Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Project page   Real time tracking   Resources for Guides   Email templates   Guides (members)   Resources for New Users   "When I first joined..."  
  Home   Project Talk page   RfC on socializing   RfC on CSD to userpage drafts   Minimizing talk page templates   New Pages   RfC on new editors creating pages  
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In order to increase participation, many articles deleted via WP:CSD should instead be moved to userspace drafts.

This is part of a series of RfCs that came about early during the Wiki guides project. The objective is to generate new active contributors to help fulfill the Wikimedia Foundation's goal of increased participation. A recent update from the Wikimedia Foundation is helpful in understanding the need for new users. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

Wikipedia should change Criteria for speedy deletion so that articles deleted on one of the article only criteria (A1-A10), wp:CSD#G1 or wp:CSD#G2 should be userfied as userspace drafts.

View from User:TomStar81[edit]

When I first arrived here I created several articles (like this one, deleted some time ago) that today would meet csd grounds easily: they were only on space ships from the Mobile Suit Gundam franchise. I did a great job on each of the articles: I read through blogs, wrote a few paragraphs for each ship class, highlighted their strengths and weakness, even spell checked the article if you would believe it. When I hit save I fully believed that the article I add would help others who like me loved the fictional gundam universe enhance thier knowledge of the subject matter. Never mind that I did not provide references for the articles, or that the articles did not have ship templates, or that they were so called "cruft" pages - I was just glad to have helped. Having helped out I was thus horrified when someone tagged my article on the Alexandria class heavy cruisers as being in need of cleanup; I thought it was going to be the end of the world. Turns out I was the lucky one, since Aqua008 and a few others explained what I would need to do to get the tag removed. These days those, if I were try this again, I'd end up with an article that was deleted almost before it was saved. This is do in part to two separate, yet equally poisonous, issues currently plaguing those who have the balls (or boobs) to try creating anything here.

Its the latter issue that I am moving to address here: rather than axe an article because its poorly written, the rules should require all admins to move new article into the userspace if they do not meet what the currently accepted level of a new article is (I phrase the point like this because our standards have changed and will undoubtedly continue to change as time marches forward). No one learns to walk without falling down, or drive without slamming on the breaks, or how to pay utility bills without missing one or two payments. Why therefore should those who just arrived here and are for the most part making an honest attempt be penalized by watching what they thought was a good first attempt at an article vanish in a digital deletion due to what they undoubtedly believe was a drive by deletion - essentially a random act of violence perpetrated by someone in the know? The simple answer is that they should not be expected to conform to our standards immediately, but we have allowed ourselves to forget the true meaning of BOLD, and AGF, and IAR with the csd process and now prefer to simply axe material thought to be unworthy of being here. Rather than cited obscure provisions of whatever policy or guideline we can find to delete an article we should be moving these newly created article to a new users userspace, and leaving them a message as to why this was done and what they need to do to improve the article to move it out to the article space. Deleting an article created by a new user is arguably the worst form of bad faith, since it suggests that whatever they endeavored to work so long and so hard on to get here was in fact not worth the time or the effort, which in turn suggests to a new user that we do not need the likes of them here, whereas moving the article implies that we care about the material, and that if a new user is willing to work a little to satisfy the minimum requirements for RS and Notability then the article can stay, or at the very least, go through afd rather than csd. An once of mercy is worth its weight in gold, if we show new articles and the corresponding new users an once of mercy then I am sure Wikipedia will become a gold repository for knowledge. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Katherine (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Good alternatives to deletion are underused. Peremptory deletion is contrary to our editing policy and so should be discouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. The one thing I don't really agree with is this: "the rules should require all admins to move new article into the userspace if they do not meet what the currently accepted level of a new article is". I like that, but there should be a few exceptions to that rule, such as blatant spam, vandalism, copyvios, gibberish (like "ajklfh eahegjhkae"), and any BLP violations. Other than that, though, I agree with this. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 01:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Yoenit[edit]

I support Tomstars view with the following addition: All articles userfied this way should be tagged and be eligible for speedy deletion under a new criteria if they are not edited in x amount of time (6 months?). This is to prevent userspace filling up with wp:FAKEARTICLES.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Yoenit (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. I've liked this idea for awhile, and I also agree that there needs to be some way to prevent userspace from filling up with things like this and this (unfortunately admins-only; I remember those because they were my first MfD). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  4. Waldir talk 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  5. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 01:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Tryptofish[edit]

I saw the RfC note, and, sorry, I just don't agree with this idea. There's a considerable amount of stuff that gets properly speedied under these criteria that has zero likelihood of ever being made into anything of value. This would balance out as a waste of time and effort.

But, that said, I can think of other things that would be worthwhile along the same lines. It may be useful to take a new look at the CSD notification templates for user talk pages, to make them look less like a thunderbolt from the authorities. And instead of automatically userifying CSD pages, it can certainly make sense to do so on a case-by-case basis. (I did just that a while back, and the new user has since worked the page up to a pretty nice one in article space, but that was because I could see evidence of good intent and encylopedic possibility.) Perhaps we can revise the CSD instructions to encourage doing this more often, and to encourage administrators to consider doing so instead of accepting a deletion nomination.

Users who endorse this view
  1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. There are some problems that simply cannot be fixed by editing. Mr.Z-man 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. If an article has potential I usually offer to userfy it. They hardly ever take me up on it. Most CSDed articles are created by "throwaway" accounts that are never seen again, they won't do the work no matter how nice we try to be about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Userfication of good faith efforts to create an encyclopedia article should be encouraged. Spam, vanity, schoolyard nonsense and other crap should, of course, be terminated with extreme prejudice. MER-C 03:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Reyk YO! 21:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Jayron32 06:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Yes, use sensible judgement. I think that is already done. I also think that when userfying, the page should be noindexed so there are no worries about WP:FAKEARTICLEs. SilkTork *YES! 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  13. Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Jarkeld (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Peter E. James (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. See my comment to fetchcomms's view below. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. Pol430 talk to me 07:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 21:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. Our current messages would make ME want to leave if I got them at the start (both the "giant red delete template of doom" on the article and the "omg bad boy" template on the talk page) A lot of good could come out of trying to work on them. James (T C) 19:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. Make the templates welcoming and helpful. Presently they are a brutal fuck off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  23. Stifle (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  24. Some of the templates need to be a "brutal fuck-off" to obvious vandals and people who are just here to waste our time. But it's unfortunate that sometimes good faith additions get the same templates. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  25. Might help to add a "userfy" button to twinkle, for NPP convenience in the occasional instances where userfication make sense. But I tend to think it's not often, and have elsewhere been supporting the opposite approach to bitey newpage CSD's, namely require a bit of editing experience before allowing unassisted newpage creation in the first place. When a brand-new editor thinks they've got a suitable subject for a new article, they're usually wrong. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  26. I like the IP above me's idea a lot. Also, ditch the red-triangle-with-exclamation-point image. I think users get the message that their article is at risk without that. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 01:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  27. I agree that this will make sense only occasionally. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Fetchcomms[edit]

This doesn't solve a problem. It makes new problems.

Basically, this idea doesn't help.

Users who endorse this view
  1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. This elaborates on the first part of my own view, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Mono (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Mr.Z-man 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. lifebaka++ 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Was going to write my own view but this says more or less what I would've. The intent is good but the actual idea is terrible. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 01:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. We have enough WP:FAKEARTICLEs as it is, and we cannot keep up with them. MER-C 03:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. If the topic is encyclopedic and the user asks for it to be userfied, we can do it, but there's no reason whatsoever to just do it automatically. ----B (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Reyk YO! 21:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  13.   -- Lear's Fool 10:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  15. Jayron32 06:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  16. Agree. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  17. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  18. Jarkeld (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  19. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. The second (I think) article I created was speedy-deleted and I'm still here (see this). Would this band article ever amount to anything? If it had been userfied, I would simply slap a {{db-u1}} tag on it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  22. I agree, moving everything won't help. But if it is salvageable we should try to give the article a chance. Sumsum2010·T·C 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  23. Pol430 talk to me 07:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  24. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  25. Edison (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  26. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  27. Acather96 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  28.  Sandstein  06:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  29. GFOLEY FOUR— 07:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  30. Gigs (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  31. œ 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  32. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  33. Shadowjams (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  34. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  35. Harsh... but... Sven Manguard Wha? 08:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  36. unfortunately, very true. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Lifebaka[edit]

Elaborating on some of Fetchcomms' view above, there are two main types of situations where this proposal would not be useful. This is not to say that I am opposed to it in all cases, but it is certainly a bad choice in some.

The first situation where userfying a speedy-able page is not a useful option is when that page needs to be deleted right now. The main examples of this are some instances of G3 and all instances of G9 (we really can't legislate what the OFFICE does, anyway), G10, G12, and F9. These are situations where the content is clearly unacceptable, regardless of its location. We should not, under any circumstances, be userfying pages deleted under these criteria.

The second situation where userfying is not useful are those criteria that suppose, as a given, that the deletion is uncontroversial or mere maintenance. Namely, G6, G8, A3, A5, R2, R3, F1, F2, F8, C1, C2, U1, U2, and possibly others in certain situations. Userfying these would be silly (such as G6s made during page moves or U1s in general).

Users who endorse this view
  1. lifebaka++ 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Thryduulf[edit]

While I like the idea, and User:Yoenit's ammendment, I don't think either have it quite right.

The only real problem I have withUser:TomStar81's list of criteria involved is that it is too great, I would restrict the userfication to:

  • G2 - test pages are fine in a users own space, so let's move them there.
  • A1 - Articles with no context could become good articles if context is added
  • Some A7 - we don't need articles that have no indication of importance, but we do want articles about notable topics where the article just doesn't say this at first. I would exclude articles that make obviously implausible claims of importance (e.g. "My brother is 10 years old, he is the president of France")

These userfied articles should be no-indexed, and should not be hanging around forever. To facilitate this, the articles should be tagged as Yoenit suggests, noting the original concern, and a note placed on the user's talk page. There should be a way to easily find these articles so others can take them on if they wish (my first thought is a parallel category tree, e.g. Category:UserDraft:Shopping malls in Utah, however this would be a lot of work to maintain and would see lots of empty categories, so there is probably a better way.

If after a period of time (I suggest around 30 days) no edits have been made to the page, or if it goes unedited for any (same period of time), then a bot would replace place a user draft prod template on the article and a note on the author's talk page. Per standard prod, it would then be deleted if not improved after a further 7 days. At any time a human could manually nominate for userdraft prod in the same way an article can be. That a main namespace article on the subject now exists that didn't at the time would be a valid prod reason.

When wanting to move the article into the main namespace after improvement, they would replace the user draft template with a userdraft review template (or maybe just add the latter) when any uninvolved editor(s) would review it and either give suggestions for how to improve it to article standard or, if it already is of that standard, move it to the main namespace (if they have been autoconfirmed) or flag it for any autoconfirmed user to move if they agree that it should be. Think of this like a very, very lightweight Good Article review style process.

All such pages would be eligible for MfD at any time. Vexatious uses of the review template without good faith attempts at improvement would probably lead to a user warning and an MfD.

Details can be refined later, so endorsements are for the structure and not necessarily for the fine detail.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:RadManCF[edit]

I think that TomStar81 is on to something, but as others have pointed out, it would likely result in a massive amount of unsalvageable articles being saved. It may perhaps be worth bringing this idea up at the village pump idea lab, in order to develop a more workable version. I have thought from time to time that it would be a good idea to have a set of "Speedy Userfy" criteria, to be applied in the case of poor quality new articles that could be salvaged. However, as I have stated in a related RfC, the best means of making the article creation process less bitey for the newcomers is to require them to go through AfC.

Users who endorse this view
  1. RadManCF open frequency 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. I think the "Speedy Userify" idea is worth further thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. 'Speedy-userfy' is a brilliant idea. As in all things, good judgement is vital.ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. James (T C) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Stifle (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Od Mishehu[edit]

Most articles ahich are deleted under A7 and A9 are likely to not be important enough to ever become reasonable articles. As such, they should be deleted. The CSD warnings for all the article criteria should all mention the poissibility of having the article userfied in stead of deleted, and even that it can be done after the article had been deleted, but this action shouldn't be the default.

Users who endorse this view
  1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Thparkth (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Reyk YO! 21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. RadManCF open frequency 01:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  9. Jayron32 06:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:DGG[edit]

We need to balance the number of articles rescued and editors gained, by both the amount of work and follow up necessary, and the number of hopelessly worthless articles that would remain. I think the balance is in favor of doing something of the sort, but even with years of experience doing this, I claim no great accuracy in being able to distinguish the hopeful editors from the hopeless, nor is it any benefit to new editors to work on what will never be adequate articles instead of improving Wikipedia in other ways—it will only add to their frustration.

Obviously even now any editor at Wikipedia can choose to do this to whatever articles they think rescuable--it does not take an administrator, and it does not take a change it policy. At this point we do not do it as much as we should, but if we did it automatically we would do it more than we should. I think we should first make it a matter of encouragement, rather than requirement, and try to find subclasses of articles for which we might say it is realistic.

Otherwise, as Od Mishehu says, it is a matter of educating admins to be very cautious, though I am not certain this will be a realistic expectation for every admin, DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC) One of the biggest problems is with overenthusiastic use of CSD for things that are not covered by the ctieria.
  2. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC) The off Wikipedia complaints I have seen support the idea that new articles are very likely to be deleted.
  3. We already have "speedy userfy" criteria: the move tab, WP:BOLD and your common sense as a patroller. All of which should be used more often in lieu of speedy deletion. Skomorokh 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. Not quite agreeing with the final paragraph (I'd be happy with "reasonably cautious" rather than "very cautious", there's a such thing as too much of a good thing), but certainly a good principle. Stifle (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Wnt[edit]

Moving articles to user space is an option, but not necessarily the best option. We should recognize:

  • Magic tricks like Template:New page are unknown to new users. Every new article with some kind of valid content in it deserves to be treated with the same respect.
  • Speedy deletion doesn't have to mean instant deletion. I see no reason why an administrator couldn't put a template on any article that anyone here would consider for userfication, which marks it as appropriate for speedy deletion, but which gives editors a deadline to fix the relevant issues.
  • Userfication prevents editor collaboration on articles about recent events, because people don't find the existing draft. People here are assuming that putting "User:XXX/" in front of the article name makes it less authoritative as a representative of Wikipedia. But does anyone outside Wikipedia know that? Why not just do that with a big "Draft article" template that warns readers that the article is under construction?
  • Any editor whose article was deleted or speedy deleted should receive a notice to his talk page which says, explicitly, that by contacting [link to LIVING AND ACTIVE administrator's talk page], he can have the article undeleted and moved to his user page. Wikipedia regulars know they can request this but again newbies probably don't. I think that this is better than an automatic userfication, since that option would leave marooned pages which frequently would need to be re-deleted again.
Users who endorse this view
  1. Wnt (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC). Especially the fourth point. A friendly, welcoming, jargon-free message on the author's talk page, explaining what's wrong, and who to contact if they'd like to fix it, is all that's required. No boxes or icons necessary, just a simple, signed message in English. There are far too many "official"-looking, scary, unhelpful and inadequate templates.

View from User:Peterstrempel[edit]

This matter becomes an issue only when bots are used, or human admins behave like automatons, which is not uncommon. Some people need to remember that rules aren't the words of God, and are always subject to judgement and re-evaluation. It takes a special kind of naivete to insist that everything should be subject to specific rules, and a special kind of arrogance to try and enforce such a regime. Leaving aside the prennial excuse about too much work to do in too little time, if people who seek administrator status and to exercise its prerogatives here are not willing to take the time to try and make a human assessment of what the right thing to do is, we might as well pack up and go eat cheeseburgers in front of a home shopping TV channel.

My personal experience of recently returning to Wikipedia after a prolonged absence was that I immediately ran afoul of a few admins with my mistakes, and I was treated like a congenital idiot because I didn't speak the acronym-laden language of self-appointed Wikistapo (beware of those guys coming after you) and the exclusive club of 'cool-kid' Wikisnobs. That left a slightly sour taste in my mouth. However, on another occasion I was patiently, and at the cost of considerable time, guided by Fat&Happy to create clean copy (only a couple of paras) for an article. This hands-on, generous, and time-consuming intervention encouraged me to help myself by seeking guidance when I just didn't know. That was enough. If you come across a contribution you think needs deleting, act like a human being, and the issue about friendliness or putting people off just goes away.

My own perception now is that the rules don't necessarily need to be changed. The single most useful thing the Wiki-elite can do for Wkipedia is to rationalize the bewildering mess of articles that constitute the help system for Wikipedia. It is currently an opaque, impenetrable black hole that you can venture into never to return because nothing is intuitive, everything is partial information leading you on a linkchase into eternity, and no search terminology will ever help you find what you're looking for unless you already know what it is you seek.

I changed my mind. New articles should start as drafts in discussion pages, and contentious edits should be proposed in talk pages before they are made. Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
  1. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

View from User:ThatPeskyCommoner[edit]

I think it may be too easy to make the assumption that a new user couldn't produce a decent article, without using templates, if they worked on it in their user space. I think it's possibly more than likely that a new user would cease to edit at all, if all that happened with their first attempt was that it was speedied. Userfying anything which could concievably have potential, and seeing if there's anyone who could volunteer to mentor the new user (without the newbie having to ask for a mentor, as many newbies won't have a clue that this is even an option), who might share an interest with that new user, and could make an offer to mentor them with it at the same time that it was suggested that it be moved to user-space, might develop / encourage someone with potential. I'm techincally a newbie (OK, I did about 15 edits back in 2006, but nothing from them to the end of January this year, so I 'look' old at first pop-up .......). I moved one out of my userspace just a couple of days ago. I don't think it's a bad one ;o) Try teaching, not squashing :o)

Just adding: the article I created in my user space could well have been speedied in its early stages; instead of which it has just been DYK'd (appeared yesterday) and had over 9400 views. Please don't give up on newbies and their new articles; chat to them about them (or find someone with similar interests who can do that). After all, it's pretty much impossible to tell what the new editor 'sees', in their mind, as how that new article will look when completed.

Just adding: It GA'd, as well. And I've been looking at some stunning work from another new(ish) user recently.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Pesky (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

View from User:Hasteur[edit]

Users don't want to loose any content that they've invested time and effort in. It's understandable, but at the same time, we need to see a positive effort from the new article creator to want to work on the article. We don't need a new policy, we already have WP:REFUND. It does mean that we'll get the same amount (or more) of MfD discussions to remove stale drafts, but this way we require the user to take an action before making a userspace draft of the item in question.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

View from Sven Manguard[edit]

Very late in the game, I don't expect anyone to read this, let alone for it to get consensus, but here goes:

  • Incompetent admins cause problems.
  • Competent admins fix problems.


  • Admins that rush from page to page cause problems.
  • Admins that look carefully at each situation fix problems.


  • Admins that tackle anything they come across regardless of what it is cause problems.
  • Admins that recognize their areas of expertise and work within those areas fix problems.


  • All of the above statements hold just as true if the word "admins" is replaced with "users".


Many issues, the ones raised here included, would be mitigated or eliminated if we:

a) placed a higher demand established users doing things right the first time, every time
b) demanded, as a community, that people slow down and look at each situation rather than power through pages on a list thoughtlessly
c) recognized that everyone has their own areas of comfort and skill, accepted that, and placed a higher value on specialists

If every admin was expected to know all the options, including userfying, was expected to take their time with each CSD, and was expected to only be working in CSDs if they had a high level of comfort in the area, then we wouldn't need suggestions like these.

Users who endorse this view
  1. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. Well said. Pesky (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Very heartily endorse. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.