Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring

WP:UP/RFC2016

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'.

discussion and consensus

A1. Should GNG apply to drafts?

GNG does not apply to drafts. Some users expressed concerns that this is not the correct question to ask, but even they did not question the consensus.

A2. What should be done after it's deemed that a draft fails GNG?

No consensus; the most common answer was "it depends." The community is encouraged to reformulate this question and open another RFC.

A3. Should drafts be kept indefinitely on the project if they likely will never meet GNG?

Keep in mind that drafts may be not acceptable for the project for reasons not related to GNG (such as copyright violations and attack pages), and that the other RFC consensus was that userspace drafts have no definite expiration date.

For userspace drafts where GNG is the only concern, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely, with most comments based on WP:NOTWEBHOST. There was an opinion in comments that all opposes based on NOTWEBHOST should be disregarded, but this view received little support, which indicates that the majority of the users believe NOTWEBHOST applies to drafts which will never meet GNG. Interested users are encouraged to discuss and possibly amend NOTWEBHOST, particularly given the result of the second RFC that drafts have no set expiration date.
Other questions of this RfC gained consensus that AfC submissions should be moved to draft namespace. Rejected AFC submissions can not be kept in the draft space indefinitely, and if they have not been edited in six months they are covered by WP:CSD#G13.

B1. Should drafts be moved across namespaces or submitted for AfC without the author's explicit permission?

No consensus. However, given that there is consensus that userspace drafts should not have any expiration date, and that draftspace drafts can be submitted for AFC and then deleted, moving drafts from the userspace should be done with care.

B2. Should drafts be moved across namespaces or submitted for AfC without the author's explicit permission if it's fit to be an article?

Consensus is yes. Some users had reservations that only drafts of reasonably inactive users should be moved across namespaces or submitted for AFC, but the definition of 'reasonably inactive' was not addressed and there is no consensus about what it means. The community is encouraged to formulate an RFC to establish what level of inactivity is appropriate.

B3. Should it be permissible to move userspace drafts which do not meet article content standards to mainspace in order to seek deletion?

Consensus is clearly no.

B4. When a userspace draft is moved to mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for mainspace for reasons which would not apply in userspace, should it be returned to userspace rather than deleted?

Clear consensus in favor of this proposal. The details (who moves what back where and when) should be discussed by the community.

B5. Should drafts with potential be moved from userspace to draft space by a user (other than the creator) who intends to improve the draft to mainspace level?

While there were fewer comments in this section than in the others, the consensus is yes, with the caveat that the author of the draft should be reasonably inactive. Again, the community should decide what 'reasonably inactive' means. The objections to this proposal are that it is actually not necessary to move the draft, since it can be improved in any namespace. However, if the intent is to submit to AFC, it should be moved to draft space (see D1).

D1. Should all drafts marked for AFC be moved to draftspace (and out of userspace)?

Consensus is yes. The mechanism should still be discussed, and this goes in hand with B4.

Closed by:

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}, Ymblanter (talk), Katie^talk 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.