Wikipedia talk:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring

some comments

1. it would be really helpful if the header to this series of questions had a synopsis of the issues at stake here.
2. a bunch of the discussion seems confused, mushing together discussion of things in draft space with things in user space, and many of the questions are nonspecific. This is happening on subpage of Userpage; is this even an appropriate venue to discuss things in draftspace? Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It is on the correct page, and if you think userspace drafts are different from normal drafts, you can give your opinion in that matter. I've tried to make all proposals as precise as possible (though I have not made all the proposals, only most of them). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Editwarring

@Legacypac and QEDK: Edit warring over an RFC is a dumb thing to do. Cut it out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If we are doing this site wide, I'm not aware of it. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Arguing over a 1 hour extension of an RfC due to a 1 hour technical downtime of the project? Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.

In any case, the RfC author, QEDK, doesn't get that level of control over the close, and neither would Legacypac as an involved participant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Which is why he should not be posting such instructions. I'm tired of him telling me how to indent etc etc. Drawing the line. Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and Legacypac: I've said it twice already. I'm simply saying that since there will be technical downtime, we might as well extend it. It's as we have the mandatory complete 7 days for AfDs. I don't see why should there be no reason to give it one hour of added time to the minimum. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It'd be unlikely to be closed within a week of the nominal close time, even if wasn't such a mess. WP:LAME indeed. —Cryptic 07:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, way to fight over something that truly does not matter. An hours worth of downtime in a week only matters if you don't sleep. Reverting something that truly does not matter is about as silly. Neither of you get to choose the close time, someone uninvolved will do that. HighInBC 15:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur that if truly the RFC closes in the 1 hour period that I will buy QEDK a tasty beverage of his choice. To edit war over this is at best trolling, and at worst disruptive editing. QEDK made a bold change, Legacypac objected and reverted. At that point QEDK should have discussed it here (instead of revert warring and discussing via edit summary). Hasteur (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I let BRD go because I thought it was not necessary, well I haven't reinstated the content so I guess it's fine. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll let editors who care about such things deal with the 3RR issue, but I am a bit concerned with the fact that an involved editor is trying to dictate closing instructions at all. QEDK, would you consider removing the closing instructions entirely and just letting an uninvolved editor close this according to typical procedures? I'm not going to editwar over it, but that's the problem here. Realistically, this probably will run at least 40 days before someone posts this at WP:ANRFC and someone gets to it, so trying to give exact times it will run for, etc. is all really pointless. It gives off the impression you're trying to moderate the debate, which is not your job (or anyone's job, really). ~ Rob^Talk 18:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the typical procedure down as the closing instructions. What's wrong with that? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing, but I think it's the attempt at clerking that are rubbing other editors the wrong way here. Things like correcting people when they write below the commented line, asking for more than one closer (very unnecessary), requiring no closures as no consensus (not proper procedure to leave open indefinitely), and then the moving of the clock by one hour. It's a role that almost never needs to be taken on by anyone, but certainly not by an involved editor. Let the closer clerk if necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can clerk. I'm only trying to keep everything organized. Am I in the err? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but it's resulted in a AN3 report and a lot of wasted editor time. Is that worth it regardless of whether it's right? I'm not judging whether you did something wrong or not according to the letter of policy/guideline. I'm just suggesting you let others take care of this since it appears controversial for you to be involved in this way. ~ Rob^Talk 19:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Take care of what. I did not file the AN3 report nor did I go beyond two reverts within let's say 10 minutes, did I, so blaming me for wasted editor time is a moot point. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I would observe that you brought this waste of time down on yourself. Consider the big red box at WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. The content of the AN:EW report is over that content. Being right does not entitle you to violate 3RR, and now your interaction with BU Rob13 suggests that WP:OWN may be in effect and a page ban to prevent future disruption may be in order. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Good heavens, no. We're not going to page ban someone from the RfC they started and give those who support keeping everything a reason to see this RfC as illegitimate. Calm down. ~ Rob^Talk 19:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If the creator can't keep their emotions in check and be neutral then per WP:DE we are obligated to take actions to prevent further disruption. Also I'm not on the "keeping everything" side of the debate. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur, you can do everything you can, I assure you, none of them will touch me. You know why, because you're wrong, about everything. Perceiving clerking as ownership? Removing an useless timestamp (which was my addition) as edit warring? You're a funny man. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And it is that OWNERSHIP that I find offensive. I reverted the archiving of this. Highly involved editors should not archive discussions just after they attack another editor for being wrong about everything. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing.

Seraphimblade, Ymblanter and KrakatoaKatie, thank you for taking on the the task of closing the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's taking a little longer than I initially anticipated and stated, due to real life interference and the sheer number of proposals, but I'm pretty sure we'll have them both closed by the end of the week. :-) Katie^talk 03:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus statement question

Seraphimblade, Ymblanter, KrakatoaKatie: I'm having a little difficulty parsing one sentence for the consensus statement:

• Other questions of this RfC gained consensus that AfC submissions should be moved to draft namespace. Rejected AFC submissions can not be kept in the draft space indefinitely, and if they have not been edited in six months they are covered by WP:CSD#G13.

The second sentence starts with Rejected, does this mean that WP:CSD#G13 has been rejected? ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the second sentence is about drafts which have been rejected as AfC submissions. [[WP:CSD#G13] has not been discussed, and there is no indication that the community wants to abolish it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank for the clarification. I'm still having difficulty reading that from this bullet point. Would this be an accurate recast? ~Kvng (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Other questions of this RfC gained consensus:

1. AfC submissions should be moved to draft namespace
2. Rejected AFC submissions can not be kept in the draft space indefinitely
3. Rejected AFC submissions not edited in six months are subject to deletion under WP:CSD#G13

Yes, I think all of these points are correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me make this as plain as I can, though I thought we did in the close.

• This RFC decided that all AFC submissions have to go to draft space. No more AFC in user space.
• CSD#G13 covers AFC submissions that haven't been edited in six months. 'Rejected AFC submissions' means AFC submissions that have been rejected. If they are rejected, presumably no one is going to edit them and eventually they will meet the six-month G13 requirement.

I honestly don't know how you can parse our closing to mean that G13 has been rejected. but that's not the case. If you have more questions or if this is still unclear to anyone, ping us. :-) Katie^talk 13:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was reading it as, "Other questions of this RfC gained consensus: that AfC submissions should be moved to draft namespace. Rejected: AFC submissions can not be kept in the draft space indefinitely, and if they have not been edited in six months they are covered by WP:CSD#G13." A bit of strained wishful thinking on may part I guess as abolishing G13 had been discussed in some of the threads I was reading. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

B2 clarification

@Seraphimblade, Ymblanter, and KrakatoaKatie: It's been a little while since this close, but I'm finding myself needing clarification on something here. From the close statement:

B2. Should drafts be moved across namespaces or submitted for AfC without the author's explicit permission if it's fit to be an article?

Consensus is yes. Some users had reservations that only drafts of reasonably inactive users should be moved across namespaces or submitted for AFC, but the definition of 'reasonably inactive' was not addressed and there is no consensus about what it means. The community is encouraged to formulate an RFC to establish what level of inactivity is appropriate.

As far as I know, there has yet to be a discussion to define "reasonably inactive". If/when that happens, my question will presumably be moot. However, what I'm finding absent from this statement is an actual affirmation that indeed the user should be "reasonably inactive" (with the definition of that term TBD). The wording about the "inactive" qualifier seems to remove that from the scope of the closure, with merely "some users [having] reservations", and there being "no consensus about what [those reservations mean]", thus "yes" is the only definitive outcome, meaning it's ok to send an active user's drafts through AfC. Could you clarify the language if this is not what you intended?

For context, the reason I'm here is because twice in the past few weeks I've been surprised by AfC draft rejections on my usertalk page due to someone adding the AfC submission template to pages I've worked on. In one case, it was only a few days old, in draft space while determining which title to use; in the other case, it's a draft obviously far from fit for mainspace (so indeed, addressed by other parts of this RfC). I would like to have something to point to in requesting that users not add AfC tags to active users' drafts, but found that this didn't quite support that. It's not a big deal, but a little annoying and wastes AfC volunteers' time. These discussions seem fraught enough that it may be worth clarification. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah... Sounds like someone is playing silly buggers to make some sort of point. The RFC was about "stale" drafts... And no matter how you define "stale", it should not have applied to your two drafts. I would report the editor who tagged them to an appropriate admin. If they are doing this to other relatively new user page drafts, that's disruptive behavior that could get them sanctioned. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good point re the "stale" premise. Is it written anywhere [that I'm not seeing] not to send active users' drafts through AfC without their consent, or would that just be an assumed best practice based on other policies/guidelines? It was two different people in the examples I referenced. One was an IP and the other an experienced editor demonstrating what I presume is just a lapse in judgment. Absent a pattern to that effect, I don't see a need to take it any further than the respective talk/usertalk pages. ...But I do like knowing when policies/guidelines say things in certain/uncertain terms. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Speaking just for myself, my read on the closing consensus is that it's not a major issue to move stale drafts from inactive editors to AfC (and you're correct there was no real definition of "inactive", but I think most of us know it when we see it), but it would at very minimum be courteous to ask an active editor before doing that with something they've been working on. I do not, however, think there was consensus for a broad or absolute prohibition on the practice, just reservations about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
      • That's how I read consensus as well. There's going to have to be an RFC sometime on what level of activity is appropriate or if it's okay to just do it. Regardless, it's kind of disrespectful to go into the userspace of an experienced, active editor and tag or move his/her stuff. Katie^talk 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I should add that one of the examples I gave above hadn't been edited in more than a year, so could feasibly be considered "stale". I don't think that changes anything, because if a user is active there's no reason to send their work through AfC without talking to them, but that bit of context may matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So I'm on the "deletionist" side of things when it comes to stale drafts, and even I think anyone who's routinely tagging drafts that aren't mainspace-ready with AFC templates should be warned and then blocked if it continues. If they aren't mainspace-ready, this represents an obvious attempt to game the system with regard to WP:G13. I think the community's opinion on this is already very clear. B2 included the all-important "if it's fit to be an article" clause. B3 explicitly rejected (with no support whatsoever) one avenue of seeking deletion while avoiding MfD. I don't think we need another RfC to make it clear that the community rejects, in the strongest possible terms, attempts to delete stale drafts without a proper MfD. This sort of gaming has been a massive waste of the community's time, and I don't think we should waste more of it. If there's a particular editor doing this routinely, it's time to bring it to ANI, especially if that editor was warned in the past for similar attempts to game the system. ~ Rob^Talk 18:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)