Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

RfC: Status of G5

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.

---

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

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

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

Background

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of G5 and whether this case is included in G5, if G5 is adequate as is, or if its wording is controversial and better superseded by text in the ban policy.

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

Survey (Status of G5)

• As proposer: Option 4. Option 3 and Option 2 are second choice. Oppose Option 1, as the status quo might not adequately cover all cases. Neutral about Option 5. The whole point of topic and editor sanctions is to stop disruptive editing by limiting the type of editing within the topic area in general, or by keeping editors out of topic areas they were previously disruptive in. And since the CSD appears to be for unequivocal cases where almost no editor would disagree the page should be deleted, how to enforce ban evasion should be up to administrator discretion. Awesome Aasim 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• G5 is up to administrator discretion already. It's not something separate from BANREVERT; it's the way BANREVERT is implemented regarding deletion. Repealing G5 would just make our deletion policy more confusing. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's what I thought, but the discussion linked leading up to this creation of the RfC lead to a bunch of confusion. Which is why I started it in the first place. Awesome Aasim 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion [...], and unless we want to break this, option 4 is invalid. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  If option 4 was chosen, it would probably be like any proposed deletion process. An editor would be able to propose a page be deleted because of general sanction or ban evasion, and if the PROD was expired without any (not banned) editor taking responsibility for the content, the page would be deleted until someone in WP:RFUD takes responsibility for the diff. Awesome Aasim 18:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Something else. Explicitly state (here and in other relevant policies) that speedy deletion is not a valid enforcement mechanism for DS/GS/CT sanctions unless the page meets a speedy deletion criterion for other reasons. This is because it is not, per the arguments cogently made by Ivanvector and others in the Gun Control ARCA linked below. If administrators continue to delete pages after this then this should be dealt with like any other breach of the deletion policy, up to and including desysopping in extreme cases. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Does that mean that WP:ARBECR is wrong that administrators are permitted but not required to delete pages as arbitration enforcement actions? Speedy deletion describes if I recall whether a page can immediately be deleted without waiting for further discussion. Awesome Aasim 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  As I argued in the case linked below, the Arbitration Committee does not have the power to create policy by fiat, and is not empowered to make content decisions. An Arbcom case saying, in isolation, that deletion is permitted by arbitration enforcement, did not make it so; the deletion policy remains the only policy under which deletion is allowed on Wikipedia. That said, this discussion could decide to modify policy to align with Arbcom's decision, but I don't like the implication of the community retroactively changing long-established policies to accommodate Arbcom making decisions outside its authority. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  In shorter words: yes, WP:ARBECR is wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  How would you enforce ARBECR for new content? Don't punt and say "AFD", the point of the measure is to prevent sockpuppetry and has been since its creation a decade ago. Hence G5's extensive current use to enforce it. Izno (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  The point of the measure is two-fold, or at least it was when I proposed it. On one hand it's to deter sockpuppetry, but it's also intended to discourage new users from engaging in contentious topics which are frequent causes of disputes, in the interest of retention. Speedy deletion is inherently bitey - a new user creates an article in good faith on a topic they feel is missing coverage, and their work is immediately deleted and their talk page filled with bureaucratic advisories (to be charitable; it would be fair to call the notices "dire warnings") about contentious topics and speedy deletion, without any advice on how to proceed. Personally I feel that some leniency is warranted for pages which are not obviously unacceptable (like POV forks or clear propaganda or whatever). ARBECR already permits non-ECP users to make proper edit requests, and maybe creating a new page is an extension of that. I admit that I don't know what such a process would look like; something PROD-like maybe, I agree that AFD is too heavy a process for this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector so to clarify, I am understanding that you think only the page deletion aspect of ARBECR is wrong, but you are otherwise alright with the policy? Or have I misunderstood you? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily think that deleting these pages is wrong if the community desires it, only that Arbcom didn't have the authority to say so as it does not have authority over article content. I don't like the idea that we're building up a chain of pronouncement connections where one policy says that this one aspect of the decision is probably okay because this other policy doesn't explicitly disallow it and one decision from 10 years ago kind of allowed it and so on and so on and so on; there should be an explicit community endorsement. In the interest of moving on and not turning this into a policy wonkathon I can accept that the discussion above that Izno linked to below (wheee) is that explicit endorsement, although I think that that's the sort of retroactive endorsement of Arbcom changing policy by fiat that I think is a slippery slope. At the same time policy is meant to reflect consensus and not the other way around, and if admins are already citing the speedy deletion guideline to support these deletions then that's a good indicator that consensus has changed; the guideline should be updated to reflect that. I'm going to keep my comments here focused on that, but if you'd like to continue this discussion (which I admittedly started) on the theoretical implications of these various actions, my talk page is open. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option2 clarifies that if a page is created against a ban or other restriction, speedy deletion is the most appropriate enforcement mechanism. Page creation restrictions under Arbcom sanctions should either have an effective enforcement mechanism, or should all be immediately repealed. —Kusma (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - G5 is a criterion for user restrictions; a patrolling administrator needs to check that the page-creating user is in fact blocked or banned, which in most cases is evident from their block log. Checking that a page is created in violation of a general sanction is a different check entirely, and should be its own criterion. That is, if such deletions are in fact uncontestable: this has been established only by Arbcom making pronouncements in content matters in which it explicitly has no authority, and not through community consensus. I also think that such a criterion is an A-level criterion, but not strongly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, thank you for your thoughts on this, which are new to me. While we've so far just been talking about ArbCom-imposed ECR, there is also community-imposed ECR. See, for example, WP:GS/AA or WP:GS/KURD. Since the community does—as far as I'm aware—have the ability to affect deletion policy, do you believe that this community-endorsed deletion should have its own SD criterion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for that; those discussions are new to me. It seems to me that the wording of the general sanctions is adopted directly from ARBECR, which did not have the authority to modify the deletion policy. I'm not sure that the discussions that enabled those general sanctions were proper tests of community intent to create this as a path to deletion. I don't think that this discussion is really a proper test either, as the question is written with a presumption that there's consensus for it. I dislike bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake almost as much as I despise bureaucratic overreach, but we seem to be creating deletion guidelines to accommodate a novel deletion method that wasn't actually discussed, and I think that discussion should have happened first before we start creating or modifying speedy criteria to support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Following User:Ivanvector and User:bradv. Expanding speedy deletion further shifts power from community to bureaucrats in an undesirable way. Sure, creating new articles is an annoying way to evade ECR, but my sense is that speedy deletion isn't the best imaginable remedy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 G5 has always been about consistently enforcing rules. Having one set of rules (Arbcom and Community General Sanctions) than we arbitrarily decide not to enforce in the obvious way while continuing to enforce another set of rules (User Topic/Site-Bans) that way is utterly illogical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, it is consistent with our handling of creation of material by banned users. Who are actually effectively topic banned by ECR. Izno (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  G5 is absolutely not about consistently encforcing rules, indeed "consistent" is one of the last words I'd use to describe the application of G5. G5 is about allowing administrators to enforce "banned means banned" when they choose to do so, for whatever reason they choose to do so. Neither GS nor DS topic restrictions are bans and enforcing the restrictions by speedy deletion is not conducive to a healthy editing environment in which good faith editors can participate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Within its scope, the committee may issue binding decisions that override consensus. Now, ignoring the procedural point, I think given how the restriction is being used, and G5's application here as being consistent with non EC users who are effectively topic banned from ECR topics, that what is being done today is Fine, with or without changing WP:CSD directly to acknowledge that such users cannot contribute to the pages they have created or otherwise extensively modified before they become EC. Izno (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Within its scope" has a rather clear bullet list definition written in the policy, and content decisions (including deletion) are clearly not within that scope. I'm not necessarily opposed to creating this path to deletion as there's clearly a desire to do so, but I'm very strongly opposed to doing anything under any presumption that Arbcom can do anything it wants for any reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  The bullet of interest is To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;. We have heard cases on the material, of which the first case introducing the measure includes the choice word draconian. Izno (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• As for community general sanctions, I think it's a fair point of discussion within the context of each specific area as to whether the deletion part of ECR applies. Exceptions to policy can and have been made, and the community deciding they've had enough of socks in an area could override any declaration by this page anyway because that's how consensus works (hence why community-applied general sanctions aren't at AN(I) anymore). What ARBECR does(n't) do is not what "COMMECR" has to do. However, differing ways to implement ECR may cause general confusion among both experienced and inexperienced editors and administrators alike. Izno (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1. Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

'Option 2 or Option 3 I do not believe that G5 should be strictly enforced, but it is clear that we do need to enforce general sanctions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought about this last night and I think this is quite confusing. I'd like to clarify some things before I make my points, and if anyone disagrees with my summary they can feel free to comment. As far as I understand, the two main contentions here are "whether arbcom are allowed to authorize deletions outside of process", and "whether it is appropriate for CSD to include something that requires the discretion of admins and is not uncontroversial". For the former, I have no strong feelings, is not the original subject of this discussion, and IMO should be directed at arbcom. For the latter, my answer for that would be "No". Therefore I believe I mostly align with Option 1, but I think it is ridiculous to suggest people should be desysopped for following what arbcom says. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3. What is the point of general sanctions in contentious topics if we had to go through the whole shebang of AfD, AN/I, AE etc to enforce it anyways? Arbcom cannot make content decisions, but it can very much make decisions on conduct, of which the creation of articles of a certain topic is an example. WP:BITE is not "don't tell the newbie they did something wrong", it is "tell the newbie they did something wrong in a kind and constructive manner". If need be, make db-gs more clear with wording such as "this does not indicate that the content is non-notable or otherwise wholly inappropiate for Wikipedia". Fermiboson (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. WP:NEWCSD, and follow the requirements of NEWCSD. Establish the evidence by putting several cases through MfD. Prouncements by ArbCom should be specific, not an endless chain of creation of new policy by autocrats. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Ivanvector. The new ARBECR is too resyrictive anyhow Mach61 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3, or reword ECR to frame it as a form of TBAN. The latter approach seems the most future-proof: It puts ECR violations under whatever rules apply to individual TBAN violations, without needing any special-casing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Amend WP:BANPOL to list ECR as being treated as equivalent to a ban for the purpose of other policies. Add one line to WP:TBAN and one column to the WP:BLOCKBANDIFF table.—Alalch E. 20:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 first choice, Option 2 second choice. This is a really confusing RfC format, and I pity the editor who volunteers to close this; I'm not sure why Options 4 and 5 were proposed at all—they seem like very poorly-thought-out ideas. That being said, I think the cleanest, most organized solution would be to create a new G15 that applies to "pages created in violation of a general sanction, such as the extended-confirmed restriction, that have no substantial edits by other editors", but squeezing it into G5 would work too, and so would a consensus that ECR is, for the purpose of G5, essentially a topic ban applied to all non-extended-confirmed editors. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  While we're here, I will shamelessly drop a link to my essay Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. Regardless of whether we create a new criterion or squeeze this into G5, I would like to emphasize that administrators should have discretion in all cases, and the rules will never obligate an administrator to delete a page that was created in violation of a general sanction like ECR—obviously helpful pages can be allowed to stand, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to delete. Mz7 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's why G5 shouldn't be changed, because it's underpinned by this real and good practice and this can't simply be transplanted onto a brand new criterion, and we can't say "note to administrators: do it like you did it with G5" because it would look silly. That's why I believe that my idea is the best one: Just codify an interpretation of the arbitration rule from the vantage point of community created policy, and the relevant policy is BANPOL, not CSD. —Alalch E. 16:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support option 2 as the easiest solution. Effectively G5 is about pages created where the creation of the page itself (rather than content) breaks a rule. I also support option 3 but I don't think it's necessary. Oppose options 4 & 5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: I was confused when I read ARBECR and CSD and didn't find explicit mention of which criterion (if any) could be used by non-admins to request ARBECR deletion. I see some experienced volunteers believed G5 to implicitly cover ARBECR on first reading (which I think is reasonable—functionally, a non-EC editor is topic banned, at least once they've been made aware of GS). This should be spelled out explicitly. — Bilorv (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 first choice, Option 2 second choice. I think a criterion should cover violations of ECR to prevent disruption. I think having a new criterion is preferable to avoid confusion and to avoid practices from G5 (which mostly seems to amount to delete-on-sight, despite discretion given to admins). If option 3 passes, it should in substance be something like the following: GXX: Creations violating non-editor-specific restrictions. This applies to creations of pages where the creation violates a non-editor-specific restriction, whether imposed by the community or the Arbitration Committee, such as the extended-confirmed restriction. This criterion does not apply, however, to pages which have substantial edits that do not violate the restriction. Administrators must exercise discretion when deleting pages under this criterion, and must consider whether lesser action is more appropriate. Depending on factors such as the level of disruption present or likely, whether the creating editor is aware of the restriction, and (if an article) article notability and quality, this could include: leaving the page be without any action, improving the page, notifying the creating user of the restriction, nominating the page for a deletion discussion, protecting the page to enforce the restriction prospectively, any other action permitted by policy, and any combination of the above. I feel like this creates the right balance between allowing speedy deletion of disruptive articles and requiring admins to lean towards keeping good articles when a good-faith editor creates them. I believe any modification to G5 should include similar caveats. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 as it makes it clear, without having to go though more complex rules, or processes. Option 3 would be my second preference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Rules, and processes, painful aren’t they. Benevolent dictatorship is so much more practical.

  G5 was always about completely, unambiguously blocked/banned people. These sanctions are not unambiguous. I expect they will fail WP:NEWCSD, and slipping new measures in like this is a real corruption of process. Let’s see a few cases put through XfD to see what’s really being talked about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 is my first choice and Option 3 is my second. Patient Zero^talk 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Status of G5)

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

• This might be a dumb question, but how does "Creations by banned or blocked users" (the heading of WP:G5) include any page created by any non-EC user? Violating a ban is not the same as violating a restriction. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not a dumb question at all. This criterion is for creations by banned or blocked users, which explicitly includes an individual user's specific editing restrictions. It does not and has not ever extended to general page nor topic restrictions. I'm also having a hard time wrapping my head around the rationale for repealing the criterion - why would we do that? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  The argument (which I think is more or less valid) is that these users are effectively topic banned from topics which fall under ECR. They may not edit in the area, period end of story, and they should be dissuaded from doing so (the point of G5). Izno (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Izno, one option on the table during the prior discussion was an ARCA to get clarity from ArbCom on whether that argument (non-ECR=topic banned) could be written into the procedures. Worth pursuing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've raised that suggestion on the internal list, I think there is definite merit to it. I'm kind of surprised an RFC was started before exploring that option with any ArbCom members. :) Izno (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'd prefer if we didn't do that, for the biteyness I referenced earlier - declaring by policy that all new users are automatically procedurally banned from a rather long list of contentious topics, even if that is functionally true, is not very good optics to put it mildly. Policy-wise it would be much simpler to either modify G5 or create a new criterion (my preference) to permit deletion of pages created contrary to the general restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  (ARB)ECR is already bitey, no ifs ands or buts about it. Changing the text to say that it's a topic ban makes it clear how it relates to this policy (among others), with little that I can see of unintended consequences. (I do not believe we would change ARBECR to remove its current exceptions.) Not sure where you get "long list of contentious topics", ECR by arbitration committee dictate is implemented only in a couple areas (Palestine-Israel and the not-entirely-unrelated "Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland" areas).

  (ECR should be strongly distinguished from ECP, which is a technical mechanism which can be used to enforce ECR but which has no other non-historical relation to it. Not sure if that is also a point of confusion.)

  "COMMECR" for specific topic areas as I noted above can do whatever it wants (20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)) and I have no strong opinions besides that potential confusion may result from the community implementing ECR in a way which differs from ArbCom. (Which is already a problem incidentally since ArbCom has changed ECR at least once since many of the same community-thinking regimes have been implemented.... and even now the community is inconsistent on the rule in various regimes, so.... something for the community to review at VP generally now I guess.) Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, I confused "topics subject to ECR" with "all contentious topics". I'll just say that, yeah, the whole regime is inherently and unavoidably bitey, but putting in writing that all new users are topic banned just seems more bitey, and maybe unreasonably so.

  And also I think this all makes a good point that Arbcom shouldn't be creating its own protection and enforcement regimes when parallel community regimes exist, as it invites confusion. I thought that deprecating discretionary sanctions for contentious topics was meant to harmonize those restrictions but it seems there's more work to do. Out of scope for this discussion but maybe something for next year's Committee to consider. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  ArbCom's came first? :) I think TBANs may have existed by the time that the committee thought up ECR, but the community is definitely following in the committee's footsteps on the use of ECR in areas it is tired of socks. Izno (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, DS came before GS :) As far as I can tell, "partial bans" (admin bans from particular pages, different from blocks) were added to the banning policy near the end of 2005, and the policy already referred to Arbcom's authority to ban, so I don't know which came first. But I think that's a good example: topic bans are topic bans, whether they're community bans, unblock conditions, or arbitration enforcement. There are only differences in how they're logged and how they're appealed, which still isn't ideal, but it's better than having two completely separate processes that accomplish the same thing, or near enough that they may as well be the same except for the quirks of their implementation. Anyway, I said I wasn't going to sidetrack this discussion again, and I am failing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  ... :) Izno (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• For my edification and perhaps others, there was previous discussion. Izno (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Lets say, hypothetically speaking, that I was dumb and didn't understand option 4. If we repeal G5, but incorporate its principles into BANPOL...then what CSD would admins be using to achieve that. What am I missing here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  Presumably they'd delete the page without citing a CSD (and only citing BANPOL). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  I suggested one way option 4 might be implemented through a PROD process, where an editor who is not banned or blocked can go to WP:RFUD and accept responsibility for the content (including any problems). But shouldn't speedy deletion only be used for cases where there are very, very serious problems with the page (i.e. spam, vandalism, etc.) that has zero chance of being rectified? i.e. G3, G10, G11. For WP:BRV we have that a non-banned editor who restores content by a banned editor takes complete responsibility for such content. And "that have no substantial edits to others" can be quite subjective; maybe that needs to be clarified what that means. Awesome Aasim 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  Speedy deletion is explicitly only for cases that are uncontroversial and objective, the biggest problem with G5 as it stands is that it is neither. Speedily deleting pages due to ECR restrictions, through any process, would definitely not meet both criteria - anything objective would result in the deletion of things many people think should not be deleted, anything else would be subjective. It would, in theory, be possible to amend the deletion policy to allow for subjective speedy deletion of these or other pages, but you would need to get explicit consensus for that first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) They wouldn't be using any part of the speedy deletion policy, or any other part of the deletion policy for that matter. Given that only the WMF can delete anything in a manner not provided for in the deletion policy, this would make the banning and deletion policies contradict each other (I hope everyone can agree this would be a bad thing). This Which is why ToBeFree correctly states that it is an invalid option. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  WMF deletions are covered by deletion policy. That's what G9 is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I think Option 4 is trying to say. I agree it makes no sense, though. It effectively amounts to a contradictory WP:POLICYFORK. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• There are a couple comments above to the effect that, if we reject this change and admins delete these pages anyway, they face desysopping. As a practical matter, this is not the case: right now the only way for an administrator to get desysopped is at the direction of arbcom. If arbcom says admins can delete these pages, WT:CSD says they can't, and admins go ahead and delete them, arbcom doesn't seem likely to desysop them at WT:CSD's behest.
  If we want to change that, I see only two methods. One is to elect like-minded arbitrators. This also is impractical; we barely have enough candidates running this year to fill the open seats, and it's been that way for a few years in a row now; and just about any administrator with a pulse can meet the minimum 50% threshold. (By my count, about 90% of running admins in the past ten years of elections have done so; and I don't think we've ever failed to fill an arbcom seat at an election.)
  The other method is to formally amend arbitration policy to make it explicit that they don't have the authority to declare pages deleteable in this manner. —Cryptic 03:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the community explicitly rejects deletion as an option (as I continue to believe we should), then that is something that arbitrators will take into account should a case come their way. Their previous statement came at a time when the community had expressed no specific views on the matter. Such a case would only practically happen if an admin was aware of the explicit consensus and knowingly and intentionally deleting anyway, possibly on more than one occasion (anything less would almost certainly just result in censure at AN(I) for not keeping up with policy they are enforcing). On the issue of awareness, it will be a good idea to mention any change to the status quo resulting from this discussion in the admin newsletter. Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) And thus begins the dissonance that lurks beneath every discussion on this page. My evil twin would be tempted to (in the event this closes as some option 1) add a section for deletions of this sort to Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions and then go through and systematically appeal every single one to AN or AE (note that DRV is not a permitted venue for appealing arbitration enforcement actions). But that behavior would both likely fail to produce the required clear and substantial consensus to overturn the deletion (since this discussion is nowhere near that threshold) and get him sanctioned for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

  No, I don't actually have an evil twin, nor do I plan to do that, it's just a thought experiment.

  We did try to do what you proposed once at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 152#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions, but it petered out with only 22 out of the required 100 supports, and furthermore only barely had a majority in the first place. If that were reproposed, I would sign. Despite my position on the RfC above, there's no reason such deletions need to follow AE's especially-stringent provision against being overturned rather than following standard undeletion policy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• The thought that we would decide to speedy delete a page created by a newer user which is otherwise acceptable or revert edits to articles or talk pages other than edit requests that are clearly acceptable seems a blunt instrument and is going to put people of contributing. I'm fine however with allowing questionable pages to be deleted this way but would obviously need to pass NEWCSD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Well the page does not have to be deleted and an administrator or ECP user should be able to take responsibility for the page, and thus make it immune to a (G5) deletion. Any substantial edit by someone allowed to do so will avert a G5. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• The problem is that I don't see how we could possibly have a situation where we don't have a CSD for articles created in violation of ECRs, and where those ECRs are still enforced. Where are we supposed to ask for ECR enforcement, then? We revert non-EC edits on sight, and we automatically ECP such articles even when no disruption has occurred. As far as I can tell, this is common and consensus practice. Why let the creation of new articles in the topic area be such a loophole? The editing restriction does not say "you are not allowed to edit unless one of us likes it", it says "you are not allowed to edit". (And if an EC user wanted to keep the article so badly, they could simply make substantial edits to it so that G5 no longer applies.) This RfC appears to be going down the direction of attempting to partially repeal an Arbcom remedy by consensus processes. Fermiboson (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  partially repeal an Arbcom remedy by consensus processes. Like Mach61 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Fermiboson why is partially repeal[ing] an Arbcom remedy by consensus processes an undesirable thing? Arbcom restrictions and other remedies are only ever enforced when the consensus of the community is that they make sense and are otherwise desirable. If community consensus is that (part of) a remedy is not desirable for some reason, then it absolutely should be repealed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Isn’t Arbcom decisions listed as an entry in WP:CONEXCEPT? If there existed a (hypothetical) consensus at, say, WP Infoboxes that infoboxes weren’t a CT, that wouldn’t make CT sanctions inapplicable there. At the very least, is this not something that should go on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Fermiboson (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you read, rather than vaguely wave at, WP:CONEXCEPT you will see The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. which says nothing about whether community consensus can override arbitration remedies after they are made (only that ArbCom may override community consensuses that pre-date their rulings). The community could effectively decide that e.g. infoboxes are no longer contentious by no longer treating them as contentious (i.e. all editing regarding them becomes harmonious) and/or declining to enforce any CT remedies regarding that topic area. Indeed, the former happens all the time - editors move on, disputes get resolved, and people forget that the topic area was ever contentious.

  Yes things need to go to ARCA to get the remedy formally repealed, but the best way to achieve that is for there to be a clear community consensus regarding the need. What I'm seeing in this RFC is a consensus that deletion is not always desirable, and no consensus that when deletion is desirable that such deletion should be done speedily. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You'll see that my reply was worded as a question, because it was that - an honest question.

  Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with you on the status of the consensus, but I take your point about consensus overriding outdated remedies. That said, if this RfC is closed as option 1, I would definitely be hoping for some sort of clarification from Arbcom on how we're supposed to enforce ECR. (I take it that there is still consensus to ECP the relevant articles, revert non-EC edits inserting CTs into unprotected articles, and such.) Fermiboson (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Post RfC discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A12. Author violating arbitration committee extended confirmed restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G5 began objective. It used to read simply:

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

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

Indeed scope creep is a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question the close

User:S Marshall. You wrote:

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

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

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

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

Therefore speedy deletion under general sanctions is permissible. QED.

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

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

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

Arbcom has the power to authorize speedy deletion

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

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

Discussion Continued At WP:VPPL

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

Question about G14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improper disambiguation redirects

For a while now WP:RFD has been flooded with nominations for redirects that a missing a space between the term and the opening parenthesis of a disambiguator (e.g. Constantine(video game) and Scaramouche(1952 film)), see for example sections 17 to 35 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31, sections 17 to 57 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1, and similar in the days leading up to them. These discussions invariably end up being deleted uncontroversially, and the number of discussions is causing issues for RfD (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Can we reduce the number of RfDs transcluded on this page?). Accordingly I propose a new speedy deletion criterion R5:
Redirects with no space before a parenthetical term, e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, e.g. 501(c)(3)

• Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:
  • Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
  • Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version.
• This criterion does not apply if the redirect is the result of page move made less than 30 days ago, but criteria R3 and/or G6 may apply.

The rationale for the last bullet is to allow time for mirrors, etc. to catch up. If the page was moved and then immediately moved again, or created at this title then quickly moved then this title was obviously created in error and G6 applies. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd support this. As you said, it's been an ongoing issue and the discussions end the same way every time. It's adding unnecessary bureaucracy when the outcome is clear from the beginning. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support – these are among the most straightforward closes I regularly encounter at RfD, and they aren't adequately covered by R3 and G6. ^Complex/_Rational 13:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support coverage of other obvious typographical errors, such as disambiguators missing a closing paren. BD2412 T 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  The most recent large discussion I found about missing closing parentheses was very controversial as they were working around an external link problem. I can't remember what the outcome was in the end but it was relisted a couple of times, so not at all suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've started trying to track past nominations such as these and I have 3 bulk nomination links saved in my notes for these types of redirects. They're for February, 2019, April, 2019, and October, 2022, the most recent of which was contentious. I'm sure you already know Thryduulf, but I thought I'd share the links for reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support but I would title it "Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguator" to define the scope. If not then things like 501(c)(3) absolutely will be carelessly tagged and deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Good suggestion. I think that's a good differentiation to make. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Why aren't these R3's? Is it just that we're only now working through a backlog of very old ones that nobody noticed before? What happens when those are gone? And would a database report to detect new ones help? —Cryptic 17:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Some of the ones that have been nominated recently have been around for over a decade. I guess a database report wouldn't harm. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Very preliminary version at quarry:query/80153. Very many false positives still, chemical names in particular, and it's not immediately obvious how to filter them out without introducing false negatives. I'd hope that most wouldn't be interpreted as a disambiguator, but I'm sure someone would eventually carelessly speedy ones like Chromium(III), and I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find ones of the much-more-common sort like Dysprosium(III) nitride tagged db-r5 either.

  What I'm not seeing are recently-created ones. The current most recent is Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women) from January 13, and the next most recent is Fletcher Ladd(justice) from December 14. Unless RFD has been very diligent about deleting recently-created ones in particular recently - has it? - this suggests to me a backlog we can hope to eventually clear rather than an ongoing and permanent problem. —Cryptic 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I tweaked your query to just filter out the articles, which got the total down to 12.2k. If it helps, Dcirovic seems to have created 900+ of the redirects that appear in the query. I expect that they're legit ones which could be removed. I also noticed that your list is including redirects that contain "-(", which could be something to look at to trim it a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Filtering out non-redirects is good if you're looking for more to bring to RFD, or potentially speedy. It's not so good in the context of this discussion (since it also filters out redirects currently at RFD, since they're not technically redirects while tagged) or in an ongoing database report (we'd want to see pages created at or moved to titles like these as soon as they happen, not just after someone else happens to notice them, moves them back, and doesn't deal with the redirect).

  You can reasonably go further than just eliminating -( by looking specifically for a letter- or digit-like character before the paren, as in quarry:query/80157. Again, if I were watching a date-ordered report, I'd rather see them show up than risk missing a false negative - it misses Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women) from above, for example. —Cryptic 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Even just removing '-(' is going to filter out redirects we should deal with, like Hurdling-(horse race). —Cryptic 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know the flavor of SQL being used here and I don't have Quarry access but could it stand to have something along the lines of AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 'X' FROM page otherpage WHERE otherpage.page_title = REPLACE(page.page_title, '(', ' (')? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  WMF-run wikis are backed by MariaDB, a MySQL fork. You (and anyone else with a registered account) do have Quarry access, if you care; click "Login" from the upper right and it'll bounce you through meta. And, again, that sort of refinement is going to result in many false negatives - this time, it'll find pages that haven't been partially dealt with (by someone creating the properly-disambiguated title), but miss cases where someone saw a page at Acme(widget manufacturer) and moved it to Acme (widget manufacturer) without dealing with the leftover redirect. —Cryptic 20:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  That right there is one of the largest groups of false positives I've found: Valid chemistry-related titles with parentheses without spacing before/after parentheses. Thus .. my reservations about making this a CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  (For what it's worth, here's the regex query I've developed over time that reduces the amount of chemistry-related false positives: [^ 0-9:\-\)]\([^0-9\-\)][^\)]. (Search using this regex [takes a bit to load]) However, it also doesn't allow any numbers directly after a "(" which will make "bad" disambiguators that start with years not appear in the list either.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  (Well, I just tried my own regex a few times, and even that list on 20 titles has like 2–3 false positives. Over the years, trying to write the perfect regex to reduce false positives has been rather difficult.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Steel1943 What we could do is tag chemistry redirects with a proper redirect category and then exclude the redirect template or category from the query. This way future editors will also know that these aren't fit for speedy deletions. Gonnym (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support it seems to pass most of the NEWCSD requirements, objective, as noted all discussions seem to today result in deletion with most people agreeing, uncontestable, there is a clear consensus today to delete these, frequent, although it may become less frequent if newer ones are caught and deleted under R3 other namespaces and if future ones get missed (and some in other namespaces not yet checked as all from what I can remember have been namespace redirects but there will probably be such redirects in other namespaces) will be needed, nonredundant, as noted while many newer ones can be deleted under R3 older ones can't and although it could already be argued these can be deleted under G6 it would probably be more sensible for the same reason G14 was split to have a separate criteria. In terms of consensus etc in previous years such redirects were kept often per WP:CHEAP, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Burn (Scotland but in more recent years such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" the consensus has changed namely that such redirects are WP:COSTLY. I would put one condition here, that the redirect doesn't have any article content history currently at the title (as opposed to from a move) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Montblanc(ffta) for example was an article so as a sub topic the history should probably be moved to Montblanc (ffta) (and the resulting redirect could then be deleted under R5) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#Musa(name) which has significant history. When it comes to such redirects they should in some cases be moved to the correct title, in some cases should be restored and sent to AFD and in some cases are simply duplicates which means that if they only contain nonsense etc or don't contain any significant content not in the target they don't need to be kept and could have been deleted as A10 if they hadn't been redirected.
• I also think we should cover "(Disambiguation)" redirects like London (Disambiguation) per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. I would also support incorrectly capitalized qualifiers like Morbius (Film), see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Morbius (Film) but the consensus seems to be weaker. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Excluding redirects that have history as an article would seem best as there aren't so many of them that RfD would be overwhelmed and the best course of action is not always the same. As for "improperly" capitalised disambiguators, the consensus that these are bad is weak and (from my biased perspective) getting weaker so they definitely shouldn't be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm surprised those capitalizations were deleted. I don't personally support that as alternative capitalizations are typically valid redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think capitalization redirects with incorrect qualifiers are useful as users are very unlikely to use incorrect Wikipedia qualifiers, see WP:UNNATURAL and for internal searchers they would get to the correct place anyway. These redirects do inconvenience editors though.

  @Thryduulf: Would something like This criteria does not apply to any redirect that has non-redirect content (such as being a separate article or template etc) at the current title's history unless the page would qualify for speedy deletion (such as A10 or G1) if restored. If the page was redirected more than a month ago then the page can be moved to the correct title without redirect or the resulting redirect deleted immediately under this criteria. This would clarify that redirects like Montblanc(ffta) could not be deleted by this criteria but because it was redirected ages ago it could be moved to Montblanc (ffta) without redirect or the redirect speedily deleted. While I don't really agree with you that article content can't be deleted at RFD I don't think article content should be speedily deleted under R5. And cases like say Musa(name) that have history that can't easily be moved would still go to RFD but as you say there aren't many of these case so shouldn't be a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree with the concept in your second paragraph, but the wording isn't the clearest (I had to read it multiple times to be clear about what you mean). I've not got time right now to improve it though. Your first paragraph is almost completely backwards - they do help and don't hinder - (UNNATURAL is a mix of correct, debatable and incorrect) but as this is something good faith editors disagree about it fails the uncontroversial requirement for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• I am wondering if this would make more sense as X3. Recently created redirects which match the description of the proposed R5 fall under R3; once the "backlog" has been cleared this would seem redundant (NEWCSD#4). I think RfD can handle the occasional term(dab) that makes it past NPR without getting nominated for R3. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  I support X3 and oppose R5. Once the backlog is cleared, it will be redundant (i.e. fail WP:NEWCSD4) to R3; RfD will be able to handle the occasional redirect that makes it through the R3 window. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per my previous discussion with Thryduulf. As I noted there, RfD has continued to be inundated with RDAB redirects, so I do think a CSD criterion is warranted. I would also support expanding the scope to cover the other types of errors mentioned at RDAB (I can live with capitalization differences being exempted, if others agree with Thryduulf that they are not uncontroversial), including (disambiguation, ((disambiguation), (disambiguation) (disambiguation), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Missing closing parentheses were controversial last time they were discussed en mass so are not suitable for speedy deletion. I don't recall seeing any of the others at RfD recently. Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) is the only page I can find "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)", and that's a {{R from merge}} so likely needs to be kept. As of the 21 November dump of page titles (the most recent I have downloaded) there were no instances of "((disambiguation" or "disambiguation))". Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Andrew Sinclair (privy councellor and etc., Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Bonaparte's Retreat (Disambiguation), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Islamic Resistance in Iraq (Disambiguation ), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Terminal value (philosophy/, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Chen Mingyi (Taiwan）, etc. You can easily find more cases of RDAB via regex search, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose while I like the idea; I don't think this will reduce the load on RfD. Maybe what is needed is a proposed deletion process. I think we can expand WP:PROD to include redirects. Awesome Aasim 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please also see User_talk:176.33.241.125#Can you group all your misspaced parentheses RfDs into one nomination? where I give a kind request for all the similar redirects to be in one nomination to make discussion easier to follow. Awesome Aasim 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  From memory, a PROD for redirects has been rejected previously and I oppose it now. PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched, but very few redirects are watched other than by their creators (and not even always then) so PRODed redirects are unlikely to be seen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think extending the PROD duration and maybe having a bot update the list of PRODded redirects periodically would solve this problem? Awesome Aasim 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also I disagree that PROD won't work for pages not well watched; we have maintenance categories where people can review PRODs and reject them if they disagree. Awesome Aasim 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched: it was my impression that PROD is used largely by new page patrol, so that wouldn't be the case. No? Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  I personally think PROD should be available to all types of pages but that's a different discussion. In any case these redirects shouldn't be left to clutter the search etc for 7 days. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. These RfD end the same and are basically just a waste of editorial time and take time away from the other nominations. Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• @Utopes just sent another batch of redirects to RfD today, so pinging them here. Also pinging @Steel1943, who previously nominated several RDAB redirects, and notifying 176.33.241.125 on their talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tip! I didn't even realize this was a discussion taking place when I sent those, will leave a comment now. 👍 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm concerned drive-by admins will delete redirects that look like disambiguation issues when the title is actually valid (false positives). Examples: BSc(Hons) (currently nominated at RFD) and JANET(UK) (apparently, a valid alternative/former name for its target [see its edit history for my back-and-forth edits on this].) Yeah, given my level of participation in these redirects, one would think I would be supporting this ... but not so much since I'm concerned administrators may not get it right the first time when enforcing such a speedy deletion criterion, which has a potential to cause harm to the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Create a temporary criterion "X3" until the numbers get low enough to where it can be reasonably appealed. Thinking about this, turns out I'm okay if this is the chosen path, given that I think "X" criteria tend to make admins do a double take and research the redirect's history prior to deleting the redirect. Seems like such a situation could appease all parties. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've stuffed the (full, unfiltered) results into subpages of User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects, and am going to spend a few hours classifying them - maybe all of them, but at least the first subpage which has the thousand most recent. Yes, even the relatively-easy-to-detect chemical ones. A problematic case with two examples has already jumped out at me (maybe the same sort as Steel1943's above, I haven't looked at them) - CPUSA(PW)/CPUSA(P) and PCd'I(ml). Would the advocates of this criterion speedy those? And if not, how are they excluded by this wording? —Cryptic 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  The first two should be excluded as they "will [be] correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces" - determined by them being listed in bold in the target article without spaces. PCd'I(ml) does not appear to be correct - the article uses the acronym spaced and every unspaced google hit seems to relate to this redirect, so would be correctly speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• No confidence that some heathen who thinks there should be a space before the param list of function prototypes won't use this as an excuse to speedy int main(void). —Cryptic 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support if I create the list, and improper disambiguation does not affect some titles like 501(c)(3) and chemical names like Cadmium(I). 176.33.241.125 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Such redirects are almost invariably getting deleted at RfD – I haven't found a single nomination in the last 30 days that closed as anything other than "delete", though BSc(Hons) seems headed to "keep". – This proposal will probably reduce the backlog and editor workload considerably. My only issues are the potential misuse/careless use of the criterion, hence why I would additionally support a listing of major exceptions (chemical names come to my mind but there are others). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, but would love to support a criteria that can be used to clean these. From what I've seen, while these titles might look the same, the backgrounds for all can be vastly different. As an example based on my personal experiences, I set out to find the total number of film redirects that were exactly: Foo(film). There were 172 of these, yet their histories were always varied. (I found it useful to display these titles in a Massviews chart). There are some pages that were recently created, and could qualify for R3 (although not usually). Sometimes, these were intentionally created with the lack-of-space, but most of the time these titles came about as left-behind from moves. Sometimes these were created at a bad title with extensive histories before being BLAR'd into the version that already exists, or may contain convoluted reversions between two titles that only differ in their spacing. In some of these cases though, G6 is likely to apply under the stipulation that they're "redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title." (which directly comes from Template:Db-error). The reason I'm neutral is because while I agree that these titles should be ridden of, I don't know if there is a clear-cut description would lead to deletion at this stage, more than what we already have described in G6 and R3. I agree something needs to be done, but investigating the histories seems to be an absolute requirement here, which cancels out a lot of these situations I'd think. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  As a question to this, would Shock(film) be eligible for CSD under this criteria, with its history? What about Rockers(film), which survived RfD? Brij Bhoomi(film) has 173 pageviews this month (due to its multiple incoming links), but would it also be CSD-able under this criteria despite it getting 17 views a day? At RfD I'd !vote to delete all of these for sure, but what I don't know is whether CSD makes the deletions too hasty, and whether there is value in investigating their histories and circumstances for existence. These are just the (film) redirects, and I don't know how complicated the other titles could be. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Utopes: "...there is value in investigating [the redirects'] histories and circumstances for existence..." There always is, which is one of the reasons I cannot sway my opinion one way or another to codify these redirects as eligible for CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  As more and more examples get brought up, I'm becoming less and less certain that speedy deletion beyond R3 and G6 is possible in a way that is not too narrow to be useful and not too broad so as to catch things that shouldn't be deleted. I need to think more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I agree with that, yes. This is my concern as well. When looking through these titles, the backgrounds can be vastly different. When putting the Foo(film) RfD together, I was skipping over pages in history, because those would need to be checked on a case-by-case basis, presumably. It was unclear to me whether this new CSD criteria puts weight into histories, and if so, by how much? If we take away the pages with history, we're left with a decently smaller number of applicable pages, and the question becomes whether a whole criterion is necessary for the [X] number of cases that are safe to outright delete. I don't know how much that number is. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  I guess my follow-up would be to find a comparison. How are histories dealt with other R CSD criteria? I feel like I've seen situations where a page (and its history) are replaced with a redirect (I think it was to Draftspace, but I can't recall), which was then tagged as R2'd by someone who followed up with the page. How "valuable" is the page history there? I'd presume it's checked every time, so doing it here might not be that unconventional. The question becomes what constitutes a "valuable history" that makes CSD a safe action for redirects that meet R5. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  It should be checked every time, as with all other speedy criteria. I have no confidence that it is. —Cryptic 02:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• So, I've finished sorting the most recent 2000 and least-recent 1100ish page titles containing an open-paren not preceded by a space at User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects (I was never going to get through all of them, and had only been fooled into thinking I could because SDZeroBot initially only gave me about a third of the results). The conclusions I'm drawing from that are:
  • We should make it explicit that this only applies to disambiguators per se, not parenthesized text that's part of the redirect subject's proper name, even if it's misspaced or misspelled. (This sounds obvious to me when it's put like that, but nobody's brought it up as the general case, even though more specific subcases like chemicals and section names have been.) So It's On(Dr.Dre)187um Killa and INS Talwar(F40) and Cheeses...(of Nazereth) wouldn't be speedyable, but restatements of the proper name or redundant parenthesized names like in King Edward Medical university(KEMU) and SsangYong Rodius(Stavic) could be. "Plausibly be searched for without spaces" is too vague, fails NEWCSD#1, and will be abused.
  • Section names like 501(c)(3) aren't common. Chemical names and processes are very, very common, and I didn't notice any incorrectly-formed disambiguators in chemistry-related redirects. If we're mentioning broad classes of counterexamples, that should be the first. I further think we should specifically exclude the entire subject area even if the disambiguator of a chemistry-related redirect is ill-formed and it would otherwise qualify.
  • These aren't frequent. There are a lot of extant cases, but we only see a handful of new ones a month. This seems to be a recurring theme at RFD - someone finds some broad new class of malformed redirects that have been accumulating since 2001, starts nominating them at RFD - sometimes properly in batches, sometimes individually! - and then it finds its way here, even though new ones aren't being rapidly created, and those that are fall under existing criteria.
  I've commented multiple times above, so I'll bold a position here: I oppose this as a permanent criterion, for being infrequent, redundant to R3, and error-prone; I'm neutral on a temporary X- series criterion until the old ones are dealt with. —Cryptic 03:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  We can't delete anything under R3 unless it was created recently. It would make more sense to expand the scope of WP:G14, which already includes (disambiguation) redirects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, yes, R3 is recent only. Quite obviously. As I mentioned above. But there's a finite, relatively small, number of non-recent ones: roughly 5000, based on the sample I analyzed, and that's assuming a vanishingly-small number of redirects with non-redirect history (which I didn't check for). As soon as they're gone - and that'll happen quickly, the admins vying for topspot at the awful WP:ADMINSTATS scoreboard query for speedy candidates like these and feed them into Twinkle - it'll be entirely redundant. —Cryptic 03:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  admins vying for topspot at the awful WP:ADMINSTATS scoreboard - surely not: the top admin there is behind the second-top admin by 400,000 deletions and so 5000 entries would be trivial. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I hadn't realized about these all time lists. It's just as I've always suspected, there's just no keeping up with Explicit. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a useful tool. Even if the current situation looks temporary, forcing repeated discussions isn't a good use of anyone's time. Also, there's no way of knowing it won't flare up again at some point, since redirects aren't necessarily closely watched and these sorts of mistakes can steadily build up unnoticed; hell, this discussion is going on now because it already happened once. I don't buy the arguments that admins should be assumed to be total rubes, it doesn't actually take a PhD to recognize scientific nomenclatures and other idiosyncratic spellings aren't the same as Wikipedia disambiguators. If there's that much concern, just create a Category:Redirects with unspaced parentheticals or something similar; don't force people to murder untold numbers of characters and minutes of their lives they're not getting back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf:, what I think could be helpful would be if we can identify which / how many of these qualify for G6 or R3 already, and use those existing criteria where appropriate. Once all of the G6/R3 candidates are addressed, maybe we can take a look at what remains, and the commonalities between them? If I had to guess, maybe 50% of these were unambiguously created in error and currently actionable?{{cn}} which might allow us to compartmentalize this block bit by bit. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose these redirects are entirely harmless. We may as well have them since they likely bring a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. The do no damage. Readers don't know our guidelines on how to format the disambiguator, and readers are our priority, not top-down decisions based on overly-finicky guidelines.🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Would they qualify under WP:G6? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The very fact that this is controversial indicates it isn't a G6. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The ones that were very obviously created by or when fixing a mistake (most commonly this is evidenced by being moved to and from this title by the same person in quick succession) do qualify as G6, but this only applies to some of the redirects that would fall under this criterion (either because they were created deliberately or because it isn't obvious whether creation was intentional or not). Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with editor Cremastra that these are harmless and possibly a bit helpful as {{R from typo}}s; however, the issue is that they are being deleted anyway and clogging RfD, which begs for a solution. And this solution does the trick as long as care is taken not to delete needed redirects that just look like the bad guys. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm worried that, as worded, the proposed criterion doesn't take into account page history that (a) may be required to be kept for attribution in the case of redirects from merges (which might lead to accidental breaches of licensing requirements), or (b) is otherwise useful; both of which are listed in the redirect guideline's reasons for keeping redirects. I'm also worried that it doesn't take into account the age of these redirects - some may have existed for a significant length of time and/or may be redirects with old history, which are listed in the guideline as redirects that should not normally be deleted without good reason & that should be left alone. I also share Cremastra's view about these redirects being harmless - in RfD discussions I've seen where such redirects have been nominated, I sometimes see WP:RDAB being cited; however, that shortcut links to an essay that doesn't explain why such redirects are costly enough as to warrant deletion (as opposed to being cheap). With the greatest respect to Paine Ellsworth,^/gen I'm very hesitant to think we should be creating a new CSD criterion for redirects that may be being deleted at RfD when (arguably) they should be being kept, especially when they are possibly...helpful (which is another reason in the guideline for keeping them). Only a comment for now while things are still mulling around in my head, but I think I'll add a bolded !vote at some point relatively soon. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Strong oppose per my comments above. I am heavily unconvinced that these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion in the first place. To take a few recent RfD examples ([6] [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]), often in such discussions the only reason given for deleting them is per WP:RDAB - but, as I mentioned above, that essay section doesn't explain why these redirects are at all costly and/or problematic (and so, arguably, isn't a valid rationale for deletion - especially when considering that redirects are cheap is one of the guiding principles of RfD). I'm concerned that a local consensus may have formed at RfD to delete these redirects, and I wouldn't want to create a speedy deletion criterion that further embeds this. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Considering many RfD participants don't watch this page or subscribe to FRS, is it reasonable to advertise this RfC via an editnotice at RfD? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Create a temporary criterion per Steel and Cryptic. These redirects are a countable list and will go away in some time. Hence I would not prefer a "R5" as this becomes redundant once the backlog is gone. Also, we need the updated wordings incorporating Crouch Swale's suggestions about page history, which was also A Smart Kitten's concern. Jay 💬 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with making it temporary is that this backlog already built up once, so removing it once this current issue is resolved allows it to build up again. The other two temporary criteria were to deal with issues that definitively weren't going to recur, which is not the case with this; people will still inevitably create these bad redirects. Why take away a useful tool? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding behind the suggestions for a temporary criterion is that once the backlog is cleared, the combination of a report, R3 and G6 would mean there aren't enough redirects to meet NEWCSD criterion 3 (frequent). Of course there is nothing stopping us enacting a temporary criterion and then making it permanent later if the issue remains ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  If there's a choice, I'd definitely take a temporary criterion over nothing at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support with caveat that it excludes redirects with a substantial non-redirect history. That situation is rare enough to be worth discussing; and there could easily be situations where eg. an article was turned into a redirect that fits this description, which nobody noticed, and is then listed under this CSD - it wouldn't even have to have been done maliciously (although ofc it could be.) And if there is a history, whether due to a merge or whatever, this CSD would usually be the wrong approach anyway - in that case you'd want to move the redirect to preserve history and attribution, rather than create a new one that lacks them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CHEAP. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

More G5 misuse

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

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

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

Explicit mention of empty "Wikipedia sockpuppets of foo" categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promote G/A/F/C criteria to top-level sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Slightly Different G5 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated Speedy Deletions (or: is AfD sovereign?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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