Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rcsprinter123/Receive the Signpost by Mail

 __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  Speedy Deleted by user request. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Rcsprinter123/Receive the Signpost by Mail


This is getting users to spew out their address and will never be used really. There's one subscribed user only. Ebe 123  → report ← Contribs 11:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. If only one user has subscribed, then in fact it isn't getting users to spew out their address, surely? What exactly are the concerns with it? Are there any concerns that wouldn't be addressed by the page being tweaked to include a rudimentary privacy policy for the scheme, and a clarification that the delivery address should only go in the email, not on the talk page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It isn't the slightest bit disruptive. It is used by one user, so just leave it alone. Only leave it for email only, not the talk page for privacy purposes.  HurricaneFan 25  13:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Within reasonable use of userspace, and no remote sign of abuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... What on Earth? Who is paying for this service, Rcsprinter123? Since when did we encourage editors to make their postal addresses public to other users? This is problematic for all sorts of reasons, and it seems remarkable to me that the three users above don't seem to see the slightest thing odd about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it if Rcsprinter himself commented on how used this service is, because as far as I know, 2 users have requested it overall, and it wasn't logistically possible for either. As long as the address is given to the user by email (publishing on wiki is not a good idea), I don't see the issue. He's not asking for money, this appears to be a generous offer - though only for people in the UK. I should point out that one of the editors who signed up for it is User:Sj, who not only is an admin and has been around for years but also is a member of the board of trustees. I would suggest that the page is tweaked to explain the limitations (UK only), and to ensure addresses are only posted by email, perhaps even a note to say that this is totally off Rcsprinter's back - not from the foundation.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Totally endorse Worm That Turned's summary. I will make the necessary changes to the page.  Rcsprinter  (chat)  16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, but there's still something rather weird about requesting postal addresses from people to send them a printoff of a Web page. Have you actually sent any of these out? Have you verified that the address supplied actually belongs to the editor who requested it, and isn't just some random postal address? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There is far too much reliance on AGF here with no consideration for the issue. Sure, I assume good faith, and I assume the creator of this page has the best intentions and is doing an excellent job. However, it is the responsibility of sadder but wiser editors to point out that encouraging or condoning the idea that it is desirable for an editor to collect the address (email or physical location) of other users is not helpful to the encyclopedia, and is potentially dangerous. I'll spell it out if I really have to, but isn't it obvious? If the WMF thinks this is a good idea, get them to administer the project, but random editors should not be given the job of collating private information regardless of whether that information has been volunteered. It is both heartening and sad that many humans are so trusting that if they see a message like "type in your mail address and I will send yoo good stuff" on a Wikipedia page, they think it must be ok. It's not. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have to agree with Johnuniq here. As we all know, AGF is not a suicide pact.  I cannot for the life of me fathom why someone would volunteer to send snail mail versions of Signpost to who knows how many people, very likely internationally.  And even if Rcsprinter123 really does intend to do this, and to use all of the information only for legitimate purposes, do we want to encourage people to give their mail address to other WP users?  Isn't that just encouraging poor security behavior? Would we allow a user to say "If your going on a long wikibreak, but will have email access and want someone to periodically update your userpage, give me your username and password and I'll respond on your behalf"?  While we're not ultimately responsible for individual WP user's security/privacy, since we have the tools to prevent abuse at no loss to the project, I don't see why we wouldn't utilize them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Johnuniq, Qwyrxian, and Thumperward make some relevant observations. Rcsprinter's initiatives are commendable, and I  have no  reason  to  believe that  they  are not in  good faith. This and his recent  attempt, however,  at  a user survey can engender  security and privacy  issues, and hence give me pause. There is also  the concern that  they  may  be misinterpreted by  users as official  Wikipedia or WMF projects which, at  the moment, they  are not. Like all  our projects here, I think it  is worthy  of more community discussion, and if this action  is intended for a UK-wide distribution  only, I  would strongly  recommend that  Rcsprinter propose his idea to  Wikimedia's UK chapter who  may  or may  not  be able to  support and supervise it. I  don't  believe Rcsprinter would be offended if the page were to  be deleted while awaiting   the outcome of such  an approach.  I  would welcome more comment  from  Rcsprinter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the service to be discontinued and the link removed from the Signpost subpage, but I would still rather keep it in userspace as a sort of 'record' of what could have been, rather than have it deleted.  Rcsprinter  (talk to me)  16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered and decided it would be best to just delete, and have listed it for speedy deletion U1. Please consider this case closed.  Rcsprinter  (rap)  18:20, 12 November 2011 (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.