Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The purpose of this RfC is to determine the consensus for how creations in violations of general sanctions such as WP:ARBECR should be enforced. Awesome Aasim 04:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

A few months ago, there was an RfC that found consensus for expanding G5 or creating a new criterion for violations of general sanctions. However, there is still conflict on the exact wording, and problems with User:Yapperbot have resulted in ill-informed notifications, and there were insufficient notices notifying of the discussion leading to a doubt in consensus.

WP:ARBECR says Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

ARBECR (as contrasted with temporary use of page protection at the extended-confirmed level) is currently applied to all articles related to:

Survey Questions[edit]

Question 1: What kind of action is preferred?[edit]

Please rank the choices and specify your reasoning.

Option A: Creation of a new speedy criteria under the "articles" section.
Option G: Creation of a new speedy criteria under the "general" section.
Option E: Expand existing speedy deletion criterion G5.
Option P: GSPROD/CTPROD (proposed deletion for general sanctions/contentious topics)
Option D: Addition of a draftification criteria for articles with enough merit to Wikipedia:Drafts § During new page review, with another specified option taken if it does not have enough merit.
Option N: None of the options above.

Survey (Q1)[edit]

Options D and P (i.e. draftify those that are meritous, prod those that aren't). This is the least bitey way to deal with the issue, and avoids harming the encyclopaedia by throwing away good content just because of who wrote it and quickly dealing with bad content while allowing ECR editors time to find and, if they choose, adopt content they think is better than the NPP does. Option A is the least worst of the rest, Option N is strongly preferable to options G and especially E, which have all the problems D and P solve while bringing no benefits to the party. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E is cleanest. D and P aren't possible results of this process; there's a way to override the final binding decision-maker and a simple RFC doesn't suffice. —Cryptic 09:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think D and P aren't possible results? Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's some very Cryptic reasoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E is the path to omnipotent dictators. E is very clean? As in simple? Of course admins are wise and always know best, there is no need to allow nonadmins see even how the process works, it would just worry their little minds. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option E or Option G From my comment on the previous RfC: Having one set of rules (Arbcom and Community General Sanctions) than [sic - should be "that"] 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.. Since it's just as much of a violation in all namespaces there's no reason to privilege article namespace and hence Options D and A are no good. Option P is just an attempt to hide from the logic in my first sentence - we don't do this for the other kind of G5 so there's no reason to do so here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As repeatedly explained, there is a significant qualitative difference between ECR restrictions and site/topic bans. The former apply to whole groups of editors, who may or may not have done anything wrong and who may or may not be aware of the restrictions. The latter are applied only to specifically named individuals, who are explicitly aware of the restrictions, following specifically identified misconduct (almost always multiple instances of disruption) and which were placed only after a discussion (if not more than one discussion) the individual editor had the opportunity to contribute to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G as it doesn't just include articles but it should only be used to delete pages of dubious merit and never good articles. Remember we were all new users at one point so while I agree we need measures to deal with disruption we should not be using them to delete good faith good creations. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should? Dubious? These are subjective measures not suitable for CSD. We NEED some measure, and so it must be “shoot on sight”? Which of the logical fallacies is that? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proposer: G or E. P second choice. Option A and Option D third choice as it does not address ECR violations outside of article space (like in draft space). Banned means banned, restricted means restricted, and just like a non-autoconfirmed IP should not be finding security vulnerabilities to allow disruptive edits to autoconfirmed protected pages, same with extended confirmed. If it is not technically possible to enforce then we should still prohibit it socially. Awesome Aasim 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim, when I see editors saying things like "banned means banned, restricted means restricted", I automatically fill in "mindless means mindless". Wikipedia works best when people are using their best judgment. If all we needed was mindless enforcement of simplistic rules, we could have a bot deleting articles.

The long-standing rules at ARBECR say "administrators may exercise discretion". Do you think should be changed to "admins must not exercise discretion, because 'restricted means restricted', and exercising discretion could sometimes mean not hurting Wikipedia and its readers, just to enforce a rule"? The rules also say "Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required". Do you want that changed to "articles really must be deleted, because 'restricted means restricted', and we can't have people using good judgement"? I don't.

(Oh, and the idea with open source software like ours is that Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. If your hypothetical IP user can find a security vulnerability that allows editing a semi-protected page, we really do want them to find that and to report it. The difference between the "bad guys" and the "good guys" isn't about whether they find the bugs, but whether they keep it a secret so they can exploit it, or whether they verify the problem and then give the details to the code owners so it can be fixed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree good faith creations should not be deleted. But POV forks and other blatant policy violations should be deleted under this. Awesome Aasim 01:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that good-faith creations should not be deleted, then why are you voting to delete good-faith (as well as bad-faith/gaming) creations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BANREVERT is a good way for enforcing block, ban, protection, page restriction, etc. evasions. Obviously helpful creations should not be speedied, but with blatant disregard for policy that is what G was originally for. The trouble lies in the fact that new users are about as overenthusiastic for WP:ECR topics as experienced users, and it is difficult (but not impossible) to not come out as bitey when doing these deletions. Maybe the problem is how we push deletion to new users but not trying to get them to be more familiar with policies and guidelines. Let's be clear: A speedy criteria is never an entitlement to have a page deleted; it is just a summary of previous discussions regarding pages in a specific topic area, and there can always be exceptions. I think admin discretion is necessary except in the most obvious of cases, which is why I like the idea of a delayed deletion better than "speedy deletion" (even for banned users). Awesome Aasim 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy criteria is never an entitlement to have a page deleted this is contradicted by WP:NEWCSD: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using [a criterion], should be deleted, according to consensus. It does not mean "we want to allow a few instances of this to be deleted but the majority should not be, according to the discretion of whomever sees the page first." Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf is correct. If there are significant circumstances under which these articles should not be deleted, then creating a CSD criteria is a bad idea.

I also encourage you to let go of this idea that these pages are created with "blatant disregard for policy". Firstly, that's an emotionally loaded description – more worthy of a political advertising campaign than thoughtful policy writing – that elevates following the rules above producing good results. Article creation is not a children's game. The point is to create good content. The point is not to follow the rules exactly. So you come to us and say, "Well, those horrible people are blatantly disregarding the rules! How dare they! We should delete their rule-breaking!" I'm saying: Wikipedia is about creating content. It is not about following rules. If a user can (somehow) break a bunch of rules and still end up with good content anyway, then that's okay. The order of priorities is Product, process, policy: The end product matters. Rule-following matters a lot less.

Secondly, you don't know whether the newbies in question even know what the policy says. You can't "blatantly disregard" a rule you were entirely unfamiliar with, and it's unfair to make such accusations. BANREVERT is about people who definitely know that they are doing wrong because they have been told personally, individually, and in detail. BANREVERT is completely inappropriate for people who have never been told what the rules are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, suppose that an editor banned from creating BLPs ends up creating a high quality biography of a notable living person. It complies with all of Wikipedia's content policies and is an obvious improvement to the encyclopedia, even though the action technically goes against WP:BMB. Does this mean that the article should be deleted solely because it was created by a banned editor? Of course not, which is what I was alluding to that speedy deletion is not always an entitlement. I have nominated several pages for speedy deletion before and have had them declined and then taken them to XfD where there is clear consensus against deletion.

The presumption in ambiguous cases to revert is to save the community time when dealing with disruptive edits made in good or bad faith. For example, WP:X1 covered questionable redirects by a very specific user; it authorized speedy deletion to save a huge ton of time with RfD. As for BANREVERT is completely inappropriate for people who have never been told what the rules are; does that mean that we should keep every test page that a new user created? Of course not. As long as the new user is not WP:BITEd it should not be a problem to delete such content. A red speedy box is going to be quite alarming IMHO and something a bit cooler like blue would be better.

I think I know how we could address these concerns with newbies. We can say that "the page will be hidden for now, but it can always be restored, when you are more experienced" or something similar. Any message must be warm and inviting. Something similar to {{db-g2-notice}} and {{db-a1-notice}}. Awesome Aasim 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banned means banned? No it doesn’t, not when “banned” includes ECR restricted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G --A is insufficient as it is limited to article space; E is workable but requires cleanup if the underlying CT/GS system changes in the future (which G avoids), neither P or D adequately remove the content, and N is the "none option" which is the opposite of the prior consensus. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can choose, E>G>A, ~~although "A" ("articles") matches the wording of WP:ARBECR better than "G".~~ Also, "E" is about "expansion" while G5 already covers these deletions without expansion; I'd call it "clarify". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of ARBECR is the opposite of yours. G matches closer to the intent since The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed (emphasis mine) except that Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. To me this looks like it's saying that deletion of non-article pages is required but admins can exercise their discretion for articles. Nickps (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nickps, thanks – I think you're right. I have struck through this above now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this wording was intentional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E or G as first choices; A as third choice. General sanctions apply to all non-talk namespaces, not just articles, but at least option A would cover the most visible violations. The others are inconsistent with previous consensus. We don't need more opportunities for draftification or PROD. Refund ensures that CSD cannot accidentally delete forever content that is hugely valuable, in rare cases. — Bilorv (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that consensus can change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A saying properly applied to years worth of time, not a month or two. Izno (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option D per Thryduulf, with deletion prescribed only if the page meets one of the already established criteria. ARBECR is an Asshole John rule that shouldn't be enforced at all, but we do the least harm to content creation by drafting-and-reviewing content that violates this stupid rule, instead of deleting what might be good content on an arbitrary technicality. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Option D: note that the intended guideline here applies to draftification during new page review (only). Our small number of new page patrollers are already asked to do a lot and are currently struggling to stay on top of a backlog of nearly 15,000 unreviewed new pages. I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to do CT/GS enforcement as well. Has anyone asked them whether they want to take on this work? – Joe (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New page review does not have to be done by patrollers, at least in this case. Anyone can draftify a page. I'm also pretty sure admins can also patrol pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New page reviewers (including admins) are the only be that should be doing new page reviewing. That's the whole reason we have a user right for it. Anyone can move a page to draft, but the proposal here is to add a point specifically to Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review, which would make it part of the NPP workflow. My objection above wouldn't apply if it was inserted elsewhere in the draft guidelines. – Joe (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why "none of the above" is my first choice and D my second. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your ideal choice to improve option D would be to make that its own subsection? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably if it doesn't go in the NPP section, you'd have to. But it raises the issue that, as of now, there is no process for draftifying articles outside of AfD or NPP (because historically it wasn't allowed without prior discussion, but that went out of the window with the draft namespace). Creating one might open a can of worms, because while draftification by NPP has its own problems, there's at least some degree of oversight via the user right. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think this is much of a burden for new page patrol. It's no big deal if one fails to notice and experienced editors should probably know which sanctioned topics there are. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 28 ArbCom-designated contentious topics and 11 topics subject to community-authorised general sanctions. I certainly don't know them all off-hand, and I helped write some of them. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike with topic bans, new editors have not caused disruption to the encyclopedia... Furthermore, if a new editor in good faith creates an article the New Page Patrol and/or AfC reviewers are all Extended confirmed and can accept responsibility for the content, and hopefully will not accept any drafts/articles that are egregiously bad. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose E is the closest option, but I'd agree with ToBeFree and (presumably) Cryptic that such deletions are already authorised under the current policy as it stands, and additionally with Cryptic on procedure, that even if explicitly excluded from doing so by CSD, administrators would still have the authority the community is not competent to remove via the standard RFC process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E or G, per prior consensus and also because the other solutions are not powerful enough to enforce ARBECR. A is out because it doesn't apply to all non Talk: pages. P makes enforcing ARBECR impossible and that's certainly not a benefit to the encyclopedia. After all, ARBECR already allows keeping content created in good faith based on the enforcing admin's discretion. D and E/G could work as part of the aforementioned discretion but there are concerns about the strain it would put on NPP so that's not ideal either. We should go with N (doing nothing) only if that means maintaining the current status quo of deleting per G5. Nickps (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N 1st choice, D 2nd choice, rather strongly oppose the others especially E. First, non-ECR users are not banned. No part of WP:BANPOL applies to non-ECR editors. They're not CBANed or TBANed or ABANed and equating a new user with someone who is banned (someone who seriously broke the rules and got their editing privileges revoked or limited) is a huge mistake. I mean I can hardly think of something more unwelcoming than saying "banned means banned" when talking about new users. Please, everyone, do not expand G5 to cover creations by new users.
There has been no showing that there is a problem here. If someone who is non-ECR creates an ECR article, we already have adequate ways of dealing with it. First: edit filters (there is already one with I/P). Second, if it meets an existing CSD/PROD/AFD criteria, we can use those existing tools to deal with it. If it's spam, has no CCSI, copyvio, was made by a sock, etc, we have tools for that already. If it doesn't meet any of those existing criteria and the ONLY problem is that it was made by a non-ECR user( and the same article made by an ECR user would be fine, we are majorly shooting ourselves in the foot, and doing the readers a disservice, if we delete otherwise good article simply because the creator was too new. Either leave it alone (IAR if we must) or draftify it. NPP can do whatever it wants: mark it reviewed if it's good, draftify it if not, CSD/PROD it if it meets that criteria. There's really no reason for NPP to treat these articles differently from any other. I'll tell you, this in my view very heavy handed approach, together with the problem of ECR revocation for "gaming" is making me change from supporting ECR as a general remedy to opposing it. When I previously supported the expansion of ECR, did not expect that this is how some existing editors would want to treat some new editors. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Levivich. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. ECR was enacted under the pretense of unresolvable disruption from new accounts, but existing processes have been able to handle with article creatins. Mach61 22:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A may be ok, but would be subject to reconsideration of the community expands the RfC if it also includes non article pages. G is better as do E. P is ok, but I am lenient to oppose Option P as PRODs are often uncontroversal. D is less bitey, but may be easily overturned by non EC users so not the best. My choice would be option G or E, but arguments may motivate me to change my mind. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are being less bitey and people taking responsibility for good content undesirable? Thryduulf (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but may be easily overturned by non EC users so not the best
They are saying that a non-EC user may just move the draft back into mainspace. Since that's still gonna go under NPP I don't think that's much of a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DN and existing deletion processes per Thryduulf and Whatamidoing. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G or E per previous consensus and discussions. P second choice, although I'm happy for this to be a consensus version as long as it applies in all namespaces. Oppose A or D as they don't address creations outside the mainspace. I would also support different deletion procedures in different namespaces such as a PROD in mainspace and CSD in other namespaces. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D I believe is the best choice--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E > G and the rest are a nope. A is insufficient to deal with the problem (drafts commonly), P is insufficient to deal with the problem (per Ivanvector elsewhere). I don't have a fundamental issue with someone saving a page of this kind, but don't see real purpose otherwise to D. I prefer E per my comment below. On the procedural point, we should enact the previous very-recent consensus, and this question re-litigates that for no reason I can observe. That consensus reached one of A, G, or E. (Nice idea for these letters.) Izno (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this RfC was intended to decide between A, G, E and co. since the previous consensus was "just use one of these". Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N > D; let's not go to A/E/G/P. I don't like to see us automatically deleting a promising article, even if the creator is breaking the rules. If an article should be deleted under some other criteria, delete it. If it's a good article, keep it. If it's a promising draft, drafity it. Valereee (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E and (not or) D, admin decision what to do with it, no need to police that. Enthusiastic EC editors can always plead for recovery if they want to.Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option D. Draftify. Whether the page really crosses ECR can be subjective, and this can be discussed in draftspace. If it is a clear violation and a problem use MfD, MfD has the process to manage, and only when there’s a series of SNOW MfDs is there evidence to support NEWCSDs. In draftspace, it is out of the readers sight. If author turns out to be a good faith contributor, allow them to Userfy and blank until they become extended confirmed (or do this for them). Most of the problem with others’ opinions here is ABF and setting admins to have too much arbitrary power. Immediate draftification by new page reviewers is the pure wiki way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E or G. Both ArbCom and the general community have decided to empower administrators with the authority to delete pages created in violation of this editing restriction. It would be fine for ArbCom or the community to change their minds. Until then, this is the best way to implement those prior decisions. I'm interested in a fleshed-out option P, but I'd like to see it presented at ARCA/AN for review first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: If a new or expanded speedy deletion criterion is adopted, what wording should be used?[edit]

Please rank the choices and specify your reasoning. It is assumed that all the wordings will be made consistent with whatever criteria is adopted in Q1.

Topics under a contentious topic extended confirmed restriction may not be created in mainspace by editors who do not possess the extended confirmed permission. (Novem Linguae)
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 A or G is adopted: 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.
This applies to pages created [if G5 is expanded: by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, or] by any user in violation of a general sanction, and that have no substantial edits by others. (Tamzin)
This applies to pages created [if G5 is expanded: by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created] in violation of general sanctions, and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions.
- For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction, and the remedies must specifically permit deletion as an enforcement measure.
This applies to pages created [if G5 is expanded: by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. This criteria also] applies to pages created in violation of a general sanction restriction.
- To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked, or subject to a restriction specified in a general sanction (such as WP:ARBECR). A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion, nor does a page created after they no longer were subject to that sanction.
This criterion applies to any page created [if G5 is expanded: in violation of a ban or block, or] in violation of a general sanction, with no substantial edits by others not subject to the sanction, and that is unlikely to survive an XfD. If an editor not subject to the sanction removes the speedy deletion tag or requests undeletion at WP:RFUD, it should imply that the editor is willing to take responsibility for the violating edits; thus [criteria] would no longer apply.

Survey (Q2)[edit]

This is largely moot as no new or expanded speedy deletion is required per my comments above, but if we are going to adopt something then 6 is the best as it explicitly allows the adoption of good content by ECR editors, reducing the problem of babies being thrown out with the bathwater and reducing the biteyness. 2 is my second choice as it achieves similar but with slightly less clear wording. In both cases option 4's bullet should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, It is assumed that all the wordings will be made consistent with whatever criteria is adopted in Q1. I think it is safe to assume that minor alterations to fit existing parts won't be much controversial. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have similar thoughts to Thryduulf. I prefer 6 + 4's bullet for precision, though I find the part and that is unlikely to survive an XfD a bit incompatible with Option D. I guess we could adapt that part away. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer 4 over 3, as while we can all understand "any user...", it leaves room for misinterpretation. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6, I would be happy to include cases where the content of the page is bad enough that it would be better to just delete it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proposer: 6 or 2 then 4 then 5, then 1 or 3 last. 2 and 6 are the most specific. 1 and 3 are the most vague. I also support the idea that undeletion should be requestable at WP:RFUD (also for other G5 deletions). Awesome Aasim 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 5 but it needs copyediting to remove the duplicate "This applies to pages created". As 6 seems to be the current popular choice, the main issue I have with 6 is the "unlikely to survive an XfD" criteria is vague.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"unlikely to survive an XfD" is neither a requirement described by WP:ARBECR nor something an administrator enforcing the restriction should have to determine. CSD are for clear cases, ARBECR is about clear cases, "unlikely to survive an XfD" misses the point of both. The others seem to be okay, and "3" seems to be the clearest and simplest way of phrasing it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 4, basically per ToBeFree's logic but I think including the bullet point is worth it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like 2 or 6 with "unlikely to survive an XfD" removed. But this shouldn't hold up the implementation of clear previous consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 4 or 3 then 5. Strongly oppose the "unlikely to survive an XfD" which is very vague and not something an admin should need to consider in applying speedy deletion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly not 6 and not 2 as presented, as it appears to attempt to shift goalposts already established by today's G5. I would appreciate 4 clarifying general sanctions to mean "community-placed" or similar, which I believe is the intent. So any of 1, 3, 4, or 5. Honestly, the presentation of these simply solidifies to me that these should be deletions under G5 rather than a separate criterion; admins are going to pick the one that means "clean up after the usual suspects" and the only difference between the two is the text that comes after the number in Twinkle. Izno (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1, 3, 4, or 5 for the same reasons as Izno. A 2 with "unlikely to survive an XfD" would also be fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3: Should there be a seven-day (PROD or PROD-like) delay between the placement of the tag and the deletion of the page?[edit]

WITHDRAWN

WP:SNOW withdrawing - it seems as if there is near universal consensus that there should not be a PROD like delay between the placement of a tag for this criteria and the subsequent deletion of the page. I know I am technically WP:INVOLVED in the creation and proposal of this RfC, but it really seems as if there is no support for any of the options in question 3 other than "neither". Awesome Aasim 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please specify which option you support, or neither.

For bans and blocks (current G5)
For general sanctions (expansion, moot if PROD option is chosen)
Both
Neither

Survey (Q3)[edit]

2 or 3. There definitely should be for sanctions enforcement, I'm neutral regarding the existing G5. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proposer: Both, except in obvious bad-faith and disruptive cases, such as where other speedy criteria (such as G3) would apply. This should address the problem of good faith content getting deleted. Awesome Aasim 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 4, else 2. My issue with 1 (and by extension with 3) is that it has the effect of simply adding a 7 day waiting period to a process that already doesn't require one, and if the concern is for protecting good faith contributions, we're gonna get far better signal-to-noise by addressing the editing restriction side than we will the banned user side. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 / no to both. Especially in contentious areas, there will always be one editor who removes the PROD tag because the sockpuppet-created/biased/disruptive content is too valuable to them to be deleted and/or because they disagree with the ban or the existence of WP:ARBECR. Also, "no substantial edits by others" becomes more and more unlikely during the seven days, after which the deletion fails because it no longer meets the criterion that led to the placement of the tag. This is absurd. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 per above. This is clear cut, and if anything really happens we can always REFUND. I suspect these cases are too rare to warrant a waiting period. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 because the effect of anything else is to nullify the criterion entirely as PROD already provides a seven-day process. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4, per above. Izno (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 per Pppery and ToBeFree. Previous consensus was about speedy deletion, not PROD. — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 per everyone. There's a significant logical tonedeafness in inventing a categorization of content assumed to be so problematic as to have Arbcom mandate its automatic deletion, and then to require the extremely problematic content to be visible for 7 days before that deletion can be carried out. This question should be snow-closed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with the recent proliferation of Orangemoody-style extortion scams, if a delay provision is added to the existing G5 provision I intend to ignore it, and will encourage other functionaries and SPI clerks to do the same. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you will intentionally ignore a core policy supported by a recent, direct consensus, and encourage others to do the same, because you disagree with it? That sounds like a very good basis for a for-cause desysoping. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 per above. How can one seriously argue that WP:PROD, a process designed for uncontroversial cases, can be applied to some of the most controversial topics in WP? If anyone expects this to end any way other than all ECR PRODs going to XfD, they're kidding themselves. Also, as Ivanvector pointed out, having problematic content stick around for 7 days is a bad idea. If anyone is worried about content created in good faith, WP:ARBECR already allows admins to keep it at their discretion. No need to have the bad stuff hitch a ride too. Nickps (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Administrators retain the discretion to decline G5 (and other) speedy deletions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 – PROD is for uncontroversal deletions, and feeling that creation of such topics is controversal, a PROD will most likely be avoided im favor to speedy deletion. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 23:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CSD is also only for uncontroversial deletions. This discussions shows that deleting pages simply because they were created by someone who is not ECR is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 per ToBeFree and Pppery. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Q3)[edit]

I'm seeing comments that address the subject in principle, often from a rather emotional "nobody should break teh rules!!!1!" viewpoint, and few that take practicalities into consideration. In addition to the black and white cognitive style, I see a couple of editors leaning towards a Sudden death (sport) approach to article creation. I'm wondering how many ways could that go wrong? Here are the problems that have occurred to me so far:
- What if it's not clear whether the new article actually does fall under the sanctioned or contentious area? Shouldn't that hang around for a while to get some extra eyes on whether it's correctly tagged? CSD means that any single admin can delete it on sight; it is not necessary for it to be tagged first by another person. But different admins might have different ideas about whether a 10th-century poet who lived in one of the areas now associated with ethnic Kurds is a subject covered by WP:GS/KURD. Might it not be better for editors to consider whether the restriction applies at all, rather than deleting it and then having someone point out the error afterwards?
- What it's obvious that we need the article? Imagine a natural disaster affecting one of these areas. Might it not be a bit silly to insta-delete a new article that says something like "The 2024 Crimea earthquake is an earthquake that happened on Caturday, Octember 32, 2024, during the Russo-Ukrainian War"? We'd need that article, and it would only be coincidentally related to the restricted subject. Would you want admins to insta-delete it (and then have someone re-create it, potentially risking copyright problems) just because it mentioned a factor that was both obviously relevant (difficult to get disaster relief supplies to a war area) and on the sanctions list?
- What if the "restricted" editor is nearing the 500-edit mark anyway? Shall we insta-delete the article, and then leave a note saying "By the way, if you make a few more edits, you can ask for a WP:REFUND, because then you'll finally have 500 edits".
- Is this the experience that we want newer editors to have if they are obviously and genuinely trying to help Wikipedia? If an editor is "only" in the top 2% of all contributors ever, do we really want to say "Ooops, you forgot to say Mother May I? and make your 500th edit first, so this article about something vaguely to a sanctioned ethnic group has to be deleted. By the way, thanks for your other 100 articles on famous artists. You're an inspiration! Just don't write about artists who also happen to be Israelis, Palestinians, Russians, Ukrainians, Kurds, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Jews in Poland, or any political opponents of those groups." This sounds like an anti-goal to me.
I think the existing ARBECR rules have it right: admins should exercise some discretion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an almost XCON user creates a WP:CT thing at edit 48X-49X, it obviously should not be deleted. As the saying goes, "the spirit is more important than the letter". The whole idea of ECR is similar to WP:PP: it is a social measure intended to prevent disruption. Of course if a POV pusher who is aware of all of this creates 500 useless edits to WP:SAND just so they can be XCON after 30 days and can pounce with a controversial and disruptive edit to the contentious topic, then we treat it like WP:GAMING. Awesome Aasim 18:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All articles tagged with CSD criteria should hang around long enough to establish that the criteria are met; despite the name "speedy" and intention of "most obvious cases", we can find dozens of examples of edge cases in other criteria. A CSD tag does not prevent discussion. Both the volunteer placing the tag (or not) and the admin deleting the page (or not) can exercise some discretion—including the option to "take responsibility" for the edits as their own. — Bilorv (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the intent is to allow pages to hang around until there has been a discussion about whether it meets the criterion then it is not suitable for speed deletion, you are describing AfD. The "most obvious cases" requirement means that if there is any doubt about whether a page meets a speedy deletion criterion it does not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf In fairness "article creator must have the extendedconfirmed" user right is an unambiguous criterion; "is an article in the P-I topic area", however, may not be Mach61 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion[edit]

Pinging involved editors in the previous discussion(s)[edit]

Original RfC: @Elli @ToBeFree @Thryduulf @Ivanvector @Izno @CaptainEek @Kusma @Firefangledfeathers @Groceryheist @Pppery @Waylon111 @LaundryPizza03 @0xDeadbeef @Fermiboson @SmokeyJoe @Mach61 @Tamzin @Alalch E. @Mz7 @Callanecc @Bilorv @Mdaniels5757 @Graeme Bartlett @Patient Zero @Cryptic @Primefac @Crouch, Swale and post RfC discussion: @Novem Linguae @Sideswipe9th and related policy discussion: @Levivich @WhatamIdoing

I think this will be of interest to you given your prior participation (also don't want to be Wikipedia:FORUMSHOPPING and I don't think it would be fair if those not involved in the previous discussion don't get an opportunity to share their input here). Awesome Aasim 23:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this RfC, and my first thought is that it is poorly formatted. The RfC that led to this one was formatted with 6 options, which is already an unusually high number of options for an RfC format. The closer did their best to try to siphon out a consensus split between 2 of the options. So naturally, I would think the next step would be to draft specific wording for both of the options and present those two to the community. But now, instead of clear, concrete yes-or-no proposals for specific new policy, we have six more options in Question 1, six more options in Question 2 which are conditional upon what was selected in Question 1, and four more options in Question 3. I would be pleasantly surprised if this ends with anything other than "no consensus". Essentially, we need to withdraw this RfC, combine all three questions, and come up with at most 2 or 3 options for specific wording to insert into policy. That way, the community can clearly pick between the options. Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3 already has a pretty clear consensus, and I don't see what you mean by question 2 being conditional. At most there is one predefined phrase that can be used if an option gets selected, but selecting another option doesn't magically void everything. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Headings[edit]

@ToBeFree While in this case participants probably want to subscribe to all sections anyway, MOS only applies to articles, and using level-2 headings for each subsection allow participants to choose which discussions they subscribe to. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu The reason I chose Lv. 1 headings was that it worked well with the "new topic" button for the bottom subsection. It also makes it so that subdiscussions can be followed as well. I'll augment the discussion headings in the bottom section but leave the rest alone so that people can subscribe to and follow the other discussions. Awesome Aasim 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. But I think there should be different standards for discussion pages. But that is a different topic. Awesome Aasim 19:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's sorta what I meant. I was telling ToBeFree of the benefits of the original list, which he removed. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page title is a L1 heading, so placing sub-headings of the page title as "L1 headings" is semantically strange. The actual issue, if I understand your explanation correctly, is just that the discussion subscription tools don't support subscribing to L3 sections. I can't change that and I'm fine with the workaround. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only semantically strange, it breaks accessibility. I have converted all the remaining L1 headers to L2 and expanded the subheadings to match. If that breaks the subscription tools, take that up with the developers of those tools. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does that say how it breaks accessibility (at most it'd seem like this page is actually several pages, which is weird but fine, I've tried this with Windows Narrator), we're not using an illogical order of, skipping, or faking subheadings, and it is unlikely that T275943 would be finished within this RfC's lifetime. I'm reverting to the L1 headers. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple H1s (any added like earlier plus the page title) on a page doesn't actually break accessibility agents in the way that PSEUDOHEAD does. This is fixable for the primary questions. I don't see a need to have a discussion header for the additionals but I think that's reasonably also an H2 rather than an H1. Izno (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me (although still a bit awkward), but one question: what does "(expansion)" mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS does not apply in the same way to discussion pages as to articles. As a compromise I only bumped the headings for the "background" and this bottom section, and added a "Survey Questions" H1 heading above all the survey questions. ArbCom case pages already have a level 1 heading above "Final Decision", as does Talk:Main Page. I don't know why we need to discuss this here, we can continue discussing the format on the talk page of this RfC. Awesome Aasim 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is indicative of a different problem...[edit]

Maybe it is indicative of a problem in how admin discretion is exercised for speedy criteria. If an admin or other editor declines a speedy criteria, then the right thing to do would be to settle whether the page should be deleted through discussion. On Wikimedia Commons, for example, contested speedy deletions are automatically converted to a c:COM:DR. Do you think that would work in the case a speedy criteria, including G5, is contested? Awesome Aasim 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it would, generally if someone experienced and not connected to a page objects to any criteria it normally shouldn't be deleted, this would apply to G5. I don't think we should use AFD etc for all speedies contested by the author though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any uninvolved editor objects, in good faith, to any speedy deletion nomination then it isn't uncontroversial and so speedy deletion should be declined; although in some cases the nature of the objection is relevant (e.g. for an A12 nomination the objection must be related to the copyright status)

A good-faith objection by an involved editor should not be dismissed out of hand, but equally it does not necessarily mean the speedy deletion should be declined - the objection needs to be assessed on it's merits. For example if an editor notes that the source Wikipedia allegedly copied actually copied us then it's irrelevant whether they are involved, likewise for an editor asserting that an A7-nominated article actually makes multiple claims of significance.

In all cases, the editor declining a speedy deletion nomination has the discretion to immediately nominate the page at the relevant XfD themselves, but they should only do so if they believe it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On WM Commons it is very different. Any objection to speedy deletion converts the speedy to a DR. Forcing discussion would be a lot lot better than just outright removal of the tag without nominating at XfD. Of course, if the original nominator does not feel like it meets the CSD after discussion, then it can be closed early. Wonder if a new section called "Contested speedy nominations" be added as a discussion page, as a launch point for settling CSD disputes. Awesome Aasim 19:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]