The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE - But, I'll restore to any proponent's userspace on request. The consensus here was difficult and certainly the majority position was for userfication, but I don't find that policy supports this and I find that there is consensus that 1) this rewrite doesn't belong in projectspace, 2) there was no editor consensus to create a wholesale rewrite, and 3) any revisions of this guideline must be done in the open after discussions on the talk page. Policy and precedent do not create any bar in principle to a draft in projectspace, but in a contentious case like this it is problematic. Drafting a contentious rewrite of a Guideline in userspace is even more problematic for reasons noted in the discussion below, though certainly not prohibited. Therefore, userfication would be less than helpful, though if one of the proponents requests, I will restore the draft to userspace so that work in progress may be recovered. I will, however, tag it as a userpage, "NOINDEX" it, and suggest that the user remove the title. It sounds like OrangeMarlin has a good grasp on an effective way to tackle editing; however, if OM's disagreement with other editors (or position regarding keeping the status quo viz the vow to revert any edits done in a sandbox) interferes with this, maybe mediation is in order - if there's really that much disagreement. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox[edit]

Changes in core policy should be made in a transparent and open manner in an appropriate forum, in this case, Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Creating a location such as this one has and will cause edit-warring, as individual editors make points of discussion by edit summary rather than by open consensus. What is particularly troublesome is that because this type of page does not foster open comment and consensus, an editor may, upon his or her own desire, use this page as a method to fundamentally change core policy. We should not develop policy in "secret", it should be out in the open on the particular page's discussion area. it is easily done that way, and any editor can find it. -- OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment or userfy. I've tried to find policy or guidelines that address the use of sandboxes in various namespaces, but have not been successful. If someone knows of a policy or guidelines that address the use of sandboxes in various namespaces, please post in this discussion. This sandbox is in project/Wikipedia namespace. There have not been many MfD's of project space sandboxes. Some MfD's of project space sandboxes that probably don't add to the discussion include Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Introduction/sandbox, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox. As for policy/guideline pages having sandboxes, see No original research. Comment A prior discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox did bring out issues regarding the use of sandboxes in article namespace. From that discussion and other efforts on my part to address article namespace sandboxes, I gather that:

  Sandboxes should be limited to user namespace with a few exceptions. For articles, the copy pasting of article namespace sandbox content could create a GFDL violation. Here, user namespace sandboxes may be used to compliment an ongoing discussion on an article talk page. However, article namespace sandboxes may be used where there are agreeded upon plans to move the article namespace sandbox to the article, such as when an article is placed under Office action scrutiny. Article namespace sandboxes not meeting these requirements may be deleted at MfD and/or userfied. Article namespace sandboxes that have gone unused for a period of time may be speedy deleted under ((db-g6)).

  This does not directly apply to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox since Wikipedia:Fringe theories/sandbox is in project/Wikipedia namespace, not article namespace. -- Suntag ☼ 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Drafts belong in userspace and should be clearly tagged as such. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Wikipedia:How to create policy does not mention anything about using sandboxes in project namespace policy/guideline subpages. Userfy and tag with ((proposed)). -- Suntag ☼ 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the guideline quoted suggests working out in the open in projectspace, not on subpages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for the reasons given by MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Isn't this sufficient for a consensus? Someone should contact Ludwigs2 to userfy the sandbox, and someone can delete it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy is fine by me. If Ludwig wants it under his Userspace, then I'm in favor of working on it there. Regardless of the location though, the edit warring needs to stop. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, so that Ludwig will have ultimate control of it and the current problems will be avoided. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I will userfy it if necessary. my reasons are as follows:
  1. this sandbox was created out of talk page discussion between myself and several other editors. placing it contingent to the actual guideline seemed reasonable under the circumstances, so that others would have easy access. userfying it would be counter to the kind of open editing I'd hoped for.
  2. the page is clearly marked as a sandbox, and (if so desired) it would be a matter of moments to add a messagebox describing it as a sandbox
  3. no one is edit-warring on this page (so far as I can see from a glance at the page history) except for the same person who nominated it for deletion. the IP additions seem good-faith, and could easily have been handled through normal cooperative editing.
  4. this action seems to be a mere extension of the personal animosity that Orangemarlin holds towards me (e.g., he recently opened a senseless wikiquette against me here, which he refused to participate in, has threatened to file an RFC/U on me, and consistently treats me and my edits with an unfortunate degree of belligerence). If OM were to (voluntarily, of course) refrain from making edits at this sandbox there would be no problems to speak of. it's only his continued efforts to be a pain in my neck that is making any trouble there at all.

in short, this request for deletion cannot be seen as anything except another petty, bureaucratic attack on me by an editor who refuses to discuss or resolve whatever personal issues he has with me. as I said, I'll userfy if need be, but (frankly) it would be sad to see him get away with this crap. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't view it in such personal terms. Developing a draft in a sandbox is a useful and appropriate editing strategy; the only issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that the draft should be in userspace. If you don't object, you can move it (or I'll do so if you like) and we can close this and go back to editing. I semiprotected the pages because they were being targeted by apparent IP socks, but if the page is moved to userspace I don't feel as strongly about this - it can be left unprotected if you like as long as there are no egregious abuses (personal attacks, etc) from the IP socks. You can leave a link at Wikipedia Talk:Fringe theories and invite whomever you'd like to collaborate with, so I don't think that open editing will suffer. Sound reasonable? MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • pardon my outburst, but I'm tired of OM gaming the system to get on my case. he's made it clear that he doesn't want to get over his personal dislike of me; that would be ok (if not optimal) except that he keeps dragging his feelings into public spaces. you and I both know that this issue would never have arisen if someone other than I had made this page. but yes, no sense wasting effort on this: let's move this to userspace and unprotect it. I'll leave that to you, because I've never actually moved a page before and I might goof it up. and if you feel up to it, might I personally request that you discuss this matter with OM and find out what exactly he has stuck so deep in his craw? thanks. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am offended by the level of personal attacks and uncivil behavior of Ludwigs. It makes it difficult to make good-faith improvements of articles and policies. I cannot understand why editors such as this one are allowed to pursue such level of vitriolic attacks without consequences. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ludwigs2's discussion seems to have involved only Martinphi, who hardly counts as "several editors". He seems to have made no attempt to determine any kind of consensus on the talk page, where most editors seem opposed to a rewrite "from top to tail". OM's response to this maverick initiative seems measured and appropriate. Ludwigs2 should probably refactor his personal attacks on OM. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ludwigs2 has been blocked, so he's unable to refactor now. Vsmith (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and prominently link to it on the talk page so anyone who wants to participate in editing it can find it. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above, and so Ludwigs has something to work on for the next week. Vsmith (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Here's a precautionary note about such user sandboxes. Regardless of how the editing occurs on such a sandbox, none of it is compelling on other editors or ready for actual use in an article until it is presented on a relevant article talk page for discussion and consensual editing by all the involved editors who watch the article talk page. Such content should never go directly from a user sandbox to an article, since editors can't be expected to know of the existence of a user sandbox and have it on their watchlists. This may be common sense to most editors here, but I'm adding these comments for the benefit of newbies and others who might happen by. BTW, when it gets moved, a prominent link or redirect to its new location should be left in place. -- Fyslee / talk 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why I don't like them in any case. Work on articles or policy in the most transparent manner possible, which is the discussion page. I've seen really good discussions where a lead is discussed one point by one point, and it really reduces arguments. I don't think any editor would be willing to move those pages over the current one. That would just bring out the reverts and blocks left and right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and move to a sub-page of the talk page. It is being actively edited by multiple users, of which I intend to be one. This cannot be done in userspace [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realize that no matter what is edited, there is little chance that it will replace the current policy as a whole. Also, I think these type of sandboxes are discouraged. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just come over and see what I just did? I really believe you will like what you see. I do not think there is any reason at all you and I would not agree on a new version of FRINGE, especially if we could agree to keep things very simple. I also mostly imported sections. So come edit. And it's not policy, it's a guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. The point isn't the quality of it, the point is it's being edited in a hidden manner. Other than us Wikipedia wonks, no one knows about this. The only people participating in this argument are the "usual suspects". When SA finally shows up to comment, then we have a quorum. Oh, policy vs. guideline is not relevant to me. As long as I can use it to keep fringe out of medical articles, I'm fine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that anyone could edit in someone else's userspace. Is that not the case? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that never happens in controversial places, as the user can revert any number of times. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and at current location. Sandboxes of this type are very common. Sandboxes for articles should be kept to the userspace, but this is very different. Placing it in userspace seems more secretive and less transparent than keeping it at the current location. WP:FICT did drafts like this a bunch of times, and there was no issue. No policy or guideline supports deletion here. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are four examples of previous drafts for WP:notability (fiction) in project space; currently there is a draft in Phil Sandifer's user space. This sandbox might have been OK if Ludwigs2 had sought any form of consensus on the talk page, but the overall consensus there seemed to be that the article only required slight modifications, not a major rewrite. Was Ned Scott aware of that? Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content does not, the structure does. Look and see. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One does not need consensus before even being able to make a proposal. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sandbox versions for proposed drafts are neither secret nor improper. They seem helpful in that they allow editors to develop complex revisions while avoiding edit conflicts over the primary version. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy if it's primarily a solo endeavor; delete and move to a talk subpage if it's a collaborative endeavor. This is fairly standard-- as a general practice WP doesn't use project subpages for drafts and content experimentation. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete and move" sounds like a GFDL problem. As a general practice WP does indeed use project subpages for drafts and content experimentation, but its only necessary for difficult and contentious pages were a substantial change is contemplated, and that is why it is rare. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a muddled way of deviating from the essentials in the present guideline, userfy if those drafting this want to persevere with preparing a detailed and clear rationale for any proposed change, for discussion on the guideline talk page itself. . dave souza, talk 20:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems a general consensus (no one other than SA has objected before now) that the structure of Wikiepdia:Fringe theories needs to be changed. As for Kenosis's statement that the work should be done on a project talk page, that doesn't even rise to the level of "tradition"; there are no guidelines, policies, or essays on point. It also would mean we couldn't use the talk page for discussion, as there would be no talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. I find myself disagreeing with editors I've generally considered rational, and agreeing with those I've generally considered irrational. Perhaps I'm wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be :D ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I'd strongly disagree that there's consensus to change this policy. In fact, I've been reverting and arguing against various editors that the policy is quite fine. As for this utterly non-transparent method of trying to make massive changes to the policy, I totally disagree. What it will become is a place for the fringe-supporting crowd to make changes, then they'll cut and paste it over current policy, and voila, they'll claim they did it with consensus. The only transparent and fair way to make massive changes is publicly on the discussion page. Besides that, Suntag quotes some very relevant policy that seems to indicate this is not appropriate. Userfy it, and then if the fringe supporters want to make change, bring it to the discussion page. I vow to revert any change done in a hidden and unethical location like a sandbox. This is how bad changes are made. Open public discussion is the only way to make viable and long-lasting, supportable changes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am always open to suggestions as to how to make the guideline better, I doubt that there is concensus to change the guideline in any significant way. I know I would not approve a massive rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think the guideline needs to be rewritten, because the three areas MartinPhi points out clarify different policies and guidelines, apply to different situtations, and the present guideline only claims to deal with two of them, although it's used to interpret all three. If the guideline were reorganized in the way Martin is suggesting, the problems in it would become clear. Also, I strongly disagree with OrangeMarlin that this is a secretive way of proposing a guideline change. Working on it on a user subpage may be secretive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy or delete. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that the main page corresponding to the sandbox is subject to full protection and so may not be edited easily. This circumstance makes a sandbox version almost essential. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is an appropriate method for proposing a wholesale rewrite of an existing guideline. This has been done successfully before, at WP:N. In due course (not too long), this page should be "merged and redirected" to the project page, or just "redirected" is the consensus is that it is to be enitrely rejected. As a multi-authored draft, it belongs in project space, not userspace. Perhaps it belongs in project talk space, not sure. A rename is a good idea, as the page is far more than a "sandbox". Things should not be deleted just because a future change in apparent consensus looks now to be unlikely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reasons I say delete is because first off at the original talk page editors feel a major rewrite is not needed and there was discussions going on to fix minor problems that editors had brought up. Saying that the page is protected for the reason for the sandbox version doesn't work IMHO because the talk page can still be used and should be used. The sandbox version has been edited mainly by very few editors the last I looked and a few of them were edits from editor who used multiple socks to edit (the socks, last count I'm aware of was 3). I don't understand why the changes can't be made at the guideline now established. Also, it is confusing to have the two and remember this guideline is referred to a lot. Anyways this is what I have seen and some conclusion I have come to. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are good points, but they argue for redirect, not delete. In project space we don't delete bad ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Having the material in article talk space carries an implication that there is a broadly acknowledged need for a top-to-tail rewrite (as opposed to the usual tweaking). That is most certainly not the case here. The few users who see the need for a full rewrite can construct it in user space and then present it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of neutral ground in userspace where I can go around to the Pump and other places and announce it and people will feel free to edit, then fine. But of course you can't. There are multiple editors who do agree that rewriting it is a good idea, and they should be honored. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur. There's no prohibition against inviting people at VP or elsewhere to comment on a draft in user space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.