This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I want to suggest the expansion of G5 to include articles created in violation of community or arbitration contentious topics procedures. For example, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been designated as a contentious topic by the community, as is the Arab-Israeli conflict by ArbCom. I would propose a new template "as a page created in violation of a contentious topic remedy" with support for both community and arbitration contentious topics. Awesome Aasim 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: How often have such pages been taken to XfD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

How about take a look at the enforcement logs for those. For example, WP:GS/RUSUKR has a few page deletions listed there, as does Wikipedia:AELOG. This kind of deletion has already been enforced, but it is not mentioned in the CSD, nor is there a template that an editor can use to request speedy deletion under this. Awesome Aasim 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've always taken WP:G5 as already covering this kind of deletion, since non-ECP editors who edit those topic areas are in effect violating a ban, but not opposed to clarifying this.

Note that the actual restriction in effect is WP:ARBECR which is technically separate from the contentious topic system, so the wording would have to be more general/clearer than what you propose. Galobtter (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe amend wording to something like "in violation of their ban or block, or a topic-wide remedy". Galobtter (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I already spun up a draft in User:Awesome Aasim/Template:Db-ct. Feel free to tweak the wording. Right now, the only two topics subject to WP:ARBECR as far as I am aware are WP:CT/A-I (by ArbCom) and Wikipedia:GS/RUSUKR (by the community). Awesome Aasim 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Galobtter If you want to be bold and add "or a general sanction" that would be wonderful. You can also move my template out of user space and into template space. Awesome Aasim 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(Non-Galobtter comment) I've boldly added wording about GS violations. Happy to BRD but this seems pretty common-sense, and is how a number of admins have been treating these deletions for a while. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin Thanks :D

I'll see if I can finish spinning the template up so it can be listed on the page. Awesome Aasim 21:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Mostly done I just need to do the documentation pages and then update the speedy criteria category box. Awesome Aasim 22:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What is Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions? When did this get decided? In past years, I have proposed new criteria for speedy deletion that evolved into long discussions and I don't see anything like that here. There is not even anything in the CSD G5 criteria that specifies this specification as falling under the CSD G5 criteria or explains when it applies. Only the category is listed under CSD G5, there is nothing in the description about general sanctions.

How come other editors proposals to change or add new CSD criteria go through days or weeks of discusion and this one just appeared out of nowhere? That's not how the process works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason this didn't need discussion is because deletion is already allowed by WP:ARBECR. This basically clarifies that "violation of a ban" includes automatic topic-wide restrictions which are in essence automatic topic bans for users with less than a certain number of edits, rather than actually changing policy/practice. Galobtter (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not an "expansion" of G5, just updating its wording to reflect reality. Non-extended-confirmed users are banned from some topics, and G5 applies to the violations of bans. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously if there's a substantive objection to the change I made, I'm happy to be reverted or to self-revert. But if this is just a procedural issue, the point of policy is to reflect standard practice, not the other way around, and this is not the first time WP:CSD has been amended in such a way, nor will it be the last. (Among other things, last December HouseBlaster boldly removed CSD A5 based on a 5–0 !vote. a far cry from a megabytes-long debate.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent changes to the policy as I think we should discuss the wording a bit more carefully. In particular, "by any user in violation of a general sanction" leaves too much room for interpretation IMO. G5 should not be a general tool to enforce sanctions, but should be restricted to when the sanction specifies that all pages in a topic area should undergo a certain level of protection and a user whom that protection is meant to exclude creates a new article which is unambiguously in that topic area. If that is your intended meaning, then we should make that more clear. If you intend for a more expansive reading, then I view that as a substantial change to policy that requires consensus to make. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Hmm, I see your point. Writing it, I did consider whether it could be mistaken as meaning that, say, admins can use G5 as a CTOP action, but concluded that's not a valid reading of "in violation of a general sanction"... But we do want wording that can't easily be mistaken. So, okay, how about "in violation of a general sanction that restricts the creation of articles"? That would cover ECRs, as well as hypothetical future general sanctions that impose some other limitation (e.g. I could imagine a "consensus required to create" or a "1 article per user per day" restriction someday for certain topics). If there's concern that that's still too vague, we could append ", such as an extended confirmed restriction". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That prohibits the creation of articles, surely?

G5 is already very controversial. Speedy deletion should only be for non-controversial cases. So if we're going to expand the wording to cover this case, we should specify it very carefully to make sure that it covers only cases where deletion is unambiguously the correct outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it, the spirit of G5 is to retroactively enforce editing restrictions that we cannot enforce by technical means. For example, if you are blocked, then you (the person) may not edit anywhere. We can't prevent you from creating another account from a different IP, but if we discover the connection we will block your sock and nuke all your creations. Likewise, if you are not EC, then you may not edit or create articles in a restricted area. We can't prevent you from creating articles, but if your new article happens to fall in that restricted area then we can speedy delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Well "prohibit" is a complicated word to use, because of course an ECR doesn't prohibit a non-EC user from creating any articles, just from creating certain ones. And one could imagine other GS that are flexible in other ways, like the hypothetical "1 article per user per day" I gave. I think "that prohibits the creation of the article in question" would accomplish the same thing as "that restricts the creation of articles"; I have no real preference between the two. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that it would be a very bad idea to allow G5 deletions for throttling-type rules like "1 article per user per day". G5 should only be used when there is a violation of a clear ban on creations, either because the editor has been banned altogether or because that topic has had creations by certain classes of editors banned. Ambiguous language causes WP:CREEP. We should be unambiguous here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The lack of any wording in CSD allowing ECR deletions didn't stop ArbCom and the community from enacting ECRs, and hasn't stopped admins from enforcing them by deletion. I would probably also oppose that throttling-type rule, but that's beside the point. The point is that sometimes ArbCom or the community enacts general sanctions restricting page creation, and this criterion should reflect that. (If the criterion doesn't reflect that, nothing really changes except making things more confusing. Admins will keep enforcing those general sanctions, and ArbCom definitely isn't going to desysop anyone for carrying out its own bidding.) Yes, we don't want to add ambiguity, but there's nothing ambiguous about either wording I've given. "Restrict[ing] the creation of articles" and "prohibit[ing] the creation of the article in question" are both clear concepts, compatible with WP:NEWCSD #s 1&2. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Restricting the creation of articles" could easily mean allowing creation but restricting certain aspects of the created content, such as requiring it to have inline reliable sources. I don't think we would admins to see that wording, recognize that a created article was constrained in that way, and decide to delete it outright. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but I don't want to bikeshed this. Does the "that prohibits the creation of the article in question" wording work for you? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would tweak it a little bit: "by any user in violation of a general sanction that prohibits them from creating the page in question". On the second bullet about topic bans, I would add "This also applies to general sanctions imposed on a class of editors across some topic area", since an ECR is essentially a preemptive topic ban on all non-EC editors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the term "general sanction" the best term here? Before I clicked on the wikilink and read more, I thought it meant what we used to call GS, which I think is another word for what that page calls "community-authorised discretionary sanctions" or "community-authorised sanctions" such as Russo-Ukrainian War, Uyghur Genocide, etc. Perhaps we could clarify it by specifying by any user in violation of a contentious topic restriction or community-authorised discretionary sanction restriction that prohibits them from creating the page in question –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of additional words for something we already have a term for. I feel like the link does a good enough job clarifying what "general sanction" means. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This all seems like a lot of additional words. Why isn't the existing "violation" enough? This applies to pages created in violation of a ban, block, or general sanction, and that have no substantial edits by other users. If we really need to clarify that you can't violate a general sanction by creating a page unless it prohibits creating pages, banish it to a bullet point with all the other rules-lawyer fodder. —Cryptic 07:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

+1, clarifications can be added to the bullet points if people genuinely misinterpret the language, but let's keep the actual text short and to the point. Galobtter (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How would this look for the wording:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of community sanctions or remedies and that have no substantial edits by others.

• To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.
• For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
• When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
• For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction. A page created before the restrictions were imposed or after the restrictions were lifted does not qualify under this criterion. Nor does a page created after a person meets the eligibility criteria for the topic area.
• G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.
• ((Db-g5|name of banned user)), ((Db-banned|name of banned user)) (for banned or blocked users)
• ((Db-gs|general sanction code)) (for violations of general sanctions)
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users, Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions

I think this fixes some of the ambiguity of the wording per above. If it looks good maybe we can roll it out, so that it can be clearer to other editors that this is a de facto reality. Awesome Aasim 15:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

• "community sanctions or remedies" should be changed because the sanctions could also be coming from ArbCom.
• "and that have no substantial edits by others" is now grammatically attached only to the sanctions bit, which is incorrect. What we want is for "others" to be attached only to the ban/block bit, and the sanctions bit should really say something like "and that have no substantial edits by editors authorized to edit in the area in question".
• I think we can be a bit more concise on the clarification bullet. "For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of restrictions preventing the user in question from editing in the topic area at the time of the creation, such as the extended confirmed restriction." (Delete the rest of the bullet.)

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that extra comma missing. So...

• community sanctions or remedies → general sanctions
• no substantial edits by others → no substantial edits by others not subject to the general sanction

I think it is starting to look much much nicer! Awesome Aasim 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unless several such cases are put through XfD and each results in “SNOW Delete” (which is improbable). Otherwise, this amounts to shifting project management further from the community towards oligarchs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm with you on certain things, e.g. if a general sanction says that additions of new content in a subject area must be supported by certain types of reliable sources, I don't consider it within the spirit of G5 to speedy-delete new articles in that area created without the requisite sources. To me, the spirit of G5 is to allow retroactive enforcement of editing restrictions that we cannot implement proactively for technical reasons, and WP:ECR enforcement is definitely part of that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you on this as well. The intent I largely think about G5 are page creations in violation of a ban, block, or a page creation prohibition, like WP:ECR. It should also be noted that it is at the discretion of the deleting administrator to decide whether to accept or decline a speedy criterion. A few pages might edge on CSD but if the deletion might be controversial, the admin will prefer sending it through XFD. Awesome Aasim 00:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. CSD criteria must be clear and uncontroversial, and there is far too much discretion given to admins in this proposed new criteria. In order for a change like this to be implemented, we need to see evidence that articles created in these topic areas are regularly, even universally, deleted at AfD. Deleting articles outright is very different from simply reverting edits made by non-ECP editors, for two reasons: (1) In the case of edits, the text remains in the history and can be taken over by another approved editor, and (2), most of the time a warning is visible to the person editing a restricted article.
  Consider 2023 Bitung clashes, which I came across when patrolling CSD. It was tagged for deletion using this criterion, but there is no evidence that the person who created the article was aware of any restrictions, or aware that they may be completely wasting their time. That is just unfair, and I believe contrary to Wikipedia's vision. Accordingly, I have declined the CSD, applied the protection and templates as mandated by the CTOP procedures, and reverted the change to the policy page pending the outcome of a broadly-attended RfC. – bradv 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how we would get evidence that these articles are consistently deleted at AfD when in general admins are going to keep deleting these articles as an AE action, whether or not this text is added to G5. Galobtter (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't understand why this is controversial. WP:ARBECR means these deletions are going to happen no matter what we say here: the only question is whether we're going to allocate a code for them or not. I understand why people oppose ARBECR-based deletions, but the solution to that problem is to ask ArbCom to revise its procedures, not to make them slightly harder to implement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  As one of the arbitrators who voted in favour of that wording, I never imagined that new articles would be deleted automatically and indiscriminately solely because of that wording. I (rather naively I'll admit) assumed that they would still go through the existing processes. I won't object to obvious POV pushing or disruptive articles shortcutting the processes, but there's a big difference between those and articles obviously created in good faith, such as the example I gave above. Would you agree? – bradv 20:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  What would there have to be discussed at a regular AfD, though? Either the article is discussed as a normal article, in which case the restriction is immaterial, or people agree that the article should be deleted because of the restriction, in which case there's nothing to discuss. Putting the responsibility of whether a restriction should be enforced with deletion on people at AfD isn't really reasonable (and would obviously lead to people supporting selective enforcement where it benefits their POV). Galobtter (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I hear your concerns, but if not at AfD, where is the best place for this discussion? WP:ARBECR states that there is discretion allowed in how to enforce this restriction, and in this case another admin and I disagree in our approach. Where is the best place for us to get broader community input on the existence or deletion of this article? – bradv 21:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Context is User talk:Pppery#2023 Bitung clashes * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  Most AE actions involve discretion, so I would think the same as when there is disagreement about whether to impose an AE action, e.g. about imposing a page restriction - through normal discussion among uninvolved admins about what to do, or by getting more input by filing at WP:AE. Of course Pppery if he wanted to push the issue could unilaterally delete as an AE action, and then I'd see it as similar to a page restriction in that it would require appealing that to get that overturned. Galobtter (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  No good would come from me doing that - we should come to a consensus on what the exact standards are before I start taking admin actions I know other admins oppose. On the merits, I think Bradv has a point that we should consider setting Special:AbuseFilter/1276 to warn to avoid the lack of awareness problem, but Wikipedia's standards have rightly long been that ignorance is not an excuse. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that taking a unilateral action wouldn't be a good idea. I think 1276 might need to be tuned a bit before a warning can be done, but an edit filter warning could be a reasonable way to make these deletions more fair. Galobtter (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Bradv: Surely the broader community consensus would come in the form of an EC user saying "Hi, Brad, I saw you deleted XYZ. As an extendedconfirmed user I'm willing to take responsibility for that page's content. Could you please restore it?" Or simply taking it to WP:REFUND. Speedy deletion isn't the end of the road. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is blank-and-EC-protect a viable alternative to speedy deletion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Procedurally, sure, admins are allowed to use methods other than deletion to enforce the ECR on new pages, per WP:ARBECR point (A)(2). Practically, no, at least not in mainspace, because blank pages in mainspace make no sense. Stubbify-and-EC-protect is a somewhat more viable alternative, and I've done it once. But I'm not sure if any of that's relevant here, since we're talking about the procedural handling of the times admins choose not to use (A)(2)'s discretionary clause. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I missed that. Thanks! I guess my view is that AfD for these articles makes no sense at all, and Galobtter expressed exactly why. I'd favor any clarification that G5 covers such deletions, and most of the above wording options seem fine to me.

  If we have editors determined to revert this change without an RfC, then it's probably best to get the ball rolling. Do you think we're still in the wordsmithing phase? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I dunno, I took my shot. Frankly I feel I have better ways to contribute to the sum of human knowledge than argue about whether a specific policy page should include a thing that will continue to happen whether or not that policy page includes it. If it's at the point of an RfC, who cares? Just leave it out. The outcome of an RfC will change nothing other than what precise rationale admins give when deleting under ECRs. Where before some would have said "G5 / ECR" now they'll just say "ECR". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Reasonable. I think admins who are less experienced with speedy deletion (I'm one), are a hesitant in the grey areas. We might have better enforcement with clearer guidance, and quicker enforcement might help community members return sooner to more important contributions toward the aforementioned sum.

  Awesome Aasim and King of Hearts, I think you were the last active word-workers. Do you think an RfC is in order using your proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, why not? Start one in the subsection. I think this current discussion provides all the needed context to come to an agreement. Awesome Aasim 04:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Since ArbCom is in an "amend WP:ARBECR" mood anyways, maybe if ARBECR was amended to say "When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, non-extended-confirmed editors are automatically topic banned from the topic area", that would make it clear WP:G5 applies with no actual change to the restriction.. Galobtter (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Galobtter, would you like to pursue this option further with someone from ArbCom, or do you think we could start an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've been thinking on this and I do think the easiest solution would be for ArbCom to change only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area to all editors who are not extended-confirmed are considered topic-banned from the area. The community could follow up with a thread at WP:AN to sync our own ECRs with that. (I'd already been planning on doing that to sync with the recent talkspace change, once things settled down.) Shall one of us propose this at ARCA? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Is that really accurate to current practice? A topic ban would preclude making edit requests (which is allowed) and would also result in users being blocked for violating the ban (which doesn't appear to be common practice for when people who aren't ECR try to edit in these topic areas, unless they repeatedly refuse to stop or are otherwise disruptive). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, I don't think such a change in wording is necessary. We can use G5 as a catch-all for articles created as an end-run around the ECR restriction (such as POV-forks), but as a matter of principle speedy deletion criteria should only be used in uncontroversial cases. There are certain articles which are created by non-EC editors, but they were created in good faith, on an encyclopedic topic, and therefore it makes no sense to just bin them in the hopes that someone else will notice and recreate them from scratch. These articles should simply be protected as soon as they are created (this is how we always did it in the past, afaik). Some recent examples: 2023 Bitung clashes (mentioned above), as well as Alex Dancyg.

  ArbCom has already said that we should use discretion in deciding how to deal with these articles – deleting them automatically and indiscriminately is the opposite of that. – bradv 00:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Who is saying we should delete them automatically and indiscriminately? The clause saying admins have discretion would stay there. I'm not saying to throw the whole thing out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:NEWCSD point 2 It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. It is very clear from this discussion that consensus does not support deleting almost all the pages that could be deleted by this change to the wording, probably not even most such pages. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if G5 as currently written meets that standard—I know I G5 less than 50% of eligible pages I find—but regardless, wouldn't that be another point in favor of ArbCom and the community clarifying that ECRs should be treated as TBANs, to which provision A grants two limited exceptions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed G5 as written does not meet that standard and would not be approved as-is if proposed today. However attempts at change have failed (the last one turned into a philosophical debate about preventive vs punitive actions). This does not mean that making it worse is at all acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, see this diff from Pppery. I'm not sure if other administrators think this way at the moment, but if the G5 policy is changed as proposed above, there will be more. – bradv 03:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Bradv: If Pppery means "indiscriminately" as in "without favoritism", then that comment is no different from justifying any other ECR deletion. If he means it as "without exception", then yes, that would seem unwise given that admins have discretion in all things, and the wording of ECR point A2 seems to expect we will exercise that discretion more than usual. In either case, though, I don't think that this being in G5 changes anything. The ECR, as worded, already allows an admin to impose a policy of blanket deletion on violations. If that's undesirable, that's a matter for ArbCom. That said, as I said to you above, ECR deletions should already be reversible upon a request by an EC editor, much as we allow EC editors to restore content that was reverted under an ECR. Are there cases of editors making such requests and being denied? If so, that's another thing that could be clarified. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Have you read the article in question? It was clearly created in good faith, which would suggest that your second reading is correct. Regarding your last point, it's unreasonable to expect an extended-confirmed user, without access to view deleted material, to request restoration of a deleted article that they didn't work on. It's hard enough for administrators to find such material. – bradv 03:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Happy to discuss that example somewhere else, but again, it does not make a real difference in the end because deletion is permitted regardless. Per WP:ARBECR, Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. So any admin could have deleted Special:Permalink/1186853374 if they wanted, as an AE action. It is only a procedural question whether we a) include this scenario in G5; b) request ArbCom clarify that an ECR is a kind of TBAN (for which point A1 provides an exception and A2 a discretionary exception), mooting the point; or c) do nothing. None of those eventualities increases or decreases admins' power to delete in such cases. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I wonder if it should be clear that there should be discretion in how G5 is applied from case to case. I believe ARBECR is covered under G5. It also makes clear that administrators are permitted, but not required, to delete. Same thing with WP:BRV - a banned editor's contributions are permitted to be reverted or deleted, but it is not a requirement. Awesome Aasim 02:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this all really just boils away to the question of how to best administer ARBECR and similar GS. I believe this specific set of discussions started because there was some unclarity in how to flag covered articles for attention by sysops, and someone had the idea to simply tag them as G5 for simplicity. Subsequently, there's been some thoughtful pushback against that route, both for being a bit hasty and from concerns regarding second-order consequences.

It may be an old school move, but from a flagging perspective there's nothing preventing the creation of a new template and category for articles potentially subject to deletion under ARBECR that is entirely independent of the CSD workflow this is a wiki after all. So no changes need to be made here for that to happen; the deletions are already authorized.

Our options then look roughly as follows not intended to be exhaustive:

• Start a new workflow as previously described. That sequesters all the DS/CT stuff in its own process which everyone who doesn't want to work those areas can just ignore, avoids the need to formulate a new CSD or modify an existing one, and keeps at bay the inevitable disputes over at what point the arbs cross from interpretating policy to making it. But new processes need to be staffed; it takes additional time to set up, will lack a complete existing set of norms, and further increase however slightly bureaucratic complexity. Might also need an approval RFC to preemptively quell objections.
• Just expand G5 as suggested. That more or less reverses the advantages and disadvantages set out above. There may still be an issue with staffing if people who don't want to work in DS/CT patrol the category for G5 candidates less; the percentage of flagged articles deleted may be higher if this is implemented.
• Split the difference in some way. For example through a new carefully tailored CSD, or by creating a second G5 category after the same fashion of the existing G3 and G8 duos in ((CSD/Subcategories)). Many of the disadvantages will combine for these scenarios, but some of the advantages will as well.
• Do nothing. Doing nothing is always an option. ARBECR itself may still be somewhat new, but the actions it authorizes are not. As much as it may seem like yesterday, ARBPIA3 was decided more than 8 years ago. DS/CT authorized deletions of non-ec creations have been occurring the whole time, and we've managed to get along just fine without either expanding G5, creating a new CSD, or coming up with some new process. Does continuing to utilize the user talk pages of experienced AE sysops in these cases perpetuate yet another part of the project's hidden structure? Certainly. Is it the least bad option available? Room for debate.

I don't really have a strong opinion yet developed here and may not get the chance to develop one with the IRL end of the year crunch ahead, but I thought this might help focus some thoughts on where everything fits in the big picture sense. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

How about we make it clear what WP:BANREVERT means and what it does not mean? Also WP:ARBECR permits, but does not require, deletion. It is the same thing as the rest of BRV. We can use discretion to delete. Given that, could we maybe just retire G5 altogether? The templates could be changed to notify administrators that the article may have been created in violation of a ban and may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia standards. Awesome Aasim 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I boldly started an RfC below to further discuss this issue among more editors. Awesome Aasim 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes it as difficult as possible for someone like me whose copyrighted work has been extensively plagiarized and posted on Wiki, to ask for its deletion. I cannot find anyone to report it, and intellectual thieves enjoy this policy. It used to be easier to report it to <copyvio@wikimedia.org>. But that contact is gone now. So, does anyone know where to report lifting and posting copyrighted graphics and texts on Wiki? I would appreciate a contact email (not 150 pages of technichal jargon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9900:5B67:8878:206A:581E:11F7 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Either info-en-cwikimedia.org or, for a formal DMCA takedown request, wmf:Legal:DMCA takedowns. —Cryptic 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If an article is a copyright violation, you can tag it as ((db-g12)) indicating the source of the content. If it's only a section, remove it and request ((revdel)). Primefac (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering, if an article is deleted under G5 (created by sockpuppet) but a user in good standing believes the article to have been a valid, productive contribution, is that user allowed to request undeletion somewhere? (No G5 article in particular that I intend on requesting undeletion for, I just saw a few of those to pages on my watchlist and that got me curious if there was a rule on this.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, at WP:Deletion review. See the explanatory essay at Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. Largoplazo (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you should ask the deleting admin first, before going to DRV. They may well say no, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You most certainly may ask.

Note that if you even read the deleted article, before writing a fresh version, on a strict best practice reading of attribution, you will need to cite the sockpuppet editor. To avoid this, I suggest that you only request the list of sources from the deleted article. A list of sources has been decided to not be a creative contribution requiring attribution. This is a cleaner, better practice. There is then no temptation to repeat any of the sockpuppet POV or turns of phrases.

In my experience, any admin will immediately give you the list of sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify that? If an admin undeletes an article, then its history is restored with it, isn't it? Including the initial and any other contribution by the sock? So no special act of citing is needed? Largoplazo (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if an article is undeleted, the history is restored including attribution, see for example history of Culcheth Linear Park in relation to its deletion log. The difference between that page and one that was deleted under G5 is that restoring the latter would effectively acknowlege the sock as page creator.

But an article doesn't need to be undeleted for an admin to examine the page as it stood at deletion - or indeed examine previous versions. Using this feature is very similar to what a newbie would see if they use the "View source" tab on a protected page, so the admin may copy any content - such as the individual references - to the clipboard in order that it be pasted somewhere else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This thread is going in too many different directions. The original question was whether one can request undeletion. The answer is Yes, but the requestor thereby assumes responsibility for any flaws in the article. If the article had fatal flaws other than that it was created by a sockpuppet (if it's promotional, abusive, a copyvio, etc.), then, of course, it will remain deleted on those grounds, but that's getting off the subject. And no doubt was expressed here that, nor any question asked as to whether, an editor can create an entirely new article on the same topic as a deleted sockpuppet article. Largoplazo (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes they can create a new article, and to aid them with this, they may be provided with a list of refs used in the deleted article. That is why I explained that deleted content may be viewed by admins. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

As a specific example I am wondering about, see Buck Simmons. (For context, Simmons was a notable racer recently deleted as G5.) I contacted the G5 deleter (User:Hey man im josh) about restoring to draftspace so I could clean it up and get it mainspace-ready, but he said that he was uncomfortable undeleting the entire thing due to having limited experience in the G5 area. We both thought it a good idea to ask about the specific example here. Would it be appropriate for a restoration (to draftspace) with me taking responsibility for the content, or should I simply start the whole thing over? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11:, here are the refs and ELs, in alphabetic order:

• "1979 LOS ANGELES TIMES 500". Racing-Reference.
• "'Buck' Not About Bucks; He Was About The Wins". Racin' Today.
• "Buck Simmons – 1979 NASCAR Winston Cup Series Results". Racing-Reference. NASCAR Digital Media, LLC.
• "Buck Simmons – 1979 NASCAR Winston West Series Results". Racing-Reference.
• "Buck Simmons – 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series Results". Racing-Reference. NASCAR Digital Media, LLC.
• Buck Simmons at The Third Turn
• Buck Simmons driver statistics at Racing-Reference
• "Charles Leroy "Buck" Simmons". Georgia Racing Hall of Fame.
• "Charles Simmons Obituary - Cornelia, Georgia". McGahee-Griffin & Stewart Funeral Home.
• Georgia Racing Hall of Fame page
• "Racing Legend Buck Simmons Passes Away". Raceweek Illustrated.
• "Simmons speeds to 602 Late Model victory at Lavonia". AccessWDUN.
• "Zack Mitchell tops Buck Simmons Memorial at Lavonia". AccessWDUN.

You can use those to create a new article without fear of plagiarism. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks, but my question was whether it would be allowed to restore the whole thing (or at least a good chunk of it) to draftspace as that would make it a good deal easier for me to write. I'm fine if I can only get the references but it would make it much more time consuming to re-write. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Often, when people are blocked at the level that would lead to G5 deletions of their later contributions, it is not merely for sockpuppetry, but also for problematic content in their article creations. That is true for this blocked contributor, although not necessarily specifically with the Buck Simmons article. The initial sockpuppet report under which they were blocked alleges "Main editing concern is adding unsourced content/rumors to BLPs." Simmons is not a BLP (he died in 2012) but in the Buck Simmons article, as edited by them, there were multiple unsourced paragraphs, paragraphs that looked sourced but for which the source only covered a small part of the paragraph text, and at least one source that was immediately removed as unreliable. For this reason, I would be uncomfortable basing anything on their text, and would prefer a new draft with more care for proper sourcing than this sockpuppet report suggests the original creator may have had. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. That is exactly the sort of content that is suited to draftspace, where an editor can spend the time to go through and discard any trivia and other stuff that doesn't belong in the article, then look at the remainder to identify what is well sourced, what is poorly sourced and what is unsourced. Following that they can find (better) sources for what they can and remove what they can't. The only reason to deny someone the text of a G5-deleted article on request is for reasons like copyright violations or blatant attacks, none of which appear to be issues with this article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the content in question and moved it to Draft:Buck Simmons. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thank you! I knew enough to know I didn't know enough, but you've helped me to understand how to approach this moving forward. Thank you @BeanieFan11 for asking, we've both learned from this now :) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Great - I'll make sure to work on and cleanup the draft at some point soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just reverted some spam on a talk page. The page didn't exist before, so it's now just a blank page. Is G3 intended for cases like this? Is it best practice to blank the page before tagging (to remove the spam as soon as possible), or avoid blanking (so the admin can immediately see the reason for the tag without having to look at the previous version)? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That or G2 or G6. Or you can put a WikiProject template on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would argue against G6, and only G2 if it's clear it's a test edit (I would not count obvious vandalism as a "test"). Adding a Project tag is a good idea though. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You can also blank it and request revdel, that's a valid use under RD5. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that it isn't a valid RD5 because there isn't necessarily a good reason to delete the page. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If the content would've been deleted as G11 if it was a standalone article, RD5 covers revision deleting it if the first revision meets G11. I've done this before with pages that are created as vandalism but have useful titles (The Mad Russian is the example that comes to mind), same idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As Jo-Jo suggests, add a WikiProject tag, otherwise just blank it and leave it be. No harm in having a blank talk page (unless said vandalism is a WP:G10 candidate). Primefac (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice. I like the idea of putting in a WikiProject tag. The motivating example was the talk page of a redirect. I’m not sure if there is an appropriate tag in that case. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You could add ((Talk page of redirect)) if nothing else. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked at that but was put off by the Misuse section…Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case, just redirect it to the target's talk page. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Careful about the WikiProject tags; while I haven't yet received a complaint for adding them, I am not sure they are always correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles on en.wikipedia are supposed to be limited to those with an WP:ENGLISHTITLE, yet there's at least one editor adding many disambiguation pages to the project, with Chinese page titles. They can be seen here. From a quick look, all of the articles being "disambiguated" are all English-titled articles. I don't see a need for the disambiguation pages, or why they'd be a special case that is exempt from ENGLISHTITLE. Would it be in order to use CSD G14 for these? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking I do not think they meet G14 as they do appear to disambiguate at least two pages. Taking one page arbitrarily as an example, I think the solution here might be to redirect/merge 怪談 to its English counterpart Kaidan (disambiguation); that way those searching for the Chinese term will still be able to search for their expected result, but get an answer that's actually in English. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not speedily deletable, and probably shouldn't be deleted at all in many (maybe most) cases. Per WP:RFOREIGN where there is a close connection between the subject and another language, then a redirect from the title in that language is appropriate. If that title is ambiguous, then obviously it should be disambiguated. Whether to disambiguate at the foreign-language title or redirect to a disambiguation page at an English title will depend on the individual circumstances, but in neither case should the non-English title be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, see the discussion that I initiated a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55#Spell out the treatment of titles with non-Latin characters, where I argued that it makes sense to extend to such disambiguation pages the principles that are set forth for redirects at WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that discussion, but I see I made essentially the same argument for the same reasons in my comment above (WP:RFOREIGN and WP:FORRED have the same target). Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Where would you move the pages if you move them somewhere else? I only bothered checking the first four pages (一 (disambiguation), 一生, 一生一世, 一輝) where the only thing which unites the targets is the way they are written using Chinese characters. There is no common version using Roman letters.

We normally redirect place names and person names from the original language in the script. Check 大阪, 北京, Москва, for example. If the original name in the original name is ambiguous, you typically create an ambiguation page if there would otherwise be too many hatnotes. I don't see why place names in the original language in the original script, such as 東京, should receive different treatment. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:ENGLISHTITLE applies only to the title used at an actual article. Redirects in other scripts, and disambiguation pages when those redirects are ambiguous, are non-problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also WP:DABTITLE to consider - "English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages" - but "preferred" isn't "mandated"; and if "the English title isn't ambiguous, but the foreign title is" isn't reason to ignore that, I don't know what possibly could be. (Also, there's recent precedent at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 12#樂天, and less-recent precedent linked from that.) —Cryptic 12:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

For a long time there's been a de-facto convention to delete empty subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets as soon as they become empty. I attempted to add this in June 2022, but was reverted. I still think it should be added to the list somewhere, either as an explicit new criterion, back to G6 as in my original attempt, or to C1, as the current system seems to be working fine and I doubt we are going to convince the admins doing these deletions to wait seven days. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this can't be combined with the empty dated maintenance category G6 subcriterion - perhaps as something to the effect of "categories internal to Wikipedia that cannot reasonably be expected to be repopulated", but worded less awkwardly. I agree they're both better off in C1. The timing difference doesn't bother me, much like how it can be bypassed for certain files in F5. —Cryptic 03:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As I think Cryptic suggests, I'd be happy with a rewording of C1 to allow immediate deletion as part of C1 similar to F5 ('categories internal to Wikipedia that cannot reasonably be expected to be repopulated' or even just 'categories that cannot reasonably be expected to be repopulated') but that is likely a broader discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria should be objective, which that isn't. And Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 (because of contested BLARs or soft deletions I think) has been deleted so many times that when it becomes empty I at least would reasonably expect it to be repopulated. I think it's better to explicitly list categories that can be deleted instantly when they become empty so that even an admin who isn't familiar with the processes they represent would know when to speedy delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 86#Empty monthly maintenance categories * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way we can make this more objective without just limiting to these two specific cases? The main objection to the C4 proposal at your link was that it didn't actually do anything except change what row admins clicked on the deletion drop-down menu. —Cryptic 04:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What I was getting at with "internal to Wikipedia" - I guess the usual wording is "project categories" - is that I wanted to eliminate any chance of it being applied to a non-hidden category that ever held a mainspace page. That's veering too far into NEWCSD#2 territory for me to be comfortable with.

I do have some misgivings about unforeseen consequences of broadening these subcriteria like this - and I do consider the sockpuppets examples to be de-facto subcriteria. Paging through C1 deletions in 2024, I worry a little whether people would use this to immediately speedy cats like Category:User cr-N or Category:Wikipedia featured topics Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars or Category:NA-Class vital articles in Mathematics, and even if so, how much of a problem that is. —Cryptic 04:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems better to have these be top-level sections, rather than under a redundant "List of criteria" heading. Remsense诉 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The current structure of the ToC (with "criteria" being the same level as "non-criteria" and "obsolete criteria") makes perfect sense to me. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It is more strictly logical, but it is slightly less good in terms of convenience—or at least it is for me, using Vector 2022, where the ToC is permanently on the side, and top-level headings are collapsed by default. Remsense诉 06:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We should not make things worse because Vector 2022 is broken. —Kusma (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I would still prefer find this layout preferable barring any particular visual presentation, for what its worth. I don't think Vector 2022 is broken, I quite like it, but it happens to emphasize what I find to be this genre of minor issue.

When the main point of an article isn't stashed under one heading, it works exactly how I want it to. See also: articles about historical events with a monolithic "History" section for no practical reason beyond category theory. Remsense诉 07:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

See also: biographical articles where some editor has decided the article needs sections and implemented that by adding a "Biography" or "Life" section containing all but the first paragraph. Anyway I like the new flatter hierarchy. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I see where Remsense is coming from on this. With the title of the page being Criteria for speedy deletion, at first glance, it does seem a little redundant to have a section on the page titled List of criteria. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. That might be worth looking at. Done here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a question about whether my interpretation is correct that a slightly different version of G5 is correct. There is a discussion in progress at MFD, so it is not important right now whether this is G5, but I would like other views. A draft was created by an account that was then globally locked by a steward. The reason for the global lock is that the account is a sockpuppet of another globally locked account, and the earlier account had been globally locked before the draft was created. So my question is whether this would be speedy-deletable as G5, and my opinion is yes, but I would like another opinion. A global lock is a technical mechanism for preventing a user from logging on, so it is really a form of block. A sockpuppet of a globally locked user is evading a block in a way similar to a sockpuppet of a user that has been blocked on the English Wikipedia. So my question is whether my understanding is correct, that this draft can be deleted as G5. Since it is already at MFD, we can let the MFD run this time, but I would like to know whether, in the future, such drafts (or articles) can be nominated for G5. It doesn't look exactly like a normal G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation is the same as yours: that the article can be nominated under G5. I don't see any difference between a global lock and a local block or ban. Of course in any particular case (and I don't know what this one is) no action or an XfD discussion may be better. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was mistaken about it being a draft. It's a user talk page. The MFD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Sakda Kulnaphang . Other editors have said that the originator was spamming. The portions of the posts that I can read look like spam. I !voted to Delete because Wikipedia doesn't have a use for advertising by blocked sockpuppets. The nominator probably tagged it for MFD rather than for G5 because it doesn't look like a typical G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The nominator did tag it for CSD -- twice -- before bringing it to MFD. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that user talk pages are not generally deleted barring clear and obvious issues (G10, outing, death threats, etc). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, user_talk pages are not generally deleted at MfD. The rare main exception has been that the talk page has no history of being used as a talk page, eg a NOTWEBHOST dump was placed on an unused talk page.

Problematic talk pages can often be completely sufficiently dealt with by blanking. Where that is not good enough, the page should probably be quietly referred to WP:Oversight. If blanking is not good enough, it is a worse idea to advertise the problem at MfD.

I’ve never seen a good reason to tag a usertalk page with U5, or a good reason to expand u5 to user_talk.

On the use of G5, especially with global blocks, I’ve seen that it quickly becomes technical, with necessary attention to detail on the time of edit and time of block, and I really think these questions are best referred to WP:SPI clerks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think that user talk pages should only be speedily deleted if every single revision is either blank or eligible for speedy deletion. Sure, that's how every speedy deletion is supposed to work, but it's especially important for user talk pages because their purpose means that they often have edits from users other than the one the user talk page is about. I don't think that U5 would apply to User talk:Sakda Kulnaphang because of the namespace, and I dunno if G5 is applicable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus for option 2 or option 3. I think it might be a good idea to clarify whether GS/CT restrictions fall under G5 or if a new criteria G15 should be created. I think either is okay, as long as it gets mentioned somewhere on the page. Awesome Aasim 21:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

If we must authorise speedy deletion as a GS/CT remedy (and I continue to believe it is a bad idea to do so) then the very first step is to set out a wording that meets all of the WP:NEWCSD requirements (which isn't going to be easy). Once we have that we can see how similar it is to G5 and thus whether it works best as part of that criterion or as its own standalone one. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is a bad idea. Delegated speedy deletion being further delegated, makes a mockery of the leading line of CSD, and dangerously elevates ArbCom as a governing power, free to delegate their power. This is a bad pathway.

Better to block any editor who breaks their partial ban, and leave it to their unblock request to make the case that it was not a partial ban violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is anybody actually interested in this? As it stands we have a consensus that these deletions should be allowed, but the relevant policy still prohibits them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any objections (specific ones, and consistent with the RFC close) to the pre-RFC version? —Cryptic 23:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It fails NEWCSD point 2, because deletion speedy deletion is not required for the majority of such pages - especially ones created in good faith. G5 (which is already too vague) is intended to allow for the deletion of content created by editors who have been repeatedly disruptive and who are fully aware that they are being disruptive and why it is considered disruptive, not for allowing easier biting of newbies who happen to start on a contentious topic . Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

So no objections consistent with the close? I mean, you don't get to stonewall this against the consensus above on NEWCSD2 grounds any more than I do the R5 proposal below on NEWCSD3 and 4 ones. Best either of us can do is to stand aside, document how very wrongly things turn out, and - if our fears are proven justified - attempt to convince people to repeal once we've got stronger evidence to point at. —Cryptic 03:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

My objections are consistent with the close, and I'm not attempting to stonewall. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That version looks fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would replace "general sanctions" with "in violation of general sanctions" with "in violation of a topic-wide extended confirmed restriction", to be less ambiguous. Although on second thought that link points to ArbCom procedures and thereby misses the community RUSUKR restrictions, which should probably be fixed. Until that happens I guess I'm fine with the pre-RFC version. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with "in violation of an extended-confirmed restriction" without a link to WP:ECR. I'm not aware of any non-ECR general sanctions that would apply here. It's possible that the community or ArbCom would authorize some other topic-wide creation restriction, so maybe "general sanctions" is more future-proof? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the broader "general sanctions" so that it's more future-proof but I'd also be fine with an unlinked "extended-confirmed restriction". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

By “future-proof”, do you mean “lax”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I mean future-proof in that we won't need to go through this process again if the community comes up with another page or topic-level sanction that prevents a group of edits from creating pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If that happens then it should be trivial at the time to get consensus about whether this should be enforceable by speedy deletion, and if so what the NEWCSD-compatible wording implementing that is. Unless and until that happens, it's just less precise language that increases the risk of problems down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Y'all seem a little stuck, so let me throw something out to get discussion started.

A12. Author violating arbitration committee extended confirmed restriction

Topics under a contentious topic extended confirmed restriction may not be created in mainspace by editors who do not possess the extended confirmed permission.

I purposely changed it from G to A to exempt user sandboxes, as that was mentioned as a concern somewhere, although I'd be fine with changing it back. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

My preference is that we try incorporate it into G5 but I don't have an issue with a new criteria. I think it does need to be G rather than A as it would also apply to drafts, talk pages, Wikipedia pages and so on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. ECR does not logically fit under G5, and abandoning logic necessarily means abandoning “objective” and screws up the foundational basis of CSD.

Support “A” because it only needs to apply to mainspace. It should not apply to drafts or userspace. ECR accounts putting stuff in talk or project namespaces should be dealt with as with any WP:GAMING. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like something that should be brought up as an amendment request (for the ArbCom-imposed ones) and WP:VPR (for the community imposed one). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom should not be overriding policy. WP:CSD should be a standalone policy. If ArbCom want ECR violations to be speediable, as opposed to a deletion reason, and for this to be applicable to all namespaces, not just mainspace, then they should be clear about this, and it needs ratification here at CSD. WP:CSD should not be asked to contract out WP:CSD-writing to ArbCom.

It is not clear that ARbCom insists that ECR violations in userspace should be speediable. If userspace ECR violations are not speediable, then it is not clear that weird namespace creations, such as in project or project_talk namespaces, or worse, should not be treated as a mistake and speedy-userfied (without trailing redirect). The rationale here is merely that the newcomer should not be bitten. Arcane rules should not justify beating and confusing the newcomer. If you speedy delete their userpsubpage or draftpage, how are they meant to hope that they will understand exactly what they did wrong. These are my concerns. Newcomer biting, as well as subverting CSD by addition of large door and subjective new criteria.

I think User:Novem_Linguae's A12 is obviously agreeable, and the first question is: Does anyone disagree. The second question is: Can you please justify why it needs to be broader (eg why not allow MfD deletions in userspace, and speedy-userfication from other namespaces. Already, the one case at MfD did not result in deletion!).

-- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I would suggest removing "arbitration committee" and "contentious topic", and I think we shouldn't link WP:ECR. The community has also established extended confirmed restrictions that authorize deletion, and the restrictions do not follow the exact text at WP:ECR. See for example WP:GS/AA or WP:GS/RUSUKR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How about this:

G15: Pages created in violation of a contentious topic restriction or other general sanction

Pages that are created by users in violation of an arbitration- or community-authorized contentious topic restriction or other topic-specific general sanction, with no significant edits from others. This does not apply if the user is explicitly banned from the topic area (see WP:CSD#G5), nor does it apply if a user not subject to the restriction takes responsibility for the content.

And then we can have WP:RFUD for an appropriate user to take responsibility for such content, and WP:DRV if the creator believes the deletion was done out of process. Awesome Aasim 21:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Too broad. Hopelessly subjective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how this is subjective. Either the page was created and edited in violation of a general sanction, or it was not. Just like either the page was created as ban evasion, or it was not. Awesome Aasim 17:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The subjective part I think is that not everything that could be deleted under this criterion should be deleted. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 21:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The same argument can be said about G5. An article can be of exceptional quality but written by a banned editor in that topic area. The point of bans and topic restrictions is that allowing specific users or groups of users in specific topic areas pose a serious risk of disruption for any number of reasons, that we shouldn't allow them to edit there at all. Not that there will sometimes be good content that is deleted for that reason. Awesome Aasim 22:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The same argument can be said about G5 indeed, which is why G5 would not be approved if proposed today, and why it is one of the most controversial criteria. Whenever we delete good content just because of who wrote it we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Good content should be kept and bad content should be deleted, in all cases who the author is is irrelevant. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

G5 began objective. It used to read simply:

Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned.

Scope creep is a problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed scope creep is a problem.

In my humble opinion, I would have G5 and the proposed G15 deletions undeletable at WP:RFUD by someone who is not subject to the ban/block or topic restriction. Instruction creep is really the enemy that we should fight here. Awesome Aasim 02:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps then what is needed is simply (sticky) PROD, which can only be removed by an extended confirmed editor taking responsibility for it. This guarantees at least two pairs of eyes and gives people a week to find the content. If it is too problematic to remain for a week then it should meet at least one existing speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sticky PROD sounds like a much better response to the subjective violation of a subjective partial topic ban pronouncement by ArbCom, and especially where it has spilled over to classes of editors, not specifically named users.

Speedy deletion, with a log reference to a peculiar technical requirement, is confusing and chilling to newcomers attempting to contribute to an important topic.

Where good faith can’t be assumed and disruption is at play, it’s a behavioural problem, and behaviours should be responded to by warnings and blocks, not content deletion.

This especially applies to content creation in userspace and draftspace, where there is no urgency to product the product (WP:PPP). SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if something is created in mainspace then existing processes such as draftifcation, userfication, and AfD exist to deal with content that is actually (rather than just procedurally) unfit to be public-facing without needing deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There are speedy templates that operate a bit like PROD: namely, a lot of the ((di)) templates, as well as WP:C1. I fail to see how this is any different. Awesome Aasim 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

With a PROD anyone can remove for any reason at any time, because it's just one person's opinion that deletion is uncontroversial. With sticky-PROD anyone can remove at any time if they've taken specific actions (e.g. added references to a BLP), because it's one person's opinion that it's not possible to do that action. With speedy deletion, the bar to removal is higher as you have to assert that the page does not meet the criterion for some reason, because to be a valid speedy deletion criterion it must be community consensus that everything that meets the criterion should be deleted. WP:C1 is proper speedy deletion as community consensus is that categories that have been empty for 7 days should be deleted. Most of the ((di)) ones are a mix of proper speedy deletion (but with a delay because it can take time to verify that the files do meet the criterion) and PRODs in disguise.

Either a page was created by a non-ECR editor or it wasn't, we don't need time to verify that, and waiting any amount of time doesn't change that. However, we do need to give time for other editors to verify that the content should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can enforce the ECR restriction in different ways, like edit filters.

We can have a speedy criteria in case anything slips past, but we can tag if the article appears to contain keywords hinting at an ECR topic, maybe also warn the user in the edit box. Awesome Aasim 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Folks, what exactly is the problem here? There's a consensus from the RfC that either G5 applies, or a new Gx should be created. Modifying G5 is simple, just add the text from Awesome Aasim's G15 suggestion as a bullet point and it's done. It's literally the easiest option, and doesn't even require changes to tools like Twinkle. Or create the G15 suggestion from Awesome Aasim and again, we're done.

As someone who's completely uninvolved in the RfC and post-discussion until now, I'm sorely tempted to just make one of these edits myself, probably the G5 modification, because it shouldn't be this hard to just implement. It's been 8 days since the last comment. Can we please see some action here, or am I just going to do this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What is it you are not understanding about the comments and objections noted above? (this is not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely not understanding what is unclear to you). I'm disappointed the (sticky) PROD suggestion has not received more input, given that it seems achieve the outcome those supporting the expansion of the speedy deletion criteria want while avoiding (at least most of) the incompatibilities with the requirements for speedy deletion criteria noted. The reason it's proving harder to implement than a surface reading suggests it should is because when you look at the detail you find that converting a vague aspiration into something that meets the NEWCSD requirements is actually hard. If you want to ignore those requirements and just implement the subjective, overly broad criterion proposed then you might be able to get consensus to do that (although I personally hope you don't, as the requirements exist for good reason), but that consensus doesn't exist yet. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's simple, there's a consensus from the RfC that either G5 applies, or a new Gx should be created. Either option appears to fulfil NEWCSD. Pick one of those two, and do it. If there's no action on this by tomorrow, I'm just going to pick the easiest option to implement myself (G5) and do it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Either option appears to fulfil NEWCSD the outcome of the first RFD was "create or modify a criterion to allow this", which is neither compatible nor incompatible with NEWCSD (it's not a proposal). For the reasons explained above multiple times, the specifically proposed wordings do not: they're subjective and overly broad. I explicitly and actively oppose adding this to G5 as that just makes one of the most controversial criteria more complicated and even less objective. G15 is a little better as it doesn't muddy multiple only semi-related things in together, but it doesn't solve the overreach problem. The A12 proposal is the least problematic - there is no consensus whether drafts and talk pages should be deleted so they need to be excluded from any speedy deletion criterion compliant with speedy deletion policy, but (like the other suggestions too) it hasn't attracted enough comment to determine whether it has consensus or not.

What needs to happen is either more discussion until we arrive at a consensus for something that is compatible with policy, a consensus to ignore the policy, or no change through lack of interest in achieving consensus. What we really do not need is reckless changes to policy in the absence of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's an explainer for how either criteria meets NEWCSD:

1. Objective: A user either is or is not extended confirmed. Whether an article does or does not meet ARPBIA4, GS/AA, or GS/KURD is an objective assessment that any editor in good standing can make.
2. Uncontestable: WP:ARBECR#A2 states that non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles in content areas covered by this sanction. ARBECR#A1 states that non-extendend-confirmed editors may only use the Talk namespace to make edit requests, and canno
3. Frequent: We have non-extended-confirmed editors creating articles in content areas covered by ARBPIA4, GS/AA, and GS/KURD. Per ARBECR and the copied versions in GS/* non-extended-confirmed editors are not allowed to create these articles. This speeds up deletion of articles created in violation of that sanction.
4. Nonredundant: There are no other CSD that currently apply for enforcement of ARBECR.

This is quite clearly an objective criteria, either a user is or is not extended confirmed, and an article either is or is not in one of the relevant sanction areas. I'm don't really want to be dragged into a state where I become INVOLVED in this, because this really should have been implemented already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting, ((db-gs)) has existed as a valid template to use here since November 2023, telling the processing page deleter that a nomination can be deleted under CSD G5. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions gives a report of all pages currently tagged with the db-gs template, and tells reviewing page deleter that a nomination can be deleted under CSD G5. We're already using G5 in practice to delete violating articles. Making the simple edit simply brings the text of the policy in line with how it's already being used in practice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

1. A user either is or is not extended confirmed. This is indeed objective, but Whether an article does or does not meet ARPBIA4, GS/AA, or GS/KURD is an objective assessment that any editor in good standing can make. varies - some things are clearly within the topic area, some things clearly aren't, but there is a very large grey area (at least for ARBPIA4 and GS/AA, I'm much less familiar with GS/KURD).
2. There is no consensus that every page created in violation of these restrictions should be deleted (e.g. moving, redirecting, draftifying are better in some circumstances).
3. Correct.
4. Correct.

((db-gs)) has existed as a valid template to use here since November 2023, telling the processing page deleter that a nomination can be deleted under CSD G5. Until not long ago this template would have been speedily deletable as a misrepresentation of policy and really should be deleted or amended as G5 says no such thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Uncontestable. This is only really demonstrated by putting a series of cases through XfD and having them all result in SNOW deletion. The one MfD case did not result in deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you really want to be specific about criteria 2, almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted (bolding added for emphasis); and I have a strong feeling that the community, especially community members who see WP:ARBECR'd articles at XfD, are going to feel it a waste of time to bureaucratically establish a criteria that has already been enforced, just not explicitly. These deletions were happening long before this discussion happened for as long as ARBECR existed, before anyone even attempted to add ARBECR to G5. There are no viable alternatives to speedy deletion for this kind of stuff anyway; blank pages provide a terrible experience for readers and draftification does not fix the fact that the creator was banned/blocked/violating a general sanction restriction. The whole reason community would impose WP:ARBECR in a topic area (or ask ArbCom to do so) is they don't want to waste time at XfD or PROD. Deletion is reversible and I think the best compromise would be to have REFUND available to anyone not subject to the general sanction. I would also clarify that ARBECR does not mean that pages must be deleted either. Awesome Aasim 14:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Those objections deal with articles, not other types of pages. That people have been speedily deleting things outside of the speedy deletion policy does not mean that we must mangle the speedy deletion policy to fit, it means people should stop speedy deleting those things. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That or the policy is wrong. WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. We don't work by rules lawyering, we work by consensus. And I don't think we should send ARBECR violating articles to XfD to prove that this is uncontestable either, as it's just a waste of time. Community policies are just a reflection of community consensus. Deletion is also reversible; which is why we have WP:RFUD. Awesome Aasim 15:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFUD is currently silent on whether it is applicable to G5 deletions (some criteria are explicitly listed as in scope, others are explicitly listed as out of scope, G5 is not in either list) but a search of the archives suggests that such pages are only refunded when the G5 was in error. A new or modified criterion could be explicit about this, but it's a strong argument against lumping it in with G5 as some but not all G5s being refundable would be confusing, especially to new editors.

IAR is never a reason to speedily delete a page. IAR is only for actions that uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia, the speedy deletion criteria list the only times it is uncontroversial to delete a page without consensus to do so (prods are a special case of silent consensus).

There is no way to demonstrate that deletion of ARBECR pages is uncontestable is to demonstrate that they are not contested. This is not POINTY, a waste of time or process for the sake of process, it is simply getting evidence to back up an assertion. So far 100% of the pages sent to MfD have not been deleted, which is as far from unontestable as you can get.

It's true that we work on consensus, which is why (most of us) are discussing things not making unilateral changes to policy that clearly do not have consensus. And before you point again to the RFC, that was a consensus to modify an existing criterion or add a new one and was completely silent on which should be done and importantly how either should be done. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need to have an implementation RfC here? Put the G5 and G15 texts up against "none of the above"? Because to me that seems like kicking the can down the road for another 30 days, while ARBECR deletions under G5 continue in practice. It's true that our policies and guidelines are often decided by RfC, but they also are often decided or refined through how they're used in practice by "editors on the ground". Why can't we just implement this and move back to editing? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We need consensus. That can be arrived at by an RFC or it can be arrived at by normal discussion but it can't be arrived at by ignoring discussion. We can't "just implement this and move back to editing" because there are strong objections to doing so and no consensus to overrule those objections.

We have several options at this point G5, G15, A12, (sticky) prod, XfD only, none of the above. G15, A12 and sticky prod need more discussion and workshopping before being put to any sort of vote or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We need consensus There are multiple ways consensus can form. RfC and discussion are two of those ways. Through editing is another. Policies and guidelines however can also change based on how editors are tackling an issue in practice. Currently in practice, articles that violate ARBECR or the GS equivalent are typically deleted under G5. There have been at least 16 such deletions since August 2023 (possibly more, there's no standardised log entry for these and the quarry might have missed some that log it differently). Yes that is technically out of step with how G5 is currently written, but that suggests to me that resolving this means adjusting the text of G5 so that the letter of the rule is in line with how it's actually being used.

Why can't we just have the text of the policy reflect how it's currently being used in practice?

We have several options at this point We could do an RfC on all of those options, but even if we did that as some form of ranked voting it'd likely just result in no consensus due to there being too many options. Better to just pick one or two, and run that against none of the above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think we should just write something and drop the stick. It can always be refined later based on actual implementation but it should not be excluded. There already is consensus to implement ECR deletions so why can't we just leave it at that. Awesome Aasim 17:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with such an implementation. I've been fine with many of the proposals made here. I'm eager to implement something in accordance with the accumulated consensus of ArbCom, the community at AN, and the community here in the RfC. I think it would be fine to refine whatever we implement. I think it would be great to be as compliant with NEWCSD as possible, but it's not some pinnacle of policy. It's a notice at the top of a policy talk page, and it shouldn't be a major obstacle to implementing consensus. The NEWCSD-based arguments were evaluated as part of the RfC, and the community decided to proceed with an adapted or new criterion for GS speedy deletions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it was kind of pointless rambling on how to actually implement this. We should probably continue to further clarify the wording but hey it's better than nothing! I do think we should definitely rethink how we implement G5 deletions though. Not the wording, but what should happen.

I think G5 deletions should be REFUND-able so that users that are not subject to a ban or block, or the general sanction restrictions mentioned, can fairly request undeletion of the deleted material and take charge of fixing any problems with the text. For the user that is allegedly subject to the general sanction, we can have deletion review if they think the deletion was done out of process. Awesome Aasim 05:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We should probably continue to further clarify the wording but hey it's better than nothing! badly worded speedy deletion criteria are worse than nothing - this is the entire reason why the NEWCSD requirements exist in the first place. Speedy deletion is one of the bitiest things it's possible for an admin to do and so must be used with caution so as not to delete things there is no consensus should be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we need mediation. Why can't we agree on the wording of something that there already is consensus for above. Does anyone want to open something on WP:DRNB? Or maybe we can go to a different WP:3O forum like WP:VPIL or WP:VPPL to get wider input. Awesome Aasim 17:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think the outcome from a DRNB or 3O would just be "have an RfC". Technically I came in here completely uninvolved in the past discussions so could kinda be considered a 3O if you don't look too closely at it I guess. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:S Marshall. You wrote:

It's questioned whether Arbcom is empowered to authorise speedy deletions at all. Since both option 2 and option 3 agree that general sanctions can, in some circumstances, lead to speedy deletions, it necessarily follows that the community delegates that power to Arbcom.

Can you please explain why it necessarily follows? I don't think that it necessarily follows. I think that a possible, even better, interpretation, is that ArbCom has introduced a new WP:DEL-REASON. And from there, it is possible that WP:NEWCSD is met, or that in somecases an existing CSD is already met. However, it does not necessarily follow that the community delegates the power to overwrite this policy. That interpretation is quite extreme, to jump straight from something not even being a reason for deletion to arbcom wanting it to be speediable by their inference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• I found consensus somewhere between options 2 and option 3. So that gives me two ways:

1. Option 2—add general sanctions to G5, which is to say, speedy deletion under general sanctions is permissible, and falls under G5; or
2. Option 3—add general sanctions to its own CSD, which is to say, speedy deletion under general sanctions is permissible, and falls under some new speedy deletion criterion.

Therefore speedy deletion under general sanctions is permissible. QED.

Arbcom has the power to authorize general sanctions. Therefore Arbcom has the power to authorize speedy deletion. Indirectly so, but quite clearly.

Sanity check: some editors adopted the position most clearly argued by Thryduulf, although Ivanvector also explained it well, which was to question whether Arbcom has the power to authorize speedy deletion at all. Those editors opposed option 2 and option 3.—S Marshall T/C 14:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t like the possible inference that editors at WT:CSD supporting new CSD text matching an ArbCom statement implies that they support ArbCom having the power to overwrite WP:CSD. I don’t think you’ve supported your words that the community delegates that power. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom has the power to authorize speedy deletion

I think that needs to be put, cleanly, to an RfC. It is a serious expansion on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy, which has a formal amendment process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom don't have the power to "overwrite CSD". They have wide powers to deal with disruptive conduct, including the power to delete content without giving a reason in public (in their personal capacity as checkusers and oversighters) and to authorize the deletion of content by others (who must be sysops who've individually granted access to the delete tool by the community). Consensus is that Arbcom can do these things; what's disputed is which flavour of alphabet soup we use to describe that power. You can start a confirmatory RFC if you like, but to me, that doesn't seem like a good use of community time, because there's so little doubt that Arbcom has that power.—S Marshall T/C 01:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:VPPL#How to word G5 expansion/G15 new criteria. Awesome Aasim 22:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A page is nominated for speedy, recreated and then deleted via an AfD. The page is then recreated yet again. A subsequent request for speedy G4 is declined because G4 says, This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.

This is, BTW, the current AfD of the article in question. The application of the 'no more than one speedy, ever' interpretation has meant the article being deleted through AfD, recreated and then a (IMHO) perfectly proper G4 declined - resulting in yet another AfD.

However, I read that G4 text as intending to mean 'if an article has not gone to AfD you can't nominate it twice for speedy deletion', which makes sense. AfD is, surely, sovereign - and therefore would effectively 'cancel' or supersede any previous speedy deletion nomination, allowing a page that had been deleted via AfD and then recreated to be nominated for speedy G4 when it had been quite properly deleted via consensus (and no deletion review involved). Should the text of G4 be clearer, therefore, and specify something like "This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion - unless it has been subsequently deleted via the AfD process."

I do hope that all comes across as clearer than I fear it might... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's a G4. You can't immunize a title from ever being G4'd by writing 'LOL, JIMBO IS GAY' there once. The point of that clause is that you can't G4 something unless it's gone through AFD, even if it happens to have been speedied or prodded; that's why it says "only". I've deleted it. —Cryptic 07:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I closed the new AfD accordingly. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no interpretation involved here. The criterion clearly contains the word "only". Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was clear (hence "a (IMHO) perfectly proper G4") but others appear not to have found it so... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If a page has been deleted at its most recent XfD and is recreated in a way that is substantially identical to the deleted version, then it may be speedily deleted under G4, unless it was draftified/userfied for improvement and/or undeleted at DRV. The only interpretation required is whether it is substantially identical to the deleted version.
Of course, it is not required to be speedy deleted, and editors may choose to take it to a new XfD if they wish (e.g if they aren't sure if the changes are significant enough, or they think consensus might be different this time.) Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it also excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies which might apply in cases where e.g a biography is deleted for lack of notability and then restored with the exact same text when some event has conferred notability. That said, G4 isn't the only speedy deletion criterion - if a page speedily deleted for being spam is restored with the exact same text, G4 wouldn't apply but the previous speedy deletion reason (G11, in this case) would. Otherwise, yes, a previous speedy deletion does not affect G4 eligibility one way or another when there was an AfD in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A question has arisen at my user talk page about what can be done when a draft that is declined in AFD is moved unilaterally to article space. An editor says that they have been told that it is then eligible for G4. I didn't think so, but I am aware that I might not know something. The article that started this discussion was Paloma Aguirre, which was written by a paid editor, and declined by an AFC reviewer as a draft, and then copied to article space. I WP:PROD'd the article, and was asked whether that was the right action, because that will result in a Soft Delete. I don't know whether the subject is notable. I didn't want to do a source analysis, and didn't want to write an AFD without a source analysis on notability. So then this question arose about whether declined drafts moved to article space can be tagged as G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Robert McClenon § Paloma Aguirre

Are you sure it is best to use WP:PROD for these? If successful, it will result in WP:SOFTDELETE. Do we want a stronger result?

Also pinging User:Scope creep who endorsed the PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Kvng - I will be satisfied with a Soft Delete as the right result. The alternative would of course be to send the article to AFD, and decide whether the subject is biographically notable. I have no opinion on her notability. She may be notable. A soft delete permits a neutral editor to request undeletion. If a neutral editor requests undeletion, they may leave the biography unchanged or improve it. In either case, it can then be taken to AFD on the merits. To be honest, I PROD'd it because I didn't feel like doing a source analysis (and I wasn't prepared to argue lack of notability unless I did a source analysis), and knew that I might be doing a source analysis at a later day. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: @Robert McClenon: I'm pretty detached from it as well. If it comes up again, it will appear in the watchlist. I would have G4 since it was declined at AFC review, which is the legitimate way of deleting it, but ok with prod. If it comes back again, it go to Afd and it will be salted. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:scope_creep - It is not my understanding that a decline at AFD enables a G4. It is my understanding that G4 is only available when a page has been deleted after a deletion discussion in the address space that the nominated page is in. It is my understanding that a neutral editor may move a declined draft from draft space into article space to contest a decline, and then it will be subject to AFD as a consensus process, so that there is a consensus process for reviewing the unilateral action of the decline. If there has been a change to the G4 criteria so that a declined draft that is sent to article space can be tagged for G4, I would like to know (and might disagree). In this case, the reason why the author did not have the right to contest the decline by moving it to article space is that they are a paid editor. I think that in a while I will copy this discussion to the AFC talk page for clarification. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not at Afd. If its declined in Afc and then moved to mainspace and its junk, it can be G4'd. I think that is the process as far as I know. I didn't know you could G4 until a few days ago, when I saw it in a conversation. I've not used it as yet. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If its declined in Afc and then moved to mainspace and its junk, it can be G4'd. Really? I don't see anything in the criterion that suggests that this is true. If it's junk enough to meet one of the other criteria for speedy deletion then do it. But G4? Remember AfC is decided by only one usually non-admin editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Scope creep is wrong. An AfC decline in the history does not enable G4. G4 requires an AfD consensus to delete and for the new page to be substantially identical. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe AFC is unrelated to AFD and G4. I think G4 is only for AFD results. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

XfD results. Eg a prior MfD on a draft also works. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If in doubt, the answer is almost always XfD. Draftspace and AfC is optional. If someone doesn’t think it belongs in mainspace, use AfD. If there is any evidence of actual dispute, use AfD not PROD, PROD is intended for things that you think no one cares about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a conversation clear as day about it that stated G4 could be used, unless I misinterpreted it. It was only a couple of days ago. Up until that point i'd only used articles that had reappeared after an Afd deletion. I'll try and find it. scope_creep^Talk 05:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Using g4 on declined drafts moved to mainspace also contradicts WP:DRAFTOBJECT and the idea that draftspace is optional. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Start with WP:G4. “This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion”.

G4 can never be used where there was not a deletion discussion. An AfC decline is certainly not a deletion discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe someone in a conversation said that it could be done. One misguided person in a conversation saying it doesn't make it true. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep where was this conversation, because the people in it need to know that they have been giving incorrect advice. AfC is completely irrelevant to G4, because it is not a discussion or related to deletion, let alone a deletion discussion. Pages may only be deleted when there is consensus to delete, the speedy deletion criteria list the only times when that consensus may be presumed to exist without a discussion about the specific page. G4 exists because when a page is substantially identical to how it existed at the time a consensus was reached to delete it, we can presume that consensus still exists. A page being declined at AfC is not a consensus for anything, just one editor's opinion that it is not currently suitable for mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf - Occasionally in Wikipedia misinformation about Wikipedia policies and guidelines becomes so widespread that it rises to the standing of myth. This is such a case. It is not the only time I have been advised that declined AFC drafts that are mainspaced should be tagged to G4. So I think it is at least as important simply to restate the correct information as to identify the source of the myth, because it has become myth. Thank you, User:Novem Linguae, User:Phil Bridger, for restating the guideline accurately. There are probably occasional cases where declined drafts moved to mainspace can be tagged for G4, but only if the history is that there was a previous deletion discussion and the draft is similar to the previous deleted document, in which case the AFC history is not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm just back in now. I'll try and find it. It has been a busy couple of weeks. scope_creep^Talk 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there any objections to adding the underlined text to WP:R3? Currently, it seems to state an exception (certain redirects from foreign should be kept) without stating the rule which it qualifies (inappropriate redirects from foreign may be deleted).

This applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers or from languages other than English that are not pertinent to the topic. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are some redirects in other languages... [continues as before]

This addition was prompted by Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9#シカゴ大学. Certes (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this actually changes the rule too much. R3 is about whether something is implausible - the additional text basically implies just being in a foreign language is not grounds for implausibility. This would instead turn R3 into RFOREIGN. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Db-r3 is also confusing: it marks an implausible typo or misnomer, which is not in another language pertinent to the topic. What does this mean? Taken literally, it says that typos and misnomers must be kept as long as they're in a pertinent language (so Brookselz → Brussels would be ineligible for deletion, even though it's an implausible typo for Bruxelles, because it's in a pertinent language). Obviously, that's not the intended meaning. Is it trying to say the same as I'm suggesting above? Certes (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as I suggested, these generally get deleted if this applies due RFOREIGN having widespread consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• At minimum, this doesn't belong in R3. These are neither typos nor implausible misnomers, time since creation shouldn't be a factor, and R3 is not a dumping ground for everything that usually gets deleted at RFD. —Cryptic 20:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, "not pertinent to the topic" isn't always clear enough to be decided by a single admin. —Kusma (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kusma. Whether something is pertinent sometimes needs knowledge of the language and/or subject. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kusma. Lectonar (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all who replied. It's looking as if we need to continue pushing these through RfD, which is easy with Twinkle though !voting takes time. (They've been unanimous Deletes so far.) Certes (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to clarify the wording of R3 and/or ((db-r3)), both of which seem to refer to desirable redirects from non-English as if they were an exception to the deletion criterion I was trying to add? Certes (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

From foreign languages is not cut and dry enough. Affinity in regard to a topic is best sorted at RfD. To foreign language wikipedias probably would be a criterion, if it were more common. See Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Redirects (soft) to other language versions of Wikipedia if interested. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A proposal for a speedy deletion criterion covering redirects to non-English wikis failed to get consensus in 2013 (see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48#Soft redirects to foreign-language Wikipedias). I don't recall any discussions more recently than that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

After [1], which was an article/draft created that clearly would require Extended Confirmed to edit, I wonder if G5 should be changed to read:

Old: "Creations by banned or blocked users"

New: "Creations by banned or blocked users, or that violate the extended confirmed policy."

I do think that the spirit of policy says that new editors should not be creating drafts or articles on topics that clearly are restricted to EC editors, and this would just be putting into writing what we should be able to do as administrators: speedy delete articles that are by their nature, are violations of policy by their very creation. MfD is the only current solution, but it shouldn't be required for creations that violate policy. CSD is a strict, literal policy, so I think we need to spell this out to simplify things. Feedback? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

See #RfC: Status of G5 (currently the first section on this page) and the follow-up Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to word G5 expansion/G15 new criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it objective that the new page would clearly require XC? Is it objective to the author? I’m not sure it is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably should be watching those pages more than I do now (which is very little). That is probably the best place to take this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In general I think the goal of this is correct and coming from the right place, but I worry that there may be edge cases in here worth considering. Let's say an article is under a contentious topic area, and that specific article but not the entire area, is subject to ECR. Would an IP who is attempting to spin something closely related off of that page into a new article, qualify for G5 under this policy? (I foresee the arguments going something like: "Yes, because we disallow Gaming the System" vs. "No, because the ECR only applied to the specific original article, not the whole topic.") ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but it is CSD and should only be done in obvious cases, which would often. If it were an edge case, then XfD would be the answer. Same as we do now for articles that are non-notable... if there is a VALID claim, you AFD, if not, you CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I suppose that mitigates my concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

(See also Awesome Aasim's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators.) I won't repeat everything I said at the VPP discussion, but in sum, I disagree with G5ing ECRvio articles. They should be draftified (ECPing it seems unnecessary but would be fine if that's what an admin wanted to do), so the editor can come back to it when they have XC, and so other editors can work on it if they want to. They should only be CSD'd if they meet some other CSD criteria (attack page, copyvio, etc). Levivich (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

An EC violation is still a violation in Draft. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Does that benefit Wikipedia? Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. It removed an obvious vector for gaming the system by allowing someone to bypass Arb restrictions on editing CTOP areas by creating Drafts, accumulating 500 edits, so they can move into main space. The whole point of the 500 restriction is to not attract this kind of behavior, and encourage general editing before someone enters areas that are problematic. Demonstrated by the MfD I spoke of (and the next draft they created), that resulted in the person getting indef blocked. Had we been able to delete it, it would have removed the incentive to game the system and get blocked. So yes, absolutely would have saved time for many people, including the blocked editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a violation at all. The edit creating the page is a violation. The page itself is not a violation.

It's like this: if a non-XC editor makes an ECR edit, we tell the editor about the restriction, in a repeated or egregious case we might sanction the editor. But we don't remove the edit just because it violated XC. Even if a good edit were removed, it's just be re-done by someone else. But the edit gets kept or removed based on the edit, not based on who made it. Same principle if the edit is a page creation.

Enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules is foolhardy. Building an encyclopedia and all that. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You are enforcing the rules because the rules are solving a problem, one so great it required that a restriction be put in place, for a reason. You are focused on the single edit. I am focused on the bigger problem it causes. Having many editors creating drafts and articles that violate EC is a bigger problem than deleting one draft or article, that (under 96%+ of circumstances) probably wouldn't last under XfD anyway. Almost all of these articles are POV garbage, but XfD is the only solution, and a piss poor one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether the articles are deleted or draftified will have no effect on the volume of ECRvio drafts and 96% of all new articles are probably crap. Is there evidence that ECRvio new creations are significantly worse than other new creations? Levivich (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of any measuring system in place, so I can only go by anecdotal experience that the EC violating articles tend to be really over the top POV. It is better to delete and explain than to drag it out in XfD and end up with the editor blocked. That is the big difference, you will have fewer blocks, and fewer articles becoming magnets for debates at XfD that obviously don't belong. It just creates more drama to let non-EC editors create EC anything. They lack the basic experience, so the amount of problems is naturally going to be higher, which again, is why the restriction was put in place, to get new editors somewhat up to speed before they start creating POV essays and trying to pass them as articles. I would say that if someone started a draft that was actually valid, but violated EC, in good faith, that doesn't mean it MUST be deleted. We could tell them to stop editing, let them get some experience, then go back to it. Or userfy it but they can't edit it until they get the 500 edits. we would have some more tools, but right now, we have nothing. I haven't seen one like that, but I know it could happen, and changing G5 won't mean those very few articles would disappear, it would mean we would have options. There is no rule that says WHAT we should do with those articles as it stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My anecdotal experience differs, and yes we do have a way of measuring it, and yes we do have tools for handling it, I'm happy to show you. We don't need a rule for it, because we don't need a rule for everything, and even if we did, the rule could be "draftify" (which nobody who wants a G5 has yet to explain why deletion of ECRvio is better for the encyclopedia than draftification).

Areej Sabbagh-Khoury and Draft:Palestinian cultural genocide are two recent examples of good-quality ECRvios I've come across. There are many more listed at edit filter 1,276 and I'd encourage you and anyone else who thinks most ECRvio is crap to peruse that list and test your assumptions. Notice the ratio of blue links to red links. Ask yourself if it would be better for the encyclopedia if everything listed there had been G5.

One of the reasons I oppose speedy deleting all ECRvio is that I do not trust admins to be able to distinguish a promising or good quality page from a poor quality page, absent very specific and clear or obvious instructions (such as are provided by CSD criteria). If G5 were allowable for ECRvio, some admins would just nuke all of it, out of hand, without even reading it, in the same way that some admins will block people without looking at sources or sometimes even say that they can't look at sources. So we'll have admins saying they must G5 everything created in violation of ECR, and they can't make a decision as to whether it's worth saving, because that would be getting involved in a content dispute.

And the end result would be that almost everything on that edit filter 1,276 list would be red. And if almost everything on that list were red, we would have lost a lot of good work.

We don't have a problem of being overrun with ECR drafts, and nuking them all out of hand would be a significant step back, not step forward, for writing an encyclopedia. Draftification is the way. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems the best place to take this discussion is actually Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators, where an actual RFC is being formulated. This makes more sense than continuing it here. Thanks for looking, and please participate. Whatever the community decides, it will be better than what we currently have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• What is currently done when an ECR editor creates an article, anyway? What's our current practice? I feel like there's this weird thing where creating a new article, which is a more drastic action, is generally easier to do under policy and practice, and harder to undo, than making the exact same addition to an existing article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good question, and I think XfD is our only option. If it an article, we can warn the user, and if they continue to edit "their own" article, we can block them. This isn't the best use of the banhammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  What is currently done when an ECR editor creates an article, anyway? In practice despite all of the words said in the prior discussion, the article is tagged with ((db-gs)) and the correct contentious topic code, which adds it to a specific admin backlog category and a patrolling admin either deletes the article or removes the tag depending on the circumstances. Although the deletion log entries for this are inconsistent, as there's no standardised format, as of this reply there have been at least 18 deletions done with a G5 ARBECR log entry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sideswipe9th, I see this was made back in October of 2023, but I'm not sure that has consensus. I like it, but if it didn't have a clear consensus to create, we need to build that consensus before we use. Just because the template exists, doesn't mean policy supports it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#WP:ECR as a side step to WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

See #RfC: Status of G5 (in which you already participated) above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That's... a misuse of removing ExCon... Primefac (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Dead link; archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 25 § WP:ECR as a side step to WP:CSD. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this should be an expansion of G6 or if this should be a completely separate criteria MW1 but I think there should be a criterion for system messages unused in the MediaWiki software (i.e. not listed on Special:AllMessages) or in other system messages, modules, or templates. The wording could be as such:

MW1: Interface messages not used in the MediaWiki software.

This criterion applies to system messages and sandboxes of system messages that are not actively being used in the MediaWiki software, as shown with Special:AllMessages. This does not apply to interface messages used in templates, modules, or other MediaWiki pages. If a message is listed at Special:AllMessages, this criterion does not apply.

If there is a way to get a database report on all the MediaWiki messages that are not being used by either? I think being an extension of G6 would be better than its own stnadalone criteria but I put wording here just in case. We can workshop more before we come to consensus on it. Awesome Aasim 00:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Could generate the report first, then do mass MFD(s) of the appropriate ones. May not need a CSD criteria for this. Also, can you give an example of one that is currently needing deletion? Maybe these pages are created for a reason and some further research and discussion will reveal the reason. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 78#Add criteria for MediaWiki namespaces is unchanged - there've now been 1745 total deletions of any sort in the namespace ever other than early script runs (like the one in January 2007 that deleted 1308 messages), so there's no way this is frequent enough. It might be the case that we're due for another script run, but A) I'd want to see data for it and B) we don't need a speedy criterion for it. —Cryptic 01:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I kind of agree if this is something that the community decides is uncontroversial maintenance then it is included in G6. I only put this here because not everyone agrees exactly. Awesome Aasim 05:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also with regards to frequency, what counts as "frequent" is difficult to say for different mainspaces. Maybe "frequent" ideally should be defined in terms of the number of pages in that namespace that get nominated for that specific reason to those that are kept. Awesome Aasim 05:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as not even remotely frequent enough. Frequent means "happens often enough that it is causing a significant workload for the relevant deletion process". Based on searching MfD Archives for "MediaWiki" there appear to have been a total of 56 discussions of pages in the MediaWiki and MediaWiki talk namepsaces in the last 20 years. The greatest number of nominations in a calendar year was 6 in 2015 and 2019, the second highest was 5 in 2023. These figures are for all nominations, not just ones that would be relevant to this proposal. Some of them were speedily deleted under existing criteria and some of them were kept (at least one speedily), two of the 2021 nominations were April Fools jokes. This means the number of relevant discussions is even lower. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, solution searching for a problem. There may also be unused pages that have nontrivial or even interesting history and would benefit from MfD. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, I would like to propose a new criteria for Speedy Deletion:
This criteria would likely be C3, and it would cover categories that contain only one webpage, that is also the title of or the same topic of the title of the redirect. (Sorry if that's redundant, one could clean it up.) An example of this would be: Special:PermaLink/1208530790. Would this be deleted through CfD, or could we make a new criterion just for categories like these? Please feel free to comment, and for any substantial comments, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as creator. TheTechie (talk/contribs) 15:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

How does this fit with the WP:NEWCSD criteria?

1. Objective. Y "Contains only one page, whose title matches that of the category" is objective.
2. Uncontestable. N Deletion isn't always the right course of action. My first thought is that in some cases there are other pages that could or should be in the category but aren't. Adding "with no prospect of expansion" or similar to the criterion would fix that, but it's subjective and it reminds me of WP:SMALLCAT, which has been very controversial and so is not suitable for speedy deletion. The example category has been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 2#Category:Vandalism on Wikipedia where it has attracted three !votes, one "merge" and two "speedy merge", again showing that this requirement is not met.
3. Frequent. ? I don't frequent CfD but Category:Vandalism on Wikipedia is the only current nomination that this would obviously apply to, suggesting it isn't particularly frequent.
4. Non-redundant. Y this is not redundant to any other speedy deletion criterion.

Based on the above analysis, I have to oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:C2F and already exists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree C2F already covers these. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't aware that C2F exists. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 21:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Please leave your thoughts there. Awesome Aasim 04:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I recently approved Ghanaians in Sweden as a redirect to African immigrants to Sweden at WP:AFC/R. However, the latter page actually does not mention Ghana or Ghanaians, so I shouldn't have created that redirect.  Self-trout

Significa liberdade quickly brought this redirect up at WP:RFD. Thank you

I went ahead and tagged the redirect as ((Db-g7)); there's really no need for a discussion on that redirect, but G7 is the only criterion that would apply. To handle cases like this, I am proposing a new criterion:

R5. Redirects to pages without relevant content
This applies to redirects with target pages that do not have content relevant to the redirect's title. It does not apply to redirects that could be appropriately retargeted to another page; such redirects should be fixed, not deleted.

Would this, or something similar, be a useful criterion? Luke10.27 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you feel it meets the four listed criteria at the top of this page? -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Objective: There is little room for debate as to whether or not a page covers a particular topic.
2. Uncontestable: I can't think of any case in which a redirect pointing to a page that does not cover the topic of the redirect's title would be useful.
3. Frequent: I'm not sure about this one.
4. Nonredundant: In this case, G7 applied. However, if I hadn't tagged it myself, none of the existing criteria would have applied.

Luke10.27 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of the redirects with open discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15, 5:-) and Hoothi, would fall under this criterion. Luke10.27 (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes the target article used to cover the topic, and then the question is whether it should cover the topic or not, and whether a different article should cover the topic. Some page being BLARed does not automatically mean all of its previous redirects should be speedily deleted; it is better to examine them individually.

As for your introductory example, Ghanaians are Africans, so the redirect you mention seems a perfectly acceptable ((R with possibilities)). —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that ((R with possibilities)) applies to redirects that are covered in the target article, but could be expanded to separate articles? Luke10.27 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In this specific case there might not be any doubt about whether the topic is covered, but that is not always true. Additionally there is often coverage elsewhere (redirects not getting updated when content is moved), sometimes the lack of coverage is due to vandalism, sometimes the redirect was an article that should be restored and discussed as an article (and there is frequently disagreement about doing that). This is not suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about the possibility of this seeming to apply when it doesn't due to temporary removal of content. Luke10.27 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose largely for the same reason as Thryduulf. While I think this would be useful I think the problems with cases where content in the target was removed and if it should be restored or not mean this is not suitable for speedy deletion. Otherwise I would have supported. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment There is room for debate as to whether or not a page covers a particular topic. For example, African immigrants to Sweden lists several Swedish people of Ghanaian descent (Samuel Adjei, Kodjo Akolor, Patrick Amoah, Jeffrey Aubynn, ...) who might be of interest to a reader following the deleted redirect given as an example above. Certes (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• What about redirects from alternative spellings or common misspellings? The former may not be present in the target and the latter should not be. I think there are enough cases that breach point 2 above that this would not be a good speedy deletion criterion. Another one that I've just thought of while writing this is where an AfD discussion closes as "merge". Often a well-meaning but rather lazy editor comes along and redirects the title without merging the content, potentially leaving the situation described here. The solution is to merge the relevant content, not to delete the redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• That seems more of a RfD issue than a speedy. Speedy is more for obvious issues, and it is possible to have a redirect that at one time had the relevant information that explains the redirect, but it no longer does. So it is a matter of either reinserting the info to make the redirect valid again, or concluding it never should have been created, which isn't a speedy decision, it is a discussion, hence RfD. The "damage" of keeping an irrelevant redirect for a week while it is discussed is minimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Without relevant content" is not objective enough to be a CSD. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as subjective – what something does or does not imply is inherently uncertain and open to discussion. Unless there are objective subcategories of such redirects, I believe they ought to be discussed at RfD. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose: Maybe if the wording was better, we could enact it. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as subjective, as others have said. One of the most common types of RFD nomination is exactly this, and only through discussion do we determine what to do with the redirect. Sometimes we learn that the target does contain relevant info that's not immediately obvious, somewhat more rarely we determine that relevant content was removed and should be restored, other times we determine a more suitable target, and actually it's quite rare that such a discussion results in deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Such redirects are often brought to RfD. But in a scenario where a reliable source mentions the title in the topic on the target page, but not in the article on the target. IMO, CSDs doesn't respect mercy, especially to new users requesting redirects at WP:AfC/R who, after adding that information to the target, realises that the redirect was speedy deleted and thus, creating another request. RfDs are less bitey than CSDs. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)