Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fermiboson (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 5 January 2024 (→‎Discussion (Status of G5): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggestion: Expansion of G5

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)[reply]

@Awesome Aasim: How often have such pages been taken to XfD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That sounds ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
+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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Context is User talk:Pppery#2023 Bitung clashes * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Is blank-and-EC-protect a viable alternative to speedy deletion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Break

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)[reply]

Alternate Idea

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)[reply]

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

Request for new redirect criteria

Over the past couple days, there have been a lot of nominations at WP:RFD for redirects with unusual wikipedia spaces (such as Philip Dunne(writer)). I suggest to add a criteria for redirects basedd off WP:RDAB Yoblyblob (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoblyblob The example you gave looks like G6. It was created obviously in the wrong title, so it probably can be speedied under there. I think G6 is well equipped to handle this case. Awesome Aasim 19:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should still have a clear criterion for this (assuming the consensus is that they should be speedy deleted) rather than stretching G6 and relying on the CSD-ing admins to mind-read back to 2005. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need a new criterion for this. Despite the recent spate of nominations, I don't think the missing space issue arises frequently enough to justify a new criterion. If you're talking about a new criterion for WP:RDAB in general, I don't think that would be wise, because "errors in disambiguation" is open to interpretation. Discussions where it's invoked, like the conversation underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13#285 (Number), don't necessarily arrive at a decision to delete. - Eureka Lott 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does CSD:G4 apply to a page deleted in AfD and immediately recreated as a redirect page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is clear that Option 2 (G4 does not apply to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD.) has consensus. It is also clear to me that the present wording of G4, using phrases like "applies to sufficiently identical copies" and "excludes pages that are not substantially identical", already forbids the deletion of redirects under this criterion, since a valid redirect has no content text that might be similar to (let alone identical to) the page that was deleted - it only has the #REDIRECT directive plus some optional categorisation, perhaps by means of templates that themselves could not be mistaken for article content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing DRV discussion brought up the question of whether the "sufficiently identical" language in CSD:G4 applies to pages deleted in AfD, and immediately recreated as a redirect by someone who wasn't pleased with the result of the AfD. Several editors believe that since the redirect page is different from the one deleted, any editor is welcome to recreate the deleted page, even if the "Redirect" option was brought up in the AfD and failed to reach consensus.

The options, as I see it, are:

  1. G4 applies to all cases where consensus was not followed, including recreation of a page as a redirect.
  2. G4 does not apply to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD.
  3. G4 applies to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, but only if that option was brought up and rejected in the AfD.
  4. Other?

To be clear, we are talking about a page recreated shortly (<30 days) after an AfD closed as Delete.

Either way, there seems to be enough confusion about this to justify adding a sentence about recreation as a redirect to the language in CSD:G4.

Would appreciate more views on the subject. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX, would you mind changing the bulleted list to a numbered list to make it easier to reference each option? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid RFC, not having a neutral statement of the question to be decided. I also note that the only confusion seems to be by the OP. Everyone else in the discussion can see that a redirect is in no way identical to an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, sort of. We should keep G4 to just the cases of duplicate article creation. RfD is enough of a working process that there is an avenue available to those who believe the redirect should be deleted or retargeted. I think the difference between redirect as an AfD decision, which leads to the article history being preserved, and a post-deletion redirect creation is significant enough that someone doing the latter is not overturning the result. I don't think additional guidance is needed in the text of G4, and I'd rather just talk to any editors who tag, or admins that action, G4s that don't quite apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that after the AfD, we'll need an RfD for the same page to delete the redir? Wouldn't the same arguments for changing the original article to a redir still apply? I understand your point about the history. Do we need an AfD !vote along the lines of, "Do not recreate as a redir if deleted"? I would think most who !vote "Delete" also do not wish to see the article instantly resurrected as a redir, even if they don't spell it out. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I'm saying. My experience with AfD and RfD is that the arguments tend to be quite different. In the rare (as far as I'm aware) case where AfD participants really dig into the criteria for redirect deletion, the case for an eventual RfD would be pretty open-and-shut. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Why do you object to adding clarifying words to G4, then? This doesn't seem intuitive at all. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be persuaded, but I'm having trouble seeing this as a common issue. Have you looking into how frequently this comes up? Since my sense is that it's rare—rare for redirects to be created post-deletion, rare for such creations to be contentious, rarer still for them to be speedily deleted—I'd rather not complicate the language of the criterion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very rare indeed, as you say. Most editors accept that AfD consensus is binding, and if consensus was against turning an article into a redir, we shouldn't turn it into a redir, including post-history-deletion. But if we accept your interpretation of G4, it means that there's no point in !voting "Redirect", as we can now just wait out the AfD, and show up the next day to recreate the page as a redir, and get a second shot through the RfD. I don't think keeping this option a secret is the best way to prevent it from becoming prevalent. If it's allowed, it should be spelled out as such, and if not, it should be explicitly prohibited. There seem to be enough people on the DRV I linked above who seem willing to use this option to bypass an AfD deletion, and I'm sure the popularity of the technique will spread quickly once the word is out. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have trouble seeing the situation so nefariously, but I've said about as much as I feel is wise, and I look forward to hearing from others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changes: This is entirely unnecessary. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. — A redirect replacing an article clearly fits this description as a redirect is substantially different from a page that was deleted at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: I've read through the DRV and the only person arguing that G4 applies to redirects for articles deleted at AfD is you. There was consensus there that G4 did not apply. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why keep it a secret? Why not spell it out in the wording of CSD:G4, and not waste people's time on AfDs debating redirect as an option, when they can simply show up a week later and recreate the page as a redirect anyway? Beyond simply repeating what you've already said in that DRV, I don't see you addressing any of the policy issues in this RfC. Owen× ☎ 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: There is no secret, the wording is already clear to the point that you've been the only one advocating that G4 applies in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "No secret"? 'Redirect' is one of the most commonly !voted choices on AfDs. Do you really think editors would be wasting their time arguing about it, if they know they could just show up the next day and recreate the deleted article as a redir? If this is what our policy is, let's make it abundantly clear, and stop wasting people's time on AfD discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About there being no point in !voting 'redirect': When the outcome is 'delete', the page is deleted. A 'redirect' outcome as an alternative to deletion means that the page is not deleted. Deleted vs. not deleted. The point of a 'redirect' !vote and a 'redirect' outcome is that there is no need to execute the deletion in a technical sense because it's fine to preserve the history underneath the redirect, based on a premise that the content is not something that must not remain publicly accessible even in history (bad BLP content, etc.). Conversely, when the page is deleted and a redirect is created at that name, history is not preserved. —Alalch E. 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying "why keep it a secret that G4 doesn't apply to Draft:X when X was deleted in an AfD". It's the same with a redirect, except it's even more obvious that it doesn't apply to a redirect which can't, categorically, be "suffuciently identical", and a draft can. These are different types of pages each with different deletion discussions. The type of deletion discussion must match the type of the page. I think that this is obvious to most people. —Alalch E. 22:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's exactly what CSD:G4 does spell out! Read it and see: "It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace". If Draft:X was important enough to explicitly exclude, why not redirs? Owen× ☎ 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because redirects are not substantially identical to articles that have been deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It mentions drafts because people do sometimes get confused and think that draftspace content copied from a deleted page is G4 liable, because the content is identical which is the primary element of G4, and, more importantly, it extends G4 to respond to circumventing deletion to host content on Wikipedia. It doesn't mention redirects because it's harder to get confused when the content is not identical, or even similar at all (a redirect is not similar to an article), and you can't circumvent content being deleted by creating a redirect at the same name, as redirects have no content. —Alalch E. 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. I already made a comment about this in a deletion review that led to this RfC—special:diff/1187380309.—Alalch E. 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 (strongly). G4 specifically does not apply to articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. It makes no mention of being substantially identical to a different version of an article discussed in the AFD (such as a redirect). Any redirect can betaken to RFD, where the arguments tend to be quite different from those made at AFD.Frank Anchor 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As others have said, G4 does not, and should not, apply. Would suggest withdrawing this RfC as it appears there's no chance it'll gain consensus (nor was much workshopping done here, which should've happened before opening this RfC). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per everyone except the OP. A redirect is not an article and therefore cannot be substantially identical to one. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: G4 is about substanially identical recreations. For example, a non-notable article getting recreated a tenth or twentieth time, or an identical redirect already debated at RFD. It does not apply if the recreation addresses the reason it was deleted. Awesome Aasim 14:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I vote Option 2. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is, and has been throughout recent memory, CSD policy. OwenX It's now 9-1 by my count, with no one else yet supporting your preferred option. Thank you for phrasing this as you did and putting it here, which is the precisely right place to get the best feedback. I suggest reading WP:1AM, even though this is a policy interpretation matter rather than an article content dispute. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3, reworded: “G4 applies to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, but only if that option was brought up, and was rejected in the close of the AfD”. And if in doubt, ask the deleting admin.
    I support G4 being useful in broadly supporting consensus at AfD for six months after the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, do you believe option 3 as reworded is supported by the current wording of G4 on this policy page, or are you suggesting that this policy page be changed to encompass this usage? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - I could buy into something like this, but would advise saying "EXPLICITLY rejected". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a redirect explicitly rejected at a recent xfd (imagining a G10 style reason) could get the creator blocked for disruption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It could... but if the redirect is G10-able, then G4 needn't apply because G10 does. This interpretation of "the spirit of G4" (immediately below as I compose this) is not only at odds with how CSD criteria are applied (strictly) as well as NEWCSD #2, uncontestable Almost all pages that could be deleted using the criterion, should be deleted, according to consensus. In fact, the vast majority of redirects created after an AfD deletion are kept, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it is the spirit of G4, would not be surprised to see it happen, but I think it happens extremely rarely if ever. Probably not worth the fuss. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not worth the extra words. Extra words would fail WP:NEWCSD#3 Frequent. Use RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. If a redirect is useful, it should be created, period. BD2412 T 03:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Indeed, but who gets to decide whether it is useful or not? The same can be said of an article, yet we still enforce consensus when it is deleted in an AfD. Why do you feel redirects should be handled differently when consensus was against creating one? I don't think your terse response add any clarity. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "who gets to decide whether it is useful or not?" The community decides. We have an entire process addressing that. BD2412 T 13:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that a consensus reached in an AfD against a redirect has no bearing on the subsequent recreation as a redirect, and we have to go through another round of XfD to remove that redirect? Aren't we putting process above practicality here? Owen× ☎ 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a whole different discussion than what G4 is meant to cover. That moves outside the territory of non-controversial deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In very few cases do AfD discussions consider the merits or otherwise of a redirect, and even when they do very few participants express any opinions about the suggestion so they cannot be considered to have been the subject of a discussion as required by G4. There are occasional exceptions (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakbrook Mall) but in the vast majority of those cases either the presence or absence of a redirect matches the consensus in the discussion. That leaves cases where a redirect is recommended but not created, which is not a matter for any sort of deletion, and redirects created contrary to consensus - which are so infrequent that CSD is completely inappropriate - especially as there may be alternative targets not considered by the AfD. This is not process for the sake of process, but process for the sake of getting the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 specifically talks about AfDs that discuss a redirect as an outcome. If you wish to ignore Option 3 because you believe it to be rare, you are free to do so. But rare or not, I don't see how ignoring consensus in an AfD that specifically discusses--and rejects--a redir solution helps get the best outcome for the encyclopedia. The two-phase solution you and others here seem to imply, of an AfD immediately followed by a RfD, is anything but cruftware. We specifically wrote G4 to avoid these unnecessary steps. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We specifically wrote G4 to avoid these unnecessary steps? Without searching archives, I strongly doubt that. G4 is primarily about deleting reposts. Some keeps an offline copy, waits a week, then tries to quietly out it back. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some wikiarchaeology, the very first version of what evolved into today's G4 dates from June 2003, it read If a page or image is a reposting of previously deleted content, and was not listed on wikipedia:votes for undeletion, then an administrator may delete it without listing it on votes for deletion. (votes for deletion was the ancestor of all today's XfD processes). So, no, G4 was very much not written specifically to avoid AfD followed by RfD or anything similar. Thryduulf (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of G4 and some prior discussions relevant to this one
  • @Thryduulf: Thank you for the thorough wikiarchaeology! The September 2005 quote from Encephalon sums up my thoughts nicely: G4 is recognition that the community has dealt with a problem before, come to a decision, and doesn't need to expend resources to reach that same decision every time the problem is recreated. Yes, the redirect is indeed very different from the article deleted, but it is not different from the option discussed--and rejected--in the AfD. If the community participating in an AfD considered the option of turning the article into a redirect, and consensus was against it, then we shouldn't expend resources having to deal with the same question all over again in RfD. This was the intent of G4 in 2005. Alas, as is often the case with old laws, the words gain Scripture status and are revered, and common sense gives way to blind observance, while the original intent is all but forgotten. Owen× ☎ 09:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, when you read the actual context, that wasn't the intent in 2003, or 2004, 2005 or even 2022. The intent was and is to deal with content that had been discussed and reposted (almost) verbatim. As for your second comment the entire purpose of the RfD criteria is that they are interpreted per the literal meaning of the words, because they are the very limited exceptions to the deletion policy which states that everything must be discussed before being deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic research Thryduulf, thank you for digging all of this up. I think it may be time for an uninvolved admin to put this RfC to rest because I think consensus was clear then and it's also clear now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like you're putting words in Encephalon's mouth. Encephalon's intention was to avoid repeating the same debate over and over. If the option of a redir was discussed and rejected in an AfD, it's pretty clear from their wording that they would not wish to see the debate take place again in an RfD. Didn't we handle both articles and redirects in VfD back in 2005? Owen× ☎ 17:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't we handle both articles and redirects in VfD back in 2005? No. RfD was established in November 2003. Encephalon was not talking about redirects at all. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: I'm interested in your reply to my last comment. You seem to imply that there's zero weight given to views about redirect on an AfD, since opposition to a redirect can only be handled by an RfD. Did I get that right? Owen× ☎ 16:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about a situation where in the course of a well-attended AfD someone suggests, "redirect this title to Foo" and multiple other editors say "do not redirect to Foo, that would be a bad redirect" (as opposed to just voting "delete" without commenting on the redirect), and the closing admin finds that there was a policy-based consensus specifically against having a redirect, and an editor who participated in the discussion says something along the lines of "forget you guys, I'm going to make the redirect anyway", I suppose that might be a speedy case. However, literally anything outside of that should go to RfD, which is well-equipped to evaluate the propriety of redirects. BD2412 T 17:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just described the AfD that triggered the DRV that prompted this RfC. The DRV has since been closed, without prejudice as to the validity of G4 in that case. However, the views expressed in that DRV suggest that the majority of editors disagree with you and me about the applicability of G4 in such a case. Does this happen often enough to justify an extra sentence in the wording of G4? I don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of over-verbosity than leave things in the air. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t happen often enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject AFD most certainly did NOT have consensus against redirect. There was disagreement about a redirect target but not consensus in opposition to a merge/redirect in general. However, the sole topic of this discussion is whether G4 covers a redirect when the deleted version is an article. And many users including myself see it as a strong “no.” Frank Anchor 04:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. Allowing G4 of redirects violates WP:NEWCSD: 1) It is not objective, because reasonable people can disagree whether an AfD actually supports a consensus against redirecting (if not explicitly stated by the closing admin). Meanwhile, requiring the closing admin to specify explicitly every single time seems like extra work for very little gain (given how rarely this situation arises). 2) It is not uncontestable, because AfD and RfD draw different crowds and it is not clear that a consensus formed at AfD would be sustained at RfD. Given the expertise of the RfD crowd, it is better to hold redirect-related discussions at RfD. 3) It is not frequent enough to be be worth including in the criteria in order to avoid an RfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved editor to close this. Although it's only been open 6 days consensus is already very clear and a formal closure will be of benefit going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Very well, I'm not going to fight consensus here. If the scope of G4 does not extend to articles recreated as a redir, I won't use it as such. My issue at this point is one of informing editors participating in AfD. Many are debating, in good faith, the option of changing an article to a redir, not realizing they could simply do so themselves if the article gets deleted. I'm not a fan of secret rules. Shouldn't we publicize this so that less time is wasted on "Redir" !votes in AfDs? Right now, the guide for AfD makes it sound as if "Delete" and "Redirect" are two distinct, mutually exclusive options, when in reality any deleted article may be instantly recreated as a redirect. An extra sentence in the AfD guide could--and should--clarify the issue. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a secret rule, it's an obvious interpretation of the wording of G4. Redirect and delete are two distinct options, one of which would preserve page history while the other (assuming that the page hasn't been salted) would allow for the page to be re-created as either an article or redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly this. Deletion does not prevent recreation unless the title is salted, and that's been the way things have worked on Wikipedia for at least 20 years and in that time, as far as I've found, only one other person has found the interaction between that, redirects created after deletion and G4 anything other than clear - and that other person didn't have any problem with it. There is no problem that needs solving, and speedy deletion would be the wrong wrong tool to solve it if it was a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've already moved on from the question of speedy deletion. The question before us now is whether we should add a sentence in the AfD guide to inform participants of the fact that if they don't care about the page history, they are free to recreate as a redir any article deleted in an AfD. It may be obvious to you, but realistically speaking, I doubt more than 10% of those !voting "Redirect" on AfDs know this totally-not-secret fact. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's unnecessary. There's nothing that stops a user from re-creating a page at the destination that was just deleted unless the page has been salted. Users are also free to immediately create a new article at the same location as well if they so wish (provided that article addresses the reasons that it was deleted). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and having them waste their time debating redirects on AfD is ever so much fun, because clearly they have nothing better to do, since they all know they can just recreate the page. Got it. Thank you.
    My goal here is to make AfD discussions more efficient, not to sit back and go, "Well, it's not my problem they chose to waste their time." Owen× ☎ 21:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the pessimism is necessary. As mentioned, there's a very clear and distinct difference between deleting and reflecting a page. It doesn't change the course of an AfD discussion to further elaborate on this unless we start salting more articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was there an unintended change in scope of G14?

This edit by Oiyarbepsy back in Jan 2021 was described as a "restructure for clarity", but it seems to have also resulted in a significant change to the scope of G14. Whereas previously, the bit about "pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)" was limited to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)"redirects -- after the restructure, it appears that all aspects of G14 are now also applicable to set indexes as well as to disambiguation pages. As a result, a well-meaning editor (NmWTfs85lXusaybq) has been changing set index pages to redirects because they only contain one existing article. However, one of the reasons for the existence of set indexes distinct from disambiguation pages is precisely to allow for entries that do not have an existing article. Was there ever any discussion about this, or was this change in scope accidental? older ≠ wiser 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the previous discussion about this, but I did experienced this issue when I nominated G14 candidates of SIAs and lists before, including MV Buccaneer, List of Development Regions of British Columbia, List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea and List of chairmen of the Chamber of the Nations (Czechoslovakia). The related discussion includes User_talk:EurekaLott#Deletion_of_SIAs_under_G14, Special:Diff/1158664588#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_MV_Buccaneer, User_talk:Liz/Archive_49#A_note_on_deletion_of_lists_under_G14 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that there was any previous discussion on this point. I think the edit was only intended as clarification -- but inadvertently resulted in expanding the scope of G14. Previously, the applicability to set indexes was limited to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember, and can't find, any discussion about changing the scope. I would support changing the scope back to the original. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure if this is related but wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27 shows what appears to be an emerging consensus to overturn multiple G14 closes as invalid.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not related, other than both being a response to NmWTfs85lXusaybq's actions. It's about a different misinterpretation of G14. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update

This applies to disambiguation pages and redirects to disambiguation pages:

  1. Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
  2. Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
  3. A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page.

Bullets are changed to numbers to facilitate referencing. There is minor change to the lead-in. #3 has been updated to clarify the scope. older ≠ wiser 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this update. However, what about the case that all topics in a disambiguation page are actually in the same article? Should these pages be changed to a redirect? For example, see Macmillan ministry and Spider-Man trilogy. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that as a question particularly relevant to CSD, and it likely varies depending on the article in question. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There will always be edge cases. If it isn't clear whether the criteria apply, it is perhaps best to discuss rather than try to force changing to a redirect based on speedy deletion criteria. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am wary of dismissing such cases. Clearly there are two distinct Spider-Man trilogies, which are ambiguous to each other, and may be referenced ambiguously to each other. It would theoretically be possible to have separate pages on each, and the redirects go to distinct sections of the page, not generally to the article as a whole. Perhaps those aspects should be the test. I would keep this one as a separate disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't dismissing them -- I just don't think CSD is directly applicable. The note here is just a hint about how to handle pages that do not fit the CSD criteria. If more detailed guidance is needed, WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB is a more appropriate place than CSD criteria. older ≠ wiser 02:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which two series are the trilogies? It depends on whether "No Way Home" counts as one installment for each of the three Spider-Man universes. It's doubly ambiguous! Largoplazo (talk)
  • Support. Regarding the question above, it is a general principle (arising out of the requirement for CSD to be used only in the most obvious cases) that if it is unclear or arguable whether a criterion applies to a given page then it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Status of G5

Which of these options is preferred for the status of CSD G5?

  • Option 1: Keep G5 as is.
  • Option 2: Add mention of general sanctions to G5.
  • Option 3: Add general sanctions violations to its own speedy criterion.
  • Option 4: Repeal G5 and incorporate its principles into the WP:BANPOL (specifically WP:BANREVERT) as "administrators are permitted, but are not required, to delete page creations made in violation of a ban, general sanction, or block".
  • Option 5: Repeal G5 and do nothing else.
  • Something else?

Awesome Aasim 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

WP:ARBECR is a sanction that is applied by both the Arbitration Committee and the community, with one of the permitted actions being deletion. There has been contention as to whether this is an extension of G5, but what is agreed is that these deletions will continue to happen per arbitration enforcement or community consensus, regardless on the wording of G5. This RfC aims to clarify the purpose of G5 and whether this case is included in G5, if G5 is adequate as is, or if its wording is controversial and better superseded by text in the ban policy.

See also the extensive discussion of Special:Permalink/1188336533#Suggestion:_Expansion_of_G5.

Survey (Status of G5)

  • As proposer: Option 4. Option 3 and Option 2 are second choice. Oppose Option 1, as the status quo might not adequately cover all cases. Neutral about Option 5. The whole point of topic and editor sanctions is to stop disruptive editing by limiting the type of editing within the topic area in general, or by keeping editors out of topic areas they were previously disruptive in. And since the CSD appears to be for unequivocal cases where almost no editor would disagree the page should be deleted, how to enforce ban evasion should be up to administrator discretion. Awesome Aasim 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • G5 is up to administrator discretion already. It's not something separate from BANREVERT; it's the way BANREVERT is implemented regarding deletion. Repealing G5 would just make our deletion policy more confusing. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought, but the discussion linked leading up to this creation of the RfC lead to a bunch of confusion. Which is why I started it in the first place. Awesome Aasim 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion [...], and unless we want to break this, option 4 is invalid. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If option 4 was chosen, it would probably be like any proposed deletion process. An editor would be able to propose a page be deleted because of general sanction or ban evasion, and if the PROD was expired without any (not banned) editor taking responsibility for the content, the page would be deleted until someone in WP:RFUD takes responsibility for the diff. Awesome Aasim 18:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else. Explicitly state (here and in other relevant policies) that speedy deletion is not a valid enforcement mechanism for DS/GS/CT sanctions unless the page meets a speedy deletion criterion for other reasons. This is because it is not, per the arguments cogently made by Ivanvector and others in the Gun Control ARCA linked below. If administrators continue to delete pages after this then this should be dealt with like any other breach of the deletion policy, up to and including desysopping in extreme cases. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean that WP:ARBECR is wrong that administrators are permitted but not required to delete pages as arbitration enforcement actions? Speedy deletion describes if I recall whether a page can immediately be deleted without waiting for further discussion. Awesome Aasim 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I argued in the case linked below, the Arbitration Committee does not have the power to create policy by fiat, and is not empowered to make content decisions. An Arbcom case saying, in isolation, that deletion is permitted by arbitration enforcement, did not make it so; the deletion policy remains the only policy under which deletion is allowed on Wikipedia. That said, this discussion could decide to modify policy to align with Arbcom's decision, but I don't like the implication of the community retroactively changing long-established policies to accommodate Arbcom making decisions outside its authority. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In shorter words: yes, WP:ARBECR is wrong. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you enforce ARBECR for new content? Don't punt and say "AFD", the point of the measure is to prevent sockpuppetry and has been since its creation a decade ago. Hence G5's extensive current use to enforce it. Izno (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the measure is two-fold, or at least it was when I proposed it. On one hand it's to deter sockpuppetry, but it's also intended to discourage new users from engaging in contentious topics which are frequent causes of disputes, in the interest of retention. Speedy deletion is inherently bitey - a new user creates an article in good faith on a topic they feel is missing coverage, and their work is immediately deleted and their talk page filled with bureaucratic advisories (to be charitable; it would be fair to call the notices "dire warnings") about contentious topics and speedy deletion, without any advice on how to proceed. Personally I feel that some leniency is warranted for pages which are not obviously unacceptable (like POV forks or clear propaganda or whatever). ARBECR already permits non-ECP users to make proper edit requests, and maybe creating a new page is an extension of that. I admit that I don't know what such a process would look like; something PROD-like maybe, I agree that AFD is too heavy a process for this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector so to clarify, I am understanding that you think only the page deletion aspect of ARBECR is wrong, but you are otherwise alright with the policy? Or have I misunderstood you? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily think that deleting these pages is wrong if the community desires it, only that Arbcom didn't have the authority to say so as it does not have authority over article content. I don't like the idea that we're building up a chain of pronouncement connections where one policy says that this one aspect of the decision is probably okay because this other policy doesn't explicitly disallow it and one decision from 10 years ago kind of allowed it and so on and so on and so on; there should be an explicit community endorsement. In the interest of moving on and not turning this into a policy wonkathon I can accept that the discussion above that Izno linked to below (wheee) is that explicit endorsement, although I think that that's the sort of retroactive endorsement of Arbcom changing policy by fiat that I think is a slippery slope. At the same time policy is meant to reflect consensus and not the other way around, and if admins are already citing the speedy deletion guideline to support these deletions then that's a good indicator that consensus has changed; the guideline should be updated to reflect that. I'm going to keep my comments here focused on that, but if you'd like to continue this discussion (which I admittedly started) on the theoretical implications of these various actions, my talk page is open. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option2 clarifies that if a page is created against a ban or other restriction, speedy deletion is the most appropriate enforcement mechanism. Page creation restrictions under Arbcom sanctions should either have an effective enforcement mechanism, or should all be immediately repealed. —Kusma (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - G5 is a criterion for user restrictions; a patrolling administrator needs to check that the page-creating user is in fact blocked or banned, which in most cases is evident from their block log. Checking that a page is created in violation of a general sanction is a different check entirely, and should be its own criterion. That is, if such deletions are in fact uncontestable: this has been established only by Arbcom making pronouncements in content matters in which it explicitly has no authority, and not through community consensus. I also think that such a criterion is an A-level criterion, but not strongly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, thank you for your thoughts on this, which are new to me. While we've so far just been talking about ArbCom-imposed ECR, there is also community-imposed ECR. See, for example, WP:GS/AA or WP:GS/KURD. Since the community does—as far as I'm aware—have the ability to affect deletion policy, do you believe that this community-endorsed deletion should have its own SD criterion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that; those discussions are new to me. It seems to me that the wording of the general sanctions is adopted directly from ARBECR, which did not have the authority to modify the deletion policy. I'm not sure that the discussions that enabled those general sanctions were proper tests of community intent to create this as a path to deletion. I don't think that this discussion is really a proper test either, as the question is written with a presumption that there's consensus for it. I dislike bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake almost as much as I despise bureaucratic overreach, but we seem to be creating deletion guidelines to accommodate a novel deletion method that wasn't actually discussed, and I think that discussion should have happened first before we start creating or modifying speedy criteria to support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - Following User:Ivanvector and User:bradv. Expanding speedy deletion further shifts power from community to bureaucrats in an undesirable way. Sure, creating new articles is an annoying way to evade ECR, but my sense is that speedy deletion isn't the best imaginable remedy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 3 G5 has always been about consistently enforcing rules. Having one set of rules (Arbcom and Community General Sanctions) than we arbitrarily decide not to enforce in the obvious way while continuing to enforce another set of rules (User Topic/Site-Bans) that way is utterly illogical. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it is consistent with our handling of creation of material by banned users. Who are actually effectively topic banned by ECR. Izno (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 is absolutely not about consistently encforcing rules, indeed "consistent" is one of the last words I'd use to describe the application of G5. G5 is about allowing administrators to enforce "banned means banned" when they choose to do so, for whatever reason they choose to do so. Neither GS nor DS topic restrictions are bans and enforcing the restrictions by speedy deletion is not conducive to a healthy editing environment in which good faith editors can participate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within its scope, the committee may issue binding decisions that override consensus. Now, ignoring the procedural point, I think given how the restriction is being used, and G5's application here as being consistent with non EC users who are effectively topic banned from ECR topics, that what is being done today is Fine, with or without changing WP:CSD directly to acknowledge that such users cannot contribute to the pages they have created or otherwise extensively modified before they become EC. Izno (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Within its scope" has a rather clear bullet list definition written in the policy, and content decisions (including deletion) are clearly not within that scope. I'm not necessarily opposed to creating this path to deletion as there's clearly a desire to do so, but I'm very strongly opposed to doing anything under any presumption that Arbcom can do anything it wants for any reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The bullet of interest is To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;. We have heard cases on the material, of which the first case introducing the measure includes the choice word draconian. Izno (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for community general sanctions, I think it's a fair point of discussion within the context of each specific area as to whether the deletion part of ECR applies. Exceptions to policy can and have been made, and the community deciding they've had enough of socks in an area could override any declaration by this page anyway because that's how consensus works (hence why community-applied general sanctions aren't at AN(I) anymore). What ARBECR does(n't) do is not what "COMMECR" has to do. However, differing ways to implement ECR may cause general confusion among both experienced and inexperienced editors and administrators alike. Izno (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Option 2 or Option 3 I do not believe that G5 should be strictly enforced, but it is clear that we do need to enforce general sanctions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this last night and I think this is quite confusing. I'd like to clarify some things before I make my points, and if anyone disagrees with my summary they can feel free to comment. As far as I understand, the two main contentions here are "whether arbcom are allowed to authorize deletions outside of process", and "whether it is appropriate for CSD to include something that requires the discretion of admins and is not uncontroversial". For the former, I have no strong feelings, is not the original subject of this discussion, and IMO should be directed at arbcom. For the latter, my answer for that would be "No". Therefore I believe I mostly align with Option 1, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest people should be desysopped for following what arbcom says. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 3. What is the point of general sanctions in contentious topics if we had to go through the whole shebang of AfD, AN/I, AE etc to enforce it anyways? Arbcom cannot make content decisions, but it can very much make decisions on conduct, of which the creation of articles of a certain topic is an example. WP:BITE is not "don't tell the newbie they did something wrong", it is "tell the newbie they did something wrong in a kind and constructive manner". If need be, make db-gs more clear with wording such as "this does not indicate that the content is non-notable or otherwise wholly inappropiate for Wikipedia". Fermiboson (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3. WP:NEWCSD, and follow the requirements of NEWCSD. Establish the evidence by putting several cases through MfD. Prouncements by ArbCom should be specific, not an endless chain of creation of new policy by autocrats. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per Ivanvector. The new ARBECR is too resyrictive anyhow Mach61 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 3, or reword ECR to frame it as a form of TBAN. The latter approach seems the most future-proof: It puts ECR violations under whatever rules apply to individual TBAN violations, without needing any special-casing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend WP:BANPOL to list ECR as being treated as equivalent to a ban for the purpose of other policies. Add one line to WP:TBAN and one column to the WP:BLOCKBANDIFF table.—Alalch E. 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 first choice, Option 2 second choice. This is a really confusing RfC format, and I pity the editor who volunteers to close this; I'm not sure why Options 4 and 5 were proposed at all—they seem like very poorly-thought-out ideas. That being said, I think the cleanest, most organized solution would be to create a new G15 that applies to "pages created in violation of a general sanction, such as the extended-confirmed restriction, that have no substantial edits by other editors", but squeezing it into G5 would work too, and so would a consensus that ECR is, for the purpose of G5, essentially a topic ban applied to all non-extended-confirmed editors. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're here, I will shamelessly drop a link to my essay Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. Regardless of whether we create a new criterion or squeeze this into G5, I would like to emphasize that administrators should have discretion in all cases, and the rules will never obligate an administrator to delete a page that was created in violation of a general sanction like ECR—obviously helpful pages can be allowed to stand, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to delete. Mz7 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why G5 shouldn't be changed, because it's underpinned by this real and good practice and this can't simply be transplanted onto a brand new criterion, and we can't say "note to administrators: do it like you did it with G5" because it would look silly. That's why I believe that my idea is the best one: Just codify an interpretation of the arbitration rule from the vantage point of community created policy, and the relevant policy is BANPOL, not CSD. —Alalch E. 16:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2 as the easiest solution. Effectively G5 is about pages created where the creation of the page itself (rather than content) breaks a rule. I also support option 3 but I don't think it's necessary. Oppose options 4 & 5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 3: I was confused when I read ARBECR and CSD and didn't find explicit mention of which criterion (if any) could be used by non-admins to request ARBECR deletion. I see some experienced volunteers believed G5 to implicitly cover ARBECR on first reading (which I think is reasonable—functionally, a non-EC editor is topic banned, at least once they've been made aware of GS). This should be spelled out explicitly. — Bilorv (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 first choice, Option 2 second choice. I think a criterion should cover violations of ECR to prevent disruption. I think having a new criterion is preferable to avoid confusion and to avoid practices from G5 (which mostly seems to amount to delete-on-sight, despite discretion given to admins). If option 3 passes, it should in substance be something like the following: GXX: Creations violating non-editor-specific restrictions. This applies to creations of pages where the creation violates a non-editor-specific restriction, whether imposed by the community or the Arbitration Committee, such as the extended-confirmed restriction. This criterion does not apply, however, to pages which have substantial edits that do not violate the restriction. Administrators must exercise discretion when deleting pages under this criterion, and must consider whether lesser action is more appropriate. Depending on factors such as the level of disruption present or likely, whether the creating editor is aware of the restriction, and (if an article) article notability and quality, this could include: leaving the page be without any action, improving the page, notifying the creating user of the restriction, nominating the page for a deletion discussion, protecting the page to enforce the restriction prospectively, any other action permitted by policy, and any combination of the above. I feel like this creates the right balance between allowing speedy deletion of disruptive articles and requiring admins to lean towards keeping good articles when a good-faith editor creates them. I believe any modification to G5 should include similar caveats. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 as it makes it clear, without having to go though more complex rules, or processes. Option 3 would be my second preference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rules, and processes, painful aren’t they. Benevolent dictatorship is so much more practical.
    G5 was always about completely, unambiguously blocked/banned people. These sanctions are not unambiguous. I expect they will fail WP:NEWCSD, and slipping new measures in like this is a real corruption of process. Let’s see a few cases put through XfD to see what’s really being talked about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is my first choice and Option 3 is my second. Patient Zerotalk 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Status of G5)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Clarification request: Gun control (April 2019) is directly relevant. —Cryptic 16:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This might be a dumb question, but how does "Creations by banned or blocked users" (the heading of WP:G5) include any page created by any non-EC user? Violating a ban is not the same as violating a restriction. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a dumb question at all. This criterion is for creations by banned or blocked users, which explicitly includes an individual user's specific editing restrictions. It does not and has not ever extended to general page nor topic restrictions. I'm also having a hard time wrapping my head around the rationale for repealing the criterion - why would we do that? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument (which I think is more or less valid) is that these users are effectively topic banned from topics which fall under ECR. They may not edit in the area, period end of story, and they should be dissuaded from doing so (the point of G5). Izno (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno, one option on the table during the prior discussion was an ARCA to get clarity from ArbCom on whether that argument (non-ECR=topic banned) could be written into the procedures. Worth pursuing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've raised that suggestion on the internal list, I think there is definite merit to it. I'm kind of surprised an RFC was started before exploring that option with any ArbCom members. :) Izno (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer if we didn't do that, for the biteyness I referenced earlier - declaring by policy that all new users are automatically procedurally banned from a rather long list of contentious topics, even if that is functionally true, is not very good optics to put it mildly. Policy-wise it would be much simpler to either modify G5 or create a new criterion (my preference) to permit deletion of pages created contrary to the general restriction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ARB)ECR is already bitey, no ifs ands or buts about it. Changing the text to say that it's a topic ban makes it clear how it relates to this policy (among others), with little that I can see of unintended consequences. (I do not believe we would change ARBECR to remove its current exceptions.) Not sure where you get "long list of contentious topics", ECR by arbitration committee dictate is implemented only in a couple areas (Palestine-Israel and the not-entirely-unrelated "Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland" areas).
    (ECR should be strongly distinguished from ECP, which is a technical mechanism which can be used to enforce ECR but which has no other non-historical relation to it. Not sure if that is also a point of confusion.)
    "COMMECR" for specific topic areas as I noted above can do whatever it wants (20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)) and I have no strong opinions besides that potential confusion may result from the community implementing ECR in a way which differs from ArbCom. (Which is already a problem incidentally since ArbCom has changed ECR at least once since many of the same community-thinking regimes have been implemented.... and even now the community is inconsistent on the rule in various regimes, so.... something for the community to review at VP generally now I guess.) Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I confused "topics subject to ECR" with "all contentious topics". I'll just say that, yeah, the whole regime is inherently and unavoidably bitey, but putting in writing that all new users are topic banned just seems more bitey, and maybe unreasonably so.
    And also I think this all makes a good point that Arbcom shouldn't be creating its own protection and enforcement regimes when parallel community regimes exist, as it invites confusion. I thought that deprecating discretionary sanctions for contentious topics was meant to harmonize those restrictions but it seems there's more work to do. Out of scope for this discussion but maybe something for next year's Committee to consider. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom's came first? :) I think TBANs may have existed by the time that the committee thought up ECR, but the community is definitely following in the committee's footsteps on the use of ECR in areas it is tired of socks. Izno (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, DS came before GS :) As far as I can tell, "partial bans" (admin bans from particular pages, different from blocks) were added to the banning policy near the end of 2005, and the policy already referred to Arbcom's authority to ban, so I don't know which came first. But I think that's a good example: topic bans are topic bans, whether they're community bans, unblock conditions, or arbitration enforcement. There are only differences in how they're logged and how they're appealed, which still isn't ideal, but it's better than having two completely separate processes that accomplish the same thing, or near enough that they may as well be the same except for the quirks of their implementation. Anyway, I said I wasn't going to sidetrack this discussion again, and I am failing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... :) Izno (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my edification and perhaps others, there was previous discussion. Izno (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets say, hypothetically speaking, that I was dumb and didn't understand option 4. If we repeal G5, but incorporate its principles into BANPOL...then what CSD would admins be using to achieve that. What am I missing here? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably they'd delete the page without citing a CSD (and only citing BANPOL). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested one way option 4 might be implemented through a PROD process, where an editor who is not banned or blocked can go to WP:RFUD and accept responsibility for the content (including any problems). But shouldn't speedy deletion only be used for cases where there are very, very serious problems with the page (i.e. spam, vandalism, etc.) that has zero chance of being rectified? i.e. G3, G10, G11. For WP:BRV we have that a non-banned editor who restores content by a banned editor takes complete responsibility for such content. And "that have no substantial edits to others" can be quite subjective; maybe that needs to be clarified what that means. Awesome Aasim 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy deletion is explicitly only for cases that are uncontroversial and objective, the biggest problem with G5 as it stands is that it is neither. Speedily deleting pages due to ECR restrictions, through any process, would definitely not meet both criteria - anything objective would result in the deletion of things many people think should not be deleted, anything else would be subjective. It would, in theory, be possible to amend the deletion policy to allow for subjective speedy deletion of these or other pages, but you would need to get explicit consensus for that first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) They wouldn't be using any part of the speedy deletion policy, or any other part of the deletion policy for that matter. Given that only the WMF can delete anything in a manner not provided for in the deletion policy, this would make the banning and deletion policies contradict each other (I hope everyone can agree this would be a bad thing). This Which is why ToBeFree correctly states that it is an invalid option. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF deletions are covered by deletion policy. That's what G9 is. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I think Option 4 is trying to say. I agree it makes no sense, though. It effectively amounts to a contradictory WP:POLICYFORK. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple comments above to the effect that, if we reject this change and admins delete these pages anyway, they face desysopping. As a practical matter, this is not the case: right now the only way for an administrator to get desysopped is at the direction of arbcom. If arbcom says admins can delete these pages, WT:CSD says they can't, and admins go ahead and delete them, arbcom doesn't seem likely to desysop them at WT:CSD's behest.
    If we want to change that, I see only two methods. One is to elect like-minded arbitrators. This also is impractical; we barely have enough candidates running this year to fill the open seats, and it's been that way for a few years in a row now; and just about any administrator with a pulse can meet the minimum 50% threshold. (By my count, about 90% of running admins in the past ten years of elections have done so; and I don't think we've ever failed to fill an arbcom seat at an election.)
    The other method is to formally amend arbitration policy to make it explicit that they don't have the authority to declare pages deleteable in this manner. —Cryptic 03:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community explicitly rejects deletion as an option (as I continue to believe we should), then that is something that arbitrators will take into account should a case come their way. Their previous statement came at a time when the community had expressed no specific views on the matter. Such a case would only practically happen if an admin was aware of the explicit consensus and knowingly and intentionally deleting anyway, possibly on more than one occasion (anything less would almost certainly just result in censure at AN(I) for not keeping up with policy they are enforcing). On the issue of awareness, it will be a good idea to mention any change to the status quo resulting from this discussion in the admin newsletter. Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And thus begins the dissonance that lurks beneath every discussion on this page. My evil twin would be tempted to (in the event this closes as some option 1) add a section for deletions of this sort to Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions and then go through and systematically appeal every single one to AN or AE (note that DRV is not a permitted venue for appealing arbitration enforcement actions). But that behavior would both likely fail to produce the required clear and substantial consensus to overturn the deletion (since this discussion is nowhere near that threshold) and get him sanctioned for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
    No, I don't actually have an evil twin, nor do I plan to do that, it's just a thought experiment.
    We did try to do what you proposed once at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 152#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions, but it petered out with only 22 out of the required 100 supports, and furthermore only barely had a majority in the first place. If that were reproposed, I would sign. Despite my position on the RfC above, there's no reason such deletions need to follow AE's especially-stringent provision against being overturned rather than following standard undeletion policy. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thought that we would decide to speedy delete a page created by a newer user which is otherwise acceptable or revert edits to articles or talk pages other than edit requests that are clearly acceptable seems a blunt instrument and is going to put people of contributing. I'm fine however with allowing questionable pages to be deleted this way but would obviously need to pass NEWCSD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the page does not have to be deleted and an administrator or ECP user should be able to take responsibility for the page, and thus make it immune to a (G5) deletion. Any substantial edit by someone allowed to do so will avert a G5. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that I don't see how we could possibly have a situation where we don't have a CSD for articles created in violation of ECRs, and where those ECRs are still enforced. Where are we supposed to ask for ECR enforcement, then? We revert non-EC edits on sight, and we automatically ECP such articles even when no disruption has occurred. As far as I can tell, this is common and consensus practice. Why let the creation of new articles in the topic area be such a loophole? The editing restriction does not say "you are not allowed to edit unless one of us likes it", it says "you are not allowed to edit". (And if an EC user wanted to keep the article so badly, they could simply make substantial edits to it so that G5 no longer applies.) This RfC appears to be going down the direction of attempting to partially repeal an Arbcom remedy by consensus processes. Fermiboson (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    partially repeal an Arbcom remedy by consensus processes.👍 Like Mach61 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fermiboson why is partially repeal[ing] an Arbcom remedy by consensus processes an undesirable thing? Arbcom restrictions and other remedies are only ever enforced when the consensus of the community is that they make sense and are otherwise desirable. If community consensus is that (part of) a remedy is not desirable for some reason, then it absolutely should be repealed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn’t Arbcom decisions listed as an entry in WP:CONEXCEPT? If there existed a (hypothetical) consensus at, say, WP Infoboxes that infoboxes weren’t a CT, that wouldn’t make CT sanctions inapplicable there. At the very least, is this not something that should go on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Fermiboson (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read, rather than vaguely wave at, WP:CONEXCEPT you will see The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. which says nothing about whether community consensus can override arbitration remedies after they are made (only that ArbCom may override community consensuses that pre-date their rulings). The community could effectively decide that e.g. infoboxes are no longer contentious by no longer treating them as contentious (i.e. all editing regarding them becomes harmonious) and/or declining to enforce any CT remedies regarding that topic area. Indeed, the former happens all the time - editors move on, disputes get resolved, and people forget that the topic area was ever contentious.
    Yes things need to go to ARCA to get the remedy formally repealed, but the best way to achieve that is for there to be a clear community consensus regarding the need. What I'm seeing in this RFC is a consensus that deletion is not always desirable, and no consensus that when deletion is desirable that such deletion should be done speedily. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll see that my reply was worded as a question, because it was that - an honest question.
    Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with you on the status of the consensus, but I take your point about consensus overriding outdated remedies. That said, if this RfC is closed as option 1, I would definitely be hoping for some sort of clarification from Arbcom on how we're supposed to enforce ECR. (I take it that there is still consensus to ECP the relevant articles, revert non-EC edits inserting CTs into unprotected articles, and such.) Fermiboson (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1193684817"