I had asked about this in the G13 expansion discussion above but there was not any real discussion, so since the discussion was now closed in favor of changing G13, I propose a small amendment:

This applies to any pages in the draft namespace, as well as any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace, that have not been edited (excluding bot edits) in over six months. This excludes articles moved to draft or user namespace without prior discussion or request by the article's creator, unless the page was eligible for speedy deletion under another criterion before the move.

The reasoning is fairly clear. Page movers and admins can move articles to draft or user space without any real oversight since redirects will not be created, i.e. without a second pair of eyes checking the move (as would be the case with R2 taggings of redirects created by such moves). There are 400+ such moves this month alone (cf. database query). With the current unrestricted wording, these pages become eligible for G13 deletion solely because of the namespace and age reasons, thus allowing admins to speedy delete articles that they wouldn't have been allowed to speedy delete in article space. TL;DR: If the article was not eligible for speedy deletion while in mainspace, it shouldn't become eligible just by moving it to draftspace. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If nobody has noticed the page move in six months, perhaps that is an indication the page isn't that important? And if the only problem is a lack of checks and balances, maybe we can get a bot that lists all draftifyings so they can be checked? All in all, I am not convinced that a further restriction is necessary or helpful. If page movers and admins abuse their powers to delete pages that shouldn't be deleted, we should talk to them, not make our rules more complicated. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody has noticed the page move in six months, perhaps that is an indication the page isn't that important? That's the kind of wrong thinking that was the basis for the opposition to the change, and apparently ignored by the closer admin. According to the new interpretation, all old draft should now be deleted, no matter their quality. Diego (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are thousands of pages that get (almost) no views for months at a time, for various reasons, for example because they are only about specialized subjects or they are orphans. That does not make them "unimportant" (how is that an objective criterion btw?). And since when is "not important" a reason for speedy deletion in any namespace? The problem is also not abuse here: There is (unfortunately) consensus that pages may be moved to draft unilaterally and there is now apparently consensus that once there and untouched, that's all it takes to speedy delete them, so both the mover and the deleting admin might very well acting in good faith. That does not change the result though, i.e. that articles are made eligible for speedy deletion that otherwise would not be. My point is this: What is not eligible in mainspace, should not become eligible just by moving. Otherwise, gaming the system becomes all too easy. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I view this as more like a PROD type process, only that it takes six months instead of seven days. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the process that has been approved doesn't require any kind of notification nor third party review, unlike PROD. Diego (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a draft guidance text at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification that should serve well to restrict unilateral draftification to obviously ok scenarios. I think it is important that this gets written up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree of course but not necessarily mutually exclusive, no? Regards SoWhy 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not some kind of template to apply to draftified mainspace pages? A big orange notice at the top of the page saying something like "This draft was moved from mainspace by PERSON for REASON (user request, post-AfD, preserve from CSD, whatever), please take that into consideration when tagging for deletion." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then what? The problem is, with no rules against draftifying without discussion and no rules against deleting such draftified pages, the policy currently actually allows people to send pages to draft space, wait six months and then delete them, without any oversight whatsoever. And of course the main question remains: Why should a page become eligible for speedy deletion just because a single editor decided to move it to draftspace and nobody noticed for six months? Regards SoWhy 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then the person who is about to G13 it goes "Boy howdy this was draftified by so-and-so for such-a-reason, I wonder if it is actually mainspace-appropriate and I should move it back to mainspace." The template should slot any such page into a maintenance category ("Draftified articles", say) so that it can be reviewed (and possibly restored) by anyone at any time, like any of the other backlog categories. That would provide the possibility of extra layer of scrutiny prior to the G13 kicking in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I often think that our discussion by experienced editors needs to take into account what new people actually think rather than what we as experienced editors think that they think. Too often it becomes fights between people on different sides of the "inclussionist/deletionist" spectrum arguing with new users as a proxy over what is really our viewpoint as to what we think Wikipedia should be.
  I say this because while I often see the argument that deleting after 6 months is biting a new user, I don't really think any of them would be surprised to see it deleted then. Hotmail (remember those days!) used to delete the entire email account after 90 days of not logging in, and Yahoo and Gmail also had similar policies of varying lengths. It is often just a fact of life that most people by now realize that stuff you put on the internet on a major site that you don't own isn't necessarily going to stay there forever. If a user hasn't logged in for 6 months, I doubt they would be surprised that on a website anyone can edit, something has happened to their article, and since it hadn't been touched as a draft, has been deleted, but they can get it back.
  This oppose is weak and would naturally be a neutral, because I don't have strong opinions on the draft space: I only care about making things easier for the editors who work there because it is a tough place to work. In my mind, the whole point of the just closed RfC was to make the bureaucracy regarding G13 less arcane. This seems counterproductive to that goal, so I oppose it because I don't really see a compelling reason for the need per my above musings about making this about actual new users and not about our internal ideological things. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Oppose If the page is sent to draftspace as a result of a single editor, I think putting a single delay of G13 (i.e. 6 months up to G13, stay, then 6 more months) is reasonable. As the result of a consensus discussion (like AFD) then I think the straight 6 months is reasonable. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nothing new here not brought up and rejectsd in the G13 RFC. This "except this and that and check for another thing" program just obstructs the process designed to streamline the deletion of junk. It's already pretty obvious which pages are moves from Mainspace to Draftspace because they usually have cats and problem tags and stuff on the talk page. Further, G13 deletion involves notification to the page creator. It's not like this is done in secret. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this would essentially allow any draft sent to draftspace from mainspace to either hang around forever, or clog up MfD for routine cleanup. If a draft hasn't been edited in six months, which is an awfully long grace period, we can probably safely presume that it's truly abandoned and no one has interest in resuming work on it. And on the few occasions that presumption was incorrect, G13 deletions are restored for the asking. This is a solution in search of a problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The move/G13 combo is broken -- backdoor deletion without any oversight. If being in draft space makes a page more vulnerable to deletion then obviously one has to avoid draft space or move pages out of it. Let's just make it simple and get rid of draft space altogether. It's not working and so it's time to roll back the creep. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson: With respect, I can think of only 2 cases in which a page would be sent from Mainspace to draftspace. Either via a AFD (for which the community consensus felt it was not worthy), or via a New Page Curation action (WP:NPP). As I indicated above if it's the page curation action I think 1 year of unedited is a reasonable time to remedy the problem. If it's AFD, 6 months is a reasonable time frame as a community consensus (not just one editor) saw problems with the page and an Administrator enacted the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A G13 deletion of a page that started in mainspace involves a NPP making the decision, the creator accepting the move (doing nothing to protect their creation), a G13 nominator (maybe a bot) and an Admin to actually delete the page. And after all that WP:REFUND is easy. That is a whole lot of eyes on something that is likely useless someone spent 2 minutes to create in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of that is certain. There is no rule against moving old, unwatched articles to draftspace whose creators have long gone. There is no rule that the person moving and the person deleting have to be two different people. And there is nothing in the current wording of G13 that exempts such pages from speedy deletion. Considering how many articles are already deleted by admins applying the speedy deletion policy far too liberally as it is, it's no stretch to imagine some admins patrolling G13 will delete such "drafts" liberally without caring where they came from. If you agree that such move/deletions should not go unreviewed, where is the harm in actually writing it down? Regards SoWhy 20:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, someone could go through all the months and effort to take most of those steps themselves to some old page no one is watching ... or they could take a few seconds to redirect the offending page to some other page, an act no one needs to approve. Seriously, this assumption of bad faith against editors and assumption people are out to destroy valuable content is a little old. Legacypac (talk)

Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast rule what "valuable content" actually is. I'm merely stating a known fact when I say that there are more than enough editors who have biases against one kind of articles or another ("cruft" etc.) so someone actually doing what I described above is probably not a matter of "if" but as matter of "when". Merely saying an article should go through the proper processes is not an assumption of bad faith however. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you accept blanking and redirecting as viable solution for unwanted content, why on earth do you need the G13 and what's the need for permanent deletion of the pages? No one answered that question in the RfC, even though it was one of the major points of contention.

Reading the history of a blanked page is way easier than a WP:REFUND, but now you've imposed a huge burden on anyone who wants to review the actions of a serial deleter. Diego (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposal doesn't make the abandoned draft any less abandoned. WP:REFUND is available if the author regains an interest in developing the draft to a mainspace-ready level. Cabayi (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How can it be an abandoned draft if it was an article before someone else moved it to draftspace? After all, don't we tell editors that don't own the articles they created? So how could they "abandon" them? Regards SoWhy 08:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at 100s of pages moved from Mainspace to Draftspace and then abandoned. With rare exceptions they are not appropriately referred to as "articles" for they lack things we expect in articles like sources and/or a claim of notability and/or meaningful content. Seriously SoWhy, I know you are an Admin but your continued harping on this G13 topic and repeated failure to properly interpret consensus (like claiming there was no consensus for G13 expansion when it was over 70% in favor) and lack of support for existing policy around G13 makes me wonder about your judgement. Your posts are getting disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you are somewhat missing the point of my objections. So instead of attacking me personally, why not answer my questions above: How exactly can someone "abandon" an article if they don't own it?

I accept that the community has decided to delete old drafts (without any need) but I don't think they accepted it to be a way to circumvent the deletion policy. We have clear policy in place on how to handle problematic articles, mainly the deletion policy and the editing policy. There are processes described there in length on what can be done or not done to handle such articles. I am merely arguing that these processes should not be circumventable by a single editor's decision. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy I think you're reading "abandoned" as an action of the author where I'm writing about the state of the draft. I take your point about WP:OWNership of drafts. Would it help to specify some good practice in relation to draftifying? Perhaps ensuring that the draft is tagged for a couple of projects to minimise the chances of the draft becoming abandoned & maximise its chances of improvement? (Putting the suggestion into practise for our poster child draft at Draft talk:The Octopus Frontier) Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking about different things here, Cabayi. I was not talking about pages created as drafts that were abandoned - here the word "abandon" makes some sense. As I said elsewhere, I believe draftifying should not happen without permission of the creator or community discussion and I suggested making this a rule but that was not supported. The problem keeps being the lack of oversight when someone draftifies an article without discussion and no amount of taggings will alleviate this because in most cases the only time people really notice such pages is when deletion is discussed. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:--Whilst surely there are fundamental differences between your's and SoWhy's interpretation of rules and/or intentions et al in these areas, I think he's far from disruptive--a word quite strong.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy:--As much as I appreciate your efforts and think the concerns to be valid enough, I think you are looking for solutions to problems which will be prima-facie rare or absent.I think NPPReviewers and/or page-movers use their discretionary power judiciously enough. Also, I am of an opinion that G13-eligible drafts should not be mass-deleted just because the policy states so and the reviewing admin must expend some thoughts as to possible notability etc.Also, since you seem to have a good technical know-how, is it possible to create a bot that maintains a list of pages moved from Article namespace to Draft namespace; other than by the creator.That would give us a rough idea about the numbers!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godric on Leave: Running the query I mentioned above without restrictions will give you (after some time because the tables are quite large) 20,700+(!) moves to Draftspace without redirect since December 2013 (and another 4,400+ [https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/21136 with redirects). I'm not a bot creator but it shouldn't be too hard to create a list based on that query, filtering out the few moves by the creators. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy:--Will be shortly taking a look! Thanks!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy, as I've mentioned before: I don't actually have firm opinions on draft space: I'm only placing this here for context, but we speedy deleted 24,895 articles from 1 January 2017 to 1 April 2017. That's almost as much in one quarter as articles moved to draft in four years. Assuming deletion rates have stayed about the same, we've speedy deleted 375,000 articles since December 2013. That's roughly 3 draftifications for every 50 speedy deletions if I'm doing my math right. I'm happy to let people make of that what they wish :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: This is, unfortunately, an incorrect calculation because it assumes that such moves happened at the same rate for almost 4 years. The mass-moving of articles of draftspace only really started this year though, with 20,184 such moves (or ~80%) having been made in 2017 (at the time of this comment). This means the ratio of draftifying to speedy deletion was approximately 16,8% to 83,2% in 2017, i.e. more than 3 in 20 articles or 1 draftification for every 5 speedy deletions (based on 100,284 this year so far (careful, large query)). Regards SoWhy 10:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I updated the numbers above to match the numbers I just managed to pull from the database. Still pretty high. Regards SoWhy 11:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that update: makes sense. I was going off of the December 2013 rate, since we know that the deletion rate as a percentage of articles created has been about the same for the last six years. I think the 5:1 number is also significant for context, and thanks for providing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of G13 is to allow any mainspace article to be speedily deleted if it hasn't been edited for six months. Move it into the draftspace and immediately speedily delete it under G13. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, a move is a non-bot change. A page that has just been moved to draftspace won't be G13-eligible for 6 months. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: You seem to be very confused.

1. Abducting mainspace pages into Draft space for no other reason than it's 6 months old is 100% out of process and not supported by consensus. Once a page is in mainspace, it's generally accepted that is the permanant home (obviously barring CSD/NPP deciding it's not ready yet/AFD/etc).
2. Even if it were the case, moving the page back to Draft space is still a non-trivial action and as such resets the 6 month clock on G13 eligiblity.
3. Your entire thesis is based on bad faith actions of an editor to the level of pointy edits.

For these reasons I don't think your scenario could ever take place. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I am very confused, then maybe other people are too.

1. What I am seeing is that thousands of articles are being moved from the mainspace to the draftspace. Looking at the comments on some of the moves is not encouraging. They point to things like "poorly sourced" and "not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". It seems that articles are being BOLD-ly moved into the draftspace in circumstances where CSD does not apply and AfD might not succeed. An article on Taylor Swift's latest album gets moved to the draftspace. Admittedly, it is then moved straight back again with the comment "Completely out of consensus redirect. Album and release heavily verified by multiple reliable sources and easily passes WP:GNG. Send to AfD to gain consensus if desire deletion or gain consensus on talk." That would likely be my response if it happened to me.
2. G13 applies to pages that have not been edited. I accept your contention that "moving" qualifies as "editing", but if you could supply a link where this is explicitly stated, that would be great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link except WP:G13. I know the pages that started in mainspace and make it to G13 are almost all junk that should have been CSD'd but mercy was shown. I'm sure there is the occasional one that goes to Draft, gets fixed and returned to mainspace. Imposing the restriction asked for here creates an unreasonable burden on reviewers to confirm the page history (which is not always obvious) and might make bot work impossible. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. When we move pages from mainspace to draftspace, they usually sit there indefinitely. Until I see stats suggesting these pages will ever result in mainspace content, I'm opposed to using draftspace as an indefinite holding ground for content that met mainspace CSD criteria but were moved to allow someone a second chance to build them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I think you misread my proposal. I proposed exempting pages that did not meet any speedy deletion criteria before moving because the move itself should not be all that changes that. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Then the article shouldn't be moved out of mainspace? The only reason an article should be moved out of mainspace is because it doesn't meet our standards for articles. If that's the case, we shouldn't hold it indefinitely in draft. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articlespace has some of the richest/most expansive CSD rules possible. If editors move a page that is CSDable into draft space to dodge the CSD, I'd give a very critical eye to the action as it seems like gaming the system in order to get the page out of less than receptive hands. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: We agree on that. Unfortunately, many others do not (see this discussion for example and there seems to be consensus that it's perfectly okay to move articles to draftspace even when they do not meet speedy criteria. My whole proposal here was to at least exclude those articles from G13 deletion (that's why the proposal reads "unless the page was eligible for speedy deletion under another criterion before the move" at the end). Regards SoWhy 13:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, editors with malicous intent to delete valuable content but who don't have the gumption to use CSD or AFD surely have been moving thousands of pages to draftspace in the hopes no one notices and with prophetic insight that G13 would be expanded this week and the hope someone would blindly delete the pages. Since some editors have convinced themselves wonderful content is being lost from this vast covert effort I propose a solution. Interested editors should patrol Draftspace for quality content! It turns out it takes just one editor to promote a page from draft, just like it takes one editor to demote a page to draft. So go forth and find great comtent to promote. As we clear the junk it is getting easier and easier to find good drafts. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this seems like a solution in search of a problem (or at least, a solution so such an improbable problem that we have it already covered by WP:IAR). In my experience, most moves from mainspace to draftspace are by new page patrollers that see some hope for a new article that is just too poorly developed or marginal to be suitable in mainspace. If someone starts moving clearly good pages to draft space, someone will notice pretty quickly and they will be blocked. SoWhy mentions admins and page movers, but of one of them turns evil it seems like they could come up with much more exciting ways to mess our stuff up. See also: WP:CREEP, WP:BEANS. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - G13 should be deprecated; I oppose all other proposals to change it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on implementing an edit filter to track all mainspace to draft moves? This would allow interested admins such as myself and SoWhy to patrol the recent moves to ensure proper articles aren't being moved to draftspace. I see no reason to adjust G13 though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tagging edit filter would be useful so other procedure wonks like myself can also help reverse improper draftifcation (ideally by Technical Move Requests). Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godric has requested a bot to keep a list of such moves at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Keeping_track_of_cross-space_moves..... Don't know which is the better solution, maybe both, the bot could just filter through all the tagged pages without having to resort to querying the database for all moves. I still don't understand though why these pages should be eligible for G13 if they were not eligible for any other criteria before the move... Regards SoWhy 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy do you have data that moved pages were not eligible for CSD before being moved to Draft? I've looked at hundreds and most I've seen could easily have been CSD'd or BLPProd'd in mainspace and many could be CSD'd in Draftspace without G13. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems a good anti-crosspace move vandalism tool. I agree it doesn't require change to G13. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be some debate on the point, I call the question: Does the change described in this revision accurately represent the currently established policy?

CC Interested editors (Doc James—Bilby—Tavix—Legacypac—Kudpung) as people who have inserted/reverted this diff and a user who seems interested. Hasteur (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support yes I believe this accurately reflects long standing actual practice as confirmed in the recent discussion linked in the first change. I do not see this as any kind of policy change although perhaps at some past time Admins were less aggressive at deleting the creations of socks and banned users. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
• Support This seems like a silly question to not support as this is the text of G5 itself. If while the XFD is progressing we discover the page is substantially the work of an editor who was subject to the a block or ban during the time of the creation we don't throw all our policies out the door. I would hope that the nominating user presents clear evidence showing how the user was supposed to be restricted and therefore why G5 is a slam dunk. I'd also expect the admin reviewing the G5 nomination to review and confirm the facts of the case. Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict × 2) @Hasteur: If you want this to be an actual RFC, please follow the steps at WP:RFC, i.e. add {{rfc|policy}} to advertise the RFC.

As for the question, I think the change is correct per WP:BMB because if you are banned, you are not allowed to edit, no matter how great your page is. However, this only applies in cases where the applicability of G5 was not known when the XFD was held. If people knew that the page was created by a banned user and they decided to keep it anyway, G5 does no longer apply. In practice, I can imagine few examples in which pages are still eligible for G5 after an XFD because usually in the course of such discussions substantial edits by others will have happened. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:BMB and the text of G5. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I haven't actually inserted/reverted the diff, but I must admit I was sorely tempted to revert this one. However, with one admin already merrily editwarring I thought it best to stay out of the fray. Yes, the cited diff not only reflects what I believe most admins have assumed anyway, including me, but it also appears to be a bit of text that was missing due to simply not having been timely updated. Anyone who claims it shouldn't be there is, IMO, simply Wikilawyering and possibly exploiting the lacuna to defend their own convictions vis-à-vis articles by blocked/banned editors. And that would be counterproductive to our hundreds of hours working at COIN, DRV, and SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• If the most recent XFD has explicitly decided to keep a G5 eligible page and the participants in that XFD discussions were aware that it was G5 eligible then it should not be deleted. In cases where the discussion was unrelated to the ban, G5 applies. (I just realised this is basically what SoWhy just said). —Kusma (t·c) 12:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No - the edit summary for that revision links to this discussion which covers one particular case in which G5 was used in this way and then endorsed by discussion. One-off cases don't make good tests of policy. Generally speaking, if a page has survived a deletion discussion, it has the endorsement of the community and so G5 no longer applies. Perhaps there should be a new criterion for deleting the contributions of editors who are later demonstrated to be undisclosed paid editors, but as far as I know there is no consensus yet that we should indiscriminately mass-delete UPE contribs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm concerned about two issues. The first is that I haven't seen instances where this has been applied, so it isn't clear that there is a need for the change. Are there instances where pages would have met G5, were created by an editor banned at the time, but where there was a need to delete them in spite of an AfD? (I'm very aware of the current discussion - in that case, the pages did not meet G5 anyway, so it isn't a great example). For a page to qualify, it would have to have been created by a banned editor, gone to AfD, and have had no significant edits by other editors while at AfD. If this is meant to reflect practice, how often is this practice being performed? However, even if there is a need, CSD is meant to be a quick alternative to uncontroversial deletions where there is no risk that the community would disagree with the decision. If the article has survived AfD, then the community has already considered the article and deemed that it should be kept. Accordingly, the reasons we override the community's decisions on an AfD are limited to legal (copyright or office actions) and purely technical (such as dependent on deleted pages). This provision is neither. It seems better to respect the community's decision in these rare cases by sending it back to AfD, prodding the article, or using some other slightly longer but more transparent process than CSD. And if none of those are suitable, and it absolutely and uncontroversially should be deleted, rely on an one-off exception under IAR.- Bilby (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the paid editing issue is a distraction here, as I mentioned at the DRV. It involves WP:BMB and the fact that as described at the deletion review, nominating your own articles for AfD could easily become a loophole to exploit here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the purpose of a ban is to state categorically that it is not worth the community's time to review that editor's work because it is very unlikely to be acceptable. However, once the community has (perhaps unwisely) spent the time to review the work and found it acceptable, it would be backwards to delete it unless there is an actual problem with it. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if I circumvent my ban, create something good and the community (unwittingly!) keeps it at XFD, it should be kept even if it was in violation of the ban and the banning policy says "all edits by banned users are forbidden, no matter how good"? Regards SoWhy 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That material improved Wikipedia, even if it was forbidden. The banning policy states that you shouldn't have made the edit in the first place, but deleting good material makes Wikipedia worse. However, if you want to quote fragments of that policy at each other, it also says that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I find troubling about the line of reasoning here, is that we have all seen AfDs happen where people show up, glance at the article, do a google search, say "lots of potential references" and !vote keep, saying that the topic is notable in theory. AfD is not cleanup.

This is about cleanup. This is about dealing with the page that actually exists, and is about carting away industrial waste that has been dumped into Wikipedia; it says nothing about whether the topic is notable or if a decent article could be generated.Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I actually understand you position and at one time I actually supported it as well. And for non-banned users I still do because the goal should indeed be to create a better encyclopedia if possible. However, while keeping such material might be achieving this goal in the short run, the encouragement for such editors to ignore bans will hurt the project in the long run. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately it comes down to a balancing act between the damage done by deleting an acceptable article and the damage done by weakening our banning policy. I believe that the proper venue for weighing these factors is a XfD discussion, not CSD. On a different note, Cabayi's and Hut8.5's positions below seem to be a workable compromise for this issue, that I can support as a second choice. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True and good point, however, won't any keeping of such an article not embolden other banned users? As for the last part, I think what Cabayi and Hut8.5 are saying (and what Kusma and I said above as well) is what most supporters of this proposal are agreeing with. Of course G5 - like any speedy criterion - does not apply if the possibility was discussed and explicitly rejected. This proposal is as far as I understand it only for cases where the eligibility for G5 was not known at the time of the XFD. Regards SoWhy 06:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, could this situation actually arise? If it is discovered before AfD, the article will be killed under G5. If it is discovered after, the commentators in the AfD couldn't have known anyway. So the only possibility is that it is discovered during, but in those cases we normally just speedy close the AfD and delete under G5 anyway. I suppose a really, really intense discussion would possibly be kept open even if the banned editor was found during it, but they always result in substantial changes to the article if things are that intense. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except where the block was known & mentioned prominently in the deletion discussion BEFORE the bulk of the keep !votes - as already specified by SoWhy & Kusma. Cabayi (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the article creator's status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion, oppose otherwise. If the creator is revealed as a sockpuppet of a banned user after the AfD then we are in basically the same situation as with newly discovered copyright violations, as new information proves the page qualifies for speedy deletion. Edits by banned users can be kept if adopted by other people but the fact a page survived but an AfD doesn't mean that has happened. Hut 8.5 18:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if I had a promotional sockfarm I'd have one of my socks nominate my facorate page for deletion with a really poorly written nom, then vote with my other socks, along with unwitting editors fooled by my bad nomination, to keep it. Far fetched? I bet this happens every week. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an impossible scenario. Most articles created by paid editors are borderline notable at best. Nominating them for AfD is a quick method of loosing your clients. It is far better for them to act as they do now and just stay under the radar. The vast majority of paid editing is never noticed. - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not impossible at all. Most AfDs get very low participation. All you need is one sock to nominate and the creator and another one or two to vote keep. This would protect pretty well against future AfDs for once Kept at AfD the page is unlikely to be AfD'd again and many voters just say keep or make procedural objections that it was recent kept before. The paid editors are far more modivated than us and it took me seconds to come up with this scenario. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't viable. By nominated an article you were paid to create you have two outcomes - one is that it is kept, which would save it from G5 if you are identified as a banned editor. However, it would still risk being deleted via something other than G5 - such as being renominated for AfD, prodded, or killed under IAR. However, if you fail, not only do you see the article deleted, but you can't recreate it as it would fall under G4. In which case you need to explain to your client that not only did you fail to keep the article, but you made it that much harder for them to create a new one. Try and recreate it anyway, and you are at risk of salting for repeated recreation. Alternatively, just do what they always do - throw away the account, don't draw any attention to yourself, and hope the article survives for a couple of days so you get paid and get the positive review. After that, who cares? You've been paid, and if it is deleted you just blame it on those evil Wikipedia admins. - 07:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Banned or blocked users (or paid socks) will find ways to get their articles into Wikipedia after they are banned. We can close the loop hole rather than continue to argue about this. See WP:BMB. If banned editors create good material that is no excuse to get around a ban or keep the article. Others can also create good material without the radioactive waste being unloaded into Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is a good thing to clean up industrial waste that has been dumped into Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Without it we leave a large loop hole. Paid editors can just AfD their own articles, use other socks to get it kept, and than if they are someday discovered the article is "protected". Agree with User:Cabayi Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has this ever occurred? - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to both of your questions... according to one source in the Orangemoody article, on at least some occasions they would nominate the article for deletion themselves, then extort the article subject, and then come here argue to "save" it with other socks. And who ever would have thought anyone could be that devious on such a scale? The floor has fallen off what paid editors might do to make money off WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't nominating articles in order to protect them from deletion. The rather over the top claim being made here is that paid editors will nominate what in almost all cases is a borderline-notable article in order to protect it, with the additional claim that this is may well happen every week. I don't mind if people want to support the proposal, but I wish the scenarios remained realistic. Nominating an article for AfD is far too risky a move to be a viable means of protecting it. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to orangemoody! They apparently found it a profitable enough strategy. I do agree with you, that the risk of this risk of this becoming a widespread way to game the system seems pretty low... but on the other hand who would have thought that black hat paid editing of Wikipedia would become such a viable marketplace that it gets written up in Time] and elsewhere? This is like taxes -- throw up a barrier and people are motivated to find a loophole. So it is worth closing it. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be a viable loophole before it is worth considering - Orangemoody was using AfDs as a threat, not as a means of protecting articles. I just get a tad frustrated when people throw up near-impossible scenarios without any evidence that they've ever occurred as justification for more restrictive rules. We need to avoid falling too far into a bureaucracy, and sometimes the best solution is just to keep things as they are with an IAR out if it is really needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by what you are writing. Orangemoody wanted to get paid for saving articles. Payday is saving articles from AfD - they actually nominated some. (Am I getting that wrong, or are you missing that?) Yes it is risky. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of Orangemoody's actions was that the articles were nominated for AfD in order to force subjects to pay so that he save it. However, the scenario being put forward here is banned editors nominating articles for deletion in order to protect the articles from being deleted under G5. They seem like two different situations. Either way, both would be incredibly rare, and I have never seen any evidence of a paid editor nominating an article they created for AfD in order to protect it, nor do I suspect has anyone else. The Orangemoody situation was a good case for using IAR, the lack of any other similar situations shows why we don't need to specifically allow for the faint possibility that they might one day occur.

The rhetoric around paid editing has become bad enough that we need to stay at least a little grounded when we look at the issues. - Bilby (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to keep the community grounded on this. I know you are view undisclosed paid editing as a serious thing; you were on of the first admins I saw indef somebody on their own authority for violating PAID and directly adding a lot of bad promotional content to WP. I went and looked at some point and you have done that three times.

We trust admins to prevent our community norms and processes from becoming a suicide pact. This gives discretion to admins to clean up these tires dumped in the forest. You may view the "industrial polluter" metaphor as overblown rhetoric but to me that is exactly what almost all UPE is - exploiting our openness to dump industrial waste here, that has nothing to do with the mission. (I write about that a bit on my userpage here if you have a minute). We do end up with these ugly piles of content created by serial SOCKers like the case that sparked this. We need admins to be able to use the mop to clean them up, lest the community spend yet more time in laborious processes when we could all be doing constructive stuff instead. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I clearly said that wrong. I have no problem with your view of paid editors and wasn't complaining about that. My problem is with people ascribing greater and more serious activities to paid editors, stretching the definition of paid editing, and overstating the extent of activities without evidence. How people feel about it is absolutely fine, and how they describe their feelings is absolutely fine, and not a concern at all - I have strong feelings about it as well, so why should I object to other people feeling similarly? This isn't the place for the wider discussion, but my concern is that I'm seeing people move further and further away from policy in how they act against paid editors, and as there are so few people working in the area, there is little effective oversight that can keep anti-paid editing activities within policy. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mu This is a nonsensical change, because nothing that is ever AfD'ed will have had "... no substantial edits by others." If the author AfD'ed something itself, G6 would have applied. If another editor placed an AfD template, that by itself is a substantial edit, leaving alone that in the process of an article being kept, there are typically many other substantial edits to the page being AfD'ed. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is placing a maintenance template really a "substantial" edit? After all, once the AFD is closed, the template will be removed and nothing will have changed. And it's not unheard for an article to come through AFD the same way it went in with no changes made by others. Of course, if people edit the article during the AFD to keep it, then G5 no longer applies. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could define 'substantial edit' as a term of art to exclude templates, but I would call nominating something for AfD pretty substantial. But so far, no one appears to be engaging with the restrictive nature of G5, in that if ONE good faith editor makes ONE substantial contribution, G5 is off the table anyways. Well, until the next time someone decides that eliminating a UPE product demands that Wikipedia's safeguards be eliminated for the sake of efficiency... Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This should be for non-controversial deletions. If an article has survived an AfD, then that cannot be the case. I realise that a deleted page can be re-created, but I am very reluctant to do so, as it goes against consensus. G5 is completely anomalous on this list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How bout we move them to a holding pen, perhaps in a distinct namespace? in order to allow them to be fundamentally rewritten, and remove the socking editor's name from the history. It gets rewritten on a new page, peer reviewed (perhaps, if that's necessary), moved to articlespace, and the original then G5'd. That would seem to square the circle- we get to keep any good works the sock might have done, whilst equally denying all recognition to the part they played in its creation. Slightly 1984 perhaps, but-. — fortunavelut luna 07:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is contrary to the CC BY-SA and GFDL licenses, which require every contribution to be attributed. Only if the article gets fully rewritten from scratch so that it is not derivative could you remove attribution, but then you don't need the original article for that. Diego (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the original article might give sources and other meta information. On the legal side of things one might argue that they would need to sue first and uncover their identity. Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a great holding pen for all these articles and it is deletionpedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with the proviso that there is an exemption if at the time of the AFD the fact of such article creation by a banned user was known Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a very small procedural change and I regret that so much volunteer time has to be spent on it. I assume, though not explicitly covered by the change, that it would also help avoid situations where, when a large G5-eligible sockfarm is detected, the articles at AfD at the time of detection are somehow exempt and survive longer than the rest of the lot (examples [1], [2]), despite being probably the worst. Rentier (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:BMB is at odds with G5 so there is a problem; if they are making good enough content, why not declare properly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:BMB. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:BMB Smallbones_(smalltalk)
• This is complicated. It has a history and a context, and I suggest that participants here should read Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3. The community needs a more effective means of dealing with prolific promotional sockfarms but I'm not sure expanding G5 is the best way to do it because that could have unintended side effects. I'd prefer to leave G5 as it is and enact X3: Cleanup of articles started by checkuser-confirmed prolific sockfarms. But what isn't an option is to do nothing. If surviving AfD makes a sockfarm-created article immune to G5, then what we're actually doing is creating an incentive for sockfarms to AfD their own articles with one hand and then !vote keep with their others.—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it accurately represents the currently established policy that "an editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances." Negating a ban by allowing contributions of banned editors to remain on the ground that they improve an article short-term encourages further abuse. Such abuse causes substantial long-term damage to the project and wastes resources that are better allocated elsewhere. Mduvekot (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. I completely understand the frustration over sockpuppets and paid editing farms, but (assuming the XFD process was not affected by any socking), G5 is no reason to override the decision to keep an AFD. If the community says the subject should stay, then it shouldn't matter who wrote it. Sro23 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the cases that triggered this the socks in question were involved in the XFD process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And socks are often involved in XfD, sometimes very obviously and sometimes harder to spot. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this would bypass the community consensus that was established at the given AfD in a way that doesn't happen with the other exemptions (except for G12, but then complying with copyright legislation is much more important as a countering factor than is the merit of enforcing the letter of one particular aspect of the ban policy). In practical terms, there are a variety of reasons that users get banned for, and the best course of action would be different in each case and most of the time deletion isn't needed anyway - for example, if the user was banned for behavioural reasons then this has no bearing on their content creation (and deleting the content just to enforce BMB is tantamount to cutting off the nose to spite the face), and if the user was known for contributing unreliable content, then that content can simply be edited away. However, I acknowledge that there is the problem of banned users creating articles on non-notable topics and then socking the AfD, and there has to be some solution in this case: I would support allowing the use of G5 on the condition that all the keep !votes in the AfD were made by socks of the banned user. – Uanfala 12:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not have a good ability to detect socks. CU is not pixie dust unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no silver bullet for detecting socks (and CU is, and should be, used only in a minority of SPIs), but in practice most of the time it's pretty clear if the participants in a given discussions are socks. And in the borderline cases, a second AfD is always an option. To restate my previous point more succinctly, if established editors have reached consensus that an article should be kept, then we shouldn't create loopholes to bypass it. Respecting community consensus is more fundamentally important to the project than the literal enforcement of an aspect of the ban policy. – Uanfala 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- with the exception that if the AfD specifically considered whether the ed. was banned and decided not to delete it , then a speedy on the same grounds would be against the prior consensus. My support is rather reluctant, because this is a problem for which there is no good solution--any way of handling it has its disadvantages. At this point we are under so much pressure from undeclared paid editing that we need to try this. It might work better. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We need to be clearer about deleting paid edits — implementing this proposal would be of major help. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible oppose. G5 is only for pages with no significant involvement by other editors; barring an AFD that gets closed as "no consensus" because nobody showed up, there's always significant involvement by one or more editors in keeping the article. Aside from copyright infringements and office actions (required for legal reasons), it's never for overturning the result of an AFD; the "normal" exceptions are all for things that are housekeeping to some extent. Moreover, if you read down a couple of lines, you'll see the following: These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. Hint: if the article's been kept at AFD, controversy is going to exist. If this gets enacted, this section is going to contradict itself — you couldn't ask for a more fruitful place for breeding disputes. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, with note - A CSD criteria should not overturn community consensus (like that which happens in an AfD). I do think, although, that when the banned/blocked status of the creator is discovered, that there should be another AfD, with a note that the creator is banned/blocked, so that a new consensus can be established. Also, closers of AfDs should take notice of the age of the accounts; if all of the accounts are below autoconfirmed status, then the AfD should probably not be closed. This would help prevent most socks from taking advantage of this "loophole". RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If a page has survived an AfD then there is consensus that it should exist, and almost certainly has non-trivial contributions by editors other than the original creator and their work should not be deleted without further discussion. Per RileyBugz, the newly discovered status of the creator would be grounds for another AfD if anyone desired it though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Depends what they were banned or blocked for. If it was for repeated underhand behaviour in articles, like sneaky vandalism and hoaxes, or referring to fictitious sources or misrepresenting sources, then any further articles by them would be under great suspicion despite having survived AFD and should be eligible for G5. If it was because they couldn't control their argumentative tendencies in discussions, then that doesn't necessarily reflect on their articles, which should be considered on their merits: Noyster (talk), 08:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Admins have to use judgment when deleting a page so there should be no concern that a great article with significant contributions from other editors will be deleted. Deletion review is always available. WP:DENY is the only tool available to deal with persistent problematic editors and this change would assist that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It sounds a lot like a reaffirmation of G5, but it has too much appearance of allowing admins to ignore community consensus at AfD. Appearance, not necessarily reality, but appearance matters. A better solution, where an AfD was closed as keep/no concensus, and subsequently it is discovered that the creator and all major authors were banned, there being no mention of it at AfD, then the thing to do is to ask the closing admin to re-open the AfD. If it was a NAC, any admin may re-open. If the admin is now inactive, any admin may re-open. The participants of that AfD must be notified. I fear that this is leading to broad discretion to G5 pages retrospectively, delete articles written by later banned editors, especially by editors later banned due to TermsOfUse violations (undisclosed paid editing), and while these deletions are generally a good thing, it is not a good thing for it to be done not-openly. AfD should be used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RileyBugz, Noyster, SmokeyJoe for overbreadth. CSD shouldn't trump a community discussion where there was consensus to keep and where there was a presumably reasonable level of due diligence in examining the article. The appropriate role would be to start a new XFD and note the situation, especially if the issues with the ban/block were about their article content. This would help ensure that the article gets proper scrutiny in light of the new information. An exception would be say the user was blocked for making hard to detect hoaxes, and a diligent search by the admin found that it was a hoax (in which case a dual G5, G3 rationale could work), or other edge cases. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the "per" but I'm not sure it was merited here. My view is that we shouldn't be tasked to do "diligent searches" on the further productions of editors who have already demonstrated their ill-intent, and are presumably now socking into the bargain. And AfD isn't a grand jury and can be determined by just a couple of "keep" votes from unknown sources: Noyster (talk), 08:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My per was to acknowledge your correct statement that G5 deletions, especially for pages that have survived and XfD, are very context dependent, which isn't the case for the other provisions in that section. Someone could have been topic banned from X and blocked at the same time because they created sub-par, non-notable X articles (or as you say, were angry in discussions about X articles). If they then create an acceptable, article on a notable X subject kept in good faith at AfD, by a strict application of G5, it could be speedied once the socking was discovered. This RFC was opened to !vote on whether the change in the linked edit at the top of the RFC, and without any additional context, I have to !vote to oppose it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It continues to be clear that any draft that hasn't been edited in 6 months can and likely will be deleted. In the RfC, many people commented about checks and balances, not automatically deleting, etc. yet here is another example in which a draft gets hit in Legacypac's mass tagging and the reviewing admin sees no problem in deleting: Draft:History of Kottakkal. (SpacemanSpiff in this case, whom I mention primarily to notify, not to point a finger at). Not only is there substantial content with some references, but it was split off from the main article. It took about 20 seconds for me to determine as much. Material from Kottakkal was moved over to History of Kottakkal, developed a bit, and subsequently moved to draftspace and now deleted.

Anyone who says to go to WP:REFUND is missing the point. I noticed two problematic taggings just among the handful of drafts on my watchlist. Those that have already been deleted aren't visible to the vast majority of users and so cannot be scrutinized (and are unlikely to have anyone watching). If I hadn't seen Draft:History of Kottakkal, what are the odds that material would be recovered? As per the fundamental sentence in the policy's lead: "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." Draft:History of Kottakkal is just one example of a deleted draft that would clearly have a "practical chance of surviving discussion." Therefore time limit cannot be the sole criterion, and it's problematic for anyone to proceed as though that's the case. Is another RfC really needed to clarify this basic element of CSD? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that I didn't check that before deleting. This was what was copied over from the original article, with cn tags carried over from 2010. THe draft had a total of three sources -- one Wikipedia mirror that tries to sell airline tickets, one spam site soliciting home workers and a third that is an Ayurveda clinic. If this kind of stuff doesn't qualify for G13, I have no problem staying away from this and have no interest in wasting my time on this in future. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Material split off from the main article and left elsewhere for extended periods becomes an attribution hazard and is best deleted. If the split of material is wanted back, retrieve it from the article's history. If anyone made valuable edits to the forked page, they should be prompt in ensuring it gets history merged back into the main article. Sometimes, doing this is a good idea, but almost always it is not. Sandboxing should be very short term only. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DraftSpace should be treated as scratchspace. A place to play with dubious topics. It is de facto a place to send people who don't know what they are doing so that they do not mess up mainspace so much. People who know what they are doing shouldn't go there. Intending contributors should be advised to not go there because very few people are there to help them. The main game is in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent many possibly useful pages to AfC. Look there for stuff to work on, not in the thousands of deleted pages. Admittedly there may be some useful stuff deleted along with the garage bands, copyvio, unattributed copies of mainspace, and attack pages, but I doubt there is anything worth getting excited over. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, that looks like a draft that should have been deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P I've nominated thousands of drafts G13 and reduced the non-AFC Draft backlog to zero today. Even if the three examples raised are bad deletions, and they are not, my accuracy rate is around 999/1000. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair responses, all. Thanks for clarifying, SpacemanSpiff. My impression was that the content had been developed, but it's entirely possible it wasn't (or wasn't in any meaningful way). Sorry, I should've left a message for you before opening this thread. Ok, well, after starting two sections on this topic, I'll go ahead and take some extra AGF pills and leave it be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally have lists of about several hundred articles on academics that were deleted, almost half of which can be rescued. They were deleted in the days of massive G13s. when I could not get to them all, or when the notifications weren't working. There are probably at least an equal number that I didn't even catch for the lists. If other subjects are similar, we should indeed have tools for mining the backlog. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG many deleted pages could potentially be a valid topic, but are so poorly developed or ref free that it's better to start over. There are not enough editors to work through G13 postponed or current draft pages so mining deleted pages seems pretty low priority. Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most of the ones I had in mind were ones that needed some proper material to support WP:PROF added. This is easy, but time-consuming--especially in the quantities involved. Remember that in the earlier years of AFC people were rejecting pages for trivial reasons. My practice at the time was to try to fix them before accepting them; nowadays I simply accept, if it looks notable, and fixable in main space. I would be very glad of a simple way to find and see them again--even looking at a deleted p as an admin is a multi-step procedure. And the principal reason I gave for becoming an admin at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG was to check deleted articles to see what could be rescued. I fully understand the current need to deal with promotionalism as an emergency, but that's not what I ever wanted to do here. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions, quick one first:

Should we make a Wikipedia talk:CSD A7 specifically dedicated that notorious criteria, and so that the rest of us non-A7 gurus can learn about it with current examples?

Is Emdad Sumon, soon to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emdad Sumon, A7 worthy? I view the lead He is the Sole owner of Popular Bangladeshi Record label CD Choice Music. He produced the movie "Eito Valobasa". His first written song "Bolona Valobasi" in this movie was more audible as satisfying A7's t indicate why its subject is important or significant…makes any credible claim of significance or importance. Am I not understanding the makes any credible claim of significance or importance part or what? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a special talk page for one criterion. WP:CCSI was an attempt to collect examples and results of discussion regarding A7. I'd invite you to help there in an act of shameless self-promotion. As for the example, I don't think A7 applies. Apart from the sources which I cannot read and thus will AGF that they are reliable sources about the subject (which should be sufficient to fail A7 every time), founding a notable label is enough because it presents a valid merge/redirect target per WP:ATD. Regards SoWhy 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a dedicated essay at Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance, and you may like to use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Common claims of significance or importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just blank page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.56.82 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because even if we did so and the page was protected to prevent a revert to the last version, the page's history would still exist and viewable by everyone. The better question would be: Why keep pages that don't belong here? Regards SoWhy 07:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to advertise a template I created a while back that you may not know about, and which is intended to make informing NPPers of declines a very easy process indeed, once you know the template's ins and outs. Use it or not but if no one knows about it...

• {{subst:sdd4|Inform tagger: article not speedied – invalid reason and why it did not apply.}}

When you supply the CSD code (all are recognized; uppercase and lower case will work), it will automatically tailor a message to that criterion, with intro text describing what the criterion covers, for the context of your decline reason.

The decline reason you supply in the third parameter–the reason criterion did not apply above—will place whatever you type after: "That criterion did not apply because..." and the documentation has suggested language to insert for that parameter, covering many commonly misunderstood erroneous tagging bases, broken down by criterion. The documentation is a bit elaborate, on purpose, but not complicated. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment /slash "question" is based upon the current version of the corresponding Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page, "as of" when this section was added to this "Talk:" page. That ("then" current) version was this version -- (that is, the "04:19, 25 September 2017‎" version) of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page.

("As of" that version), the second-to last bullet of "CSD F8" ends with a hyperlink that displays as More about high-risk images ... and the destination or the (Wikitext "abbreviated") URL ^[1] that it points to, is: Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#About high-risk images.

It appears that the "#fragment" portion of that (Wikitext "abbreviated") URL that it points to, (that is, the "#About high-risk images" suffix of the hyperlink to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#About high-risk images) does not work any more.

I do not know whether it (the "destination" that used to exist, but is not there any more) had a proper funeral and someone just failed to update the hyperlink ("#fragment" suffix) that used to point to it, or ... if it just "passed away" without any mourners reading the obituary and taking notice, and sending flowers, etc. In any event, the "#fragment" portion of it does not seem to be working (correctly) any more ("at this time").

I arrived there by clicking on a hyperlink from a place under [[File:Bright_George_M.-HQ-1-7_1.png#Licensing]]. I clicked on a hyperlink there, that seems to be part of [an instance of] the template "{{Keep local}}". The hyperlink [I clicked on] there, is displayed as "CSD F8" and it points to "Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F8".

When I arrived there, I probably read "some but not all" of the bullets under "F8".

I clicked on the hyperlink at the very end of the second-to-last bullet. The hyperlink there is displayed as "More about high-risk images" and it points to "Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#About high-risk images".

Is it me? or ... Is this a classic case of link rot ... ?

It was supposed to take me ("as advertised") to "Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#About high-risk images"; however, (probably because that "#fragment" suffix points to a label or place [or a thing] that used to exist, but has had its spelling changed slightly [...or, has itself been moved or deleted, or something]) now that "#fragment" suffix "#About high-risk images" does not seem to work any more! It took me to the very TOP of the "Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items" page ... because apparently the label or place [or thing] that used to exist, and that was called "#About high-risk images" ... either is now spelled differently, or else, it does not exist any more (or it has been moved, or ... something).

I did find a place called "Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#High-risk images" ... and, IMHO, that is probably what the (now "partially" broken) hyperlink should be pointing to.

The reason why I include the word "partially" ... as in, << (now "partially" broken) >> is because the hyperlink in question does work OK ... except for the "#fragment" suffix portion of it.

I think that it is taking me to the correct PAGE on Wikipedia -- namely the "Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items" page; it is just taking me to the TOP of that page, because there is no place (or "label" or "thing") called "#About high-risk images" on that page.

But, since there IS a place (actually I think it is a section -- a thing whose name is surrounded by double equal signs, ... in the wikitext) called "#High-risk images" on that page, IMHO it would be better, for the hyperlink in question to point to THAT instead! (right?)

... [partly] since, ... maybe I could have just edited the page, without writing all of this "Talk:" stuff, on this "Talk:" page.

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link was broken by this edit--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link to the current section header.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for fixing the link. However, ...

Wait a minute. It seems to be stated above, that the damage was done (or ... "the problem was created") by this edit; ... which happened on [or "circa"] 15 October 2014.

If so, then ... the destination of the hyperlink ("in question") used to be that "#About high-risk images" section ... which -- (when it existed) -- used to come right after [the last (and only) sub-section of] the "#High-risk images" section ... which also used to exist, on 15 October 2014.

However, this edit changes the hyperlink ("in question") to point instead to the entire body of text, which includes both

• [S2] (what used to be) the "#About high-risk images" section, AND
• [S1] the "#High-risk images" section <--(which does still exist ... and still has that name ... and it includes a sub-section called "#Deleting protected files"). ...and, if I understand correctly, that sub-section called "#Deleting protected files" now includes [S2].

If that was intentional, then OK ... the part which is now "included" in

• [S1] the "#High-risk images" section

... in fact, in the "#Deleting protected files" sub-section of [S1], ... indeed used to have (when [S2] still existed ... circa "12:23, 4 August 2014") a one-sentence little italicized "INTRO" sentence (like a hatnote? maybe not...) at the beginning of [S2], saying

See also discussions further up on this page.

but "Whoa", this is confusing (to me, at least). What I do not know, about the topic of (stuff like) that note (at the TOP of Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items) that says

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items/content redirects here.

... would fill a book.

I understand that, even though the "putting things back the way they USED TO BE" ... seems to be only "partial", in this case, ... that, it still might be intentional ... on the part of User:Fuhghettaboutit. I just wanted to alert said editor that ... the "putting things back the way they USED TO BE" ... seems to be only "partial" (not "100%") in this case.

I hope this helps. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Mike. To the extent that discussion (link) is really the best place to link to for an explanation of why deleting protected images can be problematic, linking to the whole discussion is needed for context. Reverting to the prior (2014) version of the talk page to "fix" the link would not be warranted since we don't modify people's organic talk page discussions like that, as changed by the participants. So, yes, the fix is about all that can be done if we are going to still link there. If you or anyone has a suggestion for a better place to link to, of course, that would be welcome. I actually think the text here, surrounding the link, should have an addition; a qualification; something like (addition in green): Do not delete protected images, even if there is an identical copy on Commons, unless the image is no longer in use (check what links here). I see no reason to reflexively keep every local copy of an image that was protected as high risk for some bygone reason, when we can check its current use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"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." Does that mean that in the absence of a specific ban or block that would prevent an editor from creating an article on said specific topic, article created by blocked/banned editors who have no specific topic bans cannot be deleted under G5? In other words, if an editor has been let's say permbanned from Wikipedia for some random disruptive behavior but has no topic bans, and then their sock creates an article on some random topic - is G5 applicable or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. If their specific block or ban is being indef blocked or banned from editing en.wiki at all, they're violating their ban by socking to create new articles, so anything their sock creates can be G5'd. It checks out fine as written. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

#RFC: Alternatives to XFD for creations of banned or blocked users is still open above Agathoclea (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your specific question: yes. If a community banned or indeffed user who creates an article or other page, that article or page is subject to G5 assuming the other conditions are met. This is because of WP:BMB. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know we expanded G13 coverage. I thought that was the result of this discussion, but now I am not sure.

What seems clear is that an old draft, in draftspace, can be deleted per G13

I thought, but I do not see that userspace drafts, (emphasis, in userspace not draftspace) could be deleted if they had been submitted (and rejected, although that should go without saying), and six months without an edit had passed.

I don't see that mentioned in the link, so did I miss it, is it elsewhere, or am I wrong?

I did not think that old drafts in userspace that were never submitted would be covered.

I am bringing this up because there are several in the CSD queue as I write this.

E.g:

• User:Jbayarong/Lighthouse Amihan Football Club
• User:Ff153/Tatsuo Miyajima

Are therethey eligible?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading G13 again, they aren't. Sorry for the mishap. J947^{(c) (m)} 20:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubmitted/rejected old drafts in userspace are eligible if they have the AFC tag, otherwise not. That predates the RFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. G13 originally strictly covered templated AfC drafts. The RfC expanded it to include any page in the draftspace. However, this is not to be confused with "any draft". Just any page in the draftspace. Swarm ♠ 04:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The formulation (as I understand it) is currently:

• Has one of the {{AFC submission}} templates and is at least 6 months unedited.

OR

• Resides in the Draft namespace and has not been edited in at least 6 months (excluding Redirects).

Anything else is outside of the current authorization of G13. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I don't think it would exclude redirects as written, although I don't know if anyone would bother deleting those as G13. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under the unexpanded G13 it was AfC tagged pages, and no redirect would be (still) tagged AfC. It seems no one even thought to specify or discuss redirects in Draft as excluded. I'll do that now as it seems very non-controversial. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that redirects to other deleted drafts, or redirects to the article as moved in main space? Because the reason for keeping the latest is to avoid breaking incoming links if someone have created them. Diego (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I see that you meant to exclude those from deletion. Diego (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to deleted pages can of course be deleted per WP:G8. The idea is that working redirects aren't to be deleted per WP:G13. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further the reports and Categories related to G13 exclude redirects User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report [3] Legacypac (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for excluding redirects stems from the "promoted draft" or preserving inbound links. In the grand scheme of things a redirect page is a pittiance compared to the reams of unworthy content. If and when we get to the point that Spam and garbage is being deleted before the 6 month period and we actually need to sort through the redirects we can come back. Until then it's not worth the bytes. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just now, trying to figure out what the precipitating 24 September 2017 event was that prompted this thread on ANI, I noticed that Legacypac has blanked numerous stale/unsubmitted/abandoned/declined AfCs (either with no edit summary or with the edit summary "G13") instead of tagging them for CSD: [4]. Is this allowed? Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Softlavender BrightR was annoyed I made this change to a heading of an active ANi thread they started [5]. It was the first thing they mentioned to Cryptic and at ANi.

I only routinely blank normal user sandboxes that elegible for G13 and are not problematic except for being old. Many are just blank AfC submissions. You can't really delete a sandbox completely, it is more friendly than deletion, it takes less edits to blank than to tag G13 (nothing to my CSD log or the usertalk) and lightens the Admin deletion load. It also means no need to request a REFUND required if the user returns, just a undo. Hope that makes sense. If it is an attack page or something we really want gone, I tag appropriately. I also CSD named pages under a sandbox ie User/Sandbox/MyAbandonedIdea as that is not the default sandbox and should not be reused. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking administrators if this is allowed. Blanking (or in any way altering) other users' subpages is not allowed, as far as I am aware. If you want to nominate user subpages for deletion, use WP:MfD. Perhaps I should ask this at AN instead, but I felt there may have been a policy discussion that I was unaware of so I posted this here first, but I can move it to AN instead. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If those pages are eligible for G13, MFD is not required and G13 does apply to abandoned AFC submissions, even when they are in a user's subspace. Since the sandbox is actually linked to from the menu (at least in Monobook skin), it makes sense not to have it be a redlink. Thus blanking is imho a viable alternative to G13 deletion. Legacypac, you should use better edit summaries though when doing so, so it's clear you are blanking them instead of tagging them for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 09:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]