Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bluerasberry/cr

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep, there is no time limit for draft development, and activity is continuing. Recommend developing a plan for having this reviewed and moved to mainspace, COI review can be performed, and discussion on the article talk page may also be helpful. — xaosflux  Talk  17:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry/cr


I think this would violate WP:FAKEARTICLE but it's a bit of an unusual situation. The userspace page is much, much better than the Consumers Union article and instead of improving the actual article, (including templates, etc.) we have this in userspace. However, I see that the editor is a Wikipedian in Residence there (see WikiProject Consumer Reports) so there may be (?) a COI and so we need to keep it separate? Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an article I drafted for the organization at which I work. It is in my userspace and I never expected anyone to see it because I never link to it except in private internal work email. It has Template:NOINDEX on it already and in response to your tagging, I also put Template:Userspace draft on it.
 * How did you find this article? Why do you ask that this be deleted? Is it somehow being disruptive in my userspace?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was wandering through various templates. There are a general policy (FAKEARTICLE) against user subpages that look like general articles. I'd prefer it not be deleted but we actually merge the contents into the actual articles. It creates a content fork and we shouldn't have multiple versions of articles, one live and the other not (even if never in use). I realize the COI issues with you working there so maybe I have the wrong idea on how to deal with this. Your version is months old and if there are policy changes or some reason not to allow part of that article (source issues, technical issues, style changes, whatever), that wouldn't match the mainspace rules. Even if you only use it for work, in a sense, you're using the site to host your preferred version of the article, as opposed to the site being used to host a version of it. Let's see what others think. If I'm wrong, then please continue on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I care about Consumer Reports and I also would like the content here shared on Wikipedia. However, the Wikipedia community is very touchy about COI, and I do not want to go through the hassle of debating this content in the provided channels. My own organization does not want me sharing this either, and in general, no organization likes their staff talking about them on Wikipedia or anywhere else so I am sort of alone in having this content. I was thinking to wait for months or years longer until the Wikipedia community develops better infrastructure for reviewing COI content. This is a tremendous amount of text and even I have not reviewed it, even though I made it with as much care as I typically do elsewhere on Wikipedia. I cannot imagine this long article being reviewed with less than 20-30 hours of commitment, and I cannot ask the Wikipedia community to spend that much time on an article that is not so important among all other Wikipedia articles. I would like for it to just sit in my userspace for months or years longer while I think about it.
 * Alternatively - if I ever found some third party volunteer with a scholarly background in history then it would be awesome if they committed their free time to promoting awareness of my organization based on the outline I made.
 * If I delete this now and store my copy outside of Wikipedia, then the article history will be lost and I feel that there is value in my being transparent about the thought I put into this on Wikipedia. I definitely want to minimize harm to the Wikipedia community of readers and editors and would like to be discreet about my even having this here, and regret that you found it. I know of no other example in which a paid Wikipedian put this much work into an article and then intended to store it privately perpetually, but that is what I would like to do. There is no friendly environment in which I could share this without being criticized both by my coworkers and by other Wikipedians. Please keep me safe especially from the Wikipedia community. Give me a path to discretion. Do you really think it is best that I remove on-wiki records that I wrote this?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your position entirely. However, if anyone from Company X said "I want to keep a separate discrete version of an article here for my own use," I have the same position. The point here is that the articles are written by consensus, which means the discussions are going to be public and will require compromise. As for discretion, you are using these resources and you've disclosed everything; I don't see where they would be a concern. I will ask WP:COIN about it for more advice. I really don't know what to do. If the consensus is that you can keep it here, I'll withdraw my nomination and you can go on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. I think I presumed that users can keep drafts in their own sandboxes indefinitely, but if there are guidelines about the limits of personal storage then I would like to conform to them. My goal is to avoid trouble and controversy, and my first thought upon being examined is that it might be best for me to not use Wikipedia for long-term storage of drafts and to delete whatever I do not intend to make live in the foreseeable future.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I agree our policies on COI need much work. Let's see what others think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is any genuine intention of working on an article, a userspace draft can be kept as long as desired. There is no time limit, except if it is abandoned or useless or in some way harmful. The use of storage is irrelevant; removing this just makes it inaccessible to non-admins, it does not free up storage. Furthermore, the amount of computer resources in discussing this is greatly more than in keeping the material, especially since this discussion also will be kept forever. Even if one is thinking in terms of the prospective waste of resources in doing this, we've been assured many times that it is utterly trivial. And if one did desire to utterly remove it from the database, apparently the amount of manual intervention involved is so prohibitive that this is almost never done, and if done, only for legal reasons. Your work at CR is highly beneficial to the encyclopedia, and by the principle of IAR if necessary that is sufficient justification.
 * But Blue, I really cannot understand why you would not want to use the material. There are perfectly good coi mechanisms for this: you ask in public for someone to review it. Someone surely will. It sometimes takes a while, but for a WPedian in very good standing I would think it could and would be done almost immediately. I don;t know what you have in mind for developing better mechanisms--I cannot actually imagine a mechanism that would not involve the review by one or more established WPedians. Looking at the material, I do not see there is likely to be much dispute about it, though I might be wrong, because apparently some people here will dispute anything. I'm not sure what sort of harmful discussion you anticipate: if you cannot say here, please get in touch with me. But any imaginable mechanism for ever adding anything to WP, by anybody--coi or not, will always involve the possibility of debate.   Are you saying you made a mistake in trying to write about CR while you work there? Or that they think so? If this cannot be discussed in public, please talk to me about it. My current view is that prohibiting neutral writing like this would be a perversion of our WP in residence program, whether done by WP or by the organization. The concept of a WPIR, is that the individual is there because they can be trusted.   DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree but this is not a draft since there is an article out there. I'd like to see if we can incorporate it but I don't think we should allow a separate version. I don't know the COI policies well enough but I agree with DGG that WPIR doesn't make sense if we don't use their knowledge here. The biggest problem I imagine is people adding unsourced negativity but that requires a harder focus on sourcing any material added. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly in order to propose a replacement version of an article, and I take this to be such. Depending on the situation, we can accept under a variant name, and then merge, or sometimes, simply replace. (ideally merging the histories). This can be a lot easier than makinga list of separate extensive changes. There's no fixed rule, & we should do what is best in view of the actual merits. The principle of course, is NOT BURO.  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

`
 * Keep I'm familiar with this situation, and think it should simply be kept. It is a bit of an unusual situation, but there is no harm done keeping it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Sphilbrik. Adding the other templates and the existing NOINDEX should relieve any concerns.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG - No harm in it being Kept providing it's worked on :) →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.