Wikipedia talk:Userfication/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should we have a Wikipedia:Userfication policy guideline?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

1. Strong Support. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 01:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 06:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. First of all, WP:RULES says "don't call for a vote." But more importantly, is there something about the way we do things that is lacking? We're not here to have perfect rules, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Mangojuice^talk 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Present policy IS HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!!! I strongly Oppose it and recomend its revision in a right way.

Rekhaa Kale 12:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak neutral I dont think we need policy/guidelines to govern how this works, but I can't see the harm. I've been copying the content of vanity pages to the correct user pages for months, it seems like something that is common sense. Also, this may be evidence of instruction creep. (feared by all paranoid wikipedians). I don't even know why i'm voting! (neutral means opinionless, right?) MichaelBillington 07:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Thoughts

I think this is a good codification of existing practice. My comments:

• We should not have redirects from article space to user space, but moving (AFAIK) automatically creates redirects with no way to turn this off. The instructions should also have the editor mark the old page with {{db|userfied}} and administrators can delete it via WP:CSD R2.
• I don't think this needs to be known as "policy," because everything here is optional and can be carried out through existing policies. "Guideline" might be more appropriate. Maybe there is really no difference.
• I am glad this page doesn't take a stand on userboxes (although it seems motiviated by the current discussion), since I don't think that issue is settled enough for there to be policies being introduced about it. — brighterorange (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• (edit) Also, I don't see when cut'n'paste moves are ever appropriate, but I just may not being creative enough. History is important for the GFDL. — brighterorange (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this idea is totally unconnected with the userbox situation - I was trying to explain to a newbie this morning that he ought to userfy a page instead of deleting it, but found no policy page (or guideline page) to point him to. I agree completely about deleting the resulting redirects. With respect to cut and paste, the only circumstance where that would really be justified is if you needed to move something to the other party's main user page, but there was some minimal content there already, and the content being moved had been made in a single edit (or I guess a set of edits by one person), so there was no real "edit history" to speak of. bd2412 T 02:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not policy material in its own right. It's just a codification of existing practise, and I don't think we need to hard-code it. It's just a useful definition. I cannot imagine we need to poll on the meaning of userfication. -Splash^talk 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a policy so that when people disagree with it, we can say "but look most people agree with this". Ashibaka tock 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to disagree that a page has been userfied! We can't have a policy that mandates userfication, and copyrighted works or attack pages can't be userfied because of Powers higher than any Wikipedia policy. This is just a definition of what we mean by a piece of wikijargon, and it tries to, but does not, create new policy or procedure, nor codify an existing one. -Splash^talk 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What about "not a substitute for regular deletion processes"? I think this is a useful thing to have in policy. This is like a subpage of Wikipedia:User page. Ashibaka tock 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

...which is not policy. -Splash^talk 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is however, possible to disagree as to whether a page should have been userfied. For this, we need guidelines. bd2412 T 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We need common sense more than guidelines. As a definition and a description, I think it's fine (even helpful), but as a would-be policy? It's just not policy material. As a policy it is tied up by much more important policies that actually do the job this page repeats. You use the word guideline, though, which I guess is vaguely palatable.... except that the exceptions it describes are policy! -Splash^talk 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this: we need a centralized location to integrate all of the existing policies and common sense guidelines that govern the process of userfying stuff. bd2412 T 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe we could have a userfy vote page, a bit like AFD, as userfying is removing the article, so similar to AFD --PhiJ 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Appointment of experts

It will be a good idea to appoint editors with knowledge of related subjects on which articles are posted. This will prevent irresponsible userfication or deletion of articles by new users.

Rekhaa Kale 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

article to be userfied

can i just come out and admit that this process is confusing to me. i found an article that i believe a large portion of should be on the person's user page. the person is a very minor comic writer, but notable enough (i've been told) to have an article. the article itself is very vain and has a lot of superfluous information (i.e. a job he had copy editing, his sister's name, etc) that would be better off on his user page. the main creator/editor of the page is the person himself (check the edit history).

is this a good case for userfication? how would one go about doing it? would someone else want to do it for me because this process is a little more advanced than i'm used to doing on wikipedia. the article is: Ryan Scott Ottney

Thanks

Sparsefarce 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Irresponsible userfication & deletion

It is seen that some editors mercilessly delete the articles by new users without understanding its importance.

Some articles may contain important data, but the presentation may be inappropriate. At such times, instead of saying that it is advertising when actually it is containing authenticity details, is wrong. The editors mat check the given details for checking the authenticity of the article. But this is not done.

Ideally the editors may mail the user personally asking him/her to modify the matter to meet the requirements of the site instead of mercilessly deleting it.

True that this is not a place to write about oneself, but there are people who have made great achievements and others must know about them. Will you userfy the article on the biography of Bill Clinton or George Bush? Certainly not! Then why not check whether the achievements stated are wotth being on the site or not?

Rekhaa Kale 11:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this page

As I said above, I don't think this should become a guideline. But I also have substantive problems with some of the things the page says. First of all, I think the page should do more to discourage userfication generally. Most userfication is a result of someone creating an encyclopedia page about themselves.. while such entries can be userfied, it may not be a good idea, if they weren't intending to actually join Wikipedia. Second, userfication of an article other than one apparently about the user will likely be regarded as unfriendly. Finally, I totally disagree that userfying a page always requires a deletion process. Ignore all rules and be bold dictate that userfication in obvious cases can just be done, and the issue brought through deletion process if it's contested. Mangojuice^talk 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am agnostic as to your first point, and disagree with the other two. A page can be userfied to a subpage of the users page if it is not about that user. Granted, however, that disruptive hoax material and possible personal attacks should be deleted altogether. On the third point, a biography that provides no indicia of notability is subject to speedy deletion, which is a deletion process - determining that something meets that qualification also justifies userfication. However, if there is any possibility that an article has encyclopedic merit, then it should go through PROD or AFD, as other editors may be able to contribute evidence that the article should remain an article. A userfied page substantially disappears from the map, and others may not know it exists to offer support for its existence as an article. bd2412 T 18:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What about redirects from articles to articles? Anyone can make one without going through a process, although AfD sometimes results in a redirect. But redirects are removing information from the encyclopedia in some cases. What you're saying seems to apply there as well, so unless you're arguing that no one should ever change an article into a redirect without a deletion process, I think there's something inconsisten. What I'm saying here is, this should be a user behaviour guideline. De facto, anyone can userfy any article at any time. I do think it's worth saying that in some cases deletion process should be used, but what about WP:BOLD? It's probably a good idea for newbies not to do this kind of thing, but if it's clear it's the right thing to do, I say do it. Besides, the purpose of AfD and prod is deletion, and userfying is a side effect. Mangojuice^talk 13:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, suppose I userfy Jimmy Carter to the page of the person who has contributed the most to it, based on my belief that Carter is not notable, having only been a one-term President with low poll numbers and no Supreme Court appointments. Or suppose I userfy The Ramones to User:JoeyRamone? All I'm saying is, content should not be removed from the main article space unless it meets some criteria for material to be removed from the main article space, and we have a whole set of processes in place to determine if such material meets such criteria. bd2412 T 13:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Those would be inappropriate. Specifically, that would be disruptive to Wikipedia, and blockable offenses. But let's not tell people not to stuff beans up their noses... I have never seen this kind of thing happen, and never heard of it, and I hope it doesn't start happening. I'm comfortable with saying that articles that don't appear to be about the user who created them should generally not be "unilaterally userfied" but I think that's just common sense. But your example here isn't really about userfying, it's about abusing the move feature. Maybe we do need a policy to say what the move feature is for and what it isn't for... but since it doesn't happen much, I say that's WP:BEANS. Mangojuice^talk 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I've seen plenty of page move vandalism in my time, some of it across namespaces, but your underlying point is true. Userfication should primarily be used to correct likely errant attempts to create a user page in article space. bd2412 T 19:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Turns out there actually is an official guideline about moving and merging: WP:MM. I'm going to update it so it talks a little about cross-namespace moving. I'm going to link that one here and vice versa. Mangojuice^talk 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good find. bd2412 T 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The new users do not know where to add their comment.

It will be a good idea to provide a separate text box to write the comments by the users on the talk page. This will avoid the confusion.

Rekhaa Kale 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cutting & pasting breaches GFDL

This page suggests cutting & pasting content to userfy a page that several people have edited. WP:MM says that would breach the GFDL licence and leave Wikipedia open to legal action... I'll change it tomorrow if nobody else does it first. Moyabrit 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a note, please feel free to edit it more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it would not touch the GFDL at all if the other edits constituted, for example, addition of templates (such as {{delete}} or {{cleanup}}). But otherwise, it's a good point. If an article should not be in the encyclopedia for lack of notability, and for some reason can not be moved, and a cut and paste would result in later substantive edits not being properly attributed, then the article should simply be deleted. Or, as an alternative, the userfier could cut and paste the first version of the article, not including later edits by other authors. That would bo okay by the GFDL as well. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All that is needed is a list of contributors. Cutting and pasting on its own doesn't violate the GFDL - the violation is not also copying the list of authors from the history page. There's no point in trying to decide which authors made significant edits, we might as well just copy them all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if the point of userfying the article is that the original contributor had posted something non-encyclopedic, then really what should go into that original contributor's user space (if anything) is exactly what was originally contributed. For example, if someone adds a cleanup tag and someone else adds a deletion tag, those tags wouldn't stay in the page if it was moved to user space anyway. I would reiterate that the most likely instance for use of this process is where a user has errantly made a personal page about themself in article space. bd2412 T 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that paragraph was intending to talk about one of two other things. Case 1: a user userfying a copy of a page to work on a draft. Clearly this is okay, and a simple note like "see history of source article blah" will suffice for the GFDL history requirement. Case 2: a user posting something inappropriate over a legitimate article (for instance, a real person named John Adams posting their profile over the article), in which case userfication should just be avoided in favor of a revert. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is Case 3: an article is deleted per AfD but with the provision that if it is improved a new version can be created in main space. So the user copies the article to user space to improve, and the article in main space is deleted. Now the history of the original is hidden, as the article is deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• If this is true, then Answers.com is in violation of the GFDL license when they port over articles. There is no history of the edits at their website. They also keep copies of deleted Wikipedia content. Can someone point out the part of the GFDL license that requires the edit history to be maintained? This is the first I have heard of it. If its true, then the Wikimedia Foundaton should be informed that Answers.com is in violation of GFDL. Or the second possibility is that this premise, that the edit history must be maintained, is false. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• The GFDL expects a version history to be maintained and available. However, that doesn't mean that all previous versions have to actually be available, but the dates and authors of those versions should be. Answers.com could be more overt about it, but they do link back to the Wikipedia page, so they are indirectly keeping the history linked. See Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License section 4, paragraph I. Mangojuice^talk 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Either the interpretation is in error, or Answers.com is violating the license. Here is an article in Answers.com to a deleted article in Wikipedia: [1]. The two possible conclusions are that the current interpretation of GFDL is in error, or Answers.com, in the relationship allowed by the Wikimedia Foundation, is in violation of GFDL. Can you quote me the section of the GFDL license that covers the inclusion of an edit history. You wrote "... the dates and authors of those versions should be [included]." (my emphasis added) Should be?, or must be? what exactly does the license say. Instead of guessing, please show me the section so I can read it for myself. I can't imagine print versions of Wikipedia articles retaining an edit history, its just silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, section 4, paragraph I (capital "i") of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. But now that I look more closely, I realize that this may only be required when someone modifies something published under the GFDL. Merely copying it may not impose the requirement. Although, arguably, the changes in format and layout make the answers.com versions a modification. Personally, it kind of pisses me off as an editor that answers.com makes it so difficult to learn who wrote the text they are displaying. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Userfication of deleted content

I couldn't find a page on this anywhere to inform newer users how it happens, despite the fact it happens all the time, so I have created a new section on this page, which would be the most appropriate location, I guess. Comments, suggestions, abuse? Neıl ☎ 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's perfect. Thanks! bd2412 T 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Inactive?

This page is a useful description of an active process performed regularly. So it seems silly to have an "inactive" tag at the top, which could only confuse people into thinking this is something that shouldn't be done. If there is no consensus for this being a guideline, then I'd rather it have no tag than this reality-contradicting "inactive" one. Personally, I'm not sure why this is not a guideline—given that guidelines should be descriptive, not proscriptive, then the objections of Mangojuice above based on the idea that we shouldn't have "rules" about what should be "obvious" seem to be irrelevant—we have guidelines not to tell people what to do, but to inform people about what is generally done. What might be obvious to the typical administrator is not obvious to the new editor, and there ought to be a place that describes the actual existing process to new editors without a confusing "inactive, no consensus" tag on it. I'm boldly removing it. DHowell (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Page revision

I revamped the existing text to make it more readable and user friendly. I also added more info. This page and its rules? are being cited at Deletion Review and is cited by G4 speedy delete, so it is not inactive. The page is a mixture of guidelines and how to, but I have no problem with slapping a guideline tag on the top of the page. -- Suntag ☼ 17:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Word salad

Could someone please fix the sentence "Userspace material that is indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia, including autobiographies (or apparent autobiographies) that have been userfied in this way, are frequently deleted on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion." It seems to be missing some words after "that is." Edison (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of newbies autobiographies

Lots of new users create an article about their 16 years of existence, and these get speedily deleted as WP:CSD A7 . If the deleting admin wishes to "userfy" it should it go to the blank userpage of the editor or to a subpage of the nonexistent userpage, or where? Sometimes it is not clear that it is in fact an autobiography, as when the username is not the stated name of the nonnotable subject, so I am reluctant to just move it to the userpage of the user. Edison (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest asking the user if they want the content userfied, and leave it deleted in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Out of the two choices, send it to the user page, so that the user can find it. On a subpage it would be too invisible to them to be useful (if they are a newby). I have moved pages this way myself in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Define and clarify "indefinitely"

Under "Userfication of deleted content" there is the statement "However, such content should not be kept indefinitely in user space, per Wikipedia policy regarding the third disallowed use of subpages." Could we get a solid definition of "indefinitely"? Maybe a foot note to the effect of "A userfied article that was once in the mainspace and that remains unedited for a period of (One year? Two years? Three years? Longer?) should be removed. Userfied articles that are active and being worked on can be left no matter how long (indefinitely)." Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure we can set a black-letter line here - pages in userspace are subject to nomination for deletion through WP:MFD, and whether a userfied article has sat unedited for too long is determined there, by discussion in each individual case. Perhaps this is what should be specified. bd2412 T 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• That may be true but MfD is not this. In other words when an AfD'd article is "userfied" it is based on something that defines what "userfy" is. Currently an AfD may result in the article be userfied or the main editor requesting it to be userfied, and one looks to Wikipedia:Userfication for guidance. I don't think I have ever seen any AfD where the closing admin says "Consensus to userfy article for a set time limit." And MfD is not the place to go to suggest rewording, or clarification of current wording, that is found at Wikipedia:Userfication or Wikipedia:Subpages. As the actual guidelines found at Wikipedia:Subpages do not use the term "indefinitely" it would not make sense to ask there to define it. As it relates to this discussion, item 3 of the "Disallowed uses" implys that subpages are not to be used "for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" and that goes against userfication of AfD'd mainspace articles being moved to userspace in the first place. However as it has already been established many times over that AfD'd mainspace articles can be moved to userspace I think it makes far more sense to clarify "indefinitely" here as here is where it is laid out. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are to have anything like a recommended time after which a page may (or should) be deleted, that will require a community process to develop. Personally, I think that six months with no work on a subpage is time enough, but would give the user whose subpage is set for deletion a heads up and some time (perhaps a week) to give the page another go before it is deleted. bd2412 T 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Userfication of deleted content" Proposals

(Three versions - Changes in red)

1. Administrators can temporarily undelete a deleted page, move it into a user's userspace and delete the redirects; this results in a page in userspace with all the history intact and a red link in main space. This can be requested from any administrator, at an AfD discussion, or via Deletion Review. Pages that would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may or may not be userfied on request, depending on the administrator's judgment. However, such content should not be kept indefinitely in user space as if it were permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia, per Wikipedia policy editing guidelines regarding the third disallowed use of subpages.
2. Administrators can temporarily undelete a deleted page, move it into a user's userspace and delete the redirects; this results in a page in userspace with all the history intact and a red link in main space. This can be requested from any administrator, at an AfD discussion, or via Deletion Review. Pages that would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may or may not be userfied on request, depending on the administrator's judgment. However, such content should not be kept indefinitely ¹ in user space, per Wikipedia policy editing guidelines regarding the third disallowed use of subpages.

== footnotes ==

1. A userfied article that was once in the mainspace and that remains unedited for a period of (Six months? One year? Two years? Three years? Longer?) should be removed. Userfied articles that are actively being worked on can be left indefinitely.

3. Administrators can temporarily undelete a deleted page, move it into a user's userspace and delete the redirects; this results in a page in userspace with all the history intact and a red link in main space. This can be requested from any administrator, at an AfD discussion, or via Deletion Review. Pages that would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may or may not be userfied on request, depending on the administrator's judgment. However, such content should not be kept indefinitely in user space for longer than (Six months? One year? Two years? Three years? Longer?) unless a clear, and ongoing, effort is being made in order to edit the article so that it will meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Failing per Wikipedia policy editing guidelines regarding the third disallowed use of subpages may result in a userfied article being nominated for deletion and sent to Miscellany for Deletion.

Discussion

• Comment: Any would work, but if the term "indefinitely" is left in there must be a clear time frame set along with conditions. (i.e: actively being worked on vs untouched) Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If there is to be a limit, it should be right in the text and not in a footnote. I would support a standard of deleting userfied material after six months of non-activity. Or minimal activity (we wouldn't want someone moving a comma every five-and-a half months just to stay in the letter of the rule). Perhaps, "work of a type that demonstrates a clear effort to bring the userfied material in conformity with Wikipedia standards for inclusion". Cheers! bd2412 T 06:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps: 3. Administrators may move a deleted page into a user's userspace without redirects intact. This may be requested from any administrator, at an AfD discussion, or through Deletion Review. Such content should not be kept more than six months in such userspace without either an effort to make the article conform with Wikipedia policies for inclusion as an encyclopedia article, or to make the article conform to Wikipedia rules concerning material in userspace. Any such article may be nominated under Miscellany for Deletion after six months.

Shorter. No redundancy. No footnote. And, I hope, clear. Collect (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• All of these alternative texts are superior to page is recreated in user space by a user, without preserving the history. Some delete reason should prevent undeletion, such as BLP, nonsense or copyright violations, but others should not prevent it, such as recreation of deleted content, or no claim of notability. Also it does not take an administrator to move a page to user space, so an alternate result of an AfD is to userfy the page without the stage of deleting, and then marking redirect for delete (for administrator action). We should give users with undeleted content plenty of time to work on the page, I would suggest 1 year. However there should be no hurry to monitor 367 day old subpages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfied pages are userfied for a reason. Sometimes it is because the user has misplaced their personal page (in which case deletion will never be a concern once it is moved to the right space, i.e. to userspace). The concern arises where a user makes an article on a subject that fails notability (or makes a POV fork) and then wants to keep it in their user space purportedly to work on it. In that case the proof is in the pudding. If it's worth working on, work on it. If not, goodbye (at least, after several months). bd2412 T 02:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Year sounds fine here. I think "several months" might be too short -- usage patterns on WP are much more irregular for most users. Collect (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is well intentioned but may have unintended consequences that might be harmful. There are (at least) three categories of "articles" in user space:

  1. Articles restored to userspace after an AFD

  2. Articles userfied without ever having been deleted, often as part of an AFD

  3. Articles being drafted (including rewrites) in userspace

  I see these as all essentially the same, the difference is the users that have them. Most of the first two categories belong to the same users that created them and put the majority of edits into them and were often their only defenders at AFD, but I actually have one category 3 article in my userspace waiting since September for the day I get the time to merge it with an existing page (The page had been AfD'd, userfied, no action taken for months, MfD'd and I was closing MfDs when I found some potentially useful cites there and asked another admin to close it by usefying it to my userspace - but the cites are rather ancient works that will probably require some work at a library in Boston to verify and there is no deadline). I also have a number of category 3 articles which have sat untouched for more than six months but I would be quite surprised if I suddenly saw any of these at MfD. On the other hand, I have frequently seen at MfD the sort of pages where a new user creates a very COI or OR page and it is nominated for deletion; the user then asks for userfication and does nothing of substance with the page or at least nothing to make it more article worthy for many many months. Sooner or later, someone nominates the page at MfD and the page often gets deleted. Frequently, the precise result turns so closely on the facts: whether the user is very active, whether the user has contributed much outside of user/usertalk space that hasn't been deleted, and most importantly precisely how bad the article is and how likely it is to ever be turned into a real article. Putting time limits on pages that may be poor starts on good articles or requiring us to wait a specific amount of time on pages that are obviously never going to be articles, are both bad. We should keep the language imprecise, it allows us to make case by case decisions at MfD based on real consensus, not trapping ourselves into what we think we want and finding it's almost never what we want. Again, there is no deadline. However, what we do need, is a guideline that userpace pages should generally be tagged with {{userpage}} and {{NOINDEX}}, then the pages would be mostly harmless until the day someone decides they've been their too long and nominates them. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Who will keep track of pages to be sure the user whose space they occupy doesn't delete the tags? Should there be a page to report Userfications of material that might eventually require deletion? bd2412 T 02:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know and that's a good point. Maybe it wouldn't really be enforceable. Usually by the time I've added those tags the pages have narrowly missed deletion with no response from the page "owner". I've never checked back but I suspect the pages rarely get touched again. I think it would be worthwhile, though, just to have a guideline saying they have to have it. There are apparently quite a few editors who patrol the userspace looking for MfD material, normally the tags only get added by a closing admin but it would be helpful if those same editors could tag pages with a broad brush and nominate with a somewhat narrower one. Obviously anyone can do this now, but for a non-admin to go indescriminately editing other's userpages would probably get not a few reversions. With a guideline in place the reversions would be clearly disruptive.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Actually I think we're discussing here only "Userfication of deleted content" so not really the cases 2 and 3 Doug mentions. There I think the current wording is somewhat misleading in the sense that it gives the impression as if an MfD was always necessary for previously deleted content that has been userfied. In as far as the restoration and userfying is a discretionary administrative action, it is also possible to undo it within some discretionary range. The typical example is an article worked on my several authors and deleted at AfD and then restored for someone who asserts or hopes that it can be improved. (This is a sub-group of Doug's case 1.) In the (few) cases I deleted such articles later, it was either in contact with the user or with dropping them a note in case they return after seemingly have left. Technically I would see this as housekeeping or as equivalent to moving the article back to mainspace and delete per G4. This indicates that the action should be uncontroversial with G4 as margin for assessing possible changes. Of course, this action can be reversed itself with the article being restored to user space another time. I'd like to see that disssued and poibbly highlighted in the policy rather than imposing timelines. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• We may have been discussing userfication of deleted content but the issue is much broader, which brings up a good point - this is the wrong page to be defining something that is regularly cited in deletion discussions (though rarely used as the basis for deletion in the close). It is neither a policy nor a guideline, the guideline is Wikipedia:Userpage, this page has no status whatsoever, it's just plain vanilla projectspace. This page says far too much already. The point of this page is simply to explain what userfication is. Userfication is not the problem, it's the idea of archiving. This needs to be discussed at WP:UP--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Per my thoughts, the concept of "may" regarding actions is clear. This is not just an issue of "archiving" (which implies an indefinite period). Th fact is that a deleted article may be deleted for reasons which would be corrected by having a user be able to modify it in userspace (allowing a reasonable period of time -- say six months or so). A deleted article may be deleted for relatively minor reasons which would not be reasons for deletion in userspace, in which case, archiving on an indefinite basis should be fine. And an article may be deleted for reasons which preclude it being hosted on WP at all. By saying an admin "may" undertake actions, we would make it clear that this is not a requirement at all, and allow a fairly broad level of discretion. And since in two of the cases above, "archiving" is not really the problem, I consider this page to be the best place to iron this out. Were we to confine ourselves to defining "userfication" a one line entry would be sufficient "Userfication is the moving of content from any other project space into userspace." Collect (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe I am missing something but now aren't we moving into another issue all together? The proposal is in regards to one specific section - "Userfication of deleted content". This does not refer to content that was moved to user space by request, or to content that the user has already placed on a subpage on their own. As for other guidelines and/or policies that becomes an issue but that is the issue that led to this proposal in the first place. For example Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses, number 3, says "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." Even though it does not use the term "userfication" the implied use of "userfication" is that, if an article meant to be "part of the encyclopedia" is deleted, or about to be deleted, it can be sent to a userspace subpage to be worked on. Wikipedia:USER tell users that "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox)." A little further down, under "What about user subpages?" it says "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released. This is typically not necessary, though some people do this especially for WP:COI compliance or drafts of a page whose title is protected. See also: #Copies of other pages" which, in turn, says "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." So my point is that none of these places use the term "userfication" yet they all would, at some point in time and space, lead to this page - the page that does define and describe it. It is clear the that a userspace/subpage, can be used to work on material that is intended to be a main space article. It is also made clear that this user subpage version is not meant to be a replacement for a main space article. But what is not explicitly laid out is how long is "long-term archival purposes"? How long is "indefinitely"? How long is "permanent"? Most importantly, as it directly related to this discussion, when a deleted article is "userfied" we are told that "content should not be kept indefinitely in user space" but we are not told how "indefinitely" relates to, say, "permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)::I don't see the relevance of the two topics to each other. Userfication is not an issue. Material that is in userspace is generally either OK or not, keeping an article (Or a project or portal page) in userspace only becomes a problem when it violates WP:UP. I'm not saying that all archiving is bad necessarily, only that userfication is never the problem. When a page comes up at MfD the issue is never that the it was userfied after deletion. The issue is occassionally that it was moved from main or project or portal space and then no effort was made to improve it. But the ultimate issue is always the content, if the page content is deleted from mainspace during an AFD but is OK for a work in progress, no article already exists, and the page is properly tagged as userpace, and the user hasn't left the project, it will not get deleted at MfD no matter how long it has been in userspace. If one of these things is not true, the page is at risk. The fact that it was userfied as part of a deletion is only a factor because it tends to indicate material that wasn't appropriate content for the project. Long term archives that are POV forks, or that maintain non-notable articles without any attempt to work on them, or that look like articles and show up in Google, those are the problems but they are also problems without userfication. If I create an article User:Doug/Sarah Palin, copy most of it from my choice of historical versions (or from one of the various Sarah Palin/Drafts), and I don't actually work on it at all - Wow, somebody better get rid of it - under what policy/guideline? the same provision of WP:UP that we're dealing with here. We ought to tell people here, essentially, "hey, if you think this a way to keep your pet version or content that was deleted from article space because it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, you're sorely mistaken" and then refer them to Wikipedia:Userpage#Copies of other pages not "the third disallowed use of subpages" (by the way, there is nothing that says if you have a draft or a userfied page it has to be on a subpage versus the main userpage)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there are really different circumstances of Userfication in this sense as well. Newby Joey Johnson might write an "article" of himself which is really intended as a profile for userspace. This could legitimately be speedied as a G7 or Prodded or AfD'd as NN bio, but could legitimately be moved to user space and left there as the user's profile page. But if Joey Johnson wants to write an article on his favorite corner restaurant or his upcoming self-published novel, we might cut him some slack and userfy to give him a chance to develop citations demonstrating that these things meet our CFI. If he can't do that, then there's no point to their continued existence in user space. This is, I concede, not that different from a user initially creating something unusable in User space and then never working on it, but at least in some userfication circumstances the author asked for the work to userfied on the premise that he really would work on it. bd2412 T 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's where I see them to be exactly the same, they aren't or at least shouldn't be treated any differently whether he made it in userspace or asked for it to be userfied. The issue in either case is when it really doesn't look like anyone else would likely ever work on it and the user has become inactive - especially if the user had no or very few edits in the main space that weren't deleted. If the article is OK to have in userspace if you create it there, then it's OK to have in userspace if it was userfied. The difference is the activity of the user; it's just a fact of life that active users eventually become experienced users and realize that we should draft our articles in userspace and then move them only when they are ready. The reason we are "lienient" with newbies is that they don't know better than to write an article in the mainspace with a header and one line today and come back tomorrow to find it has been deleted (or one of the dozens of other ways this can happen to them). That's why we don't want admins arbitrarily deciding how long is OK but at the same time we don't want to fix a criterion so that everyone can then say, "we can't delete this yet because it's only been sitting for 89 days" or "we should delete it because policy says 90 days and it's been there 91" - Pages that editors think have been there too long should be nominated and put before the community at MfD for a decision. Each case is fact specific. So I would only support version 1 above and then I really think it should simply wikilink to the relevant part of WP:UP.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

← Just to toss something in here. I stumbled across this. Raimond Spekking was deleted and userifed to User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking in June 2006. It was last "worked" on December 2, 2006 (dif) and sat until October 31, 2008 when it was sent MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking) as "Long since abandoned sandbox". The editor who created the article replied "This is in my userspace. Sandboxes, like redirects, are harmless, and need not show notability. I will try to add sources so that it can be moved to article space, but in general I don't see any need to delete inoffensive draft articles in userspace." The nom was withdrawn the same day. This brings us directly back to the issue at hand. We have a userfied article that has existed on a subpage in userspace for over two years. Beyond this it is very important to note that was userfied on June 2, 2006 and no real editing has ever taken place. The only work ever done to it was by other editors who 1>userfied it 2> remove the "Notable Wikipedian" tag 3> remove "userpage from cats" and 4> Remove the {{photographer-stub}} tag. In other words the editor who requested unserficaiton has made no effort to work on the article. To me two years is a vio of #Copies of other pages - "...this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." While it is true the article is small and tucked away it goes against the concept of why it was userfied in the first place - "for user to work on". This is a perfect example of why I think a time limit should be explicitly laid down, with the only exception being for articles that are actually being worked on in hopes of having them return to main space. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Have you reviewed User:Eastmain's contributions and userpage? The user is a very active user[2] who has a reputation for saving pages from deletion. The user has no apparent connection to the subject of the article so there are no COI concerns. This is not a case of webhosting at all and it is a perfect example of my point. The user could just as easily have created this page in userspace and kept it there for a very long time, it would not have any different character - positive or negative. It is no less of a draft than User:Doug/Rock Pring - You can delete it if you want, but what's the point? I'll eventually get around to working on it probably and then I'll have to recreate it. There shouldn't be a penalty for creating an article early with the intent to work on it. The whole point to this project is that others may contribute. I had another draft in my userspace for months in a somewhat greater state of completion but on which I was no more active. All I ever did really was identify the subject and a couple of basic references, the article probably wouldn't have survived in that state. However, someone found it and found some more informationa and references and asked me if it was OK to add to it. The result was I moved it to article space and the other user submitted a successful DYK nomination. Back to the page you reference, it's not a preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content, as there is no other version. That guideline is a reference to the various versions of Sarah Palin that are full of incredible POV and that sort of thing, not a page that is deleted for lack of notability. And the content is not an attempt to indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia, it is an attempt to indefinitely preserve a draft article that is not yet suitable for the encyclopedia. BTW, we should notify Eastmain of this discussion, so I will do so. I suspect that Eastmain has been incredibly busy on the regular work of the encyclopedia and hasn't found the time to research further references on an article he or she originally drafted back when his or her account was less than one month old. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the user and how long they have been active but that has zero to do with the discussion at hand. The fact you keep bringing up your own, possibly inactive, articles shows your have a personal concern with any form of time limit. I have not requested that your pages or that the given example page be deleted but at this time may I politely remind you that when I asked "So my question is does there/is there a need/reason keep this sandbox" in regards to User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox you did not reply with any of the discussion you give here, you simply deleted it first and replied after the deletion, giving for the reason of deletion as: "It has become an archival copy of a deleted page (many times deleted and salted) and the user is inactive." (Should be noted that the "inactive" primary editor of the article last logged in December 5, 2008 and you deleted the article November 25, 2008) It appears at that time you felt that one year was long enough for a userfied article to go un-worked upon so you deleted it without any MfD, with no warning to the user and no asking if anyone had notified the user of the discussion. As this thread is about "Userfication of deleted content", your current stance about an example subpage that has been inactive for over two years. was sent to an MfD and was withdrawn because of the users response, is that the user, perhaps, has been too busy is a blatant display of "good faith" to towards one user while showing blatant "bad faith" to another. Before you respond I will say that I have yet to find a policy about userfied subpages that defines users who are "active" vs "inactive" in regards to deleted mainspace content that has been userfied and that has not been worked on, only being allowable if the user theirself is "active". Back on topic a bit - your wording for the deletion shown was nicely put - "It has become an archival copy of a deleted page..." And this is exactly what this topic is about, clarifying that type of wording. Perhaps you could make your own proposal - something that includes your opinion that only active users can retain inactive userfied, articles. I know there are many editors who use this overall "Active" argument in all kinds of discussions, but as it is an unwritten rule, perhaps it is time for someone to be bold and actually put this unwritten policy into readable form for everyone to see. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1) I am not at all concerned about the pages in my userspace. I mention them because I'm a pretty experienced user, one of the top contributors to WP:DELPRO and WP:MFD for example, so I hold myself out as an example of acceptable conduct with respect to userpage drafts; if you disagree, feel free to nominate them. I am confident that my pages won't get deleted, so why should others' pages like them simply because theirs happen to have once been deleted from the mainspace or projectspace?

2) As for Hamsterdunce, that was an example of WP:IAR as I know from experience that it would not have any chance to survive an MfD. The user to who's space it was userfied has two edits, claims the subject matter as mine indicating serious COI, and the article was userfied in January 2007 and never touched by Hampsterdunce. Your primary editor (User:EricBarbour) was not the inactive editor I referred to, that was Hampsterdunce; though I find it telling that an editor other than the user to whose space it was userfied was the primary editor and that it was last worked on by anyone last February. Of course, I had know way to know User:EricBarbour would log on 10 days later - he hadn't logged on since April and I deleted in part on your representation, which was then true, that the user's last edit was in April saying "Now do you see why I quit?" The "article" had been deleted multiple times over a period of years as well. Finally, I would note that the userfication was improperly done and resulted in a GFDL violation. If you disagree with my action then I completely misunderstood your post on MfD talk.

3) I have no proposal to make, the less policy the better, thus my non-support of any attempt to tighten things up. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I had suggested in an earlier draft on the main page that included the following language:

Pages in userspace may be nominated for deletion through Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion. An article which has been undeleted and userfied, but has thereafter sat unedited for too long a period, as determined by an MfD discussion, will be deleted.

I am still amenable to this is a solution. We don't absolutely need to resolve every userfication issue on the userfication page. bd2412 T 04:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to Doug for bringing this discussion to my attention. To explain this particular case, I originally requested userfication for the page after it was deleted because I thought I might be able to find evidence of notability. I have not been able to find evidence (although Raimond Spekking appears to be a good photographer, IP person and Wikipedia contributor, I have not been able to find coverage about him in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), but keeping the article in user space serves as a reminder to me to check for new evidence every so often. Many of us have started articles on topics where evidence cannot be easily found but where we suspect that evidence of notability exists, and perhaps it will eventually be found. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

This is a direct question to Soundvisions1:
So what if an article that is userfied is never worked on? How does this userfied article change wikipedia one bit? How does it change your personal wikipedia experience? Wikipedia is not paper, we are not going to reach a 1.2 million article ceiling and suddenly have to pick and choose which articles are deleted. Why destroy the work of another editor(s) and cause so much contention? Does a userfied article somehow degrade any other article on wikipedia in anyway?
Why do wikipedians push their own interpretation of the way wikipedia should be on others? Why not instead of trying so hard to delete articles, editors attempt to improve the article?
Has anyone else actually looked at Soundvisions1's scandalous example of the abuse of userfication, User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking? it is a one sentence blurb, about 15 words, and yet so much energy is being wasted to delete something so inconsequential, a page with has less than 5 links linking to it.
When does some self-appointed guardian of wikipedia get to come along and delete user page:

User:Soundvisions1/WP only warn last edited 14:11, 29 November 2008?

User:Soundvisions1/Sandbox last edited 14:55, 14 November 2008?

User:Soundvisions1/iboxDVD last edited 02:46, 8 November 2008?

User:Soundvisions1/TMP COI last edited 03:58, 17 October 2008?

Imposing a strict time limit on userfied pages will create more contention, with more editors seeking out ways to impose their interpretation of wikipolicy.
Limiting the time that pages can be userfied creates a whole new layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and selective enforcement of wikipolicy. There is no way to enforce such a proposal fairly.
Take for example, User:Soundvisions1/TMP COI
If User:Soundvisions1 edits User:Soundvisions1/TMP COI one time next year does that meet the bar of "substantial improvements" allowing the page to be kept? Two edits?
Since there is no uniform way to decide what is a "substantial improvement" that will once again be left up to self-appointed guardians to selectively decide.
If the article that is userfied does not violate any legal issues, such as living person or copyright issues, it should remain on wikipedia forever.
User pages should be seen as simply extensions of talk pages, in fact that in many ways, that is what they have become, with absolutely no detrimental effect to the wikipedia foundation or vision. travb (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, first before you come making comments such as that you should understand what is being discussed here. None of those are "userfied" articles...they aren't even articles. Take a chill pill, be happy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a bad idea. We'd end up creating a hidden Wikipedia in the userspaces. We'd end up hosting information on anything and everything. We'd open up exploits that would violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. Randomran (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is pretty hefty. But I share peoples' concerns about people trying to host their own preferred content through Wikipedia and otherwise avoid our guidelines. I also share concerns about "self-appointed guardians" making a judgment call. I might propose something simple: after 6 months, a userfied article can be nominated for deletion (as an MFD). We decide whether or not to delete based on whether there has been legitimate progress in the past 6 months. And this time, no consensus results in deletion. So there's a burden on people to actually show they've made progress, instead of just saying "WP:NOHARM in letting it sit here another 6 months with nobody working on it". Randomran (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that there must be some accomodation between the two extremes -- "no harm" is a good defense against deletion, but is not an absolute one. "Not a web host" is a good argument for deletion, but not that strong either. The line I would draw, would be that if the essay or article looks like it would be of interest in general to a reasonable subsection of WP users, that it should remain. If of interest to few, then the guideline should include being actively worked on ("substantial edits"), and not a "dead article." Certainly before a year anyone wishing to retain an essay or article in userspace should be willing to make some edits, no? Collect (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:TNN is a layman with no legal training, whose behavior is still roundly condemned today, because two years ago he began deleting images from all user pages. The community went ballistic. His deletions won over time, only because he could hide behind a legal fiction.

This proposal will also cause untold controversy and anger. The only way this policy will work is if this suggested policy is selectively enforced against newer users. If the zealous self-appointed enforcers here decide to delete more powerful admin and veteran user pages, that is when this policy will come under intense scrutiny. But unlike User:TNN's bullying, there is absolutely no legal fiction that any editor can hide behind with this proposal.

Why create yet one more policy rule? I agree with User:Randomran, and sympathize with his concerns. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:Miscellaneous For Deletion are important, vital tools to make sure that wikipedia does not become a web hosting site. These are both strong existing rules, why create yet another one? 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Userfied content should have a stated purpose for existance stated by the undeleting admin, subject to change upon request by the user-space owner and agreement by any admin. This purpose for existance should include its own time-limit, subject to extensions if requested. Examples:

• User: "Please undelete some deleted article so that I may address the issues in its AFD, this should take about a month." Administrator: "OK, here it is, it will be deleted on date unless it is moved to the main article space or you request an extension."
• User: "Please undelete some deleted article so that I may address the issues in its AFD." Administrator: "How long do you think you'll need?" User: "I need a month, maybe 2." Administrator "OK, here it is, it will be deleted in 2 months unless you move it to the main article space or you request an extension."

Userfied content should also have a big notification- and categorization- template at the top to make it easy to keep track of. Sure, this template can be removed but with the backup of a log and a bot, it can be automatically restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think davidwr offers a solid compromise. And I might even add that someone can ask for an extension if they've shown a good faith effort to try to improve the article. Randomran (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two poles here: a time limit, and no time limit. So obviously, suggesting a time limit is not a compromise.

In the middle of these two poles, is no defined time limit, which would be the compromise.

Time limit >>>>> No defined time limit >>>> No time limit

I would prefer that there be no real time limit, except in cases explained above.

I think a good compromise would be no defined time limit, the status quo right now.

Again, why create another new guideline/policy, when existing policy already works? travb (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When someone can keep a userfied article for 2 years, not work on it, and still act in good faith as though he still believes it belongs at Wikipedia, I wouldn't say the current system works. I think a suitable compromise between time limit and no time limit is exactly what davidwr offered: a negotiable time limit. I've offered another caveat too: a time limit with chance for extension. I think that's pretty reasonable, seeing as someone has to ask a closing admin to userfy an article anyway -- a reasonable timeline for improving the article can be discussed as soon as the request for userfication takes place. Randomran (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a negotiable time limit? It is a time limit which is negotiable. i.e. A negotiable time limit is a time limit.

The only example provided on this page of why this rule should be enacted was: User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking, a 17 word extension of a user's user page. If User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking made this a template, and put it in his user page, that would be okay. But since it exists as a separate page, some editors here are having a conniption fit, and spending a lot of time arguing about 17 words. User:Doug also roundly condemned this silly example.

As I wrote above, does User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking somehow degrade any other article on wikipedia in anyway? How does User:Eastmain/Raimond Spekking change your personal wikipedia experience?

Why not leave it up to the administrator to decide? As User:Doug so eloquently put it:

We should keep the language imprecise, it allows us to make case by case decisions at MfD based on real consensus, not trapping ourselves into what we think we want and finding it's almost never what we want.

Why create yet another rule, when this problem is adequately covered already?

travb (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My intent was not to create another rule but to clarify something that already exists and the thread title of Define and clarify "indefinitely" is a clear indicator of that. "In a Nutshell":

• Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses, number 3, says "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia."
• Wikipedia:USER tell users that "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It is also good for experimenting with markup (that is, as a personal sandbox)."
• Copies of other pages says "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."
• Userfication of deleted content says "However, such content should not be kept indefinitely in user space, per Wikipedia policy regarding the third disallowed use of subpages."

So what does "should not be kept indefinitely in user space" and "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content" mean in relation to the "Userfication of deleted content"? User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox was deleted with no discussion at all after one year. I had asked about it and Doug made a choice on their own to delete it rather than discuss it with anyone involved. I did not question their choice until now when they defended another article that has been sitting for , not one year, but two years. Given that both examples arose from deleted content being userfied they are valid examples of what is being discussed. In one example it appears that one year qualifies as "indefinitely" but another example given shows that 2 years does not qualify as "indefinitely" because of the user being active. My suggestion was that if it is only allowable for active users (active anywhere - not simply active in editing the userfied content) to have "exempt from deletion" status it should be proposed. Doug said they had "no proposal to make." So unless travb is willing to make that proposal it should not be brought up here because the core issue being discussed is any main space article that was deleted and userfied and how to define the length of "indefinitely". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Soundvisions1 raises a good point. We need a policy not just so articles aren't kept indefinitely, but so articles aren't deleted too soon -- when there's a good faith effort to improve them still in progress. I still maintain that the best way to do that is with a negotiable time limit, with the potential for extensions. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• We have a policy called WP:NOT and a guideline called WP:USER. I don't want to see the reason coming up in MFD discussions "Delete' - been there 6 mos - indef archive", but I will if you fix time limits and when 3 people vote and they all say delete and one says "keep - it's useful and they say they're going to work on it", do I delete because they're citing policy? Or do I make a judgment call based on the user's purpose and experience, in which case I am not only invoking IAR but imposing my own personal belief about the value of the page in place of the indicated consensus and that's a sure fire reason for a DRV. How do I weigh the vote that is to make an "exception to policy"? As things are, when 3 people who haven't been on Wikipedia for 6 months between them vote to delete I have the discretion to say that the one voting keep is more in line with policy based on the circumstances and therefore better reflects the consensus of the community. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Any deletion tags mention the Userfication_of_deleted_content

Do any current deletion tags mention: Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content? Most wikipedians don't know this option is available to them. travb (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would point out here that Userfication is something of an exception to the general rule, which is that unencyclopedic content created in article space should be done away with altogether. bd2412 T 06:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've userfied a number of articles for people, and for me, it really depends on why the article was deleted. Spam, attack or COI? Nah, not gonna userfy it. But if an editor makes a good faith attempt to write an article and feels they need more time than the deletion process allows to get it up to snuff, I have absolutely no problem userfying it. I also strongly recommend to them that they have it reviewed before moving it back because most new editors need a few tries before they really get the idea of sourcing.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully Fabrictramp. (great name BTW). Template:User_recovery part of Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles has conditions to recover a deleted page:

"If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected WP:BLP violation"

Which can, and probably already does, apply here...travb (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Userfied page template

Is there a template to place on a userfied page? Something similar to {{userpage}} perhaps? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not, that I am aware of. bd2412 T 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have started using the {{oldafdfull}} template followed by a custom message on the talk page of the article/userfied version. So it would look like this:

As a result of a deletion discussion this article was userfied on day month year (UTC) to [[User:username/location]]

The codes is:

{{cmbox

|type = notice

|image=[[File:Exquisite-folder document.png|35px|Userfication]]

|imagesmall=[[File:Exquisite-folder document.png|20px|Userfication]]

|small={{{small|}}}

|text=As a result of a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAME OF DELETION DISCUSSION|deletion discussion]] this article was [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content|userfied]] on DAY MONTH YEAR (UTC) to [[User:username/location]]

}}

Hope that helps. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not thought of it, but that is a good idea for the talk page. I sometimes see an article in userspace (usually because it is stuffed into a category), and have no idea why it is there. It would be useful to have a message on the userfied article:

The message would also include {{NOINDEX}} to prevent search engine indexing. It might also be useful to include a tracking category such as "deleted articles that have been userfied". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are features of both that I like. If an article is userfied as a result of a deletion discussion, then the template should permit inclusion of a link to that discussion. Bear in mind that content is often userfied prior to initiation of an official process, through an informal contact between the userfier and the initial author. I definitely agree with the {{NOINDEX}}, and categorization. I prefer the friendlier look of the second template. bd2412 T 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point— I removed the references to "deleted article". This template (call it userfiedpage for now) should remain on the page only while it is userfied. We should still have a template on the talk page to permanently record information similar to {[tl|oldafdmulti}}: the date and reason it was userfied and the date it was restored; it should be based on {{tmbox}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the userspace/userfied version itself you mean, correct? My use is for articles that have been deleted and than userfied and for talk page use, the other is for general use on the main page of the userfied article so they serve somewhat of the same purpose. It had been suggested to me to use {{ArticleHistory}} when there are AFD, DRV and Userification along the way but there are not and currently defined actions in place for various userfication reasons and, when the tag is placed in userspace it defaults to "USER:NAME" and not "ARTICLE:NAME". So, for example, "Articles for Deletion" becomes "Users for deletion". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Any template that does namespace detection is going to be tricky. The idea is that a userfied article may someday be moved back to articlespace. BTW: the Userfiedpage category should probably be "Userfied articles". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Template {{UserfiedPage}} {{userfiedpage}} is now ready. Any thought to putting userfied articles into a category? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with categorizing userfied articles as such. It would basically be a maintenance category. bd2412 T 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a bit about Incubation?

The follow text stood unchallenged for about 1.5 months before it was reverted by Gigs:

Articles which do appear to be appropriate for inclusion, but which are not yet up to Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, rather than userfied. The article incubator provides several benefits over userfying such articles. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit.

I agree with the reversion, as the addition was never discussed and the wording is too strong. However, I think it would be beneficial to mention the incubator project in the text of this essay. I would suggest something like the following, but I am, of course, open to adjustments.

An alternative to userification is the article incubator. Like userification, incubation allows editors the opportunity to work on sub-par articles outside of mainspace. Incubation, however, increasing the chance of collaboration, which may or may not be beneficial to any given article. Unlike userspace, incubated articles are noindexed by default. That means they won't show up in search engines, which may be preferable for promotional or POV-driven articles.

Thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support adding something like your text as long as it notes that incubation is still a new/experimental process. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording as proposed by ThaddeusB. All processes are new at some point, I don't see a need to call that out here. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that incubation is not an established process. It's a controversial process that many people are adopting a "wait and see" attitude toward, including myself. Material that implies that incubation is some sort of well-established process is out of line. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused on what exactly makes it controversial in your mind. To me, it is basically a project space version of userification. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with promoting the idea of incubation for appropriate materials. bd2412 T 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, could you point me to discussion about why this is controversial? I'd not seen any issues raised, but I only just started looking at it. Seems like centralized userfication with no real drawbacks. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There was an early MfD as there was suspicion that it would be abused to circumvent deletion decisions, but the MfD closed as keep, and I've not seen any controversy about it since. It was included in the Signpost without any uproar and is now occasionally mentioned as an option at AfD without controversy. Fences&Windows 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD link for convenience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's all there is then I don't see any need to label this as "new". I just don't see how it helps. Hobit (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all of the comments at the MfD (from non-project-members at least) were skeptical and only cautiously optimistic. While I too remain skeptical, I do want to see the incubator succeed. If we try to force this process down people's throats, we will get backlash. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you propose exact wording? Hobit (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a line that is pretty conservative without being negative toward incubation. Gigs (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicking, probably

The second paragraph in the section Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content begins: "Pages that would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may or may not be userfied on request". If a page fails criteria for deletion, there's no reason to delete it and, consequently, to userfy it, is there? --Thrissel (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion only covers cases where deletion is obviously necessary. Other processes and reasons for deletion exist (WP:PROD, WP:AFD). Rd232 ^talk 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So the sentence really means that "only pages which would clearly fail the criteria for speedy deletion may be userfied, those which would clearly pass those criteria [so there's no reason for keeping them anywhere at all] may not be userfied"? Seems a somewhat roundabout way of saying it, but all right... --Thrissel (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It should more likely be phrased that "pages which meet CSD even for userspace should not be userfied." CSD has criteria which differ to a greater or lesser extent depending on the usage of the page. Collect (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice ideas Collect, building off what you said,

"Pages which should be deleted under Criteria for Speedy Deletion should not be userfied."

How is that? Ikip 13:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to change to "which would be deleted from userspace under" just to avoid the issue (which has arisen) on MfD where an edtor avers that CSD applies precisely equally to all spaces. Sound ok? Collect (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the larger policy question: are there some spaces which meet the criteria for CSD, but should be userfied (or subject to userfication) anyway? bd2412 T 18:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And CSD in fact lists one category explicitly -- test and sandbox pages (CSD G2). Pages which are preparation for WP DR processes are implicitly included as well (that is, they may fall into a CSD G10 but be proper in userspace). And this is not meant to include all possible cases where this is applicable. Collect (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I would say for sure that attack pages, gibberish, releases of personal information and the like should be speedied, and never userfied. Should we be explicit in saying as much? bd2412 T 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a problem -- userspace specifically allows a reasonable amount of personal information (presuming you mean about the editor, and not about others, of course). Collect (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)