Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 10

Recent Issues Involving MFD
In the recent past, Miscellany for Deletion has been the largely invisible XFD process. Articles for Deletion has always had controversial nominations. Every now and then CFD and RFD have provoked discussion. MFD has, in general, just been there, until the past few weeks. It appears that two or three editors have started going through user space and draft space, nominating pages for deletion, and that this has resulted in controversy, basically yet another deletionist-inclusionist quarrel. Two RFCs have been opened. One has been speedily closed, and the other, in my opinion, asks the wrong question. However, I will try to summarize what I think the issues are, and will also try to provide my own comments. I will try to provide a neutral summary of the issues, and I understand that other editors may disagree with my comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Relisting
There seems to be an issue that I don’t entirely understand concerning the relists of MFD discussions. The issue may be whether MFDs which have had very little comment should be relisted or closed. Is that the basic issue? The RFC is obscured by the fact that it uses non-neutral language, having to do with relisting “indiscriminately and without meaningful comment”. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It is my personal opinion, first, that every MFD, like every other XFD, that runs its seven days and drops below the line should be dealt with, either by closing or by relisting. Is there disagreement, or is the only question whether relisting is a valid alternative to closing? If the question has to do with when to relist, then there seem to be two cases. The first is MFDs that have had no participation. Should they be relisted? My own opinion is that they should be closed as Delete. If no one but the nominator has spoken, that is a consensus of one. Others may disagree. The second is MFDs that have no consensus. Should they be relisted, or closed as No Consensus? The latter amounts to Keep by default. Since MFD has always been a low-participation forum, I personally see no need to relist; just close as No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Robert, I used to close them as delete but this came up at DRV and WT:DRV seems to be of the consensus that people would vote to overturn and relist those. In the alternative, if you close as no consensus, they'll almost immediately be renominated (who really cares about a 3-year-old draft that's already in mainspace) at which point there's more votes. Relisting seems like a middle ground. If no one else speaks (like what happened with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaron Booth/Myles Erlick), I'll close by I always lean towards keeping since they could just as easily be restored upon request making the MFD moot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they should be relisted once; if there appears to be significant amount of discussion going on with no clear consensus, a second relist may be appropriate, but not otherwise. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my belief too. If there's no result after two weeks and it's died down, then it's died down with no consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree with relisting, unless there is a good reason to ask the usual reviewers to review it again. Relisting doesn't attract new attention.  I note the many supporting indiscriminate relisting are not usual reviewers at MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like you are trying to WP:OWN MfD SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. Note however, there are an awful lot of pages over many years deleted with only the nomination and my support, I am not just some new random troublemaker.  If feel like people concerned about old drafts are not realising they are killing MfD as a viable process.  Thanks for trying multiple pages in one listing, as discussed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Airship-Knight/The Ranger.  Hopefully User:BrownHairedGirl's advice there can help the method become less painful.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still painful, and there are very few truly connected pages to list together. I appreciate that you continue to vote away at MfD. I just wish that you would not make such as big deal about relisting, something that is clearly allowed and encouraged. Better for all to spend effort on making sure that every nomination gets enough attention it does not require relisting for lack of participation. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your longer more comprehensive nominations. They much more inspire confidence that the nominator has checked, and make reviewing a pleasure.  I said that if many nominations are to have identical nomination statements, they should be grouped.  If the nomination statements are different, single is the thing to do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines on When MFD is in Order
The guidelines for when MFD is in order are somewhat vague, partly because MFD applies to such a large variety of spaces. However, the large majority of MFDs are either in User space or in Draft space. These may seem on their face to be very different spaces, but they overlap because of the way that Articles for Creation is used, in that Drafts are always meant to go through AFC, but that user sandboxes and user subpages can also go through AFC. In my view, user sandboxes that have been more than once submitted to AFC, and user subpages that have been submitted to AFC, should be treated as if they were in Draft space. (User subpages that are submitted to AFC are usually moved by the reviewer into draft space, so that there are relatively few user subpages in MFD that have gone to AFC. Sometimes user sandboxes may not be moved to Draft space by the reviewer, because it may not be clear what their title should be or even whether they have a title.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The guidelines became unworkable when someone unilaterally added "stale" language to UP#NOT, and others proceeded with a broad definition of "stale", and read the guideline as an imperative to MfD stale things. Also significant was the invention of AfC and then DraftSpace.  These things are magnets for useless cruft, mostly, and they serve to keep the cruft out of mainspace, keeping some control on AfD.  The notion that the cruft must now be fed through MfD is illogical.  MfD cannot handle individual nominations for 40K pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * They aren't unworkable or new. The concepts have been extensively discussed and were inserted around August 2011], review the actual archives, that is far from unilateral. There's old MFDs from 2008 where one-year old drafts were deleted as stale. It's been a part of the discussion forever. No one is planning on nominating 40k pages for deletion immediately. It's a slow systematic process. I think we've reviewed probably 6k pages since November with a large number deleted by CSD and a small number relative to that going through MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It feels recent. The "stale" language appeared unilaterally earlier and has been problematic ever since, including in the threads linked in the summary of the version you cite.
 * Unworkable if all nominated in a short time. Are you planning on nominating 40k pages, just not immediately?  According to what criteria?  You have a low poor nomination rate (statement in the nomination is found to be in error and the page is not deleted), but I am more concerned that helpers will have an increased nomination rate with a higher poor nomination rate co-inciding with an inability for nominations to be properly reviewed.  If you could point to criteria or method used to choose from the 40k, that would be very helpful to this discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all those pages are problems and not all of them are problems that require MFD so drop the strawman nonsense and discuss this honestly. We went from roughly 46k in November until now and no, not every single one went through MFD. It only bothered you the moment I started relisting some MFDs for discussions I didn't even participate in. I'm not the only one reviewing these so I have no idea what criteria people are using but most likely they are checking for CSD violations, moving some to draftspace and suggesting the most problematic ones for MFD. There's healthy debate on these as some are kept, some are blanked and others are deleted. Some people think too many are kept, others think too many are blanked and others think too many are deleted but those are all in line with when MFD is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * “drop the strawman nonsense and discuss this honestly”
 * Answer the question then. You and WikiProject Abandoned drafts, what are your criteria for nominating at MfD?  Noting that you have already identified an overwhelming backlog, I think it is an important question.  You have no idea, because you are not the only one nominating?  I suggest that is a problem.  You appear to be doing it randomly, with a low error rate, but others will follow you style, and without effective review, due to MfD overload, their errors will pass.


 * “It only bothered you the moment I started relisting”
 * Absolutely not. I was severely bothered by the recent rush, 2015, of many nominations, all with perfunctory nominations.  By you.  By Legacypac.  By TwistedSister.  Then you three, mostly, adopted simply shallow perfunctory mutually supporting !votes.  Tag teaming, low quality reviews, overloading of a backwater process, it is highly objectionable.  I proceeded to ignore nominations on worthless harmless pages, my complaints getting not traction (it is a backwater, after all).
 * It bothered me that unattended nominations with perfunctory rationales began being deleted by default (by you). I was very pleased that someone else raised objections to that, and that many have subsequently raised objections in many places.  For me, it is déjà vu, the long ago lost attempt to expand WP:PROD into userspace.
 * Relisting deliberately ignored nominations, with zero meaningful comment (akin to the shallow perfunctory nomination rationales) was just too much, especially where I had already made a counter argument. You (or anyone) could have just disagreed with me.
 * The systematic problem with relisting excessively is that it removes things from the backlog, which is an important place to begin reviewing. When relisted, it is then prone to being closed before, well before, again returning to the backlog.  When reviewing from the tail end, which I continue to submit should be recommended practice, it means that the discussion can be entirely missed by systematic review.  “Disruption” is an appropriate word.  Separately, it is also an issue that the new nominations are mixed with old nomination with visually compelling markup drawing attention to them.
 * So, with you failing to engage in meaningful conversation, asking that we discuss in one place but you initiating parallel threads on several pages, all while failing to answer simple question, a targeted revert was required to call attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What simple questions? You keep bringing up a new every argument every day about your personal issues with MFD, your personal dislike of the coloring, your personal offense at the sorting, all in opposition to stuff that's been policy for half a decade after you keep saying "this is a new idea and there hasn't been enough discussion" and I show you it's been around for three, four years with these things, you just respond "well, that may be consensus but **I** was never consulted". You have yet to even propose a coherent RFC question on why one particular relisting of mine you insist on reverting while others you are perfectly fine with other than you bizarre repeated attacks on my integrity by claiming that this is some nonsense deletionist tactic. If all the RFCs were closed today, what exactly have you gained here other than waste pages and pages of discussions arguing about every minute detail with no end in sight? Is your questions the "don't you think MFD would explode if you list 40k pages for deletion today!!!" routine? Again, I'm not the one doing this, I'm not leading this charge, no one is proposing that idiocy but it is considered a backlog and has been around as a backlog for decades. And it's clear your solution is "I'm opposed to this and I'm going to make everyone's life difficult to get my way" here. If you fundamentally admit that some relistings are appropriate, then tell me when it is appropriate to you and when it is not and "relistings are not ok when ***I*** say they are indiscriminately done" is not an answer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles for Creation MFDs
When should a page that has gone through AFC be nominated for MFD? My own opinion is when it is hopeless, when it is clear that the page will never make it to mainspace, but its presence in a sandbox or in draft space is a nuisance. That can happen in two situations. The first situation is that the page is being tendentiously resubmitted without improvements. This wastes the time of the reviewers. It can be dealt with either by nominating the page for MFD, or by sanctioning the author, and the former seems the less harsh action when a harsh action is needed. If other editors think that a block is the better action, they may state that opinion. (If so, we may then go to situation two.)

The second situation is when the author has been blocked indefinitely, e.g., as purely promotional, or as a vandal. (I am aware that at least one editor disagrees with me on this point.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes you think mere presence in a sandbox is a nuisance? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the mere presence of a sandbox is a nuisance. You may have misunderstood my words (or may be conflating two situations).  I favor the deletion of a sandbox, or user subpage, or draft, in two situations, only one of which is because it is a nuisance.  The first is if it is being tendentiously resubmitted to AFC with no effort to improve it.  In that case, it is a nuisance because it wastes the time of the reviewers.  The second is if two conditions are met.  The author should be blocked or banned, and the page will never be a candidate for article space.  In that case, I favor deletion, not because it is a nuisance, but because it is cruft.  I will point out that I do not always favor the deletion of drafts by blocked or banned users.  See Draft:Geopolymer concrete and its MFD.  Its author has been indefinitely blocked.  However, it appears to be a high-quality draft, although it needs attention from a neutral expert to ensure that it does not contain biased language (because there seems to be an ugly scientific controversy between two scientists).  A sandbox is only a nuisance if it is tendentiously resubmitted without being improved.  A sandbox is useless cruft if its author is blocked or banned (and so doesn't have the privilege of having a play area) and there is no hope of its content becoming an article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User Space MFDs (not AFC)
When should user pages that are not AFC drafts in disguise be nominated for MFD? I would include non-sandbox pages that would warrant CSD if they were in article space (e.g., patent nonsense, not in English) and fake articles. (A few user pages qualify for CSD even in user space, such as attack pages, spam, and copyvio.) I would also include user subpages of users who have been indefinitely blocked, unless they can be moved to another space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I really dislike the idea of deleting drafts from user space. The whole idea behind user space is that the stuff there "belongs" to the user.  It is the one place where WP:OWN does not apply (it is the one place where an editor can claim ownership of the text).  If an editor wants to draft a potential article in his/her user space... That is his/her right.  If he/she takes  years to work on it... So what?  If he/she begins the process, stops for a year and then starts again... So what? There is no time limit in user space.  Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here. That's why I added noted 2 toWP:STALE which is explicit in that the editor must also have stopped for a year along with the draft. And stale isn't just deletion, it's for blanking or moving the page around. It's basically "if the person hasn't been here a year, check their stuff and if it's useful, feel free to use it." The deletion is an afterthought and perhaps we can continue this at WT:UP where SmokeyJoe and I started a discussion on wording when deletion is appropriate. There's no real push to delete drafts from active users (other than a lot of duplication of current articles). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is a good case for a CSD criterion for draft or userspace that was wholesale copied from mainspace. For nearly everything else, blanking or redirection is appropriate and you have never responded anywhere as to why you think not, except for invoking the possibility that an inactive user will obstinately unblank.  MfD is good for questions where there is any evidence of disagreement.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there are 40k pages at Stale Drafts, no they are not all coming to MfD. Many are CSD'd and a few are moved to draft or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And large chunks of those belong to active users so the fact that the draft is stale is irrelevant. That's why I created a hard-copy of the category, since so much there is just going to be there forever for the most part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between user space and draft space... The first belongs to the user while the second belongs to the community. Something in user space can not go stale until the user who owns the space says it is stale. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is line-drawing. First, if the person isn't here any more, can their stuff be reviewed and considered stale? There was an argument at MFD last week about someone who lasted edited here nine years ago. Now, if someone has a draft in userspace for an article that was already deleted at AFD as not suitable, shouldn't that be deleted if they stop editing here? So we all agree that those drafts aren't suitable to keep around but why then is it wrong to look at very old drafts and ask the same question? If it's feasible or could be a plausible draft, then the people at MFD can vote to keep it or request to keep it or ask to restore it or whatever you want. But that's actually a very rare situation precisely because no one is out there blindly deleting decent and good drafts for no reason. It's just a difference of opinion on what is and what isn't likely to become something useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In principle it is fine to have "people at MFD can vote to keep it or request to keep it or ask to restore it or whatever". However, when no one at MfD comments on it, while commenting on nominations aboce and below, consider that people at MfD are choosing to not review it.  Ignoring that, comment-free relisting, scrambling the list order, is then offensive and disruptive.  An example of a much better way to deal with a much more serious list of old discussion is here: Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions.  If you were to go through that list, relist everyone of them without case-specific comment, and then declare the CfD backlog dealt with, do you think the CfD regulars would be pleased?  How would that be different to what you started doing here recently?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If this was AFD, if this was CFD, TFD, RFD, no one would say "it's been a week with no comments, giving it another week by relisting it is 'offensive' or 'disruptive'". Your language is way out of scope compared to actually what I've been doing here. How many discussions do you imagine would need relisting? At worst, there's a day with maybe 50 discussions and maybe 3-4 need to be relisted and that's generous. And it's not about the CFD "regulars" only, new users come by when they have a discussion they care and they vote up and down. They'll more likely to make a opinion if the discussions are interspered rather than knowing to go to the very bottom of the page looking to figure out what needs further discussions. Do you start at the bottom of the page and go up? No one does that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the AfD main page is long since overloaded and dysfunctional and requires deletion sorting and tools (eg) to make it workable. CfD works well, given an overload far worse than MfD.  TfD I am not sure, RfD is a funny place also full of busywork.


 * Do you have experience with CfD? It is no place for new users.  (my long standing position is that new users should not be allowed to create categories)


 * New users are more likely to comment on old discussions if they are interspersed? Randomly?  Sounds like spamming.  Sounds like Shotgun email.  Not particularly effective spamming either.  I guess you have decided to ignore my suggestion that if old discussion advertising is needed, the CfD method linked is much more effective without disrupting systematic reviewing.


 * Yes, absolutely, I start from the oldest and work towards the newer. I have told you this directly, but you don't listen?  By starting at the oldest, review is more effective because there you can presumably benefit from earlier comments of interested stakeholders.  I have done this at AfD, DRV CfD and WP:RM.  CfD is nice how it has clear colour coding.


 * No one does this? Clearly your working assumptions are flawed.


 * Did you ignore my previous comment to you that new page patrol is recommended to be done from oldest to newest? It is a very standard concept for how to deal with a backlog.


 * You suggest my language is hyperbolic? Do you not sense my frustration with you not listening?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If your issues are with their placement in the log then why the hell are you reverting the entire idea of relisting discussions and creating page-long arguments about relisting at all, about comments in relistings and whatever your issue is? Make an RFC question about relisting not changing the location in the log. But you won't. Even single comment from you have another problem you've come up with, from relistings in general to "indiscriminate" relistings to "comment-free relistings" to the actual relisting template to the location in the log when it's relisted. It's impossible to have any meaningful discussion when I'm certain that no matter the resolution here, you'll find another excuse to dispute relisting a discussion and just argue about this again and again. Just make a single statement or hundreds of separate questions with all your concerns. I don't care. It's been literally two weeks of you personally calling out in edit summaries, discussion headings and the like and you won't just once post every single problem you have. Instead, it's literally a new argument after a new argument with you as you complain about coloring, placement, wording, lack of comments, whatever the hell problems you come up with all the while arguing that these relistings are some part of a giant deletionist scheme around here. Meanwhile you complain about the volume of discussions, something I literally have nothing to do with, and you oppose relistings to extend and delay discussions in favor of arguing to dump the work on a half-dead project that you have never done anything with and that I've been involved with for months now simply to create more and more methods to stall. I get it: you vehemently disagree with this whole idea but at some point the solution is not to make more and more nonsense demands and requirements to drive everyone else away but to actively make a viewpoint based on some reasoning instead of trying to drive everyone else nuts with new procedural wonkery. And yes I have been actively involved in the creation of thousands of category pages, numerous discussions, including some exceedingly complex closing and a lot of technical requirements that are required in those closes. Similarly I have been involved in some exceedingly complicated, esoteric TFD discussions involving multi-layered templates and the like. And none of that matters because you have yet to find evidence of whatever bizarre bias you claim I have in regards to MFD discussions.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's a fair rant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all,, thank you for summarizing the issues and creating this (hopefully) central discussion. It's clear you have been thorough and fair in your review of the issues, although I don't agree with all of your positions. This is the question where I differ with you the most, and with the best cause. Your analysis is good, but your solution—to delete some non-AfC userspace pages not eligible for CSD (as blatant hoaxes, recreations of deleted pages, attack pages, blatant webhosting, etc) at MfD—is suboptimal because you fail to consider a critical option: blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked or Template:Inactive userpage blanked. The advantages of this are fourfold:
 * Addressing all legitimate concerns with non-CSD-eligible userspace content: A blanked page does not clutter any categories, will not have its content copied by Wikipedia scrapers, cannot be used to spread misinformation, etc.
 * Saving admin and MfD time: Much has been said about how much garbage is in userspace, and what a task clearing it out is. Blanking and replacing with a template is much quicker than making an MfD nom, only requires a single editor, and requires no admin to assess consensus and delete.
 * Automatically and effortlessly detecting true inactivity: There has been some discussion of how long an editor must go without edits to be considered "inactive". Replacing page content with an inactivity template solves this problem. If the editor is truly inactive or doesn't care about the page, it will stay blanked. If they do, they can easily revert the blanking and indicate that the blanker was mistaken, even without knowing the policy or realizing that they are participating in the process.
 * Editors matter: Editor retention is a high priority. Userpages have traditionally been considered a "private" space that the user has total control over (as long as they are doing nothing damaging, which is covered by CSD). Deleting userpages has the potential to scare away new editors (who I know from personal experience sometimes dabble a bit, leave for years, and then return; and who are also unaware of WP:REFUND) and remind jaded editors considering returning why they left. Blanking, while still unfriendly, is nowhere near as much of a disruption and affront.
 * Finally, in addition to these four main advantages, I would argue that blanking and replacing with a template has no disadvantages. Do people consider this to be a better option than MfD deletion for all non-damaging (i.e. not CSD-eligible) userpages? A2soup (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanking is an option. I do vote that way. It's been suggested for a number of pages and a number of discussions have closed with blanking. Please consider reviewing MFD and making votes for that as well. However, if the page is very promotional or a recreation following a delete AFD or other scenario, blanking and hoping the editor doesn't return is not the most popular solution so I as an admin have to close with the way the votes are and they often are simply to delete. One issue is the number of drafts that either are later created or were created at the exact same time as the draft pages (WP:UP). Should those be deleted or blanked? Policy says that they are unacceptable in part to encourage the editor to actively work on the mainspace version so I support deletion of those pages. I've dealt with editors who create their own versions of mainspace pages and it's frustratingly difficult to figure out and then to find out that they are in fact unblanking and repeatedly working on their drafts. But that are per se violations and have nothing to do with staleness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response - if I can find the time, I'll try to come by and make some votes. If the page is promotional to the point of being spam, it falls under G11. If the page is a recreation following AfD deletion (and is not being actively improved), it falls under G4. I honestly can't think of any other scenarios in which the editor returning and unblanking the page would be a bad thing. The one example you mention that I agree is appropriate for MfD is the fork of a mainspace article (and then only in the case that it is actually a fork, not a draft-like thing on a related topic or subtopic that fails WP:N and would be redirected to the main article were it in mainspace). I see that many userpages currently at MfD meet this description, but plenty of others do not. Would you agree that userpages not meeting this description are better blanked or (if applicable) speedied? A2soup (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the blanking of user pages (whether AFC or otherwise). Because of the ambiguous nature of user pages, which sort of belong to the user, but do not entirely belong to the user, their blanking could be construed rightly or wrongly as vandalism.  I think that it is better, when necessary, to MFD them than to run the risk of being taken to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, rightly or wrongly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When you leave an appropriate template (mentioned above), it's clear that it's not intended to be vandalism. In fact, the good-faith nature of the blanking is communicated by the friendly template more effectively the good-faith nature of the corresponding deletion can be communicated by the deletion summary. If you think that blanking pages with good intentions could be construed as vandalism, then deleting them with good intentions is even more likely to be - it's more disruptive and the good faith is not as obvious. (For the record, I don't think that either of these are vandalism.) A2soup (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to handle this new subpage? I noticed it because the page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It is a copy/paste of lots of articles, with categories, and without attribution. If someone has an hour to spare, please engage the user if you think there might be some encyclopedic benefit. IMHO the page should be blanked and a polite message put on the user's talk explaining the situation, backed by admin action if necessary. Or, we could try discussion then waste a week at MfD. No good solution as far as I can see. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good example. Based on only the linked page, we would need to go through a week of MfD. Based on them turning their userpage into an WP:G10 attack page with 'I am here to stand up against social conservatives like the evil --- and ') on their user page and some disruptive editing already...NOTHERE block? Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MFD it. We could have a snow delete. It doesn't have to take a week. It's a UP issue and absent more evidence than their idiocy on their user page and that, I'm more lenient about NOTHERE blocks than most though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it not a textbook failure of WP:POLEMIC? It could even be U5-able?  G10, maybe.  No sign or history of the user being productive.  The username is suggestive that the user is not here to contribute neutrally.  Why ask in this thread?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re why ask here, my point is that some user pages obviously should be deleted, yet the normal grind of MfD is not appealing. Imagine the frustration of doing it the right way: start with a discussion asking the user to request deletion; set up an MfD when the discussion fails; wait a week and possibly get no support for deletion so the page defaults to keep. This user has possibly had their fun and won't return, but a more determined troll could tie up MfD with junk. There is no good way to handle all MfDs, and I guess I'm pointing out to the those who want to keep as much as possible that they should nevertheless provide a mechanism to deal with cases like this where it's not quite a speedy delete, yet it should be. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnuniq. It is a bit too polemic, with that title.  As a polemic, it is welcome at MfD.  MfD is normally a fairly quiet plodding place, with occasional big proxy battles ostensibly over a project space or userspace page.  There has been a bit of fuss lately, I am involved, but I felt compelled.
 * Leaving POLEMICs to lie way they lay could give the impression that polemics are acceptable. Blanking is always an option I urge you to consider, to see if the user get's your message or whats to push it.  If they push it, certainly come straight to MfD.  Sending it straight to MfD can be justified by the argument that you are clearly saying that this sort of thing is unacceptable.  Quite a justified position.  A downside of doing to too much, of a few people inspecting, investigating and policing others' pages is that they start to resemble thought police in a police state.  Too much is a bad thing.  However, we haven't seen that sort of thing much for a long time, the last I remember was a purge of userspace "academic" records of commons files of pornography.  Recently. there is just a bit of enthusiasm over old redundant stuff.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting blanking it, watching the page in case they return and if they return, and then list it to MFD? The first issue is that you're giving a lot of power to the people patrolling to decide whether or not to blank a page of someone else's. I'd prefer taking it to MFD (I think we should consider renaming it against to discussion versus deletion) rather than individually deciding what is and what isn't polemic conduct on their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, suggesting that. I think page blanking is less confrontation than the record of am MfD nomination on their talk page followed by deletion of the article.  I think that page patrollers, if trusted, will be responsible.  You "think we should consider renaming it against to discussion versus deletion"?  Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that Wikipedia should host a user subpage titled "people I don't like" and that editors should monitor the page forever? It's great to avoid confrontation with newbies but promoting that view in a case like this sounds more like a mantra than a reasonable approach to develop the encyclopedia. Keeping such pages from drive-by trolls may avoid confrontation but it also promotes the view that anything goes and that people are free to push the boundaries as much as they like. We should be clever enough to provide a reasonable way to deal with obvious cases like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You have changed a few words.  And I had wandered into the general case where one person's opinion is another's polemic.  I suggest that any mildly problematic page can be ignored, and it you should consider ignoring it.  If it offends you, you should nominate it, and in such a case I support deleted, and have already done so.  I believe that not far above I noted your same concern "Leaving POLEMICs to lie way [where] they lay could give the impression that polemics are acceptable".  I think I agree with you in all important respects.  For offensive things short of CSD#G10 of #U5, use MfD.  My wish, as an MfD reviewer, is that nominators make the effort to say why it is offensive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you consider this "mildly problematic"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnuniqs mentioned subpage? Yes. More than mild. It is not related to an intention to improve content. It is bringing in blatant political opinion on current US politics. I would be bothered less if it were historical. And the copying of mainspace content I always oppose. Note that I was quick to !vote "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I was quick to !vote "delete". That's not something to be proud of. It's precisely why it's frustrating here. When asked generally, you oppose the idea but when it's actually done, you support deleting it. It seems like you just want to create process for the sake of process or just for the sake of argument I can't tell. I presume that your views here are the same views you plan on offering in discussions about the particular pages we discuss when it seems like the opposite with you. When someone says "how about this page" and you respond "I'd support blanking not deletion" and then when proposed for deletion you say "I support deletion not blanking", what is the point of discussing it with you here? For amusement? I think Johnuniq was expecting an actual discussion here about that page, not "here's my view for MFD talk page on how these should be handled if they are taken to MFD but if they are taken to MFD, I have different views since they have been taken to MFD" as if anyone cares about that. You want to blank those pages? Fine, blank them. You want them deleted? Take them to MFD. You want other people to blank them but if they don't agree with you, you'll argue here that they should have blanked them but if taken to MFD you'll support deleting them? Then pound sand and quit lecturing everyone else. What is the point of discussing relistings here which was the entire point of this 100k series of arguments when you won't express any opinion that you actually seem to support and will later just back-track for whatever reason without explanation? There's a half dozen discussions over a week old with no comments. I hate going "no consensus" and want to relist them. There's no support for the proposals expressed above and absent your opposition to "content-less relistings" no one has a single idea what you want other than to be the single person who decides what happens here and for everyone else to just go away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is really not that complicated. Would you like me to try again to explain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm just striking this for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ricky, if you personally "hate going 'no consensus'" – then don't. Don't relist them, don't mark them as no consensus, don't do anything with them.  Let someone else decide what to do with them.  This is the same standard that real-world judges use, and it solves all kinds of problems:  if you personally hate imposing one of the possible sentences, then you can and should refuse to take the case.  Deal with all the others instead.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is, is the standard that closing are defined by the admins or are closing subject to reverting whenever people object to them? If people want no relistings at MFD (and that has failed) then give a rationale for when no consensus should not be the closing and make that policy. Do I get a choice in how I want to close things or is MFD entire subject to Smokeyjoe's personal views on how the admincorp should close these discussions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether and how someone objects to a close that did not consider all the options is not the issue that interests me. NQUORUM gives four relevant options for any poorly attended XFD listing:
 * 1) Relisting
 * 2) No consensus (usually that means "keep")
 * 3) Accept the nom's proposal (usually that means "delete")
 * 4) Soft deletion

You (as an admin closing the discussion) get a choice between these four, but you need to be willing to consider all four of them, not just some of them. If you aren't willing to choose #2 for a particular discussion due to personal dislike for that outcome, then you shouldn't be closing that particular discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to close no consensus but not without at least a second try if no one says anything. I don't see that as no consensus, just no one talking. If that's so objectionable, take it to DRV and yell and scream that we shouldn't have more discusssions. Otherwise, have enough discussion with no resolution and I'll close it that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to control that deletionist attitude, at least when it comes to closing. No support for a nomination to delete means it is kept.  Userspace-PROD was firmly rejected long ago.
 * At the moment, the backlog contains many well-participated concluded discussions awaiting closure. These are much more of a problem than unattended discussions, of which I see none except for the new nominations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No support for a nomination to delete means it is kept can be Deleted as unopposed. No support for keeping leaves a consensus of the nominator and closing Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * AfD certainly doesn't work that way-- is there a reason to believe MfD is different? I would think you have to count no discussion as no consensus. What you propose is equivalent to closing a yes/no RfC as successful without comments because RfC creator and closer create a "consensus". A2soup (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * AfD does work that way and so doe MfD. See WP:QUORUM where third and forth bullet points are deletion and fifth is a form of deletion. Nothing there says a page MUST be kept, with the closest to keep being "closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR)" which can lead to deletion after a stronger nomination case has been made. The other option is relist. Straight Keep is not even an option. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to no consensus, not keep. And, personally, I have never seen an AfD with no comments be closed as soft delete - that is usually reserved for when there is one delete vote or 1-2 deletes and 1 keep or something. A2soup (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary
Those are my thoughts for now. I welcome other opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Userspace does not belong to the user. See WP:WEBHOST. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Userspace belongs to the user, subject to the material not violating WP:NOTWEBHOST. A user has a presumption of ownership of information about themself as a Wikipedian, notes and records related to their contributions, tools related to their contributions, and project-related opinions.  The amount of material, and amount of leeway afforded, is taken to be in proportion to the value of their contribution history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We can make changes in anyone's userspace for all kinds of other reasons. An attack page for example. Many editors are managing Neelix user space now for another.Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not "all kinds" of reasons. Of course there are restrictions, but within the restriction, OWNership is tolerated in userspace.  Who or what is Neelix?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Neelix was a former admin with a large history of redirects created, so many problematic that he earned his own special speedy deletion criterion. His talk page has been redone because of the RFD notices even though he's no longer actively here (but is on other projects). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've long been opposed to having "encyclopedic text" be part of normal MFD's, but there has been no support to make yet another deletion board, so we kind of inherited them here by default. Maybe a subboard would work like WP:MFD/A for all the article-related miscellany that ends up here? —  xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of sex symbols
There's a weird MFD tag at Talk:List of sex symbols ; it seems the tag has be substed into the talk page, and no nomination at MfD was made -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag has now been removed, and Talk:List of sex symbols/archive 1 has been moved to Talk:List of sex symbols/Archive 1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

2015 archive
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 9 includes discussions from 2014 as well as 2015. The archived discussions from 2015 should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 10. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It continues into 2016. 2014 is barely 6k so a tiny archive, seems like a waste of space to then add another 16k to archive 10 and then have archive 11 continue onward. 2016 is going to be bigger with the lengthy RFCs and clearly MFD discussions are now in vogue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's try something here
What we've been doing clearly isn't working, though I think after the ANI thread it's becoming clearer that we all actually have rational expectations and want stability. However, as SmokeyJoe has rightly said, the overboldness that we're experiencing right now is proving a hindrance to ongoing, level-headed discussion... and moreover is giving us a mess at MfD. Looking at just about any nom right now, we're starting to get a war of boilerplate: "Delete because it's stale." "Keep: No valid reason for deletion given." "Delete: Stale, abandoned, user disappeared, no hope of becoming an article." With each of these engagements, we're taking time away that we should be spending discussing with one another, and sacrificing our cool heads for entrenched positions. In that vein, I want to suggest we voluntarily agree to the following for the time being:
 * 1) No more draft noms on purely STALEDRAFT grounds. If there's something truly problematic, nominate, but give a proper analysis in the nom. Look at other arguments.
 * 2) No more keep votes on purely "no proper reason given for deletion" grounds. At least take a look at whether there is something problematic and give a rationale on the merits.

I'm not saying there should be a moratorium on draft MfDs, and I'm also not asking for anything enforceable at this point. I'm more asking that we all agree to turn the thermostat down a few degrees, and try to avoid turning it back up for a little while. If there's an outlier who won't consent, then we can talk about something more severe. My hope is to just give us all time and space to individually lay our cards on the table and come to some kind of consensus on what our biggest point of disagreement is. (Hint: I don't think it's as simple as disagreeing on whether notability guidelines are enforceable in draftspace)

Can we do this? ,, , , , and anybody I've left out? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am being as honest as I can here, and would appreciate it if it was used as fodder for discussion rather than ammunition against me. An agreement such as you propose is dependent on trust, at right now I do not really trust Legacypac to stick to the spirit of any such agreement. The pattern I have seen repeated with them several times over just the last few days of interaction with them has been that raising an issue with them is met with sneering contempt and acceleration of the problem behavior. That's no way to work in WP, and without pillar #4 the system breaks down to the point that progress becomes nearly impossible.
 * Now, my whining about behavioral stuff doesn't really have any place on the MfD talk page. If there's a better forum than here or ANI, I am open to suggestions.
 * Back on point, right now I personally don't see any path forward that doesn't involve losing both the sense of urgency on years-old user drafts and the mentality of completionism regarding elimination of every single one beyond an arbitrary age. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am going to be quite busy in real life for the next few weeks. You may have already noticed my !votes trailing off. So it shouldn't be a problem for me to just not !vote at MfD for a while, I was heading that way anyways. However, I find it a bit odd that you are asking us to "At least take a look at whether there is something problematic and give a rationale on the merits." as if that's something we don't already do. At least for my part, I always look over the draft and its history before !voting, and tailor my !vote accordingly. I sometimes !vote flat Keep, sometimes Keep but okay with Blank+template, sometimes Blank+template, sometimes Redirect, etc. My !votes are well-considered and tailored to each situation (which is why my real-life busyness is keeping me from making them), and I don't appreciate the implication that they are knee-jerk and not based on the merits (or lack thereof) of the nom. A2soup (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Look, my issue is if people here are going to support deleting pages like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society, then when I asked at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages for what line you have and the only response I get it is "it's entirely harmless and nothing should be deleted", I don't see the point is playing these games. It looks like you're just screwing around here out of a personal vendetta rather than a serious attempt to protect these pages or these editors. If there is consensus that something can be deleted, then demanding that everything be stopped unless the false argument that there is no consensus for anything to be deleted is just obviously another game. It would be prudent for the people who argue that certain things should not be deleted to come up with an actual line in the sand where they will agree to deletion, especially when they do support deletion. When you argue to keep clearly promotional articles by non-notable rappers that stupidly showing up in google searches regardless of noindex, I'm having a hard time believing that people are actually serious about anything other than reflex opposition to everything based on a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Otherwise, I don't care if every single page gets voted keep. At some point, I'll stop and if we come back in a year because the pages are ten years old and not nine years old and still promotional rapper garbage showing up in google searches, maybe someone sensible will come up with a middle ground here. Anyone who has ever dealt with AFC reviews or the IRC chat knows how much absolute time and energy is wasted on pure promotional lunatics who care only about posting their page and nothing else and yell and scream and call you names all day and know that the volume of those people drives away good editors. Demanding that the worst of the worst of that garbage be kept here under the nonsense of not driving those "editors" away is not going to convince anyone that you have a clue because AFC's six month stance is being more common than the one year that WP:STALE used to be and people are getting more hardened by the fact that so much time is spent coddling bullshit garbage. And I'm moderate in comparison to Legacypac. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a slight thing, is not a ping template. But I appreciate the fact that I was linked, although Mendaliv thought to leave Legacypac's (apparent) opponents out for no good reason. In my opinion, we should carry out a site-wide RfC (running for a full 20 days atleast) to garner more opinions. If an RfC, reform or clarification fails to materialize, we gotta kick it to ArbCom and rest our horses. --QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 09:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the RfC I drafted at User:A2soup/MfD RfC? It's a bit old, so it's not to ally current with the current state of the debate, but do you think it would make a good basis? A2soup (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the subsections you have are not the context of the arguments here (except GNG) since they are CSD#G criterion. I made this within 5 minutes, take a look and help if you want. --QEDK ( T &#9749;  C ) 03:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for a proposal on new policy wording. So far we have "Keep everything in userspace indefinitely" or "ban/sanction/block Legacypac" but those seem to be the only agendas involved. Various editors have made loud attacks against CSDing, AfDing, MfDing, moving to mainspace, moving to draft, and sending to AfC. Right now one Admin is threatening to block me for sending a page to AfC while an editor is at ANi trying to restrict me to sending drafts to AfC. I see a lot of noise but no solutions being proposed. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Trust me, there's a reason Cryptic's an admin and you're not. { --QEDK ( T &#9749;  C ) 16:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he applied and I have not. What does that have to do with this topic? Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the only reason and again, you were just supposed to think about it. So, there's no need to reply to this message. --QEDK ( T &#9749;  C ) 16:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The RfC for your consideration
User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring --QEDK ( T &#9749;  C ) 10:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change
I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report Special:Diff/706678161. Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. 78.145.31.82 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This morning's Daily Telegraph reports:

"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said people who create false profiles ... could face charges including harassment. New draft guidelines published by the CPS set out how prosecutors should take tough action against anyone who attempts to humiliate or undermine someone else by publishing false information online ..." "'... an online footprint will be left by the offender.'" "A CPS spokesman said the guidelines cover the use of false online profiles ... which are set up to publicise 'false and damaging information'." "For example, it may be a criminal offence if a profile is created under the name of the victim with fake information uploaded which, if believed, could damage their reputation and humiliate them,' the spokesman said." ... "This may amount to an offence, such as grossly offensive communication or harassment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.33.254 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A deletion request here is unlikely to succeed; for legal disputes you could try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. The page you refer to wasn't created for harassment, but to document a suspected pattern of disruption and to be linked to, to provide context when dealing with it. I wouldn't call what is documented there "abuse"; it should probably be moved into user space or into the sockpuppet investigations case. Are you User:Vote (X) for Change or not? Peter James (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

MfD overloaded by trivial nominations, and reviewing messed up with over zealous pointless relisting.
It is again ridiculous, with:
 * (1) an overload of trivial nominations, of pages unworthy of discussion, pages that are harmless and for which the best outcome is (a) ignore, no action required or (b) blank as the content will never have any purpose to anyone including the author, or (c) redirect to the place where associated interested should be directed;
 * (2) routine, over-zealous, indiscriminate comment-free relisting, making it more difficult to watch over the nominations for anything worthy of review.

I would like to re-iterate that userspace and draft PROD is firmly rejected, and the MfD mustn't be allowed to turn into defactor PROD, meaning that unsupported deletion nominations must be closed as no consensus.

Further, I propose a restriction on nominators with very poor success rates of validated nominations. They are detrimental to the MfD process, their nominating is a net-negative to the project.

Also, I would like to ask the incessant indiscriminant comment-free relisters to stop it. If supposedly two pointless relists are OK, let's just change standard listing time to 3 weeks, and leave the nominations in order, so as to facilitate review by the few who review. Old unattended nominations are actually easier to find by their shortness at the bottom of the list than decorated with the relist template randomly amongst new nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the relistings I have performed, they were done in full compliance with WP:RELIST. North America1000 00:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They were indeed. That doesn't make them good.  WP:RELIST could use some improvement.  What are the merits, as you see them, of relisting?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisting discussions with no or little input as a means to obtain a clearer consensus is superior compared to administrators performing unilateral, executive decisions regarding Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia decisions about deletion are often guided by WP:CONSENSUS. North America1000 06:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sure we all know the generic high level theory of WP:DEL. The theory is clearly failing in current circumstances. Relisting discussions with no or little input is not superior to doing nothing, because relisting obscures the fresh nominations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We heard these complaints before. Two simple solutions. 1. Vote delete on the crap. 2. Admins Follow the policy at WP:QUORUM that allows uncontested deletion nominations to be deleted or soft deleted (2 of the 4 suggestions there) barring some good reason to keep them. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that you are putting on the agenda a lot of crap. If deletion were easier, would be well deleted.  But deletion is not easier.  And there is so much crap that some non-crap may be shafted alongside the crap.  As most of the crap is harmless crap, I really wish that you would follow the low overhead options for the harmless crap and save MfD for where deletion is actually more justified than the overhead cost.
 * WP:QUORUM is, I guess, an allowed WP:Supervote option. It means serious overhead cost for administrators to deal with your harmless crap.
 * Alternatively, Legacypac, how about making a category for every page you think should be deleted, and then we discuss deletion of it all at once, perhaps weekly. It would, of course, require you to be accurate in your decision that every page should be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * interesting idea. How would you notify all the contributors as is required by policy? How many pages per batch would be acceptable? Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are selecting pages from the abandoned draft list. The authors are long inactive and the situation is far from that anticipated by standard policy.  It may be sufficient to not notify, or we could have a bot written to do it.  The point is to triage similar cases to not overwhelm the standard process.  I don't see why there would be an upper limit, the problem will be on your head to not include pages that shouldn't be included.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've said this time and time again, this is because of a community split on what basically comes down to protecting things under the shield of "drafts" vs deleting them under "notwebhost" etc arguments - hopefully the latest RfC on dealing with drafts will help solidify this. — xaosflux  Talk 01:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. The RfC is still being closed by three admins.  Rushing heaps of individual pages ad hoc through MfD right now doesn't seem helpful.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ", and I are in the process of evaluating the RFC for closure. No more comments now, please. We'll have a statement in the next couple of days. Thanks.  Katietalk 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)"
 * No one is doing anything unusual at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Ricky & Legacypac clean-up-abandoned-drafts drive, since 2015, is unusual, and the current listings are I think the longest ever list. That is unusual.  More unusual is that there are so many listing during the User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring formal three-administrator closure process.  There should be a moratorium on stale draft nominations until at least the close of the RfC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, stale draft maintenance categories have existed since the start of Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monthly_clean_up_category_(Userspace_drafts)_counter I'm working several different list and categories. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, No, it is the drive to empty them partly through use of MfD that is new and unusual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Userspace pages have long been brought to MfD. if you follow the link, you will find many months are now empty so this is nothing new. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The 188 MfD transclusions I believe is a record. New.  An overburden.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think it's disruptive, WP:ANI is that way. Monster backlog doesn't get better by being ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would worsen the disruption. Please limit nominations to articles for which you can articulate a reason for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)