Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:User pages | RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Od Mishehu (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 25 June 2017 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

  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]

Oppose

  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]
  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 effective 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]
  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]

Neutral

Discussion

@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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring/B4_clarification&oldid=787435334"