|
User:Efrym87 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)
User:Austinleal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)
User:Danielpr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)
User:Carlodue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)
User:Bejarana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)
MfD was closed as delete citing Wikipedia is not a free webhost, which is all very well, but this page had one edit, ever - like many new users the person added something small - in this case their name(s) to their userpage and hasn't edited since. That isn't what "not a free webhost" is about. Secondly the deleting admin cited "canvassing attempt that caused a radical change in consensus" except the "canvassing" (more like a POINT violation) was made to ANI - where, although it undoubtedly got the page more attention, the attention gained is uncontrolled and would have brought people both for and against deletion (unlike a proper canvassing attempt which seeks out people symathetic to the canvasser's argument). Therefore, this debate should have been closed as Keep or at the very least No consensus so should be overturned. ViridaeTalk 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. Brilliantine (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Close was against consensus. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Austinleal, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Danielpr, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carlodue, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bejarana. The same to all. It was all same part of the same mass nomination, and blanket-closed by the same flawed logic. Sorry, Ryu... you're doing this endorses MZMBride's attempt to make backdoor policy at MFD, which we can't do. rootology (C)(T) 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn- doing this to userpages should be discussed as a policy rather than being done at MfD in an attempt to set a precedent without the wider community knowing of it. And the close was not right as clearly people aren't in agreement about it. Sticky Parkin 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. We do not derive consensus where there is none. Synergy 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion either way on this specific case, but I do suggest a discussion start on a coherent policy on what to do with abandoned userpages, because from what I've observed historically these are being dealt with by a mix of speedy deletions, MFDs, or just plain ignoring them. It would probably be helpful for a consensus to be established on how to deal with them and have this consensus be uniformly applied.--Isotope23 talk 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Bad close, against policy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: The implication that something being canvassed at AN/I won't affect a vote would be laughable were it not being made in all seriousness. As though the people who visit AN/I regularly are a representative sample of the community. I don't know when Deletion review became the hellhole that it is today, but those who simply vote on technicalities rather than on whether the right decision was made really ought to re-consider their priorities. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes me laugh. Maybe those who think deleting userpages of inactive users is at all useful/productive should be the ones to reconsider theirs? Not only does this set an unfortunate precedent, but is downright rude should the user choose to return. Brilliantine (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - (ec) in addition to the arguments above, these did not receive the full five day run normally required at MfD, they were all nominated just prior to 23:00 on the 11th, they should've run until about 23:00 on the 16th, they were inappropriately closed nearly 17 hours early. Precedent in the past at MfD does not support deleting such pages either. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I've not seen any past precedent at MfD, though it's quite rare that I visit MfD at all. Do you have a link or two? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will take me a bit, but I'm sure I do. In the meantime, let me note that my point about the timing of closure is technically an argument to Relist, though I don't know that that is really necessary, this was a very poor close.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have completed the {{delrev}} tagging of the userpages, only one was tagged and it wasn't linked to here. Additionally, I noticed that none of the user's were notified. In the off chance that one logged on (there are such things as Wikipedia users), he or she would not have known of the MfD unless upon actually looking at the respective user page (highly unlikely for a user).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is entirely possible, even likely, that someone would create an account in order to make use of the improved options for reading Wikipedia available when logged in. They may well create a userpage when they do so - that they then do not edit is no concern of ours - an encyclopædia is actually for the readers benefit, not the editors. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is something I was thinking about too, every time these discussions always float by. Where is it written you have to participate to have a user page and account? rootology (C)(T) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural overturn - These user pages were not merely user pages with one edit. They were user pages whose one edit to their user page posted content that made the user page a personal web page. Such pages also were screen to only include editors who have not edited in many months. What to do if you find someone else's user page being used inappropriately states "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion" which was done. The keep arguments seemed to be implemeting an exception to this where the editor has only one edit and has not edited in many months. There is no such exception. If you want to propose a change to Wikipedia:User page, go through the usual process. At present our policies allow the deletion of userpages for inactive editors where those userpages are a personal web page. The keep arguments failed to provide evidence that the user page had made collaboration among Wikipedians easier. Since the keep arguments were not ground in policy and the delete arguments were, the delete arguments were stronger. I would endorse the deletions, but the users failed to receive a MfD notice as note above, some of the userpages were not tagged with an MfD notice, and the discussions appear to have been closed before five days. Thus procedural overturn. -- Suntag ☼ 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting question. So if I register, and make a page that says, "I enjoy Wikipedia, and am from Chicago!" and then just use my account to get access to the bells and whistles like watchlist, but decline to edit, I can't have a user page? What if I make one edit to Chicago? Does everything change then? rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline says "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion". It does not say, "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion except if the long term absent user has only has one edit." Also, the guideline does not say, "A user page of a long term absent user that has only one edit can never be a personal web pages." Wikipedia:NOT#HOST says that a user page is part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. -- Suntag ☼ 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse my deletions. A user page is for someone who contributes to the encyclopedia. Those who do not contribute to the encyclopedia do not get the privelege of having a user page. This is all process for the sake of process. The Efrym one is the only one of these MFDs where I knew that there would be an issue and that would be brought up at DRV. The other four deletion debates all had a consensus for deletion. Unless this is just a way to fight off a precedent that already exists, I don't see the purpose to this undeletion debate. Process for the sake of process makes you a useless bureaucrat on Wikipedia. And as I stated, I thought it was policy that user pages are for contributors. If a policy needs to be made that states this, then by all means write it up. Wikipedia neither gains or loses anything from these five edits having been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such policy that one must edit to have a user page and this is what we've discussed numerous times at MfD and always resolved thus. Additionally, responding to Suntag, having a user page that says "hi my name is Joe" is not a violation of WP:NOT and that too has been discussed often at MfD. More importantly, none of these have a clear delete consensus. I close a lot of MfDs and I don't see these as clear deletes.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if a user page only says "hi my name is Joe", I don't see how that can qualify a personal web page such as amounting to being for self-promotion. (Humm, I wish I had a history view of the deleted user pages right about now.) However, don't you think there are circumstances where a long term absent editor, having one edi,t posts something on their user page that causes that user page to qualify a personal web page such as amounting to being for self-promotion? It seems reasonable to request that the user page be deleted under such cicumstances, even if the editor has only one edit. The passage of time without editing does play a roll in whether a user page or user subpage is a web page or hosts permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag ☼ 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Deleting them would be a classic example of "process for the sake of process" and of "useless bureaucracy" in action. The pages are not disruptive, and frankly an admin who thinks it's OK to go around looking for these things, and then wasting his and everyone else's time really should start asking himself what the tools are intended for. I have seen no argument in favour of deletion beyond "I think policy says I can, so I will". Well it's not good enough. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close withing discretion, MFD completed per policy, anything can go at MFD so no policy contradiction. MBisanz talk 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I think it's true that the canvassing affected the outcome. For what it's worth. Chick Bowen 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence of actual canvassing? An AN post is completely allowed, no encouraged, and is not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right--"canvassing" is the wrong word. All I meant was that the AN post was worded in a way that somewhat misrepresented the debate (based, I believe, on a misunderstanding by the original poster), and I think the MfD shows the results of that (particularly obvious when compared with other essentially identical ones) What this means for this DRV I don't know--hence my neutral position. Chick Bowen 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the correct phrase is "poisoning the well." --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to think that the readers of the thread on AN/I are not so thick as to not to be able to form an opinion for themselves, and I think we should assume this level of intelligence on behalf of other contributers to a !vote. To do otherwise is supercilious. Sticky Parkin 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, none of these were clear deletes, only one of them was announced on AN and even it wasn't a clear delete prior to the announcement, and several of the keeps (on all five discussions ) came from MfD regulars with substantial XfD and deletion policy experience.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who added the rest of them? I was only aware of one debate. ViridaeTalk 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They were added to the DRV here. Hopefully, the closer can determine whether the prior posts also apply to the nominated items. -- Suntag ☼ 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only Brillatine's first comment preceded my adding those. rootology (C)(T) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment may be taken to apply to the other debates as well. Moreover, I find the argument that the users may have been using account features to help in reading Wikipedia a strong one. Being rude to readers is just as bad as being rude to contributors. It is ridiculous to try and form policy "through the back door" and clearly against consensus, as seems to be happening here. Brilliantine (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would it be decent to leave a message on these user's talk pages about this? Or do we not bother with that kind of thing anymore? DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the request of Suntag above to see what the page looked like, I have temporary undeleted the first nominated page. There was no "history" this was done with one edit, all other edits related to the nomination for MfD and this DRV, there were a total of four edits, I only restored the one by the user whose page this is. This is the kind of material we are talking about, though at least one of the others just says "Hi".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely Endorse All Deletions, we are talking about pages which were created between one and two-and-a-half years ago, by users who never made another edit to Wikipedia, and which consisted of such quality content as "Dit is carlodue" and "Bold texthi". The only reasonable argument made to keep them is "it's not worth the waste of time and effort to chase them up and delete them," which makes this DRV nomination frivolous at best and mischievous at worst. --Stormie (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Process is not to be followed for its own sake so "procedural overturn" is a poor idea, widespread consensus exists for deletion of the user pages of people who have never edited per WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and this DRV is a waste of the community's time and energy. --erachima talk 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This DRV is just as pointless as the pages themselves. Unless there's something bad on the pages, like privacy or copyright violations, there's no really good reason to delete them other than to add to the deletion logs. At the same time, there's no point generating multiple KB of text discussing useless and now-deleted userpages, and there's also no point adding still more entries to the logs by undeleting them. Seriously, don't we all have more important things to do? Like serious XfDs and DRVs maybe? Sorry about the tone there, and cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is important because it this may set a precedent for the deletion of an estimated 15000 userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is a concern, my point is mostly that it's a general waste of editor time to MfD, DRV, or do much of anything to these pages unless they somehow detract from the project. Removal of userspace material, simply because it doesn't add to the project (stuff with low or zero net value, rather than negative net value), seems like a good way to piss off and drive people away, as well as wastes a ton of time for everyone involved. I mean, just look at how much has been written in this DRV, how much I'm writing right here to explain this. This is a waste of all of our time. If the users complain, restore their pages, otherwise just let it sit, and don't waste any more time on trivial XfDs. Only precedent I'm trying to set here is that we probably have better things to be doing than this. Wikipedia 0.7 is coming out soon, why don't we all go do some stuff for that instead, eh? lifebaka++ 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no consensus). The AfD discussions did not result in a consensus and there is no overriding policy. WP:NOT#WEBHOST clearly doesn’t apply – there is no plausible argument that these users are using their userpages as webhosts for external purposes. The deletion of userpages of wikipedians who have never edited elsewhere, whether they are once off visitors now totally and forever inactive, or lurkers, or ip editors is a policy gap. Policy should not be made by a partisan close of contentious XfDs. There are clearly two sides to this unresolved debate. One says that useless stuff, even in userspace, should be cleaned up by deletion, we must maintain a minimus threshold requiring that use of wikipedia is directed to contributing to wikipedia. The other says that potential users should be given userpage latitude without regard to activity, out of concern that such deletions turn away inactive contributors should they return. The close of the AfDs was a de facto ruling on this debate. The closes should be overturned as no consensus and the debate moved to WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Overturn I think that none of the user pages looked as if Wikipedia was being used for free webhosting. In addition, the deletion discussions probably should have been closed as no consensus. However, it probably does not matter much what happens to the these userpages. If they remain deleted, I will not lose any sleep. Captain panda 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: Are you kidding? Just leave them deleted, and nobody will ever mention them again, and better yet, nobody will miss them. They aren't articles, and there is no reason for keeping them around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. These users have contributed nothing at all to the project. User pages are not a profile on a social networking site but rather for facilitating community among editors. BJTalk 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What is really needed here is a debate about the 15,000 userpages that MZMcBride has said meets various criteria for possible deletion. This needs co-ordination between MfD (a link can be placed to 15 pages listing 1000 pages each), a bot to add MfD nominations to each of the pages (the amount of edits already being done and the 15,000 delete actions already add to the database, so what is another 15,000 additions of notices here or there?), and a debate at MfD about the criteria used for deletion. e.g. must be pages where the editor has only made a few edits to the userspace and none to article space. Must have been inactive for x period of time. Must have been active for only a short period of time (first and most recent edits), a look at the account creation date (if available) to check whether there was a long period between creation and editing, and making sure that no user talk page exists, and that there are no deleted contributions (eg. deleted articles). Finally, a look at the page logs for each page wouldn't hurt. If any log entries exist (other than account creation), and ditto for the other criteria, then put aside for later consideration. I think this is what MZMcBride did, but I'm unclear exactly what criteria were used or how comprehensive the checks were. Finally, I think people should be more aware that many accounts may be created not to edit, but to allow better viewing of Wikipedia - skins and other viewing preferences. For that reason, the accounts should all be left a talk page message, though that would involve creating large numbers of talk pages. I wonder what WP:USURP has to say about accounts create to read (not edit) Wikipedia and which have no edits? I think I'm right to say that there is no way to tell the difference between a "reader" account and a "sleeper" account and an "inactive/abandoned" account, right? Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I agree with Carcharoth. We need a community decision on the basic issue here, or we will see an unlimited number of divided MfDs. These pages are doing no harm, the cost of keeping these pages is far lower than the cost of deleting them, under present conditions. But, aside from that, a clue as to the problem is that complaints were made about canvassing because the attention of the community was brought to the MfD at AN/I. If announcement of the MfD like that changes the outcome, it would mean that the general community consensus is different than the local consensus at similar MfDs. That's a sign that the community hasn't made a clear decision, and that is the problem. If we make a decision that we will generally delete pages like these, we can then warn users when they register that if their account is not used to edit for X months, or whatever, it will be deleted, and we can set up a bot to do it. Otherwise we will continue to waste time debating this, over and over and over again. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse — if the users ever come back and want their pages restored, they can have them. What's the problem? Stifle (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Smokeyjoe & Abd among others. Mike R (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Rjd0060 and Stifle. --Kbdank71 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Sets a pretty harsh/rude precedent. Like redirects, what exactly is the harm in the userpage being there? --SmashvilleBONK! 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Only a person who contributes to the encyclopedia should have the privilege of having a userpage. These users have done nothing for the encyclopedia. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, deletion based in policy (what we do, not what is written down). These pages have very little use (most of them had no content) and might do some harm (containing identifiable information about people who have forgotten that they have Wikipedia user pages). Kusma (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there must be something more productive to do (like write an encyclopedia) than to argue about month-old pages that non-editors have created. Kusma (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - closure was on the basis of policy, Not a free web host, instead of head counting. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per this rationale. I would go a step farther and suggest changing policy to allow any user who has edited only their own userspace to be given the option to delete their entire account. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Viridae, Brilliantine, and Abd. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
