Forum:CT:Modification to WP:USER regarding inactive user

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Modification to WP:USER regarding inactive user
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. 1358 (Talk) 09:46, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Currently, our user page policy specifies in rule 11 that users who do not make any mainspace edits for 12 months lose their user page privileges. That's fine when the user has in fact edited the mainspace, thereby giving us a solid date from which to start the clock, but occasionally a user will show up, create a useless user page, and then either disappear or continue editing the user page without ever editing the mainspace. One such user that popped back up on recent changes tonight is CrappyScrap.

Current practice seems to be to wait until the user account is 12 months old before tagging such user pages with {{Inactive}}. However, this practice essentially gives such users a free pass for one whole year to do what they please, which violates the precept that we are not a free webhost. We need to severely shorten the leash on these freeloaders.

Therefore, I propose that the following item be added to the user page policy as a sub-item to rule 11:

Users must have at least one total mainspace edit to be eligible to have a user page in the first place. If a user creates a user page without first editing the mainspace and they do not edit the mainspace within two months after the user page was created, their user page may be replaced with {{Inactive}} immediately.

The two-month clause removes the need to waste time warning the initial batch of users who will be tagged under this new rule; also, if they haven't edited the mainspace after two months, it is highly unlikely that they ever will, and so warning a user that has slipped through the cracks for that long would most likely be a waste of time.

[[Template:Msg-nomain]], referenced above, would read:

Please note that your user page is currently in violation of the user page policy, which specifies that users must have at least one edit to the main (article) namespace to be eligible for a user page. If you do not make a main namespace edit within the next two weeks or within two months from the date your user page was created, your user page privileges may be removed without further notice. Thank you.

When placed on a user talk page, the words "your user page" will automatically become a link to their user page. The warning template would also contain a tracking category like {{Tl|FanonLimit}} does, so that we can more easily follow up on these users. —MJ— Training Room 02:04, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

  • Proposal modified per comments under the Discussion section. —MJ— Training Room 21:56, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. As proposer. —MJ— Training Room 02:04, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. definitely, though it may be worth adding something about "whichever occurs first" to the message to avoid any confusion Manoof (talk) 07:54, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:56, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  4. I like the revised proposal. Two months is plenty of time to give people a chance to disappear forever. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:16, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Ok.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:46, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Definitely. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 03:36, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Sure whatever. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 08:16, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Definitely. Always irritated me when people made a userpage, then vanished forever. Supreme Emperor (talk) 14:30, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Two months is too long, but this is still a good step. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:49, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Two months sounds pretty fair to me. 1358 (Talk) 21:06, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Winterz (talk) 14:56, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 04:05, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
  13. Trip391 (talk) 04:55, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per the discussion below. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 17:23, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Per Grunny. And if the hypothetical post-Wikia Wookieepedia can't afford to host the short, boring userpages of a few otherwise harmless freeloaders, then our problems will be quite a bit bigger and broader than just those pages. jSarek (talk) 08:03, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Per Grunny JangFett (Talk) 04:22, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Two months is too short in my opinion, and also basically per Grunny. CC7567 (talk) 16:14, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Per Grunny. I'm all for promoting Wookieepedia as just an encyclopedia, but I think this takes it too far. IMO, it serves no real purpose other than to make us feel better by restricting more things.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 15:43, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
  6. While I understand the sentiment behind this CT, I think we need to actively encourage newcomers, not potentially drive them away. ~SavageBOB sig 16:00, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
  7. We don't need to police users and punish them for not having free time enough to contribute. --Jedi Marty (talk) 14:36, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Per Bob. Stake black msg 15:36, March 5, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Totally per Grunny. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 17:03, March 5, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I really don't see what this accomplishes other than being yet another way we bite newcomers. We really have better things to do than going around policing one off user page creations. If we do want to delete a user page of someone if they don't make a mainspace edit within two months, that's fine, but I'd actually prefer we don't warn them and just delete (or tag for deletion) a user page you come across where the user hasn't edited the mainspace (actively seeking out these user pages is a massive waste of time though, time that would be better spent editing the mainspace yourself ;)). It's unnecessarily aggressive toward someone who has just created an account, and could deter them from participating in the community when they very well could start editing in the mainspace in the following few weeks. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 09:13, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I echo this sentiment. Plus, yes, we're not a webhost, but we're not paying the bills either, Wikia is, so who cares about them "freeloading" Stake black msg 10:22, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
    • But if when Wikia collapses and we move to our own site, we will be paying the bills, therefore we should be proactive now. That's the same reasoning that has prompted other policies, such as the rules on hotlinking images on external sites. As to Grunny, you have a point that the warning is bitey. I'll modify this to remove the warning and just tag pages after two months. In regard to being a waste of time, I have been toying around with a Python script to automate the tagging process. If I ever get pywikibot up and running, the script can be set to run daily and we wouldn't even have to think about it. :) —MJ— Training Room 21:56, February 21, 2014 (UTC)