Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New criteria[edit]

There is insufficient consensus for this proposal. Arguments in opposition seem to be primarily concerned with the relative vagueness and/or subjectivity of its definition and/or applicability in practice due to frequency of edge cases, that other criteria already cover most cases (e.g., WP:A7, WP:G11), or that the normal, slower deletion processes are sufficient given a purportedly low incidence of pages that would meet the proposed criteria. Arguments in support center around sending a clear message to dissuade future behavior, establishing a bright line (like pre-existing criteria that are used to immediately delete new creations of banned users to the exclusion of its content merit (G5)), and de facto already-accepted practice (e.g., obvious sock/meat farms that for all intents and purposes indistinguishable in behavior are already banned and therefore likely subject to a liberal interpretation of G5).

Although I'm also closing the addendum proposal (the sticky prod idea), I'm mainly doing so due to inactivity and its after-the-fact nature (i.e., it was suggested after a non-trivial number of responses had arrived for the primary question). I'd suggest simply opening a different RFC to propose it/hammer out details, if need be. There's much better support for it off-hand, though again not enough for me, personally, to be comfortable with calling it clear consensus and codifying it as policy. Its own RFC would be more likely to achieve that.

--slakrtalk / 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is an extension of the failed proposal of a new criteria made some months ago at here. Prose : G14: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing

  1. The main difference this time is in the specifics : This applies only to articles created by users blocked for paid editing or for being confirmed sockpuppets.This applies only to articles created by users blocked for paid editing or for being confirmed sockpuppets, and have no substantial edits by others.
  2. Optional Specific : The articles must fall into either of the two categories - WP:BLP or WP:ORG.

Why this helps?

  • Most paid editors are experienced folks, and they know how to write articles which rise above deletion. Most often they operate different accounts at the same time, which are not easily linked back to the original sockmasters due to their experience with SPI. So G5 is powerless as the articles were created before they were blocked.
  • However I feel there should not be a difference between articles created before they were blocked and those created after they were blocked. Why :
  1. If they were blocked for paid editing, it is self explanatory as to why they should be deleted.
  2. If they were blocked for being a confirmed sockpuppet, they mostly likely had a WP:COI in creating the articles. The emphasis on confirmed is to avoid any qualms of arbitrariness. For example in - WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive, the administrators blocked KuwarOnline on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet, even without CU evidence to confirm that. So that would mean all the articles created by him would not be eligible for deletion under this criteria, but those by the other confirmed sockpuppets would be eligible for deletion. What this does is rule out deleting contributions by all the editors who were blocked as sockpuppets exclusively based on behavioural evidence.
  • Most often Wikipedia is part of the package for online promotion, per this. So paid press often accompanies these articles, and are used as references. Voonik and its CEO Sujayath Ali were created by a large sockfarm, and many of its subsequent editors have also been blocked. However they will probably survive AfD, as there are references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, and the article will continue to remain, with probably just a COI tag. Well meaning inclusionists will oppose moves to delete this citing the references, scuttling any efforts to delete this.
  • If the articles are deleted as soon as sockpuppets are identified, then it would break the back of paid editors, as customers will not be willing to pay for articles that are deleted soon. I also believe this would lead to more voluntary declarations of WP:PAID as they would try their best to stay away from being blocked. Suspected paid editors are always keenly watched by Sockpuppet hunters, as the paid editors know, and the fear of loosing all their work, and thereby their reputation among customers would invite more WP:PAID declarations.
  • WP:BLP and WP:ORG is good for a start, as these are the most abused areas.
  • As with all CSD, the reviewing administrator would still have discretionary powers to look at the suitability. So for example, our current AfD position is to let articles that satisfy WP:NPOL or WP:NFOOTY stay. However we do not extend the same for WP:NFILM and expect them to satisfy WP:GNG. Same goes with the CSD. If they are sure to survive AfD based on such provisions, they should not be deleted. However in all other cases they should be deleted.

End of long post. Now for the comments. Jupitus Smart 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

!vote subsection[edit]

I strongly oppose any such criterion. I think it violates the deletion policy. Even if it didn't or if consensus was obtained to change that policy, it is my view that the test should be the content of the article, not who created it. Indeed i favor removing the current G5, which authorized deletion perfectly good articles created in violation of a block or ban. To delete a perfectly valid article, supported by reliable sources, because it was created by someone editing for pay, or while socking, is to damage the project. Indeed it would be a form of vandalism by consensus, if adopted. Now I don't object to applying the rules against promotional content quite strictly in the case of paid editors, and often enough that will have the same effect. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should judge the content, not the creator. And besides, the creation of a paid editor where the article is promotional would likely get snow deleted at AfD. Really, it doesn't help things. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • RileyBugz, AfD typically doesn't deal with TOU as a reason for deletion and the conversation centers on NOT in these cases. There does appear to be a consensus emerging on this page that some form of deletion is warranted for articles created in contravention of the terms of use, but that maybe AfD is better. One of my main reasons for supporting this is that AfD thus far has not worked as well to deal with this serious problem. It gives us the ability to enforce the TOU, which we don't currently have. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose without prior consensus to change the paid editing policy. I understand where this proposal is coming from but this is the wrong venue. WP:Paid editing#Changing this policy prescribes that changes in how to handle paid editing should be discussed in a community-wide RfC and whether to delete pages created in violation of the ToU is something that basically changes this policy (by adding an automatic deletion). This goes against both WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD and thus needs much more discussion than a post to WT:CSD. If the creator is already banned or blocked from editing before creation, G5 applies anyway. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    Addendum: I also believe this to be impractical. How would admins be able to identify such paid editors in a way that is objective? Currently it often takes a lot of work to figure this out, so how can we expect admins patrolling CAT:CSD being able to easily identify such creators? Regards SoWhy 07:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Er, admins are not required to identify paid editors. All they have to do is check if the user who created the page has been blocked. If so check the reason as to why they were blocked by referring to the block log.
    • If the reason mentioned in the block log is paid editing then delete.
    • If the reason is an SPI investigation, click on that link and check if the user has been blocked as a confirmed sockpupper, which would also entail deletion. Jupitus Smart 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly support the underlying idea. Yes we should delete articles created by undisclosed paid editors. If we have 5 accounts that are socks of one another, with each account used to create around one promotional article, it is obvious the TOU are being infringed. It is also obvious that they have prior blocked accounts even though we might not have found them yet so G5 would also apply. But an additional criteria for deletion would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Doc James says just above that "It is also obvious that they have prior blocked accounts even though we might not have found them yet"". This is sheer unverified assumption. If the statement "John Jones previously edited Wikipedia using a sock account, in violation of its TOS" were to be included in a BLP, would the above reasoning count as "well-sourced"? Indeed many SPIs based on "behavioral evidence" are based on little better than assumptions, and in a few cases where I have had reason to look into things based on assertions of innocence by a blocked user, they have turned out to be in error. I ask you, would the evidence presented in a typical "behavioral" SPI (one with no checkuser evidence) stand up it it were being nused to source a statement in a BLP? I think not. And now this evidence, not in just a typical case but in every case, is to be made sufficeint to delete every edit by a blocked user? I think not. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
We are talking about large families of socks verified by CU, not account blocked on behavioral evidence. Do you truly think that real new editor will start editing Wikipedia by creating 6 socks and writing one perfectly formated promotional article with each them? Sometimes a duck is a duck. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in the absence of broad and concrete consensus on the paid editor policy. New criteria should be added only when an article that meets that criteria is virtually certain to be deleted. That's not the case here - editors will first debate whether the editor was a paid editor under the policy, then they'll debate whether the article could stand on its own merits, then they'll toss in COI for fun. G5 will cover some cases (mostly with socks), and A7 many others. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A common thread among 3 of the oppose voters is that we should delete based on the content and not on the contributor. However G5 already is a means against that idea, and the new criteria is only completing the process, by plugging an inherent loophole in G5. Voonik provides an illustrative example for what I wish to convey:
  • It was created by Strobe12345, who was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Smileverse. After their block, the article was extensively edited by different sockpuppets of Gayatri0704. However there was no CU evidence linking the two sockmasters - Smileverse and Gayatri0704, even though they are obviously part of the same syndicate.
  • This meant that all the articles created by Gayatri0704 and her many sockpuppets were not G5 eligible even though they they are obviously associated with previously blocked sockmasters. This probably has got to do with the sockpuppets getting intelligent since their last block and employing methods to evade linkbacks to previous accounts.
  • With the sockpuppets getting intelligent it is time for us to rise up to them, and according to me the new criteria was intended to be an extension of G5. People who were blocked for sockpuppetry, are more likely to be paid editors than all the editors encompassed under G5, and therefore I believe that there is no need to pardon their first set of paid articles.Jupitus Smart 19:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe there is no loophole per WP:MEAT. Quote from policy, emphasis mine: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." Could not the second account's promotional edits anywhere qualify for G5 under existing interpretation? Or maybe "in the same context" doesn't extend to the new articles created by Gayatri0704. Bri.public (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that any admin will allow the clubbing of G5 and WP:MEAT as G5 almost explicitly prohibits that. AGF is bound to be the cited reason. Jupitus Smart 04:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - we are now drowning in articles created by undisclosed paid editors. These editors are prohibited from editing here at all - the equivalent of banned editors. Treat them as banned editors or treat them as never-allowed editors as proposed here, but we can't ignore all their garbage. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Moral support, practical oppose CSD are supposed to be unambiguous. G5 is unambiguous and will apply to editors who have been previously banned, including for undisclosed paid editing. Having seen how G11 is applied, I cannot see this as anything other than a shoot-first-ask-questions-later dramafest. By all means, ban undisclosed paid editors violating the TOUs, take suspected socks to SPI, and G5 their creations if confirmed. As far as previous articles created before a ban? Take 'em to AfD. If it's that clearcut a case, a mass nom shouldn't take much extra time. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
How many of these people actually get banned vs. just blocked? There is' a difference, you know. 71.208.245.45 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this falls under WP:G11 ("Unambiguous advertising or promotion"). It's known that undisclosed paid editors write in this tone, so any such page could be speedied under G11 criterion anyway. As an alternative, G11 could be expanded to explicitly mention undisclosed COI, without adding new criterion. Brandmeistertalk 20:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I like this alternative better than a separate criterion. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • It's a nice sentiment, but what would it accomplish? A practical example: would you have G11'd this? I wouldn't, even knowing that that's the account's first edit (and the second and third are an appeal to the deleting admin and a DRV), and my stance on G11 is so far toward the deletion end compared to the admin average that I don't trust myself to take action on them. —Cryptic 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This fails new criteria criterion #3, not frequent enough, since it requires blocking the paid editors. That's vanishingly rare in comparison to the number of paid articles. —Cryptic 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing" is not unambiguous. Short of a an admission/declaration which then makes it OK as not undisclosed, it always requires an investgation, and that investigation should end with with a discussion on actions such as deletion. "Drowning in articles created by undisclosed paid editors"? The answer is G11, although perhaps a [[WP:|log of G11-ed topics suspected of being products of undisclosed paid editing]] would be a good idea for long-term tracking. Speedy deletion provides more of a clean slate for the inept paid editor to do it more discreetly next time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Cryptic wrote below "Ambiguity really isn't the problem here: the articles become speedyable if "TOU", "undisclosed paid editing", or "abusing multiple accounts" appears at the top of the author's block log". That is not the proposal wording. Do Admins WP:Block with correct summaries and without errors? Any one admin may make such a block, and then this would allow the deletion of every article page authored by them? The evidence is deleted, thus suppressed preventing participation or review by ordinary editors? I tend to agree that these pages should usually be deleted, but I think at least a week discussion per blocked author is demanded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Doc James, as long as it is provable that the article in question was created in violation of the TOU. Articles are deleted all the time when it is apparent that they are created by socks of blocked editors. Such editors are not supposed to be creating articles and the same goes for TOU-violating paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is the logical consequence of undisclosed paid editing. It also will be very useful to have this as part of efforts to discourage people from buying services from paid editors - it will make it even more clear that if they work with someone who tries to avoid policy, they are at (even more) risk of wasting their money. For those who say undisclosed paid editors are often socking -- well we can't always identify sockmasters or even convince CU to run a check, so this direct line to deletion would be very useful in the post-indef cleanup. We can also often use db-promo, but again the direct message of "undisclosed paid article creation >> speedy deletion", is a very good and very clear message to send to the world. And to use. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support TOU is the bare minimum criteria to be able to use server space before we even begin to assess whether it should be present. If an editor does not comply with the terms of use, the content has no right at all to be on Wikipedia, and we don't need to assess if it complies with other policies. This is similar to G12 deletion: even if the content is good, we delete them as being in violation of our terms of use. It also is in line with the WMF's strategic vision of being the most trusted source of knowledge by 2030. We cannot have an encyclopedia where people are allowed to pay publicists to promote their views in secret. It is against the five pillars of Wikipedia, and it has been made a part of the legal TOU for the site. One should no more be able to do it than they can make an edit here without agreeing to our licensing terms. We simply need the technical means to enforce it, and this is the simplest way to give admins the ability to enforce them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the G12 comparison is misleading. We don't delete copyvio because it's against the ToU, we delete it because keeping it might leave the Foundation vulnerable to legal action by the copyright owners. Content produced by paid editors without declaration does not carry this risk of legal action, so removing it is less urgent. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • SoWhy, sorry for the late response. I just saw this now coming back to the conversation. You are correct that G12 certainly has more legal implications for the Foundation than undeclared paid editing does. The legal implications are why they include not hosting copyrighted content in the terms of use. G12 is our enforcing the choice of WMF legal counsel to make that a requirement for using this website. The proposed G14 would be along the same principles: the WMF has required that editors declare if they are paid unless there is an explicit consensus on the local Wiki to create an exemption or a different policy. Since there is not an explicit consensus for an exemption on en.wiki, contributions of undeclared paid editors have a similar status in my mind to copyright violations: they are contributions where the contributor added them to en.wiki without the legal right to do so, since they did it in violation of the conditions of the terms the owner of the servers placed on their use. I should likely know better to discuss legalities with a jurist, but I did want to further explain myself :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Allowing Wikipedia to fill up full of paid for promotional material has a very significant risk of harming our reputation. The longer we do not deal with it the greater the risk. Thus I see an equal great necessity to deal with this as to deal with plagiarism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, practically speaking based on application. Agree with rationale as laid out by Jclemens, above. Jclemens outlines a logical process for how best to deal with this issue. Agree that CSD are supposed to be unambiguous. G5 is unambiguous and is straightforward in nature. G11 has historically been applied with more of a subjective nature and I agree with Jclemens can lead to a dramafest. Best to use other processes for this as recommended by Jclemens. Sagecandor (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Ambiguity really isn't the problem here: the articles become speedyable if "TOU", "undisclosed paid editing", or "abusing multiple accounts" appears at the top of the author's block log. This would get some use from the last, sure, but we need something with actual teeth for the first two. —Cryptic 01:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support per Tony Ballioni, Jytdog, DocJames, and others. Since the WMF won't ban it outright, we must take strong steps to bring paid editing under control and stop the damage to the content and reputation of the encyclopedia. People who come here have to know that what they read has not been written by paid advocates. This is a good step forward. The "oppose" rationales are weak and unconvincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support per everyone here. Paid editing can be a problem here sometimes, any sort of new guidelines restricting CoIs are welcome in my book. Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support speedy deletion of articles created in violation of the TOU, as a TOU is useless without full enforcement. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note per SoWhy's concern above, I have posted this at WP:CENT and left a note at VPP. Jupitus Smart, I think it is probably appropriate to put an official RfC template on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. I still think this is the wrong venue though because the proposed addition will contradict both WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD as well as impact the WP:PAID policy, so those policies need to be changed first. Speedy deletion is a way to enforce existing policy, not to create new one. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Not a problem, I actually don't like WT:CSD as a venue either, though for the reason that the watchlist crowd here tends to be opposed to any changes and that VPP would have been a more neutral place to discuss it. To the policy argument, like I mentioned below, I don't see this as a policy concern so much as enforcing something that already exists above local policy: the terms of use. Unless the English Wikipedia clearly adopts a policy to the contrary on paid disclosures, the TOU control above any local policy. Because of that, since there is no consensus to allow an exemption from the TOU like Commons has, any content added in violation of the terms of use doesn't even get the benefit of local policies because the user was not allowed to place it on the encyclopedia. By not giving administrators a way to enforce the TOU, we are effectively making an exemption policy without explicit consensus to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support G11 is too narrowly interpreted now. Many admins look for adspeak which is just poorly done promotion. The more sophisticated paid editors create pages that are either too well written for G11 or are in Draft and Userspace and are mainly for the SEO and link building benefits. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you elaborate on the SEO benefits? Those pages are not indexed by search engines after all. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ambiguity is being presented as one of the reasons for opposing this. Articles created by editors blocked for paid editing or editors blocked for confirmed sockpuppetry is an unambiguous closed set, which is probably narrower in its scope than G5 but covers more articles that are more likely to have been created in bad faith. Take the case of Teefa In Trouble created by the sock of an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing. The new sock was blocked for sockpuppetry as soon as he was identified, and the article deleted as G5. Teefa in Trouble was promoted from Draftspace, and had enough references to stay. It probably was not a case of paid editing, but it still ended up getting deleted. My concern is that while an editor blocked as a case of WP:NOTHERE cannot create good faith articles anymore, paid editors are allowed to slip through the cracks as our system is powerless against them. I find that very saddening. Jupitus Smart 03:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It may be unambiguous, but it's also ambitious. How many people opining on this have actually worked as checkusers? If an account is blocked on behavioral evidence (i.e., at least one admin at SPI thinks they're sufficiently alike), we consider that sufficient evidence to delete everything ever contributed, that--on the face of it--doesn't meet G11 or it would have already been deleted? Again, I like the idea but the implementation is not workable without risking a lot of false positives, and the opening statement's reassurances do not convince me. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Either I have not understood what you want to say or you have not understood what I intend to convey. I will assume the former. If an account is blocked exclusively on the basis of behavioural evidence, all the work done by the blocked user will not be eligible for deletion as I explained with an example above and which I will re-iterate again. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive, KuwarOnline was blocked on the basis of behavioural evidence even when there was no CU evidence against him. Nowhere in the SPI has he been mentioned as a confirmed sockpuppet, which means his articles cannot be considered for deletion under this criteria. Jupitus Smart 06:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Perhaps neither applies. I have participated at DRV intermittently over the past decade, and I have seen an alarming trend towards admins applying CSD criteria in an outcome-based manner ("Well, it should have been deleted even if it didn't meet the letter of the CSD"), and, worse, other editors endorsing that behavior. Thus, while I have no doubt those supporting the criteria believe in good faith that it will be applied correctly, I have little to none that it will never be abused. I won't go into further details per WP:BEANS, but no matter how many safeguards are put into the system, basing the system on an SPI outcome is quite abusable. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
          • I understand your proclivity which is probably based on your experience. I still think there are enough fail-safe mechanisms to prevent admin abuse and if we have survived G5, we will probably tide through this, which is just as similar. But then again, to each their own opinion. Jupitus Smart 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Content should be deleted/removed based on its merits and not on its creators. The fact that I, DESiegel, RileyBugz, and SoWhy have explicitly articulated this principle in this (at this time) relatively small RfC shows that the proposed G14 clearly fails the "uncontestable" requirement for CSD since the fundamental principle underlying G14, that content should be removed based solely on its creator, lacks consensus (see Ultraexactzz). I understand that nearly all content created by paid editors should be deleted on its merits. However, the existing criteria are plenty sufficient to remove uncontroversially bad content, especially given that their application frequently exceeds their strict wording. For all the rest, there's AfD. I see no evidence (and none has been presented) that the vigorous current anti-paid editing efforts, for which I am immensely grateful, are having any trouble efficiently deleting problematic content, so even if there were consensus on the principle underlying G14, there does not appear to be a need for it. A2soup (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The content has no right to be judged on its merits if it is in violation of the terms of use. This is the same thing as copyright. The user legally does not have the right to put it on Wikipedia since the non-profit that owns the servers requires that they declare their paid editing status before saving it. This is merely a technical means of enforcing that requirement equivalent to G12. This RfC has been added to CENT and posted to VPP, as well as given an RfC ID that will make it added to lists and distributable by the bot. I expect after 30 days, a clearer consensus will emerge one way or another and that it won't be that small of a conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
My point about the smallness of the RfC was only to emphasize that a large proportion of participants disagreed with the principle - I am sure the discussion will grow and all these things will become clearer. A2soup (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per various points above; particularly the rather narrow interpretation of G11 that is occasionally encountered: Simplistically, where if an article isn't saying "Stop me and buy one" or written by User:SaatchiandSaatchi, it is claimed as not advertising/promo. Good examples from today- here, here, or here. All clearly WP:PAID editors. SPI will bring back nothing; the accounts are set up, and article is bunged straight into draftspace, silently moved into article space, and the account retired. In fact, it doesn't retire in our meaning of it- just becomes moribund. One account=one job; WP:G5 will not apply. — fortunavelut luna 07:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The first of your examples is not at all promotional, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, it is a purely factual description, although the firm may not be notable. But then it is still in a sandbox. The 2nd I have tagged for speedy deletion as promotional. The third I have reviewed and rejected the draft as not yet establishing notability. And on what basis do you say these were "clearly" paid editors? Would these all be speedy deletable under the proposed criterion? If so, why? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
All paid editors, regardless of the depth of promotionalism in the article, was what I meant (glad at least one was OK :p ); because "the accounts are set up, and article is bunged straight into draftspace, silently moved into article space, and the account retired... One account=one job." They never get used again. That's why our relaince on SPI and G5 is naive: the accounts are set up purely in order to write the article, once it's in article space, job done. You'll never hear from them again. They charge a fair bit; it is hard to imagine they don't factor petrol / train tickets into their costings. These are the professional ones of course; if you ever find one who's used AfC, you'll know they're new to paid editing. Don't worry- once the article they want to make money out of has got completely bogged down there, they won't make the same mistake again. They'll very quickly learn to do the above. They'll probably appreciate their luck, of course. Vis a vis the fact that their 'opponents', in vague and vain attempts at upholding their own ToU, rely on policies to confront the paid editor that were created in the infancy of the internet when words like SEO were a glint in a blackmarketeer's eye, and whom also will never ever unite against them and will forever be distracting themselves with trivia, ignoring the tide as it laps at their boots. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your very own WP:NOTLINKEDIN profile and career trajectory of the fully paid-up paid editor who actually wants to be paid... and is. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes we need to adapt to the realities we find ourselves in. We are now a major information resource and as such people are trying to co opt our good name for their personal financial benefit. We need to prioritize quality over quantity at this point. We should not allow socks of obviously previously blocked accounts to get a free ride simply because we can only prove 99% that they do not previously have a previous blocked account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed with Doc James and FIM that simply having a page on the English Wikipedia can serve as a form of promotion. Since G11 only deals with clear marketing speak, AfD is necessary for these pages now. I find it interesting that the argument by some here is that AfD works fine in cases like this: NOTSPAM typically works as a way to get rid of spam at AfD, but if you use a TOU argument it tends to get shot down with people sometimes saying to use speedy deletion if it is so bad. It seems like a bit of a Catch-22: when you argue TOU at AfD, you are told to try CSD. When you are at a CSD RfC, its said that these cases need AfD. We need to clarify which process is the way to deal with this because there does seem to be agreement that they should be deleted, just no agreement as to which forum. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unworkable. As well as what Jclemens says above, deleting articles based on who the creator is, regardless of any subsequent edits, is a horrible route to go down, and will cause endless arguing and bad feeling. There are numerous articles where the initial creation was by a paid editor or by somebody later blocked for paid editing, but where the topic is unquestionably notable in Wikipedia terms and where subsequent edits have brought it to a neutral and reliably-sourced state. Were this to pass, articles as diverse as The milkmaid and her pail, Nicki Minaj and Line management would be liable to immediate speedy deletion subject to the whim of whether the reviewing admin happened to decide they were sure to survive AfD or not. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sure if it was significant fixed up it would be ineligible for deletion under this criteria. Most however do not get edits of substance because the topic is barely notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. An article created against the ToU and then completely rewritten from scratch by others should not be speediable. The proposal has merit to my mind but it must be redrafted more thoughtfully. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    I think it would be perfectly reasonable to not apply this to those that are "completely rewritten". This almost never happens.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - with the exception of confirmed sockpuppets of previously blocked users (where G5 applies), the community has no reasonable means of determining this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of providing moral support and opposing the move, I would much rather invite opinions from such editors on how better to frame the draft. This is largely a consensus building exercise, and I understand that most of the support votes are also based on personal proclivities towards wiping paid editing off Wikipedia. One of the users above said that The milkmaid and her pail, Nicki Minaj and Line management and the like can be deleted under this. If by that logic, tomorrow if we find that Roger Federer was made by an editor who is the sock of a blocked sockmaster - then would the article be eligible for G5. Roger Federer technically would then be eligible for deletion, though no logical admin would accept that. The same sanity would be expected of administrators in the new case as well. Jupitus Smart 10:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It is not a fair criticism, articles like Milkmaid etc, because all pages, per the CSD criteria, are subject to 'A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible' (my emph). — fortunavelut luna 10:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, they wouldn't be eligible for G5 because G5 explicitly does not apply to pages with substantial edits by other users. Something the current proposal lacks. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, SoWhy my answer incorporates that already. As I was ready to point out to the editor who originally used the example... Milkmaid stopped being eligible for G5 on it's fifth edit, which is what would have made it illegible way back. And my comment still stands. All CSD criteria are covered by the need for all edits to be eligible for it to apply, this criteria would too. So, if a paid editor writes an article that is subsequently re-written (one of the above suggested problems), it still could not be eligible, on the assumption the second editor was, say, you. Which is nice. — fortunavelut luna 10:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a fair point, which I have used to update the draft. More points at improvement are welcome from all. Jupitus Smart 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Jupitus Smart No, that doesn't work; you're falling into the category mistake of dividing the world into "good editors" and "paid editors". Yes, there are some PR accounts who only exist to promote their clients, at whom I assume this proposal is aimed. However, a paid editor is just as likely to be a reasonably long-term experienced Wikipedia editor who after a while has thought something along the lines of "given the amount of unpaid work I've put into this, I may as well put the skills I've developed to practical use and make some money on the side". (We're not talking a few marginal characters here—at least one WMF employee has been caught out touting for paid-editing work on Elance.) This proposal and all variations I can think of on it would mean applying damnatio memoriae to these editors, even if their paid editing was just a brief blip at the end of a decade of constructive contributions.

If (for the sake of argument) I start editing for pay and get caught out and blocked, under this proposal pages like Halkett boat, Alice Ayres or Victorian painting to which I'm the sole substantive contributor would immediately become eligible for speedy deletion, even though they're on topics in which it's hard to imagine there being the possibility of a COI since nobody gains/loses anything from what their Wikipedia articles say. (This isn't just an arcane hypothetical point—had Sarah Stierch been blocked rather than just reprimanded when she was caught red-handed, would we have deleted Wadsworth Jarrell under this provision? If you don't think we should be deleting it, then you're effectively adding an "unless the reviewing admin likes the article" proviso to WP:CSD which is a route to endless ill-tempered arbitration cases—speedy deletion is meant only for uncontroversial cases.)

Given how much of the process is now automated via Twinkle, it's not as if taking a created-for-pay article to AFD is an incredibly onerous process. (And no, I don't for one second buy the "but taking it to AFD means it's live for a week so the subject is getting publicity!" argument. If anything, a Wikipedia page with a big "this article is being considered for deletion" banner at the top is more of a disincentive to potential paid editing customers than a page which quietly disappears.) ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the three categories of editor would be the good, the bad, and the paid, as it were. — fortunavelut luna 08:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion they should only be eligible if all the articles by your hypothetical socks were promotional in nature. And none of the accounts looked "new". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: For the sake of a counter-argument, let us think of a supposed scenario. Suppose its turns out that you are the sock of a previously blocked sockmaster. G5 would entail that Halkett boat, Alice Ayres or Victorian painting, would then be eligible for deletion as you were the only contributor. If I were to tag them as such, do you realistically think any of the admins would accept that and have these well written articles deleted. I do not think any admin would do so, as G5 exists primarily to drive off WP:COI content.

My proposal is just an extension of that, and would be governed by the same metrics as before. As for the illustrious editor turning into paid editor scenario. This is the same as before and can be refuted by an addition. Suppose an illustrious editor decides to become a paid editor one fine day and is found out and blocked. He cannot live without editing Wikipedia, and decides to form another account, and continues to edit while trying not to leave traces linking him to his former account. He ends up writing much better articles (with many FA's to his credit) than before while not indulging in any paid editing this time. I am a sockpuppet hunter and initiate an SPI in which he is identified as a sock and blocked. Would it be okay if I tagged all his new creations as G5. Do you think any admin would accept that, if the FA's were like the ones you had mentioned earlier.

The answer in both the above cases would normally be that the admin removes the tag and chides the person who tagged or advises to go for an AfD.

The problem is not about the 7 days it would be on AfD. I personally don't think that even matters if it were deleted and the 7 day publicity would be anything but desirable for the company concerned. That is however not the case as many a times Wikipedia is part of the package of paid editing, and is accompanied by news articles. Take the case of Nathan M. Farrugia. This is an article created by a paid editor, who brags about it and has listed in his portfolio on Upwork (Source). This was created by a G5 eligible editor and I have tagged it as such now. However do you think the same article would have been deleted had it been taken to AfD. I don't think so as many well meaning editors would have jumped to its defence citing the good references present. This user was dumb enough to list the article in his portfolio and I was able to tag it. What about the thousands of other paid editors who are not so dumb. This was created by a single purpose account which was blocked for sockpuppetry. A look at all his confirmed sockpuppets is mind-boggling Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LogAntiLog and this is not including the many sockpuppets that may have been yet to be identified. When we are facing a problem of such magnitude, it is pertinent that we employ harsher measures. I am off to sleep now. Probably the G5 is accepted by the time I wake up. Jupitus Smart 19:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you want to make "delete them unless the reviewing admin likes them" Wikipedia policy. I reiterate my opposition to this, which is so counter to the spirit of CSD that it beggars belief that anyone is supporting it. If the article is promotional, we have WP:G11 for that; if it's not unduly promotional than what's the issue? The WP:G5 criterion was created for an entirely different reason (I was there), to deal with the issue of long-term problematic users like ItsLassieTime where there was the presumption that their sourcing was likely to be problematic, without having to manually check the sources in every article they'd written, and has no particular relevance here (since if something is problematically promotional and non-neutral it will already be deletable under existing provisions for dealing with spam). ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't punish the reader by withholding notable topics from them. Inappropriate promotional content is already well served by G11. feminist 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As someone who's spent a lot of time working WP:COIN issues, I don't think a speedy deletion for paid editing is unambiguous enough. If we make deletion too speedy, we'll just end up with more articles at deletion review. I'll sometimes use proposed deletion, or "prod". In a week, the article is gone. It might be useful to require that you have to have achieved, say, autoconfirm level to remove "prod" tags. I'll sometimes start an AfD for an article that probably came from paid editing and just isn't about something notable enough. Sometimes there's argument, but it usually ends up being one paid editor vs. the world, and the paid editor loses. If they win, so be it; that's consensus. Sometimes you need more eyes on the problem. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson De La Nuez, an eBay art seller with heavy self-promotion. The harder we looked, the less notable they got. John Nagle (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but support further community discussion of serious countermeasures against paid editing. I came in hoping to support, and while I am sympathetic to the underlying idea, I agree with Jclemens. The proposal would only generate drama, and is rather duplicative of G5 and G11. I work extensively in filing and clerking SPI cases involving paid editing, and can attest to the urgent need to find a workable solution to this very problem. GABgab 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose speedy deletion, but I would definitely support a middle ground of automatically throwing a PROD tag on everything that appeared to be paid. bd2412 T 23:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    @BD2412: My experience with this is that another sock always comes along and removes the tag. It has to go through AFD to be safe. —Guanaco 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Then we can easily identify who is removing PROD tags from paid editing articles. bd2412 T 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sounds good. Support a special category of PRODs of articles by undisclosed paid editors, and creation of a log of paid editors and dePRODders of their articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    We need to look at getting approval to run a CU on all brand new accounts dePRODing a spammy article created by another brand new account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sounds, good, Doc James. New accounts dePRODing a spammy article, CU them. CU is very restrictive about discovering personal information on old editors, it could be way more lax on combating paid editor new account rings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it would include articles with substantial changes by legitimate users. I would support a change to G5 to explicitly include pages whose only substantial edits are by sock farms. —Guanaco 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    User:Guanaco Agree this is likely a better way to go. How should we define farm? Three or more? Four or more? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if and article was created by a sockfarm and/or looks COI-like but has no edits by legit users who improve the article and remove promotional language (just slapping {{coi}} or {{advert}} on there doesn't count). KMF (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Moral support, practical oppose, largely per Jclemens, Iridescent, and John Nagle. I'm strongly in favor of rapidly nuking this sort of deceptive spam. I hear the proposer's request for constructive suggestions for how to improve the proposal. So: it seems to me that we do not need to have a G14 to put on those pages, because the process as envisioned must follow the sequence of, first, identifying the violation of policy or TOU, and then, second, requesting rapid deletion. We can accomplish that pretty well with existing policy, so long as the administrators who deal with the policy violation then go on to nuke the non-notable pages that had been created. We don't need a CSD for that to happen, and it's better to depend on human evaluation of each page anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Tryptofish, absent a new CSD, on what basis would admins "go on to nuke the non-notable pages". Admins are not authorized curently to delete pages simnply because they are njon-notable. That is a decision to be made at an AfD. No one, not even an AfD, is authorized to delete pages because their creator was subsequently blocked, that would violate deletion policy. There is no such thing as an IAR speedy or rapid deletion. Any such deletion would violate current policy, and would be properly overturned at WP:DRV. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You raise an interesting point, one that I had not thought of. To some degree, I was simply getting, shall we say, overly enthusiastic when I talked about "nuking". As I think about your comment, I find myself asking whether, in fact, the deletion has to be that urgent, anyway. WP:There is no deadline and all that. I get it, that we don't want to overload AfD (and PROD) with spam that will unquestionably have to be deleted anyway. But I feel like what matters more in this case is my original observation that there would be no way, even with a G14, to make a deletion decision before having come to the conclusion that there had been a policy violation: it would be nonsensical to delete first and investigate later. Consequently, there has to be some consideration prior to deleting, no matter how we do this. Here's a thought: just as we have WP:BLPPROD as a special category of WP:PROD, we could make another special PROD category for cases like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking back here, I see that the PROD idea has already been proposed in the discussion section below. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Great minds think alike? Or just we are both looking over the same small toolbox to try and find the least inappropriate tool? :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Moral Oppose, Practical Oppose - as Tryptofish related from Jclemens et al. Still seems the prior "vague/covered". Morally, I feel judge the content not the user, blanket approach is wrong, and wishful thinking is bad for management. This guilt by association beyond just the TOU paid-for material is entirely too much focused on the irritation and not enough on looking for unintended consequences or collateral damage protections for a "nuking" option. Guidance should morally lead to a positive and be detailed anyway, rather than unleash draconian measures or be vague, so that WP:PAID leads to working better with WP how-to engage and do this instead of just hoops and constraints and punishments. Practically -- I agree with this wouldn't be effective (wishful thinking), questioning the need when alternatives exist, and this seems too vaguely stated to latch up to WP:PAID or WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN. I think the TOU clearly does not mean to throw out items not paid for or perhaps written before they were ever paid. Also practically, it is just easier to judge the content -- the motives of all editors are for something invisible and from some POV unknown and we do not care, but that they follow guidelines and give RS cites and goodness in content is visible and what we care about. Finally, for some topics the reality is that info is largely from press releases or captive reporters. Sony releases the film info that they want to; Microsoft coverage gets preview-packages (and if you write too off-script you get cut off); war coverage is by daily press briefing to controlled press pool. Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Endorsing Tony's comment wholeheartedly. As others have mentioned, G11 as currently construed is not dealing well enough with UPE. I've some experience with UPE in relation to academic boosterism; and based on that experience UPE content should be removed with prejudice. It is the only way of dealing with this. James (talk/contribs) 07:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand the opposes, I really do, and I even partially agree with most of them. But existing channels simply are not working well enough for this, and as Jytdog has mentioned, it is good to have a clear and unequivocal message on this to send to the world. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Delete all the articles! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I think "Delete all TOU violating submissions" is far superior to TOU sticky prod removalable arbitrarily by an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I've long held that we need to set up a proper incentive structure to dissuade paid editing. Immediate deletion is as strong a disincentive we can provide for breaking our rules. This is necessary. ~ Rob13Talk 22:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As an aside, this is already somewhat common practice. When we find a large sock ring that is making paid articles, I delete G5, whether or not I can identify a master that was blocked at the time of article creation. There was some discussion of this at one point and the gist is that, in the cases of large sock rings at least, we can be reasonably sure they've been blocked before even if they can't be tied to a specific farm. Or, alternatively, they are so behaviorally similar to any number of existing sock farms so as to meet the technical definition of sockpuppetry whether or not they're "really" the same farm. ~ Rob13Talk 07:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Statement of actual practice like this is very helpful. Based on what you are saying, this criteria is not actually new policy, but rather is just putting in writing the policy that is already consensus practice. It is not uncommon that written policy needs to updated to catch up with consensus-based practice. It is too bad this was not part of the original proposal as people would have reacted differently, most likely. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with User:BU Rob13. When we find a large family of socks, none of which look new, who are writing promotional content. We can be certain they have prior blocked accounts so I also feel comfortable applying G5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: and @Doc James: - Would any of these fall under the extended G5 criteria that BU Rob13 has mentioned above - Kijiji Canada, All Assam Minorities Students’ Union, Char Chapori Sahitya Parishad or Buljit Buragohain. These were created by a large sockfarm and around 10 of their sockpuppets were found out in one go. And they continue unabated with new sockpuppets even now per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raju Adhikari. Jupitus Smart 18:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup would apply as none of the socks were ever a new account per their editing and thus we can assume that their are prior blocked socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We have to dissuade paid editing companies and this is definitely a good way of doing so and getting them to declare properly. Currently, they have no incentive unless they are behaviorally obvious enough or make a small slip (e.g. mixing up of accounts)- this would add a 'stick' that incentivises them to declare, or get their articles deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc (talkcontribs) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, this looks like a solution trying to find a problem. If paid editors create spam, our existing deletion policies can cope with it. If paid editors create articles on people who turn out to be notable per our guidelines, then what's the issue? I got "paid" to write Bullets and Daffodils, it just wasn't in cash. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose One would think a truly professional content producer would be smart enough to avoid being detected through checkuser and other methods of detection by following all the other policies outside of WP:COI. This proposed policy wouldn't likely be able to help with those people, which is what I assume the problem is - everybody else can already be dealt with through current policies. South Nashua (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many pages (not just articles, since we're talking general criteria here) written in violation of the TOU already fall under G11 or G12, and they may even fall under both. What isn't taken care of there can easily be handled by our various other deletion processes. If it's unpaid editing, chances are very high that it's not a notable topic. Even if it is a notable topic, chances are still very high that the page would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION (from G11), and so would still be deleted. If it is, by some miracle, salvageable, then WP:FIXIT. Even if, after you fix it, its history contains copyrighted content, simply use {{Copyvio-revdel}} (for non-admins) to request Rev-Del under WP:RD1 or Rev-Del it yourself (for admins). Gestrid (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The proposal is equivalent to "Should our Terms of Use" be enforced, and the prevailing answer appears to be "No, not really". Mind boggling. Rentier (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (in the absence of a better alternative). ToU needs enforcing, the challenge is getting consensus on how, so hopefully those opposing can get behind something? Widefox; talk 18:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments by TonyBallioni, Jytdog, Legacypac, BU Rob13 and others. CSD is already overly complicated, but if this would even slightly dissuade spammers, then I see it as a net positive.- MrX 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A7, G5 and G11 adequately cover this ground. I can't see why we would want to delete okay articles based solely on who the author is (especially when it can be sometimes difficult to know for certain whether the author was paid). If there are other, related instances they can be sent to AfD. If this means a significantly greater load at AfD which almost always results in consensus for deletion this can be reconsidered/proposed at a later date. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As many others already said, it should be about the content, insted of the author. But maybe making it easier to delete it the normal way, would be a solution. --Info-Screen::Talk 12:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. It's important to discourage people from using Wikipedia for advertising; given the impact of mirrors, search engines, and other things advertisers target by adding things here, this requires a way to get rid of advertising that violates foundation policies quickly. Allowing undisclosed paid editors to hold the hope that the adds they spam here could stick around long enough to generate profits will cause trouble for us down the road. Additionally, the foundation policy on paid advertising is extremely important to Wikipedia's reputation and function as an encyclopedia; it is absolutely our duty to enforce it and to try and minimize any circumventions of it. Even when the text itself is good (which I feel is rare), it's important to underline that undisclosed paid editing hurts Wikipedia as a whole and leads to major scandals that damage our entire reputation every time it comes to light. Occasionally sacrificing potentially-usable stubs is an entirely reasonable price to pay for preventing that (and is no different than what we do with banned editors; I see no difference between this and that.) Anyone above who argues that we should not delete articles purely because of their creator or purely to enforce some broader goal of protecting Wikipedia needs to take a look at G5, which does exactly that, and which has been an uncontroversial part of CSD for years. Some people above have expressed concerns about identifying paid editors; however, this is nonsensical, since the CSD would only apply in cases where it was clear. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support very strongly. Quality is now more important than quantity. It’s al very well to boast that we are getting on for 6 million articles, but already in my estimation anything up to 20% shouldn’t be here anyway. It’s gone beyond the point where we would ever be able to address even all the tagged BLPs. We won’t be able to discover all the paid-for articles either, but paid editing is growing exponentially, and the opposers here are possibly not aware that according to some claims there are even admins and New Page Reviewers taking on paid work.
This is not a solution looking for a problem. It’s defeatist to say that solutions are unworkable. it’s a very big problem that needs constant discussion and intelligent brainstorming until something is found that can be made to work. Too many people are opposing here who are not New Page Reviewers and have no idea of the magnitude of the spam, artspam, and devious articles that arrive here for which someone has obviously been paid and/or will increase their turnover as a result of their commercial exposure in Wikipedia. Never say we can’t delete per G14 without concrete proof - we delete per G5 all the time based on loud quacking. While a lot of it is very subtle and needs careful research, some paid editing is so blatantly obvious that if it weren't such a serious issue it would be a howling joke.
Wikipedia is organic and needs to adapt to new situations. Stifling progress by of rigidly adhering to every syllable of policy like a jurist's inflexible attention to every letter of the law will stifle our attempts to maintain a good reputation for the encyclopedia by changing our Wikilaws.
Wadsworth Jarrell is absolutely not the kind of article we're talking about, so we can do without red herrings and strawman arguments. As Beyond My Ken says, The "oppose" rationales are weak and unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The problem to address here is the time sink of good volunteer labor into providing service to organizations which are vandalizing Wikipedia. If we feel strongly enough to block an account for bad behavior then we should not further invest volunteer attention in preserving the vandal activity. CSD is the right place to start, then undeletion and AfD can be next steps if anyone objects. When dealing with accounts which are deemed in violation of the terms of service we should default to permit anyone to delete their work. This is a big issue consuming 100s of hours of volunteer labor and harming the reputation of Wikipedia. While there are theoretical other solutions which others might develop in the future, this one is practical, easy to implement, works now, and seems likely to prevent 10 times more problems than it could cause. I hear lots of volunteers burdened with promotional editing. I am not sure that I have ever heard a sympathetic story of any editor who behaved in a way that got them blocked, and yet posted content which I thought was obviously worth keeping. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Here's why this policy is a bad idea. An editor who was later identified as part of a sockfarm created an article about someone named Bruce Flatt. Flatt is apparently a well known Canadian businessman and one of the richest people in Canada. There is an abundance of relaible third-party reportage about Flatt. The article Bruce Flatt was by deleted admin User:Kudpung under WP:G5, despite not having identified the article creator as a previously blocked or banned user. Now Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Flatt. Does this harm or help our readers? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
That, World's Lamest Critic, is a bad faith vote in vengeance of the comments and concerns that have been raised and expressed over your own editing pattern here. Serious users such as Doc James have commented. 17:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If by "bad faith" you mean that we have different opinions, then yes, it is. If you mean I am opposing this because you support it, then I can assure you that you are wrong. Your deletion of Bruce Flatt is an excellent and timely example of what will happen if this proposal were adopted. I also believe it was an out of process deletion, but we agree to disagree on that. As for your comments about my editing, I'm not bothered so there's really nothing for me to avenge. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
World's Lamest Critic first edit was to JW's talk page. The subsequent edits show they are unlikely to be a new user. Bruce Flatt was created by User:AnalyticCat who is part of this family of socks.[1]. As it was a TOU violation and this family obviously has prior blocked socks not seeing an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:G5 Creations by banned or blocked users says: "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4. I'm a little confused about the rationale. wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Wbm1058 there is a general consensus that for very large farms with VPNs and where CU is a mess, we can safely assume that at some point there has been an original blocked account. In the case above, as Doc James pointed out, the user was part of a huge sock family that dated back with active accounts to 2015, and with stale accounts, likely had them dating back to 2009 that were stale. The odds of a sock farm like that not having been banned at one point is effectively zero. This is distinct from a sock family with one of two socks that is likely just a freelancer doing a one off. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer, the author of Bruce Flatt is a sockpuppet of Tomwsulcer, yet the sockmaster himself, a user who identifies himself on his user page, has a clean block log?? wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
No. CU did not find a connection to him, he is not the sockmaster: the clerks have yet to sort out what to move the page to: we don't know who the original account was there. GeneralizationsAreBad, could you look into getting that case resolved so that we don't have any additional confusion about a named master? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In most cases, these articles are spam to a significant extent; the worse ones can be G11-tagged immediately, and a borderline case should easily be pushed over the edge if you can demonstrate that the author's been blocked for paid editing or sockpuppetry. If it's not a borderline case in this way (i.e. it's a decent article as far as lack-of-promotion is concerned), and if it doesn't have other significant problems, deletion might well hurt the encyclopedia, so we mustn't delete such a page without giving a chance for objection (PROD) or discussion (AFD). Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose. G5 and G10 are the only criteria currently that are about who created the page rather than its content. G10 is uncontroversial as it only relates to someone requesting deletion of their own work. G5 is frequently controversial in application, and has been throughout the 12 years I've been an admin, but the blocking and banning policy are not at all controversial in themselves. The moral panic about undisclosed paid editing does not enjoy full community support so basing a speedy deletion criterion on it cannot possibly be a good idea. Per Nyttend and others, it also fails the requirement for a speedy deletion criterion that everything that could be deleted should be deleted. TL;DR this will harm not improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is absolutely essential and long overdue. We are already suffocating under the weight of paid editing, and we can only expect it to get worse. G11 is only available for articles that are overtly promotional in tone, but any article created for pay is, by its nature, an advertisement – it is a publication created for financial reward for the sole purpose of promoting a person or entity. Undeclared paid editing is not allowed under our terms of use, without any exception, and we are under an obligation to ensure that any such edits are summarily removed. This would be a good first step in that direction. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't want to raise Richard Stallman levels of pedantry, but what you're describing is paid advocacy. As I've said before, the WMF could pay me to go through nearly 2,700 articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs and add a reliable source to each one (a tedious job that obviously nobody wants to do) - it would be "paid editing" but wouldn't be advertising. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in theory (although extending G5 could also work). If we disallow undisclosed paid contributions, we need to have a tool to delete them. I am sceptical about the burden of proof, though. Perhaps decisions should be made at COIN or SPI? —Kusma (t·c) 12:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As alluded to by Thryduulf above, I don't really understand the moral panic Wikipedia has with paid editors. Paid editing is against the terms of service specifically because paid editors are more likely to produce articles which are partisan and/or promotional, but we already have the tools to deal with that and I don't think there's any sign these existing mechanisms are failing. G5 is, I suppose, intended to try to improve compliance with bans and discourage socking in the same vein as WP:DENY. It's not about upholding some moral ideal that all editing here should be free of financial interest. I don't really see what the project has to gain from deleting good material on notable subjects purely on principle. We are foolish to think of ourselves as "at war" with paid editors; sometimes they even do us a favour by writing good-quality articles on notable subjects. Indeed, their work is often of a particularly high quality because they are familiar with Wikipedia's quality control processes. If paid editors produce specific work which is inappropriate then we can deal with that ad hoc using the tools already available, but I see nothing to be gained by granting admins carte blanche to delete articles just because they suspect the main contributor might have a financial conflict of interest. We should judge articles and their suitability based on content and quality, not authorship. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, does not come up sufficiently often. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If an article is written by a paid editor and is blatantly promotional, it will be deleted via G11. If the article is written by a paid editor and it is a well-written and neutral article, it should be kept. Deleting well-written articles on principle simply gets rid of well-written articles. In a practical sense, G11 covers every scenario under paid editing that would warrant a speedy deletion. This is both bad in principle and superfluous in practice. Malinaccier (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, as a measure to dissuade organized paid editing, and as an effective tool to save valuable time of good-faith editors and admins. Many of the previous "oppose" arguments have 2 basic flaws: 1) Non-promotional well-sourced articles by organized sockfarms are, with a few extremely rare exceptions, a myth. The whole purpose of sockfarms as commercial enterprises is to make as much money as quickly as possible by advancing the goals of their customers - both of these goals are diametrically opposite to Wikipedia's principles and goals. So the risk of loosing suitable content is relatively small, and vastly overstated by previous statements. 2) "Judge articles by their content" is a noble idealistic view. But in rough and dirty daily practise regarding paid editing this view is upheld on the backs of dozens of fellow good-faith editors and admins, who have to waste hundreds of hours of their time cleaning up these messes - just to see the next sockfarm popping up a few weeks later. Talking about fair article assessment, how about we try to be "fair" towards these regular maintenance contributors and don't waste any more of their time than absolutely necessary? GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support If paid editors unlawfully create an article and we keep it anyway, they're incentivized to continue socking. Delete everything they do and they'll learn a lesson. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Chris troutman, I do believe you !voted above to delete all the articles!. Just noting it for you because I wouldn't want to strike a double vote of an established editor without letting them know. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Having a coherent, community-support policy (like this) is better than tacitly encouraging expansion of scope of other existing criteria. Sophisticated editors who are deliberately undermining the integrity of the project for financial gain are a serious ongoing problem, deserving of a policy response. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support underlining concept. Paid editors usually write promotional articles. That's what they are paid to do. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Judge the article by content, not source. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- having paid articles in the mainspace is disruptive; this is the best way to deal with this issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • strongly Oppose I think that adding something like this as a criteria for deletion would be reasonable. Would likely overcome some of the inclusionist arguments (including my own) for keeping such stuff. But this is a horrid idea. Imagine someone gets blocked as a sock. Maybe incorrectly (it has happened). And someone else goes through and speedy tags every single article they've created that no one else has really touched. Or even if they do get blocked for socking in a way that has nothing to do with paid editing. Then all their work is deleted for one bad decisions made 5 years later. Or someone hacks their account after they've quit the project. They never even know they were blocked as a sock. But all their work gets deleted. This doesn't belong as a speedy. Way too overreaching and subject to abuse. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose but support as a revision deletion criterion. When a user saves an edit, they agree both to the ToU and to the CC license release simultaneously. If they're flagrantly and knowingly ignoring one of those things, they have a case to argue that their contribution is not subject to the license agreement. The license also requires that the contribution is original content or that the contributor has the right to contribute that material, which if they've been paid under some contract we don't know the content of (which likely includes trademarks and intellectual property protection) to reproduce what is probably PR copy from the organization paying them, they very likely do not own a compatible copyright to their contribution. In these cases, every undisclosed paid edit is a potential copyright violation. A contract is implied if remuneration is received; paid editors' contributions ought therefore to be removed as soon as they are identified. That's a case for WP:REVDEL, which may leave pages with no contributions in which case other criteria apply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per User:Jclemens. That being said, I'd be happy to see it harder to get a page back under G5, since there's usually another sock or a gullible inclusionist around to resurrect paid for articles and give them another go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC).
  • Oppose - We have adequate community-inclusive mechanisms for deleting craptervising and for challenging lame articles of dubious notability. We don't need an handful of fanatics riding around on white chargers and serving as judge, jury, and executioner without evidence as to an editor's financial relationship to a subject. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose- I don't think this is the best way to go about combating paid advertisements. I mostly agree with the above posters who argue that determining who is or is not a paid editor is inherently controversial. That said, I agree that Wikipedia is not very good at defending itself from being used as a billboard and I worry that opposing this proposal will be seized on as opposition to doing anything about it. I would not want that. Reyk YO! 06:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What is the difference between WP:G5 and the proposed WP:G14? Bruce Flatt was created 21 October 2015, at 08:08 by AnalyticCat, who was blocked at 17:30, 27 July 2017. If Bruce Flatt can be deleted under WP:G5 then there is no need for the redundant G14. See #Flatt discussion above. wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4, which raises more questions in my mind. Again, if G5 already de facto covers G14 situations, why do we need G14? If someone without a COI "rewrites" the article in a neutral and acceptable manner, based on references used in the deleted version, do we need to restore the deleted revisions to restore attribution? wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I understand the concerns about ambiguity, but like other CSD criteria (hoaxes are a good parallel) this will only be used in clear cut circumstances. As long as the criterion says that this is for clear-cut situations, I have no problems with the practicality. The implications of this are not without precedent; as before, the hoax CSD could be called ambiguous and open to discretion but is largely a success. We must remember that tagging for CSD is only half the story. A qualified admin also needs to agree. This is a sensible solution to a problem that needs addressing, and I can't see any implementation issues. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as more trouble than its worth. Use G5 more creatively.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. As Iridescent said, "speedy deletion is meant only for uncontroversial cases." And as feminist pointed out, this change would punish ordinary readers of Wikipedia who are looking for a digest of the published information about a topic. As for me, as a Teahouse volunteer I frequently encounter editors who are working on articles without disclosing they are paid editors not out of malice, but because they simply don't know the paid-editing policy exists. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing articles and even draft articles PRODded or AfD'd or even speedied where the underlying reason for the nomination is that the initial or main contributor appears to have a COI and/or is suspected of being an undisclosed paid editor; such articles are often salvageable with only a moderate amount of editing by a more experienced (and non-COI) editor. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 13:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As User:Feminist points out, we are punishing our readers by deleting an article that is properly sourced and notable. If article is unworthy, take it to AfD. Find another way to punish the author of such articles, but don't punish the people who we are trying to serve. First Light (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support As is evident from cases such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Quinn_Sullivan — even in the face of concrete evidence is it difficult to delete paid pieces.
    Paid editing biases which articles are written, and what is included in them. Unless we as a community want to spend the rest of our days "fixing" shitty paid pieces we need to have a process to quickly and easily dispose of pages created by undisclosed paid editors.
    RileyBugz & A2soupWe must judge the creator in order to judge the content. By allowing paid pieces to stick around, we bias Wikipedia and force editors to do the handywork of special interests. We need to look not only at what Wikipedia is now, but what will become of Wikipedia. Either we allow this practice to continue and Wikipedia will turn into a cesspool of for-pay biographies, or we spend all our volunteer time fixing paid pieces, which in turn means people quit and Wikipedia still turns into a cesspool of paid editing. There is no way around it, we need to get rid of paid pieces, even if they are decent. Our ordinary protocol for deletion promotes "fixing problems", we can't have that approach to paid editing, it will be the end of us. Carl Fredrik talk 14:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support Paid articles in violation of created in violation of Wikipedia terms of use need to be deleted.Allowing Wikipedia to fill up full of paid for promotional material has a very significant risk of harming our reputation and credibility.Firstly deletion is done in WP:G5 Creations by banned or blocked users is removed this is similar to that.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:Deletion review#3.1.1 Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork and other deleted articles. Thanks Cunard for demonstrating conclusively that only with this new rule in place can massive ToU violations, in this case hundreds of paid articles by a single sockfarm, be effectively addressed. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wheather an article was created by a paid editor is irrelevant. Deleting articles should always be determine through AfD process, not by the merits of the editor. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Some of the topics created by the paid editing rings may be "notable" by our current definitions. But so are many other topics that no-one will pay to insert into Wikipedia, and so are the topics of the existing articles most of which need further expansion and improvement. If we are all spending our time processing, reviewing, fixing and checking the paid editors' creations – including checking and evaluating every reference, because there can be no trust – then we are neglecting all those other topics, and WP will tilt towards becoming a commercial directory: Noyster (talk), 09:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sticky PROD alternative[edit]

  • How about a new "TOU sticky PROD" like we started for the BLP unsourced cleanup of a few years back? I hear not a whole lot of objection to leaving things around for a week, and we have time-based CSD-F? criteria that trigger after seven days. If we can get 1) eyes on the public process vs. having to ask for DRV 2) time for input, and 3) opportunities for objection or rescue if anyone really wants to. Ideally, this would still be reasonably expeditious, but available for more community review and input. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • BLPPROD has a (mostly) unambiguous and uncontentious path to removal: add a reliable source, and you can remove the template. When can a sticky-TOU prod be removed? When an editor in good standing says so - then when is a new editor's standing good enough? When an "unpaid" editor rewrites it, or says it's good enough - then how do you tell the difference between an include-all-subjects idealist and the 20,000-edit good-hand sockpuppet of the editor who created the article? —Cryptic 02:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Here's my first draft of how it would go:
        1) Any user in good standing (autoconfirmed) tags an article
        2) Article banner appears, category added, article added to list of tagged, etc. to notify community for one week of the issue.
        3) Any administrator can remove the tag at any time, either because the tagging was in error OR the article has been sufficiently cleaned up and neutral-ized, and such removal is logged in the file history and maybe somewhere else, too
        4) If no administrator has removed the tag after 168 hours, the article becomes deletion-eligible, and an admin can STILL review it and remove the tag... or delete it outright.

Note : The consensus is probably towards allowing Extended Confirmed users to remove the tag and therefore voters are requested not to hold this up in case administrator tag removal is what bothers you. And articles can only be tagged so if they were created and mostly edited by sockpuppet(s) who have been confirmed by checkuser evidence to have used multiple accounts or by editors who were explicitly blocked for paid editing. Jupitus Smart 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

      • So, yeah, still a rough draft/work in progress. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Oh, and nothing about this process would make an article immune to other CSD criteria (G5, G11, G12, etc.) or prevent it from being AfD'ed per normal process if it "fell out" of the process. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with autoconfirmed is that 7 days is more than the 4 days required to become an autoconfirmed user. So even if an editor decides to form an account after it is PRODed, he will be eligible to remove the tag, and many a times editors simply don't care enough to take it to AfD, ultimately defeating the cause. Jupitus Smart 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens' proposal above is to have autoconfirmed+ able to tag, but only admin+ to untag. —Cryptic 03:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I am really sorry as it probably skipped my eyes. That is an even better proposal than mine. Jupitus Smart 03:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am all for any proposal that does not entail going to AfD. AfD is a strenuous process, and if you go through some of the upwork jobs, there are companies willing to pay you to vote keep. It becomes harsh on the nominator who files the AfD's when well healed socks pile on logical votes, and you have to take the pains to research on all of them before refuting them. I am not sure why the 7 day period is an issue. Remaining for 7 days was not the issue when I created this CSD criteria, it was the surety (or the lack of it) of deletion. The 7 day period is okay with me if socks are not allowed to remove the tag. 20K edit sockpuppets are few, so we may set an arbitrary barrier equivalent to an Extended Confirmed user. All the well meaning people who would want to preserve well written articles (and have written such articles themselves) will fall under this. Jupitus Smart 03:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • On a related note, I was looking at all the creations of the sock I mentioned above. One of his socks have made large edits to Sunny Li. This was created by another sockpuppet editor (probably not related to him), and the only other major contributor is an IP. This is technically not eligible for G5 and I am not knowledgeable enough about Chinese pianists and would not want to take it to AfD where somebody might say that she satisfies WP:NPIANO Face-smile.svg and therefore this should be kept. Jupitus Smart 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Here is another example of what I want to avoid - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Mooradian. This was created by one of the socks of this guy, and the AfD ended up getting support votes from 2 editors in standing. The amount of man hours wasted by the editors who inadvertently voted keep assuming good faith and those by the ones who voted delete is simply not worth the effort according to me. Jupitus Smart 04:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Less few than you might think. We've banned admins for paid editing, more for generalized sockpuppetry, and 100k-edit users for (unspecified) TOU violations. The 500 edits it takes to get extendedconfirmed on a primary account isn't just too flimsy a barrier for a minimally-savvy paid editor; it's no barrier at all. —Cryptic 04:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I would wholeheartedly support a move that would allow only admins to DePROD. I would not want to be pessimistic already, so let me hope that there would be a consensus towards it. Jupitus Smart 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • A PROD that can only be removed by admins is a huge step above CSD in terms of the power of the deletion tag (a CSD may be removed by any uninvolved editor) and, as the first process in which uninvolved editors could not participate, would be an unprecedented change in Wikipedia deletion processes. A2soup (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Oh, but they could. They can edit the article during the tagged week, argue for or against deletion on... well, the talk page, I guess. The entire point is to make it public and participatory, even if it is to be administrator-closed when all is said and done. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Can Extended Confirmed be agreed as the middle ground @A2soup: and @Jclemens:. Bad EC users are expected to be few, and can be monitored for suspicious de-taggings (and/or Sockpuppetry). Jupitus Smart 05:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
              • I'd also support EC over admin being able to remove. An admin-only process invites this to be turned into a battleground between admins who have different views on what our inclusion standards should be for paid editing. Allowing more users to participate in the detagging I think would actually make it more likely for the bad content to be removed and would decrease the pressure on an admin as the final call because they would know that other users have had the practical chance to remove it as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
              • I went with admin on purpose. I don't expect it to be a tug-of-war, because I expected that once a TOU-sticky-prod was removed, the full AfD process would be invoked by anyone. I also expect admins to not do stupid things like mass-remove everything because "freedom!" or something like that: I have no such hope no EC user would do such a thing. The community can take my proposal any which way it wants--like everything else on Wikipedia, all I 'own' are my own contributions. I don't want it to be EASY to undo a good-faith TOU tagging; I want it to be hard, but transparent and with some time to fix problems that a speedy process doesn't allow. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
                • You don't do you? I wouldn't quite mass-remove such prods, but I would expect to patrol the list regularly, and probably remove a good many, if this were to be enacted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    I find User:Jupitus Smart's argument, wanting to avoid AfD because in the past it has been strenuous to convince others, highly unsatisfactory.
    In that AfD cited, User:Carrite, a respectable Wikipedian was unpersuaded by User:Bearcat's nomination and !voted "Keep". In the name of "consensus decision making", that demands more discussion demanding more mutual education by editors through that discussion. PROD and CSD are for objective things for which there is no point in discussion. If respectable Wikipedians can disagree, a discussion is necessary. If the discussion draws out sockpuppets and meatpuppets and members of rings of undisclosed paid editors, that is a good thing. It sounds like an essay on the merits of deleting undisclosed paid editor product is required, not an authority-heavy non-consensus deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    I edit conflicted with SmokeyJoe in replying to Jclemens. SmokeyJoe's comment solidified the belief I was going to post: the problem stems from WP:DEL15: violations of the terms of use being a redlink. It is not seen by some as a valid deletion rationale, even if it is legally a prerequisite before we even get to local policy on en.wiki. If we could get that added, I think it would make the conversations on the technical means to enforce the terms of use much easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The alternative of a PROD was suggested because it allows editors who disagree and who are in standing to remove the tag. The arguments for Keep were made by Carrite in good faith, and did not have much substance which was the reason why the article was ultimately deleted. The watered down proposal is in itself better than the current scenario, because it makes the drama at AfD required for only strictly essential cases. So even though I would not AfD Sunny Li (or other such articles) because I don't want to waste my time arguing in a field where I am not knowledgeable about the different WP:NWHATEVER, I can always do the new PROD, and wait for Carrite or other such good users to remove the tag with a valid reason. This gives me an idea about the suitability of taking it to AfD if I still disagree, which would not be available if a new user removes the PROD tag without any explanation (and since PRODs can only be done once, I am realistically left with only AfD). Jupitus Smart 06:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope something can be done about ToU violations so would prefer not to be raising difficulties. I'm unhappy at the idea that a ToU tag could be placed so easily (autoconfirmed+). WP:G4 tags are frequently placed with no evidence and such tagging seems not to be deprecated.[2] Placing such a tag should be regarded as disruptive unless there is some adequate basis. For example, shills of the firm's/person's opponents shouldn't get an easy ride. Thincat (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • From what I understand, the PROD follows the criteria for nomination, as the CSD above. It is possible only when the creator of the article is blocked for confirmed sockpuppetry/paid editing, which would mean that frivolous nominations would not be possible. Jupitus Smart 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • OK, I hadn't understood then. If the criterion is definite then my objection doesn't apply. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Jupitus Smart, Exactly who confirms that "paid editing" has taken place? In any case i do not trust our current SPI system to identify sockpuppets with a reasonable level of assurance, unless by "confirmed" you mean "confirmed by checkuser evidence" and if you do the proposal should say that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes that is exactly what I intended @DESiegel: as can be gauged from the example of KuwarOnline that I presented. But I suppose its better to be more technically correct and I will append your words as is. Jupitus Smart 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support User:Jclemens suggestion. Would also be good to get the notice of concerns fully visible on mobile. But that will likely require a different process. Admin involvement is key to prevent interference from further socks such as we so often see at AfD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Jclemens but with conditions. A guideline is drawn up explaining how the tag can placed legitimately (autoconfirmed user, creator blocked for paid editing, article still "spam") explaining misuse is disruptive. Also, the deleting admin must look at state of article, talk page and history (in case no admin has previously done so), i.e. no speedy deletion of articles with unremoved tags. Question: what procedure for undeletion: WP:DRV or WP:REFUND? Thincat (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - So in the Jclemens proposal (and per their clarifications in the above discussion), the article is tagged by anyone, editors argue for and against deletion on the talk page for a week, the article may be improved/fixed during this week, and then an administrator makes an assessment and close at the end. Pardon me if I'm being dense, but that's just a poorly-organized AfD, no? Just send the article to AfD and the process is literally identical. Am I missing something? A2soup (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • AfD defaults to keep and involves other sorts of arguments (notability, etc.) while what I'm proposing has some of the safeguards, but defaults to delete unless rationale is demonstrably false OR the article is rewritten, possibly as much by "from scratch" in the interim. I admit it's not hugely far, but AfD looks at different things and considers different possibilities rather than "Is this COI article rewritable, or shall we just nuke it?" Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • AfD does look at different things, but isn't "Is this COI article rewritable, or shall we just nuke it?" definitely within the current scope of AfD? I'm far from a regular there, but I feel like there are often discussions along those very lines. And if the article isn't notable, might as well figure that out at the same time you hash out the COI issues. No sense having a weeklong discussion about an article and keeping it at the end if it isn't notable. A2soup (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • PROD's generally do not involve any discussion. We PROD, and if it is notable somebody improves it, and an EC user or the reviewing admin who evaluates it at the end of 7 days removes the tag, if they feel notability has been achieved. This defaults to keep as well, but removes the need for unnecessary long drawn out discussions at AfD. In the end the encyclopedia probably gains, as the editors can use the time wasted at AfD improving articles.Jupitus Smart 15:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • My experience with AFD for COI or promotion issues can, almost without exception, be summarized as "keep, has sources, afd is not cleanup". Once in a great while, an article can be deleted on WP:TNT grounds there, but there's a better-than-even chance that when the beyond-any-sane-doubt paid editor recreates it verbatim, it'll get kept the second time. I'll call out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow (2nd nomination) as a particularly blatant example. G11 is the only tool we have of any efficacy at all. —Cryptic 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • That is because, under current policy, COI is not a reason to delete, and promotion is not a reason either if the article has been edited to be neutral in content, is supported by reliable sources, and the topic is notable. This was a good keep.This proposal would change those policies, i suppose (which may mean that discussion here would only be a first step. However, i have seen quite a few articles brought to AfD largely for COI/Promotion deleted on the grounds of notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Ruth (singer) was a recent case in point. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • As is so often the case the account fighting for keep turns out to be a sock[3]. This is not so much about is COI a reason for deletion but should content that is promotional and created by an army of socks be deleted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Promotional content can be removed from articles now, and it is all the time, by normal editing. Wholly promotional articles that cannot be cured by copy editing can be and often are deleted under CSD G11, in both cases with no regard to who created or edited the article. So far as I can see the only effect of this proposal would be to authorize the deletion of valid, neutral articles because of who created them. (If they aren't valid neutral articles, they can be deleted without this proposal). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Before we go any further, would you agree that the same thing is valid for G5 as well @DESiegel: (that it also involves deletion based on who created it instead of the content). And if the answer is Yes, should we abolish that as well. Jupitus Smart 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes it does, Jupitus Smart, and if you look up to the G5 section on this very page, you will find me arguing to abolish G5 on exactly those grounds. I am consistent. As it stands, G5 has consensus, but I will never delete anything so tagged. I won't remove such tags, but i don't choose to act on them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Then we should agree to disagree. G5 has its share of proponents and I am one of the editors treading the fine line between WP:PRESERVE and G5. It means that I would tag for G5 only if I personally feel that the article was made in bad faith and we can do without the article (This is just my personal opinion). This is the reason why I have been flexible enough to write into the draft, most of the fail safe mechanisms that were presented above to prevent abuse. Best. Jupitus Smart 18:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support despite what has been argued above, promotion is a actually a reason to delete under current policy beyond just G11, as WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and WP:DEL14 make clear and this can be argued in an AfD even if G11 has been declined or as is more often the case, the nom feels it isn't overtly G11. Some closers don't like the argument, others do, but pretending that it isn't a valid reading of policy isn't helpful to the conversation. Violations of the TOU are almost always promotional in intent and as has been mentioned above, since we aren't a startup anymore, simply having a listing here can be promotion. Creating a sticky PROD for undeclared paid editing makes sense from local policy as it stands now, and terms of use are above any local policy anyway barring consensus to explicitly make an exception to this, which does not exist. Support this as a compromise between AfD and CSD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I sad that "promotion is not a reason either if the article has been edited to be neutral in content, is supported by reliable sources, and the topic is notable." I don't think any of the policies you mention authorizes deletion when the article has been edited to be neutral. If one does, please quote the wording. Promotion can be a reason to delete beyond G11, but not beyond editing for a factual, neutral article, even if its existence has some promotional effect. Otherwise we would need to delete all articles on fortune-500 companies. They all have some promotional effect. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The proposed draft addresses that, in it allows the PROD to be rejected if it is edited to become neutral (albeit the removal can only be done by an EC user). The only realistic goal of the draft PROD now is to reduce the number of AfDs besides provide an avenue for deleting many promotional articles created by blocked users. If these articles can be improved after tagging it is ultimately the encyclopedia that wins, otherwise they end up deleted. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. [...] Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. per WP:NOT, which is listed as a reason for deletion at WP:DEL14 and WP:N. We aren't talking about Fortune 500s here. We're talking about startups and local restaurants where Wikipedia would be more high profile coverage than anything they had every received before. If an editor feels that there are enough factors on another side that might warrant keeping, they can remove the PROD and an AfD will happen to resolve the tension in our policies and find consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed deletion template is useful, but too easy to remove. One approach would be to have a template which proposed deletion, and a 'bot which, when it detected deletion of a PROD template, would check who deleted it. If it was the article creator, a new editor, or an editor with an SPA editing pattern, it would automatically start an AfD and send out the appropriate notifications. John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • My original proposal had an admin-only removal clause, but adding something like this with appropriate automated support would clearly serve a similar purpose. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Traits of any solution.
Here's some things I think I want to see in any solution:
  • Public I don't like insta-speedy because it could be more abusable than an open process. Public has the benefit of also providing negative reinforcement to correctly identified TOU violations, but also has the possibility of improper visibility to falsely named articles and their subjects, which leads to...
  • Thresholded (was that a word before? It is now) that is to say that we don't accept nominations/accusations from new accounts or IPs, because it's a serious allegation and we don't want people using this when G11 is really what they should be using. Likewise, I propose a high threshold for clearing an accused article for continued existence, thus...
  • Inevitable while not automatic, I want things that really are TOU violations to be deleted unless there's a clear indication (not necessarily 'consensus', but admin judgment) that the article should stay.
If what I've proposed above doesn't meet these goals ideally, or if there are other goals you want to see added or substituted, by all means, let's improve the ideas... Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "TOU violations to be deleted ... not necessarily 'consensus', but admin judgment". This sounds very much like "admins know best, let admins make the decisions". It implies acknowledgement that the community is not behind "TOU violations to be deleted", and so the community is to be removed from the decision making process. No. Admins do not get this power. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The old "let the community decide" mentality worked when Wikipedia (and even the internet) was new. But it is a failed ideology now that these things are ingrained in society. WP needs a hierarchy. The community, when it grows to this size, does not know best. Kellymoat (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The internet was not new when Wikipedia was born. And Wikipedia was larger, in terms of the number of active editors, 5 years ago. Any such hierarchy is in violation of fundamental policy here. It would require Foundation approval, and if approved, would doom the project by driving away the second-class editors (as designated by such a change), who do the vast majority of the work. Indeed IP editors make a substantial part o the productive edits in article space. Indeed to enact such a rule would IMO violate the current policy WP:ADMIN which says: "Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be." Simply not acceptable. A threshold of ECU might possibly be acceptable, although i still oppose the whole idea. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, no more than administrators are needed to delete any other process, be it XfD, PROD, or CSD. The idea is to have more public input than CSD, but not as ambiguous an outcome as XfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • XfD is about consensus decision making, and is the process required of there is a history of disagreement. PROD is deliberately very soft, anyone can remove the PROD for any reason or no reason, meaning and XfD is required. BLPPROD, OK, adding a single reference is a pretty low requirement, nowhere near as complicated as paid articles that are more likely to be reference bombed. Admins are not supposed to be there to make executive decisions. The way to do this, I think, is on every TOU block, to initiate a group listing AfD on every article created by that account. Then see how community consensus develops. Isolated AfDs are too isolated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We have to enforce the terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
jcc - I see your 'support' at the top section and at the PROD alternative so is there a preference or just a desire for something and either will do or what  ? Markbassett (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I would prefer the top proposal, but yes, I think something should be done so I'm happy if either of proposals get enacted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So there are a class of articles (created with a COI) that do NOT get regularly deleted at AfD and thus we are discussing if they should be speedied or PRODed? Shouldn't it be the other way around? We should Speedy/PROD something that is a obvios AfD deletion? (I admit I only read here and there, the discussion is already long, so if I missed some explanation on that please just point that'away) - Nabla (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nabla: I am not sure I comprehended the question correctly, but I will attempt an answer on what I understood. The question probably is should the article revert to Keep in an AfD, can it be allowed to be PRODed/CSDed. The existing rules should probably apply in this case. In case of a PROD, as with all PRODs, once an AfD has been done, the new PROD should not be applicable. In case of a CSD, there are no restrictions, and recently I saw an AfD which was about to be closed as Keep, but just before that it was identified as G5 material and deleted (it was probably re-created by an admin later). The other aspect of how your question can be construed is probably what was really asked - should we delete as a PROD/CSD if it is bound to pass AfD. As with the example I mentioned, even if an article reverts to keep, we would not hesitate to delete it as G5 (even though the said article was re-created, it was probably because it was about something very obviously notable like a Congressional district - I don't seem to remember who the involved admin was else I would have presented the link). The same should apply here probably. Best. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart:, I think I understood your point. It does not mean that I agree (or not), but at least it now makes sense to me, Thank you! Iy would be interesting to know if the equivalent of G5 was already commonly deleted at AfD, before the creation of that speedy deletion criterion. But I admit I will not take the trouble to find it out, so I am _not_ asking anyone to do it either. - Nabla (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in general, the broad idea of a modified PROD. It seems to me that more discussion will be needed to flesh out the details, so I'm supporting the general idea, rather than any specific proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose What I'm seeing is that a TOU violation gets to stay on Wikipedia for a week. While, yes, it could possibly be edited and changed to fall within the TOU, it still essentially gets to stay on Wikipedia for a week, during which time the page, for starters, could be archived by the Internet Archive or Archive.is or something like that. In my time of editing here, I haven't yet seen someone create an make an undisclosed paid contribution that wasn't obvious advertising, which falls under WP:G11 (and, depending on the content, WP:G12). If someone did make one without advertising, how would they get caught so we could even apply the template? Even if they were a sockpuppet, that would fall under WP:G5 as a creation by a banned or blocked user. Many of the things I put up in my oppose to the first proposal apply here as well, so forgive me if I left out a couple things here. Gestrid (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Staying for 7 days is better than staying forever. Though a great many articles will fall under G11/12/5, with experience many paid editors have become better at their trade and their articles would not fall under any of the above criteria. Many examples of such cases have been presented above and you could read through to note them. The most recent case I encountered is Kirk B. Jensen, which had its G5 rejected because it was formed as a result of a draft histmerge (the main author was a G5 eligible sockpuppet, but since a one edit user removed the spam and created this, G5 was disallowed). I am not seeing G11 or G12 as well. Maybe it will be deleted in AfD, but I am not sure about the criteria I should provide, so in effect the article stays because I know my deletion rationale might be countered with a WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, both of which fall in areas where I am not really sure about how the criteria are usually applied. That's one of the reasons why the new criteria might be required. Jupitus Smart 08:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Another example of an amusing G5 rejection. Gestrid, you said "What I'm seeing is that a TOU violation gets to stay on Wikipedia for a week." Articles eligible for speedy deletion would still be eligible. The proposal is to merely supplement the existing tools by making the remaining articles (which usually violate the core policies in subtle ways) deleted by default after 7 days unless someone takes the responsibility for removing the PROD. It's a small step, but a step in the right direction. Rentier (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Rentier That article also contained outing. The person's birthdate was published without a reliable source. Have removed this from Jaimie Hilfiger but likely needs oversight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the specific proposal, Draftify (or AfC) is better (and can Salt if admin only lockout needed) would be a better method without inventing new PROD : the criteria for removing the stickyPROD is? The reasoning for keeping such content created in violation of ToU in articlespace for an extra week is? My new analysis at WP:BOGOF is that we want to put the burden back on the paid editors (to do the work, and disclose etc) and the crucial aspect is it has to be easy for editors, not a burden to admins (or fall foul of a lack of consensus across inclusionist-deletionist admin spectrum) to move the content out of articlespace immediately, and then can deliberate on the fate? Gestrid is right. Widefox; talk 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in clear-cut cases especially when there is considerably outweighing advertising or when it would clearly be for the encyclopedia's benefit. Our deletions policies are clear about this so this would be adding on it; Our pillars themselves make clear we will not accept webhosted advertising. I would support the exception of Drafting improvable contents. I certainly wouldn't support moving all of then in Draftspace in lieu of deletion since that would be aiding their policy violations. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not a responsibility of our administrators to enforce TOU. It is a responsibility of WMF which has its own staff. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, as nice as it would be to have the WMF devote paid staff time to things like their legal obligation to not host copyrighted content, that isn't the case. Copyvio is first and foremost a legal issue/TOU issue. We have empowered our volunteer administrators to do this task via local policy. Saying that something is the job of the WMF does not preclude our enforcing something locally. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
      • It also assumes that the WMF will get round to doing that. In my relatively short experience here I've seen that the WMF, usually, not always, is about as useful as a trapdoor in a canoe. DrStrauss talk 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It is absolutely and unquestionably the responsibility of our administrators to enforce the TOU when (as in this case) violations potentially endanger the reputation and value of Wikipedia as a whole. However, I strongly prefer a more broadly-worded "burn it with fire without even looking at it" approach to all contributions from undisclosed paid editors. Undisclosed paid editors are a threat to the entire project; every edit they make, without exception, hurts and endangers the project as a whole and should be instantly excised without regard for content on discovery. The slim benefits of allowing some edits to remain do not come anywhere close to the serious threat to the project as a whole that every single paid edit, without exception, is inevitably a part of. This suggestion would fall short of that and is therefore insufficient, but it would be at least a step in the right direction. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support largely per Kudpung, above. I was going to oppose on the grounds that G12 and G5 can take care of everything, but after a little thought realized that is not the case. Consider the following: a paid editor, who is not a sock, creates a string of articles. They fall short of G12, but are promotional in nature. PROD is tried, and removed by the creator. The creator is then discovered, and blocked. Even if PROD was not tried before, a PROD tag applied after could be removed by an IP or drive-by editor, and such an edit would not be enough to revert on the suspicion of socking. Their creations are no longer eligible for PROD or CSD. In my experience (involving some guesswork, of course) this is a not-uncommon scenario; there are numerous articles that are clearly promotional in intent but whose language is borderline. Of course this criterion will only help deal with a small subset of those, but every little bit helps. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Identification of who is and who is not an undisclosed paid editor has far too high a rate of false positives (and maybe false negatives also), especially as disclosure may be retroactive. The rules for this are complicated, will attach stigma to content based on its author not its reliability and unlike some others in this discussion I see that as a Very Bad Thing as that stigma will rapidly transfer to all editors of a page, regardless of whether they are suspected of being undisclosed paid editors or not. And anyway, much of what this could apply to will be speedy deletable under criterion G5 anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Paid articles introduce promotional bias. The bias is rarely fully removed by editing despite huge effort expended on verifying and attempting to fix these generally non-notable and borderline-notable articles. An effort, I must add, that encourages paid editors to insert even more promotional content into Wikipedia. One undisclosed paid editing company boasts: "Our Wikipedia veterans create or correct it in a way that it conforms to all Wikipedia policies and sticks on the wiki, even gets updated for free by the Wikipedia volunteers later on." Just take a look at the sockfarms discovered in the last week here, here, here, here, and here. Hundreds of articles. One false positive that was promptly identified. A "sticky prod" is too little too late, but it's better than nothing. Rentier (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as less-controversial alternative, only if the more consequent and efficient proposal about speedy deletions fails. GermanJoe (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose-- Try and imagine a perfect world in which volunteer editors and paid editors created articles that were virtually indistinguishable from one another. They were equally about notable subjects, written equally from a neutral point of view, had excellent third party sources. For what possible reason would you still oppose articles created by paid editors? Except for this one area which is against TOU, these articles unquestionably enhance the encyclopedia. Cant those who voted Support understand this logic? I know this is not a perfect world, and the chances of paid articles being written about non-notable subjects in a promotional style are much higher, and therefore there exist many rules on Wikipedia to control those kinds of articles. Summarily deleting well-written articles about notable subjects solely because a suspected paid editor wrote them seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. I believe very strongly that articles should be judged on their own merit, just like people. It was not so long ago that people were judged based on their origins, and not on their own merits. Society suffered from this behavior, since fantastic people from "problematic" backgrounds were not allowed to succeed. Oh wait, did I use the past tense? Hmmm, I think this kind of mentality is still rampant in the greater society, and exists even more so in the mini-universe of the subculture called Wikipedia. The conclusion? It is all about power: who has it, who doesn't, and how can the ones in power assert their power over those that don't. The longer I spend on Wikipedia the more I see this place as the farthest thing from a libertarian, egalitarian, meritocracy as can be imagined. Have you ever wondered why about 10% of editors are women? If you would like to learn more abut that you can go here, here, and here. There is also a problem with content about women on the encyclopedia. Look here, and here. I for one, would not care if more excellent articles went up on Wikipedia about women, even if paid editors wrote them or even sock puppets. I know that is a radical view here, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary methods. DaringDonna (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Very strongly support for the following reasons:
  1. Paid editing goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a form of promotion.
  2. The amount of absolute guff that comes into the New Pages Feed which is clearly from COI editors that can’t be speedied because it doesn’t fit G11 is astounding as Kudpung says.
  3. The future of Wikipedia has to be taken into account. ACTRIAL is now underway and it is something that I believe to be essential to the survival of Wikipedia. Once upon a time, if you said “I read it on Wikipedia” you would be laughed at. In recent years, Wikipedia has been allowed by some exam boards in the UK as a citeable source. If this influx of junk continues, that will no longer be the case. This proposal is similarly important for the same reason.
  4. It sends a message. “If you violate our Terms of Use, your gubbins gets deleted.” Not “you can degrade an extraordinary work of collaboration into a soapbox because we want to hang on to some anarchistic ideology.”
  5. It’s perfectly plausible. We can still retain WP:AGF but use common sense similar to the WP:DUCK test. It requires no software changes. DrStrauss talk 19:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support - oh what a blessing it will be for NPP and AfD - much needed!! Atsme📞📧 02:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- having paid articles in the mainspace is disruptive; this is the best way to deal with this issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose on a procedural basis. This too would be a major change and consensus for this shouldn't be found without its own RfC. That said, I certainly like this better and might even support it on it's own (I'd need to think on it more). Hobit (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support as it seems the above proposal won't pass. We need a more proactive approach to undeclared paid editing, and we need to make sure our terms of use aren't just a dead letter. DaßWölf 02:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We already have adequate mechanisms to challenge pure advertising or material of dubious notability. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - as long as there is mechanism whereby the PROD can be contested by anybody but the creator, so that we can start an AfD discussion in case there is a consensus to keep the article. Otherwise, how would we know if there is consensus against deletion? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

G5 - should be automatic delete and salt?[edit]

If an article is G5ed, it seems to me that it should not just be deleted but also salted. I don't know if there is way to set up the salt so that before an admin allows recreation of the article, a check is done to see if the new creator is a sock, but this would seem useful. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with the salt, as quite often an article with the title would be valuable to have. Others could write it. Sometimes after deleting I will create a stub with the title. But if there was some special list to add the title to to check on recreators that could be useful as sock alert checking opportunity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BEANS, I will not describe how anyone could use this to effectively deny coverage of their competitors' organizations, brands, and products. I will leave it as an exercise for others. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been asked in the past to leave such titles unsalted as honeypots. I also understand Jclemens' issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It depends on whether salting would likely prevent further disruption. This type of admin action cannot be made algorithmic. ~ Rob13Talk 17:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Salting just puts controls on re-creation -- it doesn't deny recreation of a quality article, right? An article created by a sock was likely an undisclosed paid editor, and the purpose of the salt would be to provide an opportunity to check for return of yet another sock to create it again... there would be nothing to prevent any good faith editor (including a disclosing paid editor) to create it... But I am hearing the resounding "no". Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is this: If a page is deleted according to G5 and another - good-faith - newbie wants to create it, they should be able to. Salting is sometimes necessary when a spammer does not get it but with all protection, it should be used conservatively and only to prevent further disruptions, not because of a single past disruption. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. G5 deletions are about the contributor, not the content. G5 deletions of articles about notable topics are necessary (otherwise banned does not mean banned: the only difference between a banned and a non-banned editor is that good edits/articles by the banned editor are not welcome. Bad edits are not welcome no matter who makes them), but there is no reason to make it difficult for others to write about the topic. In fact, in some cases it might be best to delete per G5 and immediately start a new stub. —Kusma (t·c) 18:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The salting should not be automatic as per the comments above. If the subject is not notable etc. the admin is the right person to make the decision on whether to salt it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
SALT may be used by any admin who can justify doing so - and persistant sockpuppetry is certainly, already, a good enough reason. No need to require it, though. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu
As an aside, I would be supportive of using extended-confirmed level salting to deal with specifically undisclosed paid editing sockfarm articles because there is a high likelihood the company will hire another undisclosed paid editor to try again. This happens regularly. Forcing those articles through AfC is not a bad idea. I think the existing protection policy allows this, since the fact that a company has hired an undisclosed paid editor to create an article suggests future disruption. ~ Rob13Talk 04:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- it's quite likely that another sockfarm would recreate the article. Many articles in Deletion-sorting Companies have been deleted in the past, so might as well protect from recreation "at the source". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sockmasters are just as capable of thinking of alternate article names as they are of new sock names - this cluster of sock attempts finally overcome by a paid meatpuppet, sticks in my mind (and in my craw) Barbera Caffè S.p.A., Cafè Barbera Franchise, Barbera Coffee, Barbera Caffé, Barbera Caffè, Franchise Café Barbera, Barbera coffee, Barbera Coffee Co., Barbera Coffee Company, Cafe Barbera.
The honeypot notion just tests a sockmaster's ability to think of new sock names, very little else.
Just like its real world analogy, the food needs to be tasted before salt is added. It should remain discretionary, though a pretty standard choice. Previous G11s & G5s in the article's deletion log are a good pointer. Cabayi (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that a sock farm has written an article does not necessarily mean that an acceptable article cannot be written. About 9/10 of the time it does, but the other 1/10 is thousands of potential articles.. The usual standard of 2 previous recreations is a fairly safe one, but it still shouldn't be automatic. Administrating WP is like editing WP -- it needs to be done by people using human judgment, not arbitrary rules. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that said, I do periodically salt articles which are repeatedly recreated, but a long way from doing so by default. Sometimes salting a title which a sockfarm is repeatedly recreating will deter them long enough for them to go do something else, but about equally often it will inspire them to recreate the article at a slightly modified title instead, or with "Draft:" prepended, or with special characters, or in a different language, etc. ad nauseam. For example, see Syed Aman mian sharma, Syed Aman Mian Sharma (Tiger), Syed Aman Mian Sharma (Miya), Draft:Syed Aman Mian Sharma (Tiger), Syed Aman Mian, Sayyad Aman Mian Sharma, Draft:Syed Aman Mian Sharma, Draft:Sayyad Aman Mian Sharma, ... this isn't all of the variations this editor has tried. My point is that deleting these is like whack-a-mole already, adding salt just wastes more time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The Honey pot idea is an interesting one. The problem is that CU is not pixie dust and does not reliably connect all socks. Using salt more often is a good idea IMO but should not be done automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a subject is notable, then an article should not be salted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely oppose. Lots of G5s are for subjects which should have articles. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Limit G13 to exclude moves from mainspace[edit]

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

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

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

  • If nobody has noticed the page move in six months, perhaps that is an indication the page isn't that important? And if the only problem is a lack of checks and balances, maybe we can get a bot that lists all draftifyings so they can be checked? All in all, I am not convinced that a further restriction is necessary or helpful. If page movers and admins abuse their powers to delete pages that shouldn't be deleted, we should talk to them, not make our rules more complicated. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If nobody has noticed the page move in six months, perhaps that is an indication the page isn't that important? That's the kind of wrong thinking that was the basis for the opposition to the change, and apparently ignored by the closer admin. According to the new interpretation, all old draft should now be deleted, no matter their quality. Diego (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are thousands of pages that get (almost) no views for months at a time, for various reasons, for example because they are only about specialized subjects or they are orphans. That does not make them "unimportant" (how is that an objective criterion btw?). And since when is "not important" a reason for speedy deletion in any namespace? The problem is also not abuse here: There is (unfortunately) consensus that pages may be moved to draft unilaterally and there is now apparently consensus that once there and untouched, that's all it takes to speedy delete them, so both the mover and the deleting admin might very well acting in good faith. That does not change the result though, i.e. that articles are made eligible for speedy deletion that otherwise would not be. My point is this: What is not eligible in mainspace, should not become eligible just by moving. Otherwise, gaming the system becomes all too easy. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I view this as more like a PROD type process, only that it takes six months instead of seven days. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the process that has been approved doesn't require any kind of notification nor third party review, unlike PROD. Diego (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a draft guidance text at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification that should serve well to restrict unilateral draftification to obviously ok scenarios. I think it is important that this gets written up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Fully agree of course but not necessarily mutually exclusive, no? Regards SoWhy 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not some kind of template to apply to draftified mainspace pages? A big orange notice at the top of the page saying something like "This draft was moved from mainspace by PERSON for REASON (user request, post-AfD, preserve from CSD, whatever), please take that into consideration when tagging for deletion." ♠PMC(talk) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And then what? The problem is, with no rules against draftifying without discussion and no rules against deleting such draftified pages, the policy currently actually allows people to send pages to draft space, wait six months and then delete them, without any oversight whatsoever. And of course the main question remains: Why should a page become eligible for speedy deletion just because a single editor decided to move it to draftspace and nobody noticed for six months? Regards SoWhy 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • And then the person who is about to G13 it goes "Boy howdy this was draftified by so-and-so for such-a-reason, I wonder if it is actually mainspace-appropriate and I should move it back to mainspace." The template should slot any such page into a maintenance category ("Draftified articles", say) so that it can be reviewed (and possibly restored) by anyone at any time, like any of the other backlog categories. That would provide the possibility of extra layer of scrutiny prior to the G13 kicking in. ♠PMC(talk) 15:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I often think that our discussion by experienced editors needs to take into account what new people actually think rather than what we as experienced editors think that they think. Too often it becomes fights between people on different sides of the "inclussionist/deletionist" spectrum arguing with new users as a proxy over what is really our viewpoint as to what we think Wikipedia should be.
    I say this because while I often see the argument that deleting after 6 months is biting a new user, I don't really think any of them would be surprised to see it deleted then. Hotmail (remember those days!) used to delete the entire email account after 90 days of not logging in, and Yahoo and Gmail also had similar policies of varying lengths. It is often just a fact of life that most people by now realize that stuff you put on the internet on a major site that you don't own isn't necessarily going to stay there forever. If a user hasn't logged in for 6 months, I doubt they would be surprised that on a website anyone can edit, something has happened to their article, and since it hadn't been touched as a draft, has been deleted, but they can get it back.
    This oppose is weak and would naturally be a neutral, because I don't have strong opinions on the draft space: I only care about making things easier for the editors who work there because it is a tough place to work. In my mind, the whole point of the just closed RfC was to make the bureaucracy regarding G13 less arcane. This seems counterproductive to that goal, so I oppose it because I don't really see a compelling reason for the need per my above musings about making this about actual new users and not about our internal ideological things. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose If the page is sent to draftspace as a result of a single editor, I think putting a single delay of G13 (i.e. 6 months up to G13, stay, then 6 more months) is reasonable. As the result of a consensus discussion (like AFD) then I think the straight 6 months is reasonable. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing new here not brought up and rejectsd in the G13 RFC. This "except this and that and check for another thing" program just obstructs the process designed to streamline the deletion of junk. It's already pretty obvious which pages are moves from Mainspace to Draftspace because they usually have cats and problem tags and stuff on the talk page. Further, G13 deletion involves notification to the page creator. It's not like this is done in secret. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this would essentially allow any draft sent to draftspace from mainspace to either hang around forever, or clog up MfD for routine cleanup. If a draft hasn't been edited in six months, which is an awfully long grace period, we can probably safely presume that it's truly abandoned and no one has interest in resuming work on it. And on the few occasions that presumption was incorrect, G13 deletions are restored for the asking. This is a solution in search of a problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The move/G13 combo is broken -- backdoor deletion without any oversight. If being in draft space makes a page more vulnerable to deletion then obviously one has to avoid draft space or move pages out of it. Let's just make it simple and get rid of draft space altogether. It's not working and so it's time to roll back the creep. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Andrew Davidson: With respect, I can think of only 2 cases in which a page would be sent from Mainspace to draftspace. Either via a AFD (for which the community consensus felt it was not worthy), or via a New Page Curation action (WP:NPP). As I indicated above if it's the page curation action I think 1 year of unedited is a reasonable time to remedy the problem. If it's AFD, 6 months is a reasonable time frame as a community consensus (not just one editor) saw problems with the page and an Administrator enacted the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A G13 deletion of a page that started in mainspace involves a NPP making the decision, the creator accepting the move (doing nothing to protect their creation), a G13 nominator (maybe a bot) and an Admin to actually delete the page. And after all that WP:REFUND is easy. That is a whole lot of eyes on something that is likely useless someone spent 2 minutes to create in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, none of that is certain. There is no rule against moving old, unwatched articles to draftspace whose creators have long gone. There is no rule that the person moving and the person deleting have to be two different people. And there is nothing in the current wording of G13 that exempts such pages from speedy deletion. Considering how many articles are already deleted by admins applying the speedy deletion policy far too liberally as it is, it's no stretch to imagine some admins patrolling G13 will delete such "drafts" liberally without caring where they came from. If you agree that such move/deletions should not go unreviewed, where is the harm in actually writing it down? Regards SoWhy 20:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yup, someone could go through all the months and effort to take most of those steps themselves to some old page no one is watching ... or they could take a few seconds to redirect the offending page to some other page, an act no one needs to approve. Seriously, this assumption of bad faith against editors and assumption people are out to destroy valuable content is a little old. Legacypac (talk)
Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast rule what "valuable content" actually is. I'm merely stating a known fact when I say that there are more than enough editors who have biases against one kind of articles or another ("cruft" etc.) so someone actually doing what I described above is probably not a matter of "if" but as matter of "when". Merely saying an article should go through the proper processes is not an assumption of bad faith however. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If you accept blanking and redirecting as viable solution for unwanted content, why on earth do you need the G13 and what's the need for permanent deletion of the pages? No one answered that question in the RfC, even though it was one of the major points of contention.
Reading the history of a blanked page is way easier than a WP:REFUND, but now you've imposed a huge burden on anyone who wants to review the actions of a serial deleter. Diego (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal doesn't make the abandoned draft any less abandoned. WP:REFUND is available if the author regains an interest in developing the draft to a mainspace-ready level. Cabayi (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh? How can it be an abandoned draft if it was an article before someone else moved it to draftspace? After all, don't we tell editors that don't own the articles they created? So how could they "abandon" them? Regards SoWhy 08:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I've looked at 100s of pages moved from Mainspace to Draftspace and then abandoned. With rare exceptions they are not appropriately referred to as "articles" for they lack things we expect in articles like sources and/or a claim of notability and/or meaningful content. Seriously SoWhy, I know you are an Admin but your continued harping on this G13 topic and repeated failure to properly interpret consensus (like claiming there was no consensus for G13 expansion when it was over 70% in favor) and lack of support for existing policy around G13 makes me wonder about your judgement. Your posts are getting disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I fear you are somewhat missing the point of my objections. So instead of attacking me personally, why not answer my questions above: How exactly can someone "abandon" an article if they don't own it?
I accept that the community has decided to delete old drafts (without any need) but I don't think they accepted it to be a way to circumvent the deletion policy. We have clear policy in place on how to handle problematic articles, mainly the deletion policy and the editing policy. There are processes described there in length on what can be done or not done to handle such articles. I am merely arguing that these processes should not be circumventable by a single editor's decision. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy I think you're reading "abandoned" as an action of the author where I'm writing about the state of the draft. I take your point about WP:OWNership of drafts. Would it help to specify some good practice in relation to draftifying? Perhaps ensuring that the draft is tagged for a couple of projects to minimise the chances of the draft becoming abandoned & maximise its chances of improvement? (Putting the suggestion into practise for our poster child draft at Draft talk:The Octopus Frontier) Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we are talking about different things here, Cabayi. I was not talking about pages created as drafts that were abandoned - here the word "abandon" makes some sense. As I said elsewhere, I believe draftifying should not happen without permission of the creator or community discussion and I suggested making this a rule but that was not supported. The problem keeps being the lack of oversight when someone draftifies an article without discussion and no amount of taggings will alleviate this because in most cases the only time people really notice such pages is when deletion is discussed. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac:--Whilst surely there are fundamental differences between your's and SoWhy's interpretation of rules and/or intentions et al in these areas, I think he's far from disruptive--a word quite strong.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy:--As much as I appreciate your efforts and think the concerns to be valid enough, I think you are looking for solutions to problems which will be prima-facie rare or absent.I think NPPReviewers and/or page-movers use their discretionary power judiciously enough. Also, I am of an opinion that G13-eligible drafts should not be mass-deleted just because the policy states so and the reviewing admin must expend some thoughts as to possible notability etc.Also, since you seem to have a good technical know-how, is it possible to create a bot that maintains a list of pages moved from Article namespace to Draft namespace; other than by the creator.That would give us a rough idea about the numbers!Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Godric on Leave: Running the query I mentioned above without restrictions will give you (after some time because the tables are quite large) 20,700+(!) moves to Draftspace without redirect since December 2013 (and another 4,400+ [https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/21136 with redirects). I'm not a bot creator but it shouldn't be too hard to create a list based on that query, filtering out the few moves by the creators. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy:--Will be shortly taking a look! Thanks!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy, as I've mentioned before: I don't actually have firm opinions on draft space: I'm only placing this here for context, but we speedy deleted 24,895 articles from 1 January 2017 to 1 April 2017. That's almost as much in one quarter as articles moved to draft in four years. Assuming deletion rates have stayed about the same, we've speedy deleted 375,000 articles since December 2013. That's roughly 3 draftifications for every 50 speedy deletions if I'm doing my math right. I'm happy to let people make of that what they wish :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: This is, unfortunately, an incorrect calculation because it assumes that such moves happened at the same rate for almost 4 years. The mass-moving of articles of draftspace only really started this year though, with 20,184 such moves (or ~80%) having been made in 2017 (at the time of this comment). This means the ratio of draftifying to speedy deletion was approximately 16,8% to 83,2% in 2017, i.e. more than 3 in 20 articles or 1 draftification for every 5 speedy deletions (based on 100,284 this year so far (careful, large query)). Regards SoWhy 10:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: I updated the numbers above to match the numbers I just managed to pull from the database. Still pretty high. Regards SoWhy 11:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that update: makes sense. I was going off of the December 2013 rate, since we know that the deletion rate as a percentage of articles created has been about the same for the last six years. I think the 5:1 number is also significant for context, and thanks for providing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The whole idea of G13 is to allow any mainspace article to be speedily deleted if it hasn't been edited for six months. Move it into the draftspace and immediately speedily delete it under G13. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
No, a move is a non-bot change. A page that has just been moved to draftspace won't be G13-eligible for 6 months. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: You seem to be very confused.
  1. Abducting mainspace pages into Draft space for no other reason than it's 6 months old is 100% out of process and not supported by consensus. Once a page is in mainspace, it's generally accepted that is the permanant home (obviously barring CSD/NPP deciding it's not ready yet/AFD/etc).
  2. Even if it were the case, moving the page back to Draft space is still a non-trivial action and as such resets the 6 month clock on G13 eligiblity.
  3. Your entire thesis is based on bad faith actions of an editor to the level of pointy edits.
For these reasons I don't think your scenario could ever take place. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If I am very confused, then maybe other people are too.
  1. What I am seeing is that thousands of articles are being moved from the mainspace to the draftspace. Looking at the comments on some of the moves is not encouraging. They point to things like "poorly sourced" and "not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". It seems that articles are being BOLD-ly moved into the draftspace in circumstances where CSD does not apply and AfD might not succeed. An article on Taylor Swift's latest album gets moved to the draftspace. Admittedly, it is then moved straight back again with the comment "Completely out of consensus redirect. Album and release heavily verified by multiple reliable sources and easily passes WP:GNG. Send to AfD to gain consensus if desire deletion or gain consensus on talk." That would likely be my response if it happened to me.
  2. G13 applies to pages that have not been edited. I accept your contention that "moving" qualifies as "editing", but if you could supply a link where this is explicitly stated, that would be great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a link except WP:G13. I know the pages that started in mainspace and make it to G13 are almost all junk that should have been CSD'd but mercy was shown. I'm sure there is the occasional one that goes to Draft, gets fixed and returned to mainspace. Imposing the restriction asked for here creates an unreasonable burden on reviewers to confirm the page history (which is not always obvious) and might make bot work impossible. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When we move pages from mainspace to draftspace, they usually sit there indefinitely. Until I see stats suggesting these pages will ever result in mainspace content, I'm opposed to using draftspace as an indefinite holding ground for content that met mainspace CSD criteria but were moved to allow someone a second chance to build them. ~ Rob13Talk 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I think you misread my proposal. I proposed exempting pages that did not meet any speedy deletion criteria before moving because the move itself should not be all that changes that. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Then the article shouldn't be moved out of mainspace? The only reason an article should be moved out of mainspace is because it doesn't meet our standards for articles. If that's the case, we shouldn't hold it indefinitely in draft. ~ Rob13Talk 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Articlespace has some of the richest/most expansive CSD rules possible. If editors move a page that is CSDable into draft space to dodge the CSD, I'd give a very critical eye to the action as it seems like gaming the system in order to get the page out of less than receptive hands. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: We agree on that. Unfortunately, many others do not (see this discussion for example and there seems to be consensus that it's perfectly okay to move articles to draftspace even when they do not meet speedy criteria. My whole proposal here was to at least exclude those articles from G13 deletion (that's why the proposal reads "unless the page was eligible for speedy deletion under another criterion before the move" at the end). Regards SoWhy 13:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, editors with malicous intent to delete valuable content but who don't have the gumption to use CSD or AFD surely have been moving thousands of pages to draftspace in the hopes no one notices and with prophetic insight that G13 would be expanded this week and the hope someone would blindly delete the pages. Since some editors have convinced themselves wonderful content is being lost from this vast covert effort I propose a solution. Interested editors should patrol Draftspace for quality content! It turns out it takes just one editor to promote a page from draft, just like it takes one editor to demote a page to draft. So go forth and find great comtent to promote. As we clear the junk it is getting easier and easier to find good drafts. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems like a solution in search of a problem (or at least, a solution so such an improbable problem that we have it already covered by WP:IAR). In my experience, most moves from mainspace to draftspace are by new page patrollers that see some hope for a new article that is just too poorly developed or marginal to be suitable in mainspace. If someone starts moving clearly good pages to draft space, someone will notice pretty quickly and they will be blocked. SoWhy mentions admins and page movers, but of one of them turns evil it seems like they could come up with much more exciting ways to mess our stuff up. See also: WP:CREEP, WP:BEANS. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - G13 should be deprecated; I oppose all other proposals to change it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter solution[edit]

Thoughts on implementing an edit filter to track all mainspace to draft moves? This would allow interested admins such as myself and SoWhy to patrol the recent moves to ensure proper articles aren't being moved to draftspace. I see no reason to adjust G13 though. ~ Rob13Talk 13:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A tagging edit filter would be useful so other procedure wonks like myself can also help reverse improper draftifcation (ideally by Technical Move Requests). Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Godric has requested a bot to keep a list of such moves at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Keeping_track_of_cross-space_moves..... Don't know which is the better solution, maybe both, the bot could just filter through all the tagged pages without having to resort to querying the database for all moves. I still don't understand though why these pages should be eligible for G13 if they were not eligible for any other criteria before the move... Regards SoWhy 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
SoWhy do you have data that moved pages were not eligible for CSD before being moved to Draft? I've looked at hundreds and most I've seen could easily have been CSD'd or BLPProd'd in mainspace and many could be CSD'd in Draftspace without G13. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that seems a good anti-crosspace move vandalism tool. I agree it doesn't require change to G13. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Alternatives to XFD for creations of banned or blocked users[edit]

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

CC Interested editors (Doc JamesBilbyTavixLegacypacKudpung) as people who have inserted/reverted this diff and a user who seems interested. Hasteur (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support yes I believe this accurately reflects long standing actual practice as confirmed in the recent discussion linked in the first change. I do not see this as any kind of policy change although perhaps at some past time Admins were less aggressive at deleting the creations of socks and banned users. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)
  • Support This seems like a silly question to not support as this is the text of G5 itself. If while the XFD is progressing we discover the page is substantially the work of an editor who was subject to the a block or ban during the time of the creation we don't throw all our policies out the door. I would hope that the nominating user presents clear evidence showing how the user was supposed to be restricted and therefore why G5 is a slam dunk. I'd also expect the admin reviewing the G5 nomination to review and confirm the facts of the case. Hasteur (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) @Hasteur: If you want this to be an actual RFC, please follow the steps at WP:RFC, i.e. add {{rfc|policy}} to advertise the RFC.
As for the question, I think the change is correct per WP:BMB because if you are banned, you are not allowed to edit, no matter how great your page is. However, this only applies in cases where the applicability of G5 was not known when the XFD was held. If people knew that the page was created by a banned user and they decided to keep it anyway, G5 does no longer apply. In practice, I can imagine few examples in which pages are still eligible for G5 after an XFD because usually in the course of such discussions substantial edits by others will have happened. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BMB and the text of G5. -- Tavix (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I haven't actually inserted/reverted the diff, but I must admit I was sorely tempted to revert this one. However, with one admin already merrily editwarring I thought it best to stay out of the fray. Yes, the cited diff not only reflects what I believe most admins have assumed anyway, including me, but it also appears to be a bit of text that was missing due to simply not having been timely updated. Anyone who claims it shouldn't be there is, IMO, simply Wikilawyering and possibly exploiting the lacuna to defend their own convictions vis-à-vis articles by blocked/banned editors. And that would be counterproductive to our hundreds of hours working at COIN, DRV, and SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  • If the most recent XFD has explicitly decided to keep a G5 eligible page and the participants in that XFD discussions were aware that it was G5 eligible then it should not be deleted. In cases where the discussion was unrelated to the ban, G5 applies. (I just realised this is basically what SoWhy just said). —Kusma (t·c) 12:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No - the edit summary for that revision links to this discussion which covers one particular case in which G5 was used in this way and then endorsed by discussion. One-off cases don't make good tests of policy. Generally speaking, if a page has survived a deletion discussion, it has the endorsement of the community and so G5 no longer applies. Perhaps there should be a new criterion for deleting the contributions of editors who are later demonstrated to be undisclosed paid editors, but as far as I know there is no consensus yet that we should indiscriminately mass-delete UPE contribs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm concerned about two issues. The first is that I haven't seen instances where this has been applied, so it isn't clear that there is a need for the change. Are there instances where pages would have met G5, were created by an editor banned at the time, but where there was a need to delete them in spite of an AfD? (I'm very aware of the current discussion - in that case, the pages did not meet G5 anyway, so it isn't a great example). For a page to qualify, it would have to have been created by a banned editor, gone to AfD, and have had no significant edits by other editors while at AfD. If this is meant to reflect practice, how often is this practice being performed? However, even if there is a need, CSD is meant to be a quick alternative to uncontroversial deletions where there is no risk that the community would disagree with the decision. If the article has survived AfD, then the community has already considered the article and deemed that it should be kept. Accordingly, the reasons we override the community's decisions on an AfD are limited to legal (copyright or office actions) and purely technical (such as dependent on deleted pages). This provision is neither. It seems better to respect the community's decision in these rare cases by sending it back to AfD, prodding the article, or using some other slightly longer but more transparent process than CSD. And if none of those are suitable, and it absolutely and uncontroversially should be deleted, rely on an one-off exception under IAR.- Bilby (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as the paid editing issue is a distraction here, as I mentioned at the DRV. It involves WP:BMB and the fact that as described at the deletion review, nominating your own articles for AfD could easily become a loophole to exploit here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the purpose of a ban is to state categorically that it is not worth the community's time to review that editor's work because it is very unlikely to be acceptable. However, once the community has (perhaps unwisely) spent the time to review the work and found it acceptable, it would be backwards to delete it unless there is an actual problem with it. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh look! Another set of articles created by undisclosed SOCKing paid editors and sneakily dumped into Wikipedia. What shall we do with them?
So if I circumvent my ban, create something good and the community (unwittingly!) keeps it at XFD, it should be kept even if it was in violation of the ban and the banning policy says "all edits by banned users are forbidden, no matter how good"? Regards SoWhy 15:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That material improved Wikipedia, even if it was forbidden. The banning policy states that you shouldn't have made the edit in the first place, but deleting good material makes Wikipedia worse. However, if you want to quote fragments of that policy at each other, it also says that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
What I find troubling about the line of reasoning here, is that we have all seen AfDs happen where people show up, glance at the article, do a google search, say "lots of potential references" and !vote keep, saying that the topic is notable in theory. AfD is not cleanup.
This is about cleanup. This is about dealing with the page that actually exists, and is about carting away industrial waste that has been dumped into Wikipedia; it says nothing about whether the topic is notable or if a decent article could be generated.Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I actually understand you position and at one time I actually supported it as well. And for non-banned users I still do because the goal should indeed be to create a better encyclopedia if possible. However, while keeping such material might be achieving this goal in the short run, the encouragement for such editors to ignore bans will hurt the project in the long run. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately it comes down to a balancing act between the damage done by deleting an acceptable article and the damage done by weakening our banning policy. I believe that the proper venue for weighing these factors is a XfD discussion, not CSD. On a different note, Cabayi's and Hut8.5's positions below seem to be a workable compromise for this issue, that I can support as a second choice. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
True and good point, however, won't any keeping of such an article not embolden other banned users? As for the last part, I think what Cabayi and Hut8.5 are saying (and what Kusma and I said above as well) is what most supporters of this proposal are agreeing with. Of course G5 - like any speedy criterion - does not apply if the possibility was discussed and explicitly rejected. This proposal is as far as I understand it only for cases where the eligibility for G5 was not known at the time of the XFD. Regards SoWhy 06:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, could this situation actually arise? If it is discovered before AfD, the article will be killed under G5. If it is discovered after, the commentators in the AfD couldn't have known anyway. So the only possibility is that it is discovered during, but in those cases we normally just speedy close the AfD and delete under G5 anyway. I suppose a really, really intense discussion would possibly be kept open even if the banned editor was found during it, but they always result in substantial changes to the article if things are that intense. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support except where the block was known & mentioned prominently in the deletion discussion BEFORE the bulk of the keep !votes - as already specified by SoWhy & Kusma. Cabayi (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if the article creator's status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion, oppose otherwise. If the creator is revealed as a sockpuppet of a banned user after the AfD then we are in basically the same situation as with newly discovered copyright violations, as new information proves the page qualifies for speedy deletion. Edits by banned users can be kept if adopted by other people but the fact a page survived but an AfD doesn't mean that has happened. Hut 8.5 18:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment if I had a promotional sockfarm I'd have one of my socks nominate my facorate page for deletion with a really poorly written nom, then vote with my other socks, along with unwitting editors fooled by my bad nomination, to keep it. Far fetched? I bet this happens every week. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an impossible scenario. Most articles created by paid editors are borderline notable at best. Nominating them for AfD is a quick method of loosing your clients. It is far better for them to act as they do now and just stay under the radar. The vast majority of paid editing is never noticed. - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not impossible at all. Most AfDs get very low participation. All you need is one sock to nominate and the creator and another one or two to vote keep. This would protect pretty well against future AfDs for once Kept at AfD the page is unlikely to be AfD'd again and many voters just say keep or make procedural objections that it was recent kept before. The paid editors are far more modivated than us and it took me seconds to come up with this scenario. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It isn't viable. By nominated an article you were paid to create you have two outcomes - one is that it is kept, which would save it from G5 if you are identified as a banned editor. However, it would still risk being deleted via something other than G5 - such as being renominated for AfD, prodded, or killed under IAR. However, if you fail, not only do you see the article deleted, but you can't recreate it as it would fall under G4. In which case you need to explain to your client that not only did you fail to keep the article, but you made it that much harder for them to create a new one. Try and recreate it anyway, and you are at risk of salting for repeated recreation. Alternatively, just do what they always do - throw away the account, don't draw any attention to yourself, and hope the article survives for a couple of days so you get paid and get the positive review. After that, who cares? You've been paid, and if it is deleted you just blame it on those evil Wikipedia admins. - 07:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Banned or blocked users (or paid socks) will find ways to get their articles into Wikipedia after they are banned. We can close the loop hole rather than continue to argue about this. See WP:BMB. If banned editors create good material that is no excuse to get around a ban or keep the article. Others can also create good material without the radioactive waste being unloaded into Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It is a good thing to clean up industrial waste that has been dumped into Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support Without it we leave a large loop hole. Paid editors can just AfD their own articles, use other socks to get it kept, and than if they are someday discovered the article is "protected". Agree with User:Cabayi Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Has this ever occurred? - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Responding to both of your questions... according to one source in the Orangemoody article, on at least some occasions they would nominate the article for deletion themselves, then extort the article subject, and then come here argue to "save" it with other socks. And who ever would have thought anyone could be that devious on such a scale? The floor has fallen off what paid editors might do to make money off WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't nominating articles in order to protect them from deletion. The rather over the top claim being made here is that paid editors will nominate what in almost all cases is a borderline-notable article in order to protect it, with the additional claim that this is may well happen every week. I don't mind if people want to support the proposal, but I wish the scenarios remained realistic. Nominating an article for AfD is far too risky a move to be a viable means of protecting it. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Tell that to orangemoody! They apparently found it a profitable enough strategy. I do agree with you, that the risk of this risk of this becoming a widespread way to game the system seems pretty low... but on the other hand who would have thought that black hat paid editing of Wikipedia would become such a viable marketplace that it gets written up in Time] and elsewhere? This is like taxes -- throw up a barrier and people are motivated to find a loophole. So it is worth closing it. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be a viable loophole before it is worth considering - Orangemoody was using AfDs as a threat, not as a means of protecting articles. I just get a tad frustrated when people throw up near-impossible scenarios without any evidence that they've ever occurred as justification for more restrictive rules. We need to avoid falling too far into a bureaucracy, and sometimes the best solution is just to keep things as they are with an IAR out if it is really needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I am baffled by what you are writing. Orangemoody wanted to get paid for saving articles. Payday is saving articles from AfD - they actually nominated some. (Am I getting that wrong, or are you missing that?) Yes it is risky. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Your description of Orangemoody's actions was that the articles were nominated for AfD in order to force subjects to pay so that he save it. However, the scenario being put forward here is banned editors nominating articles for deletion in order to protect the articles from being deleted under G5. They seem like two different situations. Either way, both would be incredibly rare, and I have never seen any evidence of a paid editor nominating an article they created for AfD in order to protect it, nor do I suspect has anyone else. The Orangemoody situation was a good case for using IAR, the lack of any other similar situations shows why we don't need to specifically allow for the faint possibility that they might one day occur.
The rhetoric around paid editing has become bad enough that we need to stay at least a little grounded when we look at the issues. - Bilby (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your desire to keep the community grounded on this. I know you are view undisclosed paid editing as a serious thing; you were on of the first admins I saw indef somebody on their own authority for violating PAID and directly adding a lot of bad promotional content to WP. I went and looked at some point and you have done that three times.
We trust admins to prevent our community norms and processes from becoming a suicide pact. This gives discretion to admins to clean up these tires dumped in the forest. You may view the "industrial polluter" metaphor as overblown rhetoric but to me that is exactly what almost all UPE is - exploiting our openness to dump industrial waste here, that has nothing to do with the mission. (I write about that a bit on my userpage here if you have a minute). We do end up with these ugly piles of content created by serial SOCKers like the case that sparked this. We need admins to be able to use the mop to clean them up, lest the community spend yet more time in laborious processes when we could all be doing constructive stuff instead. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I clearly said that wrong. I have no problem with your view of paid editors and wasn't complaining about that. My problem is with people ascribing greater and more serious activities to paid editors, stretching the definition of paid editing, and overstating the extent of activities without evidence. How people feel about it is absolutely fine, and how they describe their feelings is absolutely fine, and not a concern at all - I have strong feelings about it as well, so why should I object to other people feeling similarly? This isn't the place for the wider discussion, but my concern is that I'm seeing people move further and further away from policy in how they act against paid editors, and as there are so few people working in the area, there is little effective oversight that can keep anti-paid editing activities within policy. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Mu This is a nonsensical change, because nothing that is ever AfD'ed will have had "... no substantial edits by others." If the author AfD'ed something itself, G6 would have applied. If another editor placed an AfD template, that by itself is a substantial edit, leaving alone that in the process of an article being kept, there are typically many other substantial edits to the page being AfD'ed. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Is placing a maintenance template really a "substantial" edit? After all, once the AFD is closed, the template will be removed and nothing will have changed. And it's not unheard for an article to come through AFD the same way it went in with no changes made by others. Of course, if people edit the article during the AFD to keep it, then G5 no longer applies. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose one could define 'substantial edit' as a term of art to exclude templates, but I would call nominating something for AfD pretty substantial. But so far, no one appears to be engaging with the restrictive nature of G5, in that if ONE good faith editor makes ONE substantial contribution, G5 is off the table anyways. Well, until the next time someone decides that eliminating a UPE product demands that Wikipedia's safeguards be eliminated for the sake of efficiency... Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
An admin deals with articles created by banned editors.
  • Oppose This should be for non-controversial deletions. If an article has survived an AfD, then that cannot be the case. I realise that a deleted page can be re-created, but I am very reluctant to do so, as it goes against consensus. G5 is completely anomalous on this list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment How bout we move them to a holding pen, perhaps in a distinct namespace? in order to allow them to be fundamentally rewritten, and remove the socking editor's name from the history. It gets rewritten on a new page, peer reviewed (perhaps, if that's necessary), moved to articlespace, and the original then G5'd. That would seem to square the circle- we get to keep any good works the sock might have done, whilst equally denying all recognition to the part they played in its creation. Slightly 1984 perhaps, but-. — fortunavelut luna 07:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is contrary to the CC BY-SA and GFDL licenses, which require every contribution to be attributed. Only if the article gets fully rewritten from scratch so that it is not derivative could you remove attribution, but then you don't need the original article for that. Diego (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
But the original article might give sources and other meta information. On the legal side of things one might argue that they would need to sue first and uncover their identity. Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
There is already a great holding pen for all these articles and it is deletionpedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with the proviso that there is an exemption if at the time of the AFD the fact of such article creation by a banned user was known Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's a very small procedural change and I regret that so much volunteer time has to be spent on it. I assume, though not explicitly covered by the change, that it would also help avoid situations where, when a large G5-eligible sockfarm is detected, the articles at AfD at the time of detection are somehow exempt and survive longer than the rest of the lot (examples [4], [5]), despite being probably the worst. Rentier (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WP:BMB is at odds with G5 so there is a problem; if they are making good enough content, why not declare properly. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BMB. ~ Rob13Talk 21:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BMB Smallbones(smalltalk)
  • This is complicated. It has a history and a context, and I suggest that participants here should read Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3. The community needs a more effective means of dealing with prolific promotional sockfarms but I'm not sure expanding G5 is the best way to do it because that could have unintended side effects. I'd prefer to leave G5 as it is and enact X3: Cleanup of articles started by checkuser-confirmed prolific sockfarms. But what isn't an option is to do nothing. If surviving AfD makes a sockfarm-created article immune to G5, then what we're actually doing is creating an incentive for sockfarms to AfD their own articles with one hand and then !vote keep with their others.—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it accurately represents the currently established policy that "an editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances." Negating a ban by allowing contributions of banned editors to remain on the ground that they improve an article short-term encourages further abuse. Such abuse causes substantial long-term damage to the project and wastes resources that are better allocated elsewhere. Mduvekot (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I completely understand the frustration over sockpuppets and paid editing farms, but (assuming the XFD process was not affected by any socking), G5 is no reason to override the decision to keep an AFD. If the community says the subject should stay, then it shouldn't matter who wrote it. Sro23 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • In the cases that triggered this the socks in question were involved in the XFD process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • And socks are often involved in XfD, sometimes very obviously and sometimes harder to spot. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this would bypass the community consensus that was established at the given AfD in a way that doesn't happen with the other exemptions (except for G12, but then complying with copyright legislation is much more important as a countering factor than is the merit of enforcing the letter of one particular aspect of the ban policy). In practical terms, there are a variety of reasons that users get banned for, and the best course of action would be different in each case and most of the time deletion isn't needed anyway - for example, if the user was banned for behavioural reasons then this has no bearing on their content creation (and deleting the content just to enforce BMB is tantamount to cutting off the nose to spite the face), and if the user was known for contributing unreliable content, then that content can simply be edited away. However, I acknowledge that there is the problem of banned users creating articles on non-notable topics and then socking the AfD, and there has to be some solution in this case: I would support allowing the use of G5 on the condition that all the keep !votes in the AfD were made by socks of the banned user. – Uanfala 12:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    We do not have a good ability to detect socks. CU is not pixie dust unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    There's no silver bullet for detecting socks (and CU is, and should be, used only in a minority of SPIs), but in practice most of the time it's pretty clear if the participants in a given discussions are socks. And in the borderline cases, a second AfD is always an option. To restate my previous point more succinctly, if established editors have reached consensus that an article should be kept, then we shouldn't create loopholes to bypass it. Respecting community consensus is more fundamentally important to the project than the literal enforcement of an aspect of the ban policy. – Uanfala 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- with the exception that if the AfD specifically considered whether the ed. was banned and decided not to delete it , then a speedy on the same grounds would be against the prior consensus. My support is rather reluctant, because this is a problem for which there is no good solution--any way of handling it has its disadvantages. At this point we are under so much pressure from undeclared paid editing that we need to try this. It might work better. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We need to be clearer about deleting paid edits — implementing this proposal would be of major help. Carl Fredrik talk 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. G5 is only for pages with no significant involvement by other editors; barring an AFD that gets closed as "no consensus" because nobody showed up, there's always significant involvement by one or more editors in keeping the article. Aside from copyright infringements and office actions (required for legal reasons), it's never for overturning the result of an AFD; the "normal" exceptions are all for things that are housekeeping to some extent. Moreover, if you read down a couple of lines, you'll see the following: These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. Hint: if the article's been kept at AFD, controversy is going to exist. If this gets enacted, this section is going to contradict itself — you couldn't ask for a more fruitful place for breeding disputes. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with note - A CSD criteria should not overturn community consensus (like that which happens in an AfD). I do think, although, that when the banned/blocked status of the creator is discovered, that there should be another AfD, with a note that the creator is banned/blocked, so that a new consensus can be established. Also, closers of AfDs should take notice of the age of the accounts; if all of the accounts are below autoconfirmed status, then the AfD should probably not be closed. This would help prevent most socks from taking advantage of this "loophole". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If a page has survived an AfD then there is consensus that it should exist, and almost certainly has non-trivial contributions by editors other than the original creator and their work should not be deleted without further discussion. Per RileyBugz, the newly discovered status of the creator would be grounds for another AfD if anyone desired it though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Depends what they were banned or blocked for. If it was for repeated underhand behaviour in articles, like sneaky vandalism and hoaxes, or referring to fictitious sources or misrepresenting sources, then any further articles by them would be under great suspicion despite having survived AFD and should be eligible for G5. If it was because they couldn't control their argumentative tendencies in discussions, then that doesn't necessarily reflect on their articles, which should be considered on their merits: Noyster (talk), 08:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Admins have to use judgment when deleting a page so there should be no concern that a great article with significant contributions from other editors will be deleted. Deletion review is always available. WP:DENY is the only tool available to deal with persistent problematic editors and this change would assist that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It sounds a lot like a reaffirmation of G5, but it has too much appearance of allowing admins to ignore community consensus at AfD. Appearance, not necessarily reality, but appearance matters. A better solution, where an AfD was closed as keep/no concensus, and subsequently it is discovered that the creator and all major authors were banned, there being no mention of it at AfD, then the thing to do is to ask the closing admin to re-open the AfD. If it was a NAC, any admin may re-open. If the admin is now inactive, any admin may re-open. The participants of that AfD must be notified. I fear that this is leading to broad discretion to G5 pages retrospectively, delete articles written by later banned editors, especially by editors later banned due to TermsOfUse violations (undisclosed paid editing), and while these deletions are generally a good thing, it is not a good thing for it to be done not-openly. AfD should be used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RileyBugz, Noyster, SmokeyJoe for overbreadth. CSD shouldn't trump a community discussion where there was consensus to keep and where there was a presumably reasonable level of due diligence in examining the article. The appropriate role would be to start a new XFD and note the situation, especially if the issues with the ban/block were about their article content. This would help ensure that the article gets proper scrutiny in light of the new information. An exception would be say the user was blocked for making hard to detect hoaxes, and a diligent search by the admin found that it was a hoax (in which case a dual G5, G3 rationale could work), or other edge cases. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the "per" but I'm not sure it was merited here. My view is that we shouldn't be tasked to do "diligent searches" on the further productions of editors who have already demonstrated their ill-intent, and are presumably now socking into the bargain. And AfD isn't a grand jury and can be determined by just a couple of "keep" votes from unknown sources: Noyster (talk), 08:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

And another example of a draft that shouldn't have been deleted.[edit]

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

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

You're assuming that I didn't check that before deleting. This was what was copied over from the original article, with cn tags carried over from 2010. THe draft had a total of three sources -- one Wikipedia mirror that tries to sell airline tickets, one spam site soliciting home workers and a third that is an Ayurveda clinic. If this kind of stuff doesn't qualify for G13, I have no problem staying away from this and have no interest in wasting my time on this in future. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Material split off from the main article and left elsewhere for extended periods becomes an attribution hazard and is best deleted. If the split of material is wanted back, retrieve it from the article's history. If anyone made valuable edits to the forked page, they should be prompt in ensuring it gets history merged back into the main article. Sometimes, doing this is a good idea, but almost always it is not. Sandboxing should be very short term only. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • DraftSpace should be treated as scratchspace. A place to play with dubious topics. It is de facto a place to send people who don't know what they are doing so that they do not mess up mainspace so much. People who know what they are doing shouldn't go there. Intending contributors should be advised to not go there because very few people are there to help them. The main game is in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I've sent many possibly useful pages to AfC. Look there for stuff to work on, not in the thousands of deleted pages. Admittedly there may be some useful stuff deleted along with the garage bands, copyvio, unattributed copies of mainspace, and attack pages, but I doubt there is anything worth getting excited over. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Can CSD be used as inclusion criteria?[edit]

Linked discussion has been closed. Closing down this solicitation for feedback. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

At Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Brainstorming on an RfC, there is a disagreement on whether a CSD (specifically G13) can be cited to determine a page can/should belong to the draftspace or not. My understanding is that CSD is a procedure not a policy on the usage. But perhaps I misunderstood this so it helps if someone more knowledgeable can weight in. Thanks. -- Taku (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A7 questions[edit]

2 questions, quick one first:

Should we make a Wikipedia talk:CSD A7 specifically dedicated that notorious criteria, and so that the rest of us non-A7 gurus can learn about it with current examples?
Is Emdad Sumon, soon to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emdad Sumon, A7 worthy? I view the lead He is the Sole owner of Popular Bangladeshi Record label CD Choice Music. He produced the movie "Eito Valobasa". His first written song "Bolona Valobasi" in this movie was more audible as satisfying A7's t indicate why its subject is important or significant…makes any credible claim of significance or importance. Am I not understanding the makes any credible claim of significance or importance part or what? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need a special talk page for one criterion. WP:CCSI was an attempt to collect examples and results of discussion regarding A7. I'd invite you to help there in an act of shameless self-promotion. As for the example, I don't think A7 applies. Apart from the sources which I cannot read and thus will AGF that they are reliable sources about the subject (which should be sufficient to fail A7 every time), founding a notable label is enough because it presents a valid merge/redirect target per WP:ATD. Regards SoWhy 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletions are superflous[edit]

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

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

SD decline template created to make informing of declines easy[edit]

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

  • {{subst:sdd4|Page name|two-letter CSD code|reason criterion did not apply}}

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

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

(The "#fragment" part of) this hyperlink does not seem to be working; shouldn't it be fixed?[edit]

Background[edit]

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

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

OK, so what is the problem?[edit]

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

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

How I got there[edit]

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

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

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

It does not seem to be working as intended![edit]

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

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

I think I know how to fix the problem[edit]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your patience[edit]

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

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

Reference[s][edit]

  1. ^ (or whatever they call the "destination" character string [it is part of a URL] in one of those "abbreviated" Wikitext hyperlinks)
The link was broken by this edit--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)