Wikipedia talk:User pages

Should old user space drafts have an expiration date?

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.

---

Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? Currently, WP:STALEDRAFT lists six specific actions that may be performed, with an implied default to keep the user draft indefinitely if its content falls into none of those six criteria. The purpose of this RfC is to establish if there is consensus to change the guideline to eventually delete user space drafts, either at MfD or some sort of timed default-delete criterion. Previous, closely related discussions have ranged about a bit, so I think it would be helpful if this discussion were kept as close to a binary yes/no as possible. Subsequent discussions after closure of the RfC would be used to determine how best to implement the consensus. VQuakr (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses

• NO we should not. The mere fact that a draft is old says nothing about its suitability for retention or deletion. Indeed I would favor removing WP:STALEDRAFT completely -- it is poor policy. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• If we had a system of actually declaring that a USER has become "stale", I could see declaring all of his/her userpages (including the main user page, the user talk page, and any sub-pages in their userspace) "stale" as well, and deleting them. But we don't. As long as the username is considered "active", any associated userspace pages should be considered "active" as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• No, not if it has potential. Destroying good ideas due to age is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: serious question - what if it effectively doesn't have potential? Our existing guideline says to delete only clearly problematic content such as copyvios and BLP violations (presumably leaving the rest indefinitely). A great many more abandoned drafts lack such offensive content but will never be improved beyond what would be WP:A7 candidacy in article space. Do you think that status quo should remain? Should it be made more explicit either way? VQuakr (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If content isn't clearly problematic, how would its deletion benefit the project? What harm does its indefinite retention cause? —David Levy 01:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, an article draft with zero potential is of little concern to me. If it is of zero potential, and the product of a driveby editor, then it is subject to CSD#U5. If it has zero potential as an article, but is the product of a competent wikipedia, than the question is whether it is notes, not a draft at all. In thee rare cases, if ther eis a concern, ask on a talk page.

There is a clear consensus established at WT:CSD that A7 does not apply to drafts of any kind. However, there looks to be buds of support for similar but differently words D-criteria.

Our existing guideline, which I largely wrote, assumed "problematic" to be as defined above. UPNOT in particular. WP:NOT also applies, but WP:UP does not qualify WP:NOT. I am thinking that we are lacking an article-drafting guideline, and that this separate guideline, which should be referenced from the policy WP:EP, and cover all namespaces, should guide on questions of degrees of potential. No, the status quo is not OK, but neither is User:Legacypac's reckless drive to clear out all of User:Ricky81682's identified old drafts. All old drafts are not the same. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not personal. It is about the deletion of good drafts amongst the throwing out of bad drafts, in defiance of clear consensus that WP:N doesn't apply to drafts, and failures of the community to support you at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If these are actually good drafts, then why not ask for a REFUND or their restoration or do anything other than personally insult people for discussing the merely possibility that they aren't good drafts? Ask to userify them, move them to draftspace, there's options other than attacking everyone who disagrees with you. Your responses are to do nothing regardless of the quality of the draft in question, so the issue clearly isn't about good drafts being lost. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You want the default assumption to be that all old pages in userspace of inactive Wikipedians be deleted, and if any of them were in fact of any use, go to WP:REFUND? The issue is about good material being lost, and of a couple of editors on a drive to clean out userspace of old inactive pages who choose to not heed others requesting them to stop. One of them, in fact, is belligerent in his refusal to listen to the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, "stale" is a poor criterion. It catches mostly old WP:NOT violating material without discriminating against worthy material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, it sounds like deletionism for the sake of it, which we have more than enough of. If there a specific problem with a page, solve the problem (including by deleting it if that's the right solution), but a page being old isn't per se a problem. LjL (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• No except for the obvious reasons like NOTWEBHOST, BLP violations or so. Please don't present the search indexing argument again, just saying. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Faulty question - there is no "implied default to keep the user draft indefinitely" and there sure is not actual requirement like the question proposer has stated in MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Legacypac. It's like saying there is an "implied default to keep mainspace page indefinitely" since they aren't deleted until someone else notices them and brings them to AFD where they get deleted. The fact that a page has existed without discussion for a period of times isn't condoning its existence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• No. Occasionally I trawl userspace for overlooked G10s, I like to think the community is on board with that and I commend such activity to anyone who wants to trawl userspace. But there is no benefit to purging userspace of goodfaith drafts. The community is only fifteen years old, we simply don't know how many decades people will stay away for before returning. My experience from other not for profit organisations is that people are capable of coming back after decades spent in careers or bringing up kids. We should not waste time making our movement less welcoming to such returnees. ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• No per WereSpielChequers and DESiegel. I would also favor the complete removal of WP:STALEDRAFT. Userspace drafts that are problematic enough to warrant deletion should be deleted immediately. The age or "staleness" of the draft makes no difference in its suitability for deletion. Deletion of good-faith userspace drafts has zero benefit for the project: it does not reduce the visibility of the page, it does not save server space, and it does not make stale drafts with potential easier to find better than the much more efficient process of simply categorizing stale drafts as high or low potential (which is done through this project). Furthermore, it has the potential to alienate editors, as noted by WereSpielChequers and already demonstrated here. A2soup (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:STALE favors blanking over outright deletion (along with other helpful alternatives). Are you suggesting blanking stale userspace drafts risks alienating editors? Editors likely to get upset over something like that should read WP:UP#OWN. If editors don't want their work mercilessly edited or even deleted (yes, even in userspace), they should keep an off-wiki copy. clpo13_(talk) 19:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I frequently argue for blanking at MfD. I think that as long as {{Userpage blanked}} is used, blanking is not very BITEy. And I agree with WP:UP#OWN concerns, which is why I opposed this the above proposal. However, I still have a problem with WP:STALE as long as it mentions deletion at all. That gives the (incorrect, in my view) impression that staleness influences deletion. While it may influence blanking, I don't think it should influence deletion. Deletion in userspace should be dictated by WP:UPNOT and has nothing to do with age or staleness. A2soup (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• No and keep WP:STALE as is. Userspace shouldn't be considered off-limits to other editors. Problematic content (copyvios, BLP violations) should be deleted, content with potential should be moved or merged into articlespace (or draftspace), and anything else should be blanked or left alone, even if it's ancient. clpo13_(talk) 19:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• No they shouldn't have an expiration date. Deleting them does not advance the interests of the project in any way, but in a small number of cases it will annoy or disappoint a returning editor to the point where their future contributions will be lost. This is a simple equation: benefits; none. disbenefits; some. Add to that the not-inconsiderable effort spent in carrying out those unproductive deletions. Why would we even consider deleting? A psychological desire for tidiness? Sorry, but that isn't enough to justify working against the interests of the wider project. Thparkth (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes if the content is significantly more likely than not to yield nothing of benefit to the project. I think this question is a bit faulty. No-one is advocating that we should have a WP:G13 style criteria by which we delete stale drafts. If that were the actual issue, I would vote an unequivocal no, because it's clearly a net negative. On the other hand, many editors have advocated that no material should be deleted unless it actively damages the project. This is equally silly. If you have to squint, do twelve backflips, and say 72 Hail Marys to convince yourself that a userspace draft will yield encyclopedic content in the future and it's stale, then it should be deleted. This is the common sense solution, but it seems it's the solution that has been ignored in favor of absolutism by most parties. ~ Rob^Talk 21:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: What I still don't understand is - what benefit is gained by deleting them? How does it improve the project? We know it has the (admittedly small) potential to annoy a returning editor. What benefit outweighs that cost? A2soup (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: WP:NOTWEBHOST is the main reason. If people see that we're allowing people to freely host content on our servers, more will follow. While there is no immediate benefit to deleting a userspace draft (i.e. the server space isn't freed up), there is likely a benefit in less future inappropriate use. I think it's fairly easy to see how it would be a bad thing if we gained a reputation for just turning a blind eye to everything in userspace. ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

One more thing re: the potential to annoy a returning editor. I imagine this is not a popular question to ask, but do we really want to retain an editor who's only activity was to create a page that has no conceivable path to bettering the project? I love the idea of converting that editor to a helpful editor in theory, but if someone makes a single contribution that is promotional or clearly an auto-biography and then leaves for 5 years, is that person really the type of editor likely to help the project? Especially if they're predisposed to annoyance when we remove the promotional or auto-biographical page? ~ Rob^Talk 14:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Re WP:NOTWEBHOST, I agree that material not directed at encyclopedic purposes should be deleted. But good-faith drafts, however incompetent and hopeless, are directed at encyclopedic purpose and therefore appropriate. I don't think that writing a draft before you understand notability is an inappropriate practice, so I don't think we are allowing any negative practices by allowing people of all competencies and levels of experience to attempt to draft articles. If it means that more people will try to draft articles as a result, I think that's a plus for the project. Sometimes the drafts are pure promotion and therefore not directed at encyclopedic purpose, but, again, those can be deleted immediately per WP:G11, and staleness is not a factor. A2soup (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: I disagree that "directed at encyclopedic purpose" is a sufficiently high standard. Any factual account of anything could be claimed to be directed at encyclopedic purpose, but that doesn't mean it has any reasonable probability of yielding encyclopedic content. If there's a 1% chance that a userspace draft will yield something of use, absolutely leave it alone! I agree with you 110% there. But when we get MfDs like this where the article is clearly promotional and not going to yield anything useful, I start pulling my hair out when I see editors declare that we should host it indefinitely. To me, it seems clear that keeping this sends the wrong message to others who would use Wikipedia as their personal promotional tool and web host. Note that editors in that discussion have cited the "WP:N doesn't apply to drafts" idea as a reason for keeping. That's what I'm arguing against, since it's a pretty insane application of that consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 16:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Where I differ with you is that you seem to require some small expectation that the draft will yield something useful. Why? Do you think good-faith drafts are a negative practice if they are unlikely to yield anything useful? I agree they are useless, but remember, we're looking for a positive benefit from deleting them. I don't think it benefits the project to discourage good-faith drafts, even if they are totally useless. On the contrary, if you are correct that deleting such things discourages them in the future, I think we are doing some harm by deleting hopeless/useless but good-faith drafts. We are in agreement that pure promotion should be deleted, but I fail to see the relevance of staleness there. A2soup (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ever since userspace became NOINDEXed, deletion of abandoned userspace content provides no tangible benefit. –xeno^talk 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• There's no implication of anything. That's like saying there's an implication that all mainspace can last forever because there's no set time limit for them going to AFD if they get missed by WP:NPP. As to the benefits, there are tangible benefits in that the amount of maintenance work (infobox template usages, categorization, wikiproject draftspace pages) have decreased. Since WikiProjects have draftspace categories, demanding that the project keep the page indefinitely seems pretty bizarre. Further, Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard and Category:Userspace drafts are sorted by date because they are considered backlogs and thus some people wish to go through it. If it's "no tangible benefit", why was there support for G6 expansion to allow deletion of empty Article Wizard drafts? People do see no benefit in having tens of thousands of pages of basically useless drafts. Now, if people think a particular page is worth keeping, that's fine but people opposed to the entire idea of deleting drafts are basically the equivalent of arguing to keeping everything at AFD because there could be sources that make a page notable. In fact it's literally the same thing to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any tangible benefits to deleting drafts in the 3 types of maintenance work you have described. Why do infoboxes on drafts increase workload somehow? No one should waste time keeping the infobox parameter usage, etc., updated in userspace drafts they are not working on - that's just silly, and I doubt anyone has ever done it. As for categorization, it is also not standard (or good) practice to categorize userspace drafts you are not working on. If you are talking about maintenance categories, they seem to be entirely automated by templates. Again, I doubt anyone has ever wasted time categorizing userspace drafts they are not working on. As for WikiProject draftspace pages, I haven't seen WikiProject tags on any worthless userspace drafts that would warrant deletion. This makes sense, since if the editor has the know-how to tag the draft, the draft is going to have potential, and then it shouldn't be deleted anyways. And no one should waste time (and I don't think anyone does waste time) putting WikiProject tags on drafts in other editor's userspaces. So again, I see no tangible benefit in the deletion of userspace drafts for lack of potential or staleness (although I would love for you to provide counterexamples to my points above). This is what distinguishes userspace drafts from mainspace - there is a clear tangible benefit to deleting poor pages there, since doing so directly improves the encyclopedia. The same is not true in userspace, and I'm a little worried that you don't see any difference between the two. A2soup (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone is totally opposed to the deletion of drafts - that is a straw man. Personally, I support the deletion of G11-level promotion, hoaxes of all kinds, and clear vandalism. I also sometimes support deleting severe enough violations of certain WP:NOT criteria (e.g. NOTRESUME, NOTESSAY, SOAPBOX). I also generally support the deletion of everything that does not appear to be a good-faith draft. But yes, I am opposed to the deletion of drafts without any of these problems solely for the purpose of "cleaning up", which doesn't seem to make anything cleaner except for maintenance categories created for said cleaning (talk about circular reasoning), and certainly doesn't benefit the project. A2soup (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

People update the template. They update the template everywhere because no one wants broken templates in random locations. No one knows whether this random version of a userspace draft that needs to be updated for whatever reason is because it's a half-decade old page that no one is watching or because it's a page about to go to mainspace tomorrow. When it's one or two pages, that's fine but the volume of stuff that is deleted shows that we are talking cumulatively tens of thousands of pages over time. There's infobox mergers that have to be done. Just because it's minor one or twice or ten thousand times doesn't make it any less unnecessary when it actually is not necessary in terms of this project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you show me a diff of an editor updating a template in a userspace draft that they had no previous involvement with? In the past couple of months, I've looked over dozens of userspace draft histories at MfD, and I have never seen anything like this. It makes no sense to me that someone would do that. But again, I'd love to see a diff or two. A2soup (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, when you write "People update the template", to what template do you refer? When you write "...a userspace draft that needs to be updated..." why does any userspace draft need to be updated, except to become a valid article? What scenario are you suggesting justifies deletion? Or if not deletion, what action are you suggesting is justified, and when and why? Your post above dated "06:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)" is very unclear to me. I do generally agree with the two posts by A2soup above any below your post. I'd like to see some actual examples of whatever proplem you refer to. DES ^(talk) 08:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me use an example. User:Bryhodge/No Time To Explain was created in 2011 and used many templates in it including template:Infobox video game. Nevertheless, defunct fields were removed in 2014, and further in 2015. It's the same as the mainspace version but given the number of translucations to that template in userspace how much extra time is being spent cumulatively on updating those pages every time there's a change? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My response to that is that X201 and Bgwhite need to ease off the AWB and stop making maintenance changes to userspace drafts, which is completely pointless. But in any case, I see the issue in that case was resolved without deletion. If you are concerned about the amount of work people are doing, blanking+templating, or redirecting if appropriate. are always far less work (and, crucially, no admin work) compared to deletion. A2soup (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not pointless. If the draft is actually being worked on, it's useful to have the parameter fixed everywhere, not just on mainspace. The problem isn't solved by you telling everyone else that they need to go do something else or else they should know and figure out which pages are being used and which aren't, it's resolved by actually dealing with the pages not in use and yes, blanking is an alternative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say no at the moment, mainly for reasons stated above, such as WereSpielChequers'. We must always use common sense, but in an ideal world, all userspace drafts with potential and relevance should find their way to mainspace eventually. If nothing else hinders Wikipedia's ability to cope with them, I see no superseding reason why they should be deprived of that right. On the other hand, I understand people's want to delete such drafts, but their basis for doing so (besides blatantly useless drafts) seems to be a mere expression of their OCD - and believe me I'd also love to see Wikipedia squeaky clean, but we need to put the benefits of preserving such content before all else. I also sympathise with comments made by BU Rob13; the thing is unless we establish a clear set of criteria, where do you draw the line between usable/workable drafts and drafts to be deleted? I would perhaps favour the creation of said criteria, but do we really have a problem that would merit their formulation? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The discussion below is about the language itself. If you would agree that userspace drafts "with no potential or relevance" can be subject to deletion (i.e. the actual question to determine in each discussion like WP:GNG is the basis at AFD), then people can get to the next step of what exactly that means. If, as seen below, the only language that is permitted is that these drafts "are harmless", then the deletion arguments will just go in circles as "not harmless" trumps even suggesting deleting anything at all. Clearly, pages are being subject to deletion and being deleted and it's not based on GNG or V and not the CSD criteria, so it would be helpful for at least some agreement on what that standard is. Of course, that would require some actual agreement that there exists a userspace drafts somewhere that can be deleted in the first place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To second what Ricky said, the issue here is that many people are treating the consensus that WP:N doesn't apply to draftspace and there shouldn't be a timer on user drafts (two things I totally agree with!) as carte blanche to oppose everything at MfD that isn't an attack page. I think it's clear that there is no consensus for such a keep rationale without any regard to whether the page is of any value. ~ Rob^Talk 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't even care if they actually do believe that. The problem is that there are pages being deleted and it would be productive if the people who oppose it get at least some concrete line that they would agree to. I could go to AFD screaming that I don't believe in WP:N as a standard or something equally odd and that's fine and all but when pages are deleted, it would be smarted to actually work out something rather than just keep tilting at the windmills. Instead, it's "I don't care about those deletions, I think those are wrong too" which is again cute and all but fine, if you won't delineate a line, more and more cases are going to come up and you're going to be wondering why a policy was created without your input. Coming from someone who get WP:WOP under some control after a decade of idiocy, slow and steady wins this race. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• No. No argument has been presented for how the encyclopedia would benefit from deleting stale drafts. Pburka (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The case for deleting unhelpful drafts is clear. WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy, and there should be no backdoor which allows someone to post a memorial, or a promotion, or nonsense (see Draft:85512255079), then have it retained indefinitely "because it's a draft". Cruft accumulates, and that makes finding useful drafts for expansion harder each year. Also, if the balance swings too far, the new normal will be that it is ok to post junk here to score an impressive wikipedia.org/MYPAGE link. Some people are not bothered by rubbish and they don't care that there is a growing pile of junk, but others want the community to deal with the junk in a timely manner—if no one can see that a three-year old draft is useful (no good sources; no notability), it should be deleted. There does not need to be a fixed expiration date, and each case can be dealt with on its merits, but each case should be dealt with. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Or how about we just find and delete the problematic drafts (no matter how old they are) and leave the good-faith non-problematic ones alone? I just don't see the need to create a bureaucratic process that requires discussion of non-problematic drafts or recommends a waiting period for problematic ones. Delete problematic drafts, leave the rest alone. What does a mandatory discussion add besides busywork? A2soup (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• An interesting proposal has been made at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#RfC: PROD in user space to extend the use of proposed deletion to userspace. Perhaps some of the opposers would reconsider if there was a light-weight deletion method such as this, whereby deleted articles could be easily and uncontroversially restored if the inactive editor returned. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  Deleting someone's private scratchpad without good reason no matter the method still provides little-to-no net benefit and has great potential to alienate returning editors. –xeno^talk 10:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• No. No reason for them to have one. There may be other reasons to delete, but being old isn't one of them.Hobit (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• No per WereSpielChequers. There should be no across the board expiration date as it makes no sense and provides minimal benefit. The only parts of STALEDRAFT that would make sense to have some sort of expiration date for are 3 and 4, which help enforce WP:WEBHOST. Even then it should involve a process where one user tags and a sysop can vet, similar to our current WP:G13 process for stale AfC drafts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• No, per the very good arguments above (WereSpielChequers's comment mostly, but others too). Wikibreaks can be beneficial to many, and there is no fixed timeframe on them - editors could come back to us in a decade or so, only to find an old draft deleted, which is not constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, stale in itself should not be a reason to delete a draft. THere should be more evaluation of its value and purpose before deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to closer

Note the discussion at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. This RfC shouldn't be closed in a vacuum; the RfC I linked asked more nuanced questions and should probably be deferred to. There's obvious consensus against a hard expiration date, but please be careful not to overstate what there's consensus for given the linked RfC. ~ Rob^Talk 11:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a helpful note, but you make it sound like you're an observer. In fact, you were the one who posed the question over there (A3) that duplicated the subject of this RfC, and which you now state should be deferred to. We would all love to have our preferred outcomes and our own questions deferred to, but let's let the closer decide how to consider it, no? A2soup (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2016 (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.

We do need a policy statement

I was beginning to be convinced by what seems to be a general feeling here that moving drafts to the mainspace in order to get them deleted is so obviously improper that no explicit policy statement about it is needed. However, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki:

• Legacypac is arguing that "There is no policy that says a person can't move to main and AfD" and citing this discussion's failure to state such a policy in support; and more seriously
• Sandstein says that "If we are of the view that moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with, then we'd need to clearly codify that as a policy or guideline, because only that would allow an administrator to override a "delete" consensus in circumstances such as this."

So, I think we do need a policy about it. Unless anyone gets there first, I will propose words tomorrow and, if we can get some agreement, start an RFC. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a policy statement, what we need was a single discussion about what should have been in regards to the whole set of Legacypac actions, which was done at ANI. At that point, once the outside admins looking at the problem said they weren't going to take admin action, it should have been dropped. What is the actual goal here? After all these pages get restored, all the AFDs get reversed, all the CSDs are reversed, are all these pages going back to their original userspaces? Admins are willing to move them to Draft:Duplekita and Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong with useless redirects from the original editors. The only policy that matters is WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPTION: Legacypac's page moves can be considered disruptive and trying to make a point about MFD discussions so I don't know what more is needed. You aren't going to legislate through policy: don't do thing that shouldn't be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason they point to the same Grffiki page is that it was a clearly stated test case - a test case that proved the stupidity of their ILIKEUSERSPACEJUNK arguments. Now Godsy is busy moving good topics back into userspace of indef banned user just because no one added a ref in 28 or 6 minutes. No check to see what links to the page or search to see if it is a notable topic or effort to add a ref himself. If we apply his logic more widely we should get on moving hundreds of thousands of such articles into user space ASAP. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed policy statements:

• "Cross-space page moving, userspace or draftspace to mainspace, to enable deletion at AfD, may be considered disruptive to the deletion process". Possibly belongs at WP:DEL, although nearly all editors agree that it is a statement of the obvious.
• "Userpages containing draft material on plausibly notable new topics may be kept indefinitely in userspace. If there is a concern of promotion, the page should be blanked during periods of inactivity."

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Re your first statement, it's hard to demonstrate what the purpose of a move was. Why not do something like Rob's idea in the earlier discussion, and phrase it positively. Something like: "Userspace drafts can be moved to mainspace only if they are notable and meet the core content policies. If userspace drafts are moved that do not meet these requirements for mainpace, but whose contents are acceptable for userspace, the move should be reversed." A2soup (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, only Legacypac has crossed the line, and if he is going to maintain "clearly stated test case", and if DRV overturns, then we could call it a completed breaching experiment and let it go. The second statement I think is more important, to address the propagating false dichotomy that that old drafts/notes must either be deleted/blanked or promoted on a time limit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Have we considered the possibility that once it is unlikely that a draft is going to be worked on further it should either be made into an article or considered for deletion? I think any new policy will have to be far more nuanced than a simple prohibition. I see no reason we should host content that does not meet our inclusion standards if there is no reasonable chance work being continued on it. HighInBC 01:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The content will continue to be hosted on Wikimedia servers whether we delete it or not - we can't stop the hosting. Userspace pages are NOINDEX, so we aren't lending the Wikipedia imprimatur to any of the content, and the pages can be blanked in any case. The only thing deletion accomplishes (that is not accomplished by the better alternative of blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}) is taking up the time of the MfD !voters and the deleting admin and making the page inaccessible on the very small chance the author returns. Deletion of non-problematic userpages has no benefits and small costs (admin time, very small chance of editor alienation) - on the balance, it shouldn't be done. A2soup (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC, absolutely yes. But the devil is in the details. Where is the "unlikely" or "no reasonable chance" line? There is a cost to deleting things should have potential. There is a cost to alienating old editors. There is a cost to evaluating potential. Note that WP:N/N collapsed under its underestimated workload. You "see no reason we should host" means that you have not weighed the cost. Server space is cheaper than editor time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, deletion does not even save server space. A2soup (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it takes more space than blanking. –xeno^talk 11:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can add to this discussion, but count me as being firmly against unfinished user drafts being moved out of the user space without the knowledge or consent of the creator under any circumstances. If a user is retired and/or banned, any such move would probably be without their knowledge or consent, and even if it is immediately nominated for deletion this is inappropriate. My (admittedly somewhat subjective) reasoning for taking a firm stance on this issue is something that happened to me when I was (temporarily) retired.[1][2][3][4] The Wikipedia Community acting under the direction of a sockpuppet of a banned stalker, for the win. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But I'm not against deleting userspace drafts that are probably never going to be finished. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: when you're posting any content anywhere on Wikipedia, you are agreeing to license it for public use by anyone, as stated above the edit box. The whole concept of not improving the encyclopedia because there isn't the "knowledge or consent of the creator" (if the creator is a Wikipedia editor) is completely contrary to the whole idea that Wikipedia is based upon. You gave your knowledge and consent to perusal and modification when you posted the content, explicitly and legally: live up to it and don't try to stop it with arbitrary policies. LjL (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Just to be clear, you are defending sockpuppetry, block evasion and harassment because 'I had it coming'? I started creating a draft in my userspace, but couldn't finish it because I left the project, because the same person drove me off shortly before getting sitebanned. The unfinished, and therefore inaccurate, material was falsely attributed to me as though I had consciously added this inaccurate material to the mainspace. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm defending nothing. You are putting words in my mouth. I think what I am saying is clear: according to you, unfinished drafts should not be moved into main space under any circumstances without creator knowledge or consent, and to me, that stance is starkly against Wikipedia's spirit. Especially if an editor is retired or gone, that doesn't give said editor the right to "reclaim ownership" of anything they had previously posted and licensed on Wikipedia. It is there to be used. Don't like how free content works? Don't post here. Anything else pertains to your particular case, of which I made no mention. LjL (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If I wanted that material to be posted in the mainspace with my name attached, I would have finished it. When an IP shows up posing as a retired user and requesting that an obviously unfinished draft be moved out of that retired user's userspace, someone should be skeptical. This was an epic fail on the part of the community. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I think most people are going to assume you forgot to log-in once and did that while "retired". That's much more like than a complex scheme involving sockpuppets, IP users and other players. The IP addresses wasn't ever blocked nor put in an sockpuppetry report so I'm not sure why you're mad at everyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My user page said I was retired, and I hadn't edited for months -- and an ANI thread had been opened about me getting driven off Wikipedia by a sockpuppeteer editing from that IP range. Someone should have at least asked if it was me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here is trying to save disk space. I am talking about hosting content that is not compatible with our project, like vanity pages that don't even come close to meeting notability requirements. We should not be lending our name to puff pieces someone made after school one day for years on end.

Where is the "unlikely" or "no reasonable chance" line? That is what deletion discussions are for. The poster child of this debate Graffiki has no place on Wikipedia. It is some guy talking about how cool and mysterious he is, and has not been touched by anyone in years. The deletion debate found a consensus to delete, a consensus that will likely be disregarded.

I just hope the we are working on a policy to deal with this old cruft and not just a policy to stop Legacypac. HighInBC 03:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: My standard has come to be to keep good-faith drafts. Is a page is enough of a vanity page that I don't think it can be regarded as a good-faith attempt at a draft, then I think deletion is fine. The benefit in those cases is in discouraging such pages in the future. Where I differ with some other editors is that I don't think good-faith userspace drafts should be deleted just because they are incompetent and/or have no chance of ever becoming an article. I simply don't see a benefit to the project in such deletions to offset the small costs of admin time and (in very rare cases) editor alienation. Where do you stand on that? Do you see a benefit in such deletions? A2soup (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Right now pretty much anyone can write whatever they want about themselves in userspace and link to it from wherever they want. When people arrive it appears in the voice of Wikipedia as though it is a real article. An outsider following a link does not know about user spaces and will not know the different between a userspace draft and an article. The benefit in deleting these is that we don't lend our name to tripe.

We have always had the technology to host whatever information people want to host, but we made a very conscious decision at the start of this project to limit ourselves to encyclopedic content. The purpose of drafts is to make articles, and if a draft cannot do that then it should not be here. An editor will be just as alienated if we remove their content from somewhere else on the project, they either have to accept the scope of the project or move on. I see no reason why an abandoned draft should not be reviewed to see if it can be made into an article, and if not deleted. HighInBC 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How can this (abandoned "vanity" pages) not be solved by simply blanking the page? –xeno^talk 11:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Incentives. If we leave vanity pages in the draftspace for 5 years, allowing the author to link to it for half a decade, and then just blank them, allowing the author to return and instantly recreate them, then we're creafting incentives to continue creating vanity pages. ~ Rob^Talk 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also they can still use the "permanent link" button to send people to the exact same page and it still looks like Wikipedia's voice. Anything we host reflects on us as a project. HighInBC 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is an extremely stupid statement to make. We have our work to vouch for. A few kilobytes of nonsense text on a userpage will never demean us as a community. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who thinks it okay to belittle other peoples opinions is not the best guy to see what does and does not demean something. It is not a few kilobytes, it is thousands of pages that have not even been reviewed for BLP vios, we need to sort them out one day. HighInBC 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)'

I didn't belittle your opinion. I found the flaw in your argument. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

They could do the same PermanentLink trick by stowing their content in a public sandbox, or the like. Is this ("vanity hosting") an actual and widespread problem? Any examples? –xeno^talk 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is far too generous. In main space, those wanting to keep an article have to prove it is notable and verifiable and otherwise suitable. If keep good-faith drafts was standard procedure, anyone wanting to remove a draft would have to prove it was written in bad faith—essentially impossible. Who cares if Draft:85512255079 was written in good faith—it should be deleted. That's an extreme example but there are plenty of pages in draft and user namespaces that are of no conceivable benefit to Wikipedia. Keeping them promotes the idea that WP:NOTWEBHOST is toothless and anyone can post any junk so long as it is not blatantly offensive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: WP:NOTWEBHOST is about content not related to Wikipedia's goals, and the benefit in such deletions is that creating such pages should be discouraged. Good-faith drafts, however incompetent, are related to Wikipedia's goals, and should not be discouraged. Nor is there any other material benefit to the project from deleting them (or can you give one?). Re "anyone can post any junk", if that junk is either an attempt at a draft or simply scratch work, what is the benefit of deletion? To respond to your example, I am really only arguing about userspace (I'm okay with more deletion in draftspace), but if I found Draft:85512255079 in userspace, I would be fine with deletion because it doesn't seem like an attempt at an article (i.e. a draft) or any plausible encyclopedia-related scratch work to me. So WP:NOTWEBHOST applies, and the benefit is discouraging such pages in the future. A2soup (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: You only provide arguments against vanity pages, but I already agree with you there. What I don't see is why non-problematic drafts that cannot become articles should not be here. There are small costs to deleting those: admin time and the small chance of editor alienation. What I don't understand is what material benefits of such deletions overcome these costs? And are these benefits not provided equally well by blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}, which does not take admin time and has less alienation potential? A2soup (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The experience from managing anything shows that tolerating junk encourages more junk. The fact that you apparently clicked Draft:85512255079 and wrote the above rather than "of course nonsense like that should be speedy deleted" means that there is a complete disdain for reality. There is no need to ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What shows a disdain for reality? I wrote "would be fine with deletion", which seems equivalent to "of course nonsense like that should be speedy deleted" except for the "speedy" part. Which CSD criterion applies in this case? (I would be fine with speedy deletion if one did apply.) I guess where we differ is in what "junk" should be discouraged. I think that if the junk is good-faith drafts, they should not be discouraged, since many newbies are bound to write a first draft that is incompetent and/or never going to make mainspace. If we are discouraging such things (and I agree that deleting them does discourage it), we are discouraging BOLD attempts at getting into editing. I count that as a cost, not a benefit. A2soup (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You said you would would be fine with deletion if it were in user space. Arguing over junk like that may drive away good editors who do not want to be associated with a community that tolerates such nonsense—is this an encyclopedia or a free web hosting service? Why should trolls and the misguided look for any other website when they can get a link to their free page at wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MyStuff? Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed the middle of my sentence: "(I'm okay with more deletion in draftspace)". I would be more fine with deleting the page there. I only specified because I'm not sure what I think about draftspace and don't have a coherent theory for it and don't want to imply that I do. If the page indicates a troll, delete it by all means. If by "misguided", you mean "incompetent", well, we were all there once. If the draft is non-problematic (and a draft, not a blog or something), I see no reason to discourage it. I think an essential part of BOLD is being free to try stuff even if you suck at it or don't yet know WP policy. The fact that they are choosing to do it in userspace rather than mainspace is positive and should be encouraged. A2soup (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many cases where someone has created a user page that is a good-faith start on an article. Everyone agrees that anything of value should be retained. The question concerns what to do with the large quantity of pages which have no known encyclopedic value (WP:N and WP:RS problems). The mantra "what harm do they do?" ignores the purpose of Wikipedia—this is not a free web hosting service, and every page must contribute towards the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Keeping nonsense because who cares means nonsense will expand without limit, and that will make finding useful stuff or patrolling for BLP problems very difficult. Further, keeping nonsense without discrimination is a serious turn-off for those good editors who care about the kind of company they keep. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly "good -faith" is not enough. That is why I suggest "plausibly notable new topic". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just A7 in userspace. When you are literally applying an A-series CSD to userspace (and one of the most controversial ones at that), I think it's clear you're being too stringent. Actually, it's significantly more stringent than A7 since A7 is limited to certain types of entities. A2soup (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There is obviously discrimination involved, nothing is kept "without discrimination". I disagree that every page must contribute towards improving the encyclopedia. Here are some that don't. There are purposes to Wikipedia pages other than directly improving the encyclopedia, and being a place for newbies to try stuff out is one of them. We would do the encyclopedia a disservice by discouraging this use of userpages. A2soup (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User pages, jokes, wisdom and many other pages build the community that builds the encyclopedia. Common sense and WP:UP support such pages as a means to an end. Why raise such red herrings? Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Letting newbies try stuff out even if they suck and don't meet certain standards builds the community that builds the encyclopedia. I picked the examples because I thought they were equivalent to crappy but good-faith userspace drafts in that way - fostering community instead of direct improvement. A2soup (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The goalposts seem to be shifting because I thought these discussions concerned abandoned drafts that have no clear benefit to the encyclopedia. If a new editor creates a user page with a few plausible sentences, no one is going to try to delete it unless the page has not developed for a long time. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that deleting pages discouraged the creation of more like them in the future? Or if that is not the case, what tangible benefit to the project is provided by these deletions to offset the small costs (admin time and small chance of returning user alienation)? A2soup (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please engage with the comments that have already been made rather than repeating slogans. Above, I wrote "Keeping nonsense because who cares means nonsense will expand without limit, and that will make finding useful stuff or patrolling for BLP [or copyvio] problems very difficult. Further, keeping nonsense without discrimination is a serious turn-off for those good editors who care about the kind of company they keep." Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with your examples. None of those are trying to be articles, these drafts are trying to be articles so it is reasonable to judge them by those standards. I think we should focus on what is a reasonable standard to deal with these old drafts, I think AfD is a great way to do it but I am happy to hear other ideas. I don't accept the idea of just not dealing with them. HighInBC 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If they were trying to be articles, they would have been moved to (or written in) articlespace or submitted to AfC. A better way than deletion to deal with them is to categorize them into high, mid, and low potential, a process that is easier than deletion and more precisely able to pick out which are worth improving and which are worth ignoring. We can do that right now: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. (And surely you meant MfD, not AfD?) A2soup (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, abandoned drafts with no benefit are trivial to decide they are worthless. The problem is of old drafts of some potential. Should one editor have the right to decide when to apply a seven day deadline to have it improved or deleted? Should editors tagging for deletion worthless crap, and moving good stuff to mainspace, take care to not throw away in the intermediate stuff? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• There is no imposition of a 7 day deadline. Anyone who wants to can adopt a draft into their own userspace and continue it, even if it is at AfD. If anything the AfD will give the old draft the attention it deserves. If nobody is willing to take it on, then it is indeed abandoned.

• If you are concerned about anyone being able to AfD an old draft any time then perhaps we should draft rules about when and under what circumstances old drafts are considered for their value as an article. HighInBC 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• People can also vote to draftify or userify page at AFD. I think we just need to encourage that instead. If these pages all went to AFD and the votes were userify then back, I'm certain that people would stop moving them to mainspace if all they get is them bounced back and forth. People can even ask to userify a draft after AFD which happens all the time, just ask the admin. No admin cares enough to object absent a good reason. I think the issue is why userify them back to an inactive user's userspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• what about the scenario where a poor article is written in mainspace... Is Subsequently nominated at AFD, with an outcome of "userfy" ... Then sits in userspace (unchanged), until it becomes "stale". Can an editor who disagreed with that original AFD outcome either delete the "draft" or promote the "draft" back into mainspace (depending on their view of of how the original AFD should have gone)? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar is this for the section above? Else, I don't recall too many examples but the userified version always ends up in a new MFD debate which makes sense. As to moving, WP:OWN comes into play: anyone can move it to mainspace but it could be treated as a G4 or kept or brought again to AFD. I don't know too many cases. The closest one where it's gone through many AFDs and the userspace version is questionable is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret with five AFDs alternating between keeps and deletes and yet stagnant in userspace. Even then, if someone shows interest in it, I think it could stay but that's going on eleven years. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The question related to both threads... Since both talked about userfication. Thank you for the reply. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• A consensus at AfD to userfy is not a consensus to delete. Typically, it would happen to a proper userpage mislocated in mainspace, but if it is for an intended mainspace article, the consensus to userfy would signify agreement that the topic is suitable, but something must be wrong with the drafting so far. Excessive embedded WP:NOR or NPOV issues for example. A consensus at AfD to userfy is different to a consensus to delete allowing userfication, or to delete with userfication given on request under an admin's discretion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The solution is then to create a unified theory, one that explains in general deletion policy when userification is appropriate and one that explains when a userspace draft is appropriate to keep around. Something like "if there's a credible chance at a plausible draft" but it's going to be vague. Currently arguing in circles that "it's harmless" and "there's never a reason to delete userspace drafts" is nice and all but it does nothing. Frankly, we should consider renaming deletion policy in general since CFD, RFD and others are being renamed to "for discussion" and it should cover mainspace, draftspace and userspace together. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously, I began drafting a {{guideline}}, to be referenced from Wikipedia:Editing policy, called Wikipedia:Managing drafts. I did it offline and have lost it already. I just started again.

It was to cover both DraftSpace drafts and UserSpace drafts. It was to complement the Information page Wikipedia:Drafts. The various points were to be presented in a way that is easy to connect to talk page discussion/!voting, or to recent RfC.

I note that local consensuses appear to be in conflict with regard to old drafts.

I think that WP:STALEDRAFT should be moved from WP:UP to Wikipedia:Managing drafts, when approved.

I think one place to document guidance on all drafts is a helpful direction to move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 April 2016

As a minor edit, it may be better to shorten the sentence "Userboxes are fun little boxes you can put in your user page to express yourself. Information on userboxes can be found here." into "Userboxes are fun little boxes you can put in your user page to express yourself.". They both serve the same function; it is just that the shorter sentence may be more efficient. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hex Maniac Lane

Hex maniac Lane is a pokemon youtuber with 25 subscribers as of now. He has an evil togepi named Tyrone, a Haunter, and a Luxray named Diamond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hex maniac lane (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)