Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 19

Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC

NO CONSENSUS
After reviewing the comments below, I can see that there is no consensus to bring about any change on this matter, even after a month of discussion. (NAC) Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 10:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been witness to several instances where editors managed to circumvent WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is my suggestion to further clarify on the policy that poetic militancy (similar to "#JeSuisCouteau", "will of the people", and "my land will not be humiliated") is not permissible. Promotion of militancy (a.k.a. "Mukawama", "Jihad") is illegal in several countries, e.g., the UK,[1][2] France,[3] Australia.[4] My understanding is that "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying" does not require content to be illegal. However, if paraphrases about the righteousness of militancy are sometimes passable law-wise, it does not make them right for the Wiki-project. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase Suggestions - Jaakobou

  • Original:
  • Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
  • Suggested replacement:
  • Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted.

My thoughts: A simple footnote that "poetic militancy is prohibited" was considered but whether it would be sufficient, that remains to be seen. Thus, a more expanded version came about. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I've been part of a long argument where poetic militancy which targets Jews had supporters as well as editors not seeing the big problem. Witnessing daily stabbings and having to argue is an absurdity unfitting Wikipedia's goals. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the suggested replacement, my initial thinking was that this was covered already but after discussion about it I'm not so sure. (Just noting that I also added the RFC tag). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is necessary. Text arguing for violence against Israelis is polemical and does vilify persons, so the guideline already advises against it. The linked discussion contains a large number of links to news stories about violence against Israelis, but only one example on Wikipedia that I can see. That example is several years old and in my opinion is polemical, although as it doesn't actually advocate any sort of violence this change wouldn't make much difference to it. If we're going to go to the point of adding several sentences to stop this sort of content then we need more evidence that it is actually a problem here. Hut 8.5 22:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Paraphrasing about humiliation, weapons and victory. There are several on-wiki examples but pointing them out detracts from the principle. 65 stabbings, 7 shootings, 8 car rammings.[5] In real world conflicts, encouragement of violent acts is tantamount to advocating violence. "Raise the spirit of fight" is a quote from a Taliban songwriter. @Hut 8.5: I hope you will reconsider. Adding one line to the text will not be harmful to the project. To the contrary, it would dispel any confusion.[6][7] JaakobouChalk Talk 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the single example I mentioned in that comment. Stories about real-world violence against Israelis don't support a change to Wikipedia policy on user pages. If there are lots of examples of people inciting violence against Israelis on user pages and being deemed to pass POLEMIC, let's see them. (I'm not going to deem mere advocacy of the Palestinian position as an incitement to violence against Israelis. There's a difference.) Hut 8.5 07:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @Hut 8.5:
        • POLEMIC is clear enough to me but some participants exhibit misunderstanding of the policy and purpose of Wikipedia. The arguments raised in topical discussions suggest the clarity of the policy should be improved to reduce interpretation battles. This @Nableezy: userbox, for example, is the result of quite a long discussion. Other examples exist, off course, but sampling for them distracts from clarifying what POLEMIC is and isn't. If a user names or clearly illustrates an adversary of a living breathing dispute with casualties, it should be made clear to all that this is a violation. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) clarify JaakobouChalk Talk 11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
          • That discussion is from 2008 and appears to have resulted in a conclusion that the userbox in question was unacceptable in that form. This is hardly evidence that this wording is causing lots of battles over interpretation. I think that your wording is redundant, so the only way I can support it is if it clarifies a common misinterpretation of the current wording. For that I need evidence that the misinterpretation is actually common. Hut 8.5 16:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I dont understand what "poetic militancy" is supposed to mean. This strikes me as an attempt to say that users may only show support on ones user page for only one of two sides in an ongoing conflict, the examples cited make that fairly clear. And, if Im not mistaken, this suggestion is a fairly clear violation of an AE imposed topic ban. nableezy - 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like to post "Je suis la plaie et le couteau!", translated I am the wound and the knife. This is from a Charles Baudelaire poem. There have been a few rock songs named I am the knife. Poetic militancy? I think of a more piss poor choice of wording. So are we going to ban people from quoting a song by Rage against the Machine? The rules already what the change intends to cover. The current rules focus more on intent than speech. The change focus more on speech than intent. Context is everything. Viva la Raza can be both benign and polemic. It depends on context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Little red riding hood could be used could be problematic in the wrong context. And the languages as it is right now covers exactly what you want. #JeSuisCouteau is polemic. The French phrase means I am the knife. There are possible instances where the phrase won't be, but I find it very unlikely an editor with a strong focus on WP:ARBPIA related articles would be doing anything other than making a polemic statement. Our policies are not suicide pacts, an ARBPIA editor not really going to be able to say you need to AFG because they like French poetry. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
Perhaps using examples with tiny quotes was unclear. The sources themselves[8][9][10] were meant as example which names or clearly illustrates an adversary of a living breathing dispute with casualties. On wiki, paraphrases about Jews, Israeli settlers and Zionists are theoretically clear violations of policy. Pragmatically, it takes long discussions and some participants exhibit misunderstanding of policy and purpose of Wikipedia. How would you phrase it to reduce confusion and long discussions? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be interested in reducing long discussions and I'm not really seeing much more confusion than other conversations on how a rule should be interpreted and applied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only place that "#JeSuisCouteau" appears anywhere on Wikipedia besides where you, Jaakobou, have written it is an article on a stabbing attack. Users having such a quote on their userpage does not appear to be a problem. What you are trying to do, rather obviously to anyone aware of the history, is remove things that dont celebrate an attack on a civilian. Something like a quote from Frantz Fanons The Wretched of the Earth where he writes about rising up against a colonial oppressor, and yes rising up violently. But you already tried and failed to get such a thing prohibited. So now, in a basic appeal to extreme argument, you raise something more menacing that isnt even an issue on any userpage. nableezy - 19:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

From the above two comments it sounds a whole lot like there's some inappropriate notification in violation of WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to closer:It sounds like... Hell that's exactly what it is. Since email was used to contact an undetermined amount of users and there's no way to determine the amount of users canvassed then there's no way to determine which users to exclude and there's no way to determine a consensus. Any consensus should be voided and read simply no consensus as it's impossible to determine the consensus now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
User-notifications can easily be inappropriate if you call out to your wiki-clique in secret but this is not the case.[11] We've had very few participants. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You have targeted an undetermined amount of people thru email. This is stealth canvassing. Based on your comments and the diff provided, you have targeted people based on their sympathies to France and due to the recent terrorist attack there. Targeting their emotion is certainly not neutral, appropriate notifications require neutrality. Targeting as you say "Your wiki-Clique" is also not neutral. So you have stealth canvassing, campaigning, and vote stacking. All of which are inappropriate. This has compromised the consensus decision making process.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
a) Mangling my words is inappropriate. b) French people are aware of the subject matter and are neutral. c) Pro militancy editors are not neutral. They know who they are but won't properly disclose that here. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A)That's not mangling your words, that is what happened. Take it to WP:ANI if you don't like it. B)You can't target a specific group of people because you feel they will side with you, that's not neutral. C) There's no COI for the ill-defined "pro-militancy editors". They have nothing to disclose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ISIS, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Taliban, Boko Haram et al. supporters should clearly disclose that. How can you write that there's no conflict of interest here? JaakobouChalk Talk 23:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The same way pro-life and pro-choice supporters can. Or republican party supporters and democrat party supporters. Or Palestinian supporters and Israel Supporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(I'm not even actually French anyway... LjL (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

You now that doesn't even matter?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, above I was basically called French. Maybe I don't like being called French? LjL (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol, My apologies. What I meant by it not mattering is French or otherwise an inappropriate notification remains inappropriate.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. LjL (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems like a solution proposed that is postulating there is a problem without providing any examples of what it objects to. Can you provide some pages that would be affected by this change? I don't advocate changing policy for symbolic purposes if it isn't solving an actual problem that currently exists. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment.

'Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight'

There would be some merit in this were the proposer not an inveterate propagandist and who has reentered the encyclopedia framing all of this as a defense of one party in a conflict, as if Wikipedia's language must take into account the suffering of one side and be motivated by horror at the evilness of the other. Poetic militancy is one of the most laughable pieces of phrasal ineptness I've come across in many years. I guess the rest of the sentence means that if any page has quotes like the following, they should immediately be removed (sigh of relief from worried unilateral victim propagandists for one party to the dispute)

Amalekites (Palestinians required to be killed on the basis of halakhic law)

Which I could readily supply in hundreds of other infamous forms of incitement language from senior Israeli figures, then these would be cancelled as inadmissible, rather being evidence of a problem? Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Are users using them on their user page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But if the point of this weird exercise is to ban any uncomfortable citation of a notable statement from a prominent public figure from any wikipedian's page, then the proposal has vast ramifications. Effectively, the proposal is a Trojan Horse whose application would cause endless argument and fuss, apart from imposing some Political Correctness regime. Citing neutrally such statements would not constitute incitement. It would be documentative, and, in any case, many of those remarks are duly noted on the relevant article bios. Does that constitute polemic or incitement? No.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. Not that poetic militancy is OK, but because the existing has served very well for a long time and that stability has benefit, and that the addition may be no more than creep. Militancy unrelated to Wikipedia is not tolerated, whether or not it is poetic. I have never seen a MfD dispute arise from a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:User_pages#POLEMIC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe:
    • Militancy unrelated to Wikipedia is openly tolerated by a few users and admins. One admin said "not illegal", allowing militancy promoting polemics to stand. Another reverted(!) admin action to keep anti-Israeli content. A third admin thought it serves a purpose of illustrating the editor's POV. Pending the outcome of this review, I will know if I can or can't link to these. Note that review explains how two of the participants here are among the tolerated exceptions. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC) +militancy promoting JaakobouChalk Talk 13:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How do you distinguish your own 'militancy' as an advocate for Israel from the militant activism you perceive in those who disagree with you?Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani:
Q: Aren't you tired of promotion and legitimization of violence against civilians? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
When did you stop beating your wife? nableezy - 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Proper disclosure: first quote on Nableezy's Nishidani's user-page is titled Even Gandhi would understand the Palestinians’ violence,.[12]
Also this.
JaakobouChalk Talk 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Uhh no its not. Thats Nishidani's page. And that isnt even the quote, thats the title of an article by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz. nableezy - 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the name in question. Fixed.
p.s. It doesn't matter, btw, who the original writer is.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not a conflict of interest. That's simply bias. You are biased as well. There is no need for any disclosure for that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I disclosed my COI on the first sentence of this thread. Not doing that, at least in my view, would have been improper. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's great, you find it improper, that's not relevant. That's not a COI under Wikipedia policy. If you wish to make a disclosure about your own personal bias by all means do so, it again is in no way required by Wikipedia policy. However you should refrain from making a disclosure about the bias of someone else to sway the discussion as it is highly uncivil. It is also abit pointless considering your canvassing has already made any consensus indeterminable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
English is not my first language so correct me if I'm wrong. Best I am aware, bias means you have a predisposition for one side of the discussion, a prejudice in favor or against. conflict of interest means the results of the discussion directly affects you. A situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit or damage. Let me know if I'm right. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I checked the policy. It seems to focus on financial/familial relations. Not exactly the dictionary definition. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
For the last and final time, There is no conflict of interest here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
How about 'direct interest'? Is that ok with you? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, no one is prohibited from contributing their 2 cents. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What was the purpose of your improper disclosure of their 'direct interest' again?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
The purpose was to clarify that on-wiki examples exist. A side effect exists, but that was not the thinking behind my notes. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure we are having the same conversation here. You provided a disclosure suggesting that someone else had a conflict of interest. This was neither appropriate or factual. It also doesn't read like an attempt to show an on wiki example. It look like an attempt to attack Nableezy's credibility.It also doesn't provide a standing to change the policy. It does not promote violence against Israel. It promotes that the violence by Palestinians against Israel is understandable. It is understandable. The Palestinians are not the first subjugated population to rise up in violence. It's not even a new or modern thing.Even Gandhi would understand the violence of Native Americans in the 19th century.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
A side effect exists, people get to join this discussion that do not support your position. That's a positive side effect. Multiple views are considered to achieve a consensus. One person doesn't get to say they simply don't like something and change the policy that effects the entire community. This individual does not have a conflict of interest and you have not provided a reason for their position to be excluded. Regardless of all of that, since you have inappropriately notified other users of this conversation and since there is no easy way to determine who you have notified, there is no way to exclude their opinions and as such there is no way to determine a consensus anyway. So this RFC can't be used to change the policy anyway.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand your reaction.[13] There's, obviously, a difference between differing views on wiki-policy (and real life) and between users that break the policy and want to keep it ambiguous for their personal benefit.
p.s. I'm, understandably, refrained from discussing the issue of Arabs and Jewish-Palestinians but I will note that your comparison is way off.
p.p.s. everyone is entitled to their view. However, anti-Israeli manifestos (including links to pictures of dead children) are inappropriate for the Wikipedia project. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You understand my reaction and you link to a quote "On the head of the thief burns his hat"? You want to clarify what you are trying to say? It really sounds like you are suggesting impropriety on my part but as I understand you have poor understanding and ability to use the English language.

The problem here is not with differing views of policy. It's that you don't understand policy or that your a feigning ignorance of it. My comparison is not off at all.

You have provided two examples of what you see as user space issues on Wikipedia [14] Nableezy's userbox [15] and Nishidani's quote. Neither of which include links to dead children that I can see. You are saying something is happening without providing evidence and trying to change policy based on that claim.

In addition to your lack of evidence you have also attempted to improperly notify certain editors in an attempt to sway the article in your favor. You have called two people out for having a COI in an attempt to exclude their position, though they don't actually have a COI, and though calling them out is highly uncivil.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to point out all those issues. It's pretty obvious that Jaakobou is proposing a change to WP:UP#POLEMIC in order to poke certain opponents in the P-I area, and there appears to be quite a lot of confusion about COI and "direct interest" in the posts from 17 November 2015. @Jaakobou: The one thing that is guaranteed to sink an RfC is for a supporter of one side to dominate the discussion because that is a sign to anyone who might comment that evangelism is involved and a third party would be wasting their time. If you are concerned about text on a user's talk page, the correct procedure is to first discuss it with the user, then, if not satisfied, nominate the page for deletion at WP:MFD. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho:
a) An old Jewish proverb meaning: someone's response to an issue may make him appear culpable. No offense intended.
b) You will find linking to a picture of a dead child on Nishidani's user-page polemics under a Gaza related sub-section (under a section called Tibet-Palestine). Let me know what you think of it.
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
A) I'm aware of what the proverb means. I was just curious if that was what you were intending or if you made another convenient blunder with the English language. You need to go ahead and learn to keep your mouth shut when comments like that come to mind. I'm not interested in your passive aggressive guilt trip. It's highly uncivil. It's also pure d and grade a horseshit.
B) You will find exactly what to do above in Johnuniq comments if you feel there is an issue. It does require discussion. I find nothing polemic about either thing you find of issue on Nishidani's page. I find nothing that would be of issue on with your proposed rule change. There's certainly room for discussion but that would be in the appropriate location. This is not that location.
C) Stop pinging me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No ping. Just a diff. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc gives great advice. Advice that has no bearing on anything that I just said which begs the question why you are posting it as a response to what I said. To change this policy you would have to start a conversation or an RFC and get a consensus. you can't get a consensus thru this RFC because you violated the canvassing policy and made a consensus indeterminable. Even if you got a consensus (again you actually can't because of your canvassing) it would be to change the policy. Johnuniq's is the relevant advice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and note that Jaakobou was most definitely canvassing, as email stated, "Considering recent developments, I share my sympathies as well as the following link..." (link to this discussion). My sympathy for the victims of the Paris attacks does not override my unwavering belief in freedom of speech. Wikipedia servers live in the United States, where we do not have the draconian laws of Europe regarding speech (ie Holocaust denial). I would like a box that says: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Userboxes should be all or nothing - I personally couldn't care if people want to show their support for Hezbollah or Israel or gay marriage or Justin Bieber. The only important thing is neutral edits. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Do note that the message posted on wikiproject Israel is not an email. Separate from this, evidence already in this discussion suggests that he has emailed users to this discussion in addition to any message posted on wikipedia pages. Note as well this policy already effects userboxes, here's no all or nothing principle on user boxes, and your comments don't change this. If you would like to see this changed consider opening an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I received an email from Jaakobou that said that. I'm not sure what you're talking about. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologize. I missed that you were saying that he had emailed you. I thought you were referring to [16] the additional canvassing outside of the emails. So anyway plenty of canvassing all around. Stealth and otherwise.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I do not think a userbox with polemics serves Wikipedia at all. The goal of having a userbox should be, is this in the best interest of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed. Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia are not welcome. That has always been clear. "Polemical statement" includes userboxes. Never have I seen good faith confusion due to the simple clear wording. The suggested addition is an obvious logical extension of the existing wording and is undesirable as bloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nableezy&oldid=555113401 would be currently against current guidelines? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is not ok and would be deleteable at MfD. it does incorporate Wikipedia criticism, of a WP:AN discussion, but I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
of course you are all aware that the statement on Nableezy's page would be perfectly acceptable to John Locke, the father of liberalism? and that you are suggesting that no wiki page, where authors often use quotes to give indications of where they are coming from, can underwrite a principle which has some support in international law? Jaakobou's whole polemic here, however euphuistic and euphemistic, is undisguisedly focused on a sub-text of protecting a (legitimate) Israeli POV (all resistance to its occupation is terroristic). Througfh he has singled out 3 editors and implied that their views (support of Palestinian statehood) are tantamount to incitement and encouragement of terrorism. I'm astonished that no one is picking up the irony.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You're equating statehood with civilian targeting violence. Nice. Does that support include ISIL or not? It doesn't matter who or what wikipedians support as long as they don't use their user-pages as a mouth piece. Wikipedia is not a forum.
p.s. the few examples I disclosed due to repeated requests mention Nishidani's polemics. He is one of those not understanding the policy (per: "father of liberalism") who uses their user-page for advocacy. Yes, there's a lot of people not understanding if the policy includes support for violence against a certain group. Most people think this is just free speech, so this requires clarification. Policy needs to be clear, regardless if Nishidani doesn't like the effects of this on his own user-page campaigning (conflict of interest) -- it is absurd he tries to paint this as a one sided issue or an attempt to silence him. Either campaigning is acceptable, or not -- for everybody. Make it clear. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"I don't think it covers the non-project-related polemic", this point is the reason I opened this thread -- it requires clarification. Esp. considering polemics supporting/promoting violence against civilians in a real conflict with daily casualties. 09:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 09:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:, @Sir Joseph: in regards to the user-box example, I think it falls under reasonable use of user-page. No particular group is identified. But my view is different than the others presented here. I'd like to clarify the policy to include such cases where it is clear that there is advocacy and a certain real-world group is targeted. I thought this is covered by the policy, but came to the realization that it isn't uniformly interpreted ("father of liberalism" .. what?). Perhaps a new rephrase suggestion would be welcome here.

e.g.: advocacy of real world disputes is prohibited or allowed (or discouraged).

As long as the matter is unanimously clear. Seven words to make "free speech" debates go away. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Any wikipedian supporting the use of violence against civilians in polemics or otherwise has no place on wiki, and existing administrative measures allow them to be banned. Thousands of wikipedians have user boxes on their page expressing support for one party in a conflict (Basques, Western Sahara, Nagorny Karabach, Chechnya, Israel, Palestine etc., as witness (Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics), and any number of user pages that come up if you google 'this supports the independence of+wikipedia'. I don't subscribe to that, and dislike userboxes, but I defend the right to use them, or quotations, or brief statements of what one thinks, which, regarding those you cite are not forms of polemic or incitement or advocacy. I edit every day with people who are constantly 'advocating' a position, because they delete reliably sourced information and have only one interest, defending an ethnic-national POV. So be it, as long as they respect the rules and refrain from a tendency to wikilawyer every contribution in terms of the POV interest they defend and not militate at the same time against the opposed POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
So you suggest: Beyond noting your support for terrorist groups, advocacy of real world disputes is prohibited? Or would you like to allow long quotes on violence of group X being understandable and/or desirable (e.g. X:=ISIS). Long quotes about oppression and lifting weapons to rise to victory and other similar ho hum. @Nishidani: Oh! Links to pictures of children killed in conflict. Where does that fall? In or out? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not the right page for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of how those on the P side react to those on the I side. Given the comments at AE there might not be a need for any further response, but I want to reiterate that the correct way to challenge what is on a user's page is to raise it at WP:MFD after a discussion on the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the community's position on the example userbox is clear enough for it to be used to support addition of prescriptive statement. If the userbox went to MfD, I would probably argue for its deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not sure what on Earth "poetic militancy" is supposed to be. The case of advocating violence against someone is already covered by existing policy. By the way, doesn't "JeSuisCharlie" also fall under polemic (literally the first line What on Earth does it have to do with Wikipedia, except expressing a political position? Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Haven't actually seen this on wikipedia user pages though.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:STALEDRAFT specifics

WP:STALEDRAFT only states that drafts can be blanked or listed for deletion or moved "if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing" with no specific timetable. At a recent discussion over pages that are essentially the default Article Wizard language with nothing else, there were objections about it. I wonder if we could consider something more specific for the inactivity period. Looking at Category:Stale userspace drafts, there are approximately just over 46,000 pages where the page hasn't been active for a year (some created as far back as 2005 but largely 2009 and 2010) and I was thinking that we should add a footnote that if the user was also inactive for at least a year, then the page could be moved/blanked/listed for deletion. If blanked with the template, any time the user returns the page will remain there. If moved to draftspace, even with the AFC banner added (which isn't required) that's at least another six months before the editor has to worry about possible G13 deletion. If deleted, the editor will be notified. Even then, restoration is fairly common if the page is deleted. Twelve months is the basis for Template:Inactive userpage blanked/doc, blanking the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a year is more than enough time for a user to be considered inactive. There will be notifications aplenty during that time. If an editor doesn't notice because they're not paying attention to their email or user talk page, then it's pretty clear they're not interested in saving a draft. clpo13(talk) 00:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged or deleted hundreds of G13 abandoned drafts and I think in about a dozen cases, the editor went to WP:REFUND and almost always got them instantly restored. I would understand the objections if there were huge hurdles to restoring the articles but there aren't. If an abandoned article is deleted and the editor returns a year or two later, it is easy to restore it and move it into user space or draft space. It's not a black hole of no return. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but why should a returning editor being forced to request something in the first place? Also he can't even see his draft to assess whether he'd like to keep and reuse the draft or not, since he hardly will recall its state or even its existence from memory. On the other hand I still don't really see the need for blanking or deleting anything.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A year would be fine. NE Ent 01:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a year should be fine and support the addition of a footnote to WP:STALEDRAFT clarifying the timetable. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:REFUND. Also, if someone is planning to be away from WP for such a long time, they should make a local backup of any drafts. There should be zero expectation that things will be exactly as they left them. clpo13(talk) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. There are no time limits. They should be encouraged to use {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, but all editors should be given more respect than what you suggest. Respecting old editors is a necessary part of valuing new editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone is forgetting that STALEDRAFT including blanking as well. Also, the main thing I'm looking to do is get some certainty on when is it appropriate to move these pages to draftspace so that plausible ones can be moved onward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that if someone blanks their work pages, drafts, notes, etc, and posts a WikiBreak template, the blanked pages should be expected to be left alone.
  • I am not completely enthusiastic about any timetable, as fixed procedures decrease thinking. However, 46,000 is a large number. I think one year is fine if it doesn't look very interesting, or doesn't have very much information. If you want to move a marginal looking draft into the draft process where, if no one cares for it, it will be procedurally delete with lots of gently worded messaging and and a guaranteed REFUND option, that's fine. However, this process will fail to pick up isolates gems. If any isolated gems are discovered, and you don't have the time or energy currently to work on it yourself, I hope that it can be sent on a different path to the tens of thousands of pages that are not gems.
If you find something that is not even marginal, then I think you should blank it on sight. Such things are sinks for volunteer effort.
MfD should be reserved for unusual or important things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You and I are in agreement then. My general strategy is to (a) CSD G6 if just the default text; (b) blank if there's no sources unless there's something worth spending some time searching for sources first (c) MFD if there's a current page that exists or it's marginal with at least one source; and (d) take to draftspace if it's detailed or close enough or just a lot of information or a lot of sources. It's basically triage the way I see it: the goal is to find the gems and put them in a place where they can be found. And we're down to 41k now so it's getting there, another few years and it should be reasonable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Good. I don't find you disagreeable!
(a) I object to your use of G6, if it is in the user's userspace leave their test alone, and if elsewhere you should be using WP:CSD#G2. The userspace exclusion of G2 implies that G6-ing the same things in userspace is not OK
(b) blanking, with a nice message just in case, is what I think is most appropriate most often
(c) I think that is an excessive use of MfD, so few MfD nominations are worthy of discussion, and sometimes some very important things come to MfD that can be missed due to excessive worthless discussions. These old harmless pages are not worth disrupting the the important forum of MfD.
(d) It's a process that is easily justified on the rare occasion that someone objects. I have seen that some have objected. I suggesting using edit summary text anticipating this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I added this note to the section, clarifying it in the oddball cases where the draft has been moving around a few times. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove STALEDRAFT

(non-admin closure) Closing this bad faith attempt by a repeatedly banned known socker/IP hopper to stir the drama pot yet again. This idea is so under thought, and focuses on disrupting wikipedia to make a point, that we have well passed a snowball's chance in hell odds of this being enacted. Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is zero support for deleting old drafts. We should remove the entire concept of STALEDRAFTs. We need more editors here and less admin time wasted on MFD deleting old drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.147 (talk • contribs)

  • Conditional support oppose (Switch to oppose - apparently this does not apply only to stale draft deletions, as the concurrent discussion led me to infer.) This needs to be better worded, something like "Stale drafts not covered by CSD should not be deleted", but I understand the intention. My thinking leads me to support this, but the policy of deleting STALEDRAFTs can't have arisen for no reason. It would be very helpful if someone could supply the rationale for why MfD deletion is sometimes used instead of, for example, Template:Userpage blanked, which does not consume admin time and is friendlier for the author. Aren't the provisions for speedy deletion under G3, G4, G6, G10, G11, G12, and G13 sufficient for all conceivable cases in which deletion would be appropriate? A2soup (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we're not a webhost - there are certainly drafts that would not meet the speedy criteria that A2soup mentions but also would not stand a chance in mainspace. Why keep them indefinitely? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I dunno, if I had something I had tinkered with before stopping editing for a while, and then came back and found it deleted? How likely is it that I'd bother starting back up again, even just to head over to REFUND? For many editors who decide to come back, it's sort of a "Piss off, we don't want your work" sort of thing. For others - look, if it is so trivially easy to get these drafts restored at refund, then what purpose is served in deleting them in the first place? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
STALE isn't just deleted. It's also moving to mainspace, MFD, blanking and deletion as an option (which, absent AFC, under the current policy goes through MFD and requires a week of discussion). To say that if you leave and don't edit for a year, (see the above section, a year seems reasonable) then I cannot move a decent draft of yours to mainspace is utterly insane. If you return, everything can be restored if deleted and anything else could conceivably be reversed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely - if it's good work, or salvageable, then it should be moved and used. And, as you say, it can always be restored. Perhaps I looked at this in the context of the deletion argument over at CSD - userpages that can't be used should just sit, if they don't violate other policies. They harm nothing. And that tells me that we need more nuance than "Delete the entire policy because reasons.", which means I'm gonna Oppose as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a clear difference between rejecting a CSD option and rejecting the entire concept as a rule. As long as there have been MFD discussions about deleting drafts, there's been arguments against it but one year of editor inactivity (which note 2 makes explicit) has been the rule of thumb for a long time. I don't understand the need for people to act as though there's a drive to delete everything in their own userspace if they are actively here; beyond being utterly rude, it's going to be utterly rejected by every sane admin (or reversed) and completely defeated at MFD if brought up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a CSD for blatant webhosting too (WP:U5), which I neglected to mention. It specifically excludes drafts, and for good reason. Drafts, no matter how stale, are not misuse of Wikipedia - it's not inappropriate webhosting if it is attempting to be constructive editing. A2soup (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That depends on your definition of the terms in U5. A draft of an article about my cousin's garage band might be "attempting to be constructive editing", but with zero sources and zero indication of notability, is that a "plausible draft"? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't usually like slippery slope arguments, but what differentiates that interpretation of U5 from a "D7" or "U7", an A7 that applies to draft or userspace? If you can't make a clear distinction, I think it's clear that you are proposing an interpretation far beyond the current consensus recorded at CSD. A2soup (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that's my point - you asked "Aren't the provisions for speedy deletion...sufficient for all conceivable cases in which deletion would be appropriate?" And my answer is no, they aren't. The hypothetical draft I mention likely does not fall under an existing speedy criteria, but IMO we shouldn't keep it around indefinitely either. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to the statement above, the proposal doesn't seem to be to remove the "take to MFD for deletion" provision but the entire policy, allowing for movement to mainspace, taking into your own userspace, WP:ABANDONED DRAFTS, even moving to draftspace. It's a ridiculous proposal that's solving a problem that no one finds other than those who repeatedly speculate that people who stop editing should forever be presumed to be active here. I suggested above one year as a limit, if people want that extended, that's a fair discussion but to delete the entire policy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater entirely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the concept of stale drafts is important (and have switched my !vote to reflect that), but I am still not clear on what the rationale is for deleting stale drafts that do not meet current CSD (instead of e.g. using Template:Userpage blanked). If you could explain what the advantage of deletion is in that particular case, it would help me understand your position a lot. A2soup (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A2soup. Excluding the CSD ones, there's also WP:UP#COPIES concerns (because we don't want forks and variations of the same topic everywhere and prefer to force so to speak editors to work things out in mainspace and accept what's done there) but the main reasoning is using an example, something similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Conrad Hughes Hilton III which (because it already went through an AFD that decided this) is considered something that is not a solid article nor ever likely to be one. Ignoring the BLP1E issue here, one could argue against deleting it on that basis because they support drafts in progress no matter what (I'm exaggerating but it's an eventualist approach) and because any draft has gone stale, it could similarly be subject to deletion because it is not something likely to be an article ever and Wikipedia shouldn't just host random stuff that isn't likely to become an article in any time period. You could take an active user's draft to MFD on that basis but you will be shouted down since an active user can still argue (quite accurately) that because they are here, they can work on it. The stale status gives a basis for believing the article is never likely to improve because the editor may never come back. Note that there is still vigorous debate about this such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Howabout1/Sandbox where a sandbox from 10 years consisting of a single quote in the userspace of an editor who hasn't since 2007 should be deleted on multiple grounds including whether sufficient time has passed (yes, I'm aware of the massive time sink that debate is considering the amount of text at issue but who knows how people find these things). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to allege that MfD is a kangaroo court - I'm sure your discussions are vigorous and fair. You seem to be arguing for why deleting stale drafts is acceptable from a policy perspective, but I am concerned with whether it is a helpful practice going forwards, especially in light of the Template:Userpage blanked option. We can all agree that it consumes admin time and has at least some risk of aggravating editors. What are the benefits that justify these costs? (To respond to your specific example of a helpful stale draft deletion, if Draft:Conrad Hughes Hilton III is really subverting the deletion process, it should be open to WP:G4, so the MfD deletion is unnecessary. If it is not, I don't see the need to delete it. Even WP:UP#COPIES recommends blank-and-template.) A2soup (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree whether this practice overall makes sense seems questionable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The concept is valid. And several useful actions are mentioned there. There may be one dubious bit about blanking, but this is an option if the draft is harmful in someway. But that's not a reason to eliminate the whole section. Discussion about drafts seems to be scattered all over the place now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would really like to get rid of the "stale" language, and the linkbox advertised shortcut, though not the underlying concept, and do not actually delete the shortcut. The problem with "stale" and "STALE" is that different people read it differently. In the worst cases, some read it as "old and not edited for a long time". This is absurd. The purpose of notes is to record, to minimise cognitive effort, and requiring ongoing attention your own notes is obviously, to me, counter-productive. Also, many old things are fine left alone. Indeed, many mainspace pages are very old and untouched for a long time. Even unviewed and unwatched. I would strongly opposed their routine deletion too.
I take "stale" to mean "old and gone off". For example, pages that record then recent events for which there is new information. Or pages that are superseded by better pages. I would prefer to call these "records of news coverage, no longer up-to-date" and "inferior duplicate" (related or unrelated; newer or older, I think there is no difference(?)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This doesn't mention global user pages!?

Hi. I was trying to find out about global profiles on meta-wiki, Google pointed me to User profile which has a hatnote. "For Wikipedia's guideline on its own user pages, see WP:USERPAGE." Yet this page makes no mention of global user profiles. It should prominently say:

You should create a Global user page on meta-wiki that will appear on all wikis including English Wikipedia, and then if you want you can create a local replacement on English Wikipedia with enwiki-specific stuff.

(I'm writing from my staff account, hence I won't make this change.)

The same comment also applies to Wikipedia:User page design center/Introduction, which also makes no mention of global user pages. -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand B madan11 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning and deletion of userspace.

Ricky and I have been discussion application Wikipedia:User_pages#Old_unfinished_draft_articles for a while and at a variety of locations. Overall, I'd call it awkward and confused. The close of the above section, and similar threads elsewhere, led to severe splintering of the conversation.

The issue of of cleaning up old drafts, and others' userspace in general. Of when is it important to clean up, and when does the clean up require deletion via an MfD listing.

On the issue of when when is clean up required... Some think that mess should be cleaned up. However, if someone has a messy desk, and someone else cleans their desk, it is rarely welcomed. A user's userspace is like a desk. Please don't clean up others userspace uninvited without good reason beyond it being a mess.

Some things in userspace are notes or drafts that may, or even not, have once been reasonable notes, but now are inferior to mainspace content to the point of being completely useless. Having identified this, it is helpful to other Wikipedians to clean it up, because internal Wikipedia searches will pick it up again, and again. There could be millions of such pages. Please don't feed them into MfD. Just hide the content by blanking, replacing with {{Userpage blanked}} or {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, or conversion to a redirect. An appropriate redirect will serve as a helpful redirect to a better place for the returning user, and for any external bookmarks. It needn't do any more. Redirects are cheap.

MfD is an important process. Sometimes, important discussions happen there. Community-altering discussions happen there. Devious and insidious inter-Wikipedian conflicts also manifest there from time to time. It is important that MfD is reviewed, that it doesn't become an unwatched rubber stamp process. For these reason, editors cleaning should try to avoid over-burdening MfD. To assist, we have recently created WP:CSD#U5 specifically for userspace of non-genuine Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's one viewpoint. As someone who has dealt with longevity articles, I've often found userspace pages that are personal forks of current mainspace articles and if blanked, often get unblanked days or months later and continued on. The solution to those was a round of deletions and the users will then either work on the mainspace version as asked of us or will leave because they don't want to collaborate and just want to webhost their views (which I find acceptable). Making into redirects makes it more complicated if it's an editor who's insistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ricky,
I support, have done and will do, a new CSD criterion for deletion of old unused forks from mainspace (Sandoxing an article off-line or in a sandbox is OK, in the short term, before making considered edits to the mainspace article. However, the sandboxing forked content mustn't be retained, as it is an attribution hazard). I think it meets all of the CSD new criterion criteria. It should cover all cases of WP#UPCOPIES (subject to some age), but should not include FAKEAETICLES, as fake articles often include debatable things that can be fixed with a userpage tag.
NB. At MfD I have always immediately supported deletion of old forked content, and have never suggested blanking or redirection. If, hypothetically, multiple editors engaged in editing the fork, which was used, then it would call for a history merge.
Blanking, and replacement by redirect, is a solution to be applied to probably departed users and old and probably redundant userspace content. Another advantage of converting to a redirect is that it doesn't require a thorough evalation and proof that the userspace content is redundant. A lower bar means less work in cleanup.
If there is any hint of behavioural problem by the user, if you have any evidence to suggest that an editor will unblank problem content, then I think the question is most welcome at MfD.
Your talk page posts are nearly always nearly completely agreeable, but we seem to fail at communicating. I have never advocated blanking personal forks, mainspace material copied to userspace. I don't oppose deletion to enforce the policy over a recidivist editor.
Will you agree to a CSD criterion for clear-cut WP:UP#COPIES violations?
Will you agree to blanking/redirection of old notes (not copies, but some might be arguably fakearticles) if there is no evidence of the user insisting on something? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I believe I vote that way as well but it seems like those votes are in the minority versus the "an old incomplete draft = delete" crowd. The more I think about it, the more I'm not certain a CSD is appropriate (although I know of at least one admin who deletes those under G6). I think I'm leaning towards a preference to MFD on those because really good editors like DGG and the like do review and check if there's differences or stuff worth merging (I do the same although it may now seem like it) which is why I suggest the month-long review under a draftprod system which is kind of what the possible G13 eligible category is for AFC. It's not a majority vote like MFD but instead is a single veto by any member of the community since it is the community that has decided to look at the "leftovers" from the editor who seemingly has left. MFD would still exist for disputes from there but I imagine we would have a lot more people being able to say "it's a sandbox, leave it alone" and everyone else moving on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour, I think you don't distinguish between WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE. It has never been important, as both are always to be deleted. However, they are very different. COPIES refers to material wholesale copied from mainspace, sometimes associated with deletion of the same at AfD, sometimes appropriately for short term sandboxing before making major edits to mainspace. I was suggesting that these cases should be speediable. On further thought, they are, per WP:CSD#G12. This might be disputed by some, as the copyright violation is a violation of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia that is fixable. However, I don't think anyone would argue that old wholesale mainspace content copies in userspace or draftspace should have their attribution fixed instead of simply deleting. WP:UP could point this out?
FAKEARTICLES have always been debatable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The title of the section is "User pages that look like articles". I'm not seeing a distinction you're talking about. It seems minor as any copy could be fixed with another edit summary providing attribution so the question is the actual endgame with these kinds of pages. I'm aware that G12 covers internal violations but I personally would rather solve those with attribution and not speedy it. I imagine other admins would do the same so MFD comes into play into whether that other version is needed. However, the issue here I thought was the creation of separate distinct pages with no common history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You would fix an attribution failure of copied content so that G12 would be inapplicable and then list it at MfD? Very weird. Very inefficient.
  • An accidental content fork, such as independent creations of (1) a draft on a userpage and (2) a mainspace article, is not an example of a "copy". I can see how one might refer to different pages on the same subject as "copies", but it is inaccurate, and it is misleading to use the WP:UP#COPIES shortcut in such cases. I think it is obvious that the guideline needs editing. I see that the paragraphs are disordered and muddled. Edited here. Please review, not change of guideline intention intended, just clarity. Some CSD tagging options included. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No the point is the attribution error is easily fixable so I don't see why G12 would apply. It could but I'm someone who prefers a discussion rather than speedy deleting things. One reason I don't do speedy cleanup that much. Other admins take a much broader approach to using G6 now using U5 than I would. U5 is becoming a catch-all for speedy deletions of drafts from what I can see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2016

Laxmi Narayan Hindu Temple Goodipokhari (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Community Organizations/ ‪#‎Laxmi‬ Narayan ‪#‎Hindu‬ Temple, ‪#‎Shivpur‬ At:- sayadazafar , ‪#‎Goodipokhari‬ , Post:- Nuahat , via:- ‪#‎kothar‬, ps:- Dhusuri, Dist:- ‪#‎Bhadrak‬, state:- ‪#‎Odisha‬, pin no:- 756118

What are the actual issues here? Choicerpex (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13(talk) 18:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

Please change STALE point 6 to add "if the editor did not conduct at least 100 edits in mainspace..." If the editor was in good standing, there's no reason to delete it ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.176 (talk • contribs)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES - why?

Question (related to my concerns about the "staleness" of drafts, above)... WP:UP#COPIES says that "Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted." Why? I can understand requiring that userspace copies be marked with the {{userspace draft}} template (so no one inadvertently mistakes the user's version with the current version in mainspace)... but do not understand the need to delete. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In trying to answer my own question... I looked through the page history... the first version of the section I can find seems to have been this edit made back in April of 2007... Unfortunately, it was added without any discussion, so I can not discover why it was added (ie what issues it was intended to resolve). Not helpful. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK... looking deeper... every time the section has been discussed, it is in the context of situations where someone has misused their userspace by copying material that is inappropriate - even in userspace - and then saved it in userspace as a "draft". It especially comes up in the context of deleted articles and sections... ie where someone userfied a copy in order to "work on it", and then never did work on it. I get that we don't want that sort of thing sitting around for ever. However... what we have never discussed is the flip side ... situations when it might be appropriate (and thus allowable) to copy and archive an old version of a page in your userspace. So let's discuss it. Are there situations when it should be OK to keep an archived copy an old version of an article in your userspace? If so, what are those situations? Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to. Link to the relevant diff if you want to make some essay or point about it, you don't need the actual page. Review old userspace histories and you'll see that people and bots have to constantly change templates, remove categories, revise deleted redirects and do other maintenance work. Why should everyone else have to do that all work, in the name of building the encyclopedia, because someone years ago argued for some language, lost that arguments and refuses to just move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
OK... so you feel that "I want to use this to make some essay or point" is not a legitimate reason to copy and archive a page. Nor do you feel that "I lost an argument and want to save "my" version" is a legitimate reason to copy and archive a page. I didn't ask for negative discussion of reasons NOT to do so... I asked for positive discussion on legitimate reasons TO do so. (I will accept that you, personally, can not think of any. I can think of several, but will back away for a bit to give others a chance to chime in). Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I don't see any reasons to but I could be wrong here. A temporary draft is one thing but that's expressly allowed within policy so it's not like there aren't any reasons to allow it. Then again, it depends on your meaning of temporary which is why we have discussions about these things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporary for testing or developing a section off line is fine. But beyond a few week I can't see many good reasons to keep copies of old or alternate articles. Many users don't even know how to find these old subpages. Then you have people that keep copies of a bunch of BLPs headed with 'people I hate'. If you want an alternate version, go save it on some other website. There are plenty of free choices out there. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think there is no issue with the view that forked content from mainspace is a bad idea, as attribution hazards, as liable to confuse, and that old copies should be deleted. Sandboxing in preparation of higher quality edits to the mainspace article is a great idea, but it must be temporary. I suggest that temporary is the lesser of 1 week or the time to the next edit of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyone with a particular interest in a particular version of any article, or any page, should link to the version in the history, but not copy its content into userspace, unless perhaps for the purpose of quoting with added comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I also think there is no issue with a time limit for the improvement of a deleted article that was userfied for improvement. The sort of content it is may be important to be considered, as to whether it is hosting of deleted content, or serving some other purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The point that everyone has missed here is that long-term keeping of userspace copies of existing articles represents an attribution hazard. I believe this was the original intent of the policy. If someone makes a major edit to the userspace draft, then attribution would need to be provided when the edit is relayed to the mainspace copy. It is desirable that all major edits be made to the article itself, so as to avoid this. 103.6.159.79 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The only person who should be making changes to a copy in userspace is the user who's space it is. If we follow that simple rule, attribution of changes is not an issue... since all changes are made by one single editor. There is no need to maintain attribution in userspace. If the changed version is subsequently moved into mainspace (replacing the "live" version), attribution is maintained in the "live" article's edit history. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar, there is no general rule against editing pages in other editors' userspace. i have frequently done so, mostly at the request of the user involved, or to add {{userspace draft}}. But when a page is clearly intended as a draft article, i will feel free to edit for format and style, just as i would in draft space, unless the editor whose userspace it is objects. Even in userspace no one WP:OWN's a page, after all. DES (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
But the fact that the user can object... and can repeatedly revert your edit if they wish (and can do so without it being considered a 3rr violation) indicates that they do have a degree of WP:OWNership of "their" userspace draft. OK... I will modify my comment to this extent... You should only edit another user's userspace drafts with their permission, and when you do edit a draft in someone else's userspace (with their permission), you are effectively editing on their behalf... giving your edit to that user. You are effectively saying "I don't need attribution"... I give this edit to you, and you can take full credit for it. In other words, there still isn't a need to maintain a chain of attribution in userspace. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
On the later part at least, Blueboar, not so. When i edit a userspace draft collaboratively with another editor, i do retain my right to attribution, an i in no way waive it unless I choose to do so exp,licitly, which i will normally not do. moving it back to mainspace without proiper attribution is a copyvio, and should be treated as such, and I for one will treat it as such if I detect it. Now usually this can be cured with a link to the history of the userspace draft providing proper attribution, or a use of {{copied}}. Deletion should not normally be needed. But attribution is not optional, and there is no implicit surrender of rights to attribution. This is a matter of foundational policy, and indeed of the very license applied to all Wikipedia text -- an edit to a guideline or even a policy page cannot change this. Nor can it prevent anyone from copying text from a userspeace page into a new or existing article or draft page (with proper attribution), nor can the original author freely revert such edits. DES (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_14&oldid=1094447275"