User talk:EvergreenFir/sandbox7

I welcome any comments on this EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale for needing to do anything for something old, if it is harmless, if absolutely no other problem exists? Why is this not busywork? A big downside is the implication that some users need to manage other users' userspace, along a massive windback of traditional Wikipedian leeway in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: It was your comments on ANI that prompted me to make that first proposal where we just define when something can safely be considered stale. I think your point is valid, but I think it's safe to say MfD is a mess of drafts, has too little editor involvement, and is a burden on admins generally. Given that user spaces and the draft spaceare not indexed, I'm not convinced we have a problem other than thousands of useless pages. But I doubt Wikipedia is hurting for server space... The only thing I can think of is that many abandoned drafts may contain BLP violations due to lack of sources, lack of neutrality, or just general trolling. Blanking them would deal with that issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) OK, good.

I think "stale" applies when the content falls behind new circumstances. If it contains old references, but not new more important references. If any of the information has been contradicted by new information. It is not a simple matter of algorthmic calculation on datestamps. Material on science or history is very unlikely to become stale. Material on current events can become stale in days. Esoteric or niche subjects may look abandoned for a long time before someone with an interest in it comes along again. The notion that everything "stale" needs cleanup is largely destructive, and there is no articulated correct reason to clean up others userspace, except for noted reasons at WP:UPNOT, excluding "STALE". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue is that good pages can be directed by WikiProjects and active editors. The best AFC drafts are the ones furthest at Category:AfC postponed G13 postponed at least 3 or 4 times because multiple editors have determined there's value there. The problem is you can't say other people could come and pick up the slack and work on these pages and then just say "well we should also keep tens of thousands of pages of barely workable pages that are practically indistinguishable from starting over" and not have some sort of triage system. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just time based[edit]

The proposals treat all drafts the same, and that is a big mistake. There is a lot of cruft, but there is also non-cruft, and I don't think I have ever seen an indication that non-crufft doesn't get old. I suggest, if anything is to be done (still disagree that the job needs doing), incorporation of the following:

If there are any external links (presumed to be sources), or non default text in the reference section, then "old" be considered a longer time. Note: where these exist, many are promotion, which should be dealt with by anti-promotion-link bots.
If the author ever made 100 mainspace edits, then presume it was a productive Wikipedian, and exempt from this process. The vast bulk of time consuming nominations are from non-contributors or contributors with very few mainspace edits.
Addition of links that search both inside and outside Wikipedia, much like is done at AfD, but noting that many OK looking drafts are redundant to existing articles. This would be valuable in a trial period.
(added 04:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)) Content measures. Very small drafts are less likely to be sensitive for the author if deleted than longer drafts. Most MfD drafts readily deleted, which are not WP:UP#COPIES, are short.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So someone who made 100 mainspace edits a decade ago should be exempt from having their userspace drafts touched? We've never looked at a user's userspace based on the number of edits they have done. You do realize that your views are massively in the minority here and absent the fact that no one else is paying attention to the individual MFD discussions, everytime we get more outside views, they've been pretty resoundingly rejected? I don't know why it matters whether or not the editor has created 10 FAs or it's just their first edit, the actual draft matters. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of authors with 100+ mainspace edits can go to MfD. How many are they?

No, I do not realize my views are in the minority.

It matters because editors matter. If it is addressing brief one time only editors, the risk of alienation is low.

The author matters because there are so many pages it is easy to lose the diamonds in the dust. Already it is proposed and accepted to use the time since the last edit of the author. While that won't hurt, I suggest that the author's experience is probably a strong indicator for the quality of the draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need a guideline to deal with stale drafts. I've been promoting hundreds of articles out of stale draft lists. The number of mainspace edits is irrelevant. Frankly, I think the current activity level of the editor is irrelevant. Nearly all the blank drafts with only supplied text are from long gone editors, but occasionally I find one from an editor that made one or two edits in the last year, giving their blank draft a pass. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current activity level of the editor is irrelevant. I observe that nearly all worthless drafts are from low edit accounts. It is a logical consequence then that, as the page is old, that they have not edited for a long time. So time of inactivity is a poor indicator.

You've promoting hundreds of articles out of stale draft lists. Yes, I had not noted that, and it is reason to give you a lot more credit than I was giving you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1 seems unnecessary[edit]

WP:STALE is explicitly clear that one year of page inactivity and one year of editor activity is considered stale. This was discussed extensively as it leads to not just deletion but movement to draftspace, movement to mainspace, mergers and the like. The problem is that the language of point 6 ("if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion") gives no advice. "No potential" is vague and if you find nothing problematic with very old drafts that go nowhere, then deletion is never appropriate. User:A2soup has been proposing creating categories such as Category:Stale drafts with high potential, etc. but I have no idea what the point of that is beyond busywork (and what is actually supposed to be done with low potential stale drafts). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that footnote. Thank you. Hm... that does make proposal #1 useless. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we really just need an RFC on the wording behind point 6. "No potential and problematic even if blanked" gives no guidance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP:STALEDRAFT should be removed. It provide no reasons for action where there are not other independent reasons for action. Progress would be better directed at drafts in draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last time that was proposed although admittedly in bad faith, it was pretty soundly rejected. If you can craft a better nomination, I'd say go for it. As I said before, STALE also gives us some time limit to tell when it's ok to move a page from say userspace to draftspace or mainspace. I mean I had no concerns about being accused of being rude to Masudand when I moved Order of the Sons of America and worked on it before taking to mainspace since it had been many years. Else, are you saying that we should never touch a user's draft absent a CSD deletion reason? The issue is it shouldn't be a binary "delete/keep" discussion at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I have agreed with your previous statements of developing the criteria for when a userpage draft is a problem left alone. If the process was to work on the worst first, it would likely engender more collaboration. Also, I suggested process DraftSpace on these criteria first, avoiding the problem of insulting/alienating users. I don't remember if you answered that. At the moment, you and legacypac seem to be proceeding through a list alphabetically, which I think is not ideal. It produces a very random sequence of types of case, and I think this contributes to both exhaustion in the nomination rationale writing and in reviewing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE rudeness.

I don't think there was any rudeness to Masudand when moving Order of the Sons of America, quite the opposite I should expect. Improving a draft is an excellent thing to do, and should be complimented, and received like a compliment by the original author. It means the initial work was of value. Rudeness is likely when seeking deletion for a draft that you know or care little about. If you barely look into it, and then declare that all work done to date is of zero or negative value, that can be very rude if you are even slightly mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2[edit]

I can live with version 2 but that could basically be done in mass by AWB. It should be both unedited and editor inactivity not or. A bot could simply go through Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard in sequence by date and check on the editor's activity if they like. The problem is that the manual review does allow for us to find good articles hidden in there and while blanking is somewhat helpful, I think it just creates a new level of monitoring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently suggest blanking with {{Userpage blanked}} as a compromise solution at MfD, so I do support version 2 in practice. I don't support it in principle, since mainspace-worthy material is sometimes found and promoted through manual review, but I would prefer it to the deletions that occur now. I would be more in favor of simply making blanking with {{Userpage blanked}} the default action for non-speediable stale drafts that people feel the need to get rid of for whatever reason. This would clear up MfD and allay concerns about alienating users and wasting admin time. I would argue that this is already the guideline given at WP:STALEDRAFT, but there is obviously little agreement on that. A2soup (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]