Wikipedia talk:Userfication

message: Having just seen User:Ali'i/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, the userfication of a page deleted via AfD in March and not edited since March,  and having seen some similar pages recently, I thought it worthwhile bringing the issue up again. I don't see any justification for keeping an article in userspace for such a long period of time and would like to see the article give some guidance on this. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I propose six months without noticeable edits, or an outside change in notability (which would allow the article to be placed in mainspace).   At MfD we have seen userfied articles nominated for deletion well before even one month, which is clearly insufficient.   Collect (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising the time limit issue again 

message: As administrators are the only people that are allowed to delete a page I propose that only administrators are allowed to userify a page as userfication is deletion in all but name.  This would not apply when the page is obviously misplaced or the page is userified by the  only major contributor to the page.  Dpmuk (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Administrators don't have extra authority, only extra technical capabilities.  Since userfication is a normal editing action, anyone can do it. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought someone might come up with that response.  My counter-argument is twofold a) that we don't allow non-admin to close anything but clear cut deletion decisions and so we already have cases where admins have extra authority as they don't need their extra technical capabilities to close a close AfD as keep (or no consensus) and b)  I don't think userfication is a normal editing action as IMO it amounts to deletion.  I know the tools aren't necessary to userify a page but I think it's more important the same rules are applied to both userfication and deletion as the end result is the same - the removal of a page from the encyclopaedia section of the site.  Dpmuk (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely an editor can userfy their own submission in response to an assertion that it is presently failing to show that it belongs in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quote what I said at the start of this discussion - "This would not apply when the page is obviously misplaced or the page is userified by the only major contributor to the page." Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, yes you did. Still, I don't see why a typical editor could not be entrusted with this ability, easily undone as it can be. bd2412 T 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a reliable estimate on the frequency of bad-faith moves? I guess the vandal-on-wheels can be spotted by a bot, but there must be some robust supervision against bad-faith userification of under-watched articles? (isn't it simple - userify, tag, speedy) East of Borschov (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do we police an admin-only-userfication policy? If a non-admin properly userfies a page which deserved to be userfied, do we undo it? Warn them for doing it? bd2412 T 12:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we allow userfication to only be done be admins? 

message: Should this essay become a policy or guideline?.  Although I suspect most editors largely follow the essence of this essay (probably without realising it even exists) I've notice that users other than admins have started to userify articles and not always follow these guidelines (specifically point three - i.e. userfying articles not currently undergoing deletion) and so I think we need some firm guidelines or policy.  As far as I can see making this a policy or guideline has not been discussed for several years. Dpmuk (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that it may need some tweaking but I think the point that is trying to be made is that userfication should only be done when deletion would be allowable - i.e. it shouldn't be done to circumnavigate the deletion process.  As far as I can see this means that it should only occur either an AfD is closed as delete or when an article is eligible for speedy deletion.  This view is what I agree with.  I don't think it should ever be used in lieu of a deletion process as the end result is effectively the same (removal of the page from the main encyclopedia section).  Dpmuk (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the "What can" and "What cannot" parts are at the least a basis for a policy or guideline although the second half is more informational.  Do you agree that there's a need for a policy or guideline?  We can always work on the actual details. Dpmuk (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is presently better framed as a guideline. There are a few absolutes in there - for example, that BLP violations must be deleted as opposed to userfied, and that cut-and-paste moves must be avoided. As to the AfD issue, I agree that we should note that this process can not be executed mid-AfD, but we should also note that if everyone agrees, the AfD can be closed early in favor of userfication. bd2412 T 16:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is some coverage of copying or moving at WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I think that the relevant guideliney portions could live in WP:Deletion policy or something. But if it makes more sense for the guideline to be here, that works for me too. –xenotalk 16:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Could you expand on that comment.  As far as I can currently see you'd need to make some pretty big jumps to get from current policies and guidelines to this (where do we mention when userfication can be done for example), so I'd be interested in your reasoning as I may have missed something. Dpmuk (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you just give me an example of one thing or two that you think requires clarification from this page so I can look at that? I think that's more practical than me choosing a couple of examples. Hans Adler 12:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should this become a policy or guideline? 

message: It seems obvious to me that userfied pages should have the noindex template added to them, does anyone object to adding that? We've already suggested it implicitly by mentioning that this happens automatically with the article incubator. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, good idea. bd2412 T 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noindex 

message: Just a note really that I've had a user request restoration of a deleted userfied page (userfied last January), saying that he may be able to work on it in January next year. I told him no as that is simply too long a period of time to keep it untouched in userspace, and to ask again when he can work on it (in any case I think it duplicates another article). I suspect he may come back to my talk page disputing this, I've seen comments by him about 'rabid deletionists' and 'Wikinazis'. Is there any reason I should have granted his request? Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a case for emailing to the user so they can store the copy for 6 months before working on it. THe user should set up a to do list instead so that they can remember to ask for it when they have the time.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about emailing it, isn't there a danger of losing the history? Although I guess we could do a history merge if it does get restored (although as it duplicates another article, I don't see that happening). He's not a happy bunny, " Whatever its state now, a substantial amount of serious work (mine and probably others' --- I can't even tell that now!) went into that article. I will work on it if and when I feel like it. I am not your employee; you can't delete my work in progress just because you think I am not working fast enough, and I don't need yor permission to write a draft on a legitimate topic. The article should not have been deleted in the fist place, but since it has then at least let me have access to it. If you can't be of help, then at least do not be a nuisance. All the best".  Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: WP:DEADLINE riffic (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it deleted through an MfD? Process is process, so however it was deleted, he can always seek deletion review. bd2412 T 20:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time limit redux 

message: I stumbled on this: :File:Bob Farrell.jpg. According to the description the image was deleted from WikiMedia Commons and "userfied by admin" here. I think most people thought, and have been told, deleted images could not be userfied. Although this is not userfied to a namespcae, but it seems odd to userfy a deleted image into mainspace. See also Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Bob Farrell.jpg Thoughts on this? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting userfication 

message: Restoring something for userfication is an administrative action consisting of an undelete and a move. Usually admins can revert their own actions. As somebody who likes to accommodate such requests for userfication, I tend to think that they also can be undone uncontroversially in obvious circumstances, at least by the restoring admin. In the sense of moving it back to main space, redelete it and drop the author a friendly note, possibly to request restoration once more if they have some sources and are actually ready to go.
It may seem high-handed at first but an Mfd with the discussion on potential for sources or times in time passed in userspace seems to be unnecessary in many cases. Is that making sense to others as well and would it help to mention this here, possibly being more explicit on what would be considered 'obvious' or where we would 'depend on the administrator's judgment' as we already do for the userfication itself.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing the userfication of deleted content 

message: Proposal at WP:Village pump (policy)#Speedy userfication. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy userfication 

message: Can someone please restore the original Jeremy Barlow.  I forget who he was now, but I'm sure he's more notable than some random soccer player. Thanks. Loughburian (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Barlow 

message: So this page lists "Articles for which an AfD discussion is underway" as types of articles which cannot be userfied. But let me be sure I understand this. Does userfication in this case mean simply copying content into userspace, or to moving it there and deleting it in mainspace? I created a userspace version of a current AFD article, without modifying the article itself, mostly because it seems that unless I can catch it right before deletion, I won't actually have anything to work with. Am I in violation of anything here? --BDD (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Userfication is moving of the article to User space to preserve both its edit history and content. bd2412 T 15:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. So assuming the article in question is WP:TNT'd, there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing; the history of the page wouldn't be preserved anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You got it backwards: deletion is part of the problem. Copying Sharia in the United States to User:BDD/Sharia in the United States during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharia in the United States violates WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. WP:Copying within Wikipedia – particularly Reusing deleted material and Userfication – explains the attribution dependency. Since the article was deleted and its page history hidden, your copy doesn't list its authors and is a license violation. You may request restoration and userfication from the closing/deleting admin, at WP:Requests for undeletion, or at WP:Deletion review. I will leave a note at your talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Flatscan; this is a total misunderstanding on my part, though I do understand now that you've explained. As you noted, I continue to use  because of our license, but I'd be lying if I said I understood it. What, is Wikipedia going to sue Wikipedia? Well, duly noted, and I'll see to the deletion of that userfied page. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for U1'ing the copy. Don't worry too much about understanding  perfectly – simply identifying copied text is the most difficult and thus most important step. When an unattributed copy is made, the reuser (the copying editor) is infringing the rights of the original author(s). Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfication of AFD articles 

message: The 3rd paragraph of the Article_namespace_content section states: "If others have edited it, consider a cut and paste move instead of a page move, as the edit history may be more important than the original article."  I thought that a move preserved edit history, but a cut and paste did not.  This seems to say the opposite.  Am I mistaken or misreading it?--Wikimedes (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated thanks for catching this. I just read WP:Userification, scratched my head at the sentence, and saw here that you identified the same confusion. I traced the questionable sentence to User:Mangojuice, who added it (though writing "at the original article") upon just discovering the guideline for page moves in 2006. Then in 2007, WT:Userfication/Archive_1#Cutting & pasting breaches GFDL acknowledged the attribution issue, and the discussion resulted in an additional paragraph for the instructions. Finally User:Vanlegg, in the heat of a 2011 deletion process, changed "at" to "than", without explanation, perhaps not realizing the difference in meaning. Mangojuice and Vanlegg are no longer active editors, so we shouldn't expect timely clarification. I "boldly" edited the sentence to fix the apparent problem, and Mangojuice or Vanlegg or anyone else is welcome to follow up if there's still an issue. —Patrug (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good detective work.  It makes much more sense after your edit.--Wikimedes (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  cut and paste moves preserve edit history? 

message: Hi everyone, I can't userfy a page that I've deleted for someone. This is the deletion. It says there is no history in order for me to view and userfy it. What gives? I've never had a problem before. Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen anything like this - a deleted page with no history of what was deleted. Sounds like some kind of server error to me. bd2412 T 16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it in the deleted contributions of the creator. Will Email or userfy it for them. ϢereSpielChequers 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Still really weird why I've been unable to view the deletion history. I have never had that happen. SarahStierch (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't userfy a page, what gives? 

message: The lead isn't especially clear. 
Is it trying to say that content placed on an user's page IS indexed by search engines, while content placed in Draft space is not?  CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "noindexed" advantage