UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Userspace Redirects

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Copied from main page This has been an on-off issue for a while, and while it's never been overly serious, it should probably actually be hashed out in a reasonable manner. I'd rather see a consensus decision on what exceptions to make rather than propose a set entirely myself and put that to voting, but my gut would say that redirects to anything which objectively serves the community should be allowed, and nothing else. That means that guides, maps, scripts, research and the like would be allowed, but anything which is questionable in regards to POV shouldn't - no redirecting someone's character name to a userpage where information can't be edited except by the owner, etc. I'd also say that the existence of a redirect should be allowed by exception, not by right - if a page is brought up for deletion on valid regards, it should not be enough to simply defend it with "but I say it serves the community" without being backed up by actual community support. Examples of what I would consider valid would be pages such as User:Aichon/Userscripts, User:Rosslessness/The Difference, or User:Grim s/Grims guide to staying alive.

I would suggest

That we simply move any pages of objective community interest to the community mainspace.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 21:17, 8 July 2011 (BST)

And if the owner doesn't want their page moved? When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 21:44, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Copy paste. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:45, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Moving stuff out of owners namespaces is something I'd really like to avoid. Grim's being a case in Point. It's depriving them of ownership. I'd hate to Have User:Rosslessness/Hmm outside of my own control. The policy should be whether or not to remove the scheduled on user area redirects. --Rosslessness 22:07, 8 July 2011 (BST)
If the author didn't want their work to be edited by others, we should respect that, as editing dilutes their copyright and would remove their author-edit-only rights. I've been doing some research into copyright – especially as it applies to wikis – and we really need to hash that out, too. (I've also been crazy busy IRL, in case you were wondering.)
Edit conflict: And I see Ross is of like mind. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 22:10, 8 July 2011 (BST)
I wouldn't lift the scheduled entirely, though. I'd just change it from being exhaustive to having a few exceptions. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:12, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Well personally, I don't think we should allow redirects to userspace, for the sole reason that they are so readily subject to change.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 22:13, 8 July 2011 (BST)
I don't follow you. I wouldn't consider userspace pages to be any more subject to unexpected change than any main space page, if that's what you mean. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:15, 8 July 2011 (BST)
It's just that a user can change a userspace page at will without repercussions, whereas a mainspace page can be edited by any member of the community, so we won't end up with situations where a user's page is redirected to, and then the page suddenly gets replaced with a character page, or anything like that.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 22:38, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Then we just get rid of the redirect as irrelevant and delete it as C3. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:39, 8 July 2011 (BST)
I see no point though in pages being deleted and undeleted at the will of the user in question. Say Aichon replaces his "Barrista" page with one about his "Doug Collins" character. We delete the redirect. He then returns it to its original form. It's no less in need of a redirect than it was the first time, so surely we should recreate the redirect? Seems illogical to me.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 22:41, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Almost as illogical as a sensible user replacing a page the community use and value with an already-existing vanity page from elsewhere in his userspace. I think I have some straws in my kitchen if you need more to grasp at. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:45, 8 July 2011 (BST)
I think A more pressing issue is idiots clicking the link and editing the page in question not realising its a users page. Perhaps a scheduled protection as part of the redirect process? --Rosslessness 22:48, 8 July 2011 (BST)
This is a good idea. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:50, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Sounds better. However, one thing I really would want to be added to this policy, and that's the making an exemption for main userpages. Meaning, a guide should always be on a subuserpage, and never the main one. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:57, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Thad makes a good point that it has to be a user's subpage not main page. I personally don't see why it matters where a page's location is as long as the information is useful and relevant to the whole community, but I'm easy to get along with. It would have to be case specific and Ross's idea of putting the up for vote in a sense allows a good path to decide what deserves a redirect. Problem solved :P        23:16, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Unless the redirect can only be created by the owner of the userspace, I would strongly oppose the idea of enforcing protection on the userpage. For instance, with my userscript page, I still edit it every time I update or add a script (as recently as last month), yet I wouldn't be able to do so with an administrative request if it was protected. Someone could use it as a way to harass other users by getting their pages protected. Aichon 23:06, 10 July 2011 (BST)
The thing is we have plenty of pages that are owned by users in the mainspace and are very much personal products of those users, and generally go untouched by the rest of the community. We've actually rarely had an issue like the one you're mentioning there. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:01, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Harm Principle

It should be no surprise by now that my suggestion is a more… inclusionist one. Tongue :P

I propose keeping any redirect that serves a useful purpose. I also support aggressively turning any redirect into a disambig page should there be even a hint that the page name could be better used in that way.

As an example, I propose the page Revenant. I created it as a redirect; it got deleted. I created it as a disambiguation page including several groups and a link to my own userspace page; the link got removed. WHat purpose does this serve other than making it more difficult to find the only Revenant on this wiki that actually matters? Cool

Before you ask, both those groups are long-inactive, but I'd never support deleting them in order to reinforce my own claim. As a Philosophe Knights Librarian, I find the destruction of knowledge and desecration of history repugnant, regardless of whether it would serve me or not.)

Some wikis, such as the now-deceased Encyclopædia Dramatica, had templates designed to note that a user shared the same name as a page. You see, ED was all about the users and the drama associated with them. Urban Dead is a game where every character is human-controlled. Don't fool yourselves, the (wo)man behind the curtain 'is important!

Keep any userspace, redirect that's at all useful, but aggressively re-evaluate and disambiguate.

That's my AUD5¢. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 22:18, 8 July 2011 (BST)

TLDR, you want a userspace redirect.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 22:42, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Yeah, it's kind of obvious you didn't read it, because that's the opposite of what I said. Icon rolleyes.gif ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 12:55, 10 July 2011 (BST)

Something relevant. I might be inclined to agree. With Revenant. I think the clutter argument is silly, the amount of pages the wiki has doesn't have to do with the ability/inability to find stuff. It's not like you need to wade through the trash. But I'm curious what someone would say if they were against this, most comments say it should be as so, but there's little to nothing of a reason why. I'm not sure, however, how useful userpage redirects actually are, particularly with the UHUB. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:00, 9 July 2011 (BST)


Put them up for requests on an individual basis, hell, let the crats decide. We've got nothing to do anyway. --Rosslessness 22:24, 8 July 2011 (BST)

This.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 22:58, 8 July 2011 (BST)


Don't make a policy for this. Revoke or modify it at A/D/S. no point in bogging up the policy list with stuff that belongs elsewhere.... -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:55, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Your mom has AIDS. If you're gonna move it to a/ds then i'd suggest the discussion page first. Already several non-sysop users have commented on this issue and that page is protected. ~Vsig.png 04:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No it's not. Unless I got a promotion in the past 10 minutes... Either way, A/PD is higher visiblity, it's easier to attract enough people for a broader consensus here than on A/D/S, which, frankly, I had forgotten even existed. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 04:40, 9 July 2011 (BST)
Oh wait A/D/S. I was thinking A/DS. Either way, his mom has AIDS. I'm with Mis, though. At the least, we'll want some consensus on what's wanted before opening it up to voting. A/PD at least provides that. ~Vsig.png 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but the vote itself should go on A/D/S (which always gets an entry on the main page wiki news anyway so I really don't see the difference between this and that in terms of visibility in the vote itself. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 06:45, 9 July 2011 (BST)
) ~Vsig.png 06:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore my previous comments in this section. I had a few that night. ~Vsig.png 19:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

permabanned vandals lol?

While we're at it, remove the clause that leaves permabanned vandal redirects around... No idea why someone wanted that to be the case. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 16:22, 9 July 2011 (BST)

With the wiki software update that shows bans on userpages and deletion reasons on all pages, we may just want to delete all perma'd vandal pages. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 12:57, 10 July 2011 (BST)
I wouldn't be for that, we'd end up having to let go of people like Amazing's userpage, Matthewfarenheit etc. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 13:10, 10 July 2011 (BST)
I thought MF was a self-requested perma, but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. Aichon 22:56, 10 July 2011 (BST)
He was but I grouped him in this criterea -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 08:48, 11 July 2011 (BST)
And Amazing's Perma has been lifted so I'm sure he'd be exempt. ~Vsig.png 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah but... Why should his userpage redirect have stayed after he was permabanned (if he had one)? It's stupid and surely serves no purpose? -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 15:44, 11 July 2011 (BST)
I thought we were talking about their user pages, not the redirects. I think the redirects are dumb too but Rev mentioned deleting perma's user pages altogether. I think maybe the fact that Permas can be rescinded might be reason enough not to delete user pages, actually. ~Vsig.png 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was insufficiently clear: I meant the single-purpose vandal accounts that have nothing but vandal and block templates on their userpages. Anything with useful content should be kept. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 01:08, 12 July 2011 (BST)
Oh, well those are already scheduled deletions. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:39, 12 July 2011 (BST)

Why Not A Poll?

Since it is rare that an user-space page is of sufficient and lasting value to be linked/redirected from mainspace, it is obvious that there can be no set formula. Why not just leave it up to a poll, so that the users can decide case by case?

To make sure that not every doofus sneaks in a redirect to the headshot counter of his favourite trenchie alt by using all of his two friends, just add a minimum approval rating and a minimum number of voters. Both can be fairly restrictive, since an userspace page should be _outstanding_ to warrant an exception.

Of courses, polls are always time-consuming and come with a certain overhead, but as this should be rarely used, this shouldn't be much of an issue. Once the obvious existing pages like Grim's guide, Aichon's sys-op essay or Midanian's script library have passed, such a poll area should become extremely light in traffic. -- Spiderzed 22:49, 10 July 2011 (BST)

Vlees poppen? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:56, 10 July 2011 (BST)
If you were to do something like this, I would strongly advise adding a clause with specific prohibitions, such as for character/journal pages or sandboxes/pits, that way they can still be deleted as scheduled, but making it clear that just because a page is not specifically prohibited, it doesn't mean it is automatically allowed. That should help prevent the obviously user-centered redirects from lasting. Aichon 23:02, 10 July 2011 (BST)
Polls are good for measuring consensus. I could see using a poll to decide which types of userspace redirects are allowed or disallowed before voting on it on a/s/d. Polling individual pages may also work but as you said its a lot of overhead. Polls are also non-binding so there could be some conflicts with current policy. There would need to be some policy reform I would think. Not a bad idea. ~Vsig.png 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a procedure for this. It's called A/D. We don't need yet more polling places! ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 01:10, 12 July 2011 (BST)

I like it

(There's a TL;DR summary at the bottom) I can't think of any good reasons to prohibit userspace redirects, and wikis should allow by default, rather than restrict, so I like the idea behind the proposal. But I also know that an idea like this is prone to getting bogged down in prohibitions, exceptions, clauses, and other details. Because I don't want that, I've just spent far too long thinking about the problem and trying to figure out what makes the most sense to me in terms of how we approach similar problems already. I've tried to outline my ideas in (too much) detail. Feel free to disagree with any of them, though I'm trying to keep the focus on the bigger principles and less on the small legalities that we all hate. I think I've got something pretty simple (despite how long it is) which handles most everything.

  1. It needs to be fair. Everyone who has a valid claim should be given the same credence, regardless of how popular or important they may be perceived to be.
  2. Having a redirect is a luxury, not a privilege. Redirects are not owned pages (and never have been), and that needs to be emphasized, since there will be drama due to people's names being on these pages. The precedents need to make it clear that those people have no more right to the page than any group or person with a valid and reasonable claim.
  3. Deal with drama using disambiguation by default. Building off of those two points, as Revenant said above, the default behavior needs to be to set up a disambiguation page when there's more than one person or group with a valid claim to the page. Doing so is in the spirit of sharing the wiki should promote, and will end drama before it can start by providing a clear-cut solution, rather than requiring A/A for everything.
  4. Let the pages live or die by Crits 2 and 3. Crit 3 (unused redirect) is a no-nonsense way of handling things that's easily quantifiable, is already in use, and isn't subject to debate, while Crit 2 (off-topic) is also already in use and would hold these redirects to the same standard that other mainspace pages are held to. I'd also suggest making Crit 3 a scheduled deletion when the page has 0 uses and has been around for more than a few days. Any solution that involves having case-by-case deliberations over which redirects are (in)valid is a solution with more overhead than is necessary.
  5. Groups take precedence, but old uses never die. If a group shows up that has a valid claim for ownership of a page that's used as a userspace redirect, it should be theirs to use. End of story. That said, if the page has been in use as a redirect to a user's page, then either all of the prior links to the page should be changed to direct links or else a prominent link to a disambiguation page should be added to the group's page (redirects to group pages should be handled the first way, since disambiguation pages make no sense). Doing otherwise would inappropriately change the meaning of all of the existing links.
  6. Trolling will happen. Nothing has changed. It's inevitable that in-game groups, wiki accounts, or wiki pages will be created to antagonize some wiki users. That's no different than it is now. Wiki accounts can already be dealt with via the strong precedents set against the bad faith creation of wiki alts. Redirects that are made to antagonize users (e.g. Biggest waste of oxygen redirecting to User:Aichon) can be speedy deleted as Crit 2 (off-topic). Groups that try to grab an unrelated page for their own use (e.g. Soldiers of Crossman using DDR as a redirect to them) can simply be overruled for not having a valid claim to the page. And, as always, this wiki's purpose is to act as a resource for the game, so in-game groups get ownership of the page that has their name, even if their goal is to antagonize a wiki user. That's already the way it is. Even so, see #5.

Looking back through the old cases (they start there and goes down for about six cases), the only solid counter-argument I could see was boxy's argument that it creates more competition for acronyms that are already being fought over by groups. I don't disagree that it could (and likely would have had the precedent been otherwise back then, making boxy's concern a valid one), but #5 addresses that by giving precedence to groups, even on redirects. They'd simply clean up the existing links to the redirect page before using it themselves, which isn't asking much since they don't own the page anyway. Nice and simple.

And going through the A/D/S vote that banned them in the first place, boxy repeated his good argument (and added a new one which is addressed by #1 and #4), but most people failed to articulate a reason other than that doing otherwise would be inconsistent with the previous rulings. While that's certainly true, it doesn't add anything new to the discussion since all they're doing is citing precedent.

TL;DR: Anyone can make a redirect to any user page that's on-topic, but vandals will be dealt with, groups get priority on pages they have a valid claim to, and most disputes get solved with disambiguation instead of drama-filled deliberations. Aichon 06:12, 11 July 2011 (BST)

I was wondering where the discussion behind the scheduled voting took place. But WTF why were all of those votes exact copies of each other? Odd. Anyway, as always Aichon there are some solid points in your wall of text. How would you go about implementing this? Policy? A/S/D? It's a bit complex and would need to be paraphrased if we're to ammend the scheduled criterion but should be fine if you want to just strike the criterion altogether and possibly supplement it with a policy. ~Vsig.png 17:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we simply revoked the existing scheduled deletion, #1, #2, #4, and #6 should automatically apply thanks to existing rules and policies (they're just me reasserting ideas that should already apply). #3 and #5 are new, but they may be simple enough that we could establish them via precedent. That said, because they'd go through A/A we can't be certain of the precedent that'd get set. Because of that, I'd probably suggest making a very simple policy to cover #3 and #5 that will then get paired with the vote to revoke the scheduled deletion. A policy for those two might simply be the following:
A hypothetical policy said:
With regards to pages used as userspace redirects, the following shall apply:

Except where explicitly specified otherwise, userspace redirects shall abide by all existing rules and policies which apply to mainspace pages, including Speedy Deletion criteria 2 and 3.

Groups which have a valid claim to a page shall have precedence over the page. However, before they may use it they must do one of the following:

  1. Clean up all existing links to the page by converting them from redirect links into direct links.
  2. Add a disambiguation link to the top of their group's page in order to preserve the meaning and intent behind the existing links.

Additionally, for pages the group wishes to use as redirects to their own pages, the group must handle it according to #1 above.

Disputes between users with valid claims to a page who desire to use it as a redirect to their userspace shall be resolved by converting the page into a disambiguation page.

  • The page shall be an alphabetical listing of links to the pages in question. An optional NPOV statement may precede the listing.
  • The page may be changed back to a redirect link if, after a month has passed, it can be shown that the page is only being used in reference to one of the users.

"Valid claim" shall never include any form of assessment of the perceived value, importance, or popularity of the users/groups involved or the pages being linked to.

I think that just about covers it, though I'm guessing it can be simplified quite a bit if we take out some of the details of the conflict resolution stuff, so I'm very open to suggestions. Aichon 18:45, 11 July 2011 (BST)
And if we were to ammend the criteria rather than revoke it? Let's say we allowed redirects to any user subpages except character pages. Would this supporting policy still fit nicely? ~Vsig.png 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Assuming we go strictly with your idea, none of my walls of text should have issues. Crit 2 or (through some creative interpreting) Crit 9 may already apply, making it potentially unnecessary to specify non-character subpages only, but that's not an issue with what I said, as much as it's a question regarding existing rules. If we also want to permit redirects to main user pages (e.g. User:Aichon), we'll probably need to make a specific exception for them in whatever we do on A/D/S, since otherwise they may run afoul of Crit 2, but the stuff I wrote here will be fine with any changes along those lines as well. Aichon 20:49, 11 July 2011 (BST)
Pfft. You call that a wall of text? Next time include more links for people to read additional information. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:33, 11 July 2011 (BST)
I'll toss in some footnotes for good measure next time. ;) Aichon 20:49, 11 July 2011 (BST)

As always, some well-considered and well-fleshed out conbitrations from Aichon. Cheers! Happy ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ

So...I'd prefer to not see this idea die off, but there are only a few days left in the two weeks. Aichon 18:38, 18 July 2011 (BST)

Fuck beans, I totally forgot about this. I'm going to steal your proposal up there if that's ok. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 18:40, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Absolutely not okay. I prefer that everyone reinvent the wheel rather than make a copy of the one I slaved over. ;) Aichon 18:54, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Tough titties. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 18:55, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Seconding the bean fucking. I forgot to come back to this. Mis i see you put it up for voting. I think (I think) Aichon's suggestion was not to amend to the scheduling request with the above text but to instate the additional group page criteria as a supplemental policy. The scheduled would be either struck or amended in some other way. Aichon, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. ~Vsig.png 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
While it seems so, I did read over things with a mind to seeing if it stood up on its own, and it struck me as being able to do so. So I ran with it. Like a bastard. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 19:30, 18 July 2011 (BST)
You're correct, Vapor. I mentioned that point in the vote I just made. That said, because Mis' added an extra line at the top saying that it would effectively replace the rule, I think it'll have the same end effect. If I had my druthers, however, I'd have preferred to keep things where they're supposed to be. Having a policy directly amend a rule on A/D/S is definitely a bit outside the norm, but it's part of a bigger policy change, and doesn't make sweeping changes to A/D/S, so I think it'll be okay regardless. Aichon 19:32, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Yeah I guess it wouldn't do to have one pass and the other fail. Not that i think a million invisible meet puppies would allow that but, ya know, could happen (I kid). Like Aichon, I think I'd prefer to see scheduling changes on A/D/S but we'll see how this goes. ~Vsig.png 19:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A vote on A/D/S would really only apply to adding/removing/amending a scheduled deletion, and given that this seems a little wider than that - the guidelines on how to handle the redirects outside of deletions, for instance - makes me think A/PD is a better route. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 19:37, 18 July 2011 (BST)
My ideal setup was to actually have both, since the policy should handle some of this stuff and A/D/S should probably handle some. I was thinking that we would have this pass first (that way we have the rules in place before we open the floodgates by revoking/amending on A/D/S), or else to add a contingency to it saying that it would only come into effect if userspace redirects were once again permitted. Then, after this passes, we go ahead and revoke/amend the rule on A/D/S, rather than doing it through here. Aichon 19:41, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Edit conflict but basically as Aichon. But I'm fine with doing it this way if you just want to go with it. ~Vsig.png 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


If this policy passed I would have to put content on the page The UD Side and not have it redirect to my journal (which affords me more rights as being a part of my userpages)? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:09, 18 July 2011 (BST)

No, no. You'd be able to have The UD Side be a redirect to User:Akule/The UD Side or whatever page you use, so you could still own the page entirely but it's easier to find. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 20:13, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Precisely. This change won't actually affect any existing ways that things are done. It only opens up the possibility to also have redirects that point to your userspace, and then dictates some terms for how they will be handled. Aichon 20:14, 18 July 2011 (BST)
It basically goes to Journal:Akule#The_UD_Side. I would just prefer that someone not be able to hop in and make a group page with the same name and get ownership of the direct page, simply because they decided to steal my link. I could see something like this occurring over various redirects of certain groups. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:18, 18 July 2011 (BST)
I don't think it would happen any more than it already does. Plus the Journal space isn't the User space, it's not actually affected by this. It would only change things for you if you wanted it in the User:Akule space. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 20:23, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Oh, no. No one is going to be able to claim my Journal page at all. I'm just saying that they could theoretically swipe my The UD Side redirect for a group page, as it is only currently going to a userish page (journals are similar to user pages). Not that someone will likely do that to me. I more expect it to pop up in cases such as UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Cobra_vs_Doc_Ryleigh. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:30, 18 July 2011 (BST)
What I mean is your redirect is safe, because it's not going to a userspace page, these guidelines don't apply to it. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 20:36, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Okay. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 20:47, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Your point is still valid, especiqally in light of the fact that the policy is in response to a similar type of rules abuse by DDR intentionally misusing a scheduling then hiding behind the letter in spite of the blatant purpose + letter outlined clearly in the vote. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 02:31, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Stop with the fucking butthurt and change the rule, else it will be enforced the same fucking way it's been enforced since it was made. Fuck you and your ignorance get fucking stale. And misconduct? Are you fucking kidding? We have more than enough sysops to vote against two apparently protective ops, so fucking do it, you fucking speck. Holy shit the irony of you crying about other ops with vendettas, you are the most biased, butthurt and petty user we have. Counting thad in that too. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 03:29, 19 July 2011 (BST)
i think i might have to change my vote on the grimmies. not that i agree. but it was still pretty good.-- HEY! HANDS OFF MAH BOOBS!   bitch   COBRA!  אמת03:52, 19 July 2011 (bst)
God forbid he have to say anything he says in his petty snarky edit summaries to someone's face in an actual discussion and as a serious comment, he'd be the laughing stock of the fucking wiki. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:19, 19 July 2011 (BST)
I did say it to your face. I was also sayingv here the same whiny cunt behavior you used there people with the moral balance of a drunken abusive nitwit, like say conndraka or yourself as of late, would abuse the poor wording of nthis policy in the exact same manner as the power abusing shitbag who caused this whole debate. Oh wait, that was also you. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:40, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Keep avoiding for the 50th time the fact I'm being consistent with the way it's been handled in the past? try to overwrite that fact with one of your own opinions? What a fucking surprise. And no, I stand by it; if you said anything of your asinine edit summaries in serious context, you'd be laughed out of the entire internet. Again, please do, put me up for miscondduct, that is if you actually believe it is misconduct, or that you actually believe 2 sysops would somehow be able to override a group of 10+, unless of course, you know it will go nowhere because there is no misconduct, morally or lawfully to be had here, lest any issue with what I did in relation to how things have been done before. Not to mention again there are two people, you and rev, who have issue with it compared to the countless in the past 3 years that haven't. Again, it's all my fault. Boo fucking hoo. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:18, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Obviously you'll have examples to prove this unique interpertation of the rule no one clearly had in the voting being enforced this way right? I mean it's not like you can read the votes on the thing anymore or anything obviously to, say, get an idea of why the rule exists? Your actions were no more correct than bnning a 3er inappropriately and you know it. You also know that a specific group of sysops will vote not misconduct for you regardless of what you did so why would I waste my time there when drawing attention to it is more effective at fixing the problem? This whole policy discusion came about because of your wikilawyering grimtastic loophole abuse, don't shy from your shittiness now. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:54, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Seriously, you are being so fucking retarded that it's actually physically hurting me. I have no idea where this onus came from all of a fucking sudden, like your onus of me to prove when the rule was interpreted this way; every-fucking-where is the answer, you'd have to be fucking deluded to be inable to realise that the onus is on you to find where the rule hasn'st been interpreted that way. What a fucking laugh. As for why the policy came about, again, it was because of some butthurt shithead spending 90% of his minimal and incredibly concentrated edits complaining about the treatment of the rule (the treatment of which no one had issue with until said user came and complained), not about my apparent INAPPROPRIATE and LOOSE CANNON approach to said rule. As for insulting you proving your point? What point? That you're a fucking incapable biased operator/user who cannot see a rule in context without just adding a "BUT IF I SAY IT'S OK IT'S OK REGARDLESS. NO U R RONG FOR DOING IT PROPERLY" attitude to every fucking rule without going through the necessary requirements to change the rule to allow said exception to happen? Yeah? That user who like Revenant complains about the rules but does no attempt to fix them, though at least Rev admits it? That user who throws every petty opinion into a fray, battering off anyone who doesn't treat that opinion like a holy and unarguable fact? That user who spends more time arguing here than tending to queues on admin pages, fixing dead pages/files as per specialpages, or banning spambots as he writes the pathetic off-hand comments in the edit summaries to the responses to this exact reply? What a goddamn fucking scare, I'm so intimidated by your mounting of "evidence". -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 15:29, 19 July 2011 (BST)
DDR...your blood pressure. You don't have to try so hard just to win some grimmies. Fuckin relax.--The Walking Dude 15:34, 19 July 2011 (BST)
You deleted a page and now just sid you don't need to justify deleting the page because I haven't given you a list of pages we haven't deleted. Try again.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 18:21, 19 July 2011 (BST)
No, I really, really didn't. Thanks. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 02:30, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Moving on

... anyway. I missed all of the discussion phase here. But I wouldn't mind spelling out something so that redirects to user sub-pages would be allowed, but only in circumstances where the page content is of general (in-game) interest, rather than being about the user themselves. That would cover groups that want their page in the user namespace (I never knew why it would be needed), guide pages and perhaps other, backstory type pages (as long as they're not just self promotion) -- boxy 10:30, 19 July 2011 (BST)

It again begs the question of (if it fits in the former at least, which is one of the more common applications this rule would have) why isn't it in the mainspace in the first place? and "ownership" isn't an answer because we've rarely had an issue of ownership in mainspaces (esp. personal projects like Aichon's extensions or my Ghost pages) in the past really. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:33, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Some people like to keep their pages in their user space to avoid "helpful" edits (that they don't see as helpful), and because they are a constant "work in progress". Oh, and then there's the paranoids, of course (it's not against the wikilaw, y'know). And I guess there are those who want to ensure that it's clear who did the work as well. Group pages are a special case, where the group has just as many ownership rights whether it's in the main namespace or a user sub-page, so I don't see a reason for that... unless it's to avoid umbrella/cobra type shitstorms (that I see as too unlikely to worry about, really).
In any case, I don't see any harm in it, in most cases -- boxy 10:40, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Neither do I actually. I just think the "stuff SHOULD be in the mainspace but they keep it in userspace cause of ownership issue" is a bit unfounded and stale, to the point of not enacting a policy because of it. Same for the "paranoids" bit -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:42, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Honestly, until people started talking about it here, I never even considered the idea that my userscripts page would be appropriate for the mainspace, since I just followed Midianian's lead in setting it up in my namespace. For me, I can't imagine a scenario in which I'd welcome edits to the page from other users, which is basically what someone is asking for when they put a non-group page in the mainspace. I also know I wouldn't have a valid claim to Userscripts (mine aren't the only ones), and, to me, any page that begins with a possessive (e.g. Aichon's Userscripts), is just better off in the relevant userspace. Plus, as boxy mentioned, since I've dumped a few dozen hours into those scripts, I like to make it clear that they are my work. I do appreciate that some other users find worth in them and may consider them to be of greater value to the community, but, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what purpose putting it in the mainspace would serve or what benefit we would see (this goes for a redirect to it as well, truth be told). Aichon 17:11, 19 July 2011 (BST)
The problem is it makes more sense being in your userspace. Especially because it's basically a list of compiled stubs about scripts. Now each script having a redirect to the page makes sense. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 18:26, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Not a problem for me since I prefer to keep it in my userspace. ;) What you suggested makes great sense, however, since I didn't see a point to a redirect for the entire page, but redirecting for each script could definitely simplify linking and referring to the scripts. I could go for something like that. Aichon 19:45, 19 July 2011 (BST)
One of the reasons why I have things like the bulk of Akule News in my journal pages, was that I had more rights to say what I wanted on my user and journal pages than I did in the main namespace. At the time, if the article was in the main namespace and if I said something that wasn't NPOV, people could have gotten a sysop to force me to change what I wrote, completely delete the content as inflammatory, and/or put me up for vandalism (and that was a big worry, as I had quite a target on me during those days). Even now, users still effectively have carte blanche to say what they want on their user pages and journals, so many still do a lot of their work, insulting statements, or personal stuff in the user pages instead of the main pages. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:36, 20 July 2011 (BST)
This policy already does that. Note how it says at the top that Speedy Deletion Crit 2 still applies. I put that in there specifically to handle this concern. Basically, if the page isn't something that could stand on its own in the mainspace, then a redirect to it would be Crit 2 fodder, just as it has always been. I actually mentioned earlier (it's a little below that quote block I have in the "I like it" section) that because of that, we still probably won't be able to have pages like DDR and Aichon as redirects to our own pages, unless we specifically allow them somewhere else. As far as I can tell, this policy already does what you want, but I may be incorrect. Aichon 16:31, 19 July 2011 (BST)
Then the policy itself isn't clear enough -- boxy 23:11, 19 July 2011 (BST)
On that point, character pages have never fallen under crit 2 (off topic), because they are about UD specific characters. However, the place for them is the User namespace (that's what it's dedicated to, user specific info), so they havn't been deleted, just moved to the appropriate place -- boxy 23:35, 19 July 2011 (BST)
That's why you would apply Crit 9, which already covers character pages explicitly. And that gets towards a more important point: how can it be made any clearer than it is? I'm asking that in the earnest hope that constructive criticism is provided. In my opinion, it's folly for a policy to have to list out the different ways that existing rules apply to it, but since I knew this was a complicated topic, I made a point of saying that they do apply, just to alleviate some concerns. I had hoped people would realize that this policy doesn't exist in a vacuum and that it will always be bounded by the other rules. That people (not just you) are citing problems which we've been handling for years with other policies has me baffled, but does tell me that it probably isn't clear enough. I know you disagree with the policy in general, but I'd be curious what your thoughts are on making those sorts of things clearer, without having to write 300 pages of hypothetical examples. Aichon 02:34, 20 July 2011 (BST)
Modify the redirect ADS to target only self promotion redirects that link to the account page(being the main userpage but not subpages) and character pages. The problem is having the policy at all encourages wiki lawyering of it which is why for years we kept it as a guideline and originally enforced the ADS to apply only to the guideline of only kevan gets a redirect like kevan. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 03:03, 20 July 2011 (BST)
The problem is, you're replacing the current A/D/S entry on user page redirects with the policy suggested here. That removes any reference to crit 9, or even any reference to what redirects can be deleted on sight. It replaces it with a policy statement about how normal users can handle user redirects without saying anything about what is elegible for deletion on sight (which is the whole point of A/D/S). If I was reading this entry in A/D/S, I would conclude that user page redirects are never eligable for scheduled deletion, and that they would either have to go through A/SD (and that can be stimied via a single keep vote) or be replaced with a group page. The best way to change A/D/S is, as karek says, change the entry so that it only applies to self-promoting or character related redirects, and no info about how to arbitrate disputes is put on A/D/S (it's not the place) -- boxy 03:35, 20 July 2011 (BST)