Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Increased biting in userspace

It is my observation that WP:UP-interested community has become bittier, less tolerant, of new users and transient editors. It is a problem with regards to editor retention, a problem with implications to the long term nature of the community of editors.

Consider the following testimonial (came up above):

"I must admit, I had a lot of enthusiasm about this project back in 2010. People are encouraged to jump in, so I jumped in. But I feel the work was not kindly received. I asked for help and tolerance, towards my learning curve, as I developed things, but I felt neither was offered." [1]

This is not to say that unsuitable pages should be hosted. It is that it unkind that peoples work is CSD-ed, or nominated at MfD, without any attempt at human-like communication on their talk page. Often, the user has not even been {{Welcome}}d. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be mean but is this really the best example? Their user page has plenty of red flags. I looked over the editor's history: they came here in September 2010 and their first acts were creating a massive series of unsourced interlinked pages: 1, 2, 3, adding more about that topic, created this draft (unsourced and merged into Fillmore West), 4, another draft, and so on. There's this MFD, this AFD and so on. It's also a little odd that they haven't edited since Novembmer 2010 but the moment the pages are up for deletion, they are here immediately to talk about how people were BITING them. I don't know about you but I don't remember passwords from websites I used four years, let alone am adept enough to enter and log in back once those pages are up for deletion. It feels more like a WP:WEBHOST situation than an editor discouraged from working here. There's a reason we encourage new users to start with fixing errors and the like. People who's first thought here is "you know what, I have a LARGE series of articles I can create" I rarely find to be long-term productive editors here rather than someone who interested in their topic and nothing more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And while the lack of Welcome is something, at the same time, they haven't really shown any particular interest in being a part of the Wikipedia community. They were here from August until November 2010 and did nothing but create drafts and mainspace articles, all of which were either deleted or are being deleted for poor quality. And none of which anyone can find sources for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And thus you hit on a long ago point. We are too-encouraging of new comers creating new pages on new topics. The probability that a newcomer is successful is very low, but we encourage them, and then bite them. Over and over again. The stale draft problem is a symptom, not the root problem. Newcomers should be strongly encouraged to improve existing topics before creating new pages on new topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying here, but it seems as easy as can be for me to just reduce the biting when it comes to userspace drafts. Again and again, we've seen there's no benefit to deleting them. However much you also encourage newbies to improve rather than create (and I think this is a good idea), you may as well also not delete their non-problematic drafts if you're concerned about biting. We should definitely try to cure the problem, but if it's easy to treat symptoms, that can help the patient a lot. A2soup (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

People keep repeated the "there's no benefit in deleting them" and then asking why is there disagreement about how to go forward. Look, if you want to keep on arguing that there is no benefit to deleting them and just ignore everything that everyone who disagrees with you says, go ahead but if you then argue to delete even one draft, at least admit there exists a benefit. The main benefit I see versus blanking is how editors respond. Editors can see that just dumping texts that is not appropriate here (BLP violations or attack pages or the like) and it will be deleted even if it takes us five years to find the damn thing. The part that is so odd to me is that we G13 hundreds of pages a month from new editors and no one cares about saving all those drafts. There's no screaming about WP:RETENTION concerns for editors who are here but it's all about editors who haven't been here who left for whatever reason that we have all this speculation as to why they left. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No one seriously object to deleting things with actual problems "BLP violations or attack pages or the like", red herring.

"Stale" is not per se a problem.

DraftSpace comes with instructions explaining that pages won't stay there forever. That has never been true to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So? Mainspace policies also change. That doesn't mean we should grandfather pages created before those changes. And I've asked this repeatedly: you voted delete on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society. Is that a BLP violation? An attack page? If not, why do you think it should be deleted and not blanked? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It had no strong problems, just a weak problem, of promotion of some high school thing. Such things I think should be blanked, in the interests of efficiency. If there is any hint of user resistance, yes come to MfD for backup and more forceful deletion. Having already got to the point of an MfD listing with clear review, yes delete, but if you find another one just like it, just blank. In almost all cases, the practical differences between deleting and blanking is nothing more than administrative overhead.

Yes, policies can change. (There was a time before WP:BLP) The notion of a time limit on drafts in userspace has arisen. I am not trying to fight that, but I want to see it documented. I am objecting to applying time limits without reference to content. A plausibly notable new topic with sources should not be deleted by the same process complete junk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is proposing deleting plausibly notable new topics, although that would be a wording I think we could live with. If you think there's a plausible chance for it to become notable, why not keep it? MFD shouldn't only be used when the editor is disruptive. ANI and blocking the user are a perfectly reasonable substitute then aren't they? There's more overhead to "blank it, watch the page and if the editor returns to cause problems then take it to MFD" then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We do need a policy statement

I was beginning to be convinced by what seems to be a general feeling here that moving drafts to the mainspace in order to get them deleted is so obviously improper that no explicit policy statement about it is needed. However, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki:

• Legacypac is arguing that "There is no policy that says a person can't move to main and AfD" and citing this discussion's failure to state such a policy in support; and more seriously
• Sandstein says that "If we are of the view that moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with, then we'd need to clearly codify that as a policy or guideline, because only that would allow an administrator to override a "delete" consensus in circumstances such as this."

So, I think we do need a policy about it. Unless anyone gets there first, I will propose words tomorrow and, if we can get some agreement, start an RFC. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a policy statement, what we need was a single discussion about what should have been in regards to the whole set of Legacypac actions, which was done at ANI. At that point, once the outside admins looking at the problem said they weren't going to take admin action, it should have been dropped. What is the actual goal here? After all these pages get restored, all the AFDs get reversed, all the CSDs are reversed, are all these pages going back to their original userspaces? Admins are willing to move them to Draft:Duplekita and Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong with useless redirects from the original editors. The only policy that matters is WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPTION: Legacypac's page moves can be considered disruptive and trying to make a point about MFD discussions so I don't know what more is needed. You aren't going to legislate through policy: don't do thing that shouldn't be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason they point to the same Grffiki page is that it was a clearly stated test case - a test case that proved the stupidity of their ILIKEUSERSPACEJUNK arguments. Now Godsy is busy moving good topics back into userspace of indef banned user just because no one added a ref in 28 or 6 minutes. No check to see what links to the page or search to see if it is a notable topic or effort to add a ref himself. If we apply his logic more widely we should get on moving hundreds of thousands of such articles into user space ASAP. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed policy statements:

• "Cross-space page moving, userspace or draftspace to mainspace, to enable deletion at AfD, may be considered disruptive to the deletion process". Possibly belongs at WP:DEL, although nearly all editors agree that it is a statement of the obvious.
• "Userpages containing draft material on plausibly notable new topics may be kept indefinitely in userspace. If there is a concern of promotion, the page should be blanked during periods of inactivity."

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Re your first statement, it's hard to demonstrate what the purpose of a move was. Why not do something like Rob's idea in the earlier discussion, and phrase it positively. Something like: "Userspace drafts can be moved to mainspace only if they are notable and meet the core content policies. If userspace drafts are moved that do not meet these requirements for mainpace, but whose contents are acceptable for userspace, the move should be reversed." A2soup (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, only Legacypac has crossed the line, and if he is going to maintain "clearly stated test case", and if DRV overturns, then we could call it a completed breaching experiment and let it go. The second statement I think is more important, to address the propagating false dichotomy that that old drafts/notes must either be deleted/blanked or promoted on a time limit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Have we considered the possibility that once it is unlikely that a draft is going to be worked on further it should either be made into an article or considered for deletion? I think any new policy will have to be far more nuanced than a simple prohibition. I see no reason we should host content that does not meet our inclusion standards if there is no reasonable chance work being continued on it. HighInBC 01:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The content will continue to be hosted on Wikimedia servers whether we delete it or not - we can't stop the hosting. Userspace pages are NOINDEX, so we aren't lending the Wikipedia imprimatur to any of the content, and the pages can be blanked in any case. The only thing deletion accomplishes (that is not accomplished by the better alternative of blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}) is taking up the time of the MfD !voters and the deleting admin and making the page inaccessible on the very small chance the author returns. Deletion of non-problematic userpages has no benefits and small costs (admin time, very small chance of editor alienation) - on the balance, it shouldn't be done. A2soup (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC, absolutely yes. But the devil is in the details. Where is the "unlikely" or "no reasonable chance" line? There is a cost to deleting things should have potential. There is a cost to alienating old editors. There is a cost to evaluating potential. Note that WP:N/N collapsed under its underestimated workload. You "see no reason we should host" means that you have not weighed the cost. Server space is cheaper than editor time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, deletion does not even save server space. A2soup (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it takes more space than blanking. –xeno^talk 11:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can add to this discussion, but count me as being firmly against unfinished user drafts being moved out of the user space without the knowledge or consent of the creator under any circumstances. If a user is retired and/or banned, any such move would probably be without their knowledge or consent, and even if it is immediately nominated for deletion this is inappropriate. My (admittedly somewhat subjective) reasoning for taking a firm stance on this issue is something that happened to me when I was (temporarily) retired.[2][3][4][5] The Wikipedia Community acting under the direction of a sockpuppet of a banned stalker, for the win. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But I'm not against deleting userspace drafts that are probably never going to be finished. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: when you're posting any content anywhere on Wikipedia, you are agreeing to license it for public use by anyone, as stated above the edit box. The whole concept of not improving the encyclopedia because there isn't the "knowledge or consent of the creator" (if the creator is a Wikipedia editor) is completely contrary to the whole idea that Wikipedia is based upon. You gave your knowledge and consent to perusal and modification when you posted the content, explicitly and legally: live up to it and don't try to stop it with arbitrary policies. LjL (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Just to be clear, you are defending sockpuppetry, block evasion and harassment because 'I had it coming'? I started creating a draft in my userspace, but couldn't finish it because I left the project, because the same person drove me off shortly before getting sitebanned. The unfinished, and therefore inaccurate, material was falsely attributed to me as though I had consciously added this inaccurate material to the mainspace. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm defending nothing. You are putting words in my mouth. I think what I am saying is clear: according to you, unfinished drafts should not be moved into main space under any circumstances without creator knowledge or consent, and to me, that stance is starkly against Wikipedia's spirit. Especially if an editor is retired or gone, that doesn't give said editor the right to "reclaim ownership" of anything they had previously posted and licensed on Wikipedia. It is there to be used. Don't like how free content works? Don't post here. Anything else pertains to your particular case, of which I made no mention. LjL (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If I wanted that material to be posted in the mainspace with my name attached, I would have finished it. When an IP shows up posing as a retired user and requesting that an obviously unfinished draft be moved out of that retired user's userspace, someone should be skeptical. This was an epic fail on the part of the community. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I think most people are going to assume you forgot to log-in once and did that while "retired". That's much more like than a complex scheme involving sockpuppets, IP users and other players. The IP addresses wasn't ever blocked nor put in an sockpuppetry report so I'm not sure why you're mad at everyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My user page said I was retired, and I hadn't edited for months -- and an ANI thread had been opened about me getting driven off Wikipedia by a sockpuppeteer editing from that IP range. Someone should have at least asked if it was me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here is trying to save disk space. I am talking about hosting content that is not compatible with our project, like vanity pages that don't even come close to meeting notability requirements. We should not be lending our name to puff pieces someone made after school one day for years on end.

Where is the "unlikely" or "no reasonable chance" line? That is what deletion discussions are for. The poster child of this debate Graffiki has no place on Wikipedia. It is some guy talking about how cool and mysterious he is, and has not been touched by anyone in years. The deletion debate found a consensus to delete, a consensus that will likely be disregarded.

I just hope the we are working on a policy to deal with this old cruft and not just a policy to stop Legacypac. HighInBC 03:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: My standard has come to be to keep good-faith drafts. Is a page is enough of a vanity page that I don't think it can be regarded as a good-faith attempt at a draft, then I think deletion is fine. The benefit in those cases is in discouraging such pages in the future. Where I differ with some other editors is that I don't think good-faith userspace drafts should be deleted just because they are incompetent and/or have no chance of ever becoming an article. I simply don't see a benefit to the project in such deletions to offset the small costs of admin time and (in very rare cases) editor alienation. Where do you stand on that? Do you see a benefit in such deletions? A2soup (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Right now pretty much anyone can write whatever they want about themselves in userspace and link to it from wherever they want. When people arrive it appears in the voice of Wikipedia as though it is a real article. An outsider following a link does not know about user spaces and will not know the different between a userspace draft and an article. The benefit in deleting these is that we don't lend our name to tripe.

We have always had the technology to host whatever information people want to host, but we made a very conscious decision at the start of this project to limit ourselves to encyclopedic content. The purpose of drafts is to make articles, and if a draft cannot do that then it should not be here. An editor will be just as alienated if we remove their content from somewhere else on the project, they either have to accept the scope of the project or move on. I see no reason why an abandoned draft should not be reviewed to see if it can be made into an article, and if not deleted. HighInBC 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How can this (abandoned "vanity" pages) not be solved by simply blanking the page? –xeno^talk 11:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Incentives. If we leave vanity pages in the draftspace for 5 years, allowing the author to link to it for half a decade, and then just blank them, allowing the author to return and instantly recreate them, then we're creafting incentives to continue creating vanity pages. ~ Rob^Talk 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Also they can still use the "permanent link" button to send people to the exact same page and it still looks like Wikipedia's voice. Anything we host reflects on us as a project. HighInBC 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is an extremely stupid statement to make. We have our work to vouch for. A few kilobytes of nonsense text on a userpage will never demean us as a community. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who thinks it okay to belittle other peoples opinions is not the best guy to see what does and does not demean something. It is not a few kilobytes, it is thousands of pages that have not even been reviewed for BLP vios, we need to sort them out one day. HighInBC 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)'

I didn't belittle your opinion. I found the flaw in your argument. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

They could do the same PermanentLink trick by stowing their content in a public sandbox, or the like. Is this ("vanity hosting") an actual and widespread problem? Any examples? –xeno^talk 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is far too generous. In main space, those wanting to keep an article have to prove it is notable and verifiable and otherwise suitable. If keep good-faith drafts was standard procedure, anyone wanting to remove a draft would have to prove it was written in bad faith—essentially impossible. Who cares if Draft:85512255079 was written in good faith—it should be deleted. That's an extreme example but there are plenty of pages in draft and user namespaces that are of no conceivable benefit to Wikipedia. Keeping them promotes the idea that WP:NOTWEBHOST is toothless and anyone can post any junk so long as it is not blatantly offensive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: WP:NOTWEBHOST is about content not related to Wikipedia's goals, and the benefit in such deletions is that creating such pages should be discouraged. Good-faith drafts, however incompetent, are related to Wikipedia's goals, and should not be discouraged. Nor is there any other material benefit to the project from deleting them (or can you give one?). Re "anyone can post any junk", if that junk is either an attempt at a draft or simply scratch work, what is the benefit of deletion? To respond to your example, I am really only arguing about userspace (I'm okay with more deletion in draftspace), but if I found Draft:85512255079 in userspace, I would be fine with deletion because it doesn't seem like an attempt at an article (i.e. a draft) or any plausible encyclopedia-related scratch work to me. So WP:NOTWEBHOST applies, and the benefit is discouraging such pages in the future. A2soup (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: You only provide arguments against vanity pages, but I already agree with you there. What I don't see is why non-problematic drafts that cannot become articles should not be here. There are small costs to deleting those: admin time and the small chance of editor alienation. What I don't understand is what material benefits of such deletions overcome these costs? And are these benefits not provided equally well by blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}, which does not take admin time and has less alienation potential? A2soup (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The experience from managing anything shows that tolerating junk encourages more junk. The fact that you apparently clicked Draft:85512255079 and wrote the above rather than "of course nonsense like that should be speedy deleted" means that there is a complete disdain for reality. There is no need to ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What shows a disdain for reality? I wrote "would be fine with deletion", which seems equivalent to "of course nonsense like that should be speedy deleted" except for the "speedy" part. Which CSD criterion applies in this case? (I would be fine with speedy deletion if one did apply.) I guess where we differ is in what "junk" should be discouraged. I think that if the junk is good-faith drafts, they should not be discouraged, since many newbies are bound to write a first draft that is incompetent and/or never going to make mainspace. If we are discouraging such things (and I agree that deleting them does discourage it), we are discouraging BOLD attempts at getting into editing. I count that as a cost, not a benefit. A2soup (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You said you would would be fine with deletion if it were in user space. Arguing over junk like that may drive away good editors who do not want to be associated with a community that tolerates such nonsense—is this an encyclopedia or a free web hosting service? Why should trolls and the misguided look for any other website when they can get a link to their free page at wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MyStuff? Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed the middle of my sentence: "(I'm okay with more deletion in draftspace)". I would be more fine with deleting the page there. I only specified because I'm not sure what I think about draftspace and don't have a coherent theory for it and don't want to imply that I do. If the page indicates a troll, delete it by all means. If by "misguided", you mean "incompetent", well, we were all there once. If the draft is non-problematic (and a draft, not a blog or something), I see no reason to discourage it. I think an essential part of BOLD is being free to try stuff even if you suck at it or don't yet know WP policy. The fact that they are choosing to do it in userspace rather than mainspace is positive and should be encouraged. A2soup (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many cases where someone has created a user page that is a good-faith start on an article. Everyone agrees that anything of value should be retained. The question concerns what to do with the large quantity of pages which have no known encyclopedic value (WP:N and WP:RS problems). The mantra "what harm do they do?" ignores the purpose of Wikipedia—this is not a free web hosting service, and every page must contribute towards the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Keeping nonsense because who cares means nonsense will expand without limit, and that will make finding useful stuff or patrolling for BLP problems very difficult. Further, keeping nonsense without discrimination is a serious turn-off for those good editors who care about the kind of company they keep. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly "good -faith" is not enough. That is why I suggest "plausibly notable new topic". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just A7 in userspace. When you are literally applying an A-series CSD to userspace (and one of the most controversial ones at that), I think it's clear you're being too stringent. Actually, it's significantly more stringent than A7 since A7 is limited to certain types of entities. A2soup (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There is obviously discrimination involved, nothing is kept "without discrimination". I disagree that every page must contribute towards improving the encyclopedia. Here are some that don't. There are purposes to Wikipedia pages other than directly improving the encyclopedia, and being a place for newbies to try stuff out is one of them. We would do the encyclopedia a disservice by discouraging this use of userpages. A2soup (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User pages, jokes, wisdom and many other pages build the community that builds the encyclopedia. Common sense and WP:UP support such pages as a means to an end. Why raise such red herrings? Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Letting newbies try stuff out even if they suck and don't meet certain standards builds the community that builds the encyclopedia. I picked the examples because I thought they were equivalent to crappy but good-faith userspace drafts in that way - fostering community instead of direct improvement. A2soup (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The goalposts seem to be shifting because I thought these discussions concerned abandoned drafts that have no clear benefit to the encyclopedia. If a new editor creates a user page with a few plausible sentences, no one is going to try to delete it unless the page has not developed for a long time. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that deleting pages discouraged the creation of more like them in the future? Or if that is not the case, what tangible benefit to the project is provided by these deletions to offset the small costs (admin time and small chance of returning user alienation)? A2soup (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please engage with the comments that have already been made rather than repeating slogans. Above, I wrote "Keeping nonsense because who cares means nonsense will expand without limit, and that will make finding useful stuff or patrolling for BLP [or copyvio] problems very difficult. Further, keeping nonsense without discrimination is a serious turn-off for those good editors who care about the kind of company they keep." Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with your examples. None of those are trying to be articles, these drafts are trying to be articles so it is reasonable to judge them by those standards. I think we should focus on what is a reasonable standard to deal with these old drafts, I think AfD is a great way to do it but I am happy to hear other ideas. I don't accept the idea of just not dealing with them. HighInBC 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If they were trying to be articles, they would have been moved to (or written in) articlespace or submitted to AfC. A better way than deletion to deal with them is to categorize them into high, mid, and low potential, a process that is easier than deletion and more precisely able to pick out which are worth improving and which are worth ignoring. We can do that right now: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. (And surely you meant MfD, not AfD?) A2soup (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, abandoned drafts with no benefit are trivial to decide they are worthless. The problem is of old drafts of some potential. Should one editor have the right to decide when to apply a seven day deadline to have it improved or deleted? Should editors tagging for deletion worthless crap, and moving good stuff to mainspace, take care to not throw away in the intermediate stuff? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• There is no imposition of a 7 day deadline. Anyone who wants to can adopt a draft into their own userspace and continue it, even if it is at AfD. If anything the AfD will give the old draft the attention it deserves. If nobody is willing to take it on, then it is indeed abandoned.

• If you are concerned about anyone being able to AfD an old draft any time then perhaps we should draft rules about when and under what circumstances old drafts are considered for their value as an article. HighInBC 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• People can also vote to draftify or userify page at AFD. I think we just need to encourage that instead. If these pages all went to AFD and the votes were userify then back, I'm certain that people would stop moving them to mainspace if all they get is them bounced back and forth. People can even ask to userify a draft after AFD which happens all the time, just ask the admin. No admin cares enough to object absent a good reason. I think the issue is why userify them back to an inactive user's userspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• what about the scenario where a poor article is written in mainspace... Is Subsequently nominated at AFD, with an outcome of "userfy" ... Then sits in userspace (unchanged), until it becomes "stale". Can an editor who disagreed with that original AFD outcome either delete the "draft" or promote the "draft" back into mainspace (depending on their view of of how the original AFD should have gone)? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar is this for the section above? Else, I don't recall too many examples but the userified version always ends up in a new MFD debate which makes sense. As to moving, WP:OWN comes into play: anyone can move it to mainspace but it could be treated as a G4 or kept or brought again to AFD. I don't know too many cases. The closest one where it's gone through many AFDs and the userspace version is questionable is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret with five AFDs alternating between keeps and deletes and yet stagnant in userspace. Even then, if someone shows interest in it, I think it could stay but that's going on eleven years. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The question related to both threads... Since both talked about userfication. Thank you for the reply. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• A consensus at AfD to userfy is not a consensus to delete. Typically, it would happen to a proper userpage mislocated in mainspace, but if it is for an intended mainspace article, the consensus to userfy would signify agreement that the topic is suitable, but something must be wrong with the drafting so far. Excessive embedded WP:NOR or NPOV issues for example. A consensus at AfD to userfy is different to a consensus to delete allowing userfication, or to delete with userfication given on request under an admin's discretion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The solution is then to create a unified theory, one that explains in general deletion policy when userification is appropriate and one that explains when a userspace draft is appropriate to keep around. Something like "if there's a credible chance at a plausible draft" but it's going to be vague. Currently arguing in circles that "it's harmless" and "there's never a reason to delete userspace drafts" is nice and all but it does nothing. Frankly, we should consider renaming deletion policy in general since CFD, RFD and others are being renamed to "for discussion" and it should cover mainspace, draftspace and userspace together. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously, I began drafting a {{guideline}}, to be referenced from Wikipedia:Editing policy, called Wikipedia:Managing drafts. I did it offline and have lost it already. I just started again.

It was to cover both DraftSpace drafts and UserSpace drafts. It was to complement the Information page Wikipedia:Drafts. The various points were to be presented in a way that is easy to connect to talk page discussion/!voting, or to recent RfC.

I note that local consensuses appear to be in conflict with regard to old drafts.

I think that WP:STALEDRAFT should be moved from WP:UP to Wikipedia:Managing drafts, when approved.

I think one place to document guidance on all drafts is a helpful direction to move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 April 2016

As a minor edit, it may be better to shorten the sentence "Userboxes are fun little boxes you can put in your user page to express yourself. Information on userboxes can be found here." into "Userboxes are fun little boxes you can put in your user page to express yourself.". They both serve the same function; it is just that the shorter sentence may be more efficient. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Should old user space drafts have an expiration date?

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.

---

Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? Currently, WP:STALEDRAFT lists six specific actions that may be performed, with an implied default to keep the user draft indefinitely if its content falls into none of those six criteria. The purpose of this RfC is to establish if there is consensus to change the guideline to eventually delete user space drafts, either at MfD or some sort of timed default-delete criterion. Previous, closely related discussions have ranged about a bit, so I think it would be helpful if this discussion were kept as close to a binary yes/no as possible. Subsequent discussions after closure of the RfC would be used to determine how best to implement the consensus. VQuakr (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses

• NO we should not. The mere fact that a draft is old says nothing about its suitability for retention or deletion. Indeed I would favor removing WP:STALEDRAFT completely -- it is poor policy. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• If we had a system of actually declaring that a USER has become "stale", I could see declaring all of his/her userpages (including the main user page, the user talk page, and any sub-pages in their userspace) "stale" as well, and deleting them. But we don't. As long as the username is considered "active", any associated userspace pages should be considered "active" as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• No, not if it has potential. Destroying good ideas due to age is stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: serious question - what if it effectively doesn't have potential? Our existing guideline says to delete only clearly problematic content such as copyvios and BLP violations (presumably leaving the rest indefinitely). A great many more abandoned drafts lack such offensive content but will never be improved beyond what would be WP:A7 candidacy in article space. Do you think that status quo should remain? Should it be made more explicit either way? VQuakr (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If content isn't clearly problematic, how would its deletion benefit the project? What harm does its indefinite retention cause? —David Levy 01:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, an article draft with zero potential is of little concern to me. If it is of zero potential, and the product of a driveby editor, then it is subject to CSD#U5. If it has zero potential as an article, but is the product of a competent wikipedia, than the question is whether it is notes, not a draft at all. In thee rare cases, if ther eis a concern, ask on a talk page.

There is a clear consensus established at WT:CSD that A7 does not apply to drafts of any kind. However, there looks to be buds of support for similar but differently words D-criteria.

Our existing guideline, which I largely wrote, assumed "problematic" to be as defined above. UPNOT in particular. WP:NOT also applies, but WP:UP does not qualify WP:NOT. I am thinking that we are lacking an article-drafting guideline, and that this separate guideline, which should be referenced from the policy WP:EP, and cover all namespaces, should guide on questions of degrees of potential. No, the status quo is not OK, but neither is User:Legacypac's reckless drive to clear out all of User:Ricky81682's identified old drafts. All old drafts are not the same. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not personal. It is about the deletion of good drafts amongst the throwing out of bad drafts, in defiance of clear consensus that WP:N doesn't apply to drafts, and failures of the community to support you at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If these are actually good drafts, then why not ask for a REFUND or their restoration or do anything other than personally insult people for discussing the merely possibility that they aren't good drafts? Ask to userify them, move them to draftspace, there's options other than attacking everyone who disagrees with you. Your responses are to do nothing regardless of the quality of the draft in question, so the issue clearly isn't about good drafts being lost. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You want the default assumption to be that all old pages in userspace of inactive Wikipedians be deleted, and if any of them were in fact of any use, go to WP:REFUND? The issue is about good material being lost, and of a couple of editors on a drive to clean out userspace of old inactive pages who choose to not heed others requesting them to stop. One of them, in fact, is belligerent in his refusal to listen to the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, "stale" is a poor criterion. It catches mostly old WP:NOT violating material without discriminating against worthy material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, it sounds like deletionism for the sake of it, which we have more than enough of. If there a specific problem with a page, solve the problem (including by deleting it if that's the right solution), but a page being old isn't per se a problem. LjL (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• No except for the obvious reasons like NOTWEBHOST, BLP violations or so. Please don't present the search indexing argument again, just saying. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Faulty question - there is no "implied default to keep the user draft indefinitely" and there sure is not actual requirement like the question proposer has stated in MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Legacypac. It's like saying there is an "implied default to keep mainspace page indefinitely" since they aren't deleted until someone else notices them and brings them to AFD where they get deleted. The fact that a page has existed without discussion for a period of times isn't condoning its existence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• No. Occasionally I trawl userspace for overlooked G10s, I like to think the community is on board with that and I commend such activity to anyone who wants to trawl userspace. But there is no benefit to purging userspace of goodfaith drafts. The community is only fifteen years old, we simply don't know how many decades people will stay away for before returning. My experience from other not for profit organisations is that people are capable of coming back after decades spent in careers or bringing up kids. We should not waste time making our movement less welcoming to such returnees. ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• No per WereSpielChequers and DESiegel. I would also favor the complete removal of WP:STALEDRAFT. Userspace drafts that are problematic enough to warrant deletion should be deleted immediately. The age or "staleness" of the draft makes no difference in its suitability for deletion. Deletion of good-faith userspace drafts has zero benefit for the project: it does not reduce the visibility of the page, it does not save server space, and it does not make stale drafts with potential easier to find better than the much more efficient process of simply categorizing stale drafts as high or low potential (which is done through this project). Furthermore, it has the potential to alienate editors, as noted by WereSpielChequers and already demonstrated here. A2soup (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:STALE favors blanking over outright deletion (along with other helpful alternatives). Are you suggesting blanking stale userspace drafts risks alienating editors? Editors likely to get upset over something like that should read WP:UP#OWN. If editors don't want their work mercilessly edited or even deleted (yes, even in userspace), they should keep an off-wiki copy. clpo13_(talk) 19:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I frequently argue for blanking at MfD. I think that as long as {{Userpage blanked}} is used, blanking is not very BITEy. And I agree with WP:UP#OWN concerns, which is why I opposed this the above proposal. However, I still have a problem with WP:STALE as long as it mentions deletion at all. That gives the (incorrect, in my view) impression that staleness influences deletion. While it may influence blanking, I don't think it should influence deletion. Deletion in userspace should be dictated by WP:UPNOT and has nothing to do with age or staleness. A2soup (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• No and keep WP:STALE as is. Userspace shouldn't be considered off-limits to other editors. Problematic content (copyvios, BLP violations) should be deleted, content with potential should be moved or merged into articlespace (or draftspace), and anything else should be blanked or left alone, even if it's ancient. clpo13_(talk) 19:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• No they shouldn't have an expiration date. Deleting them does not advance the interests of the project in any way, but in a small number of cases it will annoy or disappoint a returning editor to the point where their future contributions will be lost. This is a simple equation: benefits; none. disbenefits; some. Add to that the not-inconsiderable effort spent in carrying out those unproductive deletions. Why would we even consider deleting? A psychological desire for tidiness? Sorry, but that isn't enough to justify working against the interests of the wider project. Thparkth (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes if the content is significantly more likely than not to yield nothing of benefit to the project. I think this question is a bit faulty. No-one is advocating that we should have a WP:G13 style criteria by which we delete stale drafts. If that were the actual issue, I would vote an unequivocal no, because it's clearly a net negative. On the other hand, many editors have advocated that no material should be deleted unless it actively damages the project. This is equally silly. If you have to squint, do twelve backflips, and say 72 Hail Marys to convince yourself that a userspace draft will yield encyclopedic content in the future and it's stale, then it should be deleted. This is the common sense solution, but it seems it's the solution that has been ignored in favor of absolutism by most parties. ~ Rob^Talk 21:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: What I still don't understand is - what benefit is gained by deleting them? How does it improve the project? We know it has the (admittedly small) potential to annoy a returning editor. What benefit outweighs that cost? A2soup (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: WP:NOTWEBHOST is the main reason. If people see that we're allowing people to freely host content on our servers, more will follow. While there is no immediate benefit to deleting a userspace draft (i.e. the server space isn't freed up), there is likely a benefit in less future inappropriate use. I think it's fairly easy to see how it would be a bad thing if we gained a reputation for just turning a blind eye to everything in userspace. ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

One more thing re: the potential to annoy a returning editor. I imagine this is not a popular question to ask, but do we really want to retain an editor who's only activity was to create a page that has no conceivable path to bettering the project? I love the idea of converting that editor to a helpful editor in theory, but if someone makes a single contribution that is promotional or clearly an auto-biography and then leaves for 5 years, is that person really the type of editor likely to help the project? Especially if they're predisposed to annoyance when we remove the promotional or auto-biographical page? ~ Rob^Talk 14:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Re WP:NOTWEBHOST, I agree that material not directed at encyclopedic purposes should be deleted. But good-faith drafts, however incompetent and hopeless, are directed at encyclopedic purpose and therefore appropriate. I don't think that writing a draft before you understand notability is an inappropriate practice, so I don't think we are allowing any negative practices by allowing people of all competencies and levels of experience to attempt to draft articles. If it means that more people will try to draft articles as a result, I think that's a plus for the project. Sometimes the drafts are pure promotion and therefore not directed at encyclopedic purpose, but, again, those can be deleted immediately per WP:G11, and staleness is not a factor. A2soup (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: I disagree that "directed at encyclopedic purpose" is a sufficiently high standard. Any factual account of anything could be claimed to be directed at encyclopedic purpose, but that doesn't mean it has any reasonable probability of yielding encyclopedic content. If there's a 1% chance that a userspace draft will yield something of use, absolutely leave it alone! I agree with you 110% there. But when we get MfDs like this where the article is clearly promotional and not going to yield anything useful, I start pulling my hair out when I see editors declare that we should host it indefinitely. To me, it seems clear that keeping this sends the wrong message to others who would use Wikipedia as their personal promotional tool and web host. Note that editors in that discussion have cited the "WP:N doesn't apply to drafts" idea as a reason for keeping. That's what I'm arguing against, since it's a pretty insane application of that consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 16:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Where I differ with you is that you seem to require some small expectation that the draft will yield something useful. Why? Do you think good-faith drafts are a negative practice if they are unlikely to yield anything useful? I agree they are useless, but remember, we're looking for a positive benefit from deleting them. I don't think it benefits the project to discourage good-faith drafts, even if they are totally useless. On the contrary, if you are correct that deleting such things discourages them in the future, I think we are doing some harm by deleting hopeless/useless but good-faith drafts. We are in agreement that pure promotion should be deleted, but I fail to see the relevance of staleness there. A2soup (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ever since userspace became NOINDEXed, deletion of abandoned userspace content provides no tangible benefit. –xeno^talk 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• There's no implication of anything. That's like saying there's an implication that all mainspace can last forever because there's no set time limit for them going to AFD if they get missed by WP:NPP. As to the benefits, there are tangible benefits in that the amount of maintenance work (infobox template usages, categorization, wikiproject draftspace pages) have decreased. Since WikiProjects have draftspace categories, demanding that the project keep the page indefinitely seems pretty bizarre. Further, Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard and Category:Userspace drafts are sorted by date because they are considered backlogs and thus some people wish to go through it. If it's "no tangible benefit", why was there support for G6 expansion to allow deletion of empty Article Wizard drafts? People do see no benefit in having tens of thousands of pages of basically useless drafts. Now, if people think a particular page is worth keeping, that's fine but people opposed to the entire idea of deleting drafts are basically the equivalent of arguing to keeping everything at AFD because there could be sources that make a page notable. In fact it's literally the same thing to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any tangible benefits to deleting drafts in the 3 types of maintenance work you have described. Why do infoboxes on drafts increase workload somehow? No one should waste time keeping the infobox parameter usage, etc., updated in userspace drafts they are not working on - that's just silly, and I doubt anyone has ever done it. As for categorization, it is also not standard (or good) practice to categorize userspace drafts you are not working on. If you are talking about maintenance categories, they seem to be entirely automated by templates. Again, I doubt anyone has ever wasted time categorizing userspace drafts they are not working on. As for WikiProject draftspace pages, I haven't seen WikiProject tags on any worthless userspace drafts that would warrant deletion. This makes sense, since if the editor has the know-how to tag the draft, the draft is going to have potential, and then it shouldn't be deleted anyways. And no one should waste time (and I don't think anyone does waste time) putting WikiProject tags on drafts in other editor's userspaces. So again, I see no tangible benefit in the deletion of userspace drafts for lack of potential or staleness (although I would love for you to provide counterexamples to my points above). This is what distinguishes userspace drafts from mainspace - there is a clear tangible benefit to deleting poor pages there, since doing so directly improves the encyclopedia. The same is not true in userspace, and I'm a little worried that you don't see any difference between the two. A2soup (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone is totally opposed to the deletion of drafts - that is a straw man. Personally, I support the deletion of G11-level promotion, hoaxes of all kinds, and clear vandalism. I also sometimes support deleting severe enough violations of certain WP:NOT criteria (e.g. NOTRESUME, NOTESSAY, SOAPBOX). I also generally support the deletion of everything that does not appear to be a good-faith draft. But yes, I am opposed to the deletion of drafts without any of these problems solely for the purpose of "cleaning up", which doesn't seem to make anything cleaner except for maintenance categories created for said cleaning (talk about circular reasoning), and certainly doesn't benefit the project. A2soup (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

People update the template. They update the template everywhere because no one wants broken templates in random locations. No one knows whether this random version of a userspace draft that needs to be updated for whatever reason is because it's a half-decade old page that no one is watching or because it's a page about to go to mainspace tomorrow. When it's one or two pages, that's fine but the volume of stuff that is deleted shows that we are talking cumulatively tens of thousands of pages over time. There's infobox mergers that have to be done. Just because it's minor one or twice or ten thousand times doesn't make it any less unnecessary when it actually is not necessary in terms of this project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you show me a diff of an editor updating a template in a userspace draft that they had no previous involvement with? In the past couple of months, I've looked over dozens of userspace draft histories at MfD, and I have never seen anything like this. It makes no sense to me that someone would do that. But again, I'd love to see a diff or two. A2soup (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, when you write "People update the template", to what template do you refer? When you write "...a userspace draft that needs to be updated..." why does any userspace draft need to be updated, except to become a valid article? What scenario are you suggesting justifies deletion? Or if not deletion, what action are you suggesting is justified, and when and why? Your post above dated "06:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)" is very unclear to me. I do generally agree with the two posts by A2soup above any below your post. I'd like to see some actual examples of whatever proplem you refer to. DES ^(talk) 08:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me use an example. User:Bryhodge/No Time To Explain was created in 2011 and used many templates in it including template:Infobox video game. Nevertheless, defunct fields were removed in 2014, and further in 2015. It's the same as the mainspace version but given the number of translucations to that template in userspace how much extra time is being spent cumulatively on updating those pages every time there's a change? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My response to that is that X201 and Bgwhite need to ease off the AWB and stop making maintenance changes to userspace drafts, which is completely pointless. But in any case, I see the issue in that case was resolved without deletion. If you are concerned about the amount of work people are doing, blanking+templating, or redirecting if appropriate. are always far less work (and, crucially, no admin work) compared to deletion. A2soup (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not pointless. If the draft is actually being worked on, it's useful to have the parameter fixed everywhere, not just on mainspace. The problem isn't solved by you telling everyone else that they need to go do something else or else they should know and figure out which pages are being used and which aren't, it's resolved by actually dealing with the pages not in use and yes, blanking is an alternative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say no at the moment, mainly for reasons stated above, such as WereSpielChequers'. We must always use common sense, but in an ideal world, all userspace drafts with potential and relevance should find their way to mainspace eventually. If nothing else hinders Wikipedia's ability to cope with them, I see no superseding reason why they should be deprived of that right. On the other hand, I understand people's want to delete such drafts, but their basis for doing so (besides blatantly useless drafts) seems to be a mere expression of their OCD - and believe me I'd also love to see Wikipedia squeaky clean, but we need to put the benefits of preserving such content before all else. I also sympathise with comments made by BU Rob13; the thing is unless we establish a clear set of criteria, where do you draw the line between usable/workable drafts and drafts to be deleted? I would perhaps favour the creation of said criteria, but do we really have a problem that would merit their formulation? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The discussion below is about the language itself. If you would agree that userspace drafts "with no potential or relevance" can be subject to deletion (i.e. the actual question to determine in each discussion like WP:GNG is the basis at AFD), then people can get to the next step of what exactly that means. If, as seen below, the only language that is permitted is that these drafts "are harmless", then the deletion arguments will just go in circles as "not harmless" trumps even suggesting deleting anything at all. Clearly, pages are being subject to deletion and being deleted and it's not based on GNG or V and not the CSD criteria, so it would be helpful for at least some agreement on what that standard is. Of course, that would require some actual agreement that there exists a userspace drafts somewhere that can be deleted in the first place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To second what Ricky said, the issue here is that many people are treating the consensus that WP:N doesn't apply to draftspace and there shouldn't be a timer on user drafts (two things I totally agree with!) as carte blanche to oppose everything at MfD that isn't an attack page. I think it's clear that there is no consensus for such a keep rationale without any regard to whether the page is of any value. ~ Rob^Talk 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't even care if they actually do believe that. The problem is that there are pages being deleted and it would be productive if the people who oppose it get at least some concrete line that they would agree to. I could go to AFD screaming that I don't believe in WP:N as a standard or something equally odd and that's fine and all but when pages are deleted, it would be smarted to actually work out something rather than just keep tilting at the windmills. Instead, it's "I don't care about those deletions, I think those are wrong too" which is again cute and all but fine, if you won't delineate a line, more and more cases are going to come up and you're going to be wondering why a policy was created without your input. Coming from someone who get WP:WOP under some control after a decade of idiocy, slow and steady wins this race. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• No. No argument has been presented for how the encyclopedia would benefit from deleting stale drafts. Pburka (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The case for deleting unhelpful drafts is clear. WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy, and there should be no backdoor which allows someone to post a memorial, or a promotion, or nonsense (see Draft:85512255079), then have it retained indefinitely "because it's a draft". Cruft accumulates, and that makes finding useful drafts for expansion harder each year. Also, if the balance swings too far, the new normal will be that it is ok to post junk here to score an impressive wikipedia.org/MYPAGE link. Some people are not bothered by rubbish and they don't care that there is a growing pile of junk, but others want the community to deal with the junk in a timely manner—if no one can see that a three-year old draft is useful (no good sources; no notability), it should be deleted. There does not need to be a fixed expiration date, and each case can be dealt with on its merits, but each case should be dealt with. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Or how about we just find and delete the problematic drafts (no matter how old they are) and leave the good-faith non-problematic ones alone? I just don't see the need to create a bureaucratic process that requires discussion of non-problematic drafts or recommends a waiting period for problematic ones. Delete problematic drafts, leave the rest alone. What does a mandatory discussion add besides busywork? A2soup (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• An interesting proposal has been made at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#RfC: PROD in user space to extend the use of proposed deletion to userspace. Perhaps some of the opposers would reconsider if there was a light-weight deletion method such as this, whereby deleted articles could be easily and uncontroversially restored if the inactive editor returned. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  Deleting someone's private scratchpad without good reason no matter the method still provides little-to-no net benefit and has great potential to alienate returning editors. –xeno^talk 10:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• No. No reason for them to have one. There may be other reasons to delete, but being old isn't one of them.Hobit (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• No per WereSpielChequers. There should be no across the board expiration date as it makes no sense and provides minimal benefit. The only parts of STALEDRAFT that would make sense to have some sort of expiration date for are 3 and 4, which help enforce WP:WEBHOST. Even then it should involve a process where one user tags and a sysop can vet, similar to our current WP:G13 process for stale AfC drafts. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• No, per the very good arguments above (WereSpielChequers's comment mostly, but others too). Wikibreaks can be beneficial to many, and there is no fixed timeframe on them - editors could come back to us in a decade or so, only to find an old draft deleted, which is not constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, stale in itself should not be a reason to delete a draft. THere should be more evaluation of its value and purpose before deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to closer

Note the discussion at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. This RfC shouldn't be closed in a vacuum; the RfC I linked asked more nuanced questions and should probably be deferred to. There's obvious consensus against a hard expiration date, but please be careful not to overstate what there's consensus for given the linked RfC. ~ Rob^Talk 11:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a helpful note, but you make it sound like you're an observer. In fact, you were the one who posed the question over there (A3) that duplicated the subject of this RfC, and which you now state should be deferred to. We would all love to have our preferred outcomes and our own questions deferred to, but let's let the closer decide how to consider it, no? A2soup (talk) 11:30, 9 May 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.

Proposal for a userspace draft deletion system

I've started a proposal for a userspace draft deletion system at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Userspace_drafts_proposed_deletion. Please comment there if you could. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward after RFC closure

Now that the RFCs about the WP:STALEDRAFT section have closed, it is time to amend the policy to reflect the new consensus. The first thing I would suggest would be to get rid of both of the shortcuts... (since a key part of the closure was agreement that userpage drafts don't have an expiration date, they don't become "STALE"). Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, that conclusion doesn't follow - just because drafts don't have a set expiration date doesn't mean they don't become stale, and there was consensus that no-hope drafts should not be retained indefinitely. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So the shortcut should be something like NOHOPEDRAFT... Or BADDRAFT... Or something similar. shouldn't it? Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely "STALE" has to go, certainly out from under the Sectioning header Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_not_have_in_my_user_pages.3F. It has only ever been a disaster since first addition. The RfC conclusion obviously makes it absurd to not remove it.

It is best to just remove it from the linkbox, don't deleted or retarget it, because that confuses past uses.

What to do instead, is best discussed and written into a new guideline called Wikipedia:Managing drafts. Drafts exist inside and outside userspace, inside and outside of the AfC process, and no existing page seems suitable. It is time to do this now that we have the RfCs closed.

Please do not start be creating SHOUTY ONEWORDs. These have a dumbing-down effect on some, and they can lock in early clumsy misconceptions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The conclusion doesn't follow that WP:STALE must go. In fact, the consensus supports moving pages if it's fit to be an article based on "relative inactivity." That is precisely what WP:STALE covers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ricky on this. I think the section as written reflects the outcomes of both RfCs. The large-scale discussion clearly closed with consensus to delete drafts that have little to no hope of ever becoming useful to the project. We just didn't agree on a cutoff date by which something has to be an article or be deleted (and shouldn't – a hard cut-off would be awful). "Stale" is an apt description of what these drafts are. Deletion doesn't follow from "stale". When you have stale bread, you can chuck it in the garbage or make a delicious bread pudding, depending on how far gone the bread is. Same is true of drafts. If the draft can become bread pudding, get cooking. ~ Rob^Talk 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

moving AfC submissions from Userspace into Draftspace

In the recent RFC, there was consensus to move all AFC submissions currently located in Userspace into Draftspace. A few comments on that... first: is it technically possible to automate this move (ie could we create a bot that would move anything marked as an AFC submission into Draftspace)? Second... I think it important to establish that this should only apply to drafts that are actually marked as AFC submissions. It would not apply to every "draft" located in userspace (for example, sandbox drafts, or draft rewrites of an existing article located in someone's iuserspace would not automatically be moved to Draftspace.) Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: There has been a very clear distinction between AFC drafts and a typical draft over the past few months in various discussions, so I don't think you should be concerned on the second point. No-one would make that interpretation of the close in good-faith. On the first point, I think we shouldn't automate such a move. Editors should verify that the draft was marked for AFC by a significant contributor before moving to draftspace (i.e. not marked by a passing-by editor to eventually make it eligible for G13). This has been the subject of some controversy recently, so this "check" is necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 12:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically yes, in practically NoNoNoNoNo. In my view (as a AFC reviewer, as the bot operator that handles a great share of G13 nominations (and reminders), and as a editor in good standing. I think bot moving anything from Userspace into draft space is a bad idea. I seem to recall that part of reviewing a AFC submission (i.e. one that has the {{AFC submission}} template on it) is to move any draft submissions that have potential into Draft namespace. If the page looks hopeless it doesn't do well to have it live in draft namespace taking the potential title. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I was not thinking of this in terms of G13... Just consolidation of AFC submissions into Draftspace (and out of Userspace) as indicated by the RFC closure. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the reality is that some editors have used AfC submissions to bypass MfD. I'm not naming names or trying to "start anything" on this front, but it's a legitimate concern that editors could use G13 to game the system. ~ Rob^Talk 15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The-one-who-must-not-be-named? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hold on... I think you may be missing the point here... The pages I am talking about have already been tagged and submitted to AFC. All that would change is which "space" they are located (Draftspace vs Userspace)... The move would not change their status re G13 at all. Still, if others think the moves should be done by hand, I have no problem with that. My thought was that it would simply be more efficient if the move was automatic. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you're fully considering the consequences. Say we implement a bot, then an editor comes along and tags something with an AfC template in an attempt to get around an MfD discussion on a userspace draft. The bot automatically moves the draft to the draftspace. First, that move wouldn't show up in watchlists due to the bot flag. Second, the draft is now in the draftspace even though it should never have been tagged with AfC in the first place. The move shouldn't have happened. What stops the bot from making such moves? ~ Rob^Talk 18:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Rob, what you are talking about is a problem that exists regardless of where the draft is located. Currently, if someone AFC tags a draft in Userspace, the draft eventually becomes subject to deletion under G13... Exactly the same as a draft tagged for AFC that is in Draftspace. G13 deletion a byproduct of adding the AFC Tag... not which "space" the AFC is in. The only way to address your concern would be a rule saying that only the creator of a draft can tag it for AFC (or, to put it in the negative - you may not add an AFC tag to drafts in another editor's Userspace). I would actually support that, but I am not sure it would gain consensus.

My point is that the question of "when is it appropriate to tag something as an AFC (and when is it not appropriate)" is a separate issue from "all AFC's should be in Draftspace." The recent RFC determined that we have a consensus for the "all AfCs should be in Draftspace". I am just trying to find a way to efficiently implement that consensus.

That said... we can move them one at a time and by hand if necessary. I won't press it further. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage"

However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion.

Gee, I even got in trouble for saying just "I am http://jidanni.org/" on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jidanni . See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yanguas#Stop_harassing_users . Jidanni (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• It may so be been by suspicious others who care but not enough to check you user contributions. If you are a productive Wikipedian, or even WikiMedian, a link to an offsite home page is perfectly reasonable. However, it may be helpful to add not a note on you Wikipedia editing interests. For example: "Jidanni (talk · contribs) has contributed ~3000 edits to Wikipedia over 10 years, with particular interests relating to China and Taiwan. Personal home page at http://jidanni.org/"

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm... but that sounds like self-promotion. OK thanks anyway. Jidanni (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, all other sites (Facebook, Google Plus, etc.) have a standard box where one can fill in their website. OK, Wikipedia is not one of them... my mistake. Jidanni (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User page redirect to article

Per Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects "User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user. However, redirects from userspace subpages to mainspace are common and acceptable."

Should we expand this to include the main user page? I recently clicked on a username in a signature and was surprised to end up at an article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't think so, due to WP:CREEP if nothing else. It seems plausible that a user could find it useful to redirect their user page to an article. While I could also imagine this being done disruptively that case seems like a behavioral issue that doesn't demand a change to the guideline. VQuakr (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is a little astonishing to be redirected from a main userpage to an article, or indeed to anywhere but to the account-master main userpage. Even then, I would prefer to find a soft redirect. Redirecting to the main user_talk page is common, although I personally dislike that.

Redirects from userspace to mainspace are common because that is the default result of a user moving their userspace draft to mainspace. I can see an argument that a soft redirect would be better, but not enough of a reason to fix existing cases.

However, the main user page should not be used for article drafting, although many commonly do it. I would support every new account being auto-welcomed on their talk page, and a basic main userpage created on their behalf, advising them of the purpose of userpages, and inviting them to introduce themselves if they wish.

Existing redirects from main userpage to mainspace, or to anywhere else random, I would support blanking, but am not sure it is worth the trouble. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Protect user pages by default

Please see new RfC on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. Funcrunch (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Intentional dishonesty

Do we allow intentional dishonesty by user on their own talk page? I don't think we do/should, but I find nothing in this guideline. I'm wondering how to handle a user's apparent intentional dishonesty - a notice that "This user is offline" that is false and that the user insists on leaving in place and is hard to remove. (diff). (Similarly, we allow {{wikibreak}}, but I suspect it's misused more often than not.) I suppose there's the "Pages that egregiously present false information may be tagged with {{db-hoax}}" option... but the content of the template makes it seem inappropriate where the egregiously false information is a small part of a page, despite that bit in the guideline. --Elvey^(t•c) 05:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Users are given wide latitude when it comes to their user pages. For example you have a list of pages on your user page of "Articles I had deleted.." On that list is at least one article that was deleted after an AFD. Clearly, even you agree that less than accurate statements are allowable on user pages. There is nothing to be "handled", here. These deceptions, including your's, do not do any damage to the encyclopedia nor do they obstruct other editors in any way.--Adam in MO Talk 17:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Provided it isn't truly disruptive—for instance, falsely claiming to be an administrator or causing actual confusion that the editor is someone else—I don't think user page dishonesty is anyone's business. We especially are not in the business of policing accuracy in such frivolous matters as online status.

Personally, I wish editors wouldn't report that: This isn't Facebook, it makes watching their user pages annoying, and, the rare instances where it makes a difference—e.g., seeing if someone's ignoring an important discussion—the user's contributions are what's checked. Rebbing 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Global userpages

I'm surprised there's nothing at all on here about meta:Global user pages - these were turned on sometime last year and seem quite a useful option for cross-wiki activity. Not sure how best to add it here, though - it's quite an imposing wall of text. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Differing interpretations of WP:POLEMIC

I just encountered a discussion at ANI [6] where people are reading WP:POLEMIC in very different ways. Currently the policy is organized in a hierarchical way:

• Top level: prohibits "Excessive unrelated content".
• Second level: prohibits "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing".
• Third level: prohibits "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws..."
• Fourth level: explains that "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."

Now the way I read it is that Wikipedia is trying to keep user pages from being generic personal webpages, and at the second level, was specifically trying to target racists or whatever that some people were objecting to when they were ranting on about something not related to Wikipedia work. I'm not too keen on this mission but it seems limited. And so at the third level, I'd take the material prohibited to be, you know, diatribes about the bias of editors with a different religion or something, which are not focused on specific diffs and behavior since those would be 'related to encyclopedia editing'.

But the way that some others at that discussion were interpreting it, the fourth level thing, which I take to be a mere example, is actually the only relevant behavioral code in the POLEMIC section of the table, and whatever it doesn't specifically say is allowed is prohibited.

This even includes what to me is a totally unexpected distinction between the user's main page and his subpages. I say unexpected because the policy has a top level section heading "What may I have in my user pages" that treats all the "user pages" as if they were one thing, not a combination of two different policy zones for a 'more visible front page' and a 'less visible second-level page'.

Now the way I see it, either you should (a) say that this interpretation is definitely wrong, or (b) extensively rewrite the policy, starting with that top level section, explaining that there are two different sets of rules, one for User:Foo and one for User:Foo/X. I don't know if there's anything other than POLEMIC that some here would interpret differently.

You cannot expect users to follow the rules when they are this prone to differences in interpretation! Wnt (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

We would need a thousand-page constitution, with the attendant army of lawyers, to cover all possible circumstances. While we assume good faith, we also know the reason that experienced editors who are very familiar with user subpages nevertheless choose to compile a list of their opponent's (alleged) faults on their user page. The reason is to poke their opponent. Doing that is not helpful for the encyclopedia. The admin took the right action, and everything else is noise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don't think a clearer policy needs to be longer than an unclear one. Some time back I proposed a rewrite of WP:CIVILITY to only include the things that were actually written as rules, and it would have reduced it to 1/3 its current length; it's still sitting there on the talk page without comment as far as I know. Your claim that "we know" the reason seems like assuming bad faith, and it seems like a particularly minor form of bad faith to assume. I mean, it's encouraged to submit the list of diffs to ANI in public view; it's permitted to have it on a special user subpage; but you're saying it's not OK to have it on the main user subpage .... why? Are there more people reading somebody's user page than there are reading an ANI thread? Really? The editor himself in the thread I linked gave the indication he had misread this policy in his own unique way, taking there to be some kind of prohibition against having it in a subpage but not in the main page rather than vice versa - this seems like poor reading comprehension but honestly I don't see that as inherently any weirder than the opposite regulation. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the admins here like having rules that don't match what they enforce day to day, because it gives them a way to hit editors with gotchas, but I suppose that would be unreasonably assuming bad faith also. Wnt (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wnt's top two "levels" are restatements of the policy section WP:NOTADVOCACY. (I don't think "level" is a good choice of word). I think there is no problem with the language or acceptance in so far as polemics not related to the project. Polemics relating to Wikipedia policy is OK. Polemics involving specific other Wikipedians I think represents the complicated area.

"Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason" is a long standing statement of proven effectiveness. Typically, complaints defended on the basis of "very good reason" leads to completion of the very good reason and removal of the negative information.

If WP:POLEMIC is to be considered in levels, I think that statement ("Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason") "second level", second only to polemics unrelated to the project. The 2nd dot point should be moved below the current 3rd dot point. The sentence "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" could be dropped as redundant, redundant to "negative information". I also dislike it as a grammatically faulty sentence.

Wnt's fourth level details advice for the most common sort of complaint raised. It happens to serve to ensure that "good reason" is subject "timely" actions and resolutions.

> "Wikipedia is trying to keep user pages from being generic personal webpages".

Yes. Policy. AKA NOTADVOCACY, NOTBLOG, etc.

> " the second level, was specifically trying to target racists or whatever that some people were objecting to when they were ranting on about something not related to Wikipedia work"

Not sure about this. I don't recall when it was added, and I think it unnecessary. I find it awkward. Divisive and offensive material can be discussed.

POLEMIC was never written to address ongoing behaviour per se. POLEMIC addresses snapshots of someone's userpages. I think POLEMIC applies equally to the main userpage as to user subpages, as to user talk pages.

POLEMIC has little on civility, dispute resolution, or other behavioural issues. It implies that such problems need to be taken elsewhere "a dispute resolution process... in a timely manner", but WP:UP is not reference material for WP:DR.

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/This is a subpage is reflects a problem, a Wikipedia:Civility weakness problem, out of scope of WP:UP. That said, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/This is a subpage violates WP:POLEMIC. As a WP:POLEMIC violation, it may stay subject to being taken to a dispute resolution process in a timely manner, but then regardless needs to go. If necessary, the usual forum is WP:MFD, where I would expect it be allowed 7 days grace while it is discussed, before it is deleted if it still in userspace. I would !vote "Delete, you now have less than 7 days to get this to formal DR, or to take it offline". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Note that the subpage you mention was created by an administrator who split the material off Norton's main user page ... interpreting WP:POLEMIC! Wnt (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that. I haven't digested why. Unless there is a very good reason, or it is for timely use in DR, it violates WP:POLEMIC. It records a bad picture of a user. This is not to say that that user is ok, but it is not ok to record negative information on a user in another's userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, Could you give here the excerpt from WP:POLEMIC that was discussed at that other talk page? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that discussion was linked above, but here is the link again. The most attention was paid to what I called the "fourth-level" text above. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Polemic is in the eyes of the beholder. I have tried to get pages that are in violation of Polemic to be reviewed but because it's a political issue, nothing happens. For example, I believe the userpage of User:Nishidani violates polemic. It is clearly not in the spirit or in the letter of the law, but for some reason, his polemical writings are considered OK for a userpage. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed your complaints at several pages recently and I commented at one of them where you had completely misunderstood Nishidani. You don't have to like him, and you don't have to agree with him, but why don't you try learning just a little while you are here? Do you only want to learn from people who regurgitate the same ideas you are already surrounded with? Re his user page, I just had a quick glance but it's too long for me to want to examine for possible problems. The real thrust of WP:POLEMIC is to stop editors compiling lists of complaints about other editors because that leads to a cycle of attack and counter-attack (sound familiar!?) that damages the community. Statements on politicial issues are not generally regarded as a problem unless expressed very crudely or with great belligerence. I do not see a polemic problem—if you disagree, quote a couple of words that I can search for. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation of polemic is a new one. If you go to his userpage, the entire top portion is polemical. If it's not, then WP:POLEMIC needs to be re-written. But again, as I said several times, it's all in the eyes of the admins. There is a userbox supporting Hezbollah, that was marked not polemic, so clearly the policy is not clear on what is acceptable or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation is not new. I explained what WP:POLEMIC means as applied at Wikipedia—it concerns editors compiling complaints about other editors. It is also very rarely used to cover extreme belligerence which I do not see at the page in question. Your perceptions may be colored by a feeling that the other side (Palestinians) are somehow different from the rest of humanity, so any statement suggesting sympathy for their position is, by definition, incorrect and so must be polemical. It's much more likely that Palestinians are the same as everyone else and they do the things they do due to their history and circumstances. Taking that position, the statements are just opinions (with sources) that should be dealt with on their merits. By all means seek other opinions, but haven't you done that on a couple of pages? If so, it's time to heed what you heard and let the matter drop. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to disagree with Johnuniq's statements on the meaning of POLEMIC, but I agree that the top of User:Nishidani could well be a POLEMIC problem. POLEMIC does cover screeds from one user about another, but it also covers screeds unrelated to the project. Are Nishidani's views provided to explain his editing and attempts to improve content? If yes, it is OK. If No, and they are objectionable, I would probably contribute to encouraging Nishidani to tone it down, or move it offsite. The place to test the question is usually WP:MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on Nishidani's user page but not the rest What are the odds? I came to this page to copy-paste the exact wording of POLEMIC as I was asked about it off-wiki (another user paraphrased without linking, and I received an email from Curly Turkey asking if I knew what they were talking about). Then I remembered something that had made me shudder last time I checked the page, and checked if it was still there. I posted below about maybe changing it, and then immediately above I see my old comrade Nishidani's name mentioned, and this a few days after two separate run-ins with the ARBPIA area, one involving Sir Joseph. Small world. For what it's worth, Nish's page is not POLEMIC by any reasonable interpretation. Most of the page (about 80% in terms of vertical length, but probably not word count) is a record of the pages he wrote and his own history as a Wikipedian. If he maintained copies of block notices of other users he didn't like, that would be one thing, but if the admins who blocked him didn't want him to talk about those blocks they shouldn't have blocked him to begin with. But I'm assuming what's being talked about is the massive string of quotes. Being political doesn't automatically make it POLEMIC. It's relevant to his activity as a Wikipedian, as any examination of his edit history reveals, and it isn't even him railing against various named off-wiki living people since they're all quotations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy"

Hey, umm ... do we really want to list this as an example of something that might bring the project into disrepute and so is unacceptable? Aren't there less extreme examples? A certain user's user page was deleted and the user blocked a few months back for them having coded Nazi dog-whistles on their user page, and listing that kind of thing seems like a less ... problematic example, since the existence of Nazi trolls on the internet is widely understood and it would therefore be assumed that such might appear on someone's user page and be unacceptable for such.

From a practical standpoint also, I can't imagine there are more pedophilia advocates than there are racists, so listing the (surely?) more common example would be better, no?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, as seen in the WP:UP#NOT section, when it comes to pedophilia and child sexual abuse, we have a policy about it: WP:Child protection. So it seems that editors felt this should be mentioned. Years ago, we actually did have a serious pro-pedophilia and pro-child sexual advocacy problem at this site, which is why the WP:Child protection policy was created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Somehow I missed that it linked to that policy. I assumed it linked to something in the mainspace. I suddenly feel very queezy. I'm just gonna forget that I ever brought this up. I understand that protecting real children from real creepers is more important than removing fascist propaganda that can be dealt with on a case by case basis. It very much weirds me out that we have to have a policy like that. I'm gonna go take a shower. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

Despite all my reading about the techniques and tools for uploading to Wikipedia, I may have botched the formatting. Constructive help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Hunt (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User pages. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What to do with this userpage?

While cleaning red-linked categories from Special:WantedCategories, I came across User:Bmarakwad.

The page was in some script I don't know, so I chucked at Google Translate, which shows that it is a Marathi-language CV of an Indian academic.

The editor registered the account yesterday, and so far their only contribs are to this userpage. They may intend to start contributing, or maybe not. If they do contribute, some sort of CV is fine; if not, it's just promotion. But either way, a CV in a non-English language seems unlikely to help collaboration in the English-language Wikipedia.

So I'm not sure what to do with it. Tag it somehow? (with what?)

Leave it be?

Any suggestions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot depends on whether the user is the academic. First thing I would suggest is... replace the current Marathi text with an English language version. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would consider adding a translation, or tagging U5, depending on the translation, and depending on any other wiki contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• No global contributions. Translated, it is a CV. It is a drive-by dumped CV, in a foreign language. Covered by U5, which has no time limits, a couple of days seems reasonable. I tagged it {{db-u5}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Slight tweak to WP:UP#Non-free images

I think a slight tweak should be made to WP:UP#Non-free images to clarify that not only the use of non-free images, but also any non-free content which is not permitted to be used in the user namespace. I've come across a couple of cases where non-free ogg files have been mistakenly added to a user page by editors who simply copy-and-pasted entire existing articles into their sandboxes or onto their user pages for some reason. It might also be a helpful to specifically mention sandboxes being in the user namepace because I recently came across someone here who mistakenly assumed they weren't. Finally, even though WP:UBX#Caution about image use does discuss non-free use in userboxes in might also be helpful to mention them here as well since userboxes are primarily created for user pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I replaced the word 'image' with 'file' broadly; I also copyedited. Improvement always welcome. --Izno (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Izno. I added an anchor for the olde section heading because the page has been linked like in my above post many times on many different pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What about casual external links to videos, particularly YouTube videos, which may in breach of copyright? Should these be explicitly mentioned somewhere? Perhaps I've just missed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If they are links to clear copyright violations, then I think they can be removed per WP:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. Perhaps more should be added about this to WP:UP#Copyright violations? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. Although what constitutes "a clear copyright violation" seems open to some degree of personal judgment. I was just thinking that perhaps more advice should be given on what is allowed and what it not allowed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Obvious stuff in my opinion would be linking to TV shows, music videos, songs or movies, etc. uploaded by non-official YouTube accounts when it is fairly obvious that the uploader is not creator of the original content. Derivative works might be tricky, but pure mechanical reproductions probably should not be linked. At the same time, these days many bands, TV networks, production houses, etc. have official YouTube, Vimeo or other sites where they post their original content, so those should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure anything that would help users comply with policy would be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Indexing in user space

The guideline says nothing about search engine indexing. User space is "noindexed" by default, but it is possible for this to be manually overridden on individual user pages. There are some legitimate reasons for editors to activate indexing (see this discussion), but many user pages and subpages where this has been done in fact contain promotional or self-publicising content, frequently couched as draft articles and thus bypassing the vetting that would occur if transferred to mainspace. Category:Indexed pages gives a complete list, and freshly indexed pages can be identified from a new edit filter, which produces this log – you will see that there are several cases on most days. Editors reading this may wish to monitor the log; {{Uw-userspacenoindex}} is a standard user-talk message to inform users when we reverse indexing.

What concerns me slightly is that we have no guideline on when indexing may or may not be permissible. If the whole page is eligible for speedy deletion, on grounds such as WP:G11 or WP:U5, there is no room for doubt. However, many user pages or userdrafts that get indexed aren't clearly deletable but still appear inappropriate for indexing. Could we clarify the rules over opening this back door on to Google?: Noyster (talk), 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Having, for example, User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) userfied and indexed after it was deleted at AFD, without significant changes making it eligible for mainspace, strikes me as an endrun around the deletion process. In my opinion you were correct to remove the indexing. –xeno^talk 21:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Stuff like this shows that the backdooring around NPR is a real problem. I can imagine a few options that are less aggressive than forbidding the indexing of the user space entirely:

1. Forbid indexing of subpages, and change in WP:U5 with the exception of plausible drafts to with the exception of plausible drafts in subpages. Pros: covers 95% (guesstimate) of legitimate uses (people wanting a conforming user page to be indexed), while forbidding almost all illegitimate uses. Cons: not sure if technically feasible (to authorize the magic word on User:Foo but not on User:Foo/Bar), instruction creep in the CSD, 5% of legitimate uses (e.g. people hosting javascript snippets of use for wiki content, that could be useful both on WP and elsewhere), even with a CSD it may not be easily enforced (you need patrollers of that edit filter).
2. Disallow (via edit filter) the addition of the indexing keyword without a certain level of access (autoconfirmed or extended confirmed?). Pros: not touching the CSD, arguably not really a new policy per previous rules. Cons: new users are human too and may want their user pages indexed for legitimate reasons.

The second solution seems workable with {{edit request}} to ask another user to add the index bit, but we may see a trick where a new user asks for the indexing of a legitimate user page, and once it's done replaces it with a pseudo-article of promotional nature. Edit request patrollers are not expected to monitor pages they edit on the behalf of others.

I feel that one edit filter denying indexing by non-autoconfirmed (to filter out the bulk of the flux) and another logging all indexing (to be patrolled to catch the patient spammers) is a workable solution, but we still need a policy behind it (what can the patroller do if it is not a WP:U5? edit war on a user page that is not his theirs?) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(...or hers?) OK, we could do with a definite proposal here – perhaps we should now ask established editors who do use indexing in their user space what they would consider legitimate grounds for this practice. Then we can draft a guideline "no indexing in user space, except..." Some are normal user pages, some are talk page archives, some are javascripts to do with the education program, but why indexing? Pinging Cacycle, Cenarium, Deskana, Dispenser, K6ka, Ks0stm, LFaraone, Maproom, MBisanz, Michael Bednarek, Ocaasi (WMF), P999, Peteforsyth, Sadads, SuperHamster, This, that and the other, Xaosflux: Noyster (talk), 12:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I index my userpage on enwiki because as my homewiki it is my primary presence, but I also make edits on all kinds of other WMF projects and they allow indexing. I prefer that search results for my username lead searchers to my page on enwiki instead of some other project like enwikiquote. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I indexed my userpage a long time ago because I wanted people to be able to find me here more easily when they Googled my username. Also, for the same reasons as Xaosflux: my userpage on Simple English Wikipedia is currently first on the list of results, which is undesirable since it's not my home wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't indexed my userpage; anyone who wants to find User:Maproom can do it without the help of an index. I have indexed a few subpages in my userspace, when they contain material I'd like to add to Wikipedia, but accept is too specialised to justify it. For example User:Maproom/rmaps, which contains a gallery of the regular map images Professor Séquin has contributed to Commons, and so might be of interest to someone looking for his work on regular maps. Maproom (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have enabled indexing for project pages of software that is used on Wikipedia/Mediawiki (i.e. the editor wikEd and the diff tool wikEdDiff). Theoretically, these could also reside in the indexed Wikipedia namespace, but are in my user space for historical reasons. The exception for this purpose would would be something like community-oriented content of wider significance. Cacycle (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have indexed my userpage for reasons similar to Xaosflux; I'm active on many wikis (Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia ones), and I'd like anyone searching for my name to be able to find my English Wikipedia page over most others. I'm also pretty open about my identity, and don't mind people finding my userpage when searching for my name - especially when I'm doing offline outreach. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(For the record, I have also indexed my userpage for reasons similiar to Xaosflux). Question for Cacycle and SuperHamster, and others - you have both also indexed all your talk page archives. To me this is a more problematic than spam pages which could be deleted. Is this also intentional? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Not particularly intentional in my case. To keep it simple, I added the index tag to my header template, which goes on my userpage and most of my subpages. Now that you've pointed it out, I'm not opposed to keeping the indexing to just my userpage and some select subpages. Just curious, what do you see problematic about it? Privacy issues / spam? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's been a fair bit of previous discussion about user talk pages, like here and here. I tend to agree that user talk pages often contain things like privacy issues and loose talk which are usually best left out of search engines. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Sounds good - I've removed the indexing from my header template and am now just indexing my user page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My user page remains noindexed; however, my subpage User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good is the primary page for a Wikimedia-specific software tool I have developed, and it needs to remain accessible from search engines. Subpages of that page are also marked as indexed. Pretty much the same as what Cacycle said. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A few months later I've hated how useless noindexing has made search when I'm looking for internal stuff. Things like User:Smallbones/1000 random results should not be harder to find than some poorly researched journalism hit piece. As for my tools that should be obvious. — Dispenser 22:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Re talk pages being indexed: I do not think it is really different from user pages. I tend to think indexing UTP should be opt-in rather than opt-out, because the UTP of a new user is where all the Twinkle notices Hello, I notice that you are a dirty vandal, have a nice day will land. Even veteran non-tech-savy editors may have an expectation of privacy on their talk page. But if someone knowingly wants their UTP indexed, why not?

On the other hand, the expectation of privacy that one has when posting to another editor's user talk page is or should be much lower, so I see no good reason to blanket ban UTP-indexing if their owners so desire. If the community disagrees, there is still an option before the blanket ban - make it mandatory to place some standard notice at the top of the UTP ("this page is indexed by external search engines; do not expect your posts to remain private") and if really needed enforce it by bot. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I index for pretty much the same reasons as Xaosflux and K6ka. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I index for much the same reason as Xaosflux, and because my identity as a volunteer doing oureach for the Wikimedia community is best documented on that page (as opposed to my professional identity working for Wikimedia). Moreover, I personally use Google to find my user page, when I need links on it on computers that I don't own, for presentations or examples of articles that I have worked on. Sadads (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have responded. The indications are:

• Primary user page – a blanket ban on manual indexing will not be accepted. Indexing is valued by some established editors, especially those who are active on other Wikimedia projects as well as en-wiki.
• Subpages of the user page – indexing is wanted for a small number of pages containing software code or other material related to Wikimedia projects.
• User talk page and archives – No need yet identified for indexing here.

Comment: It may not be controversial to rule out all indexing on user talk pages, and on sandboxes, user draft pages and other subpages subject to an exception like Cacycle's suggestion community-oriented content of wider significance. The primary user page is more difficult. Users are allowed "limited biographical information" on their user page. We need to allow editors such as those who have responded above to continue to index their user page, but probably not someone without a significant contribution history who puts "My name is XYZ, I am a famous rapper, my youtube channel is..." So we may wish to adopt Tigraan's suggestion and tie indexing to, probably, extended confirmed status. Because if you haven't been very active on en-wiki, what good (in Wikipedia terms) reason have you to want your en-wiki user page to show up in Google?: Noyster (talk), 20:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, if it ends up with an edit filter, I would advocate two levels, neither of which using the ECP threshold: forbidding indexing altogether below the autoconfirmed level (not ECP), and logging for everyone (including ECP users). I think ECP is an unreasonably high hurdle to demonstrate a "need" for indexing (although that is more of a gut feeling than a demonstration); we should at least try the lower protection settings and gather data before tightening them.

Also, even if the EF stops all new vanity and promotional pages, something has to be done for the existing ones. As current policies stand, my understanding is that either WP:U5 applies and the page gets nuked, or it does not and anything goes. Maybe we could simply decide that indexing a userpage counts as a piece of evidence towards U5; indexed user pages often fall either in "a typical good UP" or "promotional biography", with few if any falling in a grey area. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Which policy would support the prohibition of indexing in user talk pages and their archives? If there is none currently, its wording and implementation needs to be discussed with wider participation than this page provides. I would object to such a policy until a clear harm of its absence can be shown. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If non-indexing of user talk pages is going to be controversial after all, I think we could leave that part of it alone for now, as it is uncommon, though not unknown, for editors to copy promotional material on to their talk page. Returning to indexing of the primary user page and subpages, Tigraan suggests disallowing this only for non-autoconfirmed users. But an editor can easily spend ten edits titivating their user page, then once four days have elapsed such a restriction would be null and void. I ask again: if you haven't been very active on en-wiki, what good (in Wikipedia terms) reason have you to want your en-wiki user page to show up in Google? For those who may intend to become active here in the future, it will be time enough to display their user page to the world after the intention has become a reality: Noyster (talk), 19:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, something does need to be done. I don't see why extended confirmed is too high a bar. Autoconfirmed is certainly too low. If you're active enough to have a sensible userpage, and a sensible reason for wanting people to see your userpage, then if you don't have XCON already, an editrequest or similar should do. And I don't see why whoever adds the indexing for you shouldn't be at least partially responsible for making sure it isn't abused in future. A tightening of policy and wording about what is allowed in userspace (not just indexing-related), and the relevant CSDs, would help. If people could be blocked just for abusing indexing (either added by themselves after getting XCON, or by asking someone to do it for them), it may reduce the problem.

I'm hopeful that an edit filter preventing indexing would be adequate, but people may find ways around it, which should definitely be "banned". The indexing system in mainspace could be improved too, but that's another story... Yeryry (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Technical wrap-up

I guess we should make a summary of the technical issues, if only to include in a collapse box in a future RfC. That should be relatively consensual. I draft a list of questions for the FAQ below (feel free to add if I missed something). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions for a technical FAQ
Indexing What does indexing mean? How is noindex controlled on mainspace pages? How is noindex controlled on user pages? Possible restrictions What is the relation between magic words, MediaWiki, and the robots.txt file? On which sets of pages can the index magic word be disallowed?

Non-technical wrap-up

In the discussion above I see general agreement that fake articles should not be indexed, and consensus that there are acceptable reasons for pages in user space to be indexed. In that vein, is this change to WP:FAKEARTICLE an improvement? VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it would be an improvement if there are users out there that try to abide by WP's policies yet index article user pages, but I believe this case to be nonexistent. 99% of spammers do not care about the policies and will just try to get their page indexed for SEO purposes, so WP:BEANS likely applies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did consider BEANS but figured the number of spammers unaware of indexing that would learn about and implement it from that unlinked sentence would be very low. The underlying issue is that we didn't seem to have any rule against indexing fake articles, and at least one paid editor pushed back when someone removed the tags from their user space. Index tags are by definition very detectable, so even if there is no technical barrier to adding the tag in user space, having the rule allows quick removal of the index from fake articles and behavioral correction against any repeat offending editors. VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I believe the first part of your argument is incorrect (someone already linked your sentence BTW, and I do not think it should be unlinked), but having a procedural reason to kill obvious spams that are not U5-worthy is important (I failed to consider that this addition could apply "retroactively"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• VQuakr I do agree with your change, but it doesn't fully address my concern, which is about those who take advantage of our userpage facility to publicize themselves on the web without having made any worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia, whether or not they format their page as a Wikipedia article. I regard this as parasitism and would like us to have a clear policy to rule out marking such pages as "indexed". RfC below: Noyster (talk), 12:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on indexing in user space

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.

---

Comments are invited on a proposal to add to the first paragraph of "what may I not have in my user pages?": Pages in your userspace may not be indexed for search engines unless you have a significant history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia.: Noyster (talk), 12:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I don't really like the wording, but I could not imagine anything better, and it is better than the status quo. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question--@Noyster:--And where do we draw the line between Constructive and non-constructive?Winged Blades ^Godric 14:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything can be taken as "constructive" that improves an article or contributes in a relevant way to a discussion, and does not – as we frequently find in these cases – continue the promotional campaign begun in user space. If you go on to ask what counts as "significant": for me one useful new sentence, one relevant reference added, or ten spelling/grammar corrections would suffice: Noyster (talk), 19:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose seems rather bureaucratic (assessing contributions) and imho case of WP:CREEP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – A rare combination of bureaucratic instruction creep and vagueness. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as worded - too vague. Support a "simple" policy on userspace indexing in general (i.e. extended confirmed, which can be enforced by an edit filter) — Train2104 (t • c) 14:59, 26 March 2017 (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.

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. As the discussion concerns userpages, interested editors are welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed as "opposed". See more details there. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Posting drafts on this talk page

I have noticed a recent uptick in the number of editors who have been using this talk page to post their draft articles ... while we do include a notice that this is not what this page is for, it is obvious that these editors either don't read that notice, or are ignoring it. Should we make the notice more ... noticeable? Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As this is a recurring problem, I have added some additional information on top of the page (not really sure, that it'll help much though). Tweaks welcome as always. GermanJoe (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Userspace

Hey - I'm not sure when the "Userspace" buttons on the toolbar or dropdown menus disappeared, they were really handy. How do I find that page again to view all my different user pages? The search function offered on this help page isn't very useful - it loads a ton of other people's pages because one of my photos was a WP:POTD (even though it is no longer, so I'd think the search should remove those results?). Any ideas? Thanks ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

you can find your user pages saved on your watchlist, or by looking at your contributions Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What "Userspace" buttons were these? I don't recall ever seeing any in eight years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe User:Ɱ is referring to the link "Subpages" at the bottom of Special:MyContributions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: It may be/have been one of the optional gadgets. Thanks @Michael Bednarek:, that's what I was looking for. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 10:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The box at the bottom of Special:MyContributions is MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, transcluded from Template:Sp-contributions-footer, which hasn't changed in 2½ years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Neat. Could've sworn it was in a dropdown and/or the left-hand toolbar, but I can use that template, thanks! Still perplexed why POTD results still showed in that search/how to fix that, but no matter really. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)