Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard

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 debate was Keep --PeaceNT (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard

This was undeleted on the condition of being a mock-up to be discussed at WT:OPTOUT it is obvious that it is being used to circumvent the existing discussion and rejection at the talk page. Therefore, it should be deleted as an attempt to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS and as a page that left intact or tagged as historical would have the potential to mislead users (as it has 7 already) into believing it is an active forum for subjects to opt out of having an article. MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

um - well - no, not really. Rather a harmless page, not really causing any trouble, and certainly not misleading (I don't really understand if MB is asserting that it is?). Maybe it would be better in mainspace? Maybe it should have another name? Maybe there are heaps and heaps of ways of improving it, and making it clearer! - but deleting doesn't really seem like the wiki way to me.... so please don't! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ps. keep ! Privatemusings (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This page was undeleted as a courtesy to the creator, and whilst I support the ideas being proposed to an extent, using deleted material to circumvent consensus isn't fair. This also has the danger of making administrators much more reluctant to provide users with deleted material, if they think it's going to be used in some way to circumvent the reason by which it was originally deleted. Nick (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly - thanks heaps for providing the content the other day, Nick (which I hope wasn't too much hassle - and saved me the few minutes work in structuring such a page, which was appreciated) - and it's important to me to be really clear that I didn't in any way intend to somehow sneak the small previously existing page back in - indeed, I still don't really understand why it was deleted in the first place, and will be happy if it can find a home somewhere where it's a good fit (different name? different place? - any ideas most welcome!). Also - sorry to be a little slow.. but I'm not really understanding the 'circumvent consensus' argument - that is absolutely not my intention, nor do I really see how that would be possible... please explain a bit! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that this proposal has been rejected via consensus at WT:OPTOUT, creating another page to discuss the same thing is evading consensus by creating a new forum to discuss it. When Nick restored, I understood this page to be a place you could point at from WT:OPTOUT as a model of what you wanted. By letting people sign up to support or oppose it, your recreating the discussion from WT:OPTOUT. Also, by adding the section for subjects to request their articles be removed, this provides the sense that this is a permitted behavior, when it is not a permitted behavior. And well statements like "The proposal is currently not accepted by the wider community, and will no doubt take quite some time in gaining enough ground to be enshrined as policy." do tell me that your trying to fatigue the community into accepting your proposal one way or another. MBisanz ^talk 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think there's any discussion on this page, MB - nor do signatures represent discussion in my view. I'm not too clear on your point about 'permitted behaviour' - but don't really think that this page claims any false authority (although suggestions for clarification are most welcome!) - I'm certainly not 'trying to fatigue the community' (I'm sure the community has much more stamina than me! - and it's always a bit woolly to speculate intentions, no?) - rather, I just think that this is a kinda straight forward, sensible page which might help move discussions forward... again, if the wording is problematic, then we can work on that.. perhaps it's just not a good fit in this space? maybe it belongs as a 'straw poll' subpage or subsection? - maybe it can sit elsewhere to allow folk to tick the box of their preference over time, or drop relevant information in? - I'm sure we can figure something out! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

on the other hand - the more eyes and ears passing over the page the better in my view! - so I guess this discussion can't help but help in many ways! (please do consider dropping a sig. in folks!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(sorry for being hash, but you are pushing against consensus a bit too much) Shouldn't you be improving the WP:OPTOUT proposal and presenting it again to raise consensus? You made no improvement at all You only made some small changes on wording to the proposal, and you really seem to believe that consensus is wrong. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographical_optout#Reboot.21 for you removing the tag after a week of putting it up and see Wikipedia_talk:Biographical_optout#The_Tag_and_this_talk_page for an ongoing RfC requested by you. You just seem to be pushing this proposal against consensus, including this restoring of a noticeboard to create a straw poll after having it undeleted to create a better proposal. I suggest deleting the damned thing and asking Privatemusings to make a better draft of WP:OPTOUT instead of making straw polls to overcome clear consensus against the proposal. The current encarnation of the proposal was already viewed by enough editors at the talk page of WP:OPTOUT and it was rejected. I suggest that you pay attention to the RfC comments about how the consensus for rejection was clear --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can we please get a link to the original deletion discussion? Viridae^Talk 12:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't one AFAIK, Ryulong deleted from the Wikipedia-space with the reason "(The proposal has been rejected; there need not be a noticeboard for a failed proposal)", Nick restored to the userspace under the conditions here, which indicated it should be used as a model to be pointed at, rather than a discussion page itself. MBisanz ^talk 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok first and foremost thats not a speedy deletion criteria, so undeletion should not have had any conditions imposed. You wanna do that - take it through a deletion discussion. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like WP:CSD#G6 to me. Deleting descendant pages related to rejected proposals is a form of housekeeping. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep harmless, as noted by PM, no reason for conditions to be imposed on userfication of out of process deletions (as noted by me above). Potential for something decent to come from it - little potential for harm. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Not harming anyone. Zginder 2008-05-04T12:20Z (UTC)
• Keep. This is not harming anyone, yet I suspect that removing it would be be seen as suppressing an idea that really does need more discussion even if it is eventually totally rejected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)
• Delete or move to WP:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll or similar title (per Privatemusing's proposal, see reasons on my reply to his proposal). Attempt to raise consensus on a different forum for a proposal that was rejected on the proper forum (WT:OPTOUT), using the undeleted copy for other thing that the purpose it was undeleted for. Notice that PrivateMussings was supossed to make an improved version of the rejected proposal, and he is instead trying to raise support for the original version, and he is misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS by trying to make a straw poll with no arguments. To sum it up, this has nothing to do with what you do with your user space, but with attempts to avoid consensus against one of your proposals on the proper forums. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that, per WP:USER, Private Mussings can perfectly write a draft proposal or an essay on his user space, but this is not what he was doing --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please notice that WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid on deletion discussions, and, yes, it does do harm by ignoring the reasons for undeletion and by attempting to short-circuit consensus --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. The text of WP:NOHARM shows it specifically refers to articles. This is not an article. --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it was ever intended to refer only to articles. It evens says that it's specially relevant for MfD, where many times we are not talking about articles.... --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The quote that mentions MfD is "Note that in WP:MFD debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here." clearly indicates that whether something is harmful or not can be an issue, but that "It is harmless" may be not persuasive in some cases. In other words WP:NOHARM can be used at MfD. Of course whether or not it should be used here is a different matter, but I stick by my use of it. --Bduke (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that WP:NOHARM is an essay and there was no reason for deletion in the first palce so no reason to set conditiosn for undeletion on request. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Notice Scot5114's comment about meeting criteria G6 for speedy deletion.

• • • • WP:NOHARM is a collection of usual reasons, so I don't need to remember and type all the same arguments all the time. Please read the reasons there and address them, instead of just dismissing it for being an essay. The specifical reasons for citing WP:NOHARM and saying that it does cause harm, is that not deleting a page that is trying to short-circuit consensus does damage to the consensus process of wikipedia, and keeping a page that was undeleted a page for a purpose and then using it for a different purpose damages the possibilities of other pages getting undeleted because admins will fear that users will misuse the stated undeleting purpose and that they won't be able to enforce it --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think any reasonable person would be misled by this text, or any of the past versions here, into thinking that "it is an active forum for subjects to opt out of having an article". If anything they would be educated that this is not currently possible. Barring a better explanation of why this was deleted, the conditions for undeletion are not material. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The userspace isn't there as a mechanism to circumvent consensus. The userspace isn't a place to find consensus on something. That's what the WP namespace is for. This is essentially using this as a platform for reusing undeleted material against what it was originally intended for, which is a perfectly good reason for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia:Biographical optout already existed, and was discussed, and rejected. This seems to be an attempt to hold a new vote which would override the the discussion already held. It's a kind of "forum shopping". If there is to be renewed discussion of Wikipedia:Biographical optout, then the obvious location of that is Wikipedia talk:Biographical optout, not user-space. --Rob (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

what do you think of this page being a subpage of the rejected proposal, Thivierr? - I think maybe that's a better fit for it. I see it as part of the ongoing discussion of the proposal, to be honest... and the page certainly isn't a vote - more a kind of clear statement of users' positions on this issue. I'm happy with the trickle of votes the page has received, and think that it actually helps move things forward - maybe it could be renames too - perhaps a 'petition'? or somesuch? - thoughts most welcome! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion of the proposal is at WT:OPTOUT, as you are perfectly aware, and there is already a RfC going on which you opened yourself. You can perfectly open a straw poll there, where people will be able to see all arguments pro and against the proposal on the very same page. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see any problem with someone drumming up support for a proposal in their user space. It's not like someone's going to accidentally make a major shift in the way we do things because of this page. For the proposal itself, I don't like it one bit, but that's no reason to delete this page. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think anyone would realistically anything created on the page "consensus", but we don't delete straw polls. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely appropriate use of userspace to express an opinion on Wikipedia policy and support a proposal to change it. I don't see the problem here. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The policy proposal was soundly rejected, and trying to restart the discussion on a userpage is a waste of time. This is not simply a statement of opinion, but an attempt to introduce rejected policy through the back door, as shown by the poll (where people are encouraged to support, not merely participate) along with the sentence "If consensus, and general helpful wiki editing, moves in this helpful direction, then we can consider an appropriate 'mainspace' location." Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  I think there's zero risk of this being back-door accepted. We should be a little more confidant in the stance the community has taken, and not be afraid of something like this. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  As much as being afraid... :) At most, I'm afraid of the bad example that this sets. Having a proposal rejected summarily, and then making a RfC and a straw poll at the same time, using an undeleted noticeboard that was supposed to be used once the proposal was accepted. And the noticeboard was undeleted for the purpose of making a better proposal that could pass consensus but then it's used to attempt to raise consensus for the same unmodified proposal out of the relevant talk page, after it has been rejected there. Seriously, this is not at all about the actual proposal or the straw poll. Privatemusings can make another draft of the proposal whenever he pleases, and he can perfectly convoke a straw poll on WT:OPTOUT. The problem is with using *this* page for that purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep So what if it is a waste of time? It's in userspace, it's being done in good faith whether the most brilliant point is being made or the worst idea ever. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or move to a new title that won't confuse new users, who it is explicitly directed at, imo. This page makes a claim to be something it is not for people unfamiliar with the wiki. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

what would you think about WP:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll? - you probably know that I initially thought this page would be a better fit as a subpage.. I think that way people can see that it's part of a currently rejected proposal, and still register their position as / when / if they come across it. If you like the idea, I've no objection to anyone just moving the page. Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a better name. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with that idea too. It marks it as a straw poll and not a noticeboard and solves the problem with the reasons for undeletion, since it would be like a new different page. It also puts it more in context with the WP:OPTOUT thing --Enric Naval (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

great - this process has actually helped moved things forward - hopefully someone uninvolved will be able to facilitate the move, and I'm happy for the subsequent redirect from my userspace to be deleted. Thanks guys, Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved at Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll. Maybe it would be adequate to make a post at WT:OPTOUT for people to go there --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• keep per DHMO and Ned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's in PM's user space, doing no harm. There's really nothing wrong with expressing wiki-views in one's user space, mainstream or not. Doesn't seem extraordinarily useful, but user space content certainly doesn't have to be. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Moved page to Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll from comments two !votes above --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's "not eatin' any oats", as my grandfather would have said. Now that it's been moved to projectspace, all the better - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In the absence of demonstrated abuse, if it is related to wikipedia, let users use their userspace in peace, especially where is concerns policy. Censorship of policy discussion is very much the wrong way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (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.