Wikipedia talk:Deletion of user subpages

The vote[edit]

This vote is now closed. 15 voted in favour and 13 against, and IMO there is no consensus. Andrewa 03:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please number your vote with #, and give brief reasons if you feel they are helpful, after your timestamped signature. If you want the discussion reopened before acceptance for any reason, please vote to reject on this occasion, and comment to this effect. If you change your vote, strike out the original and change the # to ** (note the two stars not one) to preserve the numbering.

This vote will end on Sunday September 19 at 23:59 UTC. Acceptance will require consensus. Feel free to add new discussion sections to this page, below and at whatever length you feel will be most helpful to achieving consensus either way. But keep the comments in the vote sections brief.

Accept[edit]

Andrewa 17:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) I think I can vote even as proposer, and it gives an example of the format.
Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Geogre 12:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Well, the main advantage of this is that it gets these off VfD, which makes them a lower profile (good), and it also requires attempts at reconciliation (good), but it leaves the deletion criteria alone (good). My concern is that anyone might think that the deletion of user pages should trigger mediation or ArbCom action. With general RfC's, such is assumed. With cases such as the recent User:Lyndie England, it's doubtful there is even a user there; that was a speedy delete, and yet user pages never qualify for speedy deletion candidates. I'm not sure, then, that this solves things, but it's a start.
Zocky 12:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bishonen 15:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't agree with orthogonal, under "Reject" below, that RfC is an obscure page, but VfD may be one soon if it doesn't get its act together. It's true that getting rid of inappropriate userpage discussions would only fix one of VfD's problems, but it would be a step in the right direction, IMO, since the userpage VfD discussions linked to at the bottom of this page have thrown much more mud than "bright light".
Trilobite (Talk) 16:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) A sensible proposal.
Sean Curtin 19:33, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) VfD needs to be limited to actual articles; things like categories, templates and user pages need to be listed separately. Not entirely sure that RfC is the best place for these discussions, though.
Definite support. —Stormie 23:18, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) And p.s., why is there opposition to the policy being frozen while the vote takes place?? How on earth can we vote on a policy if it's being changed after people have voted??
zoney ▓ ▒ talk 12:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Excellent, at least that's one special case taken out of VfD. Now onto "Merge and Delete"...
Fred Bauder 12:06, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 13:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Austin Hair 02:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard 19:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
KneeLess 03:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Getting them off VfD is a good idea.

Reject[edit]

-- orthogonal 14:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC). Deleting user sub-pages is almost always either a) an obvious and uncontroversial step or b) an attempt to use deletion to "settle scores" in an on-going dispute. In either case, such forced removals should be rare indeed. Removing the debate to yet another obscure page which fewer users will know of or often have reason to visit, increases the possibility that a small clique could use that page to settle scores and bludgeon opponents. Since the bright light of discussion is the best disinfectant to such behavior, I oppose moving these discussions to a page likely to be little viewed. -- orthogonal 14:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
anthony (see warning) 00:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) I see no reason not to just use VfD.
Eclecticology 17:14, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC) Yet another useless bureaucratic procedure to satisfy a non-existent need.
Cjrs 79 20:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't thin kit should be a matter of policy.
Tagishsimon 17:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) VfD does just fine. The premises of this proposal just do not add up. Did the VfD for GNAA engender more co-operation? Deletion is oftimes emotive; this applies to atricle pages as well as user pages. We just do not need this policy.
Users should be able to do what they want with their user pages, barring abuse or patent nonsense. --Merovingian✍Talk 01:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
Unnecessarily bureaucratic; speedy deletion exists for more outrageous breaches of trust; VfD will cover the more subtle nuances of departures from acceptable content. Sjc 08:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What Sjc said. Ambi 08:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jallan 19:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) A solution in search of a problem. No example here suggests that VfD has not handled well the few user pages submitted to it. Some people don't like the level of discussion? Is that going to change on another page?
KirbyMeister 21:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Doesnt make sense
This seems like it would unnecessarily make things more complicated. I vote no on this, but I do support Michael Snow's idea. That would be even more intuitive than the current system. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 20:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There should be no restrictions on user pages. [[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 04:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nope. We've had problems with: a) articles moved to user pages, b) user pages of no-longer-participating users, c) user pages created by people other than the "owner" of the user space in question -- none of these issues are addressed in the proposed policy. I also dislike the growing use of "two sysops required to open the safe" procedures, as I find them burdensome. uc 22:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Users archive their Talk pages at subpages. I must be misunderstanding this question. Does this mean some subpages are subject to deletion? Or all? If some, who decides? --Wetman 01:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

Michael Snow 16:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't think it's necessarily wrong to handle these on RfC, but I'm concerned about making that particular process even more rulebound and less flexible. After thinking about the various issues with VfD for a while, I think my ideal solution would be as follows: Everything in the article namespace is handled under the name of "Article inclusion review" or something similar; Everything else (categories plus other namespaces like templates, Wikipedia pages, and user pages or subpages) is handled under the name of "Requests for deletion". One page for each, hopefully making each a little more manageable than at present, but leaving enough traffic going to both that things aren't being deleted "in the dark of night".

Process[edit]

This is a proposed policy.

The procedure I suggest is as follows. We will edit this page as a proposed policy for two weeks, to get it as good as possible. We will then freeze (but I hope not need to protect) the project page, and have a vote here on the talk page as to whether the policy is to be adopted. At this stage the notice at the top of the page will be updated to reflect its status.

If consensus is reached in another two weeks, we will consider the policy adopted, and then (and only then) will make corresponding changes in existing policy pages. At this stage the notice at the top of the page will be removed.

It may even be that this page is eventually merged into other policy pages, although I doubt it. But that's fine. The goal for the moment is to develop and authorise this particular policy. Once this is done the work of integrating it with existing policies etc begins.

Please think carefully about any changes you make. Trivial edit or revert wars are not a good idea. Page moves in particular can create a real mess. Let's discuss such things here before doing them. But on the other hand be bold in editing the page as well. Just be prepared to take it gracefully and come here to talk if someone reverts you.

It's now August 22, so the project page freeze takes place on September 5, and the vote concludes on September 19. It doesn't matter what time. These dates are also subject to discussion at this stage, like the page name and everything else. And it doesn't need to be me who does this. If I get under a bus or just sleep in and you think this process should happen, please go right ahead and do it.

As a discussion page, this page should be edited in thread mode, using indents and signing contributions, with a few exceptions such as adding a wikilink to see also below. As a policy page, the project page itself should be edited in document mode, leaving a neat and integrated result. Andrewa 20:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

Anthony asked What is to be considered evidence of consensus? 100%? 80%? 51%? (see here for why I repeat this text). In reply, may I say that all of these might be evidence, but even 80% is not proof, and all of them might also be evidence that consensus has not been reached, but again not proof. Obviously 51% is better evidence against consensus, pretty close to proof in fact but even then I'd want to look at other factors.

There is room for discussion of whether consensus has been reached after the vote closes, and this is what will probably happen. I think it's worth a few days' delay to do this, but it does depend on the vote, and not just how many people vote and how they vote but lots of other things too.

The Uniting Church in Australia, to which I belong, has been using consensus decision making for some years in most of our formal decisions, particularly in business meetings at state and national level. But here I'm feeling my way a bit. I'm very interested in what will happen, and also what is already happening and has already happened. Andrewa 06:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was using the term "evidence" to mean "indicative". I probably misused the term. In any case, it seems like you're saying this is merely a straw poll. anthony (see warning) 13:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony said In any case, it seems like you're saying this is merely a straw poll. No, I'm not saying that at all. Andrewa 21:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rationale[edit]

Initially based on Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Deleting_user_subpages

Until recently, user subpages to be deleted were listed on VfD. But this has never worked terribly well. There's a slightly different procedure required, as the user should always be approached first and asked to correct the problem. If they don't, then that means there is a dispute, so perhaps mediation or arbitration are a more logical next step.

But whatever the next step, it should not be VfD. The three user pages recently listed have very much lowered the tone of cooperation and focus on the goal that generally makes the whole VfD system workable, and which is essential if the current system is to keep working as Wikipedia grows.

These discussions should take place somewhere else. There is no hope of making them less traumatic or more focussed, they will stay long, prone to personal attacks and bad language, and a magnet for those wanting to radically change or even destroy Wikipedia.

The skill set and mindset required are significantly different to that required for VfD. VfD mostly calls for detailed hard work unearthing obscure facts. User subpages call for diplomacy, a thick skin, a generous nature and an exceptional dedication to the project goals.

Angela suggested using RfC rather than creating a new page and procedure for this. This suggestion has been strongly supported. It's far better if we don't need to create a new page. A new page needs a crew of people to support it.

I don't think it has ever been really clear whether or not user subpages qualified for VfD. We have done it, I've even nominated a few myself and I've voted to delete several, but that's more because of what the policy doesn't say.

One advantage of the RfC solution is that there's already a procedure in place requiring two people to have attempted to contact the user before listing, and these two are required to provide details of their attempts. In several debates recently, there had been no attempt to contact the user before listing the page for deletion.

To implement this, we need three things:

A section for user subpages in RfC, with a clear procedure to be followed if the consensus is to delete.
A note in the Wikipedia:deletion policy and a couple of other places to say that this is how user subpages are to be proposed for deletion.
Possibly a new policy page.

I've created a short policy page. It was harder than I thought it would be and needs work still. We will see how it grows. I think it can be a useful way of approving the policy even if it stays short and is soon merged into other pages. We don't want more or longer policy pages than we need, and IMO we have far too many policy pages many of them far too long already.

One outstanding matter that I know needs work is the business of copyvios, but I've done all I can for the moment. I'll get back to it in the next few days. Andrewa 21:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In particular, the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems isn't appropriate, and the boilerplate at Template:Copyvio is far more elaborate than needed outside the article namespace. We may need a new template. Andrewa 00:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A more general review of deletion[edit]

There is nothing in this proposal that is intended to in any way undercut the more general proposals that are also under debate to reform VfD. I support these discussions. This is just a first step and IMO a relatively simple (!!!) reform.

Nor will it be set in concrete if it is accepted. There is a potential problem in that if this is approved by vote, it will be more difficult to change it without another vote. But IMO more minor changes to the RfC process could be still authorised by consensus on its talk page, without another formal procedure with preannounced dates and all that. This isn't a court of law.

As for a renaming or restructuring of VfD, I think that should go to some sort of vote in any case, and this proposal has little impact on that anyway. Andrewa 19:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed additions to RfC[edit]

Below is a subsection proposed to be added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment under Comment about individual users. Note this is exactly as it will be added, so the sample link currently links to a subpage of this talk page. That's fine, the sample page will be moved if this procedure is adopted.

User pages and subpages[edit]

If you believe that a user page or subpage violates the user page policy, you may create a subpage here to discuss whether the page or pages should be deleted. Please contact the user first and give them the opportunity to list the page for speedy deletion.

To list a page or pages, create a subpage using the following sample as a template, and replacing user with the actual username:

/Example user pages - Brief summary of the reasons the pages should be deleted. Do not sign this entry.

If the page already exists, this is archived discussion of previously nominated pages of the same user. Check to see that the pages to be listed do not qualify for speedy deletion as recreation of pages already deleted. Assuming they do not, unless the existing page is very short (less than a single screenfull, say), move the existing page to /example user pages/archive1 (or archive2 if archive1 is already taken, etc) and link there from the new page. If the existing page is very short, another option is to add the new discussion to the top, above a suitable comment and a horizontal line.

As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the deletion. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

Definition of abuse?[edit]

How will we spell out what is unrelated to Wikipedia and what is not? Perhaps we should be evaluating this based on the user's conduct as well — if it's clear the user is not acting in good faith in their edits, then that should be a reason for deletion, presuming they create an page unrelated to Wikipedia in their user space. Otherwise, trolls could put up a lot of interesting pages for deletion based on this criteria. Comments? Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy to leave this vague at present, and clarify it as needed. I agree that a user's contribution record is relevant, and that we should take account of it, and I think we already do and will continue to do so. If you'd like to have a go at spelling this out by all means do, but I think you'll find it very difficult. IMO spelling things out that are already well understood in the community risks giving the trolls more weapons to use, for little if any benefit. Andrewa 20:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyvios[edit]

After some thought, I've decided not to try to make a template for this for the moment. I don't think it will be common, and we can proceed on the basis of common sense when it happens. In fact in general, there isn't a need for a standard notification or flag to go onto the page. These are user pages, the user is already involved in the discussion, and every case is likely to be significantly different. Trying to fit them to a template sounds more trouble than it's worth. Andrewa 20:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Voting is bad[edit]

Andrewa: you put a header on the policy page saying "don't edit this proposal". Don't edit it? This is a wiki! Everyone may edit. Your proposal is not perfect a priori, it can conceivably be improved. But by calling a vote from the start you stifle incremental improvement and force contributors to either accept it or reject it as a package. Let the discussion proceed for a while before you call a vote, that way we take full advantage of collective wisdom. -- Tim Starling 00:55, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

This proposal has been under discussion for two weeks. The process and timeframe was proposed at the start of that two week period, and were publicised on both the village pump and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion at that time. There has been little discussion, and I had little choice I thought but to assume that this might be approval, and proceed with the vote as planned. I was quite interested in the way it went.

But better late than never. What process and timeframe would you now suggest? I actually thought I was being very patient, and was trying to set a good example by this patience. Andrewa 03:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't find where or whether the initial discussion that led to this proposal has been archived, but here it is in the history. Andrewa 04:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

here's some Village Pump discussion]. Andrewa 07:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alright then, if there's been discussion for a week or two then I guess that's alright. It would have been nice if you moved the previous discussion to this page, rather than just letting it roll of the end of the pump. -- Tim Starling 07:07, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the vote. What would you like to do about the freeze? I really think it is a reasonable request, and an appropriate notice. See also Wikipedia:Village pump#Vote is now open on deleting user subpages (proposed policy).

I agree that the archiving of the Pump leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't think this was a particularly useful discussion.

Please not that this last sentence is not intended to be criticism, let alone attack, of any particular person's actions in maintianing the Pump, and I'm very sorry that it was seen as this. There is a note on the Pump stating that it's not the place for conversation that needs to be preserved, and there is a chronic problem with the Pump growing too big to be useful. People who take action on this are commended. As to how to improve the process, I might have a look at that once this vote concludes and is cleaned up, but there are lots of more pressing matters IMO. Andrewa 19:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The process had been described two weeks ago. Surely you read it? If you were in doubt about my honesty in that section, or about my efforts in publicising the vote, surely the first thing to do was to drop me a line on my talk page?

I am very interested in any valid objections to the process I am following. I am also very disappointed at this early turn of events. I am trying to do things right. But we'll get there. Andrewa 10:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been useful to put this on the Requests for Comment page during the discussion period. I mean, that's what RfC is for, right? anthony (see warning) 12:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This proposal and the way it has been presented is completely offensive. The first that I heard about it was when a note appeared today on the mailing list, and yet I find that the proponents want to cut off discussion before it even starts. The will of some to control the free speech of others seems to be without limit. We already have so many of these manic "rules" to deal with imaginary problems that a constructive Wikipedian would do well to ignore them. Eclecticology 17:10, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

I apologise for not informing the mailing lists earlier. That is a lesson I have learned. But I hope I'm not the only one open to learning from this process.

The discussion period was announced both on the Village Pump and on the VfD talk page, after some discussion on the talk page had unanimously approved the principle and endorsed my offer to write a proposal. In the proposal, I described a four week program, two weeks of discussion and two of voting. I thought that was setting a good example, and I still do.

Next time, perhaps I will announce it on the mailing lists. I said perhaps. I want to think very hard about this, and suggest some others might too.

I think it is a matter of some concern that nobody else raised it. I am not a participant in these lists, so I don't know what is discussed there at present. (I do subscribe, but that's another story. These days I don't even lurk.) Are there any Wikipedians at all who are active both on these lists and on the Wiki itself? If not, isn't this rather a matter of concern? Surely the primary place for discussion of this sort of issue is the Wiki itself, and if not shouldn't that fact be well advertised (or is it and have I missed it somewhere)? But, if there are people active on both the lists and the Wiki, why didn't any of them raise the matter of this discussion and vote on the list? Didn't any of them think it was appropriate to do so?

Food for thought?

I'm very sorry you find what I have done offensive, let alone completely offensive, and I admit that you are not the only one. But frankly I am finding it very difficult to see anything that I have done to cause offense, or to curtail free speech. Just the opposite. Andrewa 21:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the primary place for meta-discussions was the mailing list. According to Jimbo's statement of principles, "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."

That's a good point, except IMO this isn't such a discussion. It's a policy proposal for English Wikipedia, but it doesn't change its nature in any way. It just streamlines some of our administration, by removing a small and well-defined group of discussions from VfD and placing them somewhere better designed to handle them. Or that is the intent. Andrewa 18:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A slight probem with the wording[edit]

The proposal says: "If after five days of voting...". That can't be right. AFAICT, RfC is about trying to reach consensus with the help of the wider community. It is about presenting views and endorsing views you agree with, which is not the same as voting. I Propose we reword the above to "If after five days on RfC..." or something to that effect. Zocky 14:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. I don't consider this a show-stopper, but right now it looks unlikely that we'll reach consensus to approve in this vote anyway.

Voting and consensus decision making are not incompatible. My church has been using a system that involves both for some years now in all our most formal meetings, including doing legally significant things like approving budgets and electing officers. And, for that matter, so does VfD. Andrewa 22:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For some reasons, I prefered to just remove my vote. I am sure the best decision will be made, even if that requires time :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

Likewise. Thanks for your participation. Andrewa 20:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)