The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

*Summary:--There is consensus to Y accept a nuanced version of the proposed change.

• Accepted Wording:--G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met G5 and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion.
• Details--
  • By a count of heads, the proposal garnered 22 clear support !vote(s), 2 whose votes could not be definitely parsed into black and white and 12 oppose !votes .Given that all-most all the votes were more or less well grounded in different policies and appealing rationale(s), that seems to pass the threshold of enacting policy-changes.
  • WP:BMB has formed the central axis of most of the arguments in favor of supporting the policy.Coupled with that, the enormous benefits of the proposed change to tackle paid-editing-farms etc were also heavily mentioned.
  • Also, it may be noted that, while many mentioned a convinvcable modus operandi wherein paid editors can just AfD their own articles, use other socks to get it kept and use it as a line of protection against our current policies, no practical example(s) were put forward.
  • On the side of the opposer(s), the most significant argument has been that A CSD criteria should not overturn community consensus irrespective of any reason and that CSD is solely aimed at non-controversial deletions.
  • Whilst, the point of the opposers forms the very backbone of the CSD process and could not be over-emphasized enough , a majority of the discussants were of the opinion that BMB must be executed very fiercely, esp. against paid editors and the like even at the cost of ignoring the opinion/consensus of the !voters in a part. discussion and despite certainty of some slight(??) collateral damage.
• Reminder--
  • As always, the administrators are reminded to employ common sense in the entire process, to check the merits of keeping vs deleting the article (may-be upon the original cause of the ban) and use their discretionary authority judiciously.
• Signed by Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} at 14:54, 7 October 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]

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.

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]

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]

• This has been proposed previously, see Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. But it failed to get accepted. – Uanfala 09:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

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.

OK, so what is the problem?

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").

How I got there

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".

It does not seem to be working as intended!

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 think I know how to fix the problem

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?)

Thanks for your patience

... [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]

Reference[s]

continued "thread" of comments

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]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you. I agree that ... the place that the link points to now ... is probably a good place for it to point to.

As far as, [whether or not there is any]

reason to reflexively keep every local copy of an image that was protected as high risk for some bygone reason,

*** even if *** it is now used ZERO places ... well ... the only reason might be ... if there is a significant chance that the ["high risk"] image might be used in the future ... in some article that does not exist yet, OR ... maybe, "by means of" being added to some existing article.

I realize that it might be hard to "estimate" that future "significant chance" -- ("if any") -- ...but that is perhaps outside the scope of this discussion (and/or, maybe ... it is just "not my department".)

For now, I would be fine with considering this matter to be ended. As in ...

Resolved

 – "case closed"

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:01, 4 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]
  • What purpose is served by deleting perfectly good, well-written articles? Doing so amounts to nothing more than vandalism by consensus. It's also worth noting that the language is permissive ("may") and does not create a requirement ("shall"), which many admins and other users fail to grasp. Simply put, if a deletion is controversial, it shouldn't be speedied. And deleting a perfectly good article for no reason other than who created it is certainly controversial. G5 needs to be scrapped entirely IMO, or at least amended to allow restoration of G5 articles upon request of an unblocked (or perhaps autoconfirmed, to make sure they're not another sock) user, like we do for PRODs. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 6 October 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]

WP:UP#OWN Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed by WP:UP#DELETE, consistent with instructions found here [6] Lots of sandboxes end up here [7] than here [8]. I think new users mistake the AfC Submit button for a Save button because there are so many pointless blank sandbox submissions. In many cases blanking is just removing the AfC decline placed by an AfC reviewer, not even removing something the user typed. It just restores a blank sandbox for them to use and takes the page off the G13 elegible lists. Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:UP#DELETE or [9], applies to your blankings; if you believe so please quote the text. In terms of "In many cases blanking is just removing the AfC decline placed by an AfC reviewer, not even removing something the user typed"; I don't see that in the deletions you made that I linked to; I see dozens of deletions of entire articles in their sandboxes. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably use {{userpage blanked}} for that, although not mandatory. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling this one over for a while now. One stalled discussion in January made me pause, but it's been mentioned to me a few times (most recently by Nihlus) and I think I'm going to put the question to rest.

At current we have no PROD-like system for Templates. We (obviously) have PROD for articles and F11 for images, but no way to quietly delete an unused template other than to clog up WP:TFD with nominations that almost everyone will !vote "delete" on.

I propose a new criterion, T4: If template is unused and shows no likelihood of being used, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the creator. Templates deleted under this criterion would be refundable just like PRODs. This keeps some of the clutter out of TFD, still allows the creator to protest the nomination, and avoids gaming the system (one of my main issues that brought on the January discussion was the fact that users were nominating under G6 and G8 for unused templates).

Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks like you beat me to the punch, so it stands to reason that I completely support this. My drafted wording was: Templates that are unused–that is, are not transcluded in any pages, are not being actively substituted, are not used as a preload for another template, and are not used in any editnotice–may be deleted after being tagged for seven days. In addition, I was going through and gathering data on any TfD that used the "unused" argument. None of them were kept, and all but one was deleted. One resulted in no consensus. Nihlus 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I like your wording better, though I think the after notification of the creator bit needs to stay in. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's try:

  Templates that are unused–that is, are not transcluded in any pages, are not being actively substituted, are not used as a preload for another template, and are not used in any editnotice–may be deleted seven days after notifying the creator and being tagged.

  Gets a little wordy but gets the point across. Nihlus 12:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So just add templates to the list of things that can be prodded? Why is this here? -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix: See the wording of T3. Nihlus 03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So add templates to the list of things that can be PRODed and we won’t need T3 either... That would help a lot more than adding another criterion, and it’d simplify the system too. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A PROD is a very vague "I don't expect issues" deletion. One could (in theory) set a prod tag on a sidebar or infobox that is in use with a perfectly valid rationale and it very well could be deleted. The point of this criteria is specifically for unused/never-going-to-be-used templates. Of course if a consensus develops to modify the wording of PROD, then that's what we'd go with, but I was looking for something a bit more specific. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A PROD is simply for uncontroversial deletions, which seems to be your objective with the criterion (ie: to reduce the load at TfD). Adding templates to PROD would solve that issue, without muddying the waters further between PROD and CSD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Since F4 to F7 and C1 have a seven-day horizon, in addition to F11 and T3 already mentioned, it seems too late to achieve a clean separation between PROD-like processes and true speedy deletion: Noyster (talk), 12:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support so as to help free TfD of discussions with 10+ days between relistings. J947^{(c) (m)} 03:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How can you tell whether a template is being actively substituted? Doesn't substitution remove backlinks to the template? Regards SoWhy 12:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SoWhy: {{Substonly}} should be transcluded on the documentation page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This relies on the documentation being done correctly, which is not necessarily true. —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is fine, because we give notice to the creator and a 7-day hold. If they're actively using their poorly-documented template, they can just remove the PROD. From experience, the vast majority of orphaned templates are not substitute only, and if they are, the majority of those are documented. The rest are usually pretty obviously substitute only. We then have to consider the trade-off between maybe having to undelete 5 templates that should have been documented better versus literally thousands of useless TfD discussions that require closers we don't have. The choice is pretty obvious. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 2) I understand that but Nihlus' suggestion is to exempt templates that are not being actively substituted, so does that mean to exempt templates that have the {{Substonly}} tag on it (no matter if they are still used or not) or to exempt templates that are still being substituted? And if it's the latter, how can you tell? Regards SoWhy 13:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Only if... Ideally, PROD shouldn't be used for templates for the simple reason it's not used for redirects: they don't have enough watchers. In practice, however, I don't think this is going to lead to less scrutiny in the deletion of templates, given the low participation at TfD and its overall bias for deletion (e.g. a discussion consisting only of the nomination and a comment expressing doubts about the validity of the nominator's rationale, is as likely to be closed as "delete" as it is to get relisted or closed as "no consensus"). If a PROD-like process gets adopted, then it should have two explicit requirements: 1) The nominator should have made the effort to notify interested parties. Minimally, this should involve notifying the creator as well as a relevant wikiproject (for example by project-tagging the template's talk page, provided the wikiproject is active and subscribed to the article alerts). 2) An explicit check for substitutions must have been made by either the nominator or the deleting admin. This check is important for two reasons: a) most of the regular TfD nominators so far don't seem to have had the habit of checking for substitutions and that burden has traditionally been with the participants in the discussion (and no, the template's documentation is not enough: hardly any of the subst-only templates that get nominated as "unused" are documented as being subst-only); b) a check for substitutions will be able to pick the occasional case where template content has been merged into an article (or another template) and its history will need to be preserved for attribution. – Uanfala 10:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If projects want to keep track of their templates, they must tag them themselves. We cannot be responsible for knowing every WikiProject out there; such a requirement is crazy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crazy would be to expect projects to keep track of stuff they have no way of know of knowing it exists. Projects can come into the picture only once a page has been tagged. – Uanfala 10:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uanfala, which project should be notified for e.g. Template:AFv5 hidden, or Template:Acd (now up for deletion), or Template:Agent? Fram (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the few cases when there are no relevant projects, then no projects should be notified. Aren't we supposed to use common sense when applying the rules? – Uanfala 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incidentally, Template:AFv5 hidden is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, and Template:Agent is relevant for Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes (I don't know how active these are). Of course, it can be argued that if there's no way to make a nomination noticed by wikiprojects (or by other interested editors), then TfD should be the way to nominate the template for deletion. – Uanfala 11:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to search around if there is perhaps some project which may or may not be related to a template created years before and never used. Rules making it harder to do simple maintenance, without a clear benefit, should not be imposed, as we are not a bureaucracy. Fram (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projects interested in monitoring certain templates should use the WP:Article alerts system. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with no requirement to notify some morbid wikiproject about some template no one is using. Lighten the kiad at TfD. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless there is are explicit requirements that: (1) the nominator and deleting admin both check for templates being actively substituted, and (2) all substantial editors to the template (not just the creator) are notified, and (3) all projects that have tagged the template and/or are clearly relevant are notified. Article alerts are not enough imo and alerting inactive projects is not a burden. I don't expect nominators to do a deep search of all potentially relevant projects, but if a template is related to e.g. a geographical place then the project for that country should be notified even if they haven't tagged it, similarly anything that gives a warning to editors is relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings even if they have never heard of it before. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as proposed. The opinion about a template's likelihood of being used can vary from editor to editor. That, and unfortunately, we have no way to determine substitution counts to validate how useful a template might be in regards to substitutions. Best to keep template deletion proposals at WP:TFD so that editors can determine if an unused template can be saved or used appropriately. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as proposed. I've been thinking about this for a bit, but I don't think it makes sense to insert a PROD-like process into CSD. I would, however, support the addition of templates to the list of things that are PROD-able since it seems the reason for this is to help unclog TfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix: As explained above, F4, F5, F6, F7, F11, C1, and T3 all have the seven day window. This PROD-like process you speak of was introduced into CSD a long time ago. Nihlus 21:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is literally a "Template PROD", as nicknamed from the header. It would be less complicated to simply add templates to WP:PROD (like what was done with files a few months back) rather than a new CSD blurring those lines even further. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument seems to rely solely on semantics. T3 exists so it is essentially a template PROD already. There's no metaphorical line to be blurred as it already has been defined. Nihlus 21:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If "template PROD" already essentially exists, as you claim, then there should be no issues with adding templates to PROD. If "Template PROD" is actually added, then we can simplify the CSD list by deprecating the "un-speedy" criteria if desired. Instead, you're trying to add more criteria to CSD, which in my opinion is not the right way to achieve the objectives stated above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to be pointing out the obvious, but there's a substantial difference between the PROD-like process proposed here and the kinds of speedy deletion criteria that happen to incorporate time delay. F4, F5, F6, F7, F11 are there to deal with likely copyright infringements and so are need for the fundamental purpose of staying on the right side of the law; T3 is for the removal of duplication (and hence the template-space flavour of A10); C1 is for empty categories, where this is virtually a technical deletion, where the non-technical and potentially controversial part of the process has already been done by its emptying (and hence anyone would have already objected before this point). These are all inherently uncontroversial deletions, which is definitely not the case for templates that appear unused, at least not any more than it would be the case that it's uncontroversial to have a speedy deletion criterion for orphaned articles. – Uanfala 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The definition of CSD, from the very first sentence of WP:CSD is "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" (my emphasis added). If we have a seven-day delay, then it's not immediate—let's not add another violation of this. Thankfully, the addition of File PROD has rendered the F time-delay criteria redundant. That leaves C1 and T3. I understand the delay for C1, but even empty categories can be a controversial deletion if there's articles to populate them, so I rather have a category PROD than C1. I don't see the point of having a time delay for T3. If there is substantial duplication of another template, that's still going to be the case seven days later, so I would support removing the delay for that criterion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-nn was nominated at RfD which reached a consensus to deprecate (discussion). There was no discussion about how it should be deprecated though, so I've done a quick and simple job (as a normal editor) that I encourage other editors to look at and improve if they see fit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I merely tweaked it a bit. Regards SoWhy 12:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:Brabble, and Brabble.

Seems to me that Draft:Brabble should be somehow speedy deletable, but I don't see how... Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The draft should not be deleted. The copy-paste was a WP:Copyrights infringement, albeit merely a Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia failure that can be fixed. If anything is to be deleted, it is the copy-pasted article, per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12. It should be fixed by Wikipedia:History merge. The copy-paster, Ralum23 (talk · contribs), should be educated. Ideally, attempts to save a very large amount of new content should invoke a software check for it being a direct copy-paste from another page, resulting in an interruption and warning if true. Even if not true, large new content saves are often copyright infringing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, history merge requested. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: this is  Done. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What if almost everything were sent to AfD instead of CSD? I think:

• It wouldn't require too much extra effort over at AfD, because (1) the slam-dunk cases typically don't take a lot of time to review and (2) situations where someone creates a whole slew of deletable articles could be listed together as one group
• In more marginal cases, the AfDs would create a record of the best arguments for keeping the article, which people considering recreating the article could then review to see if they have any better arguments than what were rejected before, thereby avoiding pointless re-creations while encouraging helpful re-creations
• Some articles that currently get deleted under CSD would get rescued instead by being improved to the point where they could be kept, during the process of the AfD

It seems like CSD has become the new AfD, i.e., we're at a point where if an admin thinks an article wouldn't survive an AfD, he will usually just speedy it even if it doesn't meet the CSD. For example, if a topic seems non-notable, usually it will be nominated as A7, even if it doesn't really fall under A7. Then all it takes is one admin out of 857 to decide it should go, and it's gone.

If it really is a slam-dunk case of non-notability, wouldn't people at AfD be able to tell at a glance, and not have to spend a whole lot of time looking at it before saying "delete"? But if it isn't a slam-dunk case, then it's more likely that as a group of people is reviewing it over a week, someone will notice that it is in fact notable, and make an argument for it.

From the point of view of people who misuse the CSD, there's not really any downside to tagging the article as a speedy just to see if that flies. Unless someone is going to impose a consequence for CSD misuse (which, as people have pointed out, is hard to do, because of the lack of after-the-fact transparency in a lot of these cases, plus a lack of "constituency" for looking after an article's survival if the original author is no longer around), it seems like the only answer is to mostly just scrap the CSD system. Maybe use prod instead for those cases that are expected to be uncontroversial, and accept the tradeoff of having to wait a week as the cost of restoring the integrity of the deletion process.

CSD probably worked better back when the wiki was small and Jimbo could personally oversee all the admins to make sure processes weren't being misused. I think the wiki has outgrown CSD, because there's no longer that mechanism for accountability. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/delete indicates to me that you'd need A LOT MORE deletion discussions in such cases. Also, don't forget G10. I get the idea of accountability but in the real world there is only so much manpower and attention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]