This RFC was complicated and it took some time for us to close. We appreciate the community's patience. There is new consensus here, and there are also some things that we as a community have to agree to now that we've reached this consensus.
There was another RFC that ran alongside this one, and we had to take each RFC into account while closing the other. When we did we found that the big picture is, unless a userspace draft is unacceptable for Wikipedia for GNG-unrelated reasons (copyright violations, self-promotion, and so on), it does not have an expiration date and does not have to comply with WP:GNG. No-hope drafts should not stick around indefinitely, but drafts with some potential should be allowed to stay. We already have G13 for declined AFC submissions, and consensus is that AFC submissions should go to draft space rather than to user space. Failed AfC submissions can go back to the user space. There are questions about moving items out of the user spaces of editors who are inactive, but there is no consensus as to what that level of inactivity should be. The community is encouraged to formulate an RFC to establish the mechanisms of moving AFC submissions out of and back into user space and the definition of 'reasonably inactive'.
Closed by: Seraphimblade Talk to me, Ymblanter (talk), Katietalk 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
Background: The issue with WP:STALEDRAFT was apparently long-term. There were various changes to the policy, whether it was good or bad, community-vetted or not is now out of the question, since we're making this RfC. There have been moves across namespaces under the guise of "improvement", "more attention" and such. Again, whether they were right or wrong or if there was any actual improvement or not is not the question here. The consensus developed in this RfC will be the way to go forward. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Related pages: WP:UP
If you want to add a proposal or a sub-proposal, please add them in order, while keeping the proposal code in mind. Please post proposals in such a way that there are limited options, you're welcome to start subsections under Discussions.
Closing instructions: The RfC must go on for a full 30 days (720 hours) from its start date to give enough time to consolidate consensus. In case a proposal has no consensus, it should be continued until one emerges. The ones with clear-cut consensus should be closed. Also, the proposals should be closed by preferably more than one person.