UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Userspace Redirects

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Policy written by Aichon, amended by Misanthropy. The following text would be added as an addendum to UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling, effectively replacing the 'User page redirects' scheduling.

---

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. If dispute arises as to the validity of multiple claimants, the page shall be used solely as a disambiguation page until the matter can be decided by the appropriate means.

---

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. For. Aichon makes ideas be words good. 19:07, 18 July 2011 (BST)
2. Makes sense and should have been put into practice long ago.       19:22, 18 July 2011 (BST)
3. For - It should be noted, however, that my wording was designed to specify how redirects should be handled, assuming they were permitted, rather than specifying that they are permitted. I intentionally worded it to handle things that a policy is better suited for than A/D/S, while trying to avoid stepping on the areas that A/D/S is better at handling. In case anyone is curious, from what I can tell, Mis added that line at the very top (which should save us the hassle of an additional vote on A/D/S), and then the last sentence to the last paragraph, while also removing my formatting. Everything else is verbatim from what I wrote on the talk page as far as I can tell. I'd still prefer removing that first line that he added and then passing a separate vote on A/D/S to revoke the rule, but this will do. —Aichon— 19:25, 18 July 2011 (BST)

   To be fair, the only format change I made was to take it out of a quote box. 19:29, 18 July 2011 (BST)

   You also removed my three pieces of bolded text. :P —Aichon— 19:35, 18 July 2011 (BST)

4. Let's give it a go, then. Dibs on Vapor. ~ _{19:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)}

   I'll make a group known as Vapor and overrule your claim to the redirect!       19:39, 18 July 2011 (BST)

   I'd call foul and see you in Arbies. Your group would have to be called The Group Formerly Known As Vapor or just Vapor (Group). ~ _{19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)}

5. BANDWAGONS R FUN ELEVEN --User:Sexualharrison01:59, 19 July 2011 (bst)
6. I love lamp.-- Skoll ^Die 19:24, 19 July 2011 (BST)
7. -- Goribus 01:25, 21 July 2011 (BST)
8. ’Cause I can read. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:16, 29 July 2011 (BST)

Against

1. This really isn't what it claims to be. Too many words for a claim to extending groups ownership of pages. Also, user page redirects shouldn't be handled here at all and wouldn't be an issue but for certain sysops intentionally expanding the rules use beyond it's intended purpose. This should read "Revoke user pages a/d/s" or "Change user pages A/D/S to only be targeted at redirects existing for the purposes of self promotion of a user" hell, even just getting rid of it would have been better so we could go back to crit 3 common sense deletion of siged userpage redirects which is what the rule originally targeted. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:26, 19 July 2011 (BST)
2. As karek -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:29, 19 July 2011 (BST)
3. We don't need to fill the main namespace up with user page redirects. To do so has the potential to take up pagenames that legitimate groups may want to use, or names for ingame or meta-game descriptions. Any user who wants to name themselves Zambah should not have any right to be mentioned on the main namespace page -- boxy 08:29, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   Ironically, I actually wrote this policy after taking your old comments on the subject into account, which included most/all of these issues. Basically, it's been worded to account for your concerns specifically. To touch on the big one, in cases where a group has a claim to a page, they get precedence, which is stated clearly in the policy, so users grabbing pages that groups want should be a non-issue. If you read through the discussion on the talk page, I go through most of the points you raised here and explain why I think that the current wording handles them in a way that you would find satisfactory. —Aichon— 16:51, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   I know you tried to deal with the concerns, but it's still not satisfactory. If I was a jackass, wanting to preserve my placeholder in the main namespace, it's as easy as adding a link to the redirect in my sig. What new group is going to bother fixing hundreds of redirects if it's substed, or know how to go about getting someone to change their templated sig? And then they're forced to put a disambig on the page. The user namespace is there for user related material, and there is no benefit to the wiki in having it in the main namespace -- boxy 23:05, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   This policy accounts for that by saying the group has to do just one of those, rather than both. You only have to add the disambig link if you don't want to clean up the links, but there's nothing here stopping a group from claiming the page immediately, cleaning the links up over time, and removing the disambig link once they're done. —Aichon— 02:35, 20 July 2011 (BST)

   There is also, should it be needed, arbitration, in the off-chance that a user becomes too stubborn to relinquish something in their templated sig as you've outlined, Box. That's not something new to this policy, by the way - that's how we already handle contentious redirects between multiple main-space claimants. This would just add another namespace to an existing framework of rules. 02:49, 20 July 2011 (BST)

4. Yes, this shall meddle with my plans for my Boxy box-roleplaying group, my DDR dancing group and my Aichon Acorn-lover group.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:38, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   Actually, it wouldn't. If you check line three or so, you'll see that groups have precedence over the pages. Most of the wording of this policy is specifically to protect groups against users who try to grab pages that they may want for themselves. The other half of the wording is to spell out how disputes between users should be resolved in order to end most drama before it starts. —Aichon— 16:51, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   I was joking. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:07, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   You're not allowed to joke on policies. THEY ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS! —Aichon— 17:13, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   Yon just shouldn't be allowed to crack jokes ;). ~ _{17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

   This saddens me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:16, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   can we make a policy to stop yon from attempting humor?--User:Sexualharrison19:54, 22 July 2011 (bst)

5. Plainly inappropriate place. If you want to generally allow userspace redirects, A/D/S is the place to go, not a policy. - Apart of that, I still think that userspace redirects should only be allowed for exceptional pages like Midanian's or Aichon's script collections. -- Spiderzed█ 19:04, 19 July 2011 (BST)

   Aside from the first line, everything about this policy is related to how redirects can be used, which is not something that A/D/S can handle. Only a policy can handle that sort of thing, which is why it ended up here. And since the redirect pages still need to abide by Crit 2 according to this policy, it doesn't mean carte blanche redirects for everything will suddenly be allowed. Most of this stuff was discussed ad nauseum on the talk page. —Aichon— 20:09, 19 July 2011 (BST)

6. I dont see what the big problem with redirects is to begin with, but then again we like inventing problems so we got stuff to do.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:17, 20 July 2011 (BST)
7. The first goal of any bureaucracy is to sustain itself. This needs to be shorter and much more succinct. --Uroguy^TMZ 18:20, 20 July 2011 (BST)
8. This policy will lead to a deluge of links to completely non-notable users who feel that they are somehow important enough to warrant 50 redirects to their userpage. IMHO, the only time when a user page redirect is reasonable is in the cases of users who's name has a commonly used acronym (i.e. 'DDR', 'AHLG') or they use a name distinctly different from their account (i.e. 'Cheese'). Make a policy specifically for that and I'll support it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:53, 21 July 2011 (BST)

   I'd support that in addition to any pertinent things in a user's user-space such as Barrista redirecting to Aichon's script page. Something like this mentioned would probably pass easier as well. Would that require amending A/D/S or a policy or both?       02:03, 21 July 2011 (BST)

   Technically, just an A/D/S would be required but I'd almost be tempted to put it through A/PD as a more suitable venue for walls-of-text.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:37, 21 July 2011 (BST)

9. Nay - Louis Vernon 23:33, 22 July 2011 (BST)

Results

Policy has failed with much less than 2/3 support. -- Spiderzed█ 23:08, 7 August 2011 (BST)