User talk:とある白い猫

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:White Cat)
Jump to: navigation, search
とある白い猫
A Certain White Cat

User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox

JA TR Commons Meta
Assume good faith!
Winged logo.gif
Today is Friday, 20 January 2017, and the current time is 12:52 (UTC/GMT).
There are currently 5,330,957 articles and 848,826 files on English Wikipedia.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

The truth resists simplicity.

TALK PAGE OF とある白い猫

Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post comments below. Anything you put here will likely be archived and available for public view. Please be polite and civil.


To post a new topic please use this link or the 'new section' between "edit this page" and "history".

xkcd #557: Students
Fun fact: Decades from now, with school a distant memory, you'll still be having this dream.
xkcd #903: Extended mind
When Wikipedia has a server outage my, apparent IQ drops about 30 points.

Warning: This comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors).

Posts[edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Christmas Lisbon 2005 b.JPG

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Nomination of Casati Boya for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casati Boya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casati Boya (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User pages[edit]

Please do not nominate inappropriate user pages at MfD. If they are worthy of deletion, as indeed the ones you have nominated were, the correct place to nominate then is at CSD --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC).

@Anthony.bradbury: I can CSD them if you like. I am rather worried of being accused of circumventing process as I am making too many nominations. Do you think they are CSD worthy? Some of them do not have truly promotional content, though they are still userpages of users without edits. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, I am looking at User:Hinges003 and User:Htown832/sandbox at this very moment. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI, userpages of users without edits are not automatically deletable under WP:NOTWEBHOST. There needs to be something problematic like self-promotion on the page for that to apply. Clumsy drafts and empty pages are not deletable under NOTWEBHOST, no matter how few edits in the mainspace the user has. Deleting the pages is a waste admin time and server space, as the deleted pages are retained on the servers in any case, and the deletion generates a log entry. For this time and effort, there is no benefit to the project. You have heard this from other users are MfD already. Please only nominate pages with problematic content. A2soup (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Anthony.bradbury:@A2soup: I will certainly hold back on any further nominations. It sounds like I may have overwhelmed the process a little. I apologize for that, my intention was not disruption. If you like I can pull down all my recent MFDs if you feel they are disruptive. Just to clarify, my main goal was to send the pages for community review on a case by case basis. Weather they are deleted or not is not my main worry. Aside from one or two of them I did not quite review their "progress". I just wanted to highlight them slowly for the community to review, preferably independent of my own thinking (aside from my short nomination comment).
I mainly want to point out userpages where users have uploaded files BUT do not have a single surviving edit in the main namespace. This is typically a good indication of problematic behavior as this can only happen if users create the article in their userspace for self promotion (or use it like a pseudo-article in a userspace) or that they created an article which was deleted for notability or some other reason. Either is an indication of a single purpose account that typically only edits under a conflict of interest.
Mind that, I skip users whom use the AFC process or are editing recently. Most of these users I have nominated their userspace for deletion have edited multiple years ago and vanished permanently. For all practical purposes the pages are abandoned with no further use in the project. Mind that I do not quite agree with your assessment and believe that these pages do pose an issue. For example aside from being promotional, copyright can be an issue with the drafts. Some of the issues are in userpage history not currently visible.
I also believe such deletions would discourage future creation of such pages. I feel we do not want people to create pseudo-articles in their userspace and use us as a webhost.
PS, deletion takes negligible server space. I kindly ask that we do not focus on such metrics as they aren't very helpful. Admin time is certainly valuable but I did not think I was wasting it. That said, I certainly do not want to tax on community resources if this issue isn't important. I was under the assumption that it was but now I feel I may be wrong.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand that your intentions were entirely good. That said, at all XfDs, the nominator is expected to examine the page before nomination and nominate it only if they feel an action (usually deletion) is appropriate. I think we can all agree that a blank page does not constitute webhosting, and while some argument could be made that an attempt at a draft is webhosting, do you really want to discourage honest (non-self-promoting) attempts at drafts? In any case, the sort of pages you are nominating are always created by newbies who don't know about deletion logs or userspace policy anyways, so it's not discouraging anyone. Feel free to keep nominating, but please only nominate pages that you feel constitute problematic webhosting warranting deletion, not harmless pages left around by past newbies. A2soup (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question above; User:Hinges003 is clearly deletable under CSD U5, as being a userpage being used only for promotion of a band. I normally only delete sandboxes if their content is frankly promotional, copyviolating or obscene.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony.bradbury: I think I will ignore userpages in my current pass. I am processing users without edits but with uploads at the moment. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the pages you are processing are WP:CSD#U5 eligible. Having uncovered them, it would be best if you tagged them so, the CSD system is quite efficient. Blanked pages, and self-introductory pages consistent with an intending contributor that do not include pointers to personal blogs, facebook twitter myspace etc are not needing deletion and not within the intended scope of U5. MfD is for starting a discussion about things worth a discussion, please don't stuff it with harmless worthless endlessness. If there is a class of page that should be deleted, the place to agree to that is WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: Sure I can use U5 instead of the MFD. Another possibility is a single bulk MFD for many pages. It isn't a critical issue of course. I do not want to overwhelm any system/procedure. What do you think is the best way to process these where we do not overwhelm any existing process but also have proper oversight?
Do you think a WT:CSD is needed at this point? In my view we should delete userspace of users if they have no main namespace edits where they registered at least over a year ago. There are so many (sandboxed) "articles" on non-notable bands and people like that. They tend to have dubious copyright claims as well. Some of those pages are also blanked (possibly because the author realized the issues with free licenses, we cannot be sure). Overall they are useless/unhelpful at best.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In my view we should delete userspace of users if they have no main namespace edits where they registered at least over a year ago.
You are entitled to your view on this, but it is not in line with consensus, which is to delete only problematic userspace pages. This, and not the volume, is the main reason your nominations are disruptive. Your blanket rationale is not itself a reason to delete a page, so !voters have to go look if the page is deletable for other reasons, which creates a lot of work.
There is a fairly low bar for a userspace page to be problematic - it seems to include pretty much any autobiography beyond the very barest and drafts of any topic already covered in mainspace (obviously, promotion, fanfics, etc. are also deletable). However, it is very much out of line with consensus to delete all userpages without mainspace edits regardless of their contents. If you think there are copyright issues, you need to check those yourself and note the violation in your deletion rationale if that is the concern. Blanked pages are absolutely no problem and should not be deleted - it's essentially punishing the user for removing the problematic content. If you are nominating a draft for being non-notable, you need to check whether the subject could be notable first.
If you want to try to amend WP:NOTWEBHOST to cover the userspace of any user without mainspace edits, you can go ahead and start a discussion at WT:NOT, but until then please only nominate problematic pages and say why they are problematic in your nomination. A2soup (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@A2soup: Oh absolutely which is why I am not making definitive remarks. "In my view" is never policy. As stated prior (maybe I wasn't clear), I will not create further MFDs of this nature.
Before posting for a policy update, if it is fine with you I would rather discuss it here a little so that the idea can mature a bit more than what I have in mind. Perhaps we can come up with a piece of text that is acceptable for you and a few others that has participated and then propose that for a wider consensus.
I have a very low bar myself. As long as user makes surviving edits to the main namespace, I am pretty much OK in letting users keep their userpage provided it isn't promotional. I do not think blanking is sufficient since the copyrighted content would remain in page history. We are switching to CC-By-SA 4.0 which has semi-revokability based on what I understand. This is mainly to address accidental free licensing. It is also easier to keep track of if we do not give exceptions. That way a simple quarry query would reveal something like "current users without surviving edits to the mainspace that have registered over 365 days ago". I would also extend this to "files uploaded by users without surviving mainspace edits". Is that reasonable in your opinion?
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In my view, I don't understand the imperative to delete non-problematic (no promotion, etc.) userspace pages simply because the user has not edited mainspace. My first few edits were to my userspace - I would hope that if I had waited a year before editing mainspace, my userpage would not have been up for deletion. I would have found that very unfriendly and probably not gone on to edit. I understand that is a rare scenario, but it can happen and should be counted as a cost of these deletions (see WP:EM). Another obvious cost is the admin time required to push the button - a small cost but a cost nonetheless. My question is - what are the benefits of these deletions that outweigh these costs? A2soup (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@A2soup: I do not see a WP:EM cost, just another backlog. Someone without surviving edits in the main namespace fails to qualify as an editor in my opinion. All my criteria is for them to have at least one surviving edit. I do not believe that is a stretch. It is a lot simpler to process such pages in bulk. Less admin time would be needed if we decide on a precise albeit arbitrary rule (such as a few proposals I made earlier) which can be semi-autonomously enforced (if you want to call routine maintenance that). There is a finite amount of such userpages and once they are processed the backlog will become very small. It has became a backlog because it has been overlooked for a decade plus. I do not quite understand the reason for your push back against deletions. It isn't a priority matter of course. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
When I reference WP:EM, I am talking more about the cost to potential contributors than current contributors. I think there is a small risk that deleting a newbie's harmless userpage will drive them away. Others may disagree, and I understand this is a matter of opinion/wikiphilosophy. Regardless, there are undeniable costs in admin and !voter time. The primary question still hasn't been answered - what is the benefit to the project of deleting such pages? The "backlog" you reference only exists because you think the pages must be deleted - if they do not need to be deleted, then poof!, the whole backlog disappears! Arguing for backlog clearing as a benefit of the deletions is circular: the need for deletion creates a backlog, which justifies the need for deletion. So what's the benefit of deletion? A2soup (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@A2soup: These users failed to make a surviving edit in a year after registering. They are long gone. Let's not pretend as if they are valued contributors because they are not by definition. The benefit here is we are removing useless user pages of non-users to better keep track of such user pages. A higher proportion of these userpages are promotional in nature or are outright copyright violations. An elite minority is harmless but also useless. They can certainly be blanked but keeping them offers us no benefit. Keeping track of userpages is not something new. We have always done this since the start of this site.
I recognize this is getting us nowhere. Consider the following: Wikipedia:User pages#User pages that look like articles, Wikipedia:User pages#Old unfinished draft articles, Wikipedia:User pages#Non-free images (despite being tagged with a fake free license), Wikipedia:User pages#Copyright violations, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5
My nominations have kept these in mind. Typically any userpage I processed with MfDs thus far fell under one or more of these.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you have turned up plenty of actually problematic pages in your screen, which is a real benefit of going through all those pages. I still don't see any argument for how deletion is beneficial when none of those issues are present, and I certainly don't agree with your apparent view that deletion is the default and non-deletion needs to be justified, but you have my thanks for slogging through all those pages in any case - some good has definitely come of it. A2soup (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@A2soup: Oh I sensed that, which is why I tried the MfD route instead of speedy deletion tagging. That gets more attention. One of the goals was this very conversation (assuming a pushback would occur, if not then its just routine nominations). I could have nominated all the userpages in my list in one day. That would be disruptive though. Mind that I myself wasn't fully convinced if all of these were problematic. A few pages had content blanked, some by other users (seemingly a good deal by an IP user). Are these delete worthy? If user had a few main namespace edits, the answer in my mind is clear: a solid NO, deletion is not OK in such a case. But these users had no edits. IIRC I have tried a push back on one and only one MFD where it was more of a discussion.
I do not believe in a "deletion being default" mentality. I am more known for being an inclusionist in such matters. Just to be clear, all I am suggesting is criteria in processing userpages of users without surviving mainspace edits. I feel these pages are a problem, I gather you do too (but not all instances). I still hope we can agree on a piece of text. Before a wider discussion for consensus on more swiftly processing such pages as MfD per discussion above is overwhelmed. While I strongly defend my stand point, I am more than happy to compromise so that the text reflects your concerns as well. I imagine we want to seek a CSD amendment.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubious copyright claim of unused file[edit]

Your Files for discussion noms need better rationales than "Dubious copyright claim of unused file". What is dubious about the copyright claim? The authorship? What about it? Also it's not "unused" if included on user draft pages. czar 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Can you be specific to which file you are relating this to? The files in question are uploaded by users without ANY surviving edits in the main namespace despite being registered in over a year. In many cases the accounts are long abandoned.
I find the claim dubious in all cases because more often than not the files are clearly stolen or at least the transfer of copyright isn't properly established. Any claim that these files are freely licensed for our purposes is dubious. The draft themselves are problematic too (see above section).
Also note that if such files go though OTRS or Commons, they would be rejected. Even a current upload of these files to en.wikipedia would probably be deleted. Most of these are relics of old with no use in the encyclopedia.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)