Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Proposal: Replace G6 with explicit finite criteria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If G6 were being proposed as a new criteria today it would be shot down for failing both the objective and uncontestable requirements as is so broad. Per the section above and several previous discussions it is by far the most misused of the current deletion criteria, being used by some administrators as a way to delete anything that doesn't fit another criteria, regardless of whether it is uncontroversial maintenance or not.

To rectify this, I propose that we repeal the whole criterion and replace it with a set of objectively defined critera that cover what G6 was intended for but not what it wasn't. I believe the following set covers all the frequent legitimate uses of G6:

G14 Temporary deletions

For example to merge page histories when fixing cut-and-paste moves.

G15 Pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace

• This includes redirects created when moving pages to the correct title or namespace only when the old title/location is obviously implausible - if there is any doubt nominate the redirect at WP:RFD.

A12 Disambiguation pages

• which disambiguate one extant Wikipedia page AND whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or
• which disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of their title.

C3C4 Empty dated maintenance categories

This does not apply where the date refers to the current period of time or to the near future.

R4 Redirects blocking page moves

• Administrators must be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history.
• An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move must ensure that the move is completed after deleting it.

R5 Redirects in the "File" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Commons.

• This does not apply if the redirect has any file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Commons).

T4T5 Templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD

The deletion summary should link to the TfD discussion.

G16T6 Articles or Templates being replaced by drafts or rewrites

This applies only to pages in the article or template namespaces where the draft or rewrite is unquesitonaly better than the exiting page or there is explicit consensus for the replacement.

U6 userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text

This applies only if the user who created the page has been inactive for at least one year.

Almost all the language used here is taken directly from the existing examples, sometimes tweaked for tense or different phrasing (e.g. R5 has been inverted). The exceptions are the bullets for G15, which are a codification of existing practice, G16 which is brand new (based on a couple of recent uses of G6), and the exception to C3 which is hopefully common sense. If there are other proper uses of G6 not covered here then they can be added to the list before we enact it, or they can be proposed as new criteria if and when it becomes clear they're needed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• There've been previous, now-repealed criteria numbered C3 and T4.
  I don't think we need G14, and have never thought we needed TFD deletions here. WP:CSD is not WP:DP; if you're deleting something and immediately restoring it, it's no more a deletion than reverting yourself counts toward WP:3RR, and TFD is the opposite of speedy. U6 is really a limited expansion of G2 into userspace, and I'm undecided whether it would be better as a separate entity or not. And your G16 should be separated out into another proposal, especially for articles. —Cryptic 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @Cryptic:
  • C3 renamed C5, T4 renmaed T5.
  • G16 limtied to templates and moved to T6 - if it isn't an uncontroversial replacement for something covered by G6 currently it doesn't belong in this proposal. I'll leave a separate proposal for someone else.
  • re U6 vs G2 - the choice here is a longer list of simple criteria vs a shorter list of more complicated ones, and when it comes to CSD I'm very much in favour of the former.
  • re G14 - I think it's much better to be explicit that these are allowed, and it will allow a simple entry for the deletion summary.
  • T5 (was T4) I'm ambivilent about, but it is currently an explicitly listed criterion and it is certainly uncontroversial. It's a bit different to other deletions following discussions as the orphaning process may take significant time. I'll leave it in here for the time being. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think the general concept is a good one but it could use some tweaks. My thoughts:
  • G16 (replace with drafts/rewrites) - Absolutely not. Deletion is not required to do this. A copy/paste will do the trick, and is better as it leaves the page history available to everyone. If people are deleting pages to do this, it must stop now.
  • C3 (empty maintenance categories) - Needs mention that some categories will be empty by design and should not be deleted if empty. Strike that, misread it the first time
  • T4 (orphaned categories after TfD) - No speedy deletion required, there was a deletion discussion, just delete. Or, create a Gxx that says any page with a deletion discussion saying to delete where the page wasn't actually deleted.

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• • • Re G16 (now T6), hmm, I'll think more on that you make a good point. Re T4 - see my comments to Cryptic. I decided against a Gxx as everything else should just link to the deletion discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Your current T5 would need to be under a G criterion to catch all the uses for {{db-xfd}}. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • It would, but is there actually a need for a db-xfd criteria? I don't see that there is - the deletion is done according to the consensus of the discussion - all that is needed is something to flag there is consensus to delete something but it hasn't yet been deleted, which is not a speedy deletion issue. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well yes, there has to be a criterion that matches the db template, especially when thinking about what is currently being used by Twinkle. For example, I can remember several times I've used G6 to tag a page where an admin has closed a discussion as delete and forgot to delete it. Other uses I've seen for it include WP:CFD, where Marcocapelle has been a de facto admin there for a while, and uses the template to tag for deletion categories that have been emptied and ready for deletion by the CFD process. Mirroring the language from db-xfd and G6, it could be:
  • G16: Deletion discussions
    • Deleting pages where consensus has been reached at a deletion discussion, but it has not yet been deleted, including templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • But that's not a speedy deletion - it's just a deletion, for which there is explicit consensus at an XfD, that has not yet been performed for some reason. All we need is a template that says "There is a consenus to delete this page at [link to XfD]." and I see no reason that {{db-xfd}} could not be used to do exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, you shouldn't have a T criteria for exactly that either. Take your pick. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
          • I've explained above (in reply to Cryptic) why I see orphaned templates as different to other cases but to repeat and expand on that: The decision to "orphan then delete" is different to "delete", the orphaning may take some considerable time and this would be an explicit signal that it has been completed and the second part of the consensus can now be implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
            • But that's not a speedy deletion - it's just a deletion, for which there is explicit consensus at an XfD, that has not yet been performed for some reason. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I think we'll have to agree to disagree about that - you see them as identical, I see them as qualitatively different. I'd prefer T5 to having neither, but doing away with both is preferable to your G16. Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Prefer to label G14 as G6a, for example. It is squarely in the family of G6 deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's actually not a bad idea to label each of them as G6A, G6B, etc. (like the C2 criteria). That way we aren't creating several "new" criteria, but re-purposing a familiar criterion to more finite "sub-criteria". -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I thought about that, but these really are not a "family" of criteria, they are a hotchpotch of completely different ones. Part of the purpose of retiring the G6 label is to reinforce that it is not a dumping ground for things that do not fit elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The family I think should be taken as the family of speediable pages that have trivial page histories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Prefer G15 to not be explicitly listed, but to be a speedy WP:Move follow by WP:CSD#R2 (or "redirect suppressed" if the editor has that permission). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A12 dot point 1. One target DAB pages should be redirected per policy at WP:ATD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A12 dot point 2. Zero target DAB pages should be taken to WP:AfD for discussion to educate the creator, and including options to WP:TROUT them for incompetence or WP:BLOCK them for disruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that seems awfully bureaucratic and WP:POINTY. If you need to educate the creator of a certain dab page, drop them a note at their talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If it happens once, it is not frequent enough for CSD. AfD is for once-off mistakes. Sure, explain stuff to the user on their talk page, ask them to G7 it. However, Titling / DAB pages is an area fraught with strong POVs tipping into active disruption, and I read this CSD as providing a stick to be used in DAB page policy battles. These battles, whether rare or frequent, should go to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: one-target DAB pages that end with "(disambiguation)" are not suitable for redirecting to pages that are not disambiguation pages, and no other otne-target DAB pages are within the scope of either the present G6 or this proposed criterion (the language is essentially identical) for preceisely that reson. I agree with Tavix regarding zero-target DAB pages - that would be disruping Wikipedia to make a point, it's not even close to the purpose of AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that one target DAB pages can't redirect to the unambiguous target, but if people think this is a bad idea, then treat them as zero target DAB pages.

Taking bad DAB pages to AfD is disruptive to make a point, as an argument for a new CSD criterion? Um, I think not. Oppose new CSD for bad DAB pages. The onus is on the proponent to establish that it meets the four new criterion criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I wanted to give this a chance, but it's obvious from the above that it quickly becomes too complicated. What this is basically doing is removing the This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including: part from G6 (with my emphasis), and replacing each bullet point with new criteria. The bullet points currently listed are consensual examples of uncontroversial maintenance, but they are not the only forms of uncontroversial maintenance. Trying to develop new criteria and figuring out which forms of uncontroversial maintenance should be made into new criteria is over-complicating the issue for little gain. While it's true that G6 has been misused and that should be reigned in a bit, this is not the answer. If a specific "thing" is being misapplied, such as "pagemove clean-up", more guidance on that specific issue can be hashed-out. But that doesn't mean we need to blow the whole thing up and start from scratch with at least nine(!) new criteria. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nine new criteria that are objective is much better than one old criteria that gets abused. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Please provide specific examples of abuse of this criteria, and we can go from there to find ways to limit it. The solution is not to remove the criteria all together, that is too limiting. As a parallel, editors often claim A7 is abused, specifically the phrase "credible claim of significance". Instead of removing the criterion, an essay was written to explain what is and isn't a credible claim of significance. Perhaps all that is needed is a page called WP:Uncontroversial maintenance, where we can flesh out what is and isn't uncontroversial maintenance. This would be a lot less blunt than removing what I feel is a necessary criterion and then massively ballooning the number of criteria we already have. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I fear that you may be retrospectively authorise past bad speedies, such as speedying disagreeable DAB pages. Have people been speedying disagreeable DAB pages under G6? Are we all aware of different interpretations on TWODABs, and whether a broad concept article on a tingle topic should be called a disambiguation page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • G6 currently contains the following language: Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. WP:TWODABS is a specific case of a disambiguation page that disambiguates two extant Wikipedia pages, so WP:TWODABS are never speediable under G6. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Indeed, the disambguation pages that can be speedied under G6 and the disambiguation pages that could be speedied under this proposal are identical. Any disambiguation page that has more than 1 target is never speediable under G6 and would not be speediable under this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Yeah sorry my mistake. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• I propose we add the nominator's CSDs and eliminate G6 as a CSD but expand the PROD system, made for uncontroversial deletions, into where G6 would have applied. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is all just useless bureaucracy and solution to non-existent problem. The "uncontroversial maintenance" in G6 really means any and all procedures that lead to negligible information loss, typically by being applied to pages with trivial histories, and that are sufficiently similar to listed cases of uncontroversial maintenance. Some examples: over year old userspace drafts containing the default Article Wizard text corrupted by few random characters or containing a broken redirect, less than year old userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text created by indef blocked users who have zero good edits, any other suspicious userspace artifacts created by indef blocked users who have zero good edits, pages that simulate mediawiki interface elements for malicious or unknown purposes, *.js or other pages that try to exploit mediawiki technical limitations, pages designed to trick users to compromise their account security somehow, duplicates or near duplicates of existing pages with weird unicode characters or HTML entities substituted in page name or content, and so on. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of those shouldn't be deleted using G6 anyay - the userspace drafts that are not identical to the default text have no consensus for speedy deletion currently and so should not be being deleted at all. Pages created by indeffed blocked users are G5 if created after the block and not speedy deletable currently if created afterwards unless they are G2, G3 or similar (G6 is not similar). Anything created for malicious purposes is G3 vandalism or G10 attack page depending on how it is mallicious, likewise those that try to exploit mediawiki limitations or try to trick users are G3. Duplicates of existing pages are G2 and/or A10. Your comment is exactly why we need to get rid of G6 as it's being used incorrectly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • All examples in my comment are speedily deletable by common sense and existing practice, if not G6 or some other criteria. With duplicates I was mostly thinking duplicates in namespaces where G2 or A10 does not apply. Often a nomination to MfD (outcome of which is easy to predict) is needed, but not always. Capricious namespace restrictions in other rules is one reason why G6 is occasionally needed. Your proposed "unambiguously created in error" could be used for userspace dupes, I guess, especially when extending the interpretation of "unambiguously" as G6 is stretched today. Suppose indef'ed vandal account has created a short page in their userspace with some garbled sentences in some foreign language google translate does not quite grok but there is at least one swear word in it. To what extend do admins need to analyze random textdumps left to random locations by obvious non-contributors to determine if they are G10 attack pages? In practice these kind of artifacts get speedily deleted based on behavioral evidence and reasonable man standard ("no reasonable man would extend effort to decipher it further"), even if it cannot be really proved they are G3 or G10. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the whole purpose of G6 being broad is that it allows for technical deletions that no one would ever oppose and that people would do anyway by finding a way to fit them into the other categories. I don't think I have ever seen a contested G6 on another admin's talk page or my own. It is the embodiment of IAR for housekeeping when it comes to deletions, and gives it a policy basis in the deletion policy. Examples that wouldn't be included here that we routinely do: G6ing NOTNOW RfAs if someone asks. G6ing RfAs where the candidate never consented to the subpage being created. Vindictive SPIs. Basically all of the already existing redirect criteria that no one ever remembers or gets right when trying to select them from the drop down menu or in Twinkle. Joke AfDs that no one finds funny enough to comment on when it is April Fools Day.
  I think I have a pretty strong grasp of the deletion policy as is, and I can't remember most of the non-G and non-A criteria, and I'm willing to bet that most admins can't either, but they can easily spot a G6 case and delete it, and when they do, it's likely one of the already named criteria in another area. If anything, I'd support getting rid of all of the R and T (and possibly C) criteria and wrapping them into G6 rather than expanding them.
  Also, to the above point in the other thread where people are complaining about this not being the intended purpose of G6 even though it is the commonly accepted practice: that's 100% fine. We don't change accepted practice to match policy. We change policy to match accepted practice. If there is something in the current criteria that prevents it's use as a catchall (I don't see it, but if there is), that should be removed, not the other way around. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, an example from my recent deletions of G6 that isn't covered by any other criteria listed above or existing: User:Doveanupam. Someone got it in their head that the user was a sockmaster without an SPI, started going around changing CU confirmed tags, and eventually created a userpage for the master with a sockmaster tag. I had to block and bother a CU to talk the user down. This is an obvious deletion (blanking would be pointless, and it shows up in the history, which isn't ideal). It isn't G3 as it isn't vandalism, and I certainly wouldn't call it G10. G6 fits the bill nicely here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    • That's a great example! I recall at some point we had hundreds of redirects with letter "p" added at the end of title by a software bug in the bot (or whatever entity) that had created them. G6 to rescue and they were cleaned away! jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, needless bureaucracy. I trust admins to use it properly for 'uncontroversial' technical deletions at admin discretion. If an admin isn't using it uncontroversially, then that is a separate issue, but adding a dozen more criteria isn't a solution. G6 is the net that catches everything uncontroversial that falls through the cracks of the other criteria and is, as TonyBallioni put it, "the embodiment of IAR for housekeeping". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the housekeeping needs can change, and policy needs to reflect this. For example, when C6 was established, there was no way to move categories; we would copy them and delete the originals. Now that we can, I have been fixing these copy&paste moves - and there is always a revision at the source which needs to be deleted (or the move needs to be done without leaving a redirect, which may only be done if the redirect would be speedy deletable). None of these explicit criteria cover this, although the task is clearly uncontroversial maintenance. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per TonyBallioni and others above. I'm not seeing a real problem that all this fine tuning needs to fix. If there are situations where an admin is incorrectly applying G6 in a material way, then raise the concern with the specific admin.Mojo Hand (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose G6 is a useful tool for situations where deleting a page would be utterly uncontroversial but where it doesn't fall under any explicitly enumerated situation. This proposal would get rid of that. In practice I suspect people would continue to delete pages like that under IAR or some misapplied criterion instead of waiting ages for PROD or AfD, which is bad because policy is meant to reflect practice. Hut 8.5 18:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've used G6 as a low profile way to delete pages containing personal details of a minor. We don't want a specific criteria for these cases. I do support splitting out some of the most common G6 issues as a way of encouraging more editors to tag these common problems. Most editors are not CSD experts so making CSD as simple as possible is a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The low-profile way to delete minors' personal details is to mail oversight. This is usually faster, and there's sites that preferentially mirror enwiki pages that are tagged for speedy deletion. —Cryptic 20:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support in spirit; try a footnote. I agree that G6 is the most easily and most often abused criterion (and yes, the singular is criterion; criteria is plural). However, it's not rampantly abused, and forking this into a bunch of new numbered rules doesn't seem to be getting any support. It's an overly complicated approach. It would probably be more practical to include these as a list of examples of what G6 encompasses, in a footnote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have enough criteria and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a memory gymnastics exercise for admins. G6 is fairly rare and I cannot recall having ever seen one contested, but there is always WP:DELREV if someone were to disagree with one - after discussion with the admin of course. Let's guard against making bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy until at least G6 gets abused to such a vast extent that something would really need to be done about it. And I can't see that happening any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A well-intentioned proposal in search of a problem. When G6 is abused, it's a problem with the admin abusing it and not the criterion itself. Cryptic for example has mentioned a number of examples in the previous section and it's clear that the same admin performed five of those seven deletions he mentioned as problematic, so there seems to be a problem that can and should be addressed instead. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems pretty snowy here: time to close? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ToU violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has always seemed strange to me that we can freely delete articles created by someone banned by the community, but not explicitly for someone banned by the Terms of Use, though G5 could certainly be interpreted in that way. I see two options:

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users

Further information: Wikipedia:Banning policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Terms of use

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users either in violation of their ban or block or by virtue of violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging. For a banned or blocked user:

• To qualify, an edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.
• To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. Pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic.
• {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}}

Gx. Violation of Terms of use

Further information: Wikipedia:Terms of use

This applies to pages created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use, and that have no substantial edits by others.

To qualify, the edit or article must have been made by a user demonstrated or admitted to be in violation of the Terms of Use. Specific categories of violation include:

• Harassing and Abusing Others
• Violating the Privacy of Others
• Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud
• Committing Infringement
• Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes
• Engaging in Disruptive and Illegal Misuse of Facilities
• Paid contributions without disclosure

The article must have been created by an editor in violation of the terms of use and have no substantive content edits by others. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

!votes

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support long overdue. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons from last time. Propose speedy close of this RFC considering the last one ended less than six months ago and this proposal does nothing to address the reasons the last one failed. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support extension of G5 to include clear ToU violations by blocked or banned users prior to user's first block. Am in support of retaining the wording "this applies to pages...that have no substantial edits by others". ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose most of these are either covered by existing criteria (G3, G10, G12) or are a bit nebulous for speedy deletion criteria (e.g. point 3 would apply to articles which contain deliberate factual inaccuracies, even if not blatant). The major exception is undisclosed paid contributions, and while I'm sympathetic to a CSD on those grounds if we're going to have that then we should just say it rather than wrapping it up like this. Hut 8.5 19:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  They are covered if you turn your head sideways and squint. I don't see why violations of the ToU should require creative interpretation of the rules. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  I think most of them are pretty clear:

  • "Harassing and Abusing Others" covers "harassment, threats, stalking" - would be G10 or G3, "spamming" is the definition of G11, "vandalism" is the definition of G3
  • "Violating the Privacy of Others" - most of this is pretty nebulous and covers content forbidden by any applicable laws, which turns us into lawyers if we want to enforce it properly. The one specific case is "Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors" - this would already be nuked from orbit under Wikipedia:Child protection.
  • "Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud" covers "libel or defamation" - pretty much the definition of G10, "posting content that is false or inaccurate" - if blatant that's clearly G3 (hoaxes), if subtle it's something we'd want reviewed through another process, "Attempting to impersonate another user or individual" and "Engaging in fraud" are a bit more nebulous but they don't happen often and I don't think it's much of a stretch to delete either under G3
  • "Committing Infringement" is basically just copyright violations, which come under G12
  • "Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes" nebulous stuff covering content which violates any applicable laws, except for child porn
  • "Engaging in Disruptive and Illegal Misuse of Facilities" - this is basically various ways of trying to hack the site, which would come under G3.

  So they're all either very nebulous or basically covered under existing criteria except undisclosed paid editing and paedophilia, and I don't think we need a new criterion to get rid of the latter. Hut 8.5 19:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  I am wondering about "child porn". I've seen deletions on Commons for that reason, sometimes performed by WMF staff and sometimes by volunteer admins (presumably when they make a "better safe than sorry" deletion before calling the Foundation). "Privacy of others" I usually see deleted under the "non-public private information" rationale or some euphemism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  I am mainly trying to remove the distinction between someone who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia because we say so, in which case their articles get nuked, and someone who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia because the Foundation says so, in which case they don't. That is back to front. As it stands, to delete an article created by an impersonator, we'd first have to decide that the impersonation was harassment. That seems bureaucratic. Or imagine if someone dropped an article on a school shooting survivor who dared to open their mouth. It may not be obviously harassment, it may be a fanboi even, but it could very well still be an obvious infringement of privacy. As I say, the thing that seems inconsistent to me is that if we say you may not edit Wikipedia then G5 applies, but if the Foundation does, we have a potential drama-fest. I do like the idea of making blocks for violation of ToU effectively retroactive, but it may be a bit rouge for some. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  Wouldn't we delete those articles because they are bad articles instead of caring about who created them? —Kusma (t·c) 20:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, "undisclosed paid editing" can't be found out without some digging, and may need to be dealt with through some other process. Everything else is already deletable (G3 and G10 are pretty much a catch all for most abuses and script kiddies). Also, undisclosed paid editing is either bad (and then most of the results is deletable under A7 or G11) or good, in which case other editors might want to adopt the page and do some rewriting. Either existing criteria are enough or speedy deletion isn't a good answer. —Kusma (t·c) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose and also suggest a speedy close per SoWhy. Proposer should consider opening a separate discussion without the straw poll and see what can be crafted, rather than re-arguing the exact same subject from 6 months ago. --Izno (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• support this is a useful umbrella ToU construction. It would be helpful to avoid having the community waste more time - the lifeblood of this place - dealing with bad faith contributions. The community is moving itself steadily to deal with steady onslaught of promotional articles that flow into WP based on the notion that WP is an essential platform for promotion for companies, authors, actors, celebrities, etc etc. There is no doubt that many people see WP that way. We have been dealing with that, for instance with ACTRIAL, automatically community banning serial socks (which are generally paid editors using throw away accounts), raising NCORP standards and the like. Getting this passed (yes it is somewhat perennial) is another essential tool. What we all want it to spend our time building an encyclopedia and not to waste so much time dealing with industrial waste that has been dumped into our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose too much of a wide remit, as an editor blocked for being disruptive may have created some good articles not connected to his block. Would support just adding UPE but these can also be deleted by prod as for example last month I prodded 4 UPE articles and 3 were deleted Atlantic306 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically per my questions below; I understand the theory, but in practice this doesn't make sense to me. Basically, it boils down to two criteria: undisclosed conflict of interest, and illegal activities. The latter does not need a CSD for it to be swiftly dealt with, and the former, as noted, requires significant effort to out, not lending itself to CSD anyway. More to the point, it feels backward. These would apply to pages made illegally/via undisclosed paid editing, but you're talking about the users. It's not like the foundation regularly calls down to enWiki saying "Hey this editor here is trying to do illegal things, y'all should delete their pages." It would be an editor here determining that "this page violates the ToU" and then taking action, but that 1. is already what happens, and 2. does not need a CSD to be effective. On the off-chance the foundation finds something before we do, there's G9. I get the logic, but it doesn't seem to play given the reality on the ground. I suppose I could support adding something (to G3?) like attempts to violate US law but that just seems overly fraught and not particularly helpful. In short, a well-meaning solution to a problem we don't have. One could also make the argument that, once someone violates the ToU, they're "banned" whether they or the community knows it, thus G5 would apply, but that's... weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Consider undisclosed paid editing, then. It is not permitted per the ToU, but some people will, almost as if to make a point, oppose deletion of "good" (subjectively defined) content because they repudiate the no undisclosed paid editing rule. So actually the current situation causes exactly the issue you identify: it complicates the cleanup of edits that should never have happened in the first place. G5 was written for exactly that. An edit should not have been made, an article was created by a user sh hould never have been editing, so it is nuked. But if the user cannot be tied to some previously blocked spammer, at present, we can do nothing. Of course, quite a few of these "brand new" spammers will be old spammers returning. A motivated spammer will have little difficulty in circumventing CU, even. And under current rules, on;y the WP:OFFICE can speedily nuke articles created in violation of the ToU, unless someone can definitively link the spammer to another spammer already blocked. And even then, if the other spammer was blocked after the first spammer registered, we can only speedy from the first bloc, so earlier spam will remain. Someone can register a dozen accounts and until the first one is blocked, all articles created by all the accounts are not eligible for speedy, even though the abusive behaviour was there from day 1. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I still think you're mixing cases here. If an article is spammy to the point of violating ToU, it's an easy G11. If it's not obvious spam, then not only would these criteria not apply, but we wouldn't even know we had a problem anyway. Like I asked below, it matters whether these are designed for an article or a user violating the ToU. You've said the article, but you're arguing the user. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"If an article is spammy to the point of violating ToU, it's an easy G11."??? No, that is not true. It is very easy to make a spammy article G11-proof, ("pages that are exclusively promotional") just add a small amount of properly sourced material that can be re-used when the spam is cut. And violating the ToU, being an Undisclosed Paid Editor, is no impediment to G11-proofing the not "exclusively promotional" spam. The typical ToU violating UPE writes a page using some properly sources facts and pads it with veiled promotion. These pages are not G11 eligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - it looks like this is just about undisclosed paid editors. UPEs are banned by the TOU from adding anything - they are just not allowed to edit. Not removing their edits once they've been found out just looks like an attempt to nullify the ToU. Why do folks want to do that? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The “Terms of Use” needs teeth. Specifically, “No Undisclosed Paid Editing” needs teeth, and the onus for communication needs to be on the paid editor. I would be happier if this were tied to “promotional content”, specifically for-profit companies, their products, or their CEOs/founders. Leave open undeletion options if the editor(s) subsequently properly disclose, or if an experienced editor in good standing offers to take responsibility for the article and future activities of the paid editor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support While many, if not most, ToU violations are addressed by other CSD criteria we should have this which directly addresses breach of ToU. In particular having the ability to reach back to the time of the first breach of ToU and deleteall "fruit of the poisonous tree". Right now bad actors have incentive to violate ToU (particularly UPE) because they still get their articles in. Beyond that we simply need a specific way to enforce the ToU that does not get caught up in all of the 'if, well, AGF, blah, blah' crap that comes up when we try to back-door ToU enforcement with other CSD criteria. Jbh ^Talk 04:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support – in principle – option 2, "Gx. Violation of Terms of use". We have considerable precedent for such speedy deletions, amply sufficient to show that the community does not oppose them in principle. This goes back at least as far as Orangemoody, where a large number of articles were deleted at essentially the same time as the check-user blocks were made (when they were thus not technically eligible under CSD G5). It should be perfectly, dazzlingly obvious to everyone that content created in violation of the terms of use cannot be kept and must be immediately removed, but until we formalise that in local policy the "not supported by policy" argument will continue to be put forward. So it's high time we did this; the precise wording and scope will need to be hammered out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Criteria should generally focus on page content, not editor behavior, expect when narrowly deemed necessary (e.g. WP:G5 and WP:XCSD); this is much too broad. Furthermore, generally, pages "Harassing and Abusing Others" are eligible for deletion per G3 or G10; pages "Violating the Privacy of Others" are eligible for oversight; in regard to "Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud", "Engaging in False Statements" is too broad and unfortunately subjective; pages "Committing Infringement" are eligible for deletion per G12; in regard to "Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes" and "Engaging in Disruptive and Illegal Misuse of Facilities", a separate discussion on these two aspects may be due; "Paid contributions without disclosure" was already shot down at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#New criteria. A new or expanded criterion should not be too broad or overly redundant. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice how the terms of use don't say you can do these things if the content is good? And neither does G5? The whole point of "edits that are not permitted int he first place" is that they are, well, not permitted, regardless. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

However, neither the ToU nor the current WP:PAID policy does not contain any language that require deletion of such material. As I said last time, IMHO no change to this policy should be made without first updating WP:PAID as described on that policy's page. Regards SoWhy 13:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is covering way too much stuff. The G5 proposal really does nothing, because the WMF actually bans people (the WMF itself uses that word) and banned means banned whether WMF or us. The GX mostly duplicates what we already have. The arguable new items (privacy, paid-editing) should have their own stand-alone discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, though as UPE goes, we should consider everything a UPE creates to be covered by G5. They were never allowed to be editing in the first place, and were therefore for all intents and purposes defying a ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant and unnecessary. If the content created by a TOU-violating user is bad it is already deletable. If the content isn't bad we shouldn't be deleting it. If it's unclear whether it's good or bad then send it to AfD/MfD. If there is specific content that you think is bad but which isn't deletable currently, then get a consensus about that content - either it will become deletable or you'll find that the consensus is that it isn't bad. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, mostly moral support since this is highly unlikely to pass. Of course, deleting anything by UPEs is a necessary part of an incentive system to encourage disclosure. Regretfully, the community has already rejected the idea of an UPE CSD, so not sure if veiling this as something else is helpful to the overall effort. There are many different angles from which this problem can be approached. One is extending the G5 criterion as proposed by Oiyarbepsy below. Another is a TOU Prod that was proposed and gained significant support following the previous RFC regarding a TOU CSD. Rentier (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is far too broad, and many of the bullets listed in the proposal are things likely to require a discussion to determine that a ToU violation has occurred, meaning the criterion is neither objective nor uncontestable. I would support a much narrower CSD on deletion of articles created by undisclosed paid editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Comment per bot request on user page. I strongly oppose conflating editor behaviour with article constriction and maintenance. If an article is poorly written we have means of taking care of that. Some of the language invites harassement, for example, allegations of false statements. Who decides what is false. I see the potential for abuse in attempts to control article space as well as damage to well meaning editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC))
• Oppose the scope of the proposed criterion (Gx) is huge and too large to be effective. In addition, a number of items on the dot point list would likely need discussion to determine whether there actually was a ToU vio. The largest change (as pointed out above) is this proposal is deleting pages created by UPEs which should be proposed separately given that it's a rather significant change hidden in this proposal. For the record, I'm opposed to blanket or speedy deletion of pages created by UPEs. This is for range of reasons, including that whether someone is a UPE or not isn't usually clear so will need more consideration than a speedy criteria, in addition to Thryduulf's point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Callanecc, I said "support", but pretty much agree with all of your details. I guess I assumed I was supporting moving forwards for round in which the proposal would be tightened. On "opposed to blanket ...", what would you think of my idea below (23:38, 1 March 2018) of making a repository of discovered UPE product, blanked until the author satisfactorily discloses? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If there's actually a problem with the content sure, but if there's nothing wrong with what they've written then why would we remove it (it could, I guess, be copied or transcluded into a repository. Deal with the editor's behaviour sure, but why pull the article if there's nothing wrong with it only possibly the person who wrote it. This isn't the same situation as a banned editor who knows that they aren't allowed to edit the project and needs to be shown the door. This is someone who may not know they're doing anything wrong, and if they do would likely be covered by G5 anyway. Before an article is deleted per G5, an admin needs to be sure that the editor was blocked or banned when it was written, it's much more difficult to be sure that someone is an UPE and we shouldn't be deleting/blanking a quality article on the possibility that someone might be violating the ToU when the article is good. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC discussion

It is weird that an editor who is blocked for some minor infringement will be subject to G5, but an editor who is violating a Wikimedia Foundation mandated policy, for example by impersonating someone, is not. Some of the ToU can lead to speedy deletion:

• Harassing and Abusing Others - G10
• Violating the Privacy of Others - RevDel / oversight, potentially G10
• Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud - potentially G10, may be G3
• Committing Infringement - G12
• Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes - includes child porn and other issues, not covered by CSD at this time (though undoubtedly likely to be nuked per WP:IAR)
• Engaging in Disruptive and Illegal Misuse of Facilities - e.g. viruses, malware etc, would typically be handled as IAR but not covered by CSD
• Paid contributions without disclosure - not covered by CSD, may qualify as G11 but PR material is often not blatantly promotional.

Violations of the ToU are grounds for indefinite blocking or banning, but we make this worth the gamble because some or all of the articles may "stick", and thus the abuser gets their abusive article, spammer gets paid or whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A few questions to make sure I'm reading this correctly:

1. Would this apply to any page created by such a user, regardless of whether the page itself violates the TOU? The first and last sentences seem to contradict the second sentence on this point.
2. Who would be determining when the editor has violated the ToU?
3. Would this apply only once the user is indefinitely blocked, or before? (relates to the above)

~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the page creation would have to be a violation, it's only banned users where we would apply a scorched earth policy. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, so this is basically a CSD for "paid contributions without disclosure that are not advertising or about non-notable people" (everything else is already deleted quickly and does not require a new CSD). How often do we currently have pages like that in our other deletion processes? —Kusma (t·c) 18:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been tagging articles in a current cleanup case as g5/g11, e.g. Matan Gavish. Some interpretations of g5 say that tagging is improper if the creation was prior to the user's first block. I think the gist of this is to get around that technicality and make g5 retroactive if there was clear ToU violation. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I would say the page would have to be a violation. So: a user that creates a page with an exploit, the page would be deleted and the editor banninated. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is it me or didn't we just have this discussion less than six months ago? Regards SoWhy 18:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the tide of crappy PR articles continues to rise. We have had several paid sockfarms uncovered since then. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to present your evidence before starting a new RFC without addressing the reasons the last one failed. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so you're not familiar with WP:COIN then? I understand now. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid such comments. People might consider them belittling and that won't help anyone. Instead of just WP:VAGUEWAVEing to another page, show some statistics how there are so many more problematic pages now then there were six months ago that speedy deletion is the only way to handle them.

Also, the last RFC failed for a whole number of reasons and you have not addressed any of them. Before reopening a discussion, it's usually expected that the person re-proposing something that failed previously explains why circumstances have changed in their opinion and the previous reasons to oppose no longer apply, especially if the last proposal was only a few months ago. Regards SoWhy 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at COIN. Right now. There are at least five undisclosed paid issues - with sock rings - under discussion there. If you don't frequent COIN you probably won't be familiar with how often this happens, hence the comment. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I did. And I noticed that oftentimes such articles are cleaned up instead of being deleted. Which was one of the reasons brought up as reasons to oppose in the previous discussion five months ago. However, saying that there are now X problematic cases is not the same as demonstrating that those X cases are actually the result of more such problems. And the fact that it takes discussion on how to handle them is basically a reason against any kind of speedy deletion in itself. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• JzG, I've read your proposal as putting forward two distinct options, an extension of G5 or a new Gx criterion. Was that your intention? I ask because others don't seem to have read it in that way, so perhaps it is less clear than it ideally should be. The last discussion on this topic ended as no consensus precisely because of lack of clarity ("arguments in opposition seem to be primarily concerned with the relative vagueness and/or subjectivity"}, and it would be a pity if this one did too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, two options, presented as A, B or neither. But in the end I think we still have the issue that a small but vocal subset of editors thinks that undisclosed paid editing is fine, even though it is explicitly forbidden. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

{{trout}} to JzG for repeatedly lying about his opponent's position. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has said that paid editing is okay. They are arguing that this proposal is poorly thought out, fails to address what was wrong with the last proposal, and that deleting these pages often does more harm than good. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: The problem is not the editors, it's the non-notable/promotional/otherwise undesirable content they create. This content is neither better nor worse than the identical content produced by disclosed paid editors and by unpaid editors. This proposal will therefore not address the actual problem it is trying to solve, which is why I oppose it. You first need to identify the content you want to speedy delete that cannot be speedy deleted already using A7, G11 or other existing criteria. You then need to show that this content can be objectively defined AND that all content that meets this definition should always be speedily deleted. The usual requirements for a new speedy deletion criteria do apply to proposals related to the ToU. This proposal both ignores and fails the objectivity requirement, fails the uncontestable requirement, vaguely handwaves in the direction of the frequency requirement and probably at least partially fails the non-redundant requirement (the lack of objectively defined coverage means it's not possible to be sure about this). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is also the editors, though. There are extensive instructions online now about how to write a spam article so it doesn't obviously qualify for A7 or G11, and those same instructions also tell you how to hire someone to create it for you. There are also instructions on how to break the chain so that CheckUser doesn't track you across too many accounts, so in one case four separate C_checked sock rings were uncovered several of which are highly likely to be the same banned user, but not certainly so. I don't care if we allow retrospective G5 for sock farms or if we enforce the ToU, but I thnk we need drama-free way of nuking spam once abuse is uncovered. That's all. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You've declared the problem is the editors, but the actual problem you've described is one of content - i.e. the article is spam regardless of whether it was created by Y (not paid to edit) or Z (paid to edit). Your comments about too many accounts, etc. are things to be considered for the banning policy but are basically irrelevant to content policies like speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Questions.
• 1. The proposal seems to be a bit unclear about what exactly should be deleted. If we focus on the contributor, does it say that from the moment User X violates the Terms of Use, they should be treated like a banned editor, and all of their edits after that point deleted? Or should we delete all pages added by User X since they registered their account? If we focus on the edits, the similarity with G5 disappears, so should we only delete all undisclosed paid edits and keep all unpaid edits?
• 2. What happens if a UPE editor comes clean? Can they just request a WP:REFUND of their contributions if they tag them correctly? Do we want this to be "punishment" or would we prefer to encourage compliance with the ToU? —Kusma (t·c) 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An alternative solution

Instead of crafting this awkward, vague, and problematic new speedy deletion policy, why not simply allow bans to be retroactive. The idea is that the beginning of the ban is the beginning of the problematic behavior, as opposed to when it was actually discovered. It seems that this would address the major problems about the sock farms - with a retroactive ban, you could delete all the contributions back to that retroactive date. Thoughts? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy This is very true. Making G5 retroactive would be far more effective at combating UPEs than the proposed speedy deletion criterion. I think it would also be far more acceptable to the community. Rentier (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To be 100% clear, I would absolutely not make the speedy deletion criteria retroactive - only the ban itself. Whether to make it retroactive needs to be decided when the ban is decided, and should only be retroactive with good reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, what would making a ban retroactive accomplish? Rentier (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

By allowing the deletion of all the pages back to the retroactive date. The idea being that the retroactive G5 deletes only apply if everyone agrees at the time the user is banned. This shouldn't be routine. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

So are you saying that if user:Example had been contributing since January 2015, and was banned today then the banning discussion could say that G5 applies to all his contributions since say 20 May 2016? If so, I like the idea in abstract, but I think the chance of getting a consensus on a date in individual ban discussions is going to be pretty slim. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what Oiyarbepsy means is that bans should be made retroactive from the date the reasons for the ban first existed (i. e. ex tunc). Actually, that's probably the only way a speedy deletion of UPE could work objectively (if one agrees that UPE should lead to deletion). The alternative offered is to treat users violating UPE as having been banned from day one because hypothetically, if their UPE had been discovered on day one, they would have been banned immediately. It would not affect other types of bans because the reasons for those bans (like community bans for disruption) only exist from the time the disruption has been determined to be unacceptable. Personally, I believe that content, not contributor should be the deciding factor but iff the community one day decides that UPE creations should be deleted without looking at the content itself, this proposal is the best way to achieve this under the current requirements for speedy criteria. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd support this, in fact I think I've proposed it myself in the past. A user violating the ToU ought to be considered banned from their first violating edit, not just from when the community decided to enact the ban. It would simplify our work at SPI in a way I've been looking for: rather than finding a new UPE sockfarm and struggling to determine if they're related to any of the existing sockfarms to determine if they're already blocked or banned and whether or not G5 applies or if we need to AfD all of their contribs or if I can invoke IAR or on and on and on, I can just say this is UPE, nuke their contribs. This needs to be discussed at the banning policy but I would very much support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Second that, although I'd like to hear reasons against; it sounds too reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The main reason is probably what I mentioned above, i. e. that there is currently no consensus that content created in violation of WP:PAID should be deleted just because of how it was created, which will inevitably lead to deletion of encyclopedic material created by such editors that otherwise is in line with policy. That was one of the main points brought up last time, i. e. that both WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD tell us to preserve good content, regardless of how it was created. If the policy is changed, which requires a site-wide RFC imho, we can consider how to implement it. Based on the voices from last time, there seems to be a strong opposition to speedy delete good content this way.

Without abandoning my own position (see above), I think the only objectively fair way to handle such pages - iff their deletion based on creator is agreed upon in the first place - is a sticky PROD like system like WP:BLPPROD that allows any good-faith editor to challenge the proposed deletion based on their belief that the content meets the standards for inclusion. But again, first we need to establish consensus that creator, not content, is a valid reason for deletion. That has yet to happen. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean G5 already allows (and deletions occur) of otherwise not policy violating articles because of who the creator is;this would work on a similar principle and thus I don't think would be a great change. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Similar, but not strictly the same. G5 operates under the principle (or that's at least how I have always understood it) of assuming bad faith. We allow such pages to be deleted because it can safely be assumed that the page creator knowingly violated a ban or block that was put in place to prevent them from creating such pages (i.e. WP:DENY). On the other hand, while UPE is forbidden in the ToU, we can probably safely assume that >99% of all editors have not read the ToU before their first edit (I certainly haven't). So while they act in violation of the ToU, they are most likely unaware of that, i. e. acting in good faith. Thus the difference. Which coincides with the fact that we currently have four warning levels ({{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}} etc.) that should be applied before an editor can be blocked for UPE. Hence such a change to G5 would make this criterion out of sync with how WP:PAID is applied in the rest of the project, which explains why I advocate a site-wide discussion of the underlying question before we consider implementations. Regards SoWhy 17:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not assuming bad faith nor denying recognition, but banned means banned; i.e. if we ban a user but allow them to contribute with a different account, in any way, then bans are meaningless. As for PAID violations being innocent I very strongly disagree: while there are no doubt some users who edit afoul of the policy inadvertently or innocently, and then self-correct when they're advised, they're an indescribably minuscule speck in the vast galaxy of deliberately malicious users who know exactly what they're doing: throwing a continuous torrent of uselessly promotional content at Wikipedia and getting paid when it sticks. The easier we can make it to deal with that problem, the harder we make it for spam to stick, the better for Wikipedia. It's incredibly unlikely that any useful content would be inadvertently removed if we did this, and for that there's WP:REFUND. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If we need to protect the good faith UPEs who don't read the ToU and only start to cooperate after the fourth level warning, the retroactive G5 will be still very effective against UPEs if it is limited to users blocked or banned for sockpuppetry. It should be possible to come up with objective criteria that cover the UPE-sockfarms but exclude users like SwisterTwister whose articles we obviously don't want summarily deleted. Rentier (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I like this idea. When a user is banned, we should say when the ban starts (which may be now or in the past). In practice, this means we are giving responsibility for G5 deletion (or not) of UPE to the ban discussion, which seems to be a good place for it. —Kusma (t·c) 19:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This must apply to both blocks (in particular indefinite CU blocks) and bans. It's of no use otherwise. Rentier (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Doing this would require an RfC to change the banning policy to allow bans to be retroactive. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

    Why? There's nothing in the banning policy that forbids this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

    • • @Hawkeye7: The banning policy doesn't mention retroactive bans at all, and the clear implication is that they are not. This is backed up by the wording of WP:CSD#G5 "A page created before the ban or block was imposed ... will not qualify under this criterion.". This wording will require tweaking for clarity if bans become retroactive, but that is likely to be uncontroversial if the change to the banning policy has a clear consensus (it might be worth mentioning in the RFC intro). Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't see how such a conclusion can be drawn from the banning policy when it doesn't mention it at all. And G5 could also be read to allow it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Whereas I don't see how the banning policy can be said to allow retroactive bans when they are not mentioned at all. G5 is very clear that it doesn not apply to page created before a ban or block was imposed - there is no way the current wording of that would support deleting any page created before, at the earliest, the discussion authorising the ban (for a community ban)/the arbcom case (for an arbcom ban) was closed (and I'd be sympathetic towards pages created between that point and the later of the user being notified and the block being placed). Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Thryduulf; G5 is normally taken to mean that creations by a user prior to their ban are disqualified from the criterion. While there's nothing in the policy currently forbidding a retroactive ban, there is also nothing permitting it, and no precedent really either way. The question needs to be asked, we can't just make up interpretations of policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• • • An RfC to establish that a Undisclosed Paid Editor (UPE) ban is retroactive is a good idea. I think it is obvious that it must be, but the community needs to be brought along with the decision making process. "Product of an Undisclosed Paid Editor" carries little weight at AfD, I think because the wider community is not up to speed with what a great problem it is.

Someone asked: What if the UPE later discloses? In that case, REFUND is a possibility.

However, is there an actual need to delete? How about moving all UPE product into a repository and blanking it. Leave it available for Wikipedians to review, but unpublished as far as the UPE sponsor is concerned.

Has anyone else begun to suspect that most of the SPA probably UPEs seen submitting drafts are sockpuppets of a much small pool of actual people? I think keeping a repository of discovered UPE product will help shine a light on the networks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:F5 and reasonable exceptions

I think it might be a good idea to discuss the last sentence of WP:F5: "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article." While I can sort of understand the intent behind it, it seems to contradict WP:NFCC#7 and guidelines given on other pages such as WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and WP:UP#Non-free files (as it pertains to WP:USD). I'm not sure exactly when that particlular sentence was added, but it looks like it goes all the way back to 2005. F5 deletions are non-controversial deletions, so files can easily be restored and in fact are often restored per WP:REFUND or by the deleting admin when the orphan issue is addressed. "Reasonable exception" seems too open-ended and subjective since it's not clear how such a thing is determined. Moreover, it's also not clear how long such an exception can granted for. WP:NFEXMP does allow exceptions to the NFCC, but these tend to be for maintenance pages only and have nothing to do with orphans. If there was something like c:Template:OTRS pending used on Commons which could be used for orphaned images where an F5 exemption can be claimed but after a designated period of time automatically reverts back to {{Orfud}}, then I could perhaps see a way for this to work. I don't think, however, that there's anything currently like this for orphans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Who added that text to WP:F5? Non-free files may not be used outside the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, so the file is subject to immediate removal from the page and then there's no point in keeping it on Wikipedia as the user could just go to WP:REFUND if the article later is finished. Furthermore, if the file is used in an article draft, then you could alternatively tag the file with {{subst:dfu|concern=Invalid FUR: Doesn't contain a valid rationale for [[WP:NFCC#7]] or [[WP:NFCC#9]].}} and then delete it under WP:F7 instead of WP:F5. Also, per WP:NFCCE, violating files are to be deleted.

See also Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thirteen years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That text was added 13 years ago(!) and was apparently approved by Jimbo himself (all hail Jimbo!). For future reference, WikiBlame is a very useful tool to find such changes. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading through the archived WT:NFC discussion linked to by Stefan2, it doesn't appear as if a consensus was established to allow non-free use drafts, which kind of makes the "reasonable exception" sentence pointless. I'm not sure why it wasn't removed at that time, but it probably needs to be removed because it gives the impression that orphaned non-free images are allowed under certain cases. As I posted above, this is not currently how orphans are treated and it contradicts content about acceptable non-free use on other guideline pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I read the "reasonable expectations" that if you take the 7 day period, that if the article is to be moved from draft space to main space within 7 days, uploading the image for use there in that time is reasonable, as during that time we'd see it as an orphaned image but with a likely use. If the draft doesn't get moved to main space, then after 7 days, the image can be deleted per F5. --Masem (t) 14:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense after reading your post and knowing a bit about NFCC, but it might not be so obvious from just what is written to someone who knows nothing about NFCC. Maybe it would be helpful to add an efn which clarifies that; so that others at least know that reasonable means at most 7 days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

X1 cleanup complete

The cleanup of Neelix redirects covered by the X1 criteria is complete. A thread has been opened at the Administrator's Noticeboard here to discuss any audit that the community may wish to perform. By design, the criterion will automatically lapse at the conclusion of that audit. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• May I very politely add to this Yeeeeeeee hawwwwwwwwwwwww! Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  Definitely have a close eye on the very last of the RfDs so we can completely, definitely put this mess to rest. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Musing on G4

This is probably a perennial discussion that goes nowhere, but on the other hand it wouldn't be the first time I started one of those and it ended up going somewhere. But there does seem to be a disconnect between G4, which rules on (as practiced) article content, and AfD, which rules on article subject. I'm sure there's quite a few of us who've opened an AfD only a few weeks after the last one to get the same results. But it does seem like there should be some way of strengthening the pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies rationale of G4 so that it supersedes in some way in some cases the not substantially identical rationale. Currently the former is almost entirely subservient to the latter in a way that... well... just wastes time really if we have to have another AfD only a short while after the last one. In fact, as currently widely interpreted, the former is entirely superfluous as far as I can tell, so that we should probably either strengthen it or remove it as entirely useless. GMG^talk 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There are still quite a few G4 deletions going on, so it is not entirely useless. Perhaps it could be reworded to say that it does not address the issue in the AFD. But if the re-created is by someone else many years later, then really G4 is not really suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that sentence in particular, it makes no sense to me to have those two criteria connected by an "and", and would make more sense to reword somehow to an "or". Being "substantially identical" and "addressing the reason for deletion" are mutually exclusive. A substantially identical article of course can't very well do that, being identical in a substantial way. That's not even getting into the whole conflation of subject with content thing. GMG^talk 11:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something like (in clunky hypothetical wording) ...or an article recreated shortly following deletion at AfD that does not address the reason for deletion. Leave it to admin discretion what "shortly" means in context. For someone who was marginal before, but is suddenly the subject of intense news coverage due to unforeseen events, "shortly" might be a matter of days before another discussion might be warranted. On the other hand for, say, a college freshman basketball player who's never played professionally and has received no substantial coverage, a matter of days is almost certainly not going to justify a new discussion. GMG^talk 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 

U5 in Draftspace

We regularly find U5 "not a webhost" material in Draft space. Expanding it to a G criteria would save time at MfD and AfD. The "A" CSDs cover this miscellaneous junk in Article Space so it would not be used there but Draft (and template, Project etc) lacks the criteria to deal with what U5 does now. There is no "Draft & Userspace except Article space" group of CSD so just making it a G seems appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? The point of U5 is not to removed "junk", it's to remove user pages that someone set up who is otherwise not interested in editing Wikipedia. Drafts are usually created by people who want their pages in Mainspace, so they are not using WIkipedia "as a webhost" but merely as it is intended to, just not the way you might want them to. That's still not the same as U5 though. Regards SoWhy 09:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've handled 1000s of Drafts - I assure there are plenty of Drafts that fit U5 except for their location. Draft:Remote_Neural_Monitoring now at MfD. There is no specific U5 decline reason in AfC but we find plenty of page that would be U5 in userspace. Some of the pages at Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_an_essay, a lot of the non-English resumes and other nonsense here Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English and many of the pages that end up here.Category:AfC submissions declined as not suitable for Wikipedia. Some slice of he "not notable" declines are just social media style pages that would be U5 in userspace. Only about 1/2 of Draft pages end up in AfC and the ones outside AfC have similar issues. Draft:Antisepticeye, Draft:Full Steve, Draft:Haryana was never under british rule, Draft:How to Sell Embarrassing Products in market and more. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you and I often disagree when it comes to speedy deletion, you have to forgive me that I am looking for more than your assurances. Speaking of which, of the five pages you listed, none would meet actually U5 if they were in userspace. Draft:Remote Neural Monitoring might be a fringe theory but the creator clearly wanted it to be an article, not just a personal website. Same goes for Draft:Antisepticeye and Draft:How to Sell Embarrassing Products in market, heck, even Draft:Full Steve. Judging from that, your interpretation of U5 basically seems to be "anything that meets WP:NOT". In reality, it's limited to pages that people would otherwise host somewhere else, not pages they want to have in Wikipedia but shouldn't. That's why WP:NOTWEBHOST mentions stuff like "résumé" or "personal webpage". Regards SoWhy 18:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you oppose any expansion of any CSD - like G13 even when there is very wide support. I doubt anyone could provide any page as an example you would agree is a good example that should be deleted. For discussion purposes, please identify what CSD criteria does apply to the listed Draft pages or if you feel they are valid Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of middle ground between speedyable pages and valid content, that's why we have all the other deletion processes. U5 is frequently abused to delete acceptable userpages or article drafts, I don't think it's a very good idea to have it at all, much less expand it. Hut 8.5 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not get personal. SoWhy and I have very different views on what the CSD criteria should be, but he's also deleted thousands of pages and I actually have somewhat similar views to him on the CSD criteria in practice (i.e. we should read them strictly unless there is a strong reason not too). I think there is growing consensus that deletion of drafts needs reform, but I think the best way forward there is draft PROD, not expanding the U-criteria. I'd also suggest getting rid of things like WP:NMFD, which we currently have to go through mental gymnastics to get around ("No improvement and little chance of being in mainspace. NOTWEBHOST." being the typical workaround for "Not notable and never will be.") There are all improvements that can be done without changing the CSD criteria, and would also be likely to get through. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft PROD always gets rejected because the argument is no one is watching the page. Its a Slow CSD. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is truly stupid to have to decline a page like Draft:Full Steve and wait 6 months or maybe much longer due to multiple submissions or random cleanup edits before deleting it and even offering a no contest REFUND. If there is no CSD applicable now we need one. If this page was in userspace very few Admins would refuse a U5 tag on it. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As Tony and Hut pointed out already, just because something is not speedyable, does not mean it ought to be kept. MFD exists and works well and Tony has offerered an alternative idea with Draft-PROD that we could consider. You appear to be obsessed with speedy deletion as the only possible solution to such pages which is too narrow a view to take. Regards SoWhy 20:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not true and not nice. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not say you are, I said that it appears that way. I know from own experience that good faith actions might appear differently to other people and I merely pointed this out to you. I do apologize if you perceived this as an insult. It was not meant that way. Regards SoWhy 07:05, 29 March

A non-apology that appears to blame me for misunderstanding. Taken with prior negitive interactions against me, this is very inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I can only explain what I meant and apologize if this has been perceived as an insult. That is what I have done. If you continue to feel insulted, there is nothing I can do against that, Regards SoWhy 10:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose broadening U5 to DraftSpace. Although I originally proposed U5 as G, it was clearly the case that the blatant rife NOTEEBHOSTING was only happening in userspace. I see very little DraftSpace NOTWEBHOSTing incompatible with AGF intention for an article, once the G11-able stuff is removed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This proposal would shift some unquestionably unsuitable pages from MfD to CSD. My "assurances" of the need for this based on my draft handling and MfD experience carry no weight with SoWhy who says "MFD exists and works well". With 3 experiences at MfD in 5 years how much weight should we give that assessment? We are each entitled to do what we want and state an opinion, but we are not entitled to belittle experienced editors and should refrain from making pronouncements on things we know nothing about. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

One does not have to actively participate in an area to know about it although I do admit that my involvement in MFD was larger in ancient times (with multiple closes that the tool incorrectly lists as deletion !votes, such as this or this). However, I, like any other observer, can plainly see that MFD is not overwhelmed at the moment. There are 31 active discussions for the last 8 days (or 3,875 pages per day). But again, the question here was not whether MFD is overrun with nominations but whether there is a frequent influx of pages that objectively and uncontestably are attempts to use Wikipedia as a webhost. I'm happy to be persuaded but as SmokeyJoe says above, there seems to be no evidence that this is actually the case. Regards SoWhy 11:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

People who use the comma as the decimal separator should be hung until death. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Sorry, I sometimes forget that some countries are weird that way and don't understand that commas are way better than separating numbers than points SoWhy 18:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirects after a page move — Clarify for G6?

I've noticed that G6 and G7 have lately been used to delete redirects left behind after a move (by someone other than the only substantial author) as "pagemove cleanup." This seems to be an issue for movers/taggers and sysops alike, although the latter can move without leaving a redirect, a potential loophole. I'm sure I'm guilty of this myself, but we should all be better. G7 explicitly bars such behavior, but G6 is less obvious: it mentions redirects only in the context of blocking pagemoves. Per G7 and R3, however, deletions of redirects left behind after a pagemove are not uncontroversial unless they were unambiguously made in error.

Current G6 text

This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including: Deleting empty dated maintenance categories. Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect/page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it. Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD. Deleting redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Commons). Deleting userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text if the user who created the page has been inactive for at least one year. References

With that in mind, I would like to propose adding to G6 something like what the first half of R3 states: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move. I'm not sure where, but perhaps bullet four could be amended to read (added text in italics): Deleting pages or redirects unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move unless made in error. Regardless, I think some additional clarity would be helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I follow where it is necessary; the only two G6 examples are: 1) involving redirects is when the redirect blocks another legitimate page move; and it ALREADY notes that admins should follow a proper procedure in doing so, AND in checking for nontrivial page history before deleting the redirect. 2) involving redirects created by moving pages across namespaces because of an error. If there wasn't an error, it doesn't apply! --Jayron32 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's exactly right. My worry is G6 being used inappropriately because such deletions are not explicitly prohibited in the text of G6. G6 is somewhat unique in that, while it provides examples, it is intentionally left open-ended for "uncontroversial" deletions. We've had to leave notes in G7 and R3 to clarify the history, and an editor should not need to read G7 or R3 to know what isn't controversial under G6. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Adding caveats to G6 is futile, because as written, it's seven different unrelated criteria (C4. empty dated maintenance categories; A12. disambigs to one-with-(disambiguation)/zero pages; R4. trivial-history redirects blocking page moves; R5. certain cross-namespace redirects created by page moves; T5. TFD consensus, which isn't a speedy deletion criterion anyway; R5. file redirects shadowing Commons; U6. default article wizard userpages by inactive users) with a misleading synopsis that's functionally equivalent to "whatever the admin pushing the button thinks he can get away with without anybody raising a fuss". Many, many taggers and plenty of admins already think they can get away with R3ing move-created redirects anyway, and by and large they do get away with it. —Cryptic 18:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  You seem to have a specific example where an article should not have been deleted that was. If you have a specific example, can you share it and show what you did to correct the problem? --Jayron32 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I really don't. But they're not hard to find. Post Oak Middle School, Virinia and File:Ponmuttayidunna Tharavu Poster.jpg show up in the most recent few dozen deletions marked as "R3", for example. (Or did you want examples of admins treating "speedy delete because it's uncontroversial maintenance" as the tautology it is?) —Cryptic 19:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  But as you say, those are both R3 taggins; how is G6 bein overly broad the problem there? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  It wasn't clear whether Jayron32 was asking for lax R3s or lax G6s. I'll dig up some examples of the latter either tomorrow or later tonight - I only have a few minutes right now, and the overwhelming majority of G6s fall into the listed examples (particularly page moves, TFD, and monthly maintenance categories). —Cryptic 00:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, those are also correctly applied R3 deletions. Uncontroversial deletions of redirects created by an obvious misspelling are exactly what R3 was created for. So you have the problem that 1) you can't produce a single example of a G6 deletion that occurred incorrectly (i.e. a deleted article that should have been kept) and 2) when trying to find examples of a different criteria that was used, you give two examples of it being used exactly as intended. Look, if its such a problem, it should be trivial for you to have examples of abuse. If there are zero examples of it being abused, then it isn't a problem and doesn't need fixing. --Jayron32 15:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • They're both redirects created from page moves, which are explicitly excluded from R3; and one's not recently created by any interpretation, which is also explicitly excluded. How in the world is that "correctly applied"?
  • How many do you want? Here's a representative sample of five:
    • Draft:Young2-SwiTch - A7 applied to a draft article
    • Ronald P. Schaefer - article by an undisclosed paid editor, now restored
    • Draft:DR. RAMAN SINGH - (terrible) draft with an article already existing in mainspace (Raman Singh)
    • User:தமிழன்டா/sandbox/life - user sandbox deleted for not being in English
    • C10H15N5O5 - redirect to Vidarabine, too old to delete as an R3 (created in 2009), so labelled G6 instead
  • There's been explicit consensus against each of these sorts of deletions. Whether you or I agree with that (I don't, for any of them) is immaterial. Mostly I just wish people ignoring all rules with their delete buttons to stop pretending that they aren't by picking "G6" from the dropdown menu. —Cryptic 19:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• G6 is often used as a kind of catch-all wildcard criterion when none of the other criteria fit.
  This is not its purpose.
  If a person (admin or otherwise) believes that a page (redirect or otherwise) should be deleted, and they cannot find a CSD criterion that is directly suitable, they should file a discussion at the relevant WP:XFD department. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I'd be in favour of repealing G6 entirely and replacing it with a set of clearly defined criteria similar to those suggested by Cryptic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think G6 should be restricted to pages with zero or trivially small histories, G6 should never be used to delete something that could be required for attribution, for example. Page move G6's seem to fit that. G6 being used for pages with histories should be broken out into other criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've always taken the unifying spirit of G6 (insofar as it has any at all) as there being zero permanent loss of information, which is similar but a bit stricter. —Cryptic 00:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Perhaps by clearing up or replacing "noncontroversial?" Cryptic's list is essentially the examples listed by G6, but the rest is overbroad. Per myself and Redrose64, people are misusing G6; I think it's because what folks think is obviously noncontroversial is not necessarily so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've proposed a complete replacement set, mainly duplicating the examples, below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • G6 is often used as a wildcard criterion, I would support repealing it. This is why we have PROD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You may have a point, provided that PROD is expanded to include templates, categories, and redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I would support expanding PRODs into other namespaces *cough*draftspace*cough*.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
• @Amorymeltzer: G6 is currently necessary for page movers to justify deleting titles like BDS/holding which come about through WP:PM/C#4 (and other steps in the process). Because page movers cannot delete page history, they by definition always appropriately preserve it when properly implementing round-robin page moves. I have noticed that some administrators, improperly in my opinion, outright delete former redirects (both titles and history) then recreate them as new (I have also seen them leave reasonable old titles deleted altogether, but not as often). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this proposal isn't suggesting anything that would affect that; it is a narrow proposal to clarify that redirects as a result of regular, good-faith page moves are not subject to G6. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose using G6 to "no fault" remove redirects. Conceivably, at some point there was a good usage for the redirect (i.e. something pointed at it) and if we remove the redirect, we break history and then have to go through a rigmarole to figure out what historically did the title point at so we can reconstruct context. Redirects are cheap (also taking into consideration the collary: Redirects are costly). I have no problem with using G6 to remove redirects to fix page move failures (or for cause issues). I do agree that removing the "kitchen sink" concept of G6 would fix much of the percieved issues. Hasteur (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarify confusion

This sort of stalled following submission of the below, but with that proposal's closure, I'd like to see if there's any appetite for this. It seems there was a fair amount of confusion about what I was proposing, so allow me to state clearly: I am not proposing any change whatsoever in the criteria for G6. Rather, I hope to merely state what is already policy: G6 cannot be used to delete redirects left as a result of routine pagemoves, except those resulting from unambiguous error. Unlike G7/R3, this is implied but not explicitly noted in the G6 criteria, and for someone tagging or deleting it can be easy not to think about that prohibition. Cryptic gave some good examples above (the chemical formula one in particular), and I'll add two I've personally come across and declined since opening this: Toyota Crown (S220) and Draft:Thomas Mor Alexandrios. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Another example: Draft:National Judicial College ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that splitting this out into half a dozen new criteria is probably overkill. What I think might work better is putting an explicit provision in G6 that any admin may undelete at any time (or that any user may require a G6-ed page or revision to be restored), on the understanding that if it is undeleted it is not "uncontroversial". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

G5 state of the nation

Use of G5 for ToU violation is an interpretation put forward by TonyBallioni, DGG, Doc James and others: "Mass sock farms can reasonably be assumed to have previous blocked accounts. That a sock farm knows how to game CU should not prevent us from protecting Wikipedia" (TonyBallioni). It was unanimously upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4. IMO, this shouldn't be treated as controversial anymore, and I feel free to use G5/G11 deletions in case of apparent sockfarms when the master is not definitively known. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's a change to the actual policy, e.g., the criterion itself, this is simply an application of WP:IAR. Also, Bri omits the fact that in the instances at issue, he tagged the article before the creator was even blocked. If we want to take the position that UPE's creations can be deleted per a violation of the TOU, then we shouldn't specify a criterion in the deletion (or the tag) but say that in the deletion "log".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not for TOU violations: that has been repeatedly declined by the community. What is the common interpretation is that large sock farms are covered already by G5, as we can reasonably assume that someone running 20 throwaway accounts on proxies has been blocked already. This was put forward in the previous RfC last summer as a reason why a G14 might not be needed, and has been a pretty standard practice both before and after that. I'd also note that I would highly prefer any discussion of a future any future CSD criteria not take place on this talk page, which is pretty biased towards inclusionists in terms of discussion, and that it would take place at a more neutral ground like VPP. Also, just as a note, the two times this interpretation has been tested at DRV that I am aware of, it has been endorsed (both the August 4 example and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3).TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this talk page biased towards deletionists, but rather biased towards those who like to follow process, leaving disputed issues to AfD. But I am of the opinion that there is no real practical difference between deleting based on the TOU for undeclared paid editing and deleting on the basis of an implied G5. They have essentially the same criteria and yield the same result. And, as Tony says, tthat result has been upheld at DRV. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, the worst offenders of undisclosed paid editing have been doing it for a while, were blocked in the past, and are continuing to do so with socks. Most paid articles end up being deleted under G5 or G11. We haven't really needed to factor in ToU violations, as it is very rare when we can't manage the issue under the existing CSD criteria. In the odd chance that it can't be managed using CSD as things stand, I'd be very wary of expanding CSD to include ToU violations, in part because a large portion of the community has always been opposed to deletions based on contributors instead of content (and thus only G5 focuses on the creator - everything else is about the content or the creator's request), and in part because the preferred solution is to talk to the editor and see if we can get them to disclose and start meeting the ToU, rather than deleting first. - Bilby (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In the specific case that led Bri to post here, the reason I said that they would be elibible for G5 was because there are certain patterns in those editor's contribs that make it 100 % certain that they are experienced UPEs. I would have blocked them myself, but (as confirmed by CU) I wasn't sure they were related to that particular master so didn't want to tag them as such. If we follow G5 strictly, then we are essentially rewarding UPEs who have found ways to avoid getting caught by CU. I don't think it should be necessary to prove that an account has been is a sock in order to determine that they have already been blocked. The difficulty is that we can't discuss in public what it is that makes accounts like these stand out as being DUCKs or else they will learn to change their behaviour. Deleting via G5 without a master is IAR, but in the use common sense way, rather than going against established community norms. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

G5 does not actually state that the sock's master has to be known for it to apply. Of course, usually you need to know it to determine whether a creation was really in violation of a ban or block but strictly speaking, it is not necessary, if (and only if) other evidence exists that makes it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that this user is a sock. Such evidence might be the user admitting that they previously edited under other accounts (without disclosing them) or the user recreating pages verbatim that were previously created by socks and where the text is not found anywhere else. Of course, any such G5 application needs to be performed very very carefully and only in the most obvious cases. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Good point about not needing to know the master. With UPE those examples you give will never happen, but I and others look for specific patterns in contribs that are nigh on impossible for real new users to have, combined with creating articles on subjects that attract UPE. Happy to give examples of these via email. Increasingly often CU comes back negative and CUs note that the technical evidence is odd, which is another again incriminating factor IMO, since if they have learnt how to avoid it, they must have been blocked before. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally will not G5 without an SPI or a CU finding, even if it is obvious. It's a check I put on myself. My rule of thumb is that if there are 5 or more accounts, they've likely done this before. I believe Smartse (correct me if I'm thinking of someone else) and others are of the view that if we know a proxy has been used, we are safe to assume that there are other accounts that have been blocked regardless of the amount. I haven't yet taken that approach myself, but I also don't fault those who do. Those of us who devote our time to working this area are up against the frustrating task of working against people who know our rules and how to use them to game the system. As Bri mentioned in my quote above, I don't think we should reward those who are obviously gaming the system by helping them do it. I also think there is a fine line between using common sense here and ignoring the protections we put in place for a reason. It's a balance and each of us deals with it differently. Eventually, practice will sort it out and we'll have some form of uniform standard. We're moving in that direction already, but aren't there yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the "master" is not an account, the "master" is a person. If one person is creating massive numbers of multiple accounts in violation of clear standards here at Wikipedia, and doing so for nefarious purposes, then G5 applies. We don't have to tag a first known account to invoke it here. It is sufficient to know that there's some human, who has been asked to leave before, who is now using sockpuppetry to avoid having to stay away. Evidence that they should know better is their behavior. --Jayron32 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would extend that to say person or firm. I'm of the belief that if your freelancers or entry-level PR people have been blocked, and you're working for the same firm, it's covered by WP:PROXYING, so G5 would apply even if the person behind the keyboard isn't the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, "corporate personhood" too. The point is, per WP:NOTBURO, WP:IAR, we do what we need to do when we need to do so for whatever is best for the encyclopedia. If we're getting bogged down in rules for rules sake, we're missing the point. If it is clear that a person is creating articles in violation of their being asked to leave, we can delete the article as needed. --Jayron32 15:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I agree we need to be cautious and I rarely act unilaterally, but I think that if there is a consensus amongst experienced users that the articles are UPE and that the accounts are not new, then G5 should apply. That's because of them being blocked already, not for ToU violations. The difficulty is in getting that consensus, not in terms of people disagreeing, but often nobody comments either way. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reene 23 for a current example of where I think G5 should be applied, regardless of CU, likewise with the accounts we are discussing via email. SmartSE (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I usually delete acoording to all the criteria that reasonably apply. If A7 and G11 apply, I specify both, and similarly with G11 and G12. Practical proceedings here are basically similar. An essential factor is is that deletions here if challenged will be supported at AfD, and , between the general realization of the danger of Undeclared paid editors, and with the new NCORP specifications, that has become much more likely. There is really not all that much to gain from converting an UPE into a declared editor, unless it also increases the quality of their work. There are so few successful examples of this that I think the next step will be banning paid editing altogether. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We've convinced a large number of editors to declare - the problem is that the ones who do large scale paid editing tend not to do so, as the way their editing is treated makes undeclared paid editing more likely to get through and earn a profit. I'm sure we'll get to a point where we'll ban paid editing - which will make no significant difference to the volume of paid editing, while making undeclared paid editing the only option for the thousands of businesses and individuals that currently are desperate for articles.

Otherwise, I agree that we don't lack tools - G5, G11 and A7, NOTHERE blocks and spam-only blocks. The tools to combat undeclared paid editing are fine. What is missing is the ability to detect it. - Bilby (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Benefits of getting a UPE to disclose are minimal. As long as people can just create another account(s) for every article we can't track. One person-one account (say Email verification of accounts and only one account per verified email) would go a long ways to identifying paid editors but as long as anyone can start a new account every week it is a losing battle. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Throw-away email addresses are very very cheap, and very easy if you are organised. One account per SMS-receiving phone number is a much more reliable proxy of one-per-person. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately, we may have to modify even one of our basic principles, and require secure but confidential identification of people contributing articles in certain fields. There might not be consensus for this ever, as some WPedians think that the principle of anonymous contribution is more important than the principle of reliability/ DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

May people seem to think this, but the earliest statements of principles spoke to editing, not to page creation, and the time of these statements was when the encyclopedia was mostly empty. IPs, newcomers, drive-by readers, should always be able to fix things, remove inaccuracies, add missing information. It is said that most of the content comes from IPs adding little bits, that established editors are more editors, curators, than content creators, in comparison with unregistered editors. That is great, and should continue.

Asking for a phone number for registration doesn't need to mean "securing" that information, although there would need to be trust that the WMF doesn't record it. They would have to have a mechanism to prevent reuse of the same phone number for repeated registrations, but there are ways to do this that don't involve an accessible record of the phone number. Compare with Renren, Chinese facebook, which requires a cell phone number to register. https://accounts.wmflabs.org/ requires you to provide an email to proceed, you need the email to receive the password, it says. How about it require a cell phone, and limits the number of activated accounts by cellphone. How many people wanting to add a page to Wikipedia do not have a cell phone? For the few people without cell phones but wanting to add pages to Wikipedia, they can use {{help me}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Is G7 mandatory

I had a couple of discussions today where other editors seemed to feel that a G7 tag was a mandatory deletion when placed in good faith with no other significant edits. My understanding is that any speedy deletion tag can be challenged by any editor (except the creator, of course) and that even if it's not challenged, it's still admin discretion. Who's more correct here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• My understanding is that G7 is a courtesy and it isn't mandatory at all, per WP:OWN. Hut 8.5 19:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Sarek and Hut.And, good faith is a keyword. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy tags give us permission to delete something, they don't mandate it. Even F9: the policy that mandates deletion is WP:C. So, we're allowed, even encouraged, to use our discretion. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't need permission to delete an article. Administrators are not required to use their tools in any circumstances. A speedy tag simply means that the user who tagged it believes it meets the criterion and should be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• What all the others said. No speedy request has to be fulfilled and if you believe the page should be kept, no editor is entitled to have their pages deleted. After all, when you create something, you release it under a license that says anyone can use it for everything. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Agree with the above. Speedy tags are a way to alert sysops to something actionable, and in an ideal world should all be uncontroversial. As this is not always the case, if a sysop gets there and believes it is not actionable, they need not act on it. The system is not one of compelling admin action, if only because the admins are the ones entrusted to delete pages, not taggers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not to be a contrarian, but I mean, what's the justification for not deleting it? I mean, yes, everything people above say is true, but as a matter of common courtesy, I would expect a fairly solid reason for declining an otherwise-valid G7. You're of course perfectly allowed to not act on a G7 regardless. But while nobody has an absolute right to have their pages deleted on a whim, I would interpret actually removing a valid G7 tag as kind of a dick move unless there was some convincing reason not to delete it. A case-by-case thing, for sure, but removing a valid G7 tag isn't something that I personally would do lightly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, but that's somewhat tautological — if there's no justification to not delete it, then there'd be no contest in the first place. The way I read Sarek's situation is if a user makes a good-faith G7 tag but the reviewing sysop feels that there is indeed a reason to decline. No harm no foul on the part of the tagger, just something they were (in the sysop's mind anyway) mistaken about, which should be explained in the decline. Without knowing the specific discussion it's hard to say, but I took the question to be more about whether someone can still decline or contest a G7. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• This ^^^.- MrX 🖋 20:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• If there's a valid speedy tag (G7 or anything else) which may be controversial, then I'd prefer if the admin takes the matter to XfD or some other discussion venue instead of deleting the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• No CSD tagging should be seen as a mandatory deletion. After all, there are malicious taggings; what if some logged-out user were to put {{db-user}} at the top of this page? No, when an admin finds a page that is tagged for CSD the first thing that they should do is decide if the criteria enumerated at WP:CSD are met (if not, remove the tag and drop a note on the tagger's user talk page). But even when the criteria are satisfied, deletion is not mandatory. For a WP:CSD#G7 request, the admin may hold the opinion that the tagged page is useful, an overall enhancement to the encyclopedia, and the world would be worse off without it. They are not bound to delete, and may instead de-tag (with an explanation to the tagger). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• This has been discussed a few times before - here and here for example. I think we have to go back to the reason why this user-requested deletion was introduced in the first place. My understanding was that it was for tests, or incomplete content that someone may decide not to continue working on, rather than for complete articles or useful content - the GFDL is explicit that the contributors of that material are submitting it to the public from the moment they save it to the Wiki, even if they later change their minds or wish to vanish. At one time there was a condition that the content must have been "mistakenly created", but this was removed in 2007, for reasons that aren't completely obvious. Anyway, it seems clear to me that G7 is eligible for challenge, and I think it should automatically be denied if there's even one other user who disputes the deletion (and the material is not complete junk, of course, which would render it speediable under other criteria). It might be worth making this explicit in the text, so we don't run into this confusion again.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

New Criterion G14 - Minors

I have more than once recently seen a draft or article page deleted as G6 because it contained unnecessary personal information about a minor. This isn't really housekeeping or technical. It was a situation where an administrator chose to ignore the rules to find a reason to do something that needed doing. I submit that we need a criterion G14, which is pages containing personal information about minors for whom there is no credible claim of significance. I am willing to see some tweaking of the wording, but we really need a new criterion, because it clearly isn't G6, but it clearly has to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read the above, and will comment further, but I still think that minors really are a case that requires a criterion, because G6 really is not applicable, and one can almost hear the chalk squeaking on the slate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Minors absolutely do not need a criterion, and should not really be speedied. See The OS FAQ for the proper procedures. Nominating something for speedy deletion increases the number of eyes who will be seeing the page - trim it down if necessary, contact oversight/an oversighter, and let us deal with it. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As Primefac said, this is a textbook example of content that should be WP:OVERSIGHTed. If there's no CCS, then just tag it with A7 (or some other criteria) if the oversighter keeps the article up. Iffy★Chat -- 12:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to include some bit of text on the page as to when to use oversight instead of speedy deletion? Seems like some people might be unclear on this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with an admin using G6 in this situation as long as Oversight is notified. This would be similar to the provision in Revision deletion about revision deletion prior to oversight. ~ GB fan 13:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Usually, A7 will apply to such articles anyway (or U5 if it's a userpage), so admins seeing this on patrol can delete it (G6 is fine if something else really doesn't fit). The problem with having a criterion, as Primefac points out, is that this will lead to people tagging the page, thus increasing the number of people seeing it. Non-admins finding such pages should remove the personal information and contact oversight immediately. They usually react quickly anyway. Regards SoWhy 13:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per the above, after removal our chief goal is to not draw attention to this sort of thing; a speedy category would be a very easy way to find material that nobody should see. This is a case where the more opaque, the better; having a category would be counterproductive at best. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not needed - an admin finding revisions containing personal information about a minor should revdelete the revisions (WP:RD4). If revdeleting this info leaves no visible revisions, this already falls under WP:G10 or WP:G6. As SoWhy said it's recommended in the revision deletion guideline to avoid revealing information about edits requiring this treatment, which is possibly why you see G6 being used (it's a catch-all for uncontroversial deletions). Creating a new criterion works against that guidance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

O hell no! Such privacy violations need to disappear as quickly and quietly as possible. Planting any kind of flag designed to attract attention on such a page is absolutely the stone-cold least desirable thing to do to such a page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are some entities out there that are actively patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and are automatically copying down the contents of nominated articles before they are deleted. Sometimes, they even get posted to an external website. As others have mentioned, when removing personal information in general, we should take care to do it discreetly, and since "non-public personal information" in general is already a criterion for oversight, it would be redundant as a criterion for speedy deletion. Mz7 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth explicitly noting that any page where all versions of the page would be subject to WP:REVDEL can be deleted G6? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think G12 covers RD1, G10 covers RD2, and G3 covers RD3. I would say RD4 and RD5 would be better off as WP:IAR-type deletions rather than something explicitly enumerated. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to say it's not even really WP:IAR since proper use of RD (or OS) in these cases is following the rules to a T. Perhaps it is in the case of deleting the page rather than revdeling, but even so, it's more of a non-CSD deletion than an IAR-deletion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Recently, I came across an editor (no names) who had added a phone number, email address and their date of birth (which was not earlier than 2002) to several talk pages, one of which did not previously exist. I reverted all these edits (except the page creation) and applied WP:REVDEL (except to the page creation) and then sent the lot to Special:EmailUser/Oversight per WP:OVERSIGHT. When doing the job, they blanked the page that did not previously exist before suppressing the edit that created the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A seperate criterion is a terrible idea. The last thing we should do is wave a big flag pointing out material that needs to be suppressed. Use whatever existing criterion seems best, use revdel, contact the oversight team. This is how we’ve been doing it for some time and I don’t see a problem with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some guidance in §Non-criteria along the lines of Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight - i.e., admins shouldn't use a "Personal info on a nine-year-old" delete log, non-admins shouldn't tag for speedy deletion at all, and both should mail oversight instead of just walking away afterward, thinking they made things better instead of worse. —Cryptic 00:17, 14 March 2018(UTC)

I'm working with drafts a lot, so maybe it's different there but when I find oversightable material it is usually in a page that contains zero useful content. Removing a birthday does not solve the overall problem the page should be gone. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove the information with no edit summary or an edit summary of “x” if the whole page needs deleted I’ll either unilaterally G10 or A7 (both are often applicable) or failing anything else, G6, and then contact oversight. The best thing for non-admins to do is remove what is possible discreetly and contact oversight. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blank. Suppress. Delete like normal. No specific CSD needed here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I mentioned an idea very similar to this (specifically for drafts) in a recent AN kerfuffle, and the consensus appeared to be that the existing guidelines are sufficient. I do feel that, if an expansion is necessary, it should be phrased as allowing A7 deletions in other namespaces (specifically draft space). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Limiting A7/A9 to "Recently created articles"?

This is a pre-proposal; I won't support or propose this formally until ACTRIAL is permanent.

I think there's a reasonable argument that A7/A9 (the two somewhat notability-based deletion reasons) should be limited to new articles. Now that there is a reasonable amount of review and control on newly-created articles through NPP and ACTRIAL, having an article that was not proposed for deletion for a significant period of time (something between a month and a year) is enough of an indicator of notability/importance/significance that something with more review than a CSD should be used. Any thoughts? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirects get turned into NN articles all the time. How would you handle a 5 year old redirect that might have been an article at some point (or not) turned into an article? Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I would support this, but if it is considered, the time should be longer than a month. NPP often has a backlog of longer than a month. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, an old redirect recently converted to an article would be always recognised as a recently created article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In general, a redirect turned into a non-notable article should be restored as a redirect, not deleted outright. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that’s right power. Sometimes I muse, all old mainspace redirects should be soft-protected. It is more tedious dealing with bad new articles created on top of them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I doubt it would pass, but it is in the spirit of ACPERM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would not support this at all. An A7 is an A7 regardless of the age of the article. We can make no assumptions about the quality or appropriateness of an article based on its age. Jbh ^Talk 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If anything we should expand these criteria to cover AfC submitted drafts. The editor submitting the Draft intends for it to be included in mainspace. HAd they moved it to mainspace themselves we would A7 it. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • Support CSD#A criteria applied to any submitted draft, even if still in either draftspace or userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find all kinds of A7'able garbage in the depths of the orphaned articles categories from as far back as 2009 (and actually farther, since that's the earliest those things were tagged, many were created earlier). Just because we didn't have a review process back in the day doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to tag those things when we find them now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of crap; based on my experience with the "Random article" button I'd estimate 10000 old pages that could be speedy-deleted, and significantly more that don't meet any CSD but would certainly be deleted at AFD. A good portion of the CSD articles are G11. I don't think an extra 10 PRODs per day for 2 years would be an excessive burden. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support. While I agree with PMC's comment above in general, WP:SILENCE teaches us that for articles that have existed for years the assumption is generally in favor of keeping the article. So while a hard-and-fast rule makes no sense considering that some articles might actually have not received any edits for years, in most cases admins should decline speedy requests for old articles except in the most obvious cases. We still don't need an AFD for a 2008 article about some teenager's high school band though. In the end, I would suggest adding some advisory language to the policy that admins should consider an article's age in their decision and send all but the most obvious cases to AFD instead. On a side note, please do not make this discussion about applying A-criteria to drafts again. This has been rejected multiple times now and if you really want this, start a separate RFC. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For another thread, yes, but A* criteria to apply to *submitted* drafts is a new idea that I think has strong merit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy - your extremely narrow reading of CSDs and inexperience in Draft management strain the credibility of your statements. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, that is all of rude, unfair, and inaccurate. SoWhy is a very experienced old Wikipedian with interests more wider than yours. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC). Maybe “old” is not literally correct, he claims to be a jurist, which explains his long term considering wise-style commenting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) WP:SILENCE states that silence is the weakest form of consensus, and that it can be interpreted in a number of different, contradictory ways. The fact that nobody speedy-tagged a given junk article doesn't mean that a consensus exists to keep it. It could mean that nobody ever saw it in the recent changes queue, nobody cared to look at it, nobody knew enough to decide, or any number of other things. Per WP:SILENCE, "Wikipedia is huge and our editors' time is limited." A lack of prior attention does not automatically mean that something passes our notability criteria - it just means that the project is so big that things fly under the radar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

    Actually, we agree on that. Often such old articles will have had edits by multiple experienced editors and if all of them did not consider the article speedy-worthy, then it might be better to err on the side of caution. Examples from my own experience include Confederación Empresarial de Sociedades Laborales de España (kept at the AFD that followed), C2 Education (PROD that followed was contested by experienced editor, Softlavender), Sheffield One (multiple edits by experienced editors, including three current admins) and Andrew Cope (multiple edits by experienced editors, including five current admins). Of course, if the article has not received such edits, time is irrelevant. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A number of those edits are automated edits like DAB fixing or category adjustments, meaning the editor in question likely wasn't even looking at the article or judging its quality. And, sorry, but nowhere in our CSD criteria is there an exception for "articles which have been edited by experienced editors" anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

My point is that (non-automated) edits by multiple experienced editors usually indicates that they read the article and did not consider it worthy of speedy deletion, thus also indicating that speedy deletion is not the "obvious" path to take. Per the actual wording of the policy, speedy deletion should only occur "in the most obvious cases" though. The examples I mentioned above have actual content-based edits by experienced editors, indicating that they (at the time) felt the article is worth existing. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose basically per PMC. I don't see why it should be harder to deal with obvious trash just because it has hung around undetected for a long time. Reyk _YO! 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any narrowing of A7/A9 based on time. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• The problem with old articles isn't the time they've existed; it's the number of revisions they've had. For an article with many revisions, it's often better to take to AfD anyway, for a somewhat more permanent result, rather than spend 20 minutes digging through diffs to see if there's something keep-able, when you may have to just turn right around and spend another 20 minutes on BEFORE anyway. But these criteria already set such an exceedingly low bar that I don't see an obvious reason to lower it further. If it can be easily verified that every revision of an article meets A7/9, then we're still saving community time by getting rid of if with only one or two people in involved, rather than potentially dozens. GMG^talk 12:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment as a separate point not in response to any specific comment, while PROD of newly-created articles often doesn't work because a POV-promoting editor that created the article can decline it, this is much less frequent for old crap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as it just seems to cause more work. An old article with prod on it will probably get no attention from anyone, so there won't really be a benefit. However I would not support admins unilaterally deleting pages under A7 or A9 without nominations, as it reduces the chance for revision old checking or just ignoring claims of importance that were there. Are there any examples of old articles eligible for A7 that should better have been AFD'd or prodded? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per PMC, nothing else to add. Still, I trust SoWhy, particularly when it comes to A7, and would heartily endorse adding a line to the effect of Old articles with significant history should probably be considered through AfD instead. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Old articles that meet speedy deletion criteria are not that uncommon. We should not give extra privileges to articles that have managed to fly under the radar. However, Amory's suggested text would be a reasonable addition (and probably consistent with common practice already). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• My initial suggestion clearly isn't happening any time soon; if the volume of old crap feels substantially lower in 2020 I may float the idea again then. The suggestion of adding a comment to A7 Old articles with significant history should probably be considered through AfD instead. may still find a consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

X2 criterion

What is the status of the content translation tool cleanup? Anecdotally I haven't seen this used in quite some time (maybe a year or so ago I deleted a few pages tagged with this), but I'm not sure what the people most involved in this think. I'm pinging the two users I can think of as most active in this cleanup, @S Marshall: and @DGG:. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I remember it well – this discussion was taking up a lot of space on the Administrators' Noticeboard for a long time: first all the articles on this list were going to be deleted straight off, then they were going to be converted to drafts and then deleted... Various deadlines came and went, and in the end no mass action was taken. I think No such user's comment at the very end of the thread had it about right, and I wouldn't want to see the issue raked up again at this stage. Happy to see X2 go: Noyster (talk), 16:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have nothing to add to that comment, except that I'm happy that the matter silently went archived from AN without action (it was poorly thought out from the outset), and that I'm also happy to see X2 go. No such user (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• My main activity was in trying to rescue the 20% or so pages that seemed notable, and were translated from a language I could attempt to deal with or which could be easily corrected from readily available English source, & trying to at least indicate the even greater number which seemed worth working on but for which I had not the ability. There are some topics and languages where aa WP article is in such a stereotyped format that a machine translation is a reasonable start, but this has to be judged by actually looking at the translation and the original, and atthe sources. The situation was not an emergency, and should not have been treated as one. We should remove X2 also, and I thik we know nbetter than to try again a project that involves deleting articles without reading them. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Mathglot: as another major contributor to the cleanup. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Applying A9 to podcasts?

I'm wondering what you all thinkb about applying CSD A9 to podcasts. I think blatantly non-notable podcasts fall under the spirit of A9, but I can see how from a different perspective someone might say A9 applies only to musical content. What do you think, and maybe A9 should be rewritten to apply to all video and audio recordings? --Pstanton (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you ask me, A7 and A9 are redundant, but I think the spirit of them covers podcasts. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. Why are all the other specifications of no indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) deleted under A7, but musical recordings deleted under A9? Natureium (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A9 has the additional specification that the artist doesn't have an article, which isn't found in any of the A7 categories. I suppose we could fit that into A7 but the wording might be a bit awkward. Hut 8.5 10:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the criteria. A9 specifically does not apply to other forms of creative media, so no, it doesn't apply to podcasts. However, if you read the material linked by webcontent, aka Wikipedia:Notability (web), you'll find that [w]eb content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Emphasis mine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd summarize podcasts under A7 (web) as well, although like with A9, if the podcast is made by someone who has an article, WP:ATD tells us to merge/redirect there instead. That's the reason A9 exists separately, to avoid people tagging recordings by notable artists which can and should be redirected/merged instead. Regards SoWhy 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes podcasts would all fall under A7, and so could be deleted if that applies. Many podcasts will have notability independent of their creators though, so A9 seems quite wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting G13-eligible pages

Hi, does a page need to be tagged G13 tag before it can be deleted or can an admin just delete it outright if it's eligible? I ask because I've been tagging and waiting for others to delete but I've noticed some admins just delete them instantly. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: This page should probably say it explicitly, but if admins are sure that a page qualifies for any criterion, then there is no need to tag it - see "How to do this" at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion Administrators can delete such pages on sight. In practice, I know we often do tag the more subjectove one's for a second opinion, but if we are sure, then there is no need to add an extra level of bureaucracy. SmartSE (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to note Anarchyte, in AFAIK all cases of CSD, the tag doesn't actually have anything to do with the deletion itself. It's just categorizing pages by eligibility so that they're easier to find by reviewing admins. This is in contrast to PROD and BLPPROD, where the tag is itself material to the deletion process. The only exception to this would be G7 where the only request from the author is a tag, but any request would do. It just happens to come in the form of a CSD template. GMG^talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree if an admin had a good reason to believe that a page is eligible for speedy deletion I see no reason for them to need to wait for someone to tag it first. Also, G13 seems to be a fairly straightforward criteria so it should not be difficult for an admin to know if it applies.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone! I always thought a page had to be tagged before it could be deleted (except G3, G11, G12, and similar). I'll continue to tag A7s and such because I think a page's author should know why and how to fix notability issues but I won't bother tagging G13s in the future. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: If you find a page that is G13 eligible and you're not an admin, go ahead and nominate it. The worst that could happen is you push the date for re-nomination down the road 6 months because you acted hastily. Some editors believe that "trivial" edits don't reset the G13 clock, however as the operator of the primary mover of G13 nominations I tend to take the more conservative view "6 months unedited means 6 months unedited". I would also note that the templates for AFC also bear out the more conservative view of the rule. There's nothing preventing an admin from stumbling into a page and deleting it outright. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support people leaving all normal cases of G13 deletions, which are housekeeping regardless of content, for User:HasteurBot. That bot does the checks, and posts well worded notifications. Individuals tagging and deleting G13 manually are not saving anyone time or improving on any process. If HasteurBot has problems or room for improvement, tell its owner. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy for the bot to do nominations but when a human does them the Admin knows the human looked at them. When reviewing G13able I tag G2, G11 etc where applicable to close off the REFUND of inappropriate pages. I also tag non-saveable Drafts I find that had a bot edit or DAB fix or non-free file removal automated stuff that did not improve the page but pushed off the date from HaseurBot's point of view. That is allowed by the G13 wording and has never been declined. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's possibly OK, but when you do a manual G13 tagging due to a preceding bot edit, does the author get the pre-G13 warning notification? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot does not notify many page creators and there would be no month ahead nomination in the case I describe. The creator gets notification of the nomination. Presumably the bot notofies some creators and then the page gets a nominal edit and not deleted. So nothing is perfect. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: In the typical case, bot drops a "Your draft will soon be eligible for CSD:G13" notice at approimately 5 months unedited. The task only runs over pages that are in the Articles for Creation based on memership in Category:AfC submissions by date (and it's subcategories) that are in Old Draft space (Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/) or Draft Namespace. Pages that are in the Draft namespace that don't have even one AFC submission banner are never considered by HasteurBot. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It is annoying for admins to just delete pages with G13 without notifying or having the page tagged for others to see if it is worth rescuing. When these pages are undeleted on request, it is then not clear that it went through G13, and extra dummy edits are needed to avoid it being redeleted immediately. So I agree that User:HasteurBot should handle it, or failing that another user nominates it, at least that gets an extra eye on whether the page is worth preservation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• In all normal cases doing single-handed CSD deletions is a very dangerous practice. I've been doing over a thousand deletions a year for many years, and I have a 2 or 3% error rate at speedy--I think there are a few admins who are somewhat more accurate, but 1% is about the human limit. Two people looking at a deletion is much better. Some admins have been known to have biases or not-standard views, and requiring 2 people is a necessary check which has the merit of reducing conflict and confrontation. There are sometimes emergency cases, there are sometimes utterly trivial errors to fix. But for anything substantive there should be two people.

I would especially apply this to G13s. Whether a G13 is appropriate is not mechanical--I have come across G13s where the draft can instead be immediately accepted as an article. Relying on undeletion on request doesn't deal with the possibility that someone other than the original editor may want to rescue it. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone moved a disambig to a main space article would that be an a3?

Someone termed a disambig Cosmic energy (disambiguation) to a redirct to and copied the disambig material to Cosmic energy (disambiguation).

Does that qualify as an a3? Or any other kind of speedy delete? TantraYum (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Decided to AfD it, if it meets speedy delete, please come along and do it TantraYum (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ask at WT:RM. It’s the RM people who care about DAB pages. It looks to me like an attempt at a WP:CONCEPTDAB. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

How to respond to repeated re-creation post-speedy

• Draft:Eyu Kassa for example. Already G11-ed twice, recreated again. I notice because I auto-watchlist what I tag. It has been created by a registered user, but recreations are by an IP. What should I do to alert admins to the repeated recreations post G11? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  When you tag it, also add {{salt}}. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Does G13 apply to "userspace draft" tagged pages?

Question from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Captain-tucker/Emma Hunton.

Does the {{userspace draft}} tag make a userpage an AfC page? Should it? User:Hasteur? I think if not, the tag should not create the AfC big blue “submit” button. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not. The criterion is clear ... any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace .... {{userspace draft}} is not equivalent to {{AFC submission}}. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you please stop with this bloody annoying unreadable minimum contrast failing font colour. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

On a review of the many pages in categories of userpage drafts dating back many years, I think they need to be cleared. Either by expanding G13, or applying {{Inactive userpage blanked}} to the lot, subject to the same age and activity criteria of G13. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

{{userspace draft}} merely designates something as a draft in the userspace. Either all "drafts" in the userspace should be eligible for deletion, or not; doing it based on which arbitrarily bear a purely descriptive template (as opposed to one that explicitly places it within the AfC process and thereby its regulation) is inappropriate. Furthermore, the distinction between a userspace and a draftspace draft would also largely be lost. I would oppose such an expansion of the criteria and I believe such a widening has been shot down at least once in the past. That aside, the button in question makes it convenient for authors to induct pages into the AfC process, if they desire, so I would oppose removing it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I would call that a !vote for blanking most of them using {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Most of them being forgotten drafts of very dubious notability. I would recommend every reviewer to decide between (1) Any applicable CSD criteria, starting with G11 then U5; (2) blanking; (3) moving to mainspace if OK; or (4) leave it alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral in regard to such pages remaining as is or being blanked then tagged with {{inactive userpage blanked}} (the pros and cons of obfuscating the content are finer points I don't desire to address). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Few items: CSD is a bypass that we have agreed that given certain circumstances a MFD nomination succeeding is a foregone conclusion. Usersapce drafts are not currently in scope for G13. Displaying the "Submit for AFC review" button when a user uses the Userspace draft is a good thing as it potentially makes userspace work have a path that could lead to mainspace. The perenial argument of "Something needs to be done with the reams of stale content in draft space" is a good one and when a widely sourced crystal clear consensus (preferably hosted at Village Pump) that has sollicited WT:UP, WT:CSD, WT:DRAFT to get feedback then something could be done. Until then any consensus discussions here run the risk of being violently overturned when someone gets upset about it. Hasteur (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why we should waste our time cleaning up such pages? They are not indexed and no normal reader will ever see them. WIth the backlogs, especially at AFC, as huge as they are, should we really add more work to the backlogs? On a side note, I myself have a couple of userspace drafts on my to-do list that I have been meaning to finish for 8-9 years now. They never bothered anyone but me. And I'm sure I will get to them soon... Regards SoWhy 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the maxim that volunteers should not tell other volunteers how to choose to volunteer their time. I agree that fiddling with the never viewed old userspace drafts of inactive users is a low value task. If others really want to look for rough gems there, and bury the dust while at it, I much prefer that they use {{inactive userpage blanked}}, because there is far less harm done if done with error, than if done with deletion, and because deletion is a high cost process not justified by the low value of the task. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. Also ditto SoWhy. I guess they can be blanked with {{inactive userpage blanked}} -- but what's the point if there's no way someone can find it without searching userspace? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @SoWhy: Some people like writing FAs, some people like resolving copyright issues, some people like trolling the DramaBoards for the misery and suffering of other wikipeidans, and some people like crossing off backlogs. The collective wiki-We don't have to do anything. Either the pages will be actioned or they won't. If it offends you that much, don't think about it. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC) PS: Don't edit under the unfluence of a tasty adult beverage kids. It' makes your witty remarks less.... witty
• If someone is inactive (never coming back), why would we keep their content in that state at all? Either promote it to draftspace if it's at least somewhat workable, or if its total trash CSD it and be done with it. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Disruptive attitude. How do you know they are not coming back? Will your deletion of their notes be unwelcoming to them when they do return? If they meet WP:RIP we do not delete their subpages, we archive at most. Promoting to mainspace without a champion who actually cares is detrimental to mainspace. Sending to draftspace is just a slow route to deletion, draftspace has no advantages except in keeping the inept out of mainspace. Total trash CSD-worthy should be CSD-ed per applicable criteria regardless of author activity. In your real life workplace, do you make a habit of cleaning up others' desks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying, if it's good enough for mainspace, there's no reason to not put it there, caretaker or not. In Draftspace, if it's at least not trash, it can be worked on easier than in some random user's userspace. If they come back, they see a redirect to their original content/topic, if we could salvage it. If it's totally unsalvageable, they possibly were WP:NOTHERE to begin with. As for "cleaning up others' desks", we are not a webhost. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Extending R2 to Portal namespace

We already have P1 so we may extend it to redirects. R3 already covers the Portal namespace, but R2 is only for redirects from the (Main) namespace. I propose that we extend R2 criterion to redirects from the Portal namespace. This would avoid unnecessary MfD bureaucracy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So change to read: Cross Namespace Redirects: This applies to redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main and Portal namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. "See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and Category:Cross-namespace redirects." ?

• Support Portals, which are linked from mainspace, should not link into Draft space, which is likely going to happen quite a bit as the Portal clean up continues (assuming the whole name space survives). Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, not frequent, and portal pages are sometimes redirected cross-space to article space. I generally oppose moving portals to draft space, as they require their entire subpage structure to be moved around. It is much better to use Category:Portals under construction instead of moving to draft space. —Kusma (t·c) 21:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Kusma. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - A portal may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike a WikiProject, however, it is meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution (from Wikipedia:Portal). Thus, a case may be able to be made for redirects from the portal space to the projectspace. Also per Kusma. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: what is projectspace? wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

​ The "Wikipedia" namespace, see Wikipedia:Project namespace. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: the criterion actually explicitly forbids tagging redirects to projectspace. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Amorymeltzer is correct, however, on this occasion it was my intention to convey that redirecting a portal to the draft or userspace (i.e. any space outside the mainspace or portalspace) would be arguable under the current description provided about portals (whereas it is not for mainspace pages which are intended, in essence, solely for readers). SoWhy alludes to another good point that, currently, the userfication or draftification of portals without the consensus of a deletion venue is deleting a title out-of-process. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes the wording I posted would preclude a Portal->mainspace redirect. We need better wording than. Category:Portals under construction does nothing to hide the Portal from public view, unless I'm missing something, its basically a maintenance tag. Now if the page was tagged at the top with a big UNFINISHED DRAFT box that would be better. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have no problem with having a box on top of portals under construction. That could also include warning against linking to the unfinished portal from mainspace and portal space. —Kusma (t·c) 08:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. Such a change makes only sense iff the Portal namespace survives at all and there is consensus that portals should be moved to Draft-space to be worked on. At this time, there is consensus for neither. If this changes, a change of CSD to address redirects left by legitimate moves to Draft-space can be considered. Regards SoWhy 14:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Though *most* XNR to Portals aren't *good*, this is not the realm of speedy deletion to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Request to change HasteurBot implementation regarding Promising Draft template

[1]. Just a FYI at this time, but I have personally opposed the this request as there appears to have been no consensus for this and think this is a very bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)