Forum:Proposing a new speedy delete criterion

From The Sims Wiki, a collaborative database for The Sims series
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: IndexCommunity discussionsProposing a new speedy delete criterion | Forum new.gif Post

I would like to propose the addition of a new speedy deletion criterion. The text of the proposed addition would be as follows:


U3. Userspace pages of indefinitely blocked users or users blocked for more than one year

This rule applies to pages existing in the userspace or user blog namespace, belonging to a user who has been either blocked indefinitely or blocked for a duration of at least one year. This applies to any pages in the user's userspace or user blog, except for the user talk page (and archive pages, if applicable) and the userpage itself. Note that this rule does not apply to pages created by users whose accounts have been disabled by staff.


I've noticed that there is a small gap in our existing Speedy Deletion criteria regarding pages that a user might create in their own userspace, or in their user blog. Under current criteria, if a user is long-term blocked or indefinitely blocked, there is no rule allowing those pages to be speedily deleted; a deletion discussion would have to be held to determine whether to delete pages that no user except the page creator has "permission" to edit (and in the case of user blogs, only the blog post writer and wiki administrators have the technical ability to edit the page anyways). This additional criterion seeks to close that gap. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 04:40, December 22, 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Is there a particular reason why we'd need such a criterion? As far as I can tell, there is no harm in keeping the userpages of indefinitely blocked users, unless they meet some other criteria (like being inappropriate), in which case they can be deleted under any of our other criteria; or if they were created after the user got blocked, in which case it would be considered block evasion and eligible for G5. If the page is better off being deleted, then a deletion discussion to decide whether or not that is indeed the case can be held. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:11, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of a specific instance off the top of my head that would qualify for this rule, if the rule were in place. The thing that brought me to make this proposal was this deletion discussion. In that discussion, a page written by a user that is now indefinitely blocked is up for deletion. One of the ideas discussed, prior to that user being blocked, was moving the page to that user's userspace. Had that move taken place, then that page would be eligible for speedy deletion under this proposed criteria.
As to "why we'd need such a criteria" in the first place... It comes down to a couple things that I've discussed in other threads in the past. There are pages created by users in locations that imply that the page creator is the owner of the page; that the page does not belong to the community to edit and change unless the page creator/page owner gives permission. This principle applies most closely to fanon pages and pages in a user's userspace. When a user creates that page, and then the user either leaves the wiki or (more relevant to this discussion) is forced off the wiki, the pages they created still remain and still are "untouchable" by the community. The page creator shouldn't lose the right to control their works, so deletion of those works becomes the only acceptable solution if a user is no longer able to edit the wiki.
Contrast this principle with pages created in the main namespace, game guides namespace, or most other namespaces on the wiki, where no one user ever "owns" a page, even its creator. In those situations, it makes sense to hold deletion discussions if or when a page is brought forward for deletion, unless the page meets another speedy delete criterion.
But if a user were to be blocked long-term or indefinitely, the project doesn't stand to benefit in any meaningful way by holding onto their "private" contributions. Holding those pages on the wiki also causes harm to the owner, who no longer has control over their creations. The only justifiable course of action in that case is deletion. And since the outcome of a deletion discussion necessarily must result in deletion, going through the process of a deletion discussion (especially since those discussions tend to drag on for way, way too long) seems to be a waste of everyone's time. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 23:09, December 27, 2019 (UTC)


I think that infine users who do impersonate or globaly disabled and or severely disuging edits or picturess.  Cassandra1201 20:18, March 13, 2020 (UTC)