Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Should MfD be used to police thought in userspace?

In the last year a number of userboxes, user sub-pages, userdrafts and even userpages have been brought before this forum for deletion, largely on the basis they violate some unwritten policy or guideline against unpopular or offensive thought (other policies and guidelines are often listed to attempt the desired end). These thoughts include, but are not limited to, UFOs, extra-planetary-origin, neo-confederacy, neo-nazi, neo-communist, atheist, various religious and political disagreements, misplaced drafts, personal preference, silly animations, sexual innuendo, humor, anti-Biden sentiment and even British English. My brief attempt to document the trend shouldn't be considered a complete or exhaustive list of episodes. Is this how we should use this forum, to remove divisive thought? I'm of the opinion that our guidance on this matter is insufficient. Ideas? BusterD (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it "unwritten":

• WP:User pages:
  • there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy)
  • Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: [...] Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
  • Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.
  • Handling inappropriate content [...] If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion
• WP:Userboxes
  • Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
  • Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
• WP:What Wikipedia is not:
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.
  • Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for: [...] Opinion pieces
  • Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.
• And the arguments presented in Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive make a strong case that any expression of hate on Wikipedia, especially neo-Nazism and neo-Confederacy, is a violation of WP:Disruptive editing and subject to a block from editing.

Having divisive content in userspace violates both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Its preservation represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose and an obstacle in our goal to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. I condemn any defense of racism or hate on Wikipedia in the strongest possible terms, and I strongly discourage the defense of any other disruptive content in the name of WP:FREESPEECH. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious that divisive content exists in userspace for several established users. As I mentioned before, JRSpriggs got taken before MFD with content on his page that was considered divisive and, were it not for the full-throated defense of multiple established contributors who rightfully pointed out that we give established users more leeway in their userspace, probably would have indeed be considered technical policy violations. But most users do not receive that same level of protection, and so if a very small number of users are decreeing what should or should not be allowed in userspace, then we have a situation where policy is not being evenhandedly applied to the entire spectrum of political viewpoints. This should be inherently problematic. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a recurring problem and it needs to be addressed. WP:MFD is currently used at the whim of a handful of editors who have been very open about what political beliefs they disagree with. This is not what MFD is meant to be used for, usually for nominations that attract maybe 4 or 5 people total. An RFC is needed to establish objectively what is and is not allowable in userspace, and whether or not we should be granting latitude to users. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close as WP:POINT making. OP is using a grab-bag of unrelated MfDs they think are dumb to complain about how Wikipedia isn’t a free speech platform and that’s somehow bad. If you have a serious proposal and not a flamewar pilot light you can make it elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not a formal procedure, merely a discussion thread. You can't close this, Dronebogus. I have not formally requested comment. Bolded responses are not relevant to this free discussion. I have raised a serious question mildly concerning the integrity of Wikipedia (should we be policing userspace?) I have offered argument and evidence. Others have offered good clash. I very much appreciate the selection of policies and guidelines provided for the discussion by User:Thebiguglyalien whom I thank. I believe a closer examination of the various chosen examples I provided may reveal something interesting. I'm happy to bring a wider more inclusive table of such processes if you wish, where close examination might prove quite illuminating. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've observed here from time to time and seen a bit of what you refer to. You characterization may have some merit, but the thing to if you are concerned is watch the discussions here and offer your own opinions, based on relevant policies. Most of the garbage I have seen deleted is just that, garbage. Now I wouldn't say that there is true impartial consistency in how these rules are applied, but usually what gets deleted did violate the rules. There may be other material getting away with violating rules due to prevailing sentiments. Again, if you think so, watch here and contribute. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion, I can only agree with what Thebiguglyalien, Dronebogus and DIYeditor said, and add this: No editor, regardless of how "established" they are, should be allowed to use their userspace (which they don't own) for content that is overtly unacceptable, and foreign to the spirit of this project. Various racist ideologies are the first and most important on that list. There can be no "acceptable" and "unacceptable" versions of racism. And there should be no fear that people with such worldview are going to be "offended" with our censorship, and turned away from the project. If they are unable to keep their inflammatory and divisive opinion for themselves, and contribute in a constructive way in their respective areas of interest, they shouldn't be here at all. Indeed, over the past year, I both saw and initiated various MfD discussions centered on removing racist and other similar unacceptable content, and I can only repeat DIYeditor's words – most of it was indeed garbage, and we shouldn't be concerned about keeping such garbage around here, as its totally useless and worthless for the goals of this project. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Without having read through this discussion (and indeed upon taking a look at it I realise that I am discussing something orthogonal to the point being made here – I'm meaning the general userspace policing of largely inoffensive stuff that seems to constitute half of the goings-on at MfD), I think that the greatest effect ragpicking like such has is to dissuade past editors from returning to the site by denigrating their work. Sure, it doesn't help the encyclopaedia, but the editors in question have helped the encyclopaedia and hopefully wish to keep contributing. To me, much of current practice is mean and of little use and should really simply be left alone. Because if you're not the editor who made it and put some effort into it, who cares? (Stupidly inflammatory stuff excepted of course, for anyone who happens to run across it might well have their day ruined.) J947 † ^edits 09:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion should be a last resort, keep should be the default. That's pretty much my take on it, overly simplified. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the input so far. I would naturally find the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (2nd nomination) illustrative, because after almost a week of discussion, the nominator makes it clear abhorrent user thought is one component which provoked the nomination. Given the irregularity of the nomination and the (now undone) relisting, it appears User:Sundostund felt very strongly the need to take action. This is commendable, and I don't want to make them out to be wrong, merely because they took WP:BOLD seriously. After editing as long as Sundostund, one's instincts have relevance and should be observed. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my instincts; after editing here since 2010, I think that I've learned a thing or two about what should, and what shouldn't be done. My absolute red line, when it comes to deleting or keeping some material, is racism. The nomination mentioned above directly resulted from the character of the opinion piece in question, which is pro-Confederate in its core, and serves only for defence and relativization of the actions of the Confederacy – a rebel country founded on slavery and racism as its cornerstone. Do we need something like that around here? In my mind, there is zero doubt about the need to nominate it, and delete it. That stands for any similar material as well. Of course, deletion should be additionally used to free the project from any kind of useless/worthless material, which has nothing to do with the project and improving it. Some people, who open their accounts here, should be reminded about several simple facts – the First Amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia, Wikipedia isn't a webhost, and they don't own their userspace. If they need some online venue to storage their opinion pieces, they can easily find one elsewhere, without misusing Wikipedia. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think of this as a controversial view, Sundostund, and we are not opponents. On the other hand, today I draw the line at red lines. I pray my understanding today is more inclusive than mine yesterday. In discussion I believe light is better than heat. I daily strive to reject (not ignore) red-hot issues which are used frequently to limit my knowledge and comprehension (or allow them to be so limited). This does not make me a saint; I hope it makes me an encyclopedist and a wikipedian. Knowledge of bad things is inevitable. Scrubbing what we know is short-sighted and a fool's errand, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• I draw a very big distinction between responding to ongoing unacceptable behaviours, and the deletion of records of behaviours in the past that were not criticised as unacceptable at the time. On the first, MfD gets used, and may be well used, although sometime escalating warnings that might lead to blocks have been neglected. On the second, it crosses into revisionism of Wikipedia’s own history, and deletion of selected ugly things makes for an apparent distorted record of history. On the second, consider using {{Userpage blanked}} in favour of renewing historical ugliness and censoring the available records of inactive and blocked old users. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Where do you draw the line between ongoing and historical? If someone posts an obscene, slur-laden, racist screed in their userspace arguing that certain ethnic groups shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, can they just wait a few months before it becomes "historical"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Less than six months is not historical. Historical is more like ten years. If it’s been quiet for a long time, just blank it, and if it really is so bad that blanking is not sufficient it is probably WP:Oversight worthy. Obscene slurs are not uncommon, they can be blanked, there is no value in running an MfD discussion on them. Screeders are better blocked and denied.

  Any argument that any ethnic groups shouldn’t be allowed on Wikipedia is a completely different story, and I would welcome your listing of examples at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  So would I. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's where we diverge then. Racist content in userspace always carries the message that certain groups aren't welcome on Wikipedia, whether explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or unintentionally. Likewise for any other divisive content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion request

Draft:Inanimate Insanity

Reason: Does not meet GNG, no RS or secondary coverage. Multiple declined submissions. It should be noted that the series is directly related to "Battle For Dream Island", another YouTube series of the same genre that has been repeatedly submitted and declined multiple times and now page-created, for the exact same reasons. 118.149.76.35 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Inanimate Insanity Zerbu ^💬 00:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

More WP:BFDI crap

Draft:Carykh 118.149.80.216 (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Ignore it. Also, IPs should log in, or register, or stay out of projectspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, It's Apri1 1, but why does MfD have to be the clearing house?

The state of this Wikipedia space at 7am CDT is reprehensible and not acceptable even as a joke. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the markup error that caused almost all of MfD to be boldfaced... —Alalch E. 12:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You think this is bad? Look at AfD. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I hate being a debbie-downer, but yeah the effect wears off after 15(!) joke nominations. Like one or two that are actually creative, like WP:Articles for deletion/Glasses from a couple years ago, is fine. However, when none of the 15 are funny, then it quickly becomes annoying, and in the case of this page, it is actively hampering the real nominations. Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This convention started out reasonable but gets more and more out of hand every year. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Something broken?

I've been trying to create a MFD discussion for Draft:Trish Leigh, but posting the initial {{mfd|1={{subst:Draft:Trish Leigh}}}} at the top of the draft seems to result in the entire article contents, rather than the link to the MFD discussion, being written into the template. Is something broken somewhere, or are the instructions wrong? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think you're meant to paste literally "subst:FULLPAGENAME" without replacing FULLPAGENAME with the page name. You could probably also do "1=Draft:Trish Leigh" without the subst. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes.—Alalch E. 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Doh! I must have read the instructions at least five times, and still missed that. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Cody Brundage

Artical of this draft already exist:Cody Brundage there is no need to keep draft around. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

More BFDI crap

User:ImJustThere/sandbox (WP:FAKEARTICLE)

• User:EricAllums11/sandbox
• User:Ericallu1115/sandbox

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:G5 118.149.73.92 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Foster (2023 film)

Please create a deletion discussion page for this draft. 216.154.16.163 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Horrible use of time travel

Draft talk:Under the Boardwalk (2024 film)

WP:CRUFT 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:C8:679C:9AB8:ACDD (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeking guidance

There are a number of drafts with the same issue that I believe are subject to deletion outside the usual guidelines of draft deletion. In each instance it's a case of WP:PUFFERY, and there has been no attempt to make the articles even remotely acceptable. They all either rely on one source (the generally unreliable Cage Match) or have no sources at all. The drafts are Future Wrestling Australia, New Horizons Pro Wrestling, Newcastle Pro Wrestling, Southern Hemeisphere Wrestling Alliance, Southern Territory Wrestling and Wrestle Rampage. I believe they are being maintained to provide the users of a record of the title reigns and they have no intention of submitting the drafts for review. I think only one was actually submitted and it was declined. This should be done as a job lot but I don't know how to do that, and I don't have the time to nominate them one by one. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

a response here would be much appreciated, please. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Shall we make a list?

Given my strong feelings about recent infobox userbox deletion procedures I thought it valid to raise this question: A) Shouldn't we just make a list of unacceptable things a user might disclose about themselves? It's clear from recent procedures here there are concerns about the intent of various wikipedians who use infoboxes to describe themselves on their userpage. B) Would we intervene if the user merely wrote the same thing in plain text on their userpage? (ex. "I am a young adult") C) Why or why not?

1. Nazis
2. Neo-Confederates
3. Homophobia
4. Transphobia
5. Anti-atheism
6. Atheism
7. I am a young adult

I'm sure there are many other potentially offensive things we might list so users recognize exactly where the boundaries exist on personal disclosure. BusterD (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly.

On the first four, free text on a userpage probably will tend more to a reasonable statement in the user’s academic interest in that topic, and less to a mob slogan like Userboxes often resemble.

5&6 is probably still too taboo for Wikipedia to make internal rules on.

Number 7 is a newish new worry. A moral panic, just Think of the children and silence them, lock them away, Wikipedia must not be a welcoming place for children? We have a very sensible looking policy at Wikipedia:Child protection, and excellent advice at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:Advice for parents, I don’t know why a couple of oversighters are getting ahead of policy, and trying to push policy in practice with vague reference to their special experiences (False authority).

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is atheism controversial? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why (in US politics, it's reason for a form of acceptable discrimination, IMHO). I'm merely describing the MfD process I've recently seen. Last week a userbox was up for deletion which said "This user believes in the power of violence." The deletion rationale was the box could be construed as supporting violent action. There are some concepts which are clearly unacceptable for user pages as demonstrated by these nominations, and we're working our way through individual cases one by one. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I suspect you meant "userbox", not "infobox". —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

D'oh! BusterD (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears that some users think people may be able to disclose their age via userbox. Win. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Request: Draft:Inanimate Insanity again

This is a request: Same reason as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB (2nd nomination). The topic will never meet WP:GNG, the draft focuses on a BFDI spinoff and the mainspace (Inanimate Insanity) has also been salted. Pure fancruft. 118.149.86.40 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Article tagging for a project

I'm not sure where this should be brought up but Category:Articles Archived by "Project Archive" seems a bit irregular, the tag is visible on articles but maybe it should be applied to talkpages instead? The project itself seems to be a proposal, not an active project, so I can't post this same message to the project talkpage (yet). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:STALE and WP:UP#NOTSUITED

I'm a bit confused about the interpretation of these. FAKEARTICLE says if it is looks like an article it might be deleted, but STALE says a user draft can be left indefinitely. Can a draft article be left indefinitely at a users top user page rather than a subpage? For example User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information between these rules.

An additional and related question, NOTSUITED says templates intended for articles should not be used, does this include navigation templates for topics intended to be included in articles ("Part of a series on...")? Seems like it would. Does this also get into FAKEARTICLE territory if the user page and spammed with such navigation templates? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)