:J947/Essays/When to relist? on that question. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's reasonable to ask editors participating in this RfC to read a 700+ word (the page size tool doesn't count items in lists) essay. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. I mean you do plenty of relists yourself; you don't need me to explain which relists are good or bad. (Although, for the sake of others, I'll summarise my position. It's a judgment call of how productive the relister expects the relist to be. Relists shift attention from new discussions to old discussions. Extensions of a discussion by a week or two are usually significantly less productive than the first week, but some discussions are complicated or important enough to warrant a RfC-like amount of time (that is, where there is no consensus or no clear consensus).) J947 ‡ ^edits 04:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, an explanation should be required, not merely a comment. Comments like "final relist" and "keep or delete?" -- which pretend to be binding but are not -- are rarely useful. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• No. Per my comments above I don't think relisting an MfD is useful at all in the mine run of cases, so I suppose I'd support requiring the relister to explain their reasoning. But whether or not there's a comment is orthogonal to the more important question of when to relist in the first place, and I don't really understand why this RfC is framed around the former rather than the latter. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  When to relist is already covered by WP:RELIST. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• There is no point resisting the incredibly strong human urges for superficial order, symmetry, and conformity, as any such act of resistance is instinctively treated as an act of aggression. In any system that has awoken to a semblance of non-conformity or non-sameness, or to a however vacuously construed internal gap, any person who advocates for that gap not to be bridged is viewed as an enemy. Any individual insisting that the gap has always been there and exists for a reason is labeled a perpetrator of mental violence. Arguing that the structure is not inconsistent, but rather applying legitimate different treatment to different things, is considered even worse, because it implies the existence of multiple gaps and thereby doubles the perceived mental violence. Because a mass society cannot tolerate the cognitive friction of specialized, highly tuned mechanisms, these elite-orientated structures inevitably face a destructive regression to the mean once exposed to the uninitiated public. Since it is impossible to protect fragile internal functions from this homogenizing force, the system must survive by fabricating a flawless public veneer of absolute consistency and "fairness".—Alalch E. 19:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:Alalch E. : That paragraph is a philosophically interesting example of the use of language, because the individual phrases make semantic sense, but the overall paragraph has no semantic meaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Read Cognitive inertia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  When the system stops being rational after all its finely-tuned "inconsistent” internal mechanisms are dismantled in succcessive confirmity campaigns, the iron law of oligarchy comes into full effect. —Alalch E. 19:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• I am generally opposed to relisting (at all venues), but I do not believe we should have special rules here. Relisting should be avoided if possible, and "relisting without comment" reflects poorly on the relister, but let us fix that elsewhere, not by making additional rules for one specific venue. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion re RfC: MfD relists

• This is, as previously, not the relevant question. It is a disruptive survey. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Your complaint above was that the relists were "pointless" and "comment-free". I apologize if that wasn't the issue you have with the relists. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, this is precisely the relevant question, as you yourself stated:

  The problem is comment-free relisting. All downside, no upside.

  Every question you pose is a red herring. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I hold that “comment-free” relisting is a problem. It has a number of problems. I acknowledge that it is widespread at other XfDs. It is not common at MfD. The only repeatedly comment-free relister at MfD is Godsy. I have explained the entirely of the problem to him, but he completely doesn’t get it. So, what to do? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please stop commenting on editor conduct. This is not the place to do so. I suggest leaving a brief, civil !vote above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. This is precisely about one specific behaviour of one specific editor, since about ten years ago. They and you are responding with widespread generalities, and widespread generalising is evasion of the issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. This is a policy dispute, that has been going on for about ten years, that is largely between two users, and is compounded by the interaction between two users. I mediate article content disputes, and I instruct the editors to Comment on content, not contributors and Discuss edits, not editors. Those two instructions are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Often an article content dispute is compounded either by conduct or by conduct allegations. Often resolving the content dispute by focusing on content will alleviate the conduct. One of the two editors, User:SmokeyJoe, objects to content-free relistings, and has been reverting them for about ten years. The other editor, User:Godsy, reported the reverting at WP:ANI. User:voorts is trying to resolve the policy dispute by clarifying the policy by an RFC, and is asking about exactly what SmokeyJoe was objecting to. At this point, objecting to the resolution of the policy dispute is bizarre. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The main dispute is over an editor's judgement, in a relatively small matter. Incidentally, I find I agree with that user's opinions on all other matters.

  I do not want your mediation.

  User:Voorts, who has recently been aggressively involved in these discussions, has unilaterally launched an RfC framed around the wrong question.

  I am very interested in J947's page User:J947/Essays/When to relist?, and I hope to contribute to it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I did not offer to mediate. I am not neutral.

  You say that the question is the wrong question. You were complaining about content-free relistings at MFD, so the RFC is about content-free relistings at MFD. What is the right question?

  If you think that the question should be about Godsy's judgment in relisting MFDs, why don't you start a discussion about what you see as the real issue? (Perhaps because you know that you are in the minority?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:Robert McClenon, there are threads in multi places, and many questions that are not important, so some good questions like this one can be hard to find.

  The first question, is whether this edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps was a good edit. In my opinion, it was not. The discussion was ready to close, and it belonged in the backlog. I thought my edit summary was not impolite. This is a question of judgment when relisting.

  The more general question that follows that I ask is: What is the point of relisting without comment (or reason), as in when it leaves others mystified as to why it was relisted.

  I hesitate, because I am not sure whether this is a general issue for relisting everywhere, or is particularly relevant for mfd.

  I have posted by thoughts at User talk:J947/Essays/When to relist?, and encourage interested others to read User:J947/Essays/When to relist?. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Of course. The question is the wrong question. A better question is: What should be done when an editor repeatedly exercises bad judgement in relisting? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The ANI discussion was archived without action. This is not the place to discuss editor conduct. I suggest you strike your statement. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  “Allowed” is also a bad choice of word. Comment-free relists should be discouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  If we "discourage" it, that means we need to create exceptions, which would inevitably be based on personal preference. It should be all-or-nothing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  We don’t need exhaustive rules and exceptions. When someone is told their contributions are negative, they should consider the feedback, not insist that there’s not a rule elsewhere disallowing what they like to do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Final warning before I take this to ANI: this is not a conduct noticeboard. Stop making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging @Robert McClenon, @Cryptic, @Extraordinary Writ, @Godsy, @J947, @Mackensen, @Myceteae, @Novem Linguae, @Rhododendrites to this RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• I am not sure having separate yes and no sections is the right format for this type of RFC. But probably too late to change that. Ah well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you're right. @Voorts, I'm not sure why you chose this format, but the having separate support and oppose sections should really only be used when the quality of the arguments is unimportant, and when the options really are binary. In this case, my !vote is mu: I think it should be allowed but should not be common and should normally be explained by some other reason than just "eh, I just wanted more people to comment". There is no place in your format for my response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Now it's one survey section. Easy fix. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Generally: Relisting is a problem.

When someone is working on a backlog and they encounter something that's difficult to close, the following options are safe and easy and won't result in a long whiny complaint: (a) Ignoring that discussion and (b) Relisting that discussion.

Closing that discussion is more difficult and requires an investment of thought and work, and randomly, it gets quite needless amounts of stress from aggrieved editors. So over the years we've got into the habit of ignoring or relisting the difficult ones more and more frequently. I can absolutely see why.

But we're stretched too thin. We don't have the volunteer numbers now to process all these discussions. A relist used to be unusual, a second relist used to be remarkable. Now we're unsurprised to see three relists.

We've also got another problem which is the discussions that get no participation. Again, the people working on the backlog tend to relist. But that isn't always the right thing. Some discussions get no participation because we have too few volunteers and too many XFDs, in which case relisting might help. Others get no participation because nobody cares.

I think that where a discussion has had a reasonable amount of participation it should be closed rather than relisted. (If it looks difficult and you're one of those conflict-averse people, just write "No consensus".)

I think that where a discussion hasn't had much participation it should get relisted once. If it gets near-zero participation a second time, then we ought to close it without result.

And I think that by following those principles we would use our volunteer time more productively.—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC: NPOL & sub-national leaders of major political parties

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is overwhelming consensus against WP:NPOL covering sub-national party leaders. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Should sub-national leaders of major political parties (e.g., the chair of a U.S. Democratic or Republican state party) be covered by WP:NPOL? 20:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

See RFCBEFORE discussion.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Survey (NPOL)

• No The purpose of NPOL is to ensure that we have complete coverage of national and sub-national elected officials legislators, judges, and executive officials. State or province-wide party leadership should continue to be judged by GNG/NBASIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just a note, NPOL does not mention "elected", only "legislative bodies". A recent example is Darline Graham who was not elected but is serving in the US legislature. I think the point of NPOL is those who represent and can make laws impacting their constituents at the state or national level, regardless of party affiliation (i.e. their decisions impact the represented group, not just the party). S0091 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Clarified. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• No. These are often not public-facing and public-elected so they do not have the automatic visibility of national and subnational leaders. They can continue to be covered by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No severely lacks a global view of various political systems. many which are not democratic much less a two-party systems and gets us into the quagmire of what is a "leader" and a "major party". S0091 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No They usually sit in meetings and talk people to death. Not public enough. GNG is enough. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. I agree with voorts, David Eppstein, S0091, and Yesterday. These individuals are often obscure even within their own state. There is no presumption of notability and they should be held to GNG. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No NPOL is too broad as it is. Covering people who do not make law nor governmental decision is exccessive. If they are truly notable, they will meet WP:GNG. If their position is notable, the position can have its own article with list of position holders. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No per voorts, David Eppstein, S0091, and Yesterday. Many party leaders will meet GNG and there is no reason to presume notability for holding this party office (especially for someone who is temporary). --Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No, unless evidence is presented that these people overwhelmingly pass WP:BASIC, including historically and globally. pburka (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. I haven't seen an articulation of what problem is being solved here. Are we lacking meaningful content because there are many state party leaders who have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Davidwbaker (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• No I'd add that an implicit point of NPOL (which applies equally to members of the judiciary) is that it accords notability because of the universal (jurisdictional) power vested in persons within specific offices; something clearly absent in the role of a political party chair. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• No I have to agree with everyone else, this seems unclear and unnecessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• No NPOL is fine the way it is and I agree that most people covered under this guideline would be incredibly obscure. Lynch44 13:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (NPOL)

• Is this going to be WP:SNOW or supersnow? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Waiting for the 24 hour mark to snow it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Official website' in infobox for deceased individuals

I first noticed this in relation to the Charlie Kirk biography, but it seems likely that the same issue must arise elsewhere. The documentation for template:Infobox person states "Official website only", and Wikipedia:External links states the following:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Given that Kirk is deceased, he clearly is no longer in control of the website linked (www.charliekirk.com ), and the website now contains significant content on topics that have arisen since his death. I raised this at Talk:Charlie Kirk , and there has been some rather inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links , but nothing concrete arrived at, and accordingly I'd like to know how the broader community thinks such situations should be dealt with. In my opinion, we seem to need some form of clarification of general policy on this matter, since it appears that such 'official' links in infoboxes for the deceased aren't unusual. If this is actually the case, and this is seen as acceptable, I think we should at least be giving some guidance as to when such treatment is conmsidered appropriate and then making it clear to readers on what basis the website is provided. As of now, practice appears to be running in contradiction to a policy that seems unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Individuals' estates can control their intellectual property/brand after death. I don't see the issue with linking to an official website of a deceased person. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been involved in the discussion at the Kirk talk page. I agree with voorts that we should normally assume that these websites continue to be controlled by the deceased's estate, and that they can remain "official" for our purposes under most circumstances. I would carve out an exception for the (probably rare) instances where we have reliable sourcing that the website has been taken over after the death, by some party that is no longer friendly to the deceased, and might be taking the website in directions that would be contrary to the deceased's wishes. I wouldn't mind clarifying that exception in the policy, but I do regard it as something that would be unusual. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that 'continue to be controlled by the deceased's estate' is really a thing, legally. A deceased persons estate is the property they owned. It isn't a legal entity. Such property will be passed on to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

An estate is absolutely a legal entity. Estates can sue and be sued. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

And normally the estate is established by the person's will, so it will be assigned to trusted surviving relatives. I do realize that there can be (rare) exceptions where, over time, ownership of the estate passes from one to another and eventually becomes at odds with the deceased person. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

See, for example, Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

How about we stay on topic? If 'estates' are relevant to this discussion at all, it is only if and when it can be shown that they are actually in control of the website in question. And even then, if that is the case for a specific website, shouldn't we be clarifying who is running the website? This is the issue I'm trying to get resolved in this discussion, and it really isn't helped by people invoking hypothetical 'estates', 'trusts' etc. We have a policy saying one thing. We appear to have articles applying something else. Why is it so difficult to discuss the issue directly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am staying on topic. It is my view that we should allow external links to the official websites of deceased persons where those websites are run by their estates or some other relevant organization (e.g., if a musician's website is run by their label before and after death). An estate is usually "controlled by the subject" because it's created in line with their will. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that is where I would land as well. For well known public figures, it can be assumed official websites and the like will be run by the estate of that person unless shown otherwise. As the estate is setup by the person and acts as an extention of their will, im not even sure its really in conflict with the guideline. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond further to unsourced commentary about hypothetical estates, and even more hypothetical commentary about the terms under which they might be administered. I started this discussion in the hope that a mismatch between policy and practice could be resolved, and as far as I'm concerned, debating about imagined legal entities has never been seen as an appropriate way to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

We're not debating about imagined legal entities. Can you please tone it down a notch? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but my thoughts center on the article being a biography about a person. Once that person dies, that individual ceases to control the content on the website. The estate may control the site, but the article is not about the estate. New content on the site won't be controlled by the subject of the article, and may even run counter to the intentions of the subject. I'd recommend removing the link from the infobox. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, a little spot survey shows that David Bowie, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Prince, Jimi Hendrix, Amy Winehouse and George Michael all link to official sites in their infobox. Kurt Cobain and Elvis Presley do not (Elvis does seem to have a site of the sort we would link at There is a kurtcobain.com but it doesn't appear to be run by anyone associated with him. One can choose to view that as a widespread error or an informal consensus, I suppose. Morwen (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

A quick look at the infobox websites from the bio's you linked suggests that many are strictly commercial enterprises, serving almost entirely as sales outlets. Is that the intended purpose of such links? I'd always assumed that the purpose of an 'official link' in a biography was to help readers find out more about the what subject has to say themselves, rather than as a link to a sales platform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that most official websites of notable persons are (1) not actually maintained by that person and (2) designed to encourage readers to hand over money, such as by buying an album or a book, hiring someone for their services, or making a political contribution. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's generally true once you get beyond the very-small-business level. However, being directly maintained by a notable individual is far more work than being controlled by that individual. If you hire the person who does the maintaining, then you're still in control, even if all you do is occasionally glance over a few proposals or send a text message saying "I want you to put something like ____ on the site during my big speech next Saturday". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I would think a great many official websites for living individuals serve a commercial interest. It's a stretch to say that ladygaga.com or beyonce.com give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. The same policy provision also applies to brands and e-commerce sites like Amazon.com, where the official site has an explicitly commercial purpose. An official website seems to be a piece of basic information that is included by convention, regardless of the encyclopedic value of the site's content (barring certain restrictions, of course). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to actually discuss the substantive issue here: that we have an unambiguous mismatch between a policy, which states that an 'official website' must be controlled by the article subject, and practice, which seems to completely disregard this requirement? Or is the consensus that we should ignore this, and hope it goes away? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I say we amend the guideline to include trusts or their estates. They were created by the person while alive for the express purpose of representing their interests after death. PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume we are going to need evidence that such 'trusts and estates' exist, and have been created for such purposes? Because so far, I've seen no evidence of any such trust or estate being in control of any of the 'official websites' for the articles discussed so far, never mind any evidence that they are representing any specific interests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan links to "official sites" in the External links section and the first is the Reagan Foundation. Richard Nixon also has an "official sites" subsection in the External links and links separately to an official White House biography, the Nixon Library and Museum, and the Nixon Foundation. Jahaza (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Willem de Kooning doesn't have a link in the infobox, but links to the Willem de Kooning Foundation as the first of the External links. Jahaza (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Good. Meanwhile, for none of the examples so far discussed in this thread (Kirk, Bowie, Lennon, Jackson etc) has anyone provided evidence of a 'trust' or 'estate' operating under the terms proposed ('representing their interests after death'). Do you think it reasonable that including an 'official website' link in an infobox for a deceased individual should require such evidence or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you really think someone like Charlie Kirk didn't have a will? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd hope he did. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that he made provisions for any sort of 'trust' or whatever regarding his website, though with regard to Kirk, I suspect, looking at www.charliekirk.com/about-charlie-kirk, the website may well actually belong to Turning Point USA. This isn't just about Kirk though, and I don't think it is particularly helpful to get into specifics. The policy/practice mismatch is a general issue, and not a single-article one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Andy, I don't think people are ignoring the issue. It's just that they disagree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If the issue isn't being ignored, where is a solution being offered? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think it's clear that there won't be consensus for saying that we can only have links to websites when the person is still alive, so the question of a solution seems to me to come down to having some additional language to clarify when the website of a deceased person might not be allowed. If you were to propose some specific language for that purpose, I think other editors would be able to engage with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I think most people don't see what you characterize as a problem. Katzrockso (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you brought up the purported purpose of official links, and in a manner that suggested this is relevant to interpreting their appropriateness in articles, so it is natural that people would respond. We're trying to get a handle on the scope of the issue, in service of understanding whether the policy is at odds with actual practice and, if so, what direction a solution would take. Provisionally, I agree with you that the practice appears to run afoul of the plain reading of one part of the guidance—controlled by the subject, which is defined per the piped links as an organization or corporation or a living or recently deceased person. Understanding how and why such links are actually used is helpful in determining whether there is an actual problem and identifying potential solutions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a useful article here from the Brooklyn Rail that discusses artists foundations and how there are many different types of official foundations that might be set up to survive an artist and might help in assessing the lay of the land. Jahaza (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If such foundations have been set up, it is clearly something we should take into account for a particular article. We'd need evidence first though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a process for verifying the ownership and control of purported official website of living subjects? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Not a general process, no. I'd assume that beyond looking for sources (i.e., the website being linked from WP:RS, and if in doubt maybe checking who the domain is registered too, though that can be problematic), we'd tend to assume that if the website linked isn't the subject's, they'd complain. Not 100% foolproof, but at least we know who the owner is supposed to be. In the situation we are discussing (i.e. deceased subjects), we can't just assume that some hypothetical foundation or whatever is in control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Why not? Thats what we do now with most official websites. Assume the subject is in control. Also do you not think these trusts or foundations are like a real thing? You keep using terms like hypothetical, scare quotes, and saying its property and not a legal entity that make me not sure you fully understand what they are or how they operate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I say 'hypothetical' because people keep suggesting that a trust or foundation exists in relation to a specific deceased individual's website, without providing any evidence. As a general principle, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not vague claims about things that might possibly exist. And in any case, regardless of whether such a trust/foundation exists, it isn't the article subject, and policy as it stands says that the website must be controlled by the subject. Not by anyone or anything else. 'The subject'. Whom we can definitively say is not 'in control', being dead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume the vast majority of official websites are added unceremoniously. They are usually obvious and not the sort of thing one gives a lot of thought to needing to verify. In the (presumably rare) case that the official website is questioned, it is either removed or discussed. I think there should be some reason to question the ownership, or some other concern about the website itself, other than the person having died. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason to 'question the ownership' (or more relevant, 'control', since that is what policy specifies) for an infobox link for a dead person seems self evident. They can't be controlling it, which is a requirement for its inclusion, under policy. If you think this policy needs changing, fine. Make a proposal to change it. But please stop pretending the requirement doesn't exist. It does, and it is unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• My inclination is probably not in the infobox for deceased individuals (or individual officeholders who no longer hold that position and defunct corporations). I agree with Myceteae that these links are no longer controlled by the subject, and become disconnected with the subject. I have no problem with these links being in the "External Link" section, but I think they should be removed from the infobox. --Enos733 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with this. Once the person is deceased, they no longer have control/a say in how they want their "official website" to look, function, etc. Sure, they could possibly leave a note to their loved ones, friends, marketing team or whoever, instructing them to manage their website a particular way after their death, but there's no guarantee that the group will actually follow through with the dead person's requests. So I would support removing the "Website" parameter off the infoboxes of deceased individuals' biographies. Some1 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  i have it on good authority that Jimi Hendrix's website is being run exactly as he specified in his will. :p Morwen (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue concerns using "official" to describe the link and that no one has seriously suggested removing the link. A website controlled by others cannot be official. Should editors monitor a website every month to determine whether its message still corresponds to those that the subject would have? Just provide the link and let readers work out if a legal entity set up by the subject is still running the site in accordance with the subject's wishes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The infobox link isn't actually labelled 'official': it's the placement that is really the issue, since it's presence there implies some sort of official status that other websites don't have. And it appears that this implication is being exploited for commercial reasons: e.g. the Hendrix biography mentioned above has a link, despite Hendrix dying in 1970, long before websites were a thing. And as much as the Sony Corporation would no doubt like to represent themselves as trustees of Jimmy's legacy, I can't think of any good reason why we should be offering them free links for their products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I See that Janis Joplin appears also to have had the foresight to provide for a website on her demise, which occurred the same year as Jimmy. Were they perhaps informed of future technology by a time traveller? Or do the Sony Corporation and whoever it is that runs janisjoplin.com (your guess is as good as mine) own Ouija boards, and allow 'control' from the beyond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Obviously, a dead person's website isn't controlled by that person. So obviously, the considerations that led Wikipedians to say "Official website only" don't apply in the same way. Duh.

Separately, and this is probably just me: I loathe the use of "individuals" to mean "people". It's like saying "utilize" instead of "use": just needless syllables. Wikipedia's badly-written enough without calling a spade an earth-inverting horticultural implement.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

So how should Wikipedia be dealing with this situation? What should we do to rectify a badly-written policy that doesn't match what people are claiming is normal practice? Or is it the practice that is the problem, rather than the policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should update the documentation for Template:Infobox person to say "leave blank if the person is dead or long-term missing".—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I'm coming around to much the same conclusion myself. I intentionally held off making any specific suggestions initially, in the hope that some sort of consensus might arise, but it seems there are really only two camps on this: those who take the policy at face value, and accordingly only consider an infobox appropriate for those who at least have the potential to control a website on the basis of not being dead, and those who would rather that mortality didn't come into it, and are happy for commercial enterprises, and/or trusts and foundations that may or may not exist, should be permitted to pretend that they are the living embodiment of the deceased. And no, I'm not going to apologise for sarcasm here, given the way people have trotted out arguments based solely on hypotheticals, while ignoring evidence that such links are being exploited for purposes other than that intended. Maybe we need an RfC on this, though as I see it, the status quo isn't really an option, given its unresolved and contradictory state. If anyone can offer actual suggestions for a policy change (or clarification, if they wish to see it that way) that permits infobox links for deceased individuals under appropriate circumstances, we can consider that, but first we'd need a suggestion regarding what is 'appropriate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not a policy. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia:External links should be ignored? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (which most definitely is policy) seems to suggest otherwise: e.g. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Hard to reconcile that with e.g. the links in the Joplin or Hendrix infoboxes. Jimmy Hendrix isn't the Sony Corporation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Not what I said at all. You keep mis-stating what others are saying and why they are saying it and then saying its going against policy. WP:EL is not policy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I have just quoted Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the guideline as it stands is appropriate and sufficiently clear. It should be applied to the Charlie Kirk page, which is to say that the link should be removed. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason we shouldn't link these websites. It seems useful to the reader to see what their estate, or family, or etc, present, for the same reason it did as when they were alive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

As Dionysodorus and I agreed at Talk:Charlie Kirk, the guideline does not require removal. It says editors "should" add links to an official website, but it does not say that only official links are permitted, nor does it say that formerly-official links should/must be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking a lot of this comes down to how we link to the website, as opposed to whether or not to link to it. I just looked at all the documentation for Template:Infobox person. (It has laughably many parameters, including things like whether to include inches in how tall someone is.) So, when we put such a url in the template, it gets displayed as "Website", not "official website", so readers are not exactly being told that the deceased person is still controlling the website, although we can certainly question whether that's implied. When I scroll way, way down, and find the instructions, however, it says: "Official website only. Unofficial websites should be placed under External links in the body of the article." It doesn't define "official" and "unofficial", and readers don't see those instructions. I'm asking myself if the official website of a living person becomes an unofficial website following that person's death, and it does not make sense to me to say that it does. For it to make that change, from official to unofficial, I would want to see reliable sourcing that tells me that the nature of the website has changed, as opposed to having Wikipedia make an automatic presumption of change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Right after posting that, I realized that I should also look again at WP:ELOFFICIAL, where official and unofficial actually are defined. And I'm thinking that a significant part of the problem here is the choice of words there, that says: "is controlled by the subject", and how that bumps up against the nonsensical situation of a dead person "controlling" anything. That guideline section deals with other things besides persons (fan sites and such), where it makes sense to frame things in terms of the verb "control", but we get into a problem here. The guideline section already talks about situations where an "official" website has been hijacked. Perhaps some clarifying language needs to be added there, that addresses websites that continue to be faithful to what a person would have wanted, after that person has died and no longer controls the website. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the guideline says the website must be "official" and meet the other two criteria. The discussion of fansites is instructive. Not that a website run by the family/trust/estate/whatever is equivalent to a fansite, but the guidance is explicit in repeating the control criterion when addressing another situation where one might argue that a website has something close to "official" or authorized status. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope. The guideline doesn't say that an infobox is only allowed to have official links. Some infoboxes' /doc pages say that, but the guideline itself doesn't. The guideline itself only says that links in infoboxes have to be "appropriate": "include appropriate external links in an External links section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Well the part of the guideline that has caused all this discussion says: The official website should be included in infoboxes such as {{Infobox company}}, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. If it's being over-interpreted then that is what needs to be clarified. It also does explicitly define criteria to be considered "official", which are relevant if it's an exception to links that should normally be avoided, whether it appears in the infobox or § External links or both. These criteria would seem to be critical to the determination of appropriate and within an infobox, if applicable in the section you quoted. And the widespread practice and apparent interpretation, which is the other thing that's under discussion here, appears to be that we only put "official" websites in infoboxes and not other links like IMDb that are fine for § External links, and so again, if it's been misinterpreted, it's good that we are clarifying. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline indicates that there are circumstances under which an official link should be included, but does not say anything about removing the link later. It would be silly, for example, to remove the name of a website from Category:Defunct online companies, and essentially impossible when the website and the company have the same name. We might make it non-clickable, or we might replace it with an archived copy (if there's a decent one available), but the guideline doesn't say that it needs to be removed.

I'm more interested in the widespread practice, which is to keep websites for individuals so long as they still work (e.g., not usurped by WP:JUDI). We can change the words of the guideline, if someone really needs to be explicitly told "If someone dies, or if an organization closes, then it's still okay to keep the same website in the infobox, if it points to something relevant." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I, too, am more interested in the widespread practice. I think we're on the same page there. Editors have an intuitive sense of what constitutes "official". Our guideline defines this in a way that probably works for the vast majority of living subjects but falls apart for deceased subjects and possibly other situations. The stated definition/criteria issue goes beyond the infobox. As a general matter, I don't think we should have guidelines that don't reflect widespread practice. But it's not clear what set of explicit criteria would be workable and actually helpful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem that I see here is that someone is asserting that a website that does not meet the ELOFFICIAL definition must be removed. Note the gap between the guideline indicating that it's not ELOFFICIAL any longer and the conclusion drawn (by at least one editor) that no-longer-official websites cannot be linked.

I think there are three ways that we could address this.

• We could update the Template:Infobox person/doc to say that their "official" isn't limited to the definition in WP:ELOFFICIAL, and editors should use their best judgment to decide what constitutes the official website for a person (deceased or otherwise) for whom no ELOFFICIAL website exists.
• Expand WP:ELOFFICIAL to say something like "Wikipedia does not have, and has never had, a rule saying that only official websites may be linked to in an article, including in infoboxes." Consider, e.g., {{Infobox company}}, which has an external link to a stock ticker, not to mention {{chembox}}, which is basically a mass of external links.
• Expand WP:ELOFFICIAL significantly to say how to determine which website(s) are the ELOFFICIAL websites for deceased people, defunct companies, etc.

What do you (all) think would be best? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

All your options imply that, if we adjust the guideline, we ought to be doing so in such a way as to make it clearer that infoboxes can or should include links to websites that belong to the subject but have been modified after the subject's death. But I think it's fairly clear from the discussion that quite a few editors here are not comfortable with this practice, and might prefer for the guideline to be adapted in the opposite direction, in such a way as to discourage the continued inclusion of such links in infoboxes, or at least in such a way as to encourage caution about doing so. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Taking together every diverse opinion given in this discussion, I think our best option is to expand ELOFFICIAL, rather than to revise the infobox documentation, and I think that doing so, in some way, is going to be necessary. The question is what to put there, and how to frame it. I think the focus should be on websites of persons who are deceased or who in some other way no longer "control" the website, and I think we should allow for some case-by-case decision-making. I don't think we should be too rigid in what we lay out, because editors really do seem to disagree on a lot. Perhaps make clear how "control" becomes complicated in such situations, and give editors some leeway in deciding what is best on a given page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should allow for some flexibility here. We should workshop some "Goldie Locks" general guidance that's not too rigid but also doesn't leave things so wide open as to generate more disputes than it resolves. Recognizing that not everyone agrees, we may need an RFC that proposes two or three alternatives: one that is more restrictive than the current practice, one or two "Goldie Locks" versions that allow for websites of the deceased with modest guardrails, and maybe some other approach. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope we can avoid an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Avoiding an RFC is desirable. If we can get to an agreement about whether the deciding factor is degree of change since the person's death vs. a site that is continuously updated "in their interest", that would be great. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. And I like the way that you framed that language. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have suggested at Talk:Charlie Kirk#'Official website' and YouTube channel that perhaps it might be appropriate to link to the archived version of the website, as it was at the time of Kirk's death. If it seems like a good idea, one possibility might be to change the guideline in such a way as to suggest that, in cases where a dead subject's website changes significantly after a person's death, it might in general be appropriate to link to the archived version rather than the current version. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with equating family or estate with fans at a fan site. For our purposes, fan sites resemble user-generated content. Any random person purporting to be a fan can change what it says at such sites. It normally will not be like that for the website of a dead person, where (if) the estate is closely watching that it remains faithful to that person's wishes.

As for using archive links, that's a worthwhile idea. But we should also consider when archives are out-of-date, while the current website is still controlled by people close to the deceased person's wishes, as well as when archives are difficult to load. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I can think of a whole platoon of special cases and what-ifs with that. It might well need some editorial judgment to decide the exact version we should link to. I'm saying that what works in Charlie Kirk's case won't necessarily generalize very well. In Charlie Kirk's case we have the exact date and time of his death, which helps. But people also die or vanish in less well documented circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I suppose we could write something like "In cases where the subject of the article is deceased, it may be appropriate to continue to include a live link to the subject's website if this has been maintained largely as it was at the time of the subject's death, but if the website has been substantially changed following the subject's death it may be appropriate to use an archived link to the website as it was when the subject died." That would cover the difficulties to which you refer, leaving appropriate room for editorial discretion. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking along those lines. Maybe it needs some wordsmithing, but I think brainstorming along those lines might address Andy's concerns, and be able to get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we are in the position to determine whether a website was "substantially changed." We have a hard enough time dealing with our own policies. As I stated upthread, I think the bigger concern is continuing to link to the website in the infobox. - Enos733 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

“But if reliable sources report that the website has been substantially changed following the subject's death […]”

I think for post-mortem removal of official links, the burden of proof has to be on the side of removal. Inclusion should be the status quo.

It is not notable to report that “XX’s website continues to be representative of XX”, and RS should not be expected to divert resources to report that kind of trivia.

But it is notable to report that “XX’s website does not continue to be representative of XX”, and when RS report that, we should remove the official link. Mikewem (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we should require reliable sources to determine whether the website has changed substantially or not: that would be absurd, since (as you say) this is not the kind of thing that reliable sources would discuss. Rather, I am suggesting that editors should exercise their judgement as to whether the website has changed substantially or not, and use the archived link if it has: in most cases this is likely to be obvious and uncontroversial, and if it is controversial in a given case it can be resolved through the normal consensus or dispute resolution processes.

It would be odd if we required reliable sources for such a purpose as this. We require reliable sources for content, but in general we make our own judgements about what content, sources and links are appropriate or inappropriate to include, precisely because reliable sources in their nature do not usually specify this for us. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume, then, that articles about people who died years before the internet age should not have website links in the infobox (e.g., Janis Joplin). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think they should. In my view, the link in Janis Joplin's infobox should be removed (or, at least, should not be presented as an "official website", even if the website presents itself as such), since there is no sense in which it can be controlled by the singer herself, as WP:ELOFFICIAL requires. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If someone has been dead for a very long time but had a web presence during their lifetime, following this approach, then it is probably reasonable to go ahead and remove these links, too. I suppose an exception would be if it has clearly been left largely untouched, functioning almost like an archive even if not, strictly speaking, an archived page. For example, I don't know what Aaliyah.com looked like in 2001. I suspect she had an official website before her death. This has a fairly modern look and feel, so a reasonable default assumption is that it has substantially changed, though I'm not sure I could prove it another editor disputed removing the site from her infobox. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

In 2001, it was apparently a fansite: https://web.archive.org/web/20010606214717/http://www.aaliyahonline.com/aaliyah.html. So in that particular case it never seems to have been run by the singer herself. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the fansite was at AaliyahOnline.com, which is no longer live, not Aaliyah.com. Anyway, I don't mean to dwell on this specific example, just trying to think through how the current guidance and any potential change to it is supposed to apply to such cases. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Question: Should we have removed the links from Britney Spears's infobox for the duration of her conservatorship? I don't think this is too tangential. This is a much more clear-cut case where the subject is not in control of their own website. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I feel we should perhaps talk about the case of people who don't control their website because of mental or legal capacity in a separate discussion. It's relatively easy to think about for children or people who're in a coma or who've disappeared, but we don't want Wikipedians trying to diagnose people's mental health on the basis of news reports.—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think, again, that would depend on whether or not whoever was running the website was acting in her interests. Part of my point above was that "control" means different things when we are talking about individual people, and the guideline wording may not currently get that right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  In response to both replies above, I don't want to derail this focused conversation but I find these issues highly relevant and I don't think the determination is necessarily simple. In the case of Spears, she was quite explicitly and legally not in control of "official" communications. This requires no armchair "diagnosis" by Wikipedians. On the other hand, legally, this was considered to be "in her interest". The particulars surrounding Spears, as with Kirk or any other individual, may or may not generalize. As for children and people in comas, it's not obvious to me that these are easy, either. I don't want to get too in the weeds on other test cases but we should be considering the full scope of the guideline whether we decide to maintain the current wording or amend it to address deaths. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Under the rule as currently written, the link should generally go. The phrase "controlled by" is a link to WP:BLP. BLP has some rules for dead people but it cannot be stretched to indefinitely alive, like an estate or license holder may be. (There are probably some estates, or estate like orgs, that because of what they get up to may be independently notable but the article is not about the estate.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

(As an aside, the purpose of an estate is not to act in the interests of the dead person, it is to act in the interests of the beneficiaries, who are living.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean the executor or trustee in certain situations with certain kinds of estates, depending on how they were setup. But more basically, a notable person might set one up to monetize, control, and protect their posthumous identity and intellectual property.

I guess the important question at the end of the day is if it has value to the readers, less so what a template or guideline say since neither really cover this situation directly.

Also, I don't think BLP really has much application here since deceased people no longer satisfy the L in BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the important question at the end of the day is if it has value to the readers. Both template documentation and guideline wording can be changed to recommend that editors follow the community's ordinary practice, which appears to be keeping the links so long as they're still working/relevant/not usurped by a spammer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant estates or post death trusts. The estate or trust is legally alienated from the person who sets it up to benefit the interests of the beneficiaries. So, the control is placed with the trustee or estate manager or executor to benefit the interests of the beneficiaries. The trustee, etc. assesses fees and costs against the trust to fund their control and administration (they generally pay themselves and other professional services out of the trust which may be a fixed percent plus outside fees). The dead person is, well dead. The benefit of monetizing the dead's intellectual property, promoting what the image of the dead is, is in the main to fund the interests of their beneficiaries. (And especially with a dead person with fans, you see claims the trust/estate is ruining the legacy by their alleged greed).

As to your second and third point, I was conceding that under the rule as currently written which refers to BLP, the OP has a point. If anyone wants to rewrite the rule, they need to propose it, and deal with the inevitable discussion of whether the promotion should be sanctioned in rule, and how to identify the correct link and do the benefits outweigh the risks. (Given we don't even require an infobox, at all, it seems hard to make the argument its value is overwhelming, but whether it is enough will be up to the rule adopters/consensus makers.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that the policy should be rewritten to allow for official websites of people who are dead, and also people who don't control their own official website (mentioned by Myceteae above, I completely agree that this is relevant to the discussion). As pointed out, in practice editors do include official websites in these cases, and policy and guidance should reflect that. It's more difficult to define exactly what does and doesn't constitute an "official website" in these cases, so I think it's probably best to provide examples (e.g. run directly by the person's estate or a trust created by them or their family; existing official websites that continue to be run by the same entity, such as publishers, record labels, etc.), and allow discussions to determine this by consensus on a case-by-case basis. --Yodin^T 19:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers § Disclaimers by WMF not exempt?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers § Disclaimers by WMF not exempt?. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

(stylized in all caps)

I wonder what would be lost if this phrase were deleted from every lead sentence. I would bet a nickel that more movies / tv series / videogames display their titles in caps than otherwise; it don't mean nothin. —Antonissimo (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relevant guideline here is MOS:STYLIZED. I am quite sympathetic to your complaint here. I would try to see if the third paragraph of MOS:STYLIZED applies to the subjects of the articles you're seeing this on: When a stylization appears only in a logo rather than within text (in either primary or independent reliable sources), it generally does not need to be mentioned at the top of the article. That could be your grounds to remove the phrase. Mz7 (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable thing to make note of, in cases where the all caps (or other styling) is reasonably common in prose. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

And indeed, our acknowledgement of the stylization may save us from people repeatedly trying to put the intro in that style. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 Having a default way of handling this helps resolve disputes, one of the core purposes of having a documented guideline. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Redaction of username from all edits and logs when blocking

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Redaction of username from all edits and logs when blocking

Hi everyone! I've mentioned this idea before, and I recently noticed that an open discussion was held regarding the bureaucrat role on this page. It inspired me to start this discussion and see what others think. Like the bureaucrat discussion, this one is intended to be open-ended; it does not come with any specific proposal attached.

A little background: currently, oversighters can suppress the username of an account from all edits and logs when applying an indefinite block, which also removes the account from the list of users. This option also extends to stewards, who can do the same thing on a global level.

I originally suggested extending a similar option to administrators (and likewise expanding it for stewards globally) a few years ago after noticing that stewards would sometimes globally suppress accounts whose usernames, while extremely disruptive and clearly inappropriate to leave publicly visible, (in my opinion) did not rise to the level that warranted suppression. I reached out to them about this — not to complain or start a riot or anything like that, but as a precursor to present this idea as a possible solution.

Now, let me say this: I totally get it. I completely understand why global suppression would become an attractive option in situations where a username clearly should be redacted but does not actually require suppression. It would be ridiculous to expect a steward to manually redact the username on every project, one at a time, simply because there is no equivalent option available when globally blocking an account. I don't have the examples with me at the moment, but I included a handful of them when I first reached out about this, and I think most people would agree that there would be no argument for keeping those usernames publicly visible, but they did not warrant suppression.

That brings me to my idea: what are your thoughts on extending a version of the suppression option to administrators when applying an indefinite block to an account? It would do the exact same thing but would use revision deletion rather than suppression to redact the username from edits and log entries. My initial thought is that it would not hide the account from the list of users like the suppression option does, but like I said: this is an open-ended discussion, and I'm interested in hearing other ideas and perspectives.

Likewise, a similar option could be extended to stewards when applying global blocks. Rather than relying on global suppression, they could apply global revision deletion to redact usernames from edits and logs across all Wikimedia projects while still allowing local admins to review and manage any issues according to their own policies and processes.

I know that many admins have different levels of involvement in dealing with LTA disruption and abuse, but I often encounter situations where an LTA creates numerous accounts with blatantly abusive usernames that need redaction. Having the ability to redact those usernames from edits and logs at the time of an indefinite block would be extremely useful as well as much more efficient. It can be tedious and sometimes very time-consuming to manually remove the username from every edit and log entry, especially when one or two more abusive accounts created by the same LTA appear in the account creation log and start causing disruption while you're still cleaning up after the first mess!

Overall, I think this option would be very useful for administrators and would allow them to respond much more efficiently to blatant username violations and blatant LTA username abuse. Just like with all other administrator actions, its use would be publicly logged and easily reviewed and scrutinized, and the potential for abuse of it would be very low. An administrator who wanted to misuse revision deletion could already do so using the existing tools they already have access to; this option would simply streamline a process and take the tediousness (as well as the possibility of accidentally leaving the username public in some areas and missing a few places) out of the equation.

That's my idea, and I'd like to open the floor for discussion.

So... what are your thoughts? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A flood of responses saying that my idea is stupid and totally sucks arrives in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me. Would it extend to edit summaries? I've found that sometimes it is time consuming also having to revision-delete the edit summaries from other edits where the LTA has been reverted and the edit-summary reads "Reverted edits by BadName001 to revision XYZ". Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Black Kite - The suppression option available to oversighters does not remove the username from any edit summaries that contain the account's username. Under the hood, the suppression option triggers a script that pulls the user's contributions and all logs that are associated with the account, and suppresses the username from them. Because edit summaries only contain an internal link to the account's user or user talk page when referenced, it doesn't show up in simple searches like user contributions or logs associated with the account do. You'll still need to find and redact the username from any edit summaries in edit histories or other places. However, I don't see this as a reason to oppose the idea. Even if the option doesn't remove the username from edit summaries, it removes it from pretty much everything else - and is a good start compared to not having it as an option at all. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Allowing admins to automatically revdel usernames would also mitigate the issue of global suppression not working when the target has already been locally blocked (phab:T25310). Johannnes89 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Johannnes89 - Oh wow; I wasn't aware that this was an issue. Thanks for sharing the link to the phab ticket about this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Oshwah Policy-wise is this primarily discussing to amend the revisison deletion policy to add/expand a "Criteria for redaction" for something like "disruptive username" - and to extend that that as an available reason for Log redaction? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Xaosflux - The primary purpose of this discussion is to get input and thoughts regarding the idea to take the option that's available for oversighters to suppress the username from all edits and logs when applying an indefinite block, and extend it so that administrators also have this option available - but where revision deletion is used to redact the username from all edits and logs instead of suppression. I would also add that the option extended to administrators would not hide the username from the list of users, but again - that's also open to input and thoughts. I didn't have any specific thoughts in mind regarding any amendments, additions or expansion of the current criteria for redaction (at last not at the moment). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If this leads to a workflow where User:Admin blocks User:User on wheels on wheels on wheels , then hides the log of who they blocked - I'm not sure that is a great idea for transparency. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Xaosflux - The idea is not intended to create any new workflows or processes; it simply adds an option for administrators to revision delete the username from edits and logs when blocking the account. Referring to your example: an administrator can currently (and could still) redact the user they blocked from the log manually; adding this option wouldn't change that fact. This idea just creates an option to redact an abusive username more quickly and efficiently in cases where the username should not be public in any edits or logs, but where suppression isn't warranted either... if that makes sense. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you just want a tool to automate what is already permitted under policy, we don't really need a policy discussion - just a feature request. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Xaosflux - I just realized that I'm an idiot and I posted this idea to the wrong place. Should I perhaps move this to the idea lab or tehnical page instead? If you have a better place in mind, I'm all ears. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe idea lab? :) Tooling creation is usually one of two ways: (a) scripts-->gadgets; anyone can write this sort of tool; (b) wikimedia features - these have a longer lead time and need software developers to champion. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Xaosflux - Okay, I'll take my shenanigans there. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)