Wikipedia talk:User pages

• UI Spoofing archive (2007)
• Temporary userpage template archive (2008)

OLDIP

The page says:

Talk pages of anonymous users may be blanked or deleted as part of routine housekeeping if they meet the following criteria:

1. Never been blocked
2. Not using any unsubstituted templates (e.g., {{SharedIPEDU}})
3. No edits within the last year
4. No talk page activity within the last year
5. No incoming links to the page

However, regarding point 5, there may be two problems with that point: a) there may be no links now, but if one creates a report that involves the IP, a link may not exist now, but will after the report, and b) the IPs do show up in contributions lists (also for range-contributions). Deleting such a talkpage obscures (or makes it simply invisible for non-admins) the fact that there may have been warnings placed on the IP talkpage (whether it was for spamming or POV pushing by a range of IPs), and makes the full broadness of the problem less obvious.

I would suggest to change it to:

Talk pages of anonymous users may be archived (leaving a link to the archive on the talkpage) if they meet the following criteria:

1. Not using any unsubstituted templates (e.g., {{SharedIPEDU}}) (the substituted part of the talkpage can still be archived)
2. No edits within the last year
3. No talk page activity within the last year
4. No incoming links to the page

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would also help if there were some note stating the page had been archived; not everyone will think of looking at the page history.

Deleting talk pages belonging to spammers creates problems (see User talk:MZMcBride#Spam-tracking pages (permanent link) for a detailed discussion of the problems. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point (a), it's rather silly. :-) While it's of course true that the page could be linked to later on, it's equally true that the IP could edit later on or the IP could be blocked later on. So that's not particularly relevant.

Regarding point (b), in past discussions the possibility of archiving (or even blanking) the pages has been brought up. Do you have responses to the previous points made in the other discussions? (I don't particularly feel like re-typing them. ;-) In particular, the virtue of ancient warnings to an IP that very likely do not belong to the same user any longer (dynamic IPs) is unclear. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I was about to write this on MZMcBride's talk page, but this would probably be better.

What the anti-spam project has is not a tracking system. From what I understand, it works something like this:

• Someone adds a spam link to a page
• You look somewhere (the page history?) to see if other users have added the same link
• If its an IP address, you look at the range contribs.
• You look at the talk pages of each of the IPs to see if they have been warned
• Various actions are taken (blacklisting/reverting/blocking)

If someone adds the same link in a month, the process repeats itself... except, most of the steps consist of looking at information that won't change between investigations. Basically, every time a spamlink is added, the investigation has to begin again. The only thing I can think of that would be less efficient is writing down all the information and physically mailing it to all the members of the project.

As for the proposal here, this seems like an awful lot of wasted effort. I probably said this half a dozen times in the discussion that led to OLDIP, but I guess I'll say it again anyway. The vast majority of these talk pages are completely and totally useless. An archive of template warnings is going to be even more useless. Its going to double the amount of useless pages, and it takes twice the effort. Leaving the warnings causes other problems. People may see old warnings meant for someone else and act overly harsh. Mr.Z-man 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)This was discussed before, what it came down to is that the user behind an IP can change quickly. If the user is a spammer, then they will likely have been blocked or have an ip info template on their talkpage, which would prevent it from being deleted. So the talkpages of IPs who did not have heavy enough vandalism for a block or a sharedip template will have the page deleted, but the talkpages of long term vandals are preserved. --Terrillja _talk 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of spammers use an IP, get warned and move on to another IP. So those pages will get deleted under the current rules. In fact, I'd say that most long-term spammers only get one or two warnings per IP before moving on to another IP. It's quite possible for them to accumulate 20 warnings over 30 IPs before someone finally looks a little closer for other accounts. That's why we want to be able to see other warnings.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting here (as I did already on my talk page): the deletion script now checks for certain key words. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Well the contribs are preserved, which are the key part, all the warnings do is show that they were told to stop, you could perhaps lose any comments they left, but as far as long term vandalism, all of their contributions showing any vandalism will still be there. --Terrillja _talk 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well my opinion is that these talk pages shouldn't be deleted at all. This is destroying valuable information that's costing the encyclopedia nothing. Why delete these IP talk pages? What does the encyclopedia gain from it, and what are people trying to hide in deleting the pages? They should be preserved to document the history of editing from the IP as this information is very valuable when it comes to fighting spam and vandalism. Themfromspace (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the past deletion discussions? A lot of these points were covered (kind of extensively). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the shared nature of most IPs, I cannot image how 12+ month old comments on the talk page are truly relevant if the IP has not edited anything in over a year. Likewise, the concerns about spammers do not really apply here, since spammers tend to get blocked pretty quickly, and being blocked violates criteria #1 above, so that talk page would not get deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Having made about 20,000 spam-removal and warning edits on en.wikipedia and >5,000 on other Wikimedia projects,^[1][2][3][4] I can tell you that:

1. Spammers seldom get blocked, quickly or not. Too often they don't even get warned. As of mid-2007, we were getting over 1000 external links per day, yet on average 4 to 7 accounts get blocked for spam each day.
2. Spammers change accounts when they get blocked. In fact, they'll often change accounts after just a warning.
3. If a spammer's going to ignore the first 3 warnings, there's little we can do to really stop him except blacklist his domains.
4. As noted multiple times already, we need to see if the spammers' earlier accounts and IPs have been warned so we know if their persistence merits blacklisting.
5. Since in some cases, non-Wikimedia sites are incorporating our spam blacklist in their own filters, we are careful about blacklisting a domain unless we're sure they're problematic.

Dirk Beetstra and I do much of the spam clean-up work -- can you just take us at our word that this information is useful? That or help us with some of the spam problem (we're shorthanded)? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some answers:

• No, it is not silly. If the pages get linked, now or later, if it is a redlink gives the impression that the editor has not been warned, blue links show that there has been communication for some reason, and it is easy to check for admins and non-admins. I'll expand on this in the next section.
• The point is not that the IP is not necessery the same user anymore. But if 50 different IPs add someobscurelink.com, or edits someobscurepage with the same information, then it is very likely that one user has used all of these IPs. If that person got warned on 20 of them, then it means that it might be likely that we a) have to rangeblock, b) blacklist links, c) other methods of protecting. If 18 of those 20 talkpages get deleted, then there are only 2 (obvious) IPs warned, which would result in me having to check 48 other pages to see if they have been deleted and see if there are warnings in the deleted revisions regarding the same edit (a lot of work for admins, impossible for non-admins), which may very likely result in me not blacklisting the domain, not rangeblocking or whatever. If those 20 pages were still blue links, then at least it is only 2 clicks (for admins and non-admins) to see if there were warnings in the past, and the other 30 can be ignored.
• This is not an awful waste of effort, now warning dynamic IPs is a waste of effort, as the information gets lost. Just as for the scripted deletion, archiving these pages is also very easily done by a bot. No waste of effort at all, anywhere.
• This creates more work for admins, as regular editors can not check warning histories, and hence can not show the full story of the edits. If the page is un-deleted, they can help in going through talkpage histories and see if the involved IPs have been warned. Makes it for the admins less effort to just see the evidence presented, and act accordingly.
• Archiving warnings and all such after some time (which can be considerably shorter than 1 year, IMHO), also results that people don't see the old warnings meant for someone else. By the way, MZMcBride also deletes IP talkpages which have a very neat, friendly, welcoming, substituted welcome message on them. I think that that would even be very nice if you encounter that on your talkpage.
• Spammers don't get blocked often, especially those who change IP quickly. Also other users who use quickly changing IPs in vandalism or POV push-sprees do not get blocked, it is very difficult, and those are just the editors where this part of the problem relates to.
• Spammers, POV pushers and a lot of vandals, are absolutely not stupid. I recently blocked a user, who first as an IP was warned, and when those warnings started, stopped but created an account (it only took one warning..). The account did not edit for 125 days (4 months!), and then continued with exactly the same edits. In this case it only took him one edit to earn an indef block because XLinkBot noted it to me: XLinkBot leaves on-IRC warnings for editors who are > 7 days old (its revert limit), but who have less than 250 edits (arbitrary number) .. I see regularly editors there who are way older than 7 days (2 examples from the last couple of hours: '... is 887.13 days old (limit is 7; age autoconfirmed), but has only 10 edits'; '... is 805.41 days old (limit is 7; age autoconfirmed), but has only 2 edits') .. do we realise how much work it is to find if these editors have been warned before as IPs. It is now already almost impossible to do that (my linkaddition db is about 1.5 years old, working on parsing back, for regular vandals and POV pushers all we have is page histories and range-contribution lists to go through), and deleting talkpages does not make this effort any easier.

All in all, I still argue that the pages should be archived, maybe blanked or replaced with a welcome message, but certainly NOT deleted, or at least that the pages should not be deleted when there is any form of a warning (template) on them (being for spam, coi, or whatever form of vandalism. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I am thinking about it (the above was just after a night of sleep). Say, I am an expert in an obscure subject, and am interested in enhancing Wikipedia. I am first editing as an IP, all non-related to POV issues, spam, coi, whatever, so no need for warnings, I'm just one of those IPs who get it. As a part of my work as an IP, I am discussing a change of guideline with some members of the project on my talkpage, and the guideline is changed accordingly (the change is noted with a link to my talkpage in the edit summary, but that is not an incoming link for my talkpage that can be seen). Unfortunately, I don't edit on any other talkpages (no signatures left there), and another editor has only mentioned the discussion somewhere else as 'On the talkpage of user:0.0.0.0 we are discussing this and that, please join us there' (without a working wikilink). Then I change my mind, I create an account and edit on. So after a year, my talkpage gets deleted, deleting the active record of the discussion.

I know, this is not a very likely scenario, but I think we have now several examples where deletion of talkpages leads to deletion of valuable information. I think that this part should be revisited. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as the user continues to contribute, then their talkpage will be kept, regardless of activity on their talkpage (see #2). If they do not continue to contribute, then after a year it will go, but I doubt anything discussed a year ago will be relevant to current events. I'm sure there could be some obscure exception, but if there is, the talkpage can be restored, and an unsubsituted template can be added.--Terrillja _talk 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's simply the nature of editing anonymously. If you edit with registering an account, you don't get to "own" your talk page. (See also: Wikipedia:Why create an account?.) This becomes especially true if you edit from a dynamic IP address and no longer are assigned that IP. That's simply the way it goes.

What I'm having trouble understanding is why you believe that these pages should be kept around indefinitely. Especially ones that use templated messages. So in 2007, IP "220.240.36.2" vandalized "Talk:High School Musical." The IP talk page was warned using TW. Now, why does that page need to stay around forever? It's one revision of a templated warning to an IP that likely doesn't belong to the same person it did in December 2007.

While we certainly could move content like that to an archive subpage, there's simply no reason to. One of the reasons the script checks for template usage is to ensure that valuable information isn't lost and work isn't duplicated. Things like {{whois}} or {{indefblock}} or whatever are all kept.

Looking at the section directly above this one, it seems pretty silly to rely on talk page warnings to determine what to do with a spammer. IPs can easily add links without being detected / warned or they can easily remove warnings from their own page.

And, above all of this, upon A. B.'s insistence, any page now containing the words "spam," "promote," or "promotion" are now skipped. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For simple vandalism, no problem. The problem are the IP changing spammers/POV pushers and persistent vandals. Again, the point is not that there now is another editor, the point is that one changing editor has used that IP and in that time has been warned. If in 2 years the whole set of 200.43 / 200.45 talkpages are gone (a huge range of IPs which can't all be blocked), then why keep up the protection of a whole set of pages to which a long-term POV pusher and vandal has edited, a lot of the proof that the editor has been warned is for non-admins invisible. And it is not only spammers that I am worried about. And I can return exactly the same question, why delete the pages? What benefit does that give? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It prevents IPs from seeing incredibly confusing messages not intended for them. It also gives the IPs a blank slate (tabula rasa). Most of these people don't deserve to come to the project with an entirely undeserved reputation that they vandalize. And, if it's been two years without any activity from the IPs (from any range), then what's the problem? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That would also be true for archiving (and replace it with a small, friendly welcome message, including a message that the IP has been used before by (possibly) other editors), and as I said earlier, the welcome message which is on some of the talkpages that have been deleted is not exactly confusing, it is .. well .. welcoming, hardly 'confusing'. Abuse 2 years ago is still abuse (for that way of editing).

But I see we are not going to get to an agreement about this, you find the pages useless, I think that on certain pages important information, or just information without problems, has been deleted. But I'll leave it at this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all the points made by A. B. and Beetstra here, these talk pages shouldn't be deleted at all. --Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OLDIP removal

Discussion on this subject is also ongoing at WT:CSD#U4.

As per this discussion. discussions below, and at WT:CSD, I have cut the OLDIP section from WP:UP. [5] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the guideline was very bold. However, there are two problems:

1. WP:OLDIP now doesn't point to anthing relevant;
2. Deletions are continuing with the above link as the summary.

I'm not sure how to resolve these issues. Just saying :) Martin^msgj 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold, but clearly appropriate in my opinion, and I do not feel that I am alone. If the section remains removed, WP:OLDIP should be deleted. The deletions purportedly authorised by WP:OLDIP should stop. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being incredibly disruptive. Please stop. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See my response to you at WT:CSD#U4; nutshell: there does appear to be some consensus for this, but any deletion policy should be at WP:CSD, not here. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Political/Religious/Sexual Preference Content

Related to this MfD, I would like to get the ball rolling on a proposal to remove from userpages all content that expresses a political/religious/sexual/etc. view or belief. Several people, at least, have commented in support of such an action on the MfD. So I would like to know how widely held that sentiment is. So, what do you think? seresin ( ¡? )  08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This has come up so many times before... And what do you mean by "etc"? Any opinion expression not related to Wikipedia? Being that it would mean the deletion of 90% of userboxes, I doubt that would fly. If on the other hand you mean only political/religious/sexual, ie. the possibly controversial stuff, or in other words, "I think the world should work this way and not that way" views, then that's a little more likely to succeed -- but only a little, since there's such a fine line dividing those from everything else. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:14, 1 Feb 2009 (UTC)

And of course, who defines these things. Sexual for instance. A user can't post on their userpage "I like sex"? Or "I'm gay"? Or "I'm straight", even? They all are sexual but who decides what's allowed and what isn't? Too broad in this context. Indeed, several people have commented in support of your proposal here, at that MFD.. but more people at the same MFD apparently have commented in keeping such userboxes. As for that particular MFD and userbox in question, I as a gay man find it offensive - but I see no reason why any user shouldn't be allowed to have it. The old saying "I may not like it or agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it". Userboxes always have been, and always will be a contentious issue. I say hold the course and handle each one on an individual basis via MFD. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it would gain enough support but I just want to point out that I'd be entirely in favor of getting rid of all userboxes and actually forbidding all userpage content that doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, as I think was originally intended, including "I am gay" or "I am straight" or "I like sex". If it were all forbidden across the board, I think we'd have less userpage issues to deal with, and nothing would really be taken away from the encyclopdeia. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:30, 1 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd have less editors too. Why does Wikipedia have to be a stuffy, old library without anything controversial or individual? Seriously. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause it's just not what we're here for. The people who are interested in leaving their activism elsewhere are really the most desirable editors to have here. Show me someone who doesn't care to make his opinions on the world known to all, and I'll bet 9 times out of 10 that'll be your more balanced and objective editor. I like to be creative and dramatic now and then and I know where to go for it; But here, I'd gladly relinquish my right to personal creative space if it meant cutting out a lot of annoying drama to focus on the real goal. I don't think you'd leave if you couldn't have your personal posterboard to exercise free speech... and I don't think that's much of a draw to any productive editors. This is like a work environment, with other editors being your co-workers. You need to be able to work with them with a level of professionalism, and that means leaving certain aspects of your personality at home. You wouldn't post controversial signs in your office at work, and I think the same should apply here.

Anyway it seems moot since this proposal has come up so much before, while never yielding any clear result. Maybe if we did an RfC with one of those watchlist notifications. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:15, 2 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we may be here to improve the encyclopedia, but people should have the ability to express themselves. If we remove all userpages and just have articles and talkpages, it takes all of the personal factor out of the project. And I for one would be gone if that happened. Personally, I have no problem with an occasional MfD for the userbox or userpage which pushes the rules, but flat out outlawing any non-wiki userboxes (or userpage content) is unnecessary IMO. --Terrillja _talk 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

People should have the ability to express themselves, as far as their political opinions? For what reason? It has nothing to do with anything here. You'd be gone if you didn't have your user page? Seriously? If you could continue to edit the encyclopedia and collaborate with other editors and discuss features and policies, but you just weren't allowed a personal page to let everyone know your blood type and gender, you'd have reason enough to leave? I really doubt that. Anyway I'm not actually suggesting the complete removal of userspace anyway, just the prohibition of political statements not having to do with Wikipedia. Your particular page doesn't seem to have much irrelevant content, if any. It's actually a perfect example of the kind of content people should be putting on their pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:07, 2 Feb 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what other people have on their user pages if it doesn't violate the rules? User boxes are optional, so anyone who doesn't like them certainly doesn't have to have one (or fifty). They can be avoided by simply not clicking to view other people's user pages (if one gets particularly upset because of the mere presence of any user box, that's not a bad idea) or even by simply scrolling down to the "relevant" (subjective) information. Or to put it simply- don't like them? Don't have one! I imagine that you will never encounter most of the user pages on Wikipedia, yet would regulate them all because of your obviously strong feelings against them.Gotmywaderson (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, polemic statements are already prohibited by WP:UP#NOT, and have been for a long time. I guess that's just never been enforced? I suppose the real question is whether or not to remove it from the guideline now, since it doesn't seem to agree with how Wikipedia actually operates. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:28, 2 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it very helpful that people with a strong POV say so. It can clarify discussion when people are honest about their concerns. DGG (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• The userbox stuff is a very old discussion, but my usual position is, I think user page content expressing a political, religious, or sexual preference serve a variety of positive purposes: declaring biases, community building, helping to organize Wikiprojects, and helping to differentiate and personalize users, so they they seem more like people. I would strongly oppose any motion to prohibit this content, especially on such dubious grounds as that it is "distracting." Dcoetzee 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• We are not all precisely the same -- and indications that we are not the same should not be considered disruptive -- rather it can enable us to know views of others without becoming Sherlocks looking at past edits. Userpages are, in fact, a tool enabling better communication in that sense. Collect (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause

Template:RFCpolicy There is a deletion review going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4#User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers that could have far reaching consequences for this guideline if endorsed as multiple admins and users are essentially admitting they are choosing to ignore the clause of the policy which does not allow for indefinite hosting of content in userspace and arguing that users should be allowed to keep articles in their userspace indefinitely even if such articles would immediately be deleted in a AfD discussion. If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable. Thought I'd let anyone who was interested in participating one way or the other know. Redfarmer (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is what is not indefinite? Someone might have a userfied article for years and then actually get around to improving and restoring it. The whole point of having userfied articles is to allow editors to more leisurely work on them. Some may see "not indefinite" as months, others weeks, other years, etc. It is thus something subjectively interpreted. As long as editors have stated objectives for their userfied articles and clear evidence of plans to work on them, and the articles don't fail copy vio, libel, or hoax issues, then it's really no big deal. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline clearly says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." That is the complete opposite of what you are saying. Redfarmer (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that one editor's definition of "long-term" is likely not the same as others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But the point is: long term indicates there IS a time limit. Redfarmer (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What the time limit is arbitrary and debateable. To me "long-term" is say a few decades and yes I am serious. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the project hasn't been around a decade yet, isn't it unreasonable to assume that the people who wrote this draft intended a decade to be the time limit? Redfarmer (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because don't we intend or hope for the project to be around for as long as possible? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all sections that mention any time limits. Based on the "trend of opinion" at numerous MFD's "consensus" shows most editors choose to ivoke the WP:IAR spin off of "Wikiepedia has no time limits" when it comes to mainspace articles on user subpages. It is clearly pointless to have such a guideline when it is not used. it is possible that a majority find is valid however the vocal "consensus" that participates in deletion discussions ignore it thus also using the concept that "silence implies support". The entire section found at "Copies of other pages" should be removed. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Taking into account that DRV has not been closed yet, any RFC is premature. This is looks like forum shopping. Ruslik (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not intended to be forum shopping. As I said in the RFC summary, this is to gauge consensus on the guideline. If the new consensus is there is no time limit, we will remove those words from the guideline. This RFC is sparked by the DRV but not an attempt to circumvent it. Redfarmer (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, for the record, I am not necessarily looking at this RfC for an opinion I like as the guideline for forum shopping suggests. I'm so tired of it all at this point I just want to gauge consensus, rewrite the guideline, and go back to my little corner. Frankly I don't care anymore if this RfC decides there is no time limit; I've just expended way too much energy over this in the DRV than I should have. Also, I've come to accept that the deletion of this page has a snowball's chance in hell at this point so it's useless to continue debating whether the page should be deleted or not and decide what the guideline should be instead. Redfarmer (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I saw this in {{cent}}. "If this deletion review is endorsed, it will essentially mean that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable." That DRV is about one page. Why do you think it has "far reaching consequences"? I don't know why you think it applies to all of userspace. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Pixelface: While I can't speak for Redfarmer I can speak for myself. This has been building up for a while and more and more I see editors simply come into deletion discussions and vote "keep" with no real reason. I can remember one user who, when I first noticed them, had seemingly cut and pasted "keep: Not doing any harm" over and over again in almost every MfD. Clearly a closing admin should see that that the user has made a valid opinion but used a non-argument, because it says nothing about what policy or guideline supports it. Likewise the closing admin would have no way of knowing that this same user has posted the exact same opinion and argument at several other deletion discussions with unrelated topics. By assuming good faith I can feel the closing admin would "ignore" that users opinion as it is a non-argument, that is unless the nom itself was made about something that was actually doing harm. (Nom: "My eyes started bleeding when I read this article - it needs to go" User: "Keep: it is doing no harm") I have raised the issue of "counting votes" before and been met with "Assume good faith, not all closing admins count votes" but at this particular MfD it struck me as odd that only a few of the "keep" opinions actually discussed the overall article, it's history or the users comments. Comments made at the MfD such as "It's not meant to be part of the encyclopedia yet" and "the very fact that it is in userspace means it is not ready...AfD it when it's an article" indicate opinons that anything in userspace can never be touched because - well, it is not on mainspace, and that goes against Policy and this guideline. There is no indication in the section we are discussing that anything in userspace is off limits for deletion - it explicitly says just the opposite. When I saw the closing admins comments of simply "The result of this Discussion was keep" I went to the admin and, very much assuming good faith, asked them to re-open in order to allow the users who voiced keep to reply to the "how long" questions asked by Redfarmer and myself. (I can not say for sure but it appeared the first "how long" was a direct question to a "keep" opinion that contained an argument of letting the article "bake for a bit". This was also one of the only keeps that actually indicated the Editor had looked at the article and the related discussions and offered any real "warning" - as "keep" "but"...) I also asked if the admin could expand their summary and asked some very specific questions about the discussion. I was answered with no direct answer but an accusation that I did not know what deletion discussions were for. I was also informed that the "votes" were 8 "keeps" and only 3 "deletes" there fore it was a "keep". Further I was told that "all" arguments were valid and "rather persuasive" and that questions about "how long" were too vague to be part of discussion. In saying this it raised my "assume good faith" warning level because it seemed to imply that "keep" arguments such as "I'd be inclined to follow WP:TIMELIMIT" and "I consider this to be a breach of one's privacy" were fine, and not in "violation" of the WP:DGFA, which the closing admin said they followed. So wanting to make sure I was not misunderstanding, I again asked the same specific questions again but also asked to show what policy or guideline backed some of the more wild arguments. I also reminded the admin of what the WP:DGFA said, including "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I also asked why "how long" was "vague" in the context of the MfD discussion. Rather than answer anything directly I was told, again, that "all keeps had strong arguments behind them", reminded that I had "lost" and told, bluntly, "If you think that opinions of two editors+nominator constitute a consensus to delete (despite serious objections from 8 other editors) you can try your luck on DRV. Otherwise this discussion is meaningless". So I did, although it was not ever based on "delete" in my case. I think at the DRV is where the real issues started to show. I basically restated the exact same concerns I had asked the closing admin about but also added on a question to see if the amdin really did follow the WP:DGFA and re-stated I was not asking for to overturn the "keep" but to be re-open briefly in order to allow the valid "how long" questions to be answered. The closing admin made the first response, again ignoring the entire reason for the DRV, and simply responded that they counted the votes and it was 8 "keep" and 3 "delete". And it has grown from there with several people chiming in that there is no guideline or policy such as is being discussed right here, right now. I even went back and made an "in a nutshell" bold header of what needed to be addressed. Still - people ignore it and simply say "There is no timeline" or "It does not violate any policy" or "doing no harm". Only one editor has actually responded directly to the "privacy" argument but asked what it had to do with anything...and, again, this is a concern. The closing admin made a head count and in doing so counted "votes" that are not based in any policy or guideline. As one of the main issues was this guideline, which is a direct definition of the WP:NOT#WEBHOST Policy (also see WP:NOTWEBHOST subsection of the same Policy that sends people here for "further information") Policy, it does have "far reaching consequences". The discussion below is backing up the "userspace is off limits for MfD" concept. Outside of blatant advertising, copyvios, non-free image galleries and possible userfication where time limits may, or may not depending on this outcome, be imposed anything goes, for however long the user decides to keep it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The page in question has been undeleted, the apparent closure is that user pages do not have to conform to policies and guidelines if they do not harm the encyclopedia. The responses basically say that the DELREV is an application of IAR. That fact basically means that the users involved disagree with the policy. Therefore, should this policy be reformulated? WP:EM is often used as a keep justification at MFD, that deleting userspace content only scares off editors. What I see at MFD and DELREV is that the consensus is for this:

1. A user's userspace is largly their own domain.
2. Deleting those pages isn't helpful at all.
3. There is nothing wrong with storing data if there's even the slightest chance of use.

Just an observation--Ipatrol (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Question to consider here:

How long should a page intended to eventually be moved to the encyclopedia be allowed to sit in userspace (the indefinite hosting clause) before it is in violation of this clause? Should there be a time limit on how long users are permitted to keep something that otherwise violates WP policies in their userspace before it is considered hosting?

• As far as I'm concerned people can have any old rubbish sitting around in their user space, provided it's not offensive or illegal or being misused (e.g. being advertised elsewhere on the Web). Some day the devs might decide to clean out the servers by chucking out user pages belonging to defunct users, but that's not our problem at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I say remove the time limit statement. Only things that are advertising, illegal, etc should be removed, and in other cases not so clear, there should be a good consensus from the community to remove the content from the userpage. It's common that people leave works in progress on a userpage for long periods of time and there's no good reason to say "Sorry, you can't edit this here anymore". --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I say who cares. These will be judged on a case by case basis. This whole issue is being presented as a potentially harmful clause in a contract, and that's not what Wikipedia policies are. We don't need to be careful about the language we use in them lest someone is able to get away with something undesirable in the future due to a technicality. We have no technicalities here. If it seems a page has been around a long time with no attention paid to it and no serious objections raised, it'll be removed no matter what the policy says. Similarly if something's been around a while and the author really wants to keep it around, he need only ask, again despite what's in the policy. It's all friendly here; we're not a court system. We don't need to worry about things like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:49, 5 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue is not that it is felt this clause is harmful. Quite the contrary, the clause is being completely ignored by admins and users. Most won't even acknowledge a simple "it exists." Instead, what is being advocated is complete WP:NOTIMELIMIT, i.e. there is never a time limit on things in the userspace, and they're untouchable in most cases. This group is not even pretending to acknowledge this clause even exists. Redfarmer (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't wish to be rude, but aren't you taking this issue just a little bit too seriously? Does it really matter? Doesn't WP have more important problems to be solving?--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If the clause exists, it should be acknowledged and enforced. If consensus has changed, the clause should change with consensus. That is the purpose of the RfC. The fact that a certain group of admins are so ill informed that they think this clause does not exist and that userspace has WP:NOTIMELIMIT suggests consensus has changed. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I would say five years. I think the vast majority of wikipedians don't last longer than three years. It's kinda like { {PD-OLD}}, life of a wikipedia plus 2 years. Seriously, I've seen this at various XfDs, but haven't really understood what it's hurting (barring copyvios, etc.). My workspace history has the remnants of several articles deemed unsuitable for WP, but I don' think it needs oversighting. Every once in a while I still think about fixing one of them up, and I just might. The problem is I can't remember them, because of the rule of not letting them sit around as an artilce. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've not yet read a valid or convincing reason to describe why effectuating such a time limit as this would be to anyone's advantage. That which does no injury need be done no injury, in my mind. Unless the content has legal consequences or is outside Wikipedia's scope or its policy, there is no such injury. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps there should be more nuance. There really shouldn't be a limit on random drafts, but perhaps we should be a little stricter with previously deleted material to also confirm with the idea we shouldn't be indefinitely hosting deleted material that isn't being worked upon. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• One (1) Hubble time. Note that I'm biased, as a lot of crap hangs around my userspace for quite a while. I started User:WilyD/Amalgamation of Toronto in 2006, haven't worked on it since 2007, but I don't think there'd be any sense in deleting it. I'll get to it when I have time. WilyD 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• This discussion just came to my attention via a thread at WT:NOT (here). IMO, if there is, or is proposed to be, a specific time limit on how long a user can keep a draft in her or his userspace, it's excessive instruction creep. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove the time limit clause, strengthen the clause about "use in the encyclopedia". As we have said above, people can have anything they want in their userspace, so long as it doesn't run afoul of serious problems like copyvio/G10/spam/etc.. BUT, we do have a problem of people just dropping deleted articles in their userpace because they want them "on wikipedia". The easiest examples are the spam ones, but there are other ones which don't trigger an immediate tripwire like that. As long as there is some possibility for reasonable belief that the page will come back to the encyclopedia or the page serves some function for the user or other users (maybe it was a bibliography page or something like that), we should be fine with the page. If not, we should think about asking the user to U1 it or we should MfD it. Obviously, this whole process should respect the fact that userspace should be as hands off as possible. Scouring user sub-pages looking for this kind of stuff should be discouraged. Protonk (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No time limit; c.f. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sceptre/Mexican girl (which is now at User:Sceptre/workspace/Four Winds); there is no deadline, especially for userspace drafts. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No time limit. It doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't disrupt the site, - leave it alone. NVO (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Question for the above: is a distinction drawn, WRT this dicussion, between original content in the processes of becoming an article, and userfied copies of deleted articles/other versions of currently existing articles? seresin ( ¡? )  06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• As Protonk said, "Remove the time limit clause, strengthen the clause about "use in the encyclopedia" ". If there is potential for an article, that's enough. The problem is the ones where there isn't. It is very useful to have this as a safety hatch at AfD. DGG (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse time limits but application should be guided by "do what's best for the project." I would say anything done by an editor who hasn't logged in in over a year is game for deletion, with a note on their talk page saying it can be restored on request. I'd even go so far as to make this a bot-action. For active users, I would say after 6 months of no significant activity, give the user a notice on his talk page and encourage him to db-author or db-user it. Repeat the notice every 30 days. Basically, friendly-annoy the user into improving or deleting the article. After a year of no significant action, send it to MFD or, if the editor is not editing during the MFD, summarily delete it saying it can be restored on request at which time it will go back to MFD if there is no immediate effort to improve it. If at any time a user says "hold on, I'm in the middle of exams, I'll get to it next month" then assume good faith and don't take action until they've had a chance to live up to their word. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no time limit. As Redfarmer acknowledges, this is the de facto standard in any event. What I look for in a decision to delete such a page is whether there is an attempt - even an excruciatingly slow one - to improve the encyclopedia. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm suspicious that I actually wrote those clauses way back in the day. The intended emphasis was on deleted content, disputed versions, and other things where hosting it in the main space would be inappropriate. In other words, userspace is not a backdoor for hosting content that violates Wikipedia policies, though such content might live there on a temporary basis while people work to make it policy compliant. Beyond that, I don't think there needs to be any urgency in dealing with uncontroversial drafts and the like though. Dragons flight (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose time limit - unless it's a copyvio, covered by some CSD, or used for the purpose of disruption - I see no reason for limiting the time. If it has some potential for improving the encyclopedia, we don't want to delete it even if the user has forgotten about it but will eventually remember it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse time limit: I think a year would be very generous, but would support something shorter. A fair time limit would actually help make sure that it eventually *does* get back to the mainspace, because it would provide a motivation. Even better than a flat time limit would be something dynamic -- something based on effort, with generous allowances for extensions. This isn't a deadline so much as the expiration of a good faith belief, like the wife of a MIA soldier who eventually realizes her husband is never coming home. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have a question: whats the goal? Just to scrub old junk that isn't being worked toward the encyclopedia main space, or to keep viewers from coming across old junk that's in limbo? If it's the latter, I'd endorse some sane time limit (a year?) and a mandatory template like Template:Revamping Content or something, which would include {{NOINDEX}} by default; if it's the former, just set a blanket NOINDEX on all User: and User talk: pages. rootology (C)(T) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say it is a mixture of both positions. A reader with no knowledge of how Wikipedia works can easily come across "articles" like those in the deletion review referenced, especially since the user advertised for help on various talk pages. This could give a user the impression that these are the standards we set for articles. I like your idea for the template. Redfarmer (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I am generally against any specific time limits. Users should be a allowed to work on article content in the user space at their own pace, and even if it is very slow, it is still possibly of benefit to Wikipedia in the long run. Copyvio/spam/BLP violations/web hosting and similar should obviously dealt with separately when it arises. As for WP:NOTIMELIMIT, as I have pointed out at WT:NOTIMELIMIT, this essay was primarily written for issues of the main space, not much thought was given for the user space. Though the concepts it gives do, I think, hold some relevance here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep wording as it is: There shouldn't be a specific time limit, but User pages show up in google searches, and should not be used as a way to permanently host content forks that better push a POV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many people like that wikipedia is getting that extra traffic making it number 8 site in the world. it can be disabled with 'noindex,nofollow' instruction in html meta tag, as is done with many other pages. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• COMMENT. having a time limit is silly. one can make few edits just before 'expiration', and therefore it is extended. 212.200.241.153 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse some time limit. A year would be fine; it shouldn't take anyone longer than that to improve an article to the stage where it can be allowed in mainspace. Userfying articles is supposed to be a temporary procedure; I agree with the policy that uesrfied articles should not be kept around indefinitely. After all, when an article is deleted, that's a sign that we don't really want the content on Wikipedia (unless rewritten to meet our guidelines); keeping it in userspace indefinitely seems to contradict that. Robofish (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but a year isn't long enough. - Pointillist (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse a time limit - a year in userspace, perhaps six months with no edits? I'd have general sandboxes excluded. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Point to ponder

Google indexes pages in User space, and often prioritises them fairly highly. If we're going to revise that section, what should we do about POV-forks and similar content hosted in user space?

Discuss. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• What? Why should Google index userspace? Talk: and User: should have a robot.txt to exclude spiders from indexing them. 199.125.109.119 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yep, quite easy to modify! [6] 212.200.241.153 (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that we leave people's userspace alone, and get back to doing something that might have some vague possibility of being useful. This is all useless bureaucracy. — Werdna • talk 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Google should not be indexing user pages. Permitting Google to index (and what's worse, cache) pages containing incomplete drafts of material about living persons is bad practice and exposes the foundation to unnecessary legal risk. - Pointillist (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

the rahm emmanual bio is not neutral

Hello. I think the Rahm Emmanual entry in Wikipedia is biased. It is focused on his Jewishness to an extreme extent. I have not seen another bio in Wikipedia that is so focused on the person's ethnicity. It may be mentioned, but then the piece goes on to talk about the person, not his nationaliy or ethnicity. Most of this article is devoted to Emmanual in the context of his being Jewish and his interests and actions from that standpoint. This is biased, and I feel strongly that it needs to be changed and made fair. Thank you. rachaelraps@copper.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.24 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the incorrect place to discuss issues within a specific article like that. This talk page is for discussing the guideline on users' pages. I suggest you bring up your concerns on the talk page of the article here. That's the place for discussing article problems. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Page talk archives

I have for the moment reverted User:Jclemens good faith modification to the article, pending acceptable wording. I do not believe the intention of the guideline is to prevent housekeeping. In that sense, the wording is too broad - archives which are cut and paste should never be included, as it hinders more than it helps userspace management. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion was not in good faith because of your conflict of interest. A case is pending regarding the restoration of your own archives. And didn't you use page moves for your archives? Tennis expert (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking

I appreciate that users are permitted to blank comments from their talk pages on a whim (though not to edit other users' comments' meanings) but is it acceptable for someone selectively to remove my comments in a way that makes it look as though I have failed to respond to them (presumably so it appears as though I am in the wrong). These actions include deliberately modifying the indentation in a way that makes it appear as though my comments have never existed.LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 18h20 (GMT)

A gross misrepresentation of reality. New responses have been removed, there is nothing selective about it. Basically, you have been told to go away. The originals were only left to provide context for the conversation between others that began because of your inappropriate editing of my user page and subsequent off-the-wall defense of said editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, that is ever so insincere of you. Obviously I can only hypothesize about your reasoning for altering the conversation to make it appear as though I have failed to respond, but one cannot gain the last word in a discussion by deleting the facts. Anyway, I await a disinterested party's opinion.LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 18h40 (GMT)

Sorry, but no, I'm not altering the conversation. Its been ended, at least with you. Stop trying to post to my talk page and there won't be anymore problem. As there is a clear note saying I've removed your responses, your claim that I didn't leave a note is incorrect. However, per your continued persistence in posting to my user talk page, despite being repeatedly told not to, I've now posted a clear note stating such. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Users can remove comments from their talk pages as they wish. In any case, there doesn't appear to be any intent from Collectonian to misrepresent you. Dayewalker (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your inclusion of an explanation of the situation. I now consider this particular issue to be resolved. LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 18h53 (GMT).

Removing a comment from your own talk page is considered an acknowledgment that you have read the message. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per the WP:BLANKING section of this guideline) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, thank you for the clarification. My only concern was that, as another user was already involved in the discussion, it was not necessarily evident to all parties involved how the discussion had transpired. Still, in future I will refrain from entering discussions with such people.LaFoiblesse (talk) 2009-02-18 19h05 (GMT).

User:Dream Focus

Is this an appropriate use for a user page? It seems like a lengthy diatribe/attack piece on "deletionists", which seems to go against the not section #10 "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.". However, it could also seem to fall under the what is allowed "opinions about Wikipedia...your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed". I guess I'm wondering, where is the line? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm surprised that someone who accuses others of stalking all the time, has found her way to my user page. Recent articles Collectonian nominated for deletion, were voted Keep: Iou Kuroda Comparison of GIS software list of all of her nominations. I'm curious if that's her reason for going after me. That is the usual pattern she seems to have followed in the past. Please state EXACTLY what part you find inappropriate, and why. If I want to list what I believe is wrong with wikipedia, and how the policies should be changed, I am allowed to do so. Dream Focus 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, your user page is on my watchlist because of previous interactions, obviously. And my AfDing articles have nothing to do with anything here. I voiced a valid concern, which obviously others share as you were recently requested to remove personal attacks from your user page by someone else. I didn't request it be deleted as a personal attack, I simply asked does your user page cross the line. I think it does, but the guideline isn't completely clear. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The complaint was from my wording at one point, which sounded like an insult, when it wasn't meant to be, we working through that, I editing it to be more clear, and both of us satisfied with the results. That one incident doesn't mean others share your concern. You have posted before, although I forget where exactly, your claim that my user page was being used as an attack page against deletionists. I believe I am well within my rights to complain about people who nominate anything for deletion, simply because they don't like it, or believe others they are trying to impress won't like it, delete 90% of an article because they consider it fancruft, etc. I am curious is to read the opinions others have on this subject though. Dream Focus 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask why you didn't contact me about this page? Fortunately some other editor contacted me and posted a link. Also, does my complaint about your actions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dream_Focus#Merge_often_means_Delete.2C_with_nothing_at_all_merged have anything to do with your decision to complain here? I did not mention your name, simply stated I thought it horrible that when people voted merge in an AFD, it ends up as a delete, and that when people try to add in information from the merge, others just delete it as being improper. Dream Focus 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Leechers"

I wrote an essay of sorts here: User:MZMcBride/User pages. I'd be curious about any thoughts regarding it. Specifically, I think codifying some aspects of it into this guideline might be a good idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some allowances for users testing things out, in preparation for mainspace edits, would be appropriate. "Leechers" may be too pejorative a label--how about "non-contributing users" instead? I generally agree with the thrust of the page, but think it could be safely toned down while still accomplishing the essential goals. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like the term "leechers" either, but English seems to be rather limited here. (Feel free to edit the page, by the way.)

More broadly, I think something similar to WP:OLDIP should be created for these types of pages. Something where we set a deadline and such and then nuke the old pages. Perhaps after a year of no edits and the page isn't marked with a sockpuppet tag?

My biggest concern is pages like User:Hairyfairy. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have G10'ed that. There's no proof that the page owner is the named individual, so I'd be happy to G10 alleged self-disparagement, too. Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on the broader idea of setting up something like WP:NONCON (non-contributor) that points to this guideline? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd move it into Wikipedia space and mark it as an essay first, but yeah, WP:NONCON sounds like an appropriate shortcut. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Starting user page,

Hi here I am artist Nikki, and wanting to post my bio on wikipedia with examples of work. How do I do this? I started a bio and it is gone?? so obviously I am doing this wrong> Please give input and guidance? Thanks Nikki —Preceding unsigned comment added by NikkiNichols (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't write an article about yourself. If you are, in fact, notable - someone else will write about you in a neutral way. Please also read our conflict of interests guide. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

'This Is A Userpage' templates

Is the project page implying a userpage notification should be at the top? Mine has so much at the top that I needed a TOC, but I put it at the top, so I made a TOC with a link that says 'This is a Wikipedia user page,' and after the TOC the box section's title and box's link both go to this project page. That could work for anyone that has not edited too much, but already I needed a TOC. Userboxes are supposed to be collapsible, but apparently you need to write your page's sections in separate files to do that.

One of my parents is a librarian; I study Comp. Sci., and I have ideas about how this project page and its example can be made clearer and more useful for both new readers/users and those who are starting to learn how to use their the Wikimedia project accounts much more.

Most longtime editors have a detailed page of that nature: is there no page suggesting how, or is it time for one? I guess it would not be a beginning user page. Even if the admin page has something like that, perhaps there should be an easier way to get to a page to help those who do not just want to know what they can have on a user page, but what might help inform other editors and help themselves and any editor who comes to their page.

It is common or usual for a library homepage to have a short piece of info/description about it and large resources menu.

I did not know about tabs, and I forgot when the userbox controversy started and why, but examples with these too would help: TOC of articles edited or created, or both, or one for each subject; methods for people that like HTML or 'WTML' or both or other MLs; any other notational/computer languages used here; userboxes, etc., and because the projects are growing, examples for editors in different disciplines would help.--Dchmelik (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-contributors

Following the thread above, here's a specific proposal. Any user page where:

• There are no non-deleted edits in a namespace other than User:
• The user hasn't edited in the last year
• The page doesn't indicate that the user is a sock account or a alternate (testing) account

The page can be deleted citing Template:Iflink, a redirect that would point to this guideline.

The reasons for deleting these (mostly test and spam pages) are outlined here.

This is only talking about users with 0 non-deleted contributions outside the user space.

Below are some sample pages. Not all of these would be deleted. Please feel free to review them and comment about them.

Sample pages

• User:Tebeica2
• User:Holger
• User:Gustavo Wombat
• User:Closely
• User:Kazik
• User:Mikedill
• User:Puzka
• User:Elifant
• User:Iskra
• User:JaWi
• User:Nathanj
• User:Taylorcc
• User:Werner Moeller
• User:Adam Theo
• User:Slartibartfasz
• User:BrianLauer
• User:Jackokring
• User:Elrojo
• User:Bzaugg
• User:Canbcan
• User:Jasan
• User:Peter Olin
• User:Danger4
• User:Gus Tavares
• User:Omynous
• User:Beladona
• User:Hxaoso
• User:NodoubtNxD
• User:Afro
• User:Balise
• User:Chrisrobinson

--MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd support the idea, but may I add one idea? That, just for the sake of due process (so to speak), we leave a warning on the user's talk page first or maybe even the Special:EmailUser function. Or would that be a waste of time if they had 0 non-userspace edits? Oh and did you mean WP:NCON? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NCON points at a style guideline for article titles. I think he meant WP:NONCON in the sense of Non-Contributing editors. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whoops. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant WP:NONCON (not yet created). I don't see any real purpose in leaving the people a message, it just seems like it would needlessly clutter a lot of talk pages (and create a whole lot of new ones). E-mailing obviously requires the user to have a valid e-mail set... --MZMcBride (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ohhh, I got it. And yeah, the concern that it would create new talk pages is probably the best argument against my idea. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride,

I would not include the main Userpage itself as deletable. You must allow for reader-only accounts, and for people who may be just extremely slow to getting around to actually contributing. Of course, the userpage of a non-productive-contributor might be subjected to a size or activity limitation.

I support clarifying the amount of material that a non-contributor may have in their userspace. At MfD, I usually support delete or the nicer blank in the first instance when their userspace contributions far exceed useful contributions. Your criteria fall well beneath this, and so I would obviously support these additions to WP:UP.

You go further, I think, in suggesting that pages meeting your criteria be speediable. I would support this for user subpages, and maybe for the userpage itself if it were being used, obviously and excessively, for non-productive purposes, even allowing for learning purposes. Are you are proposing a new WP:CSD#U4 “a non-contributor’s blatant abuse of WP:NOTWEBHOST”? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all deletions must be codified at WP:CSD, though it is possible to do so, if necessary. I'm suggesting something similar to WP:OLDIP (in that it would be linked from the deletion summary and provide more explanation on a page like this one).

One important point to make is that this isn't a case where the user space contributions exceed useful contributions. I'm only discussing cases where there are no useful contributions ("useful" being non-user space) at all. Previous MFDs have supported deleting these pages (I did a few test rounds a while ago).

I suppose it's also important to ask: if an account is being used to only read the project, why would it need a user page at all? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case for codifying a new CSD. I think we should err on the side of being nice, especially where is costs little. WP:CSD#U4 should be linked to any such speedy deletion, and the explanation should explain the problem. I’d like to see the WP:CSD#U4 explanation point also to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.

I don’t think these Userspace play page deletions should ever be characterised as housekeeping – that would be too patronising to the user. I don’t think that any other CSD criteria fits, and I don’t think there is much a downside to creating a #U4. Are many play pages, that your consider speediable, found outside userspace?

A reader account doesn’t *need* a userpage, but I’d think that a reader account with a userpage that says “My name is … and I’m from …” is OK, that the user is one step away from contributing, and that deletion would not be a positive action. Aren’t new users encouraged to create a userpage? I imagine a user having put a toe in water, and then seeing the toe bitten off. You’ve specified a year of non-editing, which is a long time, largely mitigating my concern.

Subpages, on the other hand, cause me less worry. Creation of a subpage requires at least a passing familiarity with how the wiki works. Someone playing games in their subpages is unlikely to be a timid almost-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through your examples of people you think should be deleted. User:Jackokring has his page there, linking to an article about him, but apparently never doing anything else. Just joined the wikipedia after an article about him was made. He isn't spamming any products, nor using his space for anything else inappropriate. So why bother him? Why bother anyone at all, unless they are harming someone? User:Holger has nothing but a link to his website, but perhaps he just made a page, and didn't have anything else to say. He may not have made it specifically for spamming reasons. So a warning would be in order, or a polite question on his talk page asking him if why he did that. User:Canbcan has the name of a movie on his page, and nothing more. When you Google for that name, and the word "wikipedia", his user page is the first thing that pops up. Did he do that on purpose? Or was he just testing things out, and typed in the name of a movie, which has its own article, and that the reason he decided to register an account? Once again, we need to find his motive, get some feedback from some of these people, before deciding anything. Dream Focus 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, ultimately user pages have a specific purpose. They provide more information about an editor (think about how you reach the pages, mostly from page histories or talk page posts). So if a user isn't editing, what purpose is the user page serving? Identification is one purpose (for sock puppet taggings). I don't think 'playing psychologist' and trying to figure out why some of these pages is particularly productive or necessary.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: looking at one of the examples you cited, User:Canbcan register an account in 2002, made a user page with a few words and hasn't returned in nearly seven years. Is there a reason to keep pages like that indefinitely? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sample pages I looked at, I would say NO, they are not speediable. At MfD, I would say Keep, blank or append with Template:NOINDEX, depending on whether I find them innocuous, somehow bothersome, or conceivably serving an advertising purpose. These pages may serve no purpose, but worrying about them is a waste of time, and the damage of deleting a false postive easily outweighs any benefit of deleting them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Template:NOINDEX

What's the purpose of blanking them? And, more broadly, looking at an example, User:Canbcan register an account in 2002, made a user page with a few words and hasn't returned in nearly seven years. Is there a reason to keep pages like that indefinitely? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanking is a gentler-than-deletion way of saying “that is not OK”. Unlike deletion, it is not disempowering, and offers the initially wayward editor that chance to comply by not reversing the blanking. For cases of non-active editors, it is an effective way to hide content. I understand that no known archives/search engines trawl histories, while some ignore NOINDEX. I also understand that small, never looked at pages cost less than a reasonable cost analysis of thinking about them, and that when deleted, they are never really deleted (despite Brion warns against relying on this [7]). I would blank User:Canbcan, and for all of your cases, I wouldn’t unblank if you blanked them. There is no good reason to keep them indefinitely, but there’s no good reason to worry about them either. I don’t like a misusable needless blank cheque to delete. I don’t think User:Canbcan, the page, should be deleted unless it is also sought to delete that account itself.

But isn’t straying needlessly into the gray areas? Non-newcomer non-contributors secret/hidden/myspace subpages: Delete at MfD? yes. Speediable? Yes, when authorised at WP:CSD. Should speediability be authorised? Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, following this thought experiment for a moment, why not do the same for articles? We could just blank spam and test pages, but we don't, right? Why treat the userspace different?

Also, user accounts are never deleted. And we're not discussing a blank check to delete. We're discussing narrow parameters to say, "while we appreciate your ability to register an account and create a test page, it doesn't need to stay around (blanked or not) indefinitely." --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We do remove spam and tests without the need to delete. The spam and tests stay in the revision history indefinitely. We do and should give more leeway in userspace. There is no perforance issue involved. User:Canbcan is in no way abusing wikipedia. He might even make a mainspace contribution next month. I can understand how secret pages might irritate you, but I don’t understand why you feel a need to do delete dormant userpages Perhaps you think that if User:Canbcan’s userpage is deleted due to “no contributions for more than 1 year and no contributions outside userpace ever” then the deletion may give him an impetus to make that first copy-edit? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to immortalize a person's ability to register an account and make a page that says "poop". That's not what user pages are for. Nobody said anything about performance or abuse. But we're not a webhost and we're not a test site. Can you explain why you feel the page User:I like pie mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm should stay around forever? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That one is vandalism. I'd delete the page. I'd delete the account too, if it were easy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) What I'm trying to do here is develop guidelines that say, "if you've never made any useful contributions and your user page is being used for X, Y, or Z," it's going to be deleted. Vandalism, spamming, etc. would fall into the X, Y, Z categories, right? User:Rezolve for example. Or User:Desert Ridge A JW Marriott Resort & Spa. Or User:Smith510. Or User:Morphgarage. These are all examples of what appears to be spam. Can these be deleted?

What about User:Drosele? This page was taken from everything2.com and is likely a copyright violation. And then there are pages like User:Chominick Chaple. This is a resumé. We're not job board. Is there any reason to keep this page around indefinitely? Countless MFDs have supported deleting purely promotional user pages like this.

But I don't think nominating each of these pages for MFD individually is practical or efficient. Clear guidelines are what's needed. So can we work on creating some? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These new examples are clear or close CSD#G11/12. They are not plausible userpages in the intended sense. I don't see a need for a new guideline here, is there something I don't know. Delete these new examples as CSD#G11/12. Use a summary that suggests the possibility that the deletion was a mistake. Do you get talkpage protests or DRV cases? I don't expect you'll have a problem deleting spam pages masquerading as article pages in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not everything is so clear-cut. What about User:Mymanalex? Is that spam? Is it needed? Perhaps the user is trying to spam. Or perhaps they're using us as a webhost.... Should that page be deleted? Or pages like User:Shawnanthonyconnor? User:Neillly88right? User:Eitannem seems sort of promotional. Do you agree? Copy-paste jobs from random sites? User:Canadian Lawyer? Are we a pastebin? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If in doubt, use WP:MfD. That's what MfD is for. Despite your assertions, I do not agree that MfD has ever shown a consensus that all of any type of page outside CSD criteria can be summarily deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I like this proposal, and agree with it. Although I think we shouldn't have to contact the users first. I originally went inactive for that time, and would have been happier if my userpage was deleted. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it. I don't think lack of contributions should be a criterion for deleting user pages. Furthermore I don't see how the project would benefit from their deletion, I'd just let them be. Obvious promotional pieces or copyright violations can be dealt with using the existing criteria. A user page that says: Hi! I'm Joe, I'm 20 years old etc.. is not really hurting anybody. That Joe's last edit was in 2002 is inconsequential, he might still be an active reader, and might be offended by seeing his quite modest page being deleted. 189.105.41.65 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I don't think "what's the point of keeping it?" is a valid rationale for deleting. Unless a userpage is clearly harmful, it should stay. Martin^msgj 15:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer a staged reaction: For eligible accounts as defined above: If no logins in last year, email user and put a note on the talk page. If no logins 3 months later blank all pages but User: and User_talk: and put a report of what was blanked on User_talk:. If no logins 3 months later delete all but User: and User_talk: and append a report saying what was done and that the pages can be recovered on request. Any time the user logs in, the clock starts over. I would also add to the eligibility requirement: If an account is tagged as on break or as a non-editing user by the account-holder, it is ineligible for blanking/deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no way to know the last time an account logged on. And as discussed above, creating thousands of talk pages just to tell the user that you're going to delete (or blank) their user page seems pretty silly and wasteful. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think I support, but have we defined what "non-deleted contributions" means? Does that mean that any page they've edited has since been literally deleted? Wouldn't it amount to the same thing if we can't see evidence of their original edits because of further edits by other people? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'd prefer blanking and replacing with a template (it could be called {{inactive-user}}) in favor of deletion; that way they know what's going on, and they can revert if they decide to become an editor after all. I also believe these should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Some are using user space to spam about products; some are using it for social communication; some merely haven't gotten around to doing any editing yet, but have a normal-looking user page. In the last case any sort of deletion or blanking seems pointless. Dcoetzee 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So you would treat them all the same? What's the purpose of blanking spam? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support MZMcBride's original proposal. If the user has not totally forgotten the existence of the page, they can easily make a new one or ask for the old one to be restored. bd2412 T 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose any authorisation of out-of-process deletions or extra-CSD deletion criteria to be authorised here. MZMcBride has not justified his proposal. WP:CSD criteria already suffice, and outside of those criteria, no userspace can be speedy deleted, all such cases must be listed at WP:MfD. There is no case that MfD is overrun with such cases. Further, in almost all cases, blanking is sufficient to stop WP:NOT#NOTWEBHOST abuse, and where blanking is not sufficient, blocking, not deletion, is the appropriate remedy. Except where WP:DENY applies, deletion is not desirable as it hinders the ability of non-admins to track continuing abusers of wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree insofar as we should not authorize speedy deletion in any policy outside of WP:CSD - that kind of spreading stuff around will inevitably lead to confusion. If he gathers support for such a rule here, let him carry the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion where it will be evaluated according to the usual criteria criteria. Dcoetzee 23:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's the problem we're trying to solve? It seems like there are more pressing issues for our efforts in article space: copyright violations, vandalism, dubious articles and BLP problems. Why spend all this time worrying about user pages? We run across a spam or attack page, we delete it per existing criteria. Otherwise, we spend our time on more pressing issues. As for anything that doesn't immediately meet our existing criteria, either blank it and leave a note or else take it to MfD.

We've deleted 100,000s of old IP talk pages in the last month or two -- is our encyclopaedia any better for it? Do our articles load faster? Is our content more reliable? Have we measurably lowered the Wikimedia Foundation's electric bill and cut air conditioning demand in its server room? Aside from deleting a lot of useful spammer data, I wouldn't say that deleting these old IP pages otherwise harmed the project but when we move on to deleting registered user pages then I do think the problems definitely outweigh the benefits. Even if 19 out of 20 user pages belong to folks that will never edit here in the future, why run off that 20th editor who might?

If the proposal to have a WP:NONCON should pass, I strongly believe any deletions made using that new deletion criterion should be done manually by an admin actually looking at the page. It should not be done by a bot or some highly automated script that takes the administrator out of the review process. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, "copyright violations, vandalism, dubious articles and BLP problems" all exist in these user pages. So, yes, it's a problem. A quite serious one considering the lack of monitoring in this area and the Google juice of Wikipedia user pages. For some examples of the problems found in user pages, see the examples discussed with SmokeyJoe above. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and we already have policies and guidelines for dealing with user pages that have copyright violations or BLP problems. We have the "undo" button for vandalism and we have MfD for dubious articles in user space. You can also just blank a problematic page. I see no need for a new policy or guideline. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged some pages from speedy deletion. Any declines, I brought to MFD. Does that sound reasonable? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable approach. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-wiki contributors: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SI461AN reminds me of another point. I still don't support the proposed WP:NONCON, but if we go down that path we should be careful not to delete pages of contributors active on other projects. In my own extreme case, I have user pages on 150 to 200 projects in connection with my meta admin work but I've not otherwise edited several of these projects;^[8][9] I'd still be put off if someone deleted one of my pages. Note that we have a cross-wiki contributions tool to quickly find cross-wiki edits; unfortunately it is not working today -- it occasionally goes wobbly due to toolserver or database issues. If there's cross-wiki user page spam, some of my meta colleagues will clean it up; you can report it at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#User: namespace abuse. (I work a lot with the meta blacklist but have never fooled with these cross-wiki user pages reports since I think they're a waste of time given the other much more severe spam problems we struggle with.) In SI461AN's particular case, I manually checked both id.wikipedia and my.wikipedia (his user page is in either Malay or Indonesian) and there were no contributions under that name.

MZMcBride, you may wish to leave a note at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Discussion; there may be some synergy in tool development between what you've done with user pages on en.wikipedia and what some meta admins have developed for cross-wiki user page issues. Selfishly, I'd rather you sticked with en.wikipedia and worked on some new spam investigation tools -- you seem to be a prolific tool and script-writer! See the latter part of the discussion at meta:User talk:A. B.#User:COIBot/XWiki/mountainzones.com etc for some ideas and a link to another admin's tool wishlist. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted contributions -- those with access to a user's deleted contributions should also look at them as well. If the person has made good faith efforts to write an article -- even a lousy, speedily deleted article -- that should be a positive consideration in keeping the user page. On the other hand, obvious bad-faith spam or attack contributions may tip gray-area decisions towards blanking, blocking and/or speedy deletion. (If it's spam, please also leave a warning on the talk page along with a live link to any spam domains formatted as http://sss.example.com; the added "sss" identifies these links as spam flags.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I support this proposal and can accept it as non-controversial housekeeping. Keeping those user pages does not help the encyclopaedia one bit. --Amalthea 01:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• The rationale makes sense for this; we really don't use complete blanking for anything, I certainly don't see why it would be desirable in this case. I don't buy the "but they might edit soon argument" at all - its not like they're deleted after a week. These are pages where the user created the page a year or more ago, and hasn't made a single edit since, the odds of them coming back and being a regular contributor are virtually nil, the odds that these pages violate some policy or another is a lot higher. Mr.Z-man 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • My main concern, regardless of whether the page is deleted or blanked, is that the user gets an explanation. Yes, most of these users will never edit again; the ones who will would be justly quite upset that they couldn't just go on a long wikibreak and come back without their user page "expiring." Dcoetzee 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Users who have 0 non-deleted edits outside userspace who haven't edited in more than a year? TBH, I would be incredibly surprised if any were on a "wikibreak," that would be like taking a sabbatical before getting a job. They haven't done anything, what's to take a break from? Mr.Z-man 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal. I thought we weren't supposed to worry about performance, and for all we know the users who created these pages are continuing to read Wikipedia, just preferring not to edit. Maybe most of the users whose pages would be deleted under this proposal might never notice, but a few of them might. And the ones who did notice would be likely to respond by complaining about Wikipedia on other web sites, blogs, message boards, etc., thus promoting the belief that Wikipedia is run by a group of petty-minded administrators. I don't see any real benefit from this proposal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is really a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Any non-contributors who's userpage breaks any of the rules, can be removed, otherwise just leave them as they are. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Lugnuts is correct. There is no problem that this proposal would solve. If the pages do not violate any policies, it's our task to assume that they were created as test pages for further editing. If it's spam, G11 applies. If it violates copyright, we have G12. If it does not violate anything at all, there is no reason to delete these pages. It just creates more fuss, more work, more deletions that don't benefit the encyclopidia. The time wasted discussing this or deleting such pages could be better devoted to all those backlogs that do matter without there being any harm from such pages. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

— Note: I have advertised this discussion at WT:CSD to get more input by users who are actively involved with speedy deletion discussions. SoWhy 13:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To waste more people's time discussing this? :P Martin^msgj 13:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, noone forces them to waste their time. But they should be able to, if they like ;-) SoWhy 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support: As I've stated numerous times before. seicer | talk | contribs 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I looked at a random sampling of the example pages, and didn't see a single one that had any pressing need to be deleted. In all the discussions of this topic, I haven't see a single widespread problem that this addresses. If there are problems on an individual user page, address those problems on an individual basis. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'd say that if a userpage violates something definite (e.g. is a copyvio, promotional, spam etc.) then it should be deleted irrespective of whether that user has other useful contributions, or whether he edited in the past year. (Whether this happens via CSD or by MfD depends on case.) But if the userpage is otherwise not terribly wrong, I'd support Dcoetzee suggestion above: blank the page, and replace it with a template such as {{inactive-user}}. Here, I've had a go at this myself: have a look at User:Ekjon Lok/inactive-user, I've tried to make it non-BITEy and informative, yet firm. Again, the application should still be looked at on case-by-case basis, I believe. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose We have no way of determining who is doing what on WP as far as use is concerned. It is, moreover, evident that making a person feel less than welcome is unlikely to make them suddenly start editing. At this juncture I would also like to state that unless and until WP produces an "only English in userspace" policy, that deletion reasons ought not include the main argument that the material is not in English. Collect (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - with the SUL feature, a lot of interwiki users might have pages that are inactive etc. Also, we already have ways to handle problematic instances, like CSD on copyvio and vandalism - perhaps we need to expand the meaning to Userspace. I oppose any rule that might allow for the automated deletion of content under any circumstance, even of extreme cruft. Deletion should always be subjected to community oversigth. --Cerejota (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The G-series of CSD codes (G11, spam; G12, copyvio, etc.) already apply to all namespaces -- see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General: "These criteria apply to all namespaces, and are in addition to namespace-specific criteria in following sections." --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - why not a prod-like category? make it a LONG waiting time, like a month. if a user has never made any contribution and doesn't notice that their page has this tag within a month, then it's probably all right to delete the page. I do believe this is needed, mostly because of userpage images. (Though perhaps another solution might be more narrowly tailored to this problem.) Right now there are thousands upon thousands of orphan images, or images only used in userpages, in Wikipedia. These really should be evaluated and moved to the commons if they're useful. Keeping around userpages, and the images on them, creates more maintenance work for people trying to do these cleanup tasks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like an unnecessary rule that solves a non-problem, sorry. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this deletion of valuable information that aids in vandal and spam fighting. Themfromspace (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD cases re: WP:NONCON

from above:
::::I've tagged some pages from speedy deletion. Any declines, I brought to MFD. Does that sound reasonable? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable approach. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a reasonable approach, is not WP:POINT, and could be very informative for this debate. However, MZMcBride, why are you confusing matters by nominating userpages of users who have edited in the last year? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride, it looks like you application of your criteria is sloppy and generates a lot of false positives. It doesn't look like you should be trusted with the power to unilaterally delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, leave me out of this. Which false positives are you talking about? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1. False positives: Your criterion "The user hasn't edited in the last year". User:Belsy, for example, has edited in the last year.
2. False positives, in my opinion: Not only do I disagree with your CSD tagging, that mutliple cases are not and should not be speediable, but some of them I even think should be kept at MfD, at least "for now", anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given my opinions on your MfDs. Admittedly, I err towards keeping. I'm hoping that plenty of others weigh in with their opinions. Having seeded the MfDs with my opinions, I try to leave them alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For convenience I am putting a list of the MFDs open at this time. Martin^msgj 09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Miscellany for deletion/User:SI461AN
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Belsy
• Miscellany for deletion/User:ChileProg
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Vokcan
• Miscellany for deletion/User:KValavanis
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Remko Nieuwman
• Miscellany for deletion/User:AlmightyMike Speedy deleted as copyright violation.
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Apteka
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Wholespear Speedy deleted as copyright violation.
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Giberti
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Esan hanzi100
• Miscellany for deletion/User:Stephen Mark Andrew Johnson

These MfDs are proving to be an interesting exercise in how the community views different sorts of non-contributing users' pages. I encourage anyone considering WP:NONCON -- whether they lean pro or con -- to look over them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)