Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4

4 April 2016

Graffiki

Graffiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki was moved to Graffiki (move summary- "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, and quote- "Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion.") A user moved content from the userspace to the mainspace, then subsequently nominated it for deletion. That is something that wouldn't be done if one believed the content was suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meeting the core content policies), which is required for the move. They also stated, as shown in the above quotes and links I provided, that their intent was to thwart the standards of another deletion forum (WP:AfD has higher standards than MfD which would have been the proper forum to seek deletion for a userspace page) and the opinions of others within the community. That is GAMESMANSHIP. This deletion review should in no way reflect on the deleting administrator, as their actions were completely reasonable, and backed up by community consensus. The content should be restored to User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse There is no reason to think the article was going to be improved. If the subject is not notable then why keep it around? If anyone wants to bring this article up to standards they can do so, but the original author is unlikely to come back. Drafts are for making articles, if we are not going to make an article from it then why are we trying to save it? HighInBC 03:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also the nom made it clear that the move happened, a consensus to delete formed with the knowledge available, and an admin closed based on that consensus. There was not end run, or tricking anyone, the voters were informed. HighInBC 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn We don't move someone else's draft into mainspace to "test notability" or because other things are "too annoying". Hobit (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: I don't think this is properly a topic for DRV, because what is sought is in essence a review of the move from draft to main space. That would be something for WP:Move review, or other dispute resolution. DRV reviews only deletion decisions, not what happened before the decision to nominate something for deletion – and as the filer writes, the deletion decision was consistent with consensus in the AfD. The argument that the prior move should have been an impediment to deletion is a valid argument against deletion that was in fact brought up in the AfD, but did not find consensus. It is not, in my view, a procedural defect of the AfD itself that would warrant its review here.  Sandstein  11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll claim that the argument someone else's work was moved to mainspace for the purpose of deletion is a _really_ strong argument and should have overcome all but an extremely strong numeric consensus to delete. Instead what we have is only the mover and one other person even discussing the issue, the other 2 focused on GNG. Northamerica1000's !vote happened before the issue was even discussed, so pinging. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: That ping to Northamerica1000 didn't go through, you accidently used "["s instead of "{"s and linked to ping. Pinged them for you. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore to its original place. Legacypac is doing good work identifying viable articles among stale userspace drafts, but has a problematic attitude to unsuitable ones: there is a clear consensus not to delete solely for being stale, and he is deliberately attempting to defeat that consensus by propounding a theory, held by nobody else, that mainspace standards apply in userspace. When this is not supported at MfD, he is moving drafts into mainspace with the express intention of getting them deleted - see the edit summary "claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying" quoted above, and more recently "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." [1] These persistent attempts to defeat consensus are becoming disruptive, and should not be allowed to succeed. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn the AfD and move it back into userspace. Moving something into another namespace just so you can apply some deletion criterion is disruptive gaming the system. I would go further in saying that moving something to mainspace when you know it isn't suitable for mainspace is acting in bad faith. I don't see why we can't just follow WP:STALEDRAFT for it. Hut 8.5 20:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've temporarily restored the contents so people can see what is being discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• But bear in mind that this discussion is not about the content of the page, but about whether it was properly deleted after Legacypac moved it to mainspace and nominated it for deletion at AfD by mainspace standards, because he thought it "too annoying" that likely consensus at MfD meant he would not be able to get it deleted there. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• That's one view. I understood HighInBD's comment to be related to the content itself so I think that is needed for context to others. People can endorse or overturn just on the procedure or not. Otherwise, I'm staying out as I'd rather someone put all of the conduct together and do it as a wholesale reversal rather than bit pieces. Are you opposed to restoration? Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, it does no harm, but it's not particularly relevant to this discussion. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn, not the fault of the AfD closer, but the page was an appropriate use of userspace for personal drafting or records, and, for any experienced Wikipedian, was obviously not suitable for mainspace. The userspace to mainspace move was disruptive gaming, openly done to avoid clear community consensus that the WP:N standards are not for applying as deletion reasons for userpages. WP:DRV is well-used to review more general abuses of the deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion this was a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts after several editors were voting to keep all kinds of nonsense - indefinately - regardless of it's value to the project. It was hardly a surprise either - I said I would do a test case. Other test cases at MfD have shown that when userspace garbage [2] is exposed to a wider range of editors (from an ANi link for example) there is resounding concensus to delete. Faced with various arguments that stuff labeled a draft does not need to pass GNG, V, or any other standard this article was picked as an example to take to AfD instead of MfD. There is no policy that says a person can't move to main and AfD and despite attempts at ANI by Godsy and a couple others to have me sanctioned for moving this article, there is no consensus that the move was not permitted by policy. The lack of policy against the move is confirmed by JohnCD's recent attempt to draft such a policy. Bringing this to DRV is just forum shopping after they failed at ANi to demonstrate a real problem. This should be closed with the disruption by Godsy noted. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, but a couple points of clarification: Your actions were brought to AN/I by another user, you proceeded start a different section questioning my cleanup of page moves you preformed that were clearly inappropriate (I can clearly show a large group of the moves were inappropriate upon request). If the latter boomerangs against you, it is your own fault. This is the proper forum for a review of the deletion, I never joined in on the call to have you sanctioned, and I've clearly demonstrated problems with several of your moves (as I've done with the one in question here above). Many of your moves were in clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You actively sought and failed to get sanctions against me at ANi. I find your attempt to restore comtent that should be deleted to be stupid, wrong headed, disruptive, and totally WP:NOTHERE for you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but enforce your preferred version of bureaucracy. I repeat this DRV is just forum shopping and an attempt to attack my work yet again. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are belligerent with your reckless indifference to collateral damage in your over urgent drive to clean out all old drafts. The community is clearly not in support in general, and here we are reviewing your WP:GAME to achieve deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there's no policy explicitly saying something is unacceptable doesn't mean it is fine. There's no policy saying I can't delete any article I want by moving it to my userspace and then applying WP:CSD#U1, but I would expect serious consequences if I tried that. Hut 8.5 07:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn although this is not to criticise the closer. I am completely unconvinced by arguments that a page would be properly deleted if it were in a different namespace and so I am sure that cross-namespace moves can be abusive. Hut has boldly suggested one abuse (which I have seen used) and there are several other ways of disappearing pages you don't like. I can see that many of Legacypac's moves have been helpful but this one was seriously harmful. Sadly, I think in future closers will have to inspect to see if such a move has been made before they delete - sometimes the page will need to be restored to its earlier place and relisted. I doubt whether WP:Move review would be effective for a deleted file - I expect they would kick the matter here. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn, that's an end-run around process if ever I've seen one. Move back to userspace and MFD if desired. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturnand restore to draftspace. Out-of-process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and move back to user space (and, optionally, relist at MFD). I can't fault the close, since it reflects the discussion, but the whole thing is just wrong. As I've said before, I see no harm in leaving stale userspace drafts around forever. But, that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that moving a user draft to mainspace just so you can apply a different rule and delete it is gaming the system. And, to go back to the first issue, I really don't understand this war on user drafts. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play stupid wiki-lawyer games. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Some people, namely Ricky81682, assisted enthusiastically by Legacypac, want to clear the list of apparent abandoned drafts. Tens of thousands. This includes the admirable tasks of cleaning out NOTWEBHOST violations by noncontributors (CSD#U5), and moving mainspace worthy material to mainspace. The problem is their impatience with things in the middle, drafts with potential but not currently mainspace ready. MfD is not happy to delete them. Consensus is clear the WP:N is not a deletion reason in userspace. The case is not made that anything should be done with old userpages containing draft material with possible potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment struck, withdrawn and collapsed. Apologies for the heated response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dammit man it's like every fucking day with you and I "enable" this and "I created this" bullshit here with you. When I try to work with you, I get shit upon by you and dragged into bullshit at ANI even after engaging in your idiotic bullshit quest to ban relistings at MFD of which you didn't give a single rat's ass as long as **I** wasn't the one relisting the discussion. I've tried to engage with you on a serious matter on every fucking thing and you just refuse to engage in anything beyond bullshit after bullshit of "you're enabling this, you're creating this, this is all your fault" in discussion after discussion at ANI, at WT:UP, at DRV, at MFD. It's been fucking months like this and not one soul have agreed with your nonsensical conspiracy theories about massively coordinated organized plans to destroy all of userspace. Seriously, drop the fucking stick and move fucking on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone asked for a quick history.

Were you, or were you not, working, within Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as the biggest encourager, towards the elimination of the abandoned draft list, including userspace? Deletion of the crap, great, promotion of mainspace-ready stuff to mainspace, great. The problem was, and is, no allowance for the pages not in either group.

Have you not encouraged Legacypac in WP:GAMING, by suggesting WP:GAME strategies directly to him? "Enable" was a carefully chosen word, I consider it appropriate and accurate. Sorry you don't like it, but it effectively called out the behaviour, and subsequently the behaviour has changed. It is a nuanced word that does not necessarily imply actual wrong doing.

At MfD you are indeed special. Especially late 2015. In the WikiProject, you encouraged processing of the 50K list of pages to delete or promote, you were dong most of the MfD nominations, you were agitating against "no consensus" due to no participation defaulting to keep, and then you began indiscriminate relisting effectively pushing your agenda that MfD must deal with these borderline valuable drafts on your time scale. Relisting is a waste of time, messes up the review process, but at least the subsequent relisters don't have a background agenda. And I have dropped it because there was a much worse game afoot.

"nonsensical conspiracy theories about massively coordinated organized plans to destroy all of userspace"? There is a clear objective at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, with minimal coordination, to work down a list to eliminate all userpages of Wikipedians on long wikibreak. This is true, setting aside the diversion of the set of crap pages (agreed, a large set) and the set of pages worthy of immediate promotion. Since calling out this reckless WikiProject outcome, the behaviour has changed, borderline things are now being moved to DraftSpace.

The one exception to a pleasing change in behaviour is Legacypac refusing to admit that moving an unsuitable for mainspace page to mainspace to have it tested by the tougher requirements of AfD over MfD is not OK. That directly relates to this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment People keep saying they can't fault the close, but that is what we are here to review. We are not here to decide on deletion practices, we are not here to settle the underlying move/delete debate. We are here to decide if the closure was correct. So if you can't fault the close then don't overturn it. I will point out that the XfD mentioned the move, and there was still a consensus to delete it. Nobody was tricked into voting delete, it was clear as day in the nom. I expect this to be closed as overturn given the numbers, but I think it will be a reflection on an outside issue rather than an examination on how well consensus was measured. HighInBC 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Self-endorse but relist. After consideration of the above opinions, I think I should say explicitly that I'd endorse my own closure, purely on procedural grounds, because I don't see on which basis, consensus or policy, I could have closed the discussion differently. 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. If we don't do that, then this argument needs to be brought up in every AfD, and must convince the participants of the AfD, like every other argument for keeping or deleting.

  But this is now in essence a new discussion on the merits about the "keep" argument that the prior move was improper. Because DRV isn't supposed to be AfD round two, that discussion should take place at AfD. Therefore I suggest relisting the discussion, which was in any case sparse and could benefit from additional input, and let a probable consensus to keep emerge from the proper forum.  Sandstein  16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  No opposition by me to relisting as suggested by Sandstein. HighInBC 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  AfD is the wrong venue. It belongs at MfD. What would be the right venue if someone moved an article to their user space and then deleted via U1? Are you claiming because that's not specifically prevented, it's okay? Hobit (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

At the same time, you can vote at AFD to userify the draft so why is that wrong? In MFD, we can vote to mainspace the draft. Why (a) overturn, (b) move and (c) relist when a relisting at AFD is the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the option to re-userfy was available at AfD, but that is not the opinion that gained consensus. HighInBC 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• AfD was the wrong venue. The move to mainspace was not OK. Yes, it could possibly be argued to be a matter within scope of WP:Move review, but as a WP:GAME directed at deletion, it is squarely within scope of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: if you self-endorse, does that mean you would act in an identical way if this situation recurred? If not, and considering your opinion above ("moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with"), what would you do differently? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  I can't speak for Sandstein, but as an admin I could not have closed that AfD any other way. There was a clear consensus and those who participated were aware of the circumstances. To have closed it another way would have been disregarding consensus. HighInBC 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  It was hardly a clear consensus, if you look again at the AfD. Out of the two delete voters, Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister they were clear that the content did not belong in mainspace, but they did not indicate in their reasoning that they knew the article had been moved to mainspace 3 minutes prior to the AfD being opened. The one editor who was aware, A2soup, commented appropriately and following that, I suggest, would have been the common sense route to closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  Common sense does not work well in situations where people are split on how things should be done. When that is the case the common sense of an admin has the danger of becoming a super vote. The fact is people don't agree on this, therefore the sense isn't common. HighInBC 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment as others noted, there was no trickery here - the move was disclosed. If someone was unhappy with the move they had a whole week to participate in the AfD. This should not be AfD round 2. No policy based reasons have been given to overturn and no one thinks the content has any value. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? This comes to mind. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It was hardly hidden. HighInBC 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• If Legacypac's actions are justifiable (by the result), then doesn't it mean that nominations to delete drafts should go to AfD all the time. The main advantages to this I immediately see is that [:Template:Find sources AFD] is always used, and the usually understanding that the deletion decision applies to the topic, not to the current state of the page, and that the decision is sort of final. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting points SmokeyJoe. MfD is good for clear cut cases that don't clearly fit a CSD. AfD might be better for borderline cases, especially since some editors refuse to consider N and V and even BLP at MfD. The world will not end if something borderline sits in mainspace for a week with a deletion discussion tag on it. More eyes at AfD and a pretty definitive result could be a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with not wanting to consider WP:N at MfD. Only a banned troll 166.x.x.x has been arguing WP:V is unimportant. Unverifiable topics are obviously bad drafts, WP:V is much easier to test than WP:N. Anyone arguing against applying WP:BLP at MfD has not read WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn and return to original location per Hobit and others. User:Sandstein, you're really deserving of a trout for the reasoning... or lack of sufficiently nuanced reasoning. You've been around long enough; I know you know better. 1) We don't enumerate as prohibited every possible way to game the system per WP:BEANS. 2) Admins are expected to do the right thing absent specific policy guidance or previous community input on a matter. Legacypac's disruptive actions should have been stopped sooner and more forcefully by an admin willing to say "No, that's not a good faith reason for a move. Don't do it again." which could have--and likely should have--been you. So yes, this close does belong at DRV, because here is where we bring issues where the closer got it wrong, although this will have been the first time I think I've ever recommending overturning an AfD close because the closing admin failed to appropriately quash an attempt to game the deletion process via page move. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I disagree. This is a dispute mainly about user conduct regarding an issue that has to my knowledge not yet been settled through community discussion and consensus. It's definitively beyond my pay grade as AfD closer to authoritatively resolve that issue by overriding a consensus to delete. Otherwise I'd be justifiably accused of casting a supervote. My job as closer is only to determine consensus based on weighing arguments in the light of existing policies and guidelines. And unless consensus to disallow such moves is codified in a policy or guideline, I'd have to close another discussion with the same distribution of opinions in the same way.  Sandstein  10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• To the extent the issue was about the user conduct, then yes, it was indeed not your job as AfD closer to weigh in on the nominator's user conduct. And yes, I agree if you'd closed it as "keep" and left it in mainspace that would have been an inappropriate supervote and you would have gotten flak for that. What I am saying, however, is that those were not the only two options: If you had decided to move it back to its draft location without a redirect, you would have honored the numerical consensus, which no one here disagrees with, that the article in its current state is not suitable for mainspace, while at the same point rebuking the mover/nominator for GAMEing the system. Note that moving the article to mainspace removed it from the NOINDEX protection, solely for the purpose of FORUMSHOPing a deletion discussion. If you think you don't have the authority to fix that as an admin, I suggest you go read WP:IAR again. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• The afd close was correct on all counts. The article's unsuitable for mainspace, and condemning the move into mainspace doesn't mean we have to preemptively userfy it. If the original user or anybody else wants to try to salvage this, they can get a totally drama-free userfication or emailed copy at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the WP:REFUND suggestion. Look at this from the point of view of the user. They do some work here, leave the project for a while (perhaps years), and come back to find the work they started is gone. They're not going to know that WP:REFUND even exists. All they're going to know is what they left here is no longer here. I agree with the triage idea. Stale drafts can be divided into three broad catagories:
    1. Those that violate some core policy, such as being a copyvio, wp:blp, wp:notwebhost, etc. Those are actively harmful, and should be removed. I don't see anybody objecting to that.
    2. Those which can be improved to the point where they can be moved into mainspace. That's clearly a win, and should be encouraged.
    3. All the rest, which are the contentious ones. They may have little or no value, but they also do no harm. We've got two camps here. One camp emphasizes the little or no value part, and wants to delete them. The other camp (where I am), emphasizes the do no harm part, and wants to just let them be. Sadly, no wide consensus on this has emerged in either direction, so we continue to have battles about it. It's wasteful that so much effort is going into this battle, but I guess consensus building isn't always pretty or efficient. But, this idea of moving a user draft to mainspace so you can apply a different set of rules to it crosses the line. That's no longer engaging in honest debate, and that's what's got me worked up. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • • Except in that 3rd case where people disagree we normally have a deletion discussion, like we did here. Then we close it based on the consensus found, like we did here. A consensus was reached but people disagree with it so we are having AfD #2 right here. Instead of looking at the validity of the close, we are instead rehashing arguments that should have been made at AfD. It bugs me when people don't pay attention to AfD then get upset at the results. HighInBC 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • If, against all odds, this deletion review ends up being closed as endorse, or (only a little more likely) it goes back to afd and gets deleted again instead of being userfied, it was my intention to leave a note on User talk:Abstractmindzent explaining how his draft got caught up in internal wikipoliticking and how to get it back. My point is, correcting the behavioral issues is a matter for the discussion at WP:ANI, where - as is par for the course there - nobody's commenting except those already party to the dispute and those who've taken only a very cursory look at its surface. Here at DRV, we have to be concerned about what's best for the article, and we don't userfy articles deleted at afd "just because", we do it when someone intends to improve them. Most of the comments above seem intended primarily to reprimand Legacypac and to reuserfy the article solely to spite him. That's not productive. —Cryptic 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I could not agree more. It seems like people are using whatever means to stop Legacypac rather than actually considering the content of the articles. The crap being defended here has no place on Wikipedia, the article will never meet our requirements and frankly I think politics are being put above the projects quality. There is a debate on the user talk policy page and that is the correct way to be advocating a position, not by trying to overturn a specific AfD in which everyone was aware of the situation. The recent ANI shows that there is no consensus this is against policy. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• It's not a case of wanting to spite Legacypac, but of making clear to him that his tactic of doing an end-run around MfD by moving pages he wants deleted to mainspace where tighter conditions apply is gaming the system and not acceptable. He says above that he considers this "a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts"; if the page stays deleted, he will consider himself vindicated and his test successful and will carry on doing it. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Actually the extensive discussion at ANI has failed to find a consensus that it is inappropriate. You will also find at the user talk policy page there is a discussion where people are disagreeing with your interpretation too. Perhaps a consensus will form in this area but it has not yet. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Having just read the text, it's a glowing endorsement of an utterly non-notable individual, created by a user with exactly one (1) edit, to wit, the creation of this endorsement. Apart from WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTFACEBOOK and notability, this could easily be construed as a potential invasion of privacy and WP:BLP works in user-space, too and is not only applicable to the subject of the page, but also the people and bands who's names get not so casually dropped. (P.S. I don't give a rats ass about how it ended up here, but here it is.) Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• To be honest, until just now, I hadn't even read the text of the original article. And, now that I have read it, I agree that it doesn't belong here, even in userspace. But, as several people have noted above, this isn't really about the article, it's about the process. This was set up as a test case of It's OK to move user drafts to main space in order to run them through the main space AfD process. If we endorse the AfD, we are endorsing the process, and that's what I don't want to do. It is valuable (and deliberate) that we have different standards for deleting things out of main space and user space. By endorsing this test, we would be removing that distinction. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Except that there is no process or rule that says this cannot be done. When looked at specifically at ANI no consensus formed it was disruptive, right now discussion is taking place on the user talk policy page and there is disagreement about how to address this lack of policy. Endorsing an AfD does not endorse a process because we work on consensus not precedent. Processes get accepted through discussion on policy and guideline pages. HighInBC 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• When somebody specifically puts something forth as a test case for process, then yes, endorsing the outcome does endorse the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. This DRV will not settle this issue regardless of how it is closed. This is supposed to be a discussion about one deletion, not the process. The result with surely not be binding. HighInBC 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Where the rules are not clear, policy tends to get established by precedent. If this DRV returns the page to userspace, the result of his "test case" should be clear to Legacypac: the route to deletion he wanted to use is not available. I would hope he would not then try it again, but if he did the resulting debate should be a good deal shorter than this one. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think you will find that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS makes it cleat that this tiny little DRV is not going to settle a major policy debate. This is already being discussed at the relevant policy talk page, and I find the rehashing of it here to be redundant. If you really want to influence policy then the policy page is the place to do it, not at DRV. This is supposed to be about the merit of the close. HighInBC 03:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• @HighInBC: WP:STALEDRAFT describes how inactive drafts in the userspace should be handled. Unless you think the content was suitable for the mainspace (which would justify the move), it says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion" pointing to MfD. Is there a reason those rules from that guideline do not apply to this situation?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• That guideline is doing exactly what it is supposed to, giving guidance. It is not an exhaustive list of all acceptable ways of going about business and it never claims to be. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Nowhere does it prohibit other activity, nor does it claim to be the only way of doing things. It is not policy, it is a guideline. People are allowed to be bold and find other ways to improve the project. Perhaps instead of using the guideline as a limit, we should be adding this new idea to it. HighInBC 03:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist at MfD after moving it back to its original location. ~ Rob^Talk 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's three steps essentially: (a) overturn AFD; (b) move back to userspace and (c) relist at MFD. Is there a reason why we couldn't just do this via another AFD? People do vote in AFD to draftify or userfiy and that can just be stated in the discussion to give a complete history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Because relisting this at AfD would be endorsing the gamesmanship behind its being listed there in the first place.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. As RoySmith says above, we intentionally have different standards at AfD for deleting mainspace articles and at MfD for deleting userspace drafts. LP's game is to try to get AfD standards applied to things he can't get deleted at MfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes but you could argue to userify at AFD. The standard isn't deletion then. It's a different crowd of editors but the policies don't differ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Notably, this is how A2soup did vote in the original discussion. Was that treated as wrong? Is there any reason other people couldn't do the same thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no GAME by me here and I did not even have to IAR. JohnCD (by trying to create a policy against such moves) has proved there is no policy or rule I broke. The never ending accusations at ANi have failed to show this move was forbidden. All we have is opinion that some people don't think it is a good idea and others see no problem with it.

Every current rule and process on the site was created or modified by someone trying something and starting a discussion. I was only trying out a potentially innovative solution to the issue that a handful of editors were voting Keep on absolute crap that it became pointless to send crap to MfD (due to low participation). AfD participation is much higher and harder to GAME. Maybe MfD is too much of a backwater and is too easy to manipulate so should be merged back into AfD?

WP:STALEDRAFT gives a range of options that each require discretion, and the options are not exclusive to those listed. "If X condition is met do Y" does not necessarily mean "If X condition is not met don't do Y+Z" The argument against a Move to Main+AfD boils down to "It's not in the guidelines" Well, go search the guidelines for something that even recommends a third editor request restoration of a junk deleted article back to userspace that they have no intention of working on (like this DRV). There is also no rule or guideline that says that Godsy should move pages on notable topics from mainspace to the userspace of long gone users instead of improving the articles, only to spite me (he could care less about the thousands of other unsourced articles in Wikipedia).

When an action is not specifically forbidden, we should ask if it helps the encyclopedia or not. We are here to help people, not host junk or give people a space to promote themselves. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Textbook wikilawyering. I reverted your inappropriate moves of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace per BRD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)