Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

STALEDRAFT and the newly expanded G13

As G13 now applies to all pages in the draftspace, any draft moved there from the userspace per STALEDRAFT following the rule of thumb (i.e. one year inactivity of creator, host, and draft itself) could arguably be instantly deleted (or if the move is not considered maintenance, deleted 6 months later). That is silly. There are two options that could be implemented which avoid the potential of a debacle (e.g. claims that such moves are being made to game the system to get more drafts/pages deleted outside of consensus): 1) A proposal to expand WP:G13 to include userspace drafts or 2) Eliminating the guidance here that userspace drafts should/may be moved to the draftspace due to being stale. Those seem like the only two clear-cut ways to deal with this perceived problem. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I would support the second option, removing the guidance to move userspace drafts to draftspace. The first part of STALEDRAFT pretty much contradicts the numbered list in any case, and I think the guidance in the numbered list is very sound. Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts is pretty much dead and the purposes of draftspace and userspace drafts are no longer aligned. See Legacypac's recent comment summing up what I perceive as the new consensus on draftspace, which is contrary to the purpose of userspace drafts: Many article guidelines apply to drafts, we are just a little looser with them. A2soup (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with second option. I have never liked the idea of editors going through userspace looking for material for potential drafts. We created draftspace for a reason... one that is different from userspace. It is time to erect a clearer firewall between the two spaces.
The potential for gaming the system comes from people placeing AFC tags in userspace... I think we need to make it clear that an editor may place an AFC tag on his/her own work (in his/her own userspace)... but may not do so on other people's work... in other people's userspace. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be a stick in the mud about this, but is there any evidence of people trawling through the user space randomly submitting pages to AFC? I know we move submitted userspace drafts to the Draft space, but I didn't know there was anyone actively seeking out unsubmitted pages. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It is possible that I am using the wrong terminology... quick question... what is an unsubmitted AFC? Wouldn't anything tagged for AFC be submitted? Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I suspect that Primefac was referring to something that is a "Draft Mode" AFC submission like Draft:AGPgart (i.e. it includes the {{AFC submission/draft}} template instead of the {{AFC submission/pending}} banner (based on the D or T parameters). Hasteur (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose my confusion is this... why are these in userspace at all... shouldn't they be in draftspace? Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
All sorts of reasons. {{user sandbox}} allows the user to submit their draft; sometimes an article is moved to the draft space by request (usually on IRC) and the {{AFC submission/draft}} tag is added; sometimes an AFD userfies an article and the AFC tags are added to allow them to resubmit when it's ready.
To respond to Hasteur's point, I was referring to userspace drafts that had none of the AFC templates on them. I can see UDs with the /draft template being nominated, since they're unofficially part of the draft process. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
But that is why there is a problem here... at the moment we seem to have drafts that are officially part of the "draft process", drafts that are unofficially part of the "draft process", and drafts that are not part of the "draft process" at all... some housed in draftspace, some housed in userspace... with no clear distinction of what should be where. It is confusing as hell, and needs to be clarified. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Godsy I really wish you wouldn't "cry wolf" about this. Your interpretation is about the most reactionary I can come up with. If the user is not an actively doing anything in wikipedia (i.e. 1 year of inactivity of the creator) moving the page to draft space helps find a potential adopter. This is a good thing. I strongly believe that moving the page to Draft namespace itself is an editorial decision and should reset the clock on G13 eligiblity (it would be a silly rules gaming loophole otherwise). This is a good thing. Even so, submitting the previously userpsaced draft to AFC gets a true review on the page to decide if it's worthwhile to be saved. This is a good thing. I seem to recall the last time we had this argument, you claimed that it was rampantly happening and we requested examples only to get 3 out of thousands that were easily remediable. In short, I DO NOT think this should go into effect as it only leaves more garbage userspace that will get discovered and mass MFDed in the future without any consideration. Hasteur (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hasteur... There is a third option... "stale" stuff in userspace can simply be left untouched ... in userspace. Don't move it to draftspace... don't tag it for AFD... don't nominate for it deletion. Just leave it alone. Blueboar (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Support this option. Leave others' userspace alone barring a good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So this is a backdoor attempt to deprecate WP:NOTWEBHOST. Got it. Still reject the premise of this rules making. Read WP:5P and show me where this rule helps support that purpose... Hasteur (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
NOTWEBHOST violation material should be deleted by CSD#U5 or MfD. Plausible drafts are not NOTWEBHOST violating. NOTWEBHOST violating material should not be moved to DraftSpace. This has nothing to do with NOTWEBHOST. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we all agree that userspace material that violates NOTWEBHOST should be deleted... but I also agree that that isn't what we are talking about. This is about the distinction between draft material sitting in userspace, and drafts sitting in draftspace... whether there should be a distinction in how we treat them ... and, if so, what that distinction should be. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
No, NOTWEBHOST specifically enumerates personal web pages, file storage areas, dating services, memorials, and content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia as disallowed in userspace. This discussion, on the other hand, is about userspace drafts. There should be very little intersection with NOTWEBHOST. A2soup (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Since everybody's all aflutter about this apparently I have to make it patently clear: If the user has stoped contributing entirely to wikipedia, the content becomes Stale and becomes content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Leaving it in draft space wastes the community/foundation's resources (do you love the "Sad Jimbo" advertisments?). Putting it in Draft namespace does start a clock on it, but also raises the page up to attention of more editors. Again, this all comes down to good stewardship of the resources provided by the foundation. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
By that logic... if someone has been inactive for a year, we should delete their entire user account... their main user page, their user talk pages, etc, etc... for those are "using up resources" just as much as a userspace draft. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum much? 1. We cannot delete a user account technically. 2. We cannot delete a user account because we have to maintain contribution history (forget about CC BY-SA?). 3. User page and talk page are useful outside of being recently edited as they provide for communication and for a user to "introduce" themselves. Those are a clear and distinct purpose separate from a nascent article. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow how a userspace draft, a project related to Wikipedia, becomes a project unrelated to Wikipedia because its creator leaves. Can you explain the logic there? A2soup (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Well... to play devils advocate ... it comes down to the level of "relatedness". Userspace drafts (at least while the user is active), are given some (limited) degree of ownership... in that the user can request that others NOT edit it. This is the main difference between drafts in userspace, and drafts in draftspace. The question is... does that (limited) degree of ownership go away if the user leaves? Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
While that is a pertinent question, it wasn't the one I was asking. I was asking how NOTWEBHOST can be construed to apply to userspace drafts, questioning Hasteur's assertion that they can be considered "content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia". A2soup (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Well... if the userspace material is at least partially user "owned"... then there might be an argument that it is "user related" (as opposed to "project related")... thus justifying deletion if the user quits. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
We've always allowed drafting in user space. The Draft: namespace was created in late 2013, so any draft that is more than four years old cannot have started in Draft: space; such older drafts that are there must have been moved from elsewhere. One pre-2013 method was to create the draft as a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation; I think that I'm right in saying that all of these subpages have since been moved, either to mainspace or Draft: space, but we never sanctioned such a mass move of userspace drafts; consequently, a number of drafts will still exist in userspace particularly if they are from 2013 or earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I have several draft pages in my userspace... I started them in my userspace, and I definitely don't want them moved out of my userspace ... for any reason. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The expression "my userspace" refers to a section of pages that start with a certain prefix. However, the my should not be interpreted as suggesting any kind of ownership. Everything at Wikipedia needs to support the encyclopedia, and there have been many cases of inappropriate material being removed regardless of the prefix in the title. Naturally anyone who pesters an active editor by playing about in the editor's userspace would be quickly smacked down. However, if an editor appears to have left the building, the pages they have started should be regarded as available for development by others. The way to bring them to the attention of others is to move them to draft space. There are exceptions such as WP:OWB which would be kept forever regardless of whether its author is active, but the reason to keep it is that the page helps the community which builds the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
What you are talking about is explained at WP:NOTWEBHOST... but as long as you do not violate that, the consensus of the community is that we do allow a limited amount of WP:OWNership in userspace. You may allow or disallow other editors from editing in "your" userspace... you may delete "your" userspace... you edit "your" userspace as you wish. So, yes, there are limits... but Within those limits, you do have OWNership of "your" Userspace. The question is, do you relinquish that limited OWNership if you leave the project? If so... why? Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Ownership in userspace is definitely allowed for your project related opinions. For incomplete mainspace content drafting, it is complicated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Blueboar: do you relinquish that limited OWNership if you leave the project?
Ownership merely means that people are free to use their userspace for anything that contributes to the encyclopedia, and other editors are not free to poke the editor by interfering. If someone creates a draft article in userspace and then disappears, there are two possibilities. First, the page has potential and should be developed. Second, the page has no potential and should eventually be deleted as unsuitable for an encyclopedia. In both cases, the best procedure is to move the page to draft space so others can easily find it and contribute. If the editor returns, they will see the redirect from the move and can restore it to userspace for further work. No page at Wikipedia should be used purely for long-term storage of personal thoughts, unless those thoughts contribute to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... I think people are conflating "ownership" and "OWNership"... the first is a legal thing (and I agree that you don't legally own your userpages) the second is related to WP:OWN and is focused on control of content (i.e. text) and who may edit the page. Blueboar (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, any perceived OWNership is relinquished the moment that you click Save changes. It's in the notice above the edit window, particularly the sentence "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." The T&Cs don't have an exemption for User: space. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Question... what about material located in a userpage marked clearly as a user sandbox? Does G13 deletion after one year absence apply? Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:G13 does not apply to userspace. Presumably the question concerns a hypothetical situation where someone might move a user's sandbox to draft space, which could then later be deleted if abandoned. Lot's of bad stuff can and does happen at Wikipedia, but the good thing about a wiki is that it is all reversible. If a user's sandbox holds useful text it would not be speedy deleted even if moved to draft space. If a user's sandbox does not hold useful text, what difference would it make if it were moved? Of course anyone making a habit of moving sandboxes to draft space would be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that G13 does apply to userspace... G13 says clearly that it applies to "rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace." Granted, that is a limited subset of material within userspace, but G13 does apply to this material.
What I am getting at is this: we currently have an overlap between userspace and draftspace. We need to eliminate that overlap, and clarify the difference between material in userspace and material in draftspace. My opinion is that "drafts" in userspace should be considered nothing more than a sandbox... under the oversight of the community (per NOWWEBHOST) but not for consideration by the community as part of any official submission process. Anything currently tagged as being part of a submission process should either be moved to draftspace (and subject to G13) or de-tagged and considered sandbox material (not subject to G13). Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought you meant a page in your userspace where you had some text; G13 does not apply to that. Of course if you specifically label it as AFC then the page becomes subject to AFC procedures. There is no confusion between draft and user spaces, and the only overlap is that all pages at Wikipedia should contribute towards the encyclopedia. Why would anyone want to use Wikipedia to permanently store their thoughts if those thoughts are not useful for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry... I can understand how got confused by my comments... I took a mental step back and did not make that back-step clear.
Forget the G13 issue for a moment (we can come back to it later)... let's go step by step... First, let's clarify the distinctions between userspace/sandbox, and draftspace... what is the purpose of each space? Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
If Jimbo puts a draft at User:Jimbo/Example, he is expecting to work on it himself. Others might do wikignoming such as removing categories or non-free images since they should only be in articles. However, generally other editors should leave the page alone for its author to develop. That is an implied recommendation, in the same way that someone's user page should be left alone because it is an expression of the author, not the community. If Jimbo puts a draft at Draft:Example it is a suggestion for an article that Jimbo might develop, but where other editors are specifically invited to contribute. In either case (user or draft space), if the page has no benefit for the encyclopedia after having been abandoned for a year or more, the community has to judge its fate. To avoid having people use Wikipedia for long-term storage, pages which are unhelpful for the encyclopedia should be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said, let's save the deletion issue for later. Right now, I am focused more on the creation part of the two spaces... why an editor would start a page in their userspace/sandbox, rather than starting a page in draftspace. From your answer, it seems that the primary distinction is the expectation of personal editing vs community editing... yes? Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I think NO ONE is well advised to do ANYTHING in DraftSpace. If it is for your own benefit or purposes, it goes in your userspace. If it is new content, get it to WP:STUB level and put it in mainspace, talk about it on its talk page, and advertise on WikiProject pages. If it is a vague broad concept, do it in a WikiProject. If you are new, learn the ropes improving existing pages. Got new content? Add mentions on existing articles and watch and see how it sticks. DraftSpace? The reviewers review to a higher standard than AfD, and no one helps. If your topic is any good, you'll get more help at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:BLANKING

According to WP:REMOVE, "For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered..." may not be removed by the IP editor. This has been consensus since at least 2008, supposedly as a means to prevent WP:Gaming the system. I'm curious what people's opinions are of this today. I feel if we omitted this statement, we could avoid pointless edit wars like User talk:24.232.254.154. Sro23 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The content at User talk:24.232.254.154 was appropriate to blank with the implied acknowledgement that the recipient had read it. Messages on on IP talk page intended for other users who share the same IP address should not be blanked, but messages for a particular person, once read by that person, may be blanked, and on a shared IP, should be blanked, and the IP editor should register, for multiple reasons for the benefit of the person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The consensus of all five administrators who were involved in that dispute was that it was very minor. A sixth also reviewed the AIV report after I declined it and blanked it. We had an issue with '99 (a very famous anti-vandal IP), where he almost left because of one of the templates and the unanimous consensus of everyone involved was that it was a pointless template to place. This IP clearly didn't want the banner on their page, and was reverted and had a user attempt to get it blocked both on-wiki, and after it was declined off-wiki in IRC. As I told one of the users who thought the IP was being disruptive, you would be hard pressed to find an administrator who would actually block to enforce this and in practice we never do. Might as well update the document to match the practice. Pinging all those involved today @DoRD, Coffee, Primefac, Nick, FlightTime, Hastiness, GeneralizationsAreBad, and TJH2018:. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • +1 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I would also add that there needs to be certainty that an IP address is actually shared and that different people are allocated the IP address in quick succession. DSL connections today are highly stable and remain connected for lengthy periods, making dynamic IPs basically static for lengthy periods. It's not like it was 10 years ago when we last discussed this policy, back then we had a more significant number of editors on dial-up and they would receive a different IP address every time they connected (so could have a different IP every visit they made to Wikipedia). Nick (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Right: for example, my cable internet access at home has my IP address classified as dynamic, but it has been stable for at least the last 18 months. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • And dynamic IP addresses shouldn't be tagged as shared addresses, anyway. Indeed, it's usually pointless to tag dynamic address talk pages at all. And don't get me started about tags on dynamic IP user pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's pretty simple: messages for a shared IP should be retained, but if the current IP user removes them more than once, others should take the hint and move on. Anyone who thinks it would be useful to force a banner on an IP talk page is mistaken. If the IP is actually being a problem (mucking about in articles), the problem should be handled, but an IP clearing their talk is not a problem. There appear to be two editors who think that battling an IP is useful—that is a problem. Many IPs do a lot of useful work and they should be encouraged, not bludgeoned with pettiness. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd get behind that. The question is how do we word it on this page to make it clear that the current practice is that we don't ever force it. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with Johnuniq. We obviously need vandalism patrol, and tags on IP talk pages can be useful, but mindlessly insisting on adhering to "the letter of the law" is often much more disruptive than anything the supposed IP vandal ever did. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear, are we saying it's ok to remove templates saying that the IP address is that of a school, local authority, business, government, military etc? If so I' very much oppose that. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I agree with you, but I don't think that anyone is proposing that specifically. Removing the statement altogether, as proposed by Sro23, probably goes too far, but a clarification may be in order. The IP talk edit war that spawned this discussion is unlikely to be a shared address, anyway. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Agreed with Doug and DoRD that things for schools, military bases, etc. are useful. I think what needs to be addressed are things like this and this (static), both of which caused the IP users distress and led to disruption either in the form of edit warring, drama, or both. Maybe a wording such as Notices on IP talk pages informing other users that the IP address is affiliated with a school, military base, or other institution should not be removed. Templates and banners simply noting the internet service provider, geographic location, or other basic information are typically not removed, but usually should not be restored if the IP users objects to its placement, and reversions in these cases are not exempt from the 3RR. I'm obviously open to tweaks, but think this is a way to split the baby. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
            • I think that a simple solution like this would be clearer: * For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share<ref group="Note">This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other '''shared''' IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses.</ref> the same IP address, although very old content may be removed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
              • I would include the note about the dynamic IPs in the main body of the text, rather than in the note with the definition of shared, to make it clearer, but otherwise like that solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've updated a bit based on DoRD's wording. I've also clarified that restoring these is not 3RR exempt. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)p
    • That seems wrong. Shared user notices can be too important to allow them to be removed, and as removing TPS also seems wrong, where does that leave us other than allowing anyone from that address to editwar. Doug Weller talk 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The wording states that "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." That is saying an IP may not remove a shared IP notice. The mention of 3RR is telling naive onlookers that the wikicrime of removing such a notice does not warrant edit warring—as if battling an IP would ever be helpful. The onlooker should ask for assistance, and report the IP if they edit war because they should not be removing the notice. The hope is that an admin would be sufficiently clueful to know when the IP should be left alone for a day or two, and when a block with talk-page access removal would be suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Finally some editors making since. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Add info about allowing removal of mainspace categories?

Should something be added indicating that mainspace categories can be removed from userspace pages? For example, if User:foobar123 contains [[Category:1923 births]]. This is part of taking care of the Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories.Naraht (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:USERNOCAT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanx, wondering if it should be here as well.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC that may be of interest

See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Proxying for blocked users? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Promoting my talents of music

I'm an Music artist I want to upload my details on Wikipedia Vj venkat krish (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Vj venkat krish, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself. Please try Facebook, Spotify, or other social media service. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Promotion of yourself or someone else is one of the forbidden abuses of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

stale

@Seraphimblade, Ymblanter, and KrakatoaKatie: apologies if you've already addressed this, but could you clarify something about the RfC you closed a while back, reflected in WP:STALE? It seems to me that one line, when added to the section, confuses more than it clarifies:

For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration.

This comes after

GNG does not apply to drafts.

and the results of another RfC which found that

drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone

It seems like these bulletpoints reflect several separate RfCs rather than separate questions from a single closure (i.e. if separate questions of an RfC yield contradictory responses, doesn't it confuse things to weigh each separately and allow them to contradict each other rather than assess the consensus of the RfC as a whole?)

Basically: according to that RfC, was there consensus regarding what, if any, conditions must be met in order for it to be appropriate to nominate for deletion a user's sandbox or other userspace draft on the basis of notability and/or age of the draft (and/or degree of the draft's completion and/or writing quality and/or sourcing, etc., beyond what is already covered by CSD)? If this has already been hashed out, could someone point me to that thread? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There were two RFCs closed by us at the same time because they were somewhat but not quite redundant to each other, and they’re linked in our closing statement IIRC (I’m on my iPad and it’s difficult for me to look). At the time, drafts were being nominated for CSD based on the GNG, no matter their age or potential for development, and the consensus was clear that we shouldn’t be applying the GNG to drafts in order to give some time for that development. How long that should be was supposed to be decided separately. I thought we were thorough in addressing the questions discussed. As to follow up RFCs, I don’t know the answers, because I tend to only close in areas where I don’t follow the regular discussions that closely. Katietalk 22:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we please dispense with the word “stale”. It is wildly used with various definitions. Some use it to mean anything old. Or old and unedited for a long time. Or only if the author also hasn’t edited for a long time. Really, it depends on the transience of the information. Notes on the trump compaign mid 2016 are now stale, regardless of the editing activity of the author. A collection of primary sources on Julius Caesar will never be stale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have altered the 'moving from userspace without permission' line because as it stands, it did not reflect the closing. It previously read that in order to move a draft without permission from userspace it was required that it be ready for mainspace AND the user be reasonably inactive. When the actual consensus was a)there is no consensus on if a draft that isnt ready can be moved or not, b)if it is ready, there is consensus it can be moved without permission. The whole 'user must be reasonably inactive' is not reflected in the close as gaining consensus, only that some editors thought it should be. Its certainly not reflected in the discussion to the point where its a requirement before a draft can be moved without permission. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

FAKEARTICLE

Is there no better shortcut we can display at §User pages that look like articles? I've been watching Category:Indexed pages for the past few days after stumbling onto this tactic of bypassing WP:ACPERM for spam, and there's occasionally what looks like actual new users who've stumbled onto some tutorial that says "put the index keyword in your userspace drafts". (Or maybe my assume-good-faith-o-meter is just broken again.) Being able to point them at a guideline section that says the index keyword's inappropriate is all to the good; one that's got a big box next to it that seems to say "the article draft you just wrote is FAKE NEWS" is not. —Cryptic 09:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERDRAFT? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Already taken, with plenty of usage. WP:UART is free, I guess, though I find the comparison to UART jarring. —Cryptic 10:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Potential additional exemption to WP:BLANKING

Hi. I'm not proposing anything yet, so no need to bold support/oppose. I'd like to put out feelers on adding as an exemption to WP:BLANKING, for IP editors only, that IP editors are not allowed to remove {{OW}} from their own talk page. It's an obstructive tiny box that serves to remind editors to check the history, and I think it will be better than not to prohibit IPs from removing a message saying that other messages have been removed and can be found in the page history. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 10:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what the history tab is for. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
101 basically, I don't see cause. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Instruction creep and how to inforce this or even tell IPs about this rule? Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sending all userspace drafts to AfC?

There's one editor who seems to be going through the userpace drafts of inactive editors, submitting them for AfC and then rejecting them. Now, is that kosher? The relevant bits in the guidelines are at WP:STALE, but I'm not sure they quite endorse such activites. Submitting other people's work to AfC appears to be fine, but I thought the underlying assumption here is that you do that if you believe the draft is likely to pass. But submitting the drafts to AfC only to immediately reject them yourself? And given that this action means they're almost certainly going to get deleted per WP:G13 in six months, this seems to amount to a no-frills large-scale clearout of the userspaces of inactive editors. That's not necessarily a bad goal in itself, but is that how we would like to pursue it? – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty bad-faith way of "clearing out the garbage". ​ I would suggest notifying WT:AFC of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That definitely should't be done. At best it's a no-harm action that is inflating an editor's review count. At worst the review process is being skipped over because there isn't anyone to query it. I can't imagine we'd be thrilled about a AfC reviewer finding drafts elsewhere, submitting them and approving their own submissions - so the opposite should apply. It is also, as suggested by Primefac, a bad-faith way of evading the standard set-up that was agreed for disposing of old drafts. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should allow the person doing it to give their side of the story. User:Uanfala, can you please notify the user who is doing it of this discussion, and ask them to explain their actions here. They may have a rationale that we can agree with and support. SilkTork (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies, I should have done that in the first place. The thread that started this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#A walk through the dustbin. Pinging the fellow editor concerned. – Uanfala (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
      Okay. The drafts are those by editors who have not made a single edit in calendar years 2018 or 2019. Many of them are more than five years old; a few are as much as ten years old. I have reviewed the drafts briefly to determine whether they require a detailed review. They mostly fall into the following classes:
      • Already in article space. I decline the duplicate draft. The draft will become eligible for deletion in six months. (If the draft is significantly different from the article, I may mention this on the article talk page so that the draft can be compared against the article.)
      • Obviously not appropriate for an article. I decline, or occasionally reject, the draft, with comments. The draft will become eligible for deletion in six months.
      • Obviously not appropriate for an article. Spam. Tag as G11.
      • Empty abandoned draft. Tag as G6.
      • There is already a redirect from the title to an article. I decline the draft with a MergeTo recommendation. The draft will be available for review until it is eligible for deletion in six months.
      • The draft looks appropriate for review. I neither accept nor decline the draft but leave it for review, possibly with comments. In a few cases, I have accepted the draft as an article.
      Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. We do allow abandoned articles in userspace to be moved to draft or mainspace if there is some potential. And we don't wish to have userpage articles hanging around forever, though the community is not clear on how long an article can remain untouched in userspace. However, what the community does not want is people moving unused userspace articles into draft or mainspace in order to delete them. If the consensus is that the articles are not yet ready for mainspace, they should left or returned to userspace, per WP:STALE:

Userspace drafts which do not meet article content standards should not be moved to mainspace in order to seek deletion.
In case a userspace draft was moved to mainspace but is found not fit to be in mainspace, it must be returned to the parent location.

If an article in userspace is problematic for some reason then it can be proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, User:SilkTork - You write: "And we don't wish to have userpage articles hanging around forever, though the community is not clear on how long an article can remain untouched in userspace." How long, then? If it is all right for the articles to be hanging around for one year, is five years too long? If there is no answer, it amounts to "forever", or, perhaps, until the year 2038 catastrophe. A few of the articles really have been hanging around for ten years, and the users have not been hanging around for ten years. How long is too long, or do we really mean forever is okay after all? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that userspace drafts could hang around for about as long as copyright lasts. How about approximately death of the author plus 70 years. To approximate that, maybe the average user on wikipedia is ~40? So maybe 110 years after creation? After that, they can be deleted by a bot. So there is no need to resolve stale userspace drafts yet. AfC is overwhelmed right now as it is anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"In case a userspace draft was moved to mainspace but is found not fit to be in mainspace, it must be returned to the parent location." is an extreme inclusionist insertion and totally inappropriate. Suppose the page moved to mainspace turns out to be copyvio or duplicates an existing page or gets merged or is found not notable. There are tons of reasons a page might get deleted and no reasons to burden users with returning a page to userspace after it as received a more extensive review by other editors and found to be delete worthy.

I have not looked at the specific actions in this case but I have done plenty of similar work. There are guidelines and projects for cleaning up stale pages in userspace including Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts and even more on target Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts.

If a page deserves to be in mainspace there is no reason not to move it to mainspace and running it through AfC yourself is a good path because it makes copyvio check and quality assessment easier.

Working these old user pages both finds the occasional good topic and removes all manner of attack/copyvio/spam and other problematic pages. It can be a frustrating effort, and not for everyone, but don't criticize the editors that choose to work in this area even if you don't see it as importent or enjoyable. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"In case a userspace draft was moved to mainspace but is found not fit to be in mainspace, it must be returned to the parent location." Is a quote from WP:User pages. See WP:STALE. It is the summary of the consensus of the community. All of us at times may have an individual viewpoint which is not in line with consensus. That is fine. We can disagree with consensus. And we can seek to change it via the appropriate channels. But what we shouldn't do is ignore it and do our own thing. Does that make sense? SilkTork (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That wording was inserted last year as interpretation of the result a complex multipart RFC advanced by several extreme inclusionists. The RFC was carefully worded to get to an extreme result, and I do not believe the wording inserted correctly reflects the will of the RFC or practice of the community. It is fringe and needs to be changed WP:SilkTork Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The process for that is by opening a discussion, preferably by using neutral language, and avoiding making inappropriate assumptions about people and their motives. It helps if you assume that some people will have different points of view to yourself, and this does not make either them or you a bad person. The appropriate way to open such a discussion is in the spirit of "Can we check the consensus of the RfC, and the wording in Stale" rather than "We need to change this because it was written by people I disagree with". I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist - I sit nicely on the fence on that issue. I feel the dichotomy of the situation in which we don't want unfinished drafts to be left in limbo for eternity but at the same time we don't want them deleted. Yet I also understood and agree with both points of view. An organised method of sorting through, organising, and dealing with abandoned userspace drafts seems to me to make sense. And I do feel that, as always on Wikipedia, we are working our way towards that, and refining it all the time. SilkTork (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to make assumptions about modivations since I can read. Feel free to open the discussion. My efforts in the area ended in me being stalked without mercy. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
But (again) what is the point of “sorting through, organizing, and dealing with abandoned userspace drafts”. Is there a benefit of doing so? Is there a downside of not doing so? I don’t understand why anyone would want to “sort”, “organize” or “deal with” these userspace drafts. Please explain the purpose behind doing this. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Surface good missing pages/topics that improve the project while Eliminating spam/attack/copyvio etc that harm the project. Similar reasons we patrol mainspace, new pages, and Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that. In which case, I have to oppose sending all drafts to AfC. Spam/attack/copyvio (etc) material in userspace should be sent directly to MfD for deletion. As for the potential good stuff... a lot depends on specifics. There is a wide range of material marked as “userspace draft” sitting in userspace... sure, some Userspace “drafts” might make for the genesis of an article, but definitely not all. My own userspace has stuff that would be better as a section or paragraph within an existing article (indeed, for some of my “drafts” that was the intent... I wasn’t drafting an article in the first place). Then there is the question of what to do with multiple versions of the same “draft” article section or paragraph (I often do this)... would all of these “drafts” get sent to AfC together? would they go separately? How would anyone know if they were intended as single drafts for separate articles, or separate drafts for a single article? Then there are “draft” pages containing nothing more than a few very rough notes and initial ideas ... here it would be difficult for any other editor to even figure out what the topic of the notes and ideas might be... much less write an article based on them. In short... the proposal uses an axe to perform a task that needs a scalpel. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, a blatant disregard of policy and subsequent justification. Well, having the worded most of the RfC and also having quite a lot of CSDs, am I an extremist inclusionist (if I'm quoting you correctly @Legacypac:) for having worded it that way? This thread is simply summarized by the thread OP, one editor with a disregard for policy is all it is. If you don't like the policy, change it, I didn't frame it, I didn't choose it, the community did and insulting community consensus or pretending it does not exist is not progress, I believe. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
QEDK's efforts to make cleanup more difficult is generally disruptive and go against policy. Please don't mention me or drag me into your efforts. Legacypac (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
What policy are we talking about? There is already a policy in place and the editor in question is subverting that. I didn't drag you the last time or this but snide remarks are generally replied to. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the article : Dr. Hemlata pandey

(Radhatanaya (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)) Sir, I was creating and editing the Wikipedia article for English language in the ID : Rangakuvara. For kannada language I was using Radhatanaya. Since some one said to use Radhatanaya for English articles as well. I created. Please pardon me. You can delete the article, if you think it the case of violation of the rules of the Wikipedia. Once again I feel sorry and never venture of this nature in English in future. But as usual I will be contributing articles in kannada languge with out uploading the pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radhatanaya (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of comments, notices, and warnings

Should we consider adding block notices for currently blocked IPs? Isn't the whole point of a block notice really just to inform editors about the unblock process? This seems fairly important for anonymous users who may be editing from a shared dynamic IP. It really seems so blindingly obvious that when it was mentioned on IRC, I had to check to make sure it wasn't already policy, but it isn't, despite how much intuitive sense it makes as a matter of process. GMGtalk 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that anyone who tries to edit from a blocked IP, instead of seeing a talk page, sees this huge unmissable notice with the reasons and a clear link to detailed instructions (often in the form of a template such as {{anonblock}}). The second point I'd note is that only one user will get the message to check their talk page. If it's a non-shared IP, that will be the relevant user. If it's a dynamic IP, any subsequent users won't get any talk page message. In other words, the talk page is ineffective and they already see what they have to see. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah. This is a good point. I hadn't considered the information in the notice. I've only been blocked once when AT&T decided that some random Japanese IP was the right place to put my mobile hot spot despite being on the other side of the world. Fair enough. Carry on. GMGtalk 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Did consensus change about the sockpuppetry clause?

WP:BLANKING used to have a clause saying that a user cannot remove confirmed sockpuppetry related notices. This clause was removed by Bbb23, saying it "makes no sense". I could not find any discussion, was there consensus to that change? --Muhandes (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Bbb23 could explain their own justification but does it make sense though? If someone socks one day (or more to the point some random user decides that it's confirmed) then they can never remove the message? Most sockpuppetry notices belong on user pages, and most sockpuppet notices on IP addresses are also often considered problematic. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: I believe I pinged Bbb23. Anyway I see your (and maybe Bbb23's) point. A temporary block due to socking is something that should be removable. How about indef block notices? --Muhandes (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Block notices? If they're for the user to read, then they've already read them. If they're for others to read, then these days there's a big pink notice whenever you look at their contributions or try to edit the page. Edit warring over the notice (this is what this policy section boils down to) is near the height of lame, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Your link to Bbb23's edit shows the removal occurred in July 2016. That means the guideline has been the way it is essentially forever and so definitely has consensus per WP:SILENCE. FWIW I agree with the removal. The community has moved away from forcing public shame unless there is a good purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Fake articles in userspace

My question has been answered, thanks for replies but I'm closing this before it sways off topic. If you have a problem with Legacypac's actions take it to his talk page. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

What is the policy on dealing with fake articles in userspace? I came across User:Albert Warren 701 and am not sure whether to blank it, speedy or send to MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s not actually a fake article. It seems to be a legitimate attempt at a draft for an article about a YouTuber of moderate success. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
No refs and flowery language from an acct with two edits - one to post the advert on the user page ans one to post it on the talkpage. G11 both Legacypac (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
My only point is that the subject is a real person, with a real YouTube channel (search: “Fact Fiend”)... so while there may be issues, calling it “Fake” is not appropriate. And refs are not required for userspace material. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And despeedied. Let's look at this sequence of events:

  1. A new user writes something using inappropriate language/tone and no refs. Might be spam, but we do have AGF and BITE, annoying as following this policies can be sometimes. It's along the lines of what lots of newbies mistakenly do at first.
  2. Nobody offers any help/pointers. Nobody even does the bare minimum of saying hey WP:TONE blah blah. This wouldn't be that much of a problem except that...
  3. Less than an hour later, legacypac has tagged the userpage for speedy deletion. No information about why, beyond the template.
  4. Legacypac tags the usertalk page for speedy, too, deleting what little information the template did communicate.

Shameful stuff. Who knows if they're researching how to edit Wikipedia right now. If this were down the road and the person still had no other edits, then it would be appropriate to blank these. Still no excuse for trying to delete someone's user page. I do not understand your sense of urgency with this stuff, as though a tidy log is more important than our users themselves -- as though these pages that nobody will ever see outside of the user him/herself (and people looking for userpages to delete) demand immediate deletion without explanation. (To respond to the initial question: just blank it and leave them a note about why you did). If it's been ages since it was written, the latter is less important. Within an hour of writing it, it is particularly important. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is run of the mill spam in userspace. You can still see it under the blanking. Junk like this gets deleted all the time. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yikes. Blatant disregard of policy aside, WP:BITEy asf behaviour. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Userpage had the exact same spam on it. Two edits, exact same spam. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
What makes you call it spam? It looked like a fan trying to write an article about a YouTube personality to me. Sure, as an article it had issues, but I didn’t see it as spam. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove the Usercat reference

I cut:

as User:Guy_Macon pointed it out as demonstrably false.

Let Wikipedia:User_categories#Categorization be its own problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Acatually, all of Guy’s user categories are subcats of Category:Wikipedians, but deep subcats, not direct subcategories. This is really a rule about creation of usercategories, is not about whether you can add that category to your userpage, and there is no good reason to mention it at WP:UP. It is prohibited to add article categories your userpage, but I don’t think this is a common problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Too many changes in February 2019

Apologies for the too many changes in Feb 2019.
Some people have objected. Some want RfC(s).
I think it would be helpful to break up the recent edits into the following:
(A). Shortcuts
(B). Wikipedia content not suited to userspace
(C). Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia.
(D). POLEMICs and FIGHTINGWORDS

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(A). Shortcuts

Too many, the use of "#" being a technical problem. Shortcuts advertised in linkbox including the "#" character they are not real shortcuts, they are technically impossible urls, they can't be changed, you can't count how many use them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(B). Wikipedia content not suited to userspace

A little section I had never seen before, on images, usercategories, and templates. These things seem to be alluding, without proper cross-references, to policy or guidelines elsewhere. I suspect everyone has previously ignored this addition as vague and unimportant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(C). Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia

Was added: "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. The amount of leeway for userspace material is generally considered to be in proportion to the user's contributions to Wikipedia. A non-contributor may not post an autobiography."

  • I think this is needed due to the continued practice of drive-by autobiography posting on a new account userpage. I think there is no doubt of complete agreement that "A non-contributor may not post an autobiography".
  • I think that "The amount of leeway for userspace material is generally considered to be in proportion to the user's contributions to Wikipedia" is, and has always, been true. And it is fair enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(D). POLEMICs and FIGHTINGWORDS

Aka "Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit" / "Negative information about other editors".

I suggest waiting for other things (1, 2&2a, and 3) to settle down first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
1. Deleted referencing Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, not POLEMIC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
2 is closed and waiting for 3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving non-AfC userpace drafts to the Draft namespace?

I feel like I keep bringing up the same questions in different forms. So now, I've come across a series of moves of userspace pages to the Draft namespace (noting that these pages were not created via AfC). Is this a good idea? My reason for asking is that such a move makes the page eligible for WP:G13 deletion after six months, and expanding G13 to cover userpace drafts was already proposed, and rejected, in a recent RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No... moving pages from someone else’s userspace to draftspace is NEVER a good idea. If the userspace material is problematic, it should be marked for deletion via MfD... if it is not problematic, there is no NEED to move it to Draftspace (If you think the subject matter might be appropriate for an article, just start your own version of an article via AfC, and ignore the one sitting in someone else’s userspace). Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a whole longetanding project for this activity Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts and longstanding guidelines at WP:STALE. When working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts I try to action every listed page in some way - deletion, redirection, mainspacing, draftifying, or blanking.

Remember every edit is released for anyone else to use and the vast majority of these STALE pages were created by long gone accts that did little or nothing else. Rather than armchair quarterbacking other's effeots to expand the encyclopedia with new good topics amd/or mergable info, why not look for some gems yourself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts or perhaps try to improve some of the drafts with potential other people identified so they can be mainspaced? Improving the encyclopedia is much more productive amd fulfilling then starting threads to complain about how other people are improving the encyclopedia.


At Blueboar's poimt - there is no "need" to do anything on this site. Stealing an idea, text and sources without giving credit is dishonest and tends to annoy editors while duplicating another editor's work is a waste of time and creates more redundent clutter that makes policing userspace for spam/copyvio/attack pages that much harder. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Policy, guidelines and precedent all support it. The point is not to G13 a bunch of userspace, though some pages will eventually go G13 if no one can or wants to improve them enough, but to encourage development of pages toward mainspace. The OP is throwing AGF out the window. They should work on improving these drafts not worrying about other people who are improving abandoned pages (which often includes giving them a proper easy to find title) Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Saying “don’t move “stale” pages from userspace to draftspace” does not stop anyone from creating missing articles at AfC, nor does it stop anyone from improving on such AfC drafts. That is certainly encouraged. If you think a topic is missing... please DO start your own draft at AfC and work on it with others. However, there is no reason to move a “stale” userspace page to accomplish this. The far better method is to review the sources yourself, and start fresh. Starting fresh means that you know from the start that the draft contains information that is properly based on the source material, that it avoids potential NOR or NPOV problems, and is more likely to be promoted into mainspace. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh, on the one hand, I see where the nomination is coming from, but on the other hand, experienced users often work on drafts sporadically in their own userspace. Assuming this refers to clearly new users who intend to use the AFC process, then sure. SITH (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think there is some confusion because {{userspace draft}} is associated with Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but it is not obvious. If you put, or leave, {{userspace draft}} on your usersubpage, the AfC maintenance and review crew will process it and will likely move it to Draftspace. If you don't want that to happen, remove {{userspace draft}}. Consider replacing it with {{Userpage}}, which does not categorize it as anything. If you really don't want other's messing with your userspace, blank you usersubpages during periods of inactivity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Smokey... a question: how does the “userspace draft” template get put on usersubpages in the first place? Is it something that is done manually (who?), or is it automatic? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. I guess a button-activated script, like the WP:Article wizard. That puts {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}}, but maybe in the past it didn't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The activity I witnessed that prompted me to start this thread - editors putting {{AFC submission/submit}} on userspace drafts, then immeditely rejecting them (via AfC) or moving them to the draft namespace - was not confined to pages with the {{userspace draft}} template. – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
That sounds serious. Can you point to examples? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Like the other clear misrepresentations above, this also is not correct. Pretty much all the userspace pages I've touched were tagged years ago as userspace drafts and the same holds true for the other editors that work this project. As I've explained before, the AfC submit allows easy checking for copyvio, existing titles in Draft and mainspace, redirects, and previous deletions at AfD and by CSD. It is a very useful tool. Uanfala needs to drop the accusations and asperation casting and find something productive around here. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Examples? Here's a few: Draft:Lingodroids, Draft:Arni Isaksson, Draft:Adam Kontras, Draft:Saturated Set, Draft:Ronald Henkoff. – Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
[2] you can see the userspace draft template in the creation edit. Same here [3] and here [4]. Sometimes it does not show in the edit summary (I think because the creator edited the summary manually) but it was there. These pages all came from the same maintenance project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts where the 46,607 pages pulled together there were selected because they were labeled as userspace drafts, and every page not yet actioned there still has the userspace draft template on it. Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've checked the pages above, and they all seem to have had the template at some point in their history. But then, the question arises: if such a template was present at the time the stale drafts report was generated (apparently in 2015), but subsequently removed, then the page would be processed as though it was still there? I don't know how common this scenario is. But I guess the more important question is why should we treat such usespace drafts as though they were AfC drafts, and send them down the road where the G13 clock start ticking. I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm just asking. If the template is placed there by the Article Wizard, then this isn't fundamentally different from the AfC process, so it would make sense. But the template is also occasionally used on pages that were not cretaed by the Article Wizard, and it is sometimes placed on a page by someone other than the creator of that page, so it's got a much wider range of uses. Regardless, if the common practice is to treat pages with that template differently from other pages in the user namespace, then the WP:STALE guideline should be changed to make that explicit, as it doesn't at the moment make provisions for that and its current wording seems to suggest against it. – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Please leave changes to policy and guidelines to editors with experience in the area and a correct understanding of how things work. The idea this template changes how we treat a userpage is something you just made up in this thread. The template is good as it makes userspace drafts much easier to find and notifies readers the page has not had the scrutiny of an article. This is why there has been a tagging Open Task for years. I don't personally go around adding userspace draft templates because bots can do that mindless work. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Please, ther's no need for such tone. I don't think the presence of this template should change how we treat a userpage, but it apparently does so in practice. Again, the issue is that the guidelines don't make explicit provisions for such large-scale moves, and would seem to implicitly rule them out. You obviously disagree, so I'll appreciate it if you could point me to a specific part of the guidelines that is in sync with what appears to be your current practice. – Uanfala (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
For goodness sakes the links are all over this thread. I can't figure out where you came up with the idea the template makes a difference to how we handle the page. The template helps identify the pages. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Which gets back to the fundamental question: why are we identifying these pages? I still don’t see the point. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Moreover I see no point in "cleaning up" user space which is hosting unproblematic content. What exactly is supposed to be achieved by that?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Read the guides and dip into userspace to see the copyvio, spam, attack ppages UP#COPIES and other junk, and sometimes good pages that can be mainspaced. I see no point in creating football player pages but some users enjoy it. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)≤
I'm aware of that and that doesn't answer my question (and neither Blueboar's I suspect). All the issues you've mentioned fall pretty much under "problematic" content and should usually be deleted independent of editor activity or being stale. The question is why there is any need to delete the rest (what you presumably summarize under junk from your perspective)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a law of nature that the less relevant something is (in our case that's pages that readers don't ever get to: user pages, drafts, templates, etc.), the more zealously is it going to get policed. – Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand - no one is seeking deletion of all userpages - but most all do get deleted or redirected User:Kmhkmh. Somewhere around 60-70% of stale userspace is problematic and should be outright deleted (redlinks here) [5] as this sample of 1000 User pages starting with A shows Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts/01 Then many of the remaining are content forks and UP#COPIES that get redirected. Some of the others are blanked but not deleted. A few are valid topics and can be mainspaced or sent to Draft to expose them to other editors that may want to work on them. There are still 23,000 pages older than Nov 2015. Given the huge numbers involved at the high percentage of problematic pages the only reasonable way to handle the mess is to action every page somehow. Otherwise we end up reviewing the same pages over and over again. If you are looking for gold you don't remine the tailings pile over and over again as that is a waste of time. You get all the rocks out of the way. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So first you are telling it isn't meant for all (stale) pages but just the problematic ones and then you argue to get the problematic ones we need to action/delete all of them to get the problematic ones. It is not about mining user space for gold (no need for that) but rather just removing really problematic content and simply leave the rest alone. If somebody wants to mine for gold (rather than writing on his own) then he should pursue such work without impacting other people's userspaces.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Mining for gold is an illustration, but there are useful pages to find in userspace. If you are not interested in the activity leave it to others who are and understand the matter rather than trying to comment on what you don't understand or care about. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not my problem if your arguments don't stack up or you pick misleading illustrations.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Movement of Drafts

Reminded of this by a comment at AN. This change, [6] which was reverted, clearly reflects actual practice and common sense. For example if User A creates Draft:Foo and User gets the idea to create Draft:Foo they should improve Draft:Foo and then submit to AfC or just move it to mainspace. If a user goes to create Article:Foo they will be notified of Draft:Foo, which they should improve and move. The idea that anyone owns Drafts and that they need to be checked with is against the whole structure and purpose of the project.

We also should not be imposing on AfD a requirement to send deleted pages to userspace as WEBHOST violations. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I support Legacypac's position. If any editor, not an WP:UPE though, in good standing, believes a page is worthy of mainspace, if someone else objects it should not be unilaterally draftified, but instead taken to WP:AfD. In the AfD, people should check the history and be aware of the userspace history and consider explicitly whether it should be returned to userspace or draftspace, but draftification should not be done unilaterally if contested. Except unless it is COI or UPE product. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about draftspace. It's about userpages -- drafts, partial drafts, test edits, sandboxes, etc. The argument would be more persuasive if submitting other people's pages to AfC and moving pages out of userspace hadn't been consistently abused mechanisms to get pages deleted. The requirement that it be moved back if it would be deleted is protection against that practice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the answer in between. If a userpage is mainspaced, and then deleted, the default position should be that the page is returned to userspace. Likely, it should not have been mainspaced. It is possible that the AfD resolves that the page should be completely deleted, or it is discovered that the page is CSD#G eligible, but that means that the mainspace action was even worse. Is there history of others' userpages being mainspaced and then deleted? Examples? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: That was basically why there had to be an RfC in the first place. Check LP's move logs. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites cite your statement "consistently abused mechanism" or strick it. User:QEDK your statement in response to SmokeyJoe is at best misleading and bordering on a personal attack. I ask you to strike it. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll pass for the time being. It's well documented, and I suspect nobody has been involved in more discussions about that very behavior. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Rhododendrites. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you cut out the long term hounding and harassment of me QEDK. You lie and lie about my activity. If you have a real complaint take it to an appropriate forum, but if it is just more bullshit posted on talkpages I reserve the right to remove your comments. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer you substantiate your accusations on the hounding and harassment. I simply answered SmokeyJoe's question and if it's not clear already what I meant when I said anyone can see your move logs, here are some examples (from the one page of logs I linked to earlier):
Guess my point is, I'm not lying about your activity. Your log is public, it's linked on your user page, I'm putting facts as they are. Don't take it so personally and admit how it was/is. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
QEDK has been making critical comments about my editing for years like just on this page "Yikes. Blatant disregard of policy aside, WP:BITEy asf behaviour. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)" when I tag SPAM. Now when pushed to substantiate his criticism he comes up with two pages I moved in 2016 and a page that was eventually deleted G13 (and remains refundable) from 2017. So weak it's laughable. Time to leave me alone. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor GAMING/WIKILAWYER fix

We need to revise one word in "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" – replace "related" with something else, like "conducive". We're already overusing "related" again and again in this page, and in this particular case it's caused a problem.

People are arguing that POLEMIC cannot be applied to hostile material the explicit intent of which is to thwart editing and discussion of editing; the "rationale" is that it's "related to" editing. In reality, of course, it's "related" in the same way that strangling kittens is "related" to kindness to animals; clearly the exact opposite of the intended meaning. It's a fallacy of equivocation about what "related to" means in this context.

I implemented this change but was reverted with a subjective "not an improvement", which isn't really a rationale. I'm open to other specific wording suggestions, of course.

"Related to" in this particular construction is failing to be interpreted properly, being innately ambiguous. Part of the problem is also that in the follow-on material, the "or" is not being parsed right: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities ...". This would be better as two sentences. It's being reinterpreted as if "polemical statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors ... or other entities" are perfectly fine as long as they are "related to Wikipedia" or "related to Wikipedia editing". (This take has some pretty serious misunderstanding potential, like "It's okay to build a shitlist of politicians and why I hate them, because I'm going to use it for the 'Wikipedia-editing-related' purpose of making them look bad in articles about them", etc.)

To old hands at WP policy, this is obviously an incorrect interpretation, even with regard to polemics about editors. (Not least of which because all such polemics will be related to WP, by definition, except in the rare case that two editors know each other off-Wiki and one rants about the other's job performance or dating habits or whatever, which is covered by WP:OUTING, and has nothing to do with the inter-editor portion of POLEMIC.) But these policy and guideline pages are written for all editors, not just people who've been here since 2005. They need to make sense to someone who began editing yesterday.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree with the revert. WP:POLEMIC has always had its focus on polemics not related to the project. Political polemics, etc, which used to be more common but now are broadly understood to not be OK. You can have your userboxes, and explanations of your own POVs where they may be considered declarations of your own editing bias, but you are not allowed to publish your rant against your local representative.
Project related POLEMICs are allowed. You can lambaste policies, editorial culture, the way you've been unfairly marginalized by the majority POV and disgraceful treatment you've received at the hands of the admin cabal. If you do this in your leaving statement, you are not just afforded extremely leeway in you personal choice of expression, but that statement is left sacrosanct.
Your wish to document the communities non-acceptance of overt inter-Wikipedian hostility, such as in editnotices, such as evident at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice, I think belongs in a new table row, and not using the word polemic. A polemic in an opinion or argument, what you are talking about is overt hostility. Project related polemics belong in your userspace, but project related overt hostility is not.
What you are talking about could go with the second dot point, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors", but not the first dot point. However, I suggest that you introduce a new row with your point made clearly and succinctly without weaving, convoluting, or messing with the old current language. If it sticks, merging different points for clarity can be discussed later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, it's best not to alter policy dealing with the current MfD until the current MfD has closed and the matter cooled. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Re "WP:POLEMIC has always had its focus on polemics not related to the project" – except that clearly isn't the case at all. The section goes into considerable detail about the keeping of "shitlists" about other editors; two-thirds of the POLEMIC guideline are about that, not about editors' off-site socio-political concerns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • New bold edit This edit is a response to SmokeyJoe's assertion that POLEMIC has mostly been about political rants (my paraphrase). Careful study of the table showed that row had 3 bullets. Bullet 1 was about nonwiki politics and the like. The other two bullets were about matters more or less internal to Wikipedia process. If POLEMIC is really only about bullet one, I simply added a new row for Bullet 2 and Bullet 3. I did not change the text of Bullet 2 or Bullet 3, just gave them a row of their own. I also added a summary in the first column Very divisive or offensive material harmful to the spirit of community essential to collaborative editing and the shortcut FIGHTINGWORDS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Please take it easy with the creation of new shouty shortcuts. These are ONEWORDSHOUTYSUMMARIES that tend to stick, even if a bad choice of word. There is no need to add them so quick. Wait and see how the section gets referred to. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that's an agreeable principle in principle. In this specific instance, what's your opinion? Does FIGHTINGWORDS accurately describe the spirit of the two bullet points I relocated? Would a different shortcut be a better match? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It’s not bad for the first, doesn’t really fit the second. NB. We don’t need an advertised linkbox shortcut for every sentence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Now that I really think about it, the second bullet looks redundant and a WP:CREEPish elaboration on the first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This sort of issue, like the one a MfD, comes up I think less than once a year. Does it need a shortcut? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The intent is to support core principle WP:5P4. It's possible that the issue does come up more often, but without a name and so has left no lasting impression on your recollection (assuming you were privvy to the conversation at all). At the risk of making my own "argument to be avoided" what is your fear? What problem do you think such a short cut might create? The intent here is to support WP:5P4... do you think such a shortcut undermines 5P4? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I am very comfortable with your intents. I am cautious about unintended consequences of writing new policy during an extreme case currently playing out at MfD, and of locking in thought-stopping shortcuts before the language is settled. However, "FIGHTINGWORDS" does seem on the mark. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Honestly, I have never viewed that edit as anything more than a bit of housekeeping, certainly not "writing policy", or to be picky writing guideline text. The operative text is in the two bullets that I did not change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with SMC's PoV as well the revert. WP:POLEMIC exists solely to counter the point of polemic content, the fact that it has to be said out loud that it applies to the project - is weird. But the reason why such a statement cannot be added is simply that from a WIKILAWYERing standpoint, it might appear as if there's no freedom to critique this project. I have seen way too many editors keep a section of their user pages to vilify certain groups of editors who antagonized them and I think it is overall detrimental to the encyclopedia — but what I think is, modifying this certain sentence is not the way to go about it, we don't want to appear as if exercising censorship, but we should have a policy in place requiring basic human civility to be allowed to each editor, and that should be via the civility policy in the pillar, which is already in place. I don't think a small user page policy change overrides the fundamentals under this encyclopedia. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • User:QEDK, what are you saying is weird? A polemic on your personal experience and perspective as an editor editing Wikipedia belongs in your own userspace, although it is preferable that it is less polemical and more coherent and fact-based, and any part attacking specific editors is not OK. A polemic about vaccines, conspiracy theories, or a certain political party does not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I meant to say that it's weird that it has to be clarified to editors that vilifying other groups of editors is polemic. Obviously, attacking other editors is not OK, nor is having unrelated polemic and potentially disparaging content. That's all. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I have made good progress in separating POLEMICS from FIGHTINGWORDS. POLEMICS are typically emotionally strong arguments clumsily trying to argue a point and persuade. FIGHTINGWORDS is outright aggression, offensiveness, vilification. In shortcuts, the # character should be avoided, because it is technically impossible in a url, is thus not a real shortcut, and can't be later retargetted should that later be desired. Eg. WP:UP#FIGHTINGWORDS can only ever be a shortcut to WP:UP with the # marking a browser instruction to search that page for "FIGHTINGWORDS". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not seeing why we need a WP:FIGHTINGWORDS section and why the content shouldn't continue to be in the WP:POLEMIC section. "Negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc." can be viewed as attacking other editors, as they have been viewed as just that for years. And both aspects are no-nos and will be removed from user pages if the matter is taken to WP:ANI (although I don't think that a list of indefinitely blocked or banned editors on an editor's user page, which is what I once had my user page, concerning why those editors were problematic, should generally be of much concern). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Why we need a separate FIGHTINGWORDS line
    Preliminary There is a dispute where the various bullets in column two should be located. In this edit, I moved two bullets to FIGHTINGWORDS and in this edit SmokeyJoe moved one of them back. Since these are in flux, arguments based on where they are located will be based on whatever version is being referenced, and that is a moving target
    (A) We all agree - I think - that user space can only contain material critical of Wikipedia or other editors up to a certain point; the threshold may be subjective but it does exist.
    (B) At the dispute that inspired this discussion (see link earlier in this thread) one or more editors insist that POLEMIC is only about soapbox pieces over non-Wikipedia matters. These editors argue that POLEMIC does not apply to discussions whether the threshold in (A) has been reached.
    (C) Given we all agree with the general principle in (A), we can avoid wearisome taxonomy arguments such as in (B) by putting (A) on its own line.
    (D) By so doing we actively reduce one argumentation merry-go-round and support core principle 5P#4. Any IJUSTLIKE pro-status quo arguments are harmful because they obscure the principle in (A) that we all seem to support, either explicitly or implicityly (by silence)
    So let's take taxonomy over POLEMIC's scope off the table, and have greater clarity in support of core principle WP:5P#4. Since we all agree that some subjective level of FIGHTINGWORDS are not OK in userspace, we should say so. Exactly how we say so is a work in progress.
    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    The division still seems unnecessary to me. Wording without splitting the material should get the point across. But now that I think about it, either version of WP:POLEMIC is under a section titled "Excessive unrelated content" and gives the "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" description. But "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc." has to do with Wikipedia editing in part (although it's not encyclopedic content). Hmm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    Agree in part with both of the above -- it should be moved, but it should be moved out of 6.1. I went ahead and did that. Heading can obviously change. It's just a copy/paste otherwise. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with moving Wikipedia:User pages#Negative information about other editors to its own section. This is neither POLEMIC nor FIGHTINGWORDS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Disagree because the operative words in this section are "without a very good reason". When there is no good reason to compile shit hostile to others, the dossier is one form of WP:FIGHTINGWORDS and in my view belongs in that row of the table. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    If the userpage contains "shit hostile to others" you could call it FIGHTINGWORDS. If the userpage contains a selection of diffs of questionable actions, you can call it material in preparation for DR that needs to be "used in a timely manner". If both, then both apply, with FIGHTINGWORDS providing an immediate deletion reason that trumps the week or two normally considered "timely". Preparation for DR should not read as "hostile shit". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with you and so does the section "negative towards others without a very good reason". The underlined text therefore sets a criteria. If you are developing DR efforts or even working on ANI to try to prevent future disruption, those are very good reasons and the text in this section allows that text to be in userspace. I think you're trying to make a disagreement over half dozen equaling six here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    NewsAndEventsGuy, you have me confused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    This is already overly long and (to me) a minor quibble so I'll answer at your user talkNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You folk are making significant substantive changes to the guideline without a clear consensus for them. These kinds of changes should involve a standard 7-day RfC, not a discussion among a few editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    I started the chain by moving two bullets intact to their own row in the table. No change was intended, just a bit of housekeeping. Hard to see how this constitutes "substantive changes" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Look at you, stealin' blame like that! LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with Bbb23 that these are particular substantive changes, and do not agree that moderate changes require an RfC in the absence of failure of Wikipedia:EDITCONCENSUS followed by failure to reach agreement on this talk page. This is a mere guideline, merely documenting normal practice. WP:MfD is where actual decisions are made. I am uncomfortable about additions occurring while the MfD is in progress, but it is not as if anything particularly groundbreaking is occurring. Offensive userpages have often been deleted at MfD, and regarding the one currently in discussion, it was previously deleted for the same reason. I'm not sure what NewsAndEventsGuy's disagreement is arguing for, but I see no reason for it not to be discussed calmly. Add a link to this discussion to WP:CENT for sure, but an RfC requires a question. What is the question? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that WP:POLEMIC is in the "excessive unrelated content" section. I would argue that a polemic about a topic unrelated to Wikipedia is generally inappropriate for user space, while a strongly opinionated essay criticizing or pointing out flaws in some Wikipedia process would generally be acceptable as long as it is not unduly hostile toward other editors. It just doesn't make sense to put these in the same category, since the latter can run the gamut from "shit hostile to others" to legitimate and widely-discussed dissenting viewpoints. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Dlthewave, I notice you call such material an "essay". While under development such an "essay" could be in anyone's sandbox; after that it probably belongs somewhere in CAT:ESSAYS and indeed, I submit it will be a rare new idea that doesn't already have a mention in an existing essay. The only reason to retain such an essay longterm in user space is out of a claim of WP:OWNERSHIP, which would reduce its visibility (and therefore benefit) to the community and in any case probably runs afoul of this very guideline, see WP:UP#OWN. Last, constructive criticism that is expressed with civility and assumes good faith on part of others is always intended to improve the project even if is a minority viewpoint, and being so intended and so expressed, such material is always "related to Wikipedia". So we're not talking about such essays and in any case the amterial should join all the other essays one way or another anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've started a discussion at WP:AN about the changes made to the guideline and the discussion here about those changes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Changes to User pages guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Why on earth would you take this to a WP:DRAMAboard when we already have a productive and civil discussion open? Never mind; I see that the thread has archived away without any action.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    It seems WP:AN is also moving towards the role of Project Management. There was no admin issue involved, so I don't think the discussion was relevant there. I sense some confuse line items at WP:UP with WP:CSD, and that explains the excitement. Barely any of them posted here. They want RfC(s)? OK. The edits are reverted, which is standard process. See Wikipedia talk:User pages#Too many changes in February 2019 below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    Hmph. What I'm getting at is that if there's already a discussion (actually multiple of them on the same page), then AN doesn't really have anything to do but wait for the discussion(s) to conclude. It's a WP:TALKFORK matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User page & Webhost material

Hey, folks,

Every day I see user pages, mostly from new editors, that are tagged and deleted under "Not a Webhost" reasons when they actually have just a few sentences about an editor. Maybe they make a mistake and include a link to their YouTube channel or Facebook page and the whole short paragraph gets deleted.

Meanwhile, I'm coming across older editors, who started in say, 2004-2009 who have almost have novels on their user pages. I came across one editor who had a user page that is 430,010 bytes and is a long saga about his son's military service. This page was exceptionally long but I've seen other ones almost as long. THIS stuff is truly webhost material and belongs on a blog or family website but these pages are not tagged because they are user pages of veteran editors. This seems seriously unfair that a newbie can't even say that he goes to ABC college and studies business/anthropology/whatever and that is considered too much of a departure from suitable material but some more experienced editors can use their user pages to tell their life story.

This is where I imagine one might say, "Geez, Liz, why don't YOU just tag these pages for deletion then?" Well, it's because I don't want to start an eruption of pushback and outrage without more of a consensus that this action would be appropriate. So, I see two cases:

  • Excessively long user pages from editors who are long gone (inactive over 3 years)
  • Excessively long user pages from editors currently still editing (even if once a year)

I think that the first group's pages could be tagged & deleted (unless there is a movement to keep them for sentimental reasons) and I think with the second group, one could leave a talk page message asking the editor to reduce the size of their user page (I think a personal note is better than a simple {{subst:uw-userpage}}). That's what I did and, frankly, I expect a pretty nasty response but such is outreach.

If you think that all of these old user pages should just be left alone, then I'd like to propose a higher bar for what new editors can put on their user pages because there is a clear double standard. Depending on your response, I'll think about creating an RfC about this with perhaps a rough cutoff size of bytes (10,000 bytes? 50,000 bytes?) excluding userboxes and Wikipedia-related links and material. Or, you all will tell me where I can stuff my suggestion which I'll just ask that you put in polite language. Let me know if this discussion should be moved to the Village Pump. Thanks for reading this. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I argued for a long time, most often with User:Cunard, about AGF and BITE for newcomer SPAs posting promotion. Be nice, turn the other cheek, many good editors began as vandals. I don't exhaust quickly, but eventually I saw that newcomer promotion never turns into a good faith contributor, unlike silly vandals in the Wikipedian toddler phase. Newcomer SPA promoter does not fit into the Wikipedia:Seven Ages of Wikipedians. So we created WP:CSD#U5.
These Wikipedians with novels or family stories documented in their userspace? Were they once good editors? Are they good editors? WP:Editors matter. What is the cost of their novel of family story? I think personal stuff is far less harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia than promotion. YouTube links are definitely about promotion. Facebook, it depends what is there, is it personal, or is there an income stream? The main issue is promotion. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Promotion by a non-contributor is not worth the time and space to discuss, they are always SNOW deleted.
If you find an real editor having left inappropriate content, fix it. Fix it quietly and politely. Don't call in the MfD police due to their holiday comments including a positive review of a coffee shop. Before taking it to MfD, ask, "what is the harm", and be sure to check page views, as few things are more silly than creating a community discussion on something worthless and harmless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Users who have dedicated demonstrated their commitment to the encyclopedia over an extended period are different from new users. Perhaps a new user will turn out to be one of the best editors but everyone is judged by their contributions. That means a new editor focusing on user pages without commensurate content building should be regarded as at least a potential problem, and their user pages (particularly if promotional) should be evaluated regarding NOTWEBHOST. What benefit would follow from deleting well-written and non-promotional user pages from known-good editors? Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block.

WP:REMOVED states that "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block" cannot be removed. That makes total sense to me but I think it should go further - It should include any discussion specifically about the unblock requests. What do other folks think?

The reason I'm asking is there is currently a user that has a declined unblock request that has had quite a bit of discussion relating to it on his talk page in the unblock section. The blocked user has been removing comments that don't support him being unblocked which gives the impression of overwhelming support for unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't help when you don't include a link to your example. That said, prohibiting a blocked sock user from removing comments from their Talk page would open up a can of worms if it became part of policy as it would require judgment calls that would be more trouble than they're worth.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to make it more of an academic question than about this observation. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything that dreadful. The user has a right to remove the comments they did. To the extent it matters if there is another unblock request, administrators can easily see the history and, regardless, can make an independent decision about the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Can editors ban someone from their talk page?

I can't see anything about this, but this does seem to be something that is done and seems a reasonable thing to be able to do - except I guess for warnings, particularly from Admins. Comments? Doug Weller talk 12:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I may as well link to this:[7] - see the last two threads. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There's WP:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. Is that expanded on anywhere? I'd have expected something at WP:TPG, but it's silent on the subject. —Cryptic 12:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There's also WP:Keep off my talk page!. —Cryptic 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have always understood that you can, but it may be one of our “unwritten rules”. One thing you definitely CAN do... you can simply blank any comments from that editor, without response. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:IBAN? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. An editor can only ask another to leave them alone. They are generally allowed to word it strongly, don’t argue the wording. It is the preliminary step before going to WP:ANI to ask for a formal IBAN. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandboxes

I have added a line to differentiate between legitimate use of sandboxes to draft articles, and WP:FAKEARTICLEs. It "should" be common sense that userspace pages like this and this and this aren't FAKEARTICLEs, but sometimes we need to spell these things out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And User:Bbb23 reverted the change six minutes later. Bbb23, would you please tell us what, exactly, you disagree with? Do you think, for example, that user sandboxes are all FAKEARTICLEs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect this is because the second paragraph of FAKEARTICLE already covers that aspect. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
  • Spelling out common sense is also WP:CREEP. FAKEARTICLE disagreements are discussed at MfD. While there are always overzealous nominators, I think the discussions sort the misunderstanding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree. My common sense draft article might be what others would regard as poorly sourced promotional gumph. Sorting that out cannot be coded into a guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
      • It could only be instruction creep if we weren't having problems with the lack of clarity on this point, and we are.[8][9] This is about an existing Wikipedia article that was originally drafted in a userspace sandbox, copied to the mainspace, and later published on another site. And yet we have an editor insisting that drafting it in the sandbox constitutes a fake article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
        • That editor is wrong. While a copy/paste page move isn't ideal, it's not "wrong" to create a userspace draft and then copy the content into the article space; if all the edits are by one user then there's no attribution concern. From what I can tell from the full thread, there's possibly a little bit of IDHT going on. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
        • That editor is wrong, and that mistake is unfortunately not uncommon. I blame and lament the development on SHOUTYONEWORDS in place of old fashioned shortcuts. You can tell a SHOUTYWORD from a shortcut by whether it is short, as in 1-4 characters. Discussing by SHOUTYONEWORDS means abandoning nuance and detail. FAKEARTICLE and STALE in particular, they mean something very strong to some, and the stronger the meaning the less the reference to the detail of the text supposedly referred to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If we were to start changing policy and guideline based solely on that particular editor's ... unique ... interpretations, we would be changing quite a few pages. --Izno (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User talkpage content which cannot be deleted even by the owner of the talkpage

We should add that the talkpage users cannot delete notices regarding archived warnings. The community has the right to know where they can see previously issued warnings for a user. CLCStudent (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy which states that editors cannot remove warnings and/or notices about warnings (since page history exists) on their talk page. If you wish to reintroduce the change, consider opening a RfC first. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess you might have had some warnings on your talk page in the past? Imagine if someone slapped an OW notice on your talk page, or even something more obnoxious, and you then couldn't remove it, and you'd get into an edit war about it, and then you'd get blocked from editing the encyclopaedia because you were only editing your talk page. It would be annoying, right? -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Users are free to delete any and all warnings from their talk pages, except perhaps block notices for blocks currently in effect. As long as the warnings (or notives) remain in the page history, anyone can find them at need. Deleting a warning is considered confirmation of having read it, and the user is responsible for understanding its contents. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is moving your own talk page allowed?

I've noticed that some users archive their talkpages by moving them and their page history (as an example: Sceptre moved page User talk:Sceptre to User talk:Sceptre/Archive63). I have no complaints about the users doing that, but I think it's not ideal because often it's important to find what kind of issues/warnings have been brought on the talkpage before from its history. No one is required to keep an archive box, and even if they do, finding older messages becomes a pain in the arse if they have been moved like this. Also, admins could probably be juked into deleting the actual page history via a WP:U1 request to delete "archives". --Pudeo (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Meh... I don’t even archive. I think of my user talk as a Wiki version of voice mail. Once I read a message, I simply delete it. The message was for me after all, so as long as I have read it, there is no reason for me to keep it. And if someone else needs to find it... it is in the page history. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Blueboar, but then it is at least in the history of your talkpage, not some history of a subpage of your talkpage. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I do this so the contribution history remains with the actual contribution to the talk page. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Help:Archiving a talk page is the main page about archiving. From there and the link to Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures, we see this method described as an older and generally-unused method. DMacks (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thing is, a USER talk page is a bit different from other talk pages. Outside of userspace, a post on a talk page is being directed to the community at large (even if addressed to an individual editor, it is intended that others will read it). So we need to keep a record of the discussion. That is not the case with posts to a userspace talk page. There, the post is being directed to that one user, and there is no expectation that others will read it... indeed there is no NEED for others to read it unless it is some form of official communication (such as a block notice). It really is up to the individual editor to decide how (or even whether) to archive these one on one, personal messages. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
That is not quite correct, Blueboar, when ther is a question of whether to block or otherwise sanction a user, or how satrongly to warn a user, an admin or other editor often wants to see what previous warnigns have been given to the user, and what the resp[onse has been. For this purpose it is very helpful if the history of the user talk page remains intact, even if the contents are copied to an archive. If the user does maintain links to archive pages the archive-by-move technique does not pose an insuperable barrier, but it makes things harder. If the archives are not linked, or are later deleted by user request, it makes things much harder. Note that a user talk page is the one page in a user' userspace where a user request to delete a page in his or her own userspace is routinely refused, precisely to preserve this history. Current policy does not prevent such archive-by-move actions, but it should probably be noted on the policy page that if they are used, the archive pages will also not be deleteable by user request, and keepign a link to the archive page9s) is very much the best practice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Feh... any warnings can be found in the page history (usually with a helpful edit summary to highlight it). Sure it may take a little bit more effort to scroll through the history to find them, but it’s all there. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
If a page is "archived" by moving it to another page, and later that archive page is deleted, finding warnings will not be easy, and will require admin rights. If it is moved and the name of the archive page is not obvious, particularly if there are multiple archive pages, and multiple non-archive pages in the same userspace, finding any warnings in the page history will again be a non-trivial task. Possible, yes, but tedious, error prone, and off-putting. These are edge cases, yes, but perfectly possible ones. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_17&oldid=1090636866"