Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 19

When to move userspace drafts to mainspace?

In the recently controversial section Wikipedia:User pages#Old unfinished draft articles, it is advised that stale/abandoned userspace drafts should be moved to mainspace if suitable for mainspace. Other remedies are suggested if they are somehow unacceptable in userspace but not suitable for mainspace (blank+template, redirect, MfD, U5, etc). I have noticed, however, that recently Legacypac has been moving some userspace drafts that are clearly not ready for mainspace to mainspace, including drafts that they themselves nominated for MfD, arguing they were unacceptable even for userspace. Examples:

My question is: is it acceptable to move userspace drafts to mainspace, even if you think they would not survive AfD? To me, this seems equivalent to purposely creating pages eligible for deletion. Legacypac's move summaries seem to indicate that a "keep" verdict at MfD means that promotion to mainspace is indicated - is this the case?

To me, these moves seem to be POINTy actions and even an attempted end run around MfD (as indicated by this comment), but I am interested to hear what others think.

Finally, I want to note that many of Legacypac's moves to mainspace are userspace drafts that may indeed be ready for mainspace, and I want to thank them for doing the difficult work of finding and moving those drafts. A2soup (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that a roundabout in India is a suitable article subject, or that much can be said about it. The page is sourced only to a datapoint [1] in http://wikimapia.org/ which is fully editable by anyone just like this site, and not a RS. But since it was kept at MfD, there is zero point of leaving it as a stale draft of an inactive user.If not moved to article space, how else will we implement the will of the single Keep voter who's opinion trumped my nomination to delete?
When keep votes were made, I dug deep and found the band does indeed have an article, but under a different earlier name. As long as the band has a page, why not their album?
If MfD closes as Keep there are a few open paths:
1. Do nothing, which accomplishes nothing. Highly unlikely the long gone editor will come back and bring it up to snuff. We should have just deleted the page if that is the plan.
2. Move to draft, where it will most likely be rejected, then 6 months or a year later be deleted G13 anyway. Draft space is just delayed deletion.
3. Blank or redirect - which would result in a lynching at ANi after the page survived MfD.
4. Move to mainspace where the page goes into the same review list as other new articles and is subjected to the same scrutiny, including analysis against GNG. (I find the oft made claim like this one in MfD that drafts can't be tested against GNG strange. Should we keep 5 year old drafts about stuff that fails GNG from inactive editors in draft or userspace forever?)
Common sense says don't vote to Keep something that you don't believe belongs in the encyclopedia. Choosing option 4 is not pointy, it's the only logical thing to do. Keeping something MfD said Keep on is clearly not subverting MfD. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Or people will vote at AFD to draftify the article and you've accomplished nothing. If the votes on the draft are to keep and do nothing, then I say tag the project with any appropriate wikiprojects, watch it and write a note that you'll check on it in a year or so. Nothing else to do. MfD hasn't decided on a clear-cut policy yet but that doesn't mean it won't. As of now, we're in the painful stages of people realizing the problems from the number of pre-G13 universe drafts. If we didn't have G13, that volume would be even bigger today. I agree that it's a WP:POINT violation to do that. If we didn't clarify G6 for it, we could a huge chunk of the pages at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion, move them to mainspace and have them deleted there, accomplishing little other than WP:BURO time kill. Here, there's no consensus on when to blank or redirect or delete and there's no consensus on when to relist the discussions about whether to blank, redirect or delete under the RFCs are closed so we have what we have. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could stop beating on this manufactured crisis and leave others' userspace alone, unless there is an actual problem with the page. Old drafts in userspace are not per se a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with SmoakyJoe on this. Drafts in user space are not a problem... even long "stale" ones. Just ignore them. If the topic is notable, someone else will eventually write an article on it. If not... no harm is done by allowing the draft to just sit there in user space, being ignored. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, ignore the few good drafts that can become articles. Let the author's good work go to waste forever. Ignore the attack pages we find, let people keep nasty stuff about other people in Wikipedia userspace. Leave the blank drafts so they can be checked and rechecked by other editors for years and years to come. For that matter, why bother to delete any page or fight vandals anywhere on the site? When I review resumes I don't take a stack of 400 (or 40,000) resumes look at them one by one, reinserting unsuitable resumes back in the pile for me or someone else to check over and over. I put the unsuitable resumes in the circular file. If we promote the good to article space but keep the junk for no valid reason, the harder it gets to find anything useful over time. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You are conflating (1) drafts for which there is immediately obvious potential, which should be brought into the light by any interested editor; (2) old drafts in which you do not see value; (3) problem pages.
You want to assess old drafts? Great. Create an assessment system. Currently, you seem to classify into: (a) send to mainspace; (b) send to draftspace; (c) send to MfD. That's some big decisions for someone who is not subject-interested, and in practice appears flawed.
I suggest instead for non-AfC userpages, you could tag and classify as: (a) clear potential for mainspace; (b) unclear potential; (c) completely useless in one editor's opinion, blank it; (d) some actual problem. Ideally, these classifications will accompany categorisations and be useful for later editors interested in continuing.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the best solution I've seen yet. It solves Legacypac's seemingly primary concern that not reviewing accumulating userspace drafts will make it "difficult to find anything useful over time", while remaining unoffensive to the user (maybe even nice - someone cares!).
I lack the expertise, but it would be great if someone could create stale draft templates for, say, high potential, unclear potential, and low potential. Those templates would ideally have a parameter where the tagger could note what remains to be done (for high potential) or why there is low potential (for low potential). The template would sort the page into the relevant category: Category:Stale drafts with high potential, Category:Stale drafts with unclear potential, etc. The system could be applied equally to stale userspace drafts and stale non-AfC draftspace. Problem pages could still be blanked+templated, or, in more severe cases, MfD'd. Stale drafts on subjects already in mainspace could still be redirected. The mess would be organized, the cream would rise to the top, and there would be minimal biting. What do people think? A2soup (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that's a silly time kill overall but I would think that's something that WP:Abandoned Drafts could use or something like that. That project needs some way of categorizing old drafts. The method may be (b) unclear potential ones with a user who hadn't been active moved to draftspace where the Abandoned drafts project takes up in place of AFC. It could then create its own project categorization of potential rather than the importance one (or just importance) typically used. Want to try proposing this at that project? It's pretty dead right now so maybe we could all create a use for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean, it's less of a "silly time kill" than nominating stale drafts at MfD. I think using WP:Abandoned Drafts is probably a good idea. @Legacypac: as the one apparently most concerned with stale drafts, does the proposal above address your concerns? Would using a template to sort stale drafts into high, unclear, and low potential (with room for MfD or blank+template for problematic pages and redirection for duplicates of mainspace) work for you? A2soup (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@SmokyJoe's classification system just adds another pointless step that brings no action. We are already tagging stale drafts with templates that express our opinion - CSD, MfD, (or after a move) New unreviewed article. In these cases an admin and/or other editors takes a look at the article soon.
Blanking or redirecting provides zero oversight by other editors because no one is watching the page. I find these options the least attractive.
Anyway, what expertise in managing Stale Draft do editors outside the Stale Draft project bring to the table? I see editors who prefer to sit in judgement of how we spend our time and who analyze others edits in detail to start threads like this, but have never actioned a stale draft themselves. Which is a bigger waste of time, actioning stale drafts or trying to redesign a system you have no interest or experience in. Legacypac (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think pages in userspace need oversight by other editors, but that's besides the point. Also, I clearly take an interest in stale drafts, and the categorization suggestion was from SmokeyJoe anyways, but again besides the point. The biggest waste of time is an MfD nom, which requires several editors to take time to read the nominating statement (and any comments since), look at the draft (and ideally its history and the recent contributions of its creator), then formulate and post their own opinion. Then an admin (whose time is extra valuable) has to come by, review all the comments and the draft, assess the consensus and its validity, and make a correct close. If you don't start from the premise that stale drafts must be deleted, you'll see that MfD is the biggest time waster of all.
In any case, it seems I still don't understand your motivations, which makes it difficult to suggest a way forward. The central question is this: What benefit are you trying to bring to the project by "actioning" stale userspace drafts, and how is this benefit not achieved by the categorization system suggested? A2soup (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Pages in userspace don't need oversight but they are subject to oversight (or else the CSD criteria wouldn't apply). If you start with premises that things shouldn't be deleted, then AFD is the biggest time waste of all. If you start with the premises that orphaned templates shouldn't be deleted, then TFD is a waste of time. If you start with a premise that redirect shouldn't be deleted, then RFD is a waste of time. The point is, there's no support for your premise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My starting premise is not that things shouldn't be deleted, and I hope no one's starting premise is that things should be deleted. The starting premise here should always be to create net benefit for the encyclopedia, i.e. mainspace articles. AfD takes a lot of time and bites a lot of newbies, but it is essential to stop the encyclopedia from filling with junk, a huge benefit. As for RfD, leaving aside misleading and poorly-made redirects, lots of benign but unnecessary redirects can subvert the search feature, preventing it from doing its job by making the decisions for it in a "dumb" way. I don't have much experience with TfD, so I can't comment there. As for MfD, starting from the premise of benefiting the encyclopedia, a cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that deleting non-harmful, non-promotional drafts just for staleness does not benefit the encyclopedia compared to alternatives like blanking+templating and sorting into a descriptive maintenance category. The benefits of deleting such drafts to the encyclopedia - uncluttering the overcrowded stale drafts category, making worthwhile drafts easier to find - are served equally well by blanking+templating or sorting (sorting serves the second purpose much better than deletion, actually). The costs of deleting such drafts to the encyclopedia - use of MfD and admin time, newbie biting/retired user alienation - are mitigated by the alternative options. In conclusion, deleting drafts solely because of staleness is more costly and equally or possibly less beneficial to the encyclopedia than blanking+templating or sorting. A2soup (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking and redirecting only work if the articles actually stay blanked and redirected. If they don't, you've solved nothing. Second, do you actually want as a policy that people's pages can be blanked without any notice to them by anyone at all? There's literally no way to find out if your stuff has been blanked. As much as it's dumb, at least MFD gives you a notice that there's a discussion, even if the discussion returns to blanking, they get a ding on their talk page and know something is up. Someone will literally copy a version of the mainspace and state in the edit summary "this is because screw everyone else, this is mine." If you vote "redirect that back", is that really likely to stay a redirect or will that person, if they return, restore it back to the issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you have evidence of these strawman scenarios? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Hindu Taliban, created in 2008 "in case the article is censored by pro-Hindutva POV-pushers". It was created in 2008 with the mainspace one deleted in 2013 so from that period, would you have voted to redirect it? The edit summary was blatant. If it wasn't, would be there a way to find out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted material is not "STALEDRAFT". Irrelevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You have valid points, but they do not apply to the cases I am discussing. I am discussing the great number of userspace drafts at MfD lately that do not have subjects already in the mainspace and were created by users that have been inactive for >6 months. In these cases, your concern about forking does not apply and the user will very likely not be around for the MfD discussion in any case - if they return, it will be much later and they will either find a blanked page with a template welcoming them back and inviting them to restore it or a deleted page. I think the former is preferable. Also, if despite all this, you still find blanking+templating problematic, what about the other option, recategorizing the drafts to a more informative maintenance category (high/unclear/low potential stale drafts)? A2soup (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do we even have the WP:STALE provision?

Why do we have the WP:STALE provision in the first place? What is its purpose? Why does it matter if there is an old "abandoned" draft sitting dormant in someone else's userspace, when anyone (including "you") can simply draft their own version of an article about the "missing" topic... and upload that to mainspace (or, if they want help writing one, request an article via the WP:Articles for creation process)? Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

One reason is that we want a single WP:NPOV of an article, not tens of hundreds of versions of the same content. We used to have people creating their own personal lists of the world's oldest people (or the oldest Americans, whatever), based on their own personal views of sources, personal beliefs regarding names, whatever. You'd find a dozen of the same topic with different names. Once those got deleted, the users either left or most often joined into the mainspace version and just worked on it there. One day I listed four different copies of Spider Man 4 in separate userspaces. People don't agree with the mainspace version, copy and create their own. If I created a draft five years ago and someone later created the topic, should we keep my draft around and just kind of say "don't touch this one, but that one is ok"? What's the absolute point of all that effort? Also, AFC has a six month G13 deletion mechanism. Older drafts have nothing. So if you want to push people to AFC where their drafts will be deleted, why object to people wanting to delete older drafts just because no one ever thought to create a speedy criteria for it? Why not support a speedy criteria for it then? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't conflate WP:UP#COPIES with STALE. Copies, as in forking content to preserve your preferred version has never been ok; that is irrelevant to the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
What about userspace forks within themselve before a draft has been created? The question was on the provision overall. Besides, the provision actually says that after a certain point, anything can be done with userspace drafts. If removed, then technically wouldn't I be violating WP:UP if I found an five-year-old draft, cleaned it and moved it to mainspace? Aren't I interfering with an editor's userspace? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You definitely should not move anything to mainspace that you would not defend at AfD. About the only exception to that is when it is done by a WP:DRV closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No, the issue is moving to mainspace at all. I'm not talking about moving some junk page. I'm talking about something like Order of the Sons of America: started in September 2011 and abandoned until I found it again in January and improved it. Remove WP:STALE and there's literally no basis to move the page at all. One could argue that we should never presume someone has abandoned the projects and should never' interfere with people's drafts but that's an absurd proposition. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand the purpose of WP:STALE ... why do we want to move an "abandoned" userspace draft into mainspace? Again, if the topic is worth an article, someone else can just start one... "you" can just start one. We don't need the abandoned draft. (and on the flip side... why is there a need to delete old "abandoned" drafts... no one sees drafts in userspace, so why would their existence matter... what matters is what is in mainspace). Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
One purpose of WP:STALE is to assist pushing back against those who would use Wikipedia as a web hosting service or as a blog where personal thoughts are published. The aim is to focus attention on the development of the encyclopedia—all pages should have that aim. Humor pages as essays or in user space are great assuming they help building a collaborative community, such as WP:OWB, but most other off-topic gumph acts as a distraction which encourages more of the same. There are specific prohibitions against blatant web hosting and blogging, but what about a user page discussing the faults of a political party? Or a page describing the wonders of my favorite business? What if it's not blatant and is subtly written as if it might be a valid article? There is no rule that such a "draft" would be deleted—the intention is to give people plenty of scope for building a draft without bureaucracy, but allow gunk to be removed if a discussion deems that desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, first, pages in userspace are not "published". They are hidden away where the rest of the world will never see them. Second, the type of thing you seem to be concerned with are not drafts of articles (either drafts of potential articles, or drafts of rewrites for existing articles). Finally none of that has anything to do with whether a userspace page has become STALE or not. If someone is misusing their userspace, we can address that misuse at any time... misuse has noting to do with whether the userpage is STALE or abandoned. So, I still have to wonder what the purpose of WP:STALE is? Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Johnuniq, none of the purposes you mention depend on the text associated with "WP:STALE", they are all covered separated at WP:UP#NOT. WP:STALE instead is taken to refer to old inactive drafts of intended mainspace articles, and it is frequently taken as making no consideration of the quality or usefulness of the draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The guideline explicitly considers the quality/usefulness of the draft in determining the appropriate outcome for a STALE draft - whether it is moved to mainspace, speedied, or blanked. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That's why I wrote to assist pushing back. The replies suggesting that dubious material can be discussed with the author and then at MfD are based on the mistaken assumption that an infinite number of wikignomes are available, and that it is productive to spend a week discussing things like whether a two-year old list of faults with something the author does not like should be deleted. Allowing such gunk to accumulate encourages more and conveys the unhelpful picture that free web hosting is available provided it is done with a tiny bit of subtlety. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • STALE made a lot more sense when userspace was indexed by Google. Ever since a lightly attended discussion stopped Google from indexing userspace, it probably doesn't matter as much because these stale drafts will get next-to-no traffic. –xenotalk 13:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
But... even when Google indexed the pages, why did the STALEness of the page matter? The issue seems to be the appropriateness of the content, not the STALEness of the page. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe people didn't want the Wikipedia brand associated with half-baked articles? In any case, that point is irrelevant since userspace was NOINDEXED. A2soup (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
But that still does not answer my question... a half-baked draft is half-baked whether it is brand new or five years old. The "staleness" of the page isn't the issue. The issue is (or was) the half-baked nature of the content. If a userspace page contains inappropriate content, that page should either be deleted or fixed... regardless of how old the page is. If the content is appropriate, there is no harm in keeping it around in userspace... regardless of how old the page is. So why do we base our metric for review on "staleness"? Shouldn't it be based on appropriateness?
Because staleness is a measure of how likely a page is to become not "half-baked". If I create a sub-stub userspace draft today, you can reasonably assume I'm going to finish it. If I create a sub-stub userspace draft today and then vanish for five years, that assumption isn't reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume you will never return to work on your stub. You might simply be on an extended Wikibreak... Perhaps your work required that you live abroad for a few years, in a location that does not have easy internet access. I have no way of knowing why you are not actively editing... And I should not assume you never intend to return. In fact, assuming you do intend to return, I would think you would appreciate seeing that stub still in your userspace when you do return... as a reminder of what you were working on "all those years ago". You could then look to see if anyone else wrote an article on the topic while you were away, and (if not) seeing the stub might spur you to finally finish it. It does Wikipedia no harm to leave the stub alone, sitting there in your userspace, awaiting your eventual return. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course I could return in this scenario, but the longer the absence the less likely that is, unfortunately. That's why the inactivity "rule of thumb" is included - a tipping point at which it is more likely than not that the person isn't coming back. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
My point was that it does no harm to leave the stub in your userspace, just in case you do return. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
But it does. Think about the three classes of userspace drafts that are potential but not currently extant articles: ones that are good enough to move to articlespace now, ones that aren't yet but which could be, and ones that never will be. You argue above that the third group should be deleted whether they are stale or not, and I would tend to agree. The first group should be moved to articlespace, to avoid duplication of effort - why should we require that someone else go create this article when there's a perfectly good one idling in the userspace of an inactive user? The second group requires the most care and attention, and has the greatest potential for someone to adopt an idling draft and bring it up to snuff. But when all three groups are sitting in userspace together indefinitely, significant effort must be repeated by every single potential adopter or person screening for inappropriate content, likely multiple times, since there's no way for them to filter out what has already been reviewed by themselves or others. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
A distinction should be made between drafts that are directed at an encyclopedic purpose but inappropriate for mainspace and will likely never become articles and drafts that are inappropriate for any namespace. There is no harm (not even in terms of server space) in leaving the former around forever. To clear up clutter, it would be much easier (and friendlier to the creator) than deletion to either recatogorize them into a new category like Category:Stale drafts with low potential or replace their content with {{Userpage blanked}}. The latter type of drafts are either blatantly promotional or have BLP issues or are personal essays and should be deleted at MfD. A2soup (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
So we spend our time classifying the "potential" of drafts? What is actually to be done with drafts in your proposed Category:Stale drafts with high potential? Is that just navel gazing where someone says "this could be made into an article, but someone else has to do it, I'm too busy spending my day deciding what potential there is in other people's drafts"? And all this is because a user who could come back and ask for things to be restored should instead expect that this entire project has been dormant while they were away? It seems mighty weird to me that everything else in this project basically moves on regardless of the editors here but by god we can't have anything done because an editor wrote a sentence in 2009. Screw the people actually here drafting the project, it's all about the people who were here years ago even if they never had their work go anywhere. It's a bizarre focus on the people who were here as opposed to the ones who are actively here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, I don't think it's worth reviewing stale drafts at all. But the users who are going through Category:Stale userspace drafts seem to think it's worth it, and it's their actions we're discussing. When they nominate some drafts for MfD while moving others to mainspace, they are already classifying the potential of drafts in a more labor-intensive and less precise way than I am suggesting. They're already doing the navel-gazing, if that's what you want to call it. I'm just arguing they should not require others, including admins, to participate in their classification and that they should do the classification in a more precise and efficient way. A2soup (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@A2... Re: "But the users who are going through Category:Stale userspace drafts seem to think it's worth it, and it's their actions we're discussing."... Hold on... no... that isn't why I started this thread. My concern isn't about anyone's actions... my concern is about the concept of staleness. I have a problem with that concept. We have no way of knowing why an inactive user is currently inactive. Because there is a chance that the inactive user may simply be be on a long extended wikibreak, and fully intends to return, we can't assume that the pages in his userspace are "stale". I am not sure that a userspace page can ever be deemed "stale", unless the user has been perma-banned or has announced that he/she is leaving the project for good.
@both Ricky and A2... As for actions, if a page in userspace is inappropriate for userspace... why wait for it to become stale? Nominate it for deletion... do it NOW. If a draft in userspace would make the start of a viable article... why wait for it to become stale? Start an article (or post one at Article for Creation), and mine the draft for information (and sources) that are worth adding ... do it NOW. In both cases, it makes no sense to wait until the draft page becomes "stale". In fact, if one takes the attitude that inaction harms the project, then one could argue that waiting for the page to become "stale" harms the project more than taking action. The reality is that the staleness of the page has nothing to do with either of the situations you two seem to be concerned about. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We wait because we don't know if the person is an active user or now. I have drafts sitting in my userspace. If someone moved them today, it would be considered rude (maybe disruptive but definitely rude). If I stopped editing today and didn't edit tomorrow, it would still be rude. If I did one edit in 2001 when we started the project and never returned, I think it's safe to say we should be free to treat it as abandoned and do what we can with it. It's a line-drawing requirement. Again, this drive wasn't "waiting for these to become stale", it was "there's a giant old backlog back on the Article Wizard system of draft going back to 2009 but we don't want to be dealing with a draft started in 2009 that was edited say 3 months ago so there's another category that just tags the page when it hasn't been touched in a year" which is alphabetical and somewhat easier to organize. It's a subset of all userspace drafts out there, drafts not edited within a year. From there, I see if the editor hasn't been around for a year (WP:STALE, note 2 requirement) and then evaluate it: is it a CSD issue, move to mainspace, move to draftspace or ask at MFD if there's interest in it or should it be deleted. If the editor is active, I remove their drafts from the tables I created because doing anything (even a badly and rejected CSD) will reset the one year requirement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Blueboar: You misunderstand a bit - I'm not trying to discuss people's actions in this thread at least. I brought it up because Ricky said the proposal to categorize userspace drafts was pointless, and I couldn't argue against that - I agree with him. But the proposal isn't relevant because I want to implement it, it's relevant because it's a better alternative to what other users are implementing. That's why I mentioned their actions - not to discuss the actions themselves but to defend why the proposal is relevant. Re "why stale?", I can't come up with a good answer, but I'm obviously not the one to ask. A2soup (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
WHAT proposal?... no one has proposed anything in this thread. I am merely asking questions trying to understand why we have this silly rule in the first place. So far, the answer seems to be "because it helps us to weed out inappropriate material from userspace"... and to that answer I reply, "but we don't need this rule to do that"... we can weed out inappropriate material from userspace because it is inappropriate. That's a far more justifiable rational than "because it is STALE". I may get around to making a proposal... but I am still at the "ask questions" stage. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a rule that says "don't bother other people's userspace stuff." We have this rule to say "after a certain point, you can." Is "if the editor is no longer editing here" such objectionable language that we require tens of thousands of words arguing about the idea? The issue is, do you find it objectionable if someone takes a draft from an inactive user, moves to say their own userspace or even to draftspace and then eventually makes it into an article? If not, then WP:STALE is necessary to clarify that after a certain point, the rest of the project does require us to move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
RE: "there's a giant old backlog back on the Article Wizard system of draft going back to 2009 but..." We seem to be having terminology confusion... are drafts in the Article Wizard system in USERspace or DRAFTspace (or both)? Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
In the discussions on the creation of the G13 AfC deletion mechanism, I remember distinctly (no link at hand), that one of the mechanisms for preventing deletion of any draft was to move it to userspace. The scope creep of widespread draft deletion from AfC subpages to deletion of old userpages of inactive Wikipedians is gross and entirely subsequent to the approval of G13 deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Given Category:Declined AfC submissions in userspace I don't think that's accurate. Those drafts are subject to G13 so I think your criticism is misguided. Is your point is that someone proposed moving to userspace as an exemption (kind of odd since AFC pages are have always been allowed in userspace as well as draftspace) and it was expressly rejected, and thus it's "gross"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I would have to check for accuracy, my memory might be inaccurate, but it is what I remember. Some funny stuff, in my opinion, happened towards the end, regarding AfC stuff in userspace. Yes, the letter of G13 includes it, but User:HasteurBot, the only to date practical mechanism for G13 deletions, excludes userspace. I suspect User:Hasteur recognized the dodgy scope creep. Possibly other admins are doing manual G13 deletions?
Gross? Large. It is large scope creep if the intention was to remove the massive number of abandoned worthless AfC subpages, and G13 is now being used to delete non-worthless AfC pages in userspace, and this practice is encouraging some Wikipedians to think that a similar criteria for deletion should apply to all old userpages along the lines of the previously, independently and poorly written STALEDRAFT paragraph. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe's memory is correct in that the bot was specifically designed and authorized to not take into account userspace and user talk space. I endorse the perception of the very large land grab that this extended discusion is making. I stand opposed to any widening of CSD:G13's criterion to deal with pages that are in draft namespace but do not have an {{AFC submission}} banner. It is preferable to have userspace drafts be evaluated by a human set of eyes instead of a automated process to evaluate if there is potential to be saved. In my own viewpoint, all submissions should belong in the draft namespace to put them in the shared editing space (that has other tools to scan over it) Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
How does the namespace change the number of eyes watching? There's no system where I can browse through Draftspace by topic. Is it simply that people can search draftspace alone? There's still left over pages in Wikipedia talk page. Otherwise while I disagree with you two, there's clearly no support for expanding G13 beyond AFC banner pages in either draft or userspace. Do you propose limiting it to one space versus the other? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Again with the reducto ad absurdum argument. More people are (concievably) watching Draftspace over User/User talk space. We don't want to touch those pages you list in the RM/Old AFC because if we do, the clock on activating G13 resets and they're not hurting anything. Users are perfectly free to submit their own drafts to AFC from their own userspace, however it's been my practice that if it has a reasonable chance at success to go ahead and move it to Draft namespace when I do the review so that we don't have to finesse the rules as much. Hasteur (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hasteur, It really bothers me that anyone thinks it is acceptable take someone's work from userspace and move it to draftspace (or mainspace) without their concurrence. Don't steal other people's work... that's called plagiarism. Go review the sources on the topic, write your own version of an article, and submit that to AFC if you want.
As for G13... There should not BE any AFC banner pages in userspace. Userspace drafts should not be part of the AFC process. If the AFC banner is on a userspace page... Remove the banner.
I have posted this at the discussion about G13 on the speedy deletion talk page... but here is how I would set things up:
Adopt a multi-step system: First, To help work though the backlog... a draft that is sitting idle and unsubmitted in DRAFTspace should automatically be submitted to AFC after a reasonable time (say one year after creation). Second, G13 should only apply to actual AFC submissions that have continued to sit unedited for a reasonable time (say another year) - get rid of the confusing "unsumbmitted" language. That gives people lots of reasonable time (two years) to attempt to get a draft into reasonable shape before it would be subject to speedy deletion... but also would ease the burden on the manual reviewers and reduce the backlog. Of course, at any time during the two years, a draft article can reviewed manually and be a) approved, or b) rejected. As an alternative to rejection, a user may request to adopt the draft and have it userfied... ie sent to his userspace to allow him to work on it on his own (note, this request can be denied, but if accepted, the user will have an unlimited amount of time to work on "his" draft. and of course drafts in userspace can still be manually reviewed and deleted for cause... for example: if it contains inappropriate content that is unsuitable for Wikipedia even in userspace - BLP vios, POV rant pages, and the like - however, it will not be deleted simply because the editor who adopted it is busy doing something else, and has put it on the back burner for a while). If it is sent to userspace, it will be renamed as a USER subpage, and removed from DRAFTspace... any AFC banners, templates or coding related to automatic processes like Article Wizard will be removed as well (this will also remove userfied drafts from AFC backlogs). Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hasteur, I have no idea what your issue is. I asked a legitimate question. Is the only way you consider eyeballs is when the pages come up for review? If so, then the unsubmitted drafts will never be reviewed except for G13. Is there even a reason to have a separate namespace? There's no reason that people can't collaborate in userspace, some projects (the Eastenders one for example) works off numerous userspace drafts with a number of editors. On some level, there's more ownership there than having it in draftspace where the tragedy of the commons kind of goes into effect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Blueboar: I'm going to assume you missed the key component of the process you described and not willful misrepresentation. By moving the content from userspace to draft space the attribution of content is maintained and therefore cannot be plagarized as we're all editing to improve the content. I agree that there shouldn't be any declined AFC submissions in userspace, however we can't force users who haven't submitted their work for review to use the full extent of process (which I have lobbied multiple times for). Thirdly, your "Automatically submitted to AFC" idea breaks down in the fact that some people may have chosen to steer clear of AFC and we cannot compel them to use it. Finally you seem to be under the misconception that Draft namespace automatically implies AFC. Not all Draft namespace pages are AFC submissions, and conversely, not all AFC submissions live in Draft Namespace. Hasteur (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Oh come off that high Deletionist horse and stop painting yourself as a saint... Yes pages that live in Draft namespace that aren't being tracked is a tragedy, but your scorched earth tactics only force those who specifcally called out this kind of "delete because stale" argument at the multiple discussions about the chartering of the namespace (which I see you still have yet to familiarize yourself with) to come after you with the sanction for cause. If you had bothered to read and understand the policies and the discussions that have occured to clarify it, you would see that traditionally Userspace is supposed to be only a single editor improving a submission whereas Draft namespace (or it's antecedeants Abandoned Drafts, WT:AfC, etc.) were more intended for collaborative editing where multiple editors share in the process. In short, you are blundering through a minefield and have come very close to a unfortunate situation on multiple occations. Please please please take time out and read the policies and the commentaries. Be bold, but don't be reckless. Hasteur (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Using my own drafts as an example

Out of curiosity, and so we have something more concrete to discuss, please take a look at the draft articles in my own userspace (you can find them by searching "User:Blueboar/drafts"). Now... Let's assume I took an extended Wikibreak, and stopped editing for a few years (ie my userspace became "stale"). Based on WP:STALE, what would you do with the various draft articles currently in my userspace? Would any be moved to mainspace (which ones, and why)... would any be deleted or blanked (which ones, and why)? I will then respond with how I would react if I returned to Wikipedia and saw your actions. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not having looked at them, I'd probably start with debating whether to adopt them all myself. If I'm inclined to do so, I'd probably move them to draftspace and work on them there. Specifically, User:Blueboar/drafts - Former Masonic buildings] already exists in mainspace at List of former Masonic buildings in the United States created by you so that can either be redirected or history merged today. Also, there are times when a draft isn't complete and doesn't warrant a separate article but could still be useful as text. If your issue is just the length of the break period, raise that again. I suggested one year above at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#WP:STALEDRAFT_specifics and other than one person suggesting 5-10 years, people assumed it to be reasonable. How does keeping drafts sitting around 2, 3, 4 years in the assumption that someone could eventually return if they would like actually help create an encyclopedia? Are we trying to create an encyclopedia or a warehouse of people's text drafts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to start introducing time limits on productive Wikipedian's wikibreaks. If there is any valid reason to clean up userspace, start sending messages to active Wikipedians. See how that goes. Uninvited cleaning of inactive Wikipedian's userspace is both rude and cowardly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Rickey, I would be very pissed off if I took a long Wikibreak, and found that you had blanked, merged, or redirected User:Blueboar/drafts - Former Masonic buildings (or any of the other pages in my userspace) while I was away. I suppose I should rename that page... and call it "User:Blueboar/NOTES on Former Masonic buildings". I created (and keep) that page not as a "draft" for a potential article (or for a potential change to the article) but to remind me of some of the things I was thinking about, back when I created the article, and was trying to determine the format. Let me repeat that, because it is important... It's there to simply to remind me of my thought processes. The page is of benefit to me... the user. It is not intended to be of benefit to anyone else. This is why it is in my Userspace... to be of benefit to the user. If I take a five year Wikibreak, and then return,that page will still be of benefit to me, as a user.
I fully understand that sometimes material can be inappropriate even for userspace... and if I have something like that in my userspace, I have no problem with it being deleted. But you don't need to wait until I go dormant and the page becomes "stale" to delete it. Do it now, (while I can learn from my error). However, for the pages in my userspace that are not inappropriate... leave them alone. If a page is appropriate for userspace now, while I am active, that page should still be appropriate for userspace while I am away, and should still be appropriate when I return in five years time. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't WP:OWN your userspace pages either. I'd probably take it to MFD and ask people want to do. You'd be notified and if you're here, you could vote but I suspect we'd have a consensus to redirect or delete or history merge (probably the first, maybe the last, least likely the middle one). That's probably even appropriate today but I don't care about it. I could say it's a WP:UP#COPIES issue: a userspace version of the old revision for the mainspace page (which it is because you created both versions). The reason is if those images are deleted, renamed, or moved, not only does the main version have to be changed but yours as well. Same if there's a change in any templates. Look at some old pages brought up at MFD and you'll often see that people and bots have been around for years making tens of thousands of additional edits to these pages for these things. Now, cumulatively add up how much extra time is spent on say fixing hundreds of old templates because a parameter has changed and ask yourself couldn't we have been better off if the people/bots didn't have as many of those to work on? Now you could say "don't fix those templates, let userspace templates be broken" but that's just dumb and distruptive to the actual process of decision-making about things: if we say we want to change a template parameter or change a redirect or create a new page, there needs to be some finality. Finally, what is inappropriate or appropriate? I don't know what you are talking about. In this MFD discussion, an editor created drafts and stopped editing here in 2011. The editor created a perfectly good draft but wrote "I don't want it moved to mainspace" (and with good reason, given the other bothering them). The point is, should we move it anyways regardless of their wishes or should we let sit around (ignoring WP:WEBHOST) or even consider deleting it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Re: the images...your right, I don't care if the links to the images get broken. If those images are deleted, renamed, or moved, my version doesn't have to be fixed as well. The images are irrelevant to why I copied the page, played around with it, and now want to keep the result. One of the reasons I keep the page to remind me of the list formatting... historically for that list in specific, but also as a reminder of how to format lists, should I want to create a similar list in the future. In other words... the specific content of the page is fairly irrelevant to why I want to keep that page in my userspace. I am never planning to turn that page into an article, or use it to edit the current article. I keep it because it will help me in the future, as I edit other articles. I have what I consider a legitimate reason to want that page archived in my userspace, a reason related to my future editing. It helps me be a better editor, and it will still help me with my editing in five years. Isn't keeping reminders of things that I feel will help me to be a better editor a legitimate use of my userspace? It certainly was considered so back when I first joined the project. Have things changes so much? Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You could blank the page today and still have access to that. You can also pull up the older version and edit that and still has access to that. So are you proposing that we shouldn't deleting drafts from users who last edited say four, five years ago not because they could be making drafts but because they could be making tests pages for potential drafts instead? There's also template:inactive userpage blanked which is also liberally used. Wouldn't that be just as effective? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving userspace drafts to mainspace to test notability

This discussion has gotten significantly off-topic since it started, which is normal and fine. However, the question that started it still has not been satisfactorily resolved: when is it acceptable to move userspace drafts to mainspace? This is underscored by Legacypac's recent (several days after this discussion started) move of User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki to Graffiki with the move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". Accordingly, Legacypac nominated the newly-minted article for AfD immediately after the move: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki. After discussion, the article was deleted with a note that re-userfication can be discussed if the creator returns. The question is: is it appropriate to move userspace drafts to mainspace that one does not believe to meet the requirements of mainspace in order to test their notability?

My own opinion on this is laid out at the AfD, and it is essentially that such moves are inappropriate since they constitute a bureaucratic end-run around MfD and an attempt to apply notability standards to userspace drafts, where they are not applicable. I won't be bringing this particular deletion to DRV since I wouldn't have defended the draft at MfD (promotional concerns), but I was wondering what other editors' thoughts about this sort of move were. Does this AfD establish a precedent? A2soup (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is never acceptable for us to move someone else's drafts from userspace into mainspace (or to draftspace)... until and unless the user in question requests that we do so.
That said, we need to remember that the existence of a userspace draft does not "reserve" the article's topic. At any time, someone else may read the sources, and draft their own article on the topic (using their own words) and upload that to mainspace (or submit it to draftspace for collaborative work). Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • While I think there can be times it makes sense to move someone else's draft into mainspace (for example, it's ready for prime time and they aren't around anymore), doing so for the purpose of deleting it is quite another story. I'd call it bad faith and a case of WP:GAMING. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is well established in AfC and stale draft projects that moving articles into mainspace is perfectly acceptable. All submissions are released under creative commons licence and are here to be used. No one should have to redraftamd take credit for someone else's work.

We are talking about stale drafts from long gone users. Decisions need to be made to keep or trash, leaving them sit helps no one, just leaving them to be checked and rechecked forever. I've simply taken the position that GNG can't be tested at MfD to the logical conclusion - test a questionable article at AfD. I fully expect some of the pages I promote to eventually be deleted at AfD and others to be kept. That is not an end run around MfD, it's just using the right forum according to the obstructionist editors who prefer to stalk my edits and start complaint threads (none of which helps move the project forward) while I kill off junk amd send gems into mainspace which helps real people find useful info on the site. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Blatant WP:GAMING, undeniably an end-run around MfD where many users have opposed your reckless pointless deletionism that alienates retired users. Moving userpage to mainspace that you are not prepared to defend is offensive and disruptive. Claiming that it has the support of an inactive WikiProject is highly disingenuous, and even if it were true it is inadequate justification for these actions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
That is just a personal attack on me. You keep coming up with objections to the stale draft cleanup, and it's getting tiresome. Let interested editors work on what they are interested in without the constant nattering. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The so called "stale draft cleanup", insofar as it means mass deletion of userpages, initiated and conducted by very few under the guise of an inactive WikiProject, was never authorized. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I know this reads like a complaint thread, and in some ways it is, but I am genuinely interested in the policy question of when moves to mainspace are appropriate. From what I can see, neither in this subsection nor at the beginning of this discussion has a single editor besides yourself expressed support for the idea of moving userspace drafts to mainspace when you would not defend them at AfD. In fact, several editors including Ricky81682 (whose input here would be valuable as well) have encouraged you to stop. At some point, when you are alone in your opinion, it's time to take a hint.
If you want to delete userspace drafts, the appropriate forum is MfD. If delete were the only valid MfD result, there would be no need of discussion. Keep and no consensus are valid results that reflect valid policy views differing from your own. Dismissing results other than delete as obstructionism is a rejection of WP:CONSENSUS and does not justify your bad-faith moves, which can only be described as gaming the deletion process. Please let the community, not just yourself, decide whether stale drafts should be deleted.
Finally, I want to offer you a genuine thanks for the stale, mainspace-ready drafts you find and move - finding those is hard work and a very valuable service. A2soup (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Identification of the gems and moving of gems to draftspace or mainspace is very worthwhile and very productive and deserving of thanks. The deletion of sub-gem userpage drafts and notes of inactive Wikipedians is unnecessary, and rude to the Wikipedians on wikibreak. We've suggested that instead of deletion, they could be left with a note or a tag or a category to identify them as reviewed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur entirely with SmokeyJoe and Hobit's concerns. Moving anything to a less appropriate place and then AfD'ing it reeks of bad faith. The proper response to such a move is to move the article in question back to where it was in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is exceedingly difficult to find the good articles among the pile of junk, so the junk needs to be deleted so it no longer wastes our time. Simple as that. If editors insist that notability can't be tested in MfD, then AfD is the place for that. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That is your peculiar opinion, based on the false assumption that it needs to be done quickly. If it weren't for you trying to rush the process, the junk would not be wasting anyone's times. If you want to knock yourself out processing junk, good for you, but if you are being destructive by causing the deletion of good drafts as collateral damage, then you must be stopped. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Drafts, userspace drafts or mainspace drafts, are not in scope at AfD. Moving a draft merely to do an end-run around the recent RfC that determined that failure to demonstrate notability alone is not a valid reason to delete drafts at MfD, is a clear violation of WP:GAME and if repeated ought to lead to a block. It is my view that any editor may move a draft (including a userspace draft) into mainspace, if and only if that editor believes that it is a valid article, and is prepared to defend it if it is promptly brought to AfD. DES (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is highly inappropriate to move user page drafts tot the article namespace which has higher standards to test notability, especially if said pages have already been retained at MfD as it is along the lines of forum shopping. User page drafts aren't held to the same standards, and moving those that are not yours to one with harsher standards is an abuse of process. Most of the users in support of these actions across multiple discussions disagree with the current standards for drafts in other namespaces, erroneously justifying their support that way.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Should be a separate guideline

Maybe guidance on:

  • What may be drafted
  • Where drafts may be drafted
  • Who may draft drafts in respective drafting places
  • What review, classification and deletion reasons should apply to drafts
  • How old drafts may get
  • What is the minimum standard for a draft to be kept even if old
  • What are the nuances of ownership of your drafting versus your personal notes

belongs in a separate guideline on drafting. DraftSpace is out-of-scope for this guideline, and userpage leeway for Wikipedians is clashing with old drafts by non-Wikipedians (non-encultured-Wikipedians, drive-by, long gone newbie Wikipedians) being located in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

My views:
  • Anything may be drafted that might possibly become a valid article.
  • Drafts may be created in either user space or draft space, as the drafter pleases.
  • Anyone may create drafts in draft space, any registered user (who is not bolocked or banned) may also create drafts in userspace.
  • For review, the standards at AfC apply, the general standard is that a draft should be accepted if it is likely to pass an AfD. I don't see any need for classification of drafts, and little need for their deletion. Copyvios and attack pages must go at once. Truly blatantly promotional drafts can be speedy deleted. Other drafts that by their very nature have no possible chance of ever becoming a valid mainspace article could be deleted at MfD. Lack of notability alone is not a reason, and IMO 'staleness" is not a good reason.
  • There is no limit on how old a draft may be. in particular, a draft not yet notable under WP:TOOSOON may wait for years in case the topic becomes notable.
  • If a draft has a reasonable (even if small) chance of becoming a valid article, either with additional research or with the passage of time leading to additional coverage of the topic, then it should be retained.
  • There is no OWNership of a draft, any more than there is of an article. If a draft is in the user space of an active editor, it is polite to ask/notify before editing or moving it, but one need not take "no" for an answer.
How does that do? Enough for your proposed guideline? DES (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Should older drafts located in Draftspace have an expiration date?

Similar question ... But different scope. I think it makes sense to have a higher standard for Draftspace than Userspace... The question is: can we define that standard? Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think any expiration would only be done via a new speedy deletion tag so that it actually can be done by admins. G13 has been proposed to be expanded to non-AFC pages but that's been rejected repeatedly. See the history at WT:CSD. On that basis, I don't think there will be one that's can be agreed upon but the discussions at MFD tend to be using a six month inactivity metric. That's the basis for User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Abandoned draft rewording

I'd like to request a change to Wikipedia:User_pages#Old_unfinished_draft_articles. The lead should be "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or tagged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts ...." The Abandoned Drafts project used to move pages into the actual projectspace. Instead, it is now having a WikiProject put on abandoned drafts. There hasn't been a resolution at the project about what it will do with the drafts that have been identified but at the very least, moving there is no longer a preferred option. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in in support of this change. The current instructions are for a long-abandoned project that has been reorganized to work in a more efficient way. A2soup (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Opposed - Unless the move is requested by the draft's creator. Don't troll through user space looking for other people's stuff to promote into an article. Instead, start your own (new) draft version of an article to work on, and promote that. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The draftspace move has been policy since it was created (via WP:STALE) so yes, while you can state your opposition to the entire concept and ask that people waste their time creating their own new drafts after someone else has done the work and left, please do not simply oppose every partial change that's actually attempting to deal with issues that should not be in dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree with Blueboar that forking a userspace draft is better than moving it, if I assume correctly that post move, if it expires, the original creator will receive the G13 notifications including the nice clear advice on how to obtain WP:REFUND.
The "tagged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors" part, I don't understand what that means. I assumed it really meant "tagged for the WikiProject on the talk page", as per standard WikiProject tagging. Ricky's "moving there is no longer a preferred option" confuses me, what gets moved? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: The Abandoned Drafts projected used to work by people moving their drafts to a subpage of Abandoned Drafts (old redirects still exist) where they physically sat until someone else either adopted them or moved them into mainspace. The wording implied that this was an option and it's not a good idea any longer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Starting your own draft is not "forking"... Right now, two active editors could both be drafting separate articles on the exact same topic (X)... Without either knowing of the other draft. That is not a fork... It's just two people who both had the same goal (to write an article about topic X).

If you think topic X is notable, and see that Wikipedia is missing an article about topic X... WRITE one. There is no need to troll through userspace looking to see whether someone else has started one. Start one yourself. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is off point here but what we are discussing is the opposite: if I find a draft that someone started but hasn't been around for a while here, am I really, really supposed to create another one just because to avoid actually touching their draft? It's idiotic and a waste of time. This page was stopped in September 2011. Should I really take on the citations and make my own version and just ignore that version for god know why? Why not let me move the page, work on it and publish it so Order of the Sons of America is ready. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And multiple drafts do happen but at some point, they get merged into a single version because that's what mainspace consists of. For example, the people at Category:Draft-Class EastEnders articles work to merge content from a variety of drafts into one collective version before it goes to mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert reversion

I'd like to request that QEDK's wholesale reversion be undone. This was far from the status quo. For example, it entirely removed Note 2 which was added after extensive discussion above in January 2016 and has never be touched. There is no way to call going back three months if not further "the status quo". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How about the 02:59, 8 March 2016‎ version? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, the split of WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE removed some language that drafts should be moved to mainspace but moving to delete is disruptive that I restored in the interim. Either way. Restore that version if you'd like and I'll suggest its restoration separately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The split of WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE was essential due to mixing of the two when they are logicially dissimilar, and due to the frequent confusion it was causing in practice. The mixed language was difficult to separate, but change in guidance or meaning was not intended. Ricky's post seems to repeat some of the consequential confusion. If the issue is of copied mainspace material, or of a fake article, moving the page to mainspace is completely inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Of all people, I think you would be the one supporting adding language that "Moving simply to delete is a form of Tendentious editing". Drop the larger point, do you think that addition is good or not?-- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the version of 8 March. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving abandoned userspace drafts to mainspace

As a result of recent arguments, I propose to add the following to the end of the section headed "On others' user pages":

"If a userspace draft whose owner is no longer active appears good enough for mainspace, it may be appropriate to move it there, but this should not be done as a backdoor method of deletion by exposing the draft to the higher standards required in mainspace. A user who does this is required to assume responsibility for the page and, if it does not survive in mainspace, to ensure that it is returned to its original userspace location, if necessary requesting undeletion for that purpose from the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND."

Comments? JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems like an attempt (probably unintentional) to enshrine in a policy page a user's past mistakes. Let's go with more neutral wording. Also removing reference to ownership of the original creator and the moving editor, as per WP:OWN. ~ RobTalk 16:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion 2: "If a userspace draft whose creator is no longer active appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in the mainspace, it may be appropriate to move it there. Userspace drafts should only be moved to the mainspace if they meet the core policies of notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research at a minimum. If a userspace draft is moved to mainspace and shortly after deemed inappropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia, administrators should consider moving it back to its original location if it is compliant with policies that apply to the userspace."

Support Rob's version - states it clearly, no need to make it something quasi-personal about essentially one user's inappropriate practices. A2soup (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't consider a few test moves to be a mistake. They were a good faith, and very clearly articulated, attempt to deal with the arguments that Userspace can be used to host material that fails all four of the core policies cited. Non-admins can't control if a page is deleted, can't stop a CSD, so how can an editor OWN an article exactly? Further, enshining in policy the return of material deleted via discussion or for copy vio or other good reasons is a bad idea. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: There's a clear difference between moving deleted content to the userspace for preservation and moving deleted content to the userspace to undo an ill-advised move. There is language limiting such moves to drafts that have been mainspaced and quickly nominated for deletion. I also specifically included language stating that these drafts should not be moved back to userspace if they violate policies that apply there (i.e. copyvio, etc), so that's not a concern. If editors aren't trying to game the system, then the clause will never apply. ~ RobTalk 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I would rather call it an attempt to make clear in policy that some recent actions were mistakes (I am not sure that all concerned accept that), and to provide for undoing improper deletions. Your wording is a definite improvement, but I have one problem with it: I produced it as a result of a situation I encountered at REFUND where one-line drafts were moved to mainspace and promptly deleted A7. The deleting admins had no way of knowing that the pages had been mainspaced by someone other than their author: that is why I think the onus should be on the user moving the page to ensure that complete deletion does not result. Suggest replacing the last clause of your version with:
"...the editor who moved it is responsible for arranging its return to its original location if it is compliant with policies that apply to the userspace."
JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@JohnCD: That creates serious WP:OWN issues, though. Volunteers on the project are free to come and go as they please and to do or not do whatever work they want. We simply don't have any authority to make babysitting an article the responsibility of any editor. With only one exception (bot operators maintaining their bots to operate within community consensus), editors cannot be required to continue working on something they don't wish to or face some undefined consequences (blocks? what are we even talking here?). ~ RobTalk 17:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be nice for the inappropriate mover to put it back, but really all we can do is provide the appropriate framework for the editor who notices the move to fix it. Trying to force people to reverse their own actions isn't going to be productive. A2soup (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable to expect users to take responsibility for their actions, and follow through if necessary. In the case I mentioned, one-line drafts were moved to mainspace, and within hours deleted A7, and the redirects they left behind deleted G8. Poof, gone, no trace! In such a case, none of the deleting admins would be aware of the background; the user who did the move would be the only one who knew what had happened. This policy is to explain expected practice: once explained, we hope people would not need to be "forced" to follow it. There would be no question of blocks unless an editor, having been pointed to the policy, repeatedly ignored it. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
But the language already suggested takes care of that, since it's obvious that a one-line draft moved to mainspace cannot satisfy the core content policies. I guess I'm not seeing the value-added that you are here. I 100% agree it's good to have wording in the policy that encourages moves of worthwhile content and discourages moves of obviously not worthwhile content, and I think that's to solve the problem you're perceiving. If it's not, we can always loop back around, but I doubt any reasonable admin at ANI would see what you're describing as in-line with policy. ~ RobTalk 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Who is "the closing editor" in your draft? There is a large grey area between "worthwhile" and "obviously not worthwhile"; if a mainspaced draft is speedied or PRODded, the deleting admin may not know where it came from. Let's see what others think. I'd much rather have your draft than nothing. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Closing editor" --> "administrator". Originally, I was thinking that any editor could close a XfD with consensus to move back to userspace, but it's less confusing if we just say admins (and more inclusive of CSD and PROD). In my opinion, admins should be looking at page history when processing CSDs and PRODs. If they aren't, that's a bigger problem. ~ RobTalk 20:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • There is, of course, a much simpler solution... Stop moving drafts from other people's userspace. Instead, research the topic, review the relevant sources, and write a decent start level article from scratch. That is really the only sure way to know a) that the topic actually is notable, b) the information is properly sourced and c) no one is playing games with the system. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Blueboar: I've done no moving of drafts, first off. It's clearly not a good use of the project's resources to allow actually plausible drafts to languish in userspace. At that point, we might as well delete them if the editor is inactive. ~ RobTalk 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion 3:

"If a userspace draft whose creator has been inactive for over a year reasonably appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in the mainspace, it may be appropriate to move it there. Userspace drafts should only be moved to the mainspace if they are notable and meet the core content policies. If it does not survive in the mainspace, it may be returned to its original userspace by any administrator, the deleting administrator, or at WP:REFUND and should be done so if the circumstances are known and especially upon request."

That way the amount of time is clear instead of "no longer active", and "shortly after" isn't called into question or gamed.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh.... "No longer active" becomes moot if you simply write a new article (you are active) REFUNDS becomes moot if you simply write a new article (if you do a good job, there is no need for a refund). In fact, ALL of the issues that have been discussed recently become moot if we just stop moving drafts around, and instead simply write a new article from scratch.
Think about the effort involved in moving a draft from userspace into mainspace... First you have to determine if the topic is notable... You need to review the draft and check that the cited sources actually do support the claims underlying notability. Then you need to review the text of the draft for other issues (are there any unsourced statements? Are there OR issues? Is it written from a NPOV? Does it accurately convey what the sources say). That is a lot of work to do, just to move someone else's draft... It would have been less work to simply start over from scratch. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Starting from scratch literally involves doing all the same things ... plus doing the research to find sources and the actual writing. As someone who's created content and reviewed nominations WP:DYK, where you basically have to do what you described, it takes much less time to review things than to create from scratch. By the way, I dislike referencing WP:REFUND. We should not undelete these drafts at WP:REFUND with no consideration to whether the problems that caused deletion in the mainspace would remain problems in the draftspace/userspace. If it's just a notability problem, sure, undelete it. But if it's a WP:BLP problem, WP:NOT problem, or any other problem that applies to draftspace/userspace as well, it shouldn't be undeleted. And because it requires some thought, it isn't appropriate to send it to WP:REFUND, where you're supposed to be undeleting unopposed stuff. This is all best handled by the closing administrator. ~ RobTalk 23:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this supposed to be a separate section or something? I think old addition was sufficient. And Blueboar, no one has supported that idea ever. Moving drafts has been part of our policies since at least 2010. Would you propose that everything in draftspace as part of the AFC project be recreated in mainspace rather than just moving the thing? It seems like a bizarre mindset to tell editors that if they create something in userspace, no one ever with touch it but if they go into mainspace, it will be edited mercilessly. You're just going to create drama when people don't connect those two mindsets. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That's no longer in the policy due to the wholesale reversion, so we might as well put in a better version of it. ~ RobTalk 01:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, because clearly one person reverting a year of work means that a year of policy discussions can be erased. That said, I support Rob's version above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Trust me, I'm just as befuddled as you, but the protecting admin wouldn't undo it and I don't think any other uninvolved admin cares. ~ RobTalk 04:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blueboar. Stop moving other peoples drafts, there is too much game playing going on with it. The exception would be where a userspace draft is mature and suitable for mainspace, and includes significant creative content of the original author. This exception would not include anything stubby, with or without a list of references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't Rob's version cover this by saying that drafts moved to mainspace should meet the core content policies? I would regard such drafts as "mature and suitable for mainspace". A2soup (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Question- how often do we actually find an abandoned draft in userspace that is "mature and suitable for Mainspace"? My experience is that this is extraordinarily rare. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not as uncommon as you think. Check out Legacypac's move log - many of the drafts they move (and pretty much all of them recently) are ready for mainspace. A2soup (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Legacypac's move log is worth studying, I would like to hear what other's think. He may be refining his earlier approach to something worth documenting as good. I think WP:STUB may be a good defining line for abandoned drafts to be moved to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I probably have a similar one. I stopped counting after ten I'd guess. The problem is the fighting over the ones that aren't ready. As I have repeatedly tried to make clear, no one is running around deleting good drafts out of a sense of idiocy. The issue is what to do with the remainder and while I get the "leave it alone" routine, it's frustrating to those who want to work on the good ones to hear how terrible human beings we are because we also want to get rid of the pure crap. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem is the fighting over the drafts that aren't ready. Yes.
The good ones moved to mainspace where they belong, great.
The crap deleted, great. The nonsense, promotion, webhosting, delete it.
What about the drafts with potential but not ready for mainspace? Questionable notability, usually. I'd love to see you talk about these cases. They are the ones that are hard work to investigate. Why the drive to do anything? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the AFC pages are basically abandoned for the most part and then revived by someone else before being moved on. My userspace lists ten pages I alone have found. Most of those are moved from userspace to draftspace (or to my userspace) and then I work on them before taking them to mainspace. I find it easier to work on if there are in my userspace rather than editing someone else's and there's thus a gap between my move and the final move to mainspace. It's rare to find a completely finished thing in userspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, people are searching through abandoned userspace drafts to find potential articles. Excellent. The problem that is clogging up MfD is what to do with the stale userspace drafts that are not usable. I would, myself, be happy with a G13-like process by which they were speedied after due time, but it is quite clear that there is no consensus for that. What I do not understand is why the presence of these drafts is felt to be a "backlog" that must somehow be "dealt with", so that they are being dragged one by one to MfD where the same arguments are repeated again and again: "This will never be an article" vs "No policy-based reason for deletion", generating a lot of unnecessary heat and no light.
If the problem is that the search for potential articles is confused by their presence, why not use {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, which does not require MfD or admin action, to remove them from the "backlog" of drafts yet un-scanned? If that is not enough, some change of categorization could surely be devised. Can someone explain why actual deletion is felt to be so important that it is worth all this fuss? JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I have repeatedly argued for either {{Userpage blanked}} or recategorization as superior alternatives to deletion for some time. Recently, Ricky was helpful enough to set up the recategorization - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. In the past week, the argument has been advanced that deletion saves time because deleted drafts don't need to be maintained. I personally find that to be a non-issue, since no one should waste their time "maintaining" drafts in other people's userspaces (except in the rare case of removing fair-use images). And even if that is an issue, {{Userpage blanked}} is again a better solution. So yeah, I have no idea why non-problematic drafts continue to be nominated for deletion. A2soup (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, mainspace would be "easier to maintain" if we deleted it, too. Any argument that user drafts are easier to maintain if they are deleted puts the cart before the horse. VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
We need to stop discussing this as a dualistic choice between "move to mainspace" and "delete"... Let us not ignore the third option: "Ignore - don't move or delete - just leave the draft sitting in userspace". Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the default action and the correct one the vast majority of the time. VQuakr (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It depends if you are interested in moving towards a middle ground with those who disagree with you or simply in discussing this among like-minded people alone who think it should entirely be ignored. We've had this discussion repeatedly: some people think the whole idea should be shelved, others disagree. You could go to practically every AFD discussion and say "keep, ignore this" and it may work on some, not on others. You can either keep on repeating yourself that this should all be ignored or look over all of the MFD discussions and tell me if you think there is at least one old draft where ignoring won't be significant. Literally just one to work off. If you can't find a single one and every page up for deletion you would say ignore, fine, then we'll have to agree to disagree and it'll work itself out over time. The question is is there a time beyond mere CSD violations where you feel like ignoring it isn't the solution (we have U5 but it's more abused than useful to me). I'm leaning towards "no reasonable change of becoming a plausible draft" which is still vague and leaves a lot of latitude but it is a line which is the first step. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

Per above, please remove the entire suggestion that drafts be moved from WP:STALE in accordance with the new policy against moving userspace drafts. 2605:E000:3F13:1D00:F939:C711:5316:DD10 (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No. It's still being discussed and needs a larger consensus than just the straw poll above for such a drastic change in policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
What were you even referring to? The section immediately above this one suggests there's likely a consensus to rewrite when it's appropriate to move pages, but very few editors have expressed any interest in never moving drafts. ~ RobTalk 03:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you actually that there's consensus to remove the "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace" language? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe that I added that line, and continue to think it is a statement of the obvious. Implied is that the editor making the move does it in good faith and good judgement. Beginner editors, or editors uneasy with WP:N, WP:STUB, or indeed WP:DEL, should not be doing that. Isn't that obvious, enough so that it doesn't need spelling out? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that I think Blueboar is arguing against that, I'd say yes. I think that's the purpose of the "take the citations and draft your own version" comments above. Either way, there's no evidence that this is clearly supported enough for an edit request to do now. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think, tentatively guessing Blueboar's mind, that he is thinking more of drafts in early to mid stages, not ready for mainspace, being adopted and ruined by someone else. I don't think he had in mind an old draft ready for userspace, as-is, except maybe for taggery and mainspace-only categories. These are not the majority of drafts, but there are a lot of them.
If a draft is little more than the reference list, I do agree with Blueboar, better to start again and not mess with the other user's userspace. I am against forking of creative content, but a reference list is not creative content. If you are going to rewrite every sentence of prose, you are starting again. Exactly why the dividing line is, I am not sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm presuming the same thing but I don't know what's the point of "don't move drafts unless you should" as a rule. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, it makes clear that it is sometimes okay - people get confused with userspace sometimes. And importantly, it makes clear when moving is appropriate, which, as we've seen, is not a non-controversial issue. A2soup (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
So here, we are looking at guidance for a single editor? The move must be a good faith move, just like everything you ever do should be in good faith. "Must believe it suitable for mainspace"? "Must be prepared to defend the article at AfD"? (but it might be nominated while you are not active). What if the editor doesn't have a competence to judge WP:N edge cases? Are those sources independent? Is that coverage direct and significant? Edge cases are hard work to evaluate. Should non-author moved drafts be tagged or marked, for tracking, for signalling at AfD that the author did not want it moved? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The point is this isn't ready for an edit request. It's not settled yet. I'd say start an RFC on the actual language but my view is to write "do it in good-faith" and then we debate actual conduct based on the page mover. If it's debatable, then I think I've seen these kinds of things taken to WP:RM but that's more likely overkill. You're not going to police editors based on the wording you have here so we need to a simple rule to be kept. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
As a note, I don't think "do it in good-faith" solves anything due to vagueness. I'd much rather see language that specifically says "you must check that the draft meets policies X, Y, and Z" to provide clear action steps the mover must take prior to moving. Vagueness in a policy is generally not a good thing, in my opinion. Of course, people will know exactly what is intended by the vague policy if it ever went to ANI, but we can pre-emptively cut out the wikilawyering if we are more specific and potentially save some editor time down the road. ~ RobTalk 09:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're forgetting the remedy issue: if the person is moving it because it wasn't in good-faith or didn't X, Y or Z, then what? We can debate whether they did those and put them into UP but if no admin cares, then it won't matter. Admins can work with "was this entirely in good faith or not", no one cares to basically police whether WP:BEFORE was done (I think that's essentially what you're asking for). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I'm not saying an admin should look up sources. I'm saying that if an admin glances at a page and can clearly see that it doesn't even come close to the core policies (i.e. There are no sources or only a single primary source, it's about a rapper with no released albums or news coverage, it's entirely promotional , etc.) then they can do something at that point. Basically, I'm just trying to put into writing what 'good faith" means. ~ RobTalk 22:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I recall this discussion else but I'll say the same as before: would it fail a CSD criteria? If so, then admins can either delete, userify or draftify (the latter two are less commmon but are permitted). I'd say treat a reversal of the move as a userify option and we should work to encourage that more then. Otherwise, there's no reason AFD discussion can't result in "userify" or "draftify" !votes and close that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • question - do we know how many of these "stale" drafts were already userfied? (i.e. prior attempts to create Articles that were not up to snuff, submitted to AFD, and userfied to prevent a full deletion)? Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Is your question about recent drafts voting to userify or about drafts being there after a userification? There's no number but glance through MFD and you'll see. The advantage of being an admin is that I can easily see deleted edited and find the old mainspace versions so I try to do that when I can like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hermit711/Wallace Collins, Esq.. There's no concrete number as it can be done during the AFD discussion, or even after the AFD many years later with just a single comment on the admin's talk page. Too many admins unfortunately have been lazily copying the page contents over rather than restoring and moving it to userspace without a redirect. There's also pages like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ClockworkRock/Clockwork where it was created in userspace, created in mainspace and then deleted in mainspace. People can debate those but they are more common. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The RfC for your consideration

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposed addition: Malterial in userspace should not be moved out of userspace, unless the move is requested by the user who's space it is.

This would include drafts of potential articles (or re-writes of existing articles) that are located in userspace. Drafts in userspace are located in userspace for a reason. They may be in a problematic state (containing original research, unsourced/unverifiable statements, POV bias, etc.). It may be that the draft is simply not yet in a form that the user is satisfied with (and, thus, does not want his username publicly associated with until he/she does further work).

This proposal would not include userspace drafts that the user has tagged for review and inclusion through the AfC process - such tags qualify as a "request" by the user. (Personally, I think such tagged drafts should be moved to Draftspace, and reviewed, before being moved to Mainspace... but I can see that this might be overkill.) Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I object to this, at least as written. Userspace pages are still owned by the project, and by posting them at all, a user has irrevocably agreed to have his or her user name associated with that posting. If an editor believes in good faith that a page is now a valid article, or can be one with editing that the editor proposes to perform, a move to mainspace is warranted. If the creator is active, it is a matter of courtesy to notify him or her, but if the creator is retired or long inactive, such notification is pointless. However, moving to mainspace in order to apply one of the A-category CSDs is a violation of WP:GAME and completely inappropriate. DES (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I can only see this being an okay idea if the editor is active. Frequently what we encounter are user pages that are abandoned and that the editor hasn't been active in 2, 6, or 9 years. I think in these cases, it should be alright for other editors to improve the drafts, move them into main space or delete them if it appropriate. I doubt that an editor who last edited in 2009 cares what happens to a draft in their user space on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
But material in userspace hasn't been "Posted" ... at least not in the same way that material in Mainspace has. Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation legally owns everything on their servers... and can set standards for what is acceptable and not acceptable in userspace. This is why inappropriate material can be deleted from userspace. However, the foundation isn't the same as the "community of Wikipedia editors". WE (the "community") don't own the material in userspace. Users do have some degree of WP:OWNership of the words and phrases written on their userpage (the text of their draft), and they only give up that WP:OWNership to the rest of us (the "community") when they release their words for community editing (by moving their draft into DRAFTspace or MAINspace... or, at least, requesting that they be moved).
As for "abandoned" pages and the distinction between "active" editors and "inactive" editors, I could see your point... if we made a practice of closing "abandoned" or "inactive" accounts completely (ie remove the username from the list of "active" editors, and delete all userpages associated with that username). But, as long as the username is not considered "abandoned"... as long as the username is considered "active"... so are any userpages associated with that username. Even then, the ethical thing to do is to read any relevant sources, and craft a new draft article (in our own words) from those sources (this is important to do - we can not be assured that the text of the user's draft is actually supported by the sources). We simply should not take someone else's words and phrases (the text of the draft) and force it "live" without their OK. It might be legal to do so... but it's not ethical to do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Minor but not insignificant point: none of the content is owned by the foundation. Individual editors own the copyrights, but have licensed most of the rights to anyone and everyone in the world, a grant which cannot be taken back. DES (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Actually, Blueboar, we do have exactly that right. When you edit this talk page, note that above the edit window it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." You will find the same text above the edit window when editing a page in your own userspace. All text posted to any namespace on Wikipedia is released under a cc-by-sa license, adn under the GFDL. That release is permenant and irrevocable. Any such text can be reused by anyone on any site provided proper attribution is given, and that includes a Wikipedia mainspace article. WP:UP says "User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community" and later "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." It still later says "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." Changing a draft into a valid mainspace article is generally considered helpful. Still later it says "When a user leaves Wikipedia, their user and user talk pages are usually unaffected and may be edited again at any future time. ". WP:OWN is also relevant here, and it applies to userspace. DES (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I amended my comment... We may have a legal right to take someone else's text and move it into mainspace without permission... but it is not ethical for us to do so. My proposal isn't about the legalities... but the ethics. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with your ethical judgement here. Particularly in regard to apparent article drafts (not worklists or such) completing them and moving then to mainspace when they are ready is the best possible tribute to the original creator. The whole purpose of a draft is to become an article, if possible. Now if the original author is active, I think it is only courteous to ask if there are any objections first, and to at least address any objections if not yield to them. But that is as far as i would go. I find it a bit hard to imagine a legitimate member of the community (as opposed to someone WP:NOTHERE) who would object to another editor doing the work needed to get a draft converted into a valid article. If such an objection was serious an principled, it should be afforded considerable deference. But automatically assuming such an objection on the part of an absent editor is a very different thing, and IMO completely unacceptable. DES (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@DESiegel: I can think of at least one case where a editor actually opposed having their draft be pushed forward in notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affective piety) because they were intending on submitting it to a Scholarly Journal before it got swept up in our processes and became a giant headache to get it back to a original state. Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hasteur, my reaction to that case is "too bad, but that user shot him/herself in the foot (or in the CV)" Having posted the content to Wikipedia, in any namespace, s/he released the content under a free license, and can't take it back. If it was of no use to the project it might be deleted as a favor, but if it was of use, the project should use it, and the objections of the original drafter should not be heeded at all. DES (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Blueboar: "It depends upon what the meaning 'is' is" (See also Clinton). There's a difference (at least in my mind) between Userspace subpages (which can be almost anything except the prohibited WP:NOT list) and draft articles (which look/feel like the page is trying to become a mainspace article) There are some cases where we forcably liquidate a user's space because they may have good content, but their behavior has exceeded the community's tollerance and thereby either promote the page to mainspace (if it's ready) or send to the Draft namespace where it's definitely in shared control). I know there are some editors who have their eyes on cleaning up stale userspace pages that are attempts at a article but would be prohibited short of running a MFD to get the page put into the collective editing environment. Hasteur (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
We almost always honour requests from editors to delete pages per u1, but I can think of two obvious big exceptions to your proposal. Firstly if someone has died leaving multiple drafts in sandboxes, finishing them and moving them to mainspace is a gesture of respect to that editor. Secondly if someone moves an article into their userspace no one should need permission to simply move it back. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have several drafts in my user space that I know are currently flawed (that's why they are drafts and are in userspace). But others (especially those who don't know the topic that well) may not be able to see what the flaws are. If I died, I would NOT want to be "honored" by having my flawed work moved to mainspace (that's not how I would like to be remembered) ... Indeed I would consider it a dishonor to do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I did say finished and then moved. I suspect what we really need here is the ability for editors to choose whether to share their userspace or keep it private. ϢereSpielChequers 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is nonsense. This is why we have WP:STALE which gives at least some time limit to consider moving pages because the goal here is create an encyclopedia not some safe space where people's personal drafts and musings will never be disturbed.. If you want to take this bizarro approach, then I could just copy the page into mainspace, with proper attribution in the edit summary, and request a history merge so something like Order of the Sons of America isn't just left in userspace for all time in the minute chance that the editor returns after years of work. Doing this with an active user leads to situations like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft where we have drafts and the editor explicitly states it is not to be moved ever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Ricky, the fact that a user has a draft sitting in userspace does not stop another editor from creating a different version of an article on the same topic. That applies to active as well as inactive drafts. The fact that I might currently be working on a draft does not reserve the topic in any way. Someone else may be doing the same thing. The two versions will likely cover the same information, and cite the same sources. However, they will likely use different words to convey that information. THAT'S what I am concerned about. If you see that an inactive user has drafted an article on a notable (missing) topic, by all means create an article on that topic. However, don't simply move the inactive user's text into main space... Review the sources, and write your own version of the article, using your own words. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are correct that an existing userspace draft does not prevent another editor from creating a different draft and eventually promoting it to mainspace. (However in my experience, such a different draft will quite likely have a somewhat different set of sources and facts, as well as different wording.) But there is also nothing that prevents, or should prevent, such a different editor from starting with the first editor's draft, making further edits if such seem needed, and moving it into mainspace, collaberativce editing history intact. Why not do that? why waste time recreating what another editor has done, if what has been done is good? Why not simply build on it instead? That is what I would do, and indeed what I have done in the past. DES (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
People have also created their own version by copying the contents with proper attribution and then submitting/moving that version and once that is done, the other version gets history merged in. Technically, you are still deleting the original version but it's just a roundaway and unnecessary way to do it (those instances are typically a problem with the editor refusing to properly format a draft into the proper format or get rid of BLP-violating nonsense or other concerns). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - casts too wide of net. Good abandoned content that can be moved into article space should be moved, and content that can be improved to an article should preserve the history rather than being copied and pasted. Obviously content that clearly won't survive in mainspace shouldn't be moved just to foster its deletion, but that seems more of a behavioral issue than something that needs a change to the guideline. VQuakr (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the whole idea of this encyclopedia is for any submitted material (as law permits) to be available under a free license, and if someone wants to create a draft that is not under such a free license, then they should host it on a different location, not on Wikipedia. This is pretty much a no brainer to me. LjL (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Instead, we need a separate guideline on article drafting, which includes the point that: "If a draft is unilaterally moved to mainspace by a non-author, then the mover is responsible for it being suitable for mainspace.". Suitability would be judged usually by WP:N and WP:STUB, but moving a page to mainspace for the intention of testing it against WP:N or WP:STUB is considered wp:disruption and a reason for wp:blocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A guideline on what? There are guidelines on how to create an article. The entire AFC consists of guiding people on how to create articles. The problem is that there's tens of thousands of drafts created prior to AFC and others created outside of AFC. The ones in AFC where people either don't care or are incapable of creating a proper article get deleted eventually by G13 or by being taken to MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The missing guideline is on what to do with old bad article drafts, especially in userspace. There is an overabundance of guidance helping newcomers to write ill-advised articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do we need to do anything with old bad article drafts in userspace... They do no harm... So just ignore them.
Old drafts in draftspace are a different issue. For those, I would propose either deletion or userfication ( assuming someone wants to adopt it in there user space). And if userfied, remove all AFC tagging and templates. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Partial support Only userspace drafts which pass GNG should be moved to mainspace, everything else should be considered as malintent to get the draft deleted. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
something to consider... Not all "drafts" in userspace are intended to be complete articles... A user may have "drafted" material with the intent of adding it to an existing article... Perhaps as a new section. Such material may not pass GNG when viewed on its own, but may be acceptable when placed in an existing article. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Technically oppose for WP:OWN reasons, but it should be common courtesy to discuss such moves with the user. If the user has not edited for some time, this sort of move can be appropriate. However, one should not ever move a page to mainspace that one does not believe belongs in mainspace. This amounts to intentionally creating an unsuitable article, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. If done in the hope that the page will be deleted at AfD, it is a WP:GAME end-run around the proper deletion forum for userspace, MfD. A2soup (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per A2soup. This is too broad. It may improve the encyclopedia to use material from userspace; but it should only be moved out of userspace for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, not in order to get it deleted. If userspace material moved to the mainspace does not survive there, it should not be deleted there but returned to the user space, with the option of nominating at MfD. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:OWN. Good-faith moves to mainspace of drafts that meet the core content policies are clearly appropriate and are a net benefit to the encyclopedia. The only problem is attempt so game that system, which are being addressed elsewhere on this page and at the RfC. ~ RobTalk 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wording for stale userspace drafts

I think we need to reword the standard for stale userspace drafts. As noted above, I first dispute QEDK's reversion to what I don't know "the status quo". It clearly erases pretty much the entire year's work with no explanation. Either way, rather than "entirely unsuitable" or "problematic even if blanked," both of which are uselessly broad, we need something less than WP:N but more than the CSD criteria of basically patent nonsense. The closest analogy is Category:AfC postponed G13 or "submissions that at an editor feels may be able to be saved" so I'd like to propose that WP:STALE # 2 be changed to "if it seems like it can never become a viable article, seek deletion." I'd open to other wording though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How about "abandoned userspace drafts that do not meet existing CSD criteria are harmless and can be safely ignored"? –xenotalk 09:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That excludes the ones which are also WP:UP#COPIES of mainspace versions since that's not a CSD criteria. It also sort of excludes the non-U5 cases because the editor has been an active user on mainspace for any period of time. G6 covers completely bare Article Wizard drafts so there's some argument that they aren't harmless and don't have be to ignored. There's been a policy for years that many year old drafts that aren't going anywhere can be deleted, so I'd like to enshrine a standard for that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
What problem does deletion solve? –xenotalk 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Look, do we have to waste time on this literally every day? These old pages have old templates in them, old article links, etc. When templates are changed, deleted, parameters changed, the mainspace version is changed as are pages in userspace. The userspace ones going somewhere? That's fine. Userspace drafts that literally haven't been touched in half a decade where the editor realistically will never return? That's additional work that has be done and while it's minor, we're talking tens of thousands of pages that get fixed, changed, whatever over years. These pages have been called backlogs since they started, it's not humanely to filter through this pile of nonsense if you never delete any of it, it's pretty idiotic to be fine with G13 and that deletion and then say that older pages should NOT be deleted when a page created today can be deleted (and REFUNDED) in a six month window but someone who hasn't been here since 2006, their work needs to stay here until eternity because their words are pure gold that can't ever be deleted. If they made the mistake of creating it in template/Wikipedia/talk/project/main space, then we could delete it but because they made it in userspace, it should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be deleted because userspace is the magical universal space that can never touched because users will freak out and never return if they want to return after ten/fifteen/two hundred years if we tell people that when we can say that your work will be voraciously edited, we mean OTHER than their own userspaces if they had never used AFC. I get it, you think this is all stupid, everyone who does it is an idiot/jackass/jerk, should go away, should quit the project, do something else, stop bothering people, are all scheming to destroy this project, whatever the hell you want and any attempt to delete a single page will result in a third or fourth or fifth ANI argument about how everyone is working together and topic bans and we'll do this again tomorrow until everyone who actively looks for old content that's usuable is driven away, but I am just asking for a someone to take these concerns with an ounce of honest good-faith here and just make a suggestion that isn't more bullshit "these are all harmless and never should be done and any idiot who takes a single page to MFD should be shot and quartered" until WP:UP is again protected and MFD is again a shitshow because you're out there protecting Mongolian press release dumped in userspace from deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my question upset you, but I am really trying to get a handle on your perspective. That said, no one is required to update outdated templates, links, etc. in old userspace drafts and there is no harm (in my opinion) in leaving them dormant (no space is gained, actually more space is used by deleting them). If the pages are showing up in maintenance categories, this can be supressed by having the maintenance triggers ignore userspace. –xenotalk 11:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's try this a different way. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society is leaning towards a delete. On what basis is it (if you believe it should) be deleted? That would help clarify further MFD discussions. It's isn't a matter of "not problematic" or "harmless" because we don't delete harmless items. It's not a U5 because it's considered a plausible draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I would've probably left it alone or changed it to {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Why? This person may one day remember signing up to Wikipedia and writing an article about their high school group. They may have a fond memory of the group. They may one day come back to see if their scratch pad is still here, and see what they wrote about it and reminisce about their high school days. But alas, we have gone into their personal scratch pad and deleted it for little-to-no benefit. Their opinion of Wikipedia may diminish. A potential contributor, lost.
On a closer look though, it's mentions names of other potential minors and on that basis, it should probably be deleted. –xenotalk 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. That's not the consensus with these discussions though so I'd like to see if we can have a policy here that actually reflects the current consensus rather than people just writing it down and demanding that others follow along. So is there language that you're actually agreeable on or is the one thing that you'll say is that it's "harmless" and WP:UP should just be ignored then? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Many of the guidelines overleaf were written when userspace was indexed. Now that it is no longer indexed, there is far less reason to patrol the pages there. –xenotalk 19:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Less reason doesn't mean no reason. Still, regardless of patrol, pages are being discussed for deletion and on some basis are being deleted. Are you saying that there is never a reason to delete a userspace draft absent the CSD rationales (and that I presume includes the other WP:UP criteria here)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, deleting harmless pages users have stored in their userspace will cause more harm than good over the longterm for edition attraction and retention reasons outlined above. Since the pages are not indexed, and will probably not be viewed or relied upon by anyone, it also provides no tangible benefit (apart from eliminating the need for well-meaning but unnecessary maintenance edits, as you've said previously). –xenotalk 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Screw it. No, there's literally no reason at all to ever delete a userspace draft. I only want to do it because I like the idea of users returning after a decade and crying because all their hard work has been destroyed. I take huge joys in the suffering of everyone else. We should just say that it is a blockable offense to suggest deleting it as well. Clearly, everyone here is WP:AGF with their suggestions, not me. Withdraw the whole stupid idea and let's just go keep going on and have Arbcom hate this whole mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose any changes for now - there is currently an active RFC on this very talk page which looks like it is coming to a consensus that would significantly undermine the entire guideline section as currently written. It would be premature to make any major changes while that RFC is open. Thparkth (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Thparkth: It really doesn't interact with this one at all. An expiration date is very different than a standard for deletion. Even I think the obvious answer to the question above is "no" because we clearly shouldn't be deleting all stale drafts - just the useless ones. ~ RobTalk 11:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Who determines whether the draft is "useless"? And what standard does that person use in making that determination? Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that's what this discussion is trying to determine. ~ RobTalk 12:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The determination is at each MFD. For example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society looks to be deleted but other discussions don't have a concrete basis for when deletion is appropriate. It's not a fixed time period of inactivity. It's not considered harmless or else it wouldn't be subject to deletion. It's not WP:GNG or the CSD criteria. DGG argues that there is no "conceivable potential for an article" which is similar to my thoughts. So it would be helpful if there was a basis that's agreeable to everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
No they won't and nonsense DRV discussions won't do it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually noindex is more of a suggestion that is often ignored by Google etc. I see this all the time on userspace material where the topic has very little coverage on the net. The userspace page comes up in search results. It also gets mirrored all over the place. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fun DYK fact: All major search engines follow robots.txt and tags like NOINDEX. If you are saying otherwise, do prove it. The only time userspace shows up is because Google might have an indexed copy and it hasn't been crawled (and trust me when I say Wikipedia links get crawled often). Also, there's nothing to stop mirrors from copying us, if you delete any page, trust them to have a cached older copy. If you're going to try to sway us using your fake technical details, atleast be persuasive about it. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 April 2016

Ss092768 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)I do not see any changes needed to be done.

 Not done Empty request. — xaosflux Talk 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_15&oldid=1039083492"