Wikipedia

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification

< Wikipedia:User pages‎ | RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
*Summary:--The proposed change is opposed.Winged Blades Godric 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details:--
  • Abiding by rules is an integral part for the development of any community.But rules exist primarily and solely for the development and the greater good of the encycloepadia in general.Rules are not meant to be created just for the sake of it.
  • Coming to the case at our hand, the main oppose arguments are--
  • Creating perma-drafts in user space under the cover of certain rules--ultimately leading to materials that cannot be as easily subject to scrutiny as articles in the Draft namespace --have no meaningful benefit to our project save to increase the shackles of bureaucracy.
  • There is zero value to the project in archiving cruft under permabandoned accounts.
  • And the user-namespace is not some sort of a webhost.
  • No strong counter-arguments to the above arguments could be provided by the participants from the support section who seeked to implement the rule.Most of them prefered to dwell on the fine-grounds of technicality of necessarily supporting this rule in relation to the prev. RFC. in the regard.
  • Combining, there are nil advantages that may happen as a result of the implementation of this proposed rule.
  • Side-note:--The only case where refunding may be suitable under these cases shall be where the return-requests are filed by the original owner--subject to standard conventions and discretion.

Signed by Winged Blades Godric at 07:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at WP:UP/RFC2016 regarding section B4 was:

B4. When a userspace draft is moved to mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for mainspace for reasons which would not apply in userspace, should it be returned to userspace rather than deleted? Clear consensus in favor of this proposal. The details (who moves what back where and when) should be discussed by the community.

I suggest we clarify it to:

When a userspace draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which would not apply in the userspace, it should be returned to its former location in the userspace rather than deleted or if it has already been deleted. Requests to restore such deleted pages are uncontroversial and may be made by anyone at requests for undeletion.

Secondly, I suggest we document this consensus at Help:Userspace draft and amend Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion accordingly.

Notifications sent out to all participants in section B4 of WP:UP/RFC2016. Notifications left at WT:User pages, WT:Requests for undeletion, and Help talk:Userspace draft. Proposed by Godsy.

Preceding line undersigned by me (and as the proposer of the former RfC, I concur with the suggested clarification). --QEDK (愛) 16:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

  1. Support as proposer. I recently had a couple of administrators disagree with the community consensus established at B4 and refuse to restore pages. Another stated "[WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4)] said that the pages should be returned to userspace instead of deleted in those circumstances, but it did not say what to do about pages already deleted. So it is unclear [such pages] should be moved back [to their former location]." I thought it was clearly implied, but others do not. I've also had a user whose moved a large number of userspace drafts from the userspace of others to the mainspace which end up being deleted fight against their restoration despite this consensus. This change eliminates the ambiguity and will stop gaming to subvert the deletion process in this manner. No one will move pages to the mainspace in the hope of getting them deleted more easily if they know they will simply be restored to their former location in the userspace. It also mostly eliminates potential move warring on pages moved to the mainspace which are unsuitable for it; one can simply wait, and if such a page is deleted, request uncontroversial restoration. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as simple clarification of the previous consensus. I'll also note that any administrator refusing to restore such pages (e.g. actively declining such requests rather than leaving them to be restored by another admin) is abusing their discretion. The community reached a consensus that they should be restored to userspace. No individual administrator may "overrule" that. Godsy, feel free to send me a list of pages affected and I will restore them if B4 unambiguously applied. ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I'm strongly against indefinitely keeping hopeless drafts in userspace, but that doesn't mean I get to override the community's opinion just to keep a few of them deleted. ~ Rob13Talk 16:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as a simple and obvious clarification, in line with the intent of the current consensus. If someone thinks a draft is hopeless, that person should start an MfD discussion so that a community consensus can form on what to do with that draft. It should not be deleted unilaterally and untransparently. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I think that was the point that the community made, utilising loopholes in a RfC already done and dusted against the intent it was very much proposed for, is in fact and I say, malicious. --QEDK (愛) 20:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating at this point, NOTAWEBHOST has nothing to do with the clarification proposal and is totally superfluous and subverts the agenda of this RfC. As the proposer of the RfC, I request all of you, all those in opposition and everyone else to first read through the entire matter of the affair. --QEDK (愛) 16:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Godsy's comments in the oppose section clear up the real agenda - to harass me. He wants to change the rules to justify his strange obsession with restoring deleted pages I once promoted, just so he can immediately send them to userspace of long gone editors. This has NOTHING to do with improving the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaning up unambiguous errors is not harassment. This is a proposal to clarify a rule that already exists. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per QEDK. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Yes, this is what was meant, and no, there isn't any good reason to oppose this. Any remotely problematic material should already have been deleted under another mechanism long before this would have been triggered. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support - if the hosting user still considers it a work in progress (and kept it in his/her userspace for that reason), and some user thought otherwise, the hosting user shouldn't be penalized for this choice of the other user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you misunderstand. This is targetted at Abandoned content in userspace of users that have not edited for over a year. Some edited on a single day using a throw away account. Pages have all been edited by others subsequently. This is not the user requesting their page back to work on, it's Godsy demanding a page deleted in mainspace be moved to userspace for indefinate hosting. Legacypac (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who desires to have a userspace draft deleted may use the proper process and bring it to miscellany for deletion making the notion of "indefinite hosting" absurd. The community, not me, decided how the situation up for clarification here should be handled in UP/RFC2016. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, largely per Rob13 The consensus was clear in the previous RFC that moving userspace drafts to mainspace to get them deleted was improper. This change would merely be codifying what should be standard practice in response to exploiting a loophole (restoring the status quo before an action against consensus is taken). Existing speedy deletion criterion already cover the most serious cases where content should not stay (e.g. attack pages, copyvios, obvious vandalism, blatant webhost abuse), and MFD exists. I would however prefer "returned to the userspace, either to its former location or to that of an editor who has indicated interest in the draft. The solution is not to allow gaming the system to get deletions, but to propose new/update existing deletion processes for these drafts.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. Oppose I still believe the process should be to send the unsuitable content to Draft namespace so that it does not become part of the shadow horde of userspace pages, per my original thoughs on B4. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hasteur: This isn't really a referendum on B4. If it were, I'd have very different thoughts. This is more asking the question "If B4 represents the current consensus, does this clarification better document that consensus?". If you were to separately ask a question about moving userspaces to draftspace, I would wholeheartedly support, but isn't it the worst possible outcome to not achieve that and have unclear policy pages that don't document current consensus? ~ Rob13Talk 18:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: That still doesn't change my view. To clarify (because it appears to me that you're trying to twist my words) I oppose sending pages deleted under the B4 rule back to individual userspace and want them in shared space (Drafts). I oppose the pettifoggery and finessing of the rule to argue that pages deleted under this are always uncontroversial. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to twist your words at all, Hasteur. I just thought that you would prefer userspace to not being kept at all. Perhaps I was wrong. ~ Rob13Talk 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose this is process wonkery and a make work project. If a page gets deleted at AfD no one should have to remember to research the history and then apply the Godsy rule to put it back in userspace for indefinate storage. We have CSD G4 against a similar recreation and there is no value to the project in this. This post is also continued harrassment of me and my work by Godsy because it casts asperations. He faile to disclose he is currently taking pages that were promoted to main in May 2016, deleted months later, and now seeking them to be REFUNDED so he can immediately move them to userspace of people that have not edited for many years. He is using his 'page mover' right to delete the redirect. Surely pagemover rights were not granted for this madness. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Note although this RfC is directly targeting my moves, I was not notified. Good thing I watch a lot of user talk pages. I believe we are here to build a really big encyclopedia in mainspace, with userspace existing to support that goal, not a massive permanent collection of pages in userspace that have been deleted from mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Some of these moves by Godsy are to the space of users who have not edited for four years or more. Per Legacypac: this is process wonkery and a make work project, and Hasteur. Per BU Rob13, "No individual administrator may "overrule" that (consensus)" , but when a user decides to scour the Wikipedia for instances where this can be applied, it's the same disruptive editing that occurs once in a while when, for example, an editor for want of something better to do, inundates AfC with school articles (examples available). The Godsy rule is clearly disruption-to-make-a-point, and creates perma-drafts in user space that cannot be as easily identified as articles in the Draft namespace that can be procedurally deleted G13 after an elapse of a limited period.
    Procedural note: this RfC has been either selectively notified and/or not published in the expected channels. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was notified by Godsy. It appears to me that everyone who commented on proposal B4 at Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring#B4, positively or negatively, was notified. A link was also placed at Help talk:Userspace draft, Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion, and at Wikipedia talk:User pages. But this has time to run, post a link in any other venue you think appropriate. I was not consulted in advance, either about the wording of this RfC or where to announce it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel's assessment is correct. My notifications were appropriate. Feel free post a link anywhere you feel is due. No scouring was necessary. Legacypac is the only user I know that moves "stale" userspace drafts from the userspace of others to the mainspace which regularly get deleted (i.e. are not suitable for the mainspace); they are now topic banned from moving pages to the mainspace. If you want to give this consensus a name, the Legacypac rule would be better, as it is largely because of their actions that it is necessary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can "no ping" me in your grave dancing all you want, but "regularly get deleted" is a massive stretch User:Legacypac/Promotions. Your continued WP:HOUNDING is unwelcome. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To this extent this is a personal pissing match between two editors (and that extent seems expansive) it is tiresome and needs to be given a rest, please.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Any attempt to instruct administrators that they must robotically carry out action X whenever faced with situation Y instead of using the good judgment they were made administrators for is wrongheaded and unenforceable. It takes very selective reading to get any other impression from the prior RFC. —Cryptic 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Plain superfluous. It only creates work for admins and does not serve any purpose for the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 19:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing the comments of the proposer of this RFC, it starts to look like a promo-campaign for fake-articles. The Banner talk 19:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner: I don't oppose applying {{userpage blanked}} to userspace drafts or taking userspace drafts to miscellany for deletion. If anyone wants to propose an easier way to delete userspace drafts they may do so. I simply believe that process is important and that community consensus should be followed. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be more interested in procedures than in reason and work pressure of admins. The Banner talk 20:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - We aren't a web service hosting tons of content never suitable for the mainspace in the userspace. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal explicitly says that it applies if the reason for deletion wouldn't apply in the userspace. Of course, if there would be a different reason to delete it in the userspace, an admin wouldn't be required to move it there before deleting. If youthink it's inappropriate for the userspae, it can always be MfD-ed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose It will not always be appropriate to keep the draft. Some cases where it would not be appropriate is about attempts at articles to which o articles with A1 (insufficient context), such as "John Smith is a boy" or A3, no content at all , such as "my draft". It would probably also be inappropriate ot use if for articles that not only show do indication of importance, but where it would seem clearly that there is never likely to be any such indication-- for example, the classic "John Smith is a high school student in X town." There is no point at all in preserving such drafts. If John Smith ever does anything for which an article or a reasonable attempt at an article is possible, it could just as easily be started over--the previous draft would be no help whatsoever. What to do for such moves isa matter of judgment--there are too many possibilities to enumerate in a distinct way. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: The cases this is meant to address is ones similar to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki (a discussion which you participated in and supported overturning the deletion) and less obvious ones. If a userspace draft that wasn't recently created contains "John Smith is a boy" or no content at all, it should be sent to miscellany for deletion or speedily deleted if a criterion applies, not moved to the mainspace by another user for easier deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG Why would any rational editor move someone else's userspace draft with content that would fail A1 or A3 to mainspace? If only with the intent to get it deleted, that would violate the existing consensus against such end-runs. Otherwise, it would seem to be a form of disruptive editing. In that case even if moved back to userspace, an MfD would deal with the page, and i don't think sch cases likely to be frequent. And in any other case where the draft should not exist, an mfd would deal with the matter, if needed. Such should be rare. Those are not the cases this proposal is aimed at, as I understand it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I picked extreme cases, but not all editors are rational. Under any rule, special cases will always need MfD. DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: We're not a web service for hosting uncyclopedic material in userspace, and that don't make sense with handling drafts. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per much of the above. In policy terms: WP:ENC, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:GAMING. There is no value to the project or its readership in archiving cruft under dead user accounts. I support the idea of moving such material to the Draft namespace, from which will eventually expire any junk that no one wants to work on or which no one believes has encyclopedic merit. If this stuff is sent to userspace, it's effectively there forever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: You supported the proposal this is intended to clarify. I believe you are the first individual who supported the original proposal to oppose this. As such, and because I generally find your opinions to be well reasoned, I'm curious as to why. All this proposal would do is remove the ambiguity in regard to whose userspace the page should be restored to, clarify that it is allowed when the page has already been deleted, and specify the appropriate place to make such a request (at least the first two of which I believe are clearly in line with the original intent). Do you disagree that the clarifications match the original intent, have you changed your mind, or something else? Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did support the original proposal. I do not see this as a clarification, but an alteration. I.e., it is a different proposal, which superficially relates to the first without being identical to it, and not having the same goals or effects. I'm in agreement that auto-userspacing this stuff isn't useful, but moving it to the Draft namespace may be. If this seems inconsistent in some detail with anything I said in the original proposal's discussion, consider that I've read all the comments here and find several of the arguments presented persuasive, and inclusive of points I had not considered the first time around. I do support the idea of deleted drafts being recoverable if someone wants to work on them, but WP is not a permanent archive of writing experiments. That said, there is no reason a rejected draft would not be userspaced to the user who drafted it if they are still active, and request that outcome. That's an occasional result already, with work that might be salvageable, and I don't see any reason that would change. However, even if it did, there is no harm; I'm as free to work on my draft in the Draft namespace (where others will also be more apt to see it and perhaps inclined to help) as I am if it's in my own userspace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, per Kudpung, SMcCandlish, DGG particularly. For the love of god, there is no point moving an article back to the userspace of an inactive user. If a deleted former userspace draft must be restored somewhere, let it be in draftspace where at least other people can evaluate and improve it. No one WP:OWNs their drafts - there is no intrinsic right to have them left in userspace for all time. This is particularly true for inactive users no longer actively contributing to the encyclopedia we're supposed to be here to build. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per User:Cryptic and User:Kudpung. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Oppose Return-requests by the original owner should be honored. Absent the original owner, credible rescue-requests to draftspace make sense. Alsee (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose: and I will echo SMcCandlish's every word and also Kudpung. By the way, although this is my first participation in this, I happened to arrive here from WP:CENT freely and of my own good will to take a stand (yes, once a closing admin wondered what route I had taken to gather influence like so many fallen dead flowers along the way) Fylbecatulous talk 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose agree with User:Alsee. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Kudpung, SMcCandlish, and DGG. This is a terrible idea seeking to rigidify procedure in an area that's already exceptional and by its very nature requires ad hoc decisionmaking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral edit

Discussion edit

  • Does this apply to drafts moved via AfC (that were submitted for review) legitimately? Ie. not by a random user who comes in and decides to move stuff but an actual reviewer? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrissymad: Generally userspace drafts are submitted for review by the user whose userspace in which they reside. In those cases, a reviewer moving the page is doing so on behalf of that user, so restoration wouldn't be appropriate or necessary under this clause. However, for example - If User:Example submits a bunch of pages in the userspace of others to afc for review and User:Place holder accepts them all, and they are later deleted - that is problematic. So, generally no, but a situation could arise where it is warranted. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The context: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Pfenning, BizWest, Cue Ball, Budhoo, Omallur, NextGen, Fagan, and Chase (permalink, since that page archives fairly quickly). The remedy for a declined restoration at WP:REFUND is a full deletion review, not to make a misleading RFC to bludgeon your nemesis with. And certainly not to manipulate administrators into wheelwarring on your behalf to further your feud. —Cryptic 19:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cryptic: I'd appreciate if you strike the accusation of wheel-warring, as I most certainly did not revert a reverted admin action. ~ Rob13Talk 20:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must admit that as the admin who made a declared decision not to restore the article on Fagan because I felt that the specific AFD consensus overrode the broader RFC discussion, I was a little miffed when you restored the article anyway. I wasn't going to make a big issue of it since a single draft isn't really of any consequence in the bigger picture, but since it's being discussed I do think that the restoration without consulting me first did violate the spirit if not the letter of WP:WHEEL. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
        • Administrators are supposed to use their tools on the community's behalf (i.e. what the community has decided through consensus). BU Rob13 did that. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHEEL is perfectly clear. Reverting an admin action (much less an admin inaction) is not wheel-warring, and never has been. Reinstating a reverted admin action is, as is any further back-and-forth on any such action. Reverting an admin action is often seen as to be avoided, because it may tempt another admin into wheel-warring, and for other reasons. Acting where another admin has declined to act is not, in my view, in the same category, except perhaps when a formal decline has been made at an unblock request. Referring to action when another admin has declined to act as "wheel-warring" is inaccurate, and strikes me as uncivil. Whether the action is good practice or good policy is a different question. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring/B4_clarification&oldid=1145717521"