Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Changing how we talk about office action deletions (removing G9)

• WP:G9: In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page. Deletions of this type must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation.

So I happened to be looking into some office action stuff and got curious about how often speedy deletion criteria G9 is used. From what I can tell no one has performed an office action deletion and called it a G9. If you look at this quarry you can see all times G9 is mentioned in a deletion summary. While there are 77 results none of them since 2007 are actually office actions but rather someone giving the wrong criteria or pressing the wrong button. I found some actual office deletions while doing this and they all just refer to it as an office action, usually linking to WP:OFFICE. This is probably because most wikis don't have a speedy deletion criteria for office actions. I checked Swedish, Spanish, French, Simple English, German, Portugese and Dutch Wikipedia and found that only French Wikipedia had such a criteria while Simple English removed their a decade ago. Smaller Wikipedias are probably even more likely not to have one.

I think it makes a lot of sense to do the same here, that is to remove G9 as a criteria. Even though the status quo doesn't cause any issues and this may very well be a solution looking for a problem I think there is value in limiting the number of unnecessary speedy deletion criteria. --Trialpears (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. All speedy deletions should be authorised from here. If WMF log a link to WP:OFFICE, that’s good. If WMF do otherwise, they need education. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. There is an extremely strong community consensus that deletion without (the opportunity for) prior discussion (i.e. speedy deletion) is only allowed in a very limited set of circumstances, this page is a list of all those circumstances. Office actions are one circumstance in which speedy deletion is permitted by community consensus and so needs to be mentioned on this page. Your description of this as a solution looking for a problem is spot on. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not mentioning a "G number" in the log summary doesn't preclude something from being deleted under that criteria. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Xaosflux. A description that describes a CSD criteria without using the letter number code is still using that criteria. So an office action speedy deletion is using G4 just as much as "Attack page" in a deletion log is using G10. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

An office action citing G4 is a flag for carelessness in the WMF Office. A link to WP:OFFICE for a WP:G9 is fine. These are synonyms. I have added a mention of WP:G9 at WP:OFFICE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should remove it and replace it with an entry in the list of other methods of deletion. To the extent that G9 is supposed to be an explanatory device for office actions it's useless because the WMF don't ever cite it when performing office actions, and WP:OFFICE gives a far better explanation of the process. Keeping it also implies that office actions are a type of speedy deletion and are subject to the other principles of speedy deletion, which isn't true. For example the WMF can delete pretty much whatever they like under WP:OFFICE, they don't have to stick to uncontroversial cases. Furthermore unlike all the other criteria ordinary admins aren't allowed to delete anything under G9 in any circumstances. Hut 8.5 08:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If only G9 pointed to []Wikipedia:Office actions]], it would work just fine. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the least invasive thing we need is G9 removed from any of the automated tools, so it cannot be selected by accident? Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Is G9 in automated tools in the first place? HouseBlaster^talk 03:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I can verify that it's not in the standard version of Twinkle. I doubt that it's in regular automated tools due to the only being an office action kind-of-criteria. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also not in the dropdown list that appear when you click "delete" as an admin nor is it in the CSDHelper tool I use. Regards SoWhy 11:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, my assumptions about where erroneous G9s were coming from appear completely unfounded. I'm a dinosaur who prefers Monobook, so most of the automated tools haven't worked for me this decade, even if I were inclined to use them. Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually looking at the list of deletions makes it clear what is going on. It contains:

1. 7 G8s related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G9 (album) which aren't even claiming to use the criterion.
2. a batch deletion of 5 bot-created pages where an admin typoed "G9" instead of "G6" in a manual deletion summary
3. A false positive of File:Santa Clara County Route G9.svg, which was deleted per a FFD.
4. A deletion of Template:Db-g9 itself as vandalism, which resulted in a confused automated script filling in the criterion.
5. File:Andrew_Stewart_Jamieson.jpg was deleted because the article itself was deleted as an office action.
6. 3 instances of the (now-removed) feature where the content of a deleted article is autofilled in the deletion summary producing the words "G9"
7. Prior to March 2006, the number "G9" was used for what's now known as G6. Deletions under this use appear to have occasionally persisted until late 2007. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support I was originally planning to oppose this, but doing the above analysis reveals that the criterion seems to have never been used to describe an actual office action deletion, so listing it at Wikipedia:Deletion process similarly to the entry I added at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Copyright problems seems more logical than giving it a CSD code. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support If it's not used and not even referenced or linked to when OFFICE speedy deletions are rarely done, then there's no point on having it here. Because it just isn't used. It's a rule about nothing. Silverseren^C 03:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal for now. Office deletions need to be mentioned somewhere in the deletion policies, and this is the traditional place. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It is completely useless having this as a separate speedy deletion criteria. If this is supposed to be a policy it is useless, because editors here do not have the power to enforce policy on office actions, if it is supposed to be there for explanation purposes it is useless because no one ever quotes it and it is redundant to WP:OFFICE. The claim that we "need" this CSD to "authorise" office action deletions is complete nonsense, by design office actions are not subject to community review of authorisation - we could write whatever we want under G9 and the WMF would just ignore it. If really necessary add a line or two to WP:Deletion Policy explaining that the WMF may delete pages as an office action, but I doubt that's even necessary, we don't mention office blocks in the WP:Blocking policy for example. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I was thinking of making this exact proposal myself as we seem to be on a roll deprecating speedy criteria that are never used at the moment. Completely agree with the IP above me. There is no more blatant a transgression of the "speedy criteria must be frequent" maxim than CSD G9, which is worded like some legalese backside-covering clause in a contract. The account User:WMFOffice has deleted a total of four pages in its entire history,[1] and none of the log entries reference CSD G9. All of them are the same kind of deletion of user pages of globally banned users which could be seen as uncontroversial housekeeping (though there may be disagreement on that). Whatever this is, it's not the same procedure described at WP:CSD where "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion" as it does not concern administrators, and it's arguably not even part of enwiki deletion policy if it comes from the foundation, so it should for all those reasons be described elsewhere. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral Genuinely torn here. It is ultra-rarely used. It plainly fails NEWCSD3. What gives me pause is that regardless of what happens here, G9 deletions will still take place. Repealing a CSD when it will still be used feels... weird. There is also the fact that enwiki (rightly or wrongly) does not like it when the WMF uses WP:CONEXEMPT, and I wonder if having an "official" CSD would help ease tensions. If WP:BANPOL had explicitly stated "the WMF may, at any time, for any reason (or no reason at all) decide to issue sitebans for any length", I highly doubt FRAMGATE would have been a dramafest (which might not be a good thing, given that it ultimately led to Fram being unbanned). TL;DR: I believe it has a very slight chance of having an effect of easing tensions and deletions will still occur regardless of what we decide here. OTOH, NEWCSD3. If this is adopted, I do believe we should notify the appropriate people at the WMF (whoever they might be) as a courtesy, even if they never officially used the shortcut in performing office actions. HouseBlaster^talk 04:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Amend G5 to say that uninvolved editors may request undeletion

This comes after a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 27#List of mass shootings in Australia where I have advocated for the potential restoration of List of mass shootings in Australia which was created by a blocked user and thus speedily deleted. However, there seems to be consensus that the page topic is notable and it was decently sourced. However, my request to restore the page since it was unproblematic and potentially a useful article has been somewhat rejected by fact that many take G5 to mean that any page created by a sockpuppet should be deleted.

Echoing my discussion from the original argument, I do not see that interpretation from G5 at all. The literal text is that they are eligible for deletion, which is different from that they absolutely need to be. (Some speedy deletion candidates may be just a few edits away from being safe and that is the case here). I think that another policy, WP:BANREVERT, already makes it clear that good edits by sockpuppets are allowed to stay (although any editor that maintains those edits takes responsibility). So why would page creation, which is just another type of edit, be different? Obviously, an admin can check the deleted page to check for violations of neutrality, verifiability, or biographies of living persons. But outside of that, if an uninvolved editor sees use in the page, I think it should be made clear that the page can stay. It would be stupid to build it from the ground up when another version exists that was deleted solely due the creator. Otherwise, WP:BANREVERT needs to be amended as well to say that page creation is exempt from being allowed to stand (for whatever reason).

I can already pre-emptively see someone arguing about the second rule of CSD: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. However, even with my change, that still applies for G5. Most cases will result in deletion. This proposal refers to it being deleted and then undeleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on the proposed amendment. On a personal note, something I've stated many times before, G5 remains the worst of all the CSD criteria and exists only to allow certain editors to make Wikipedia worse as some sort of revenge spree against someone for socking. We are here to make an encyclopedia, not to try and have vengeance against people that break the rules. If an article is notable, well-written, neutral, and doesn't have any other issues, such as copyvios or false/hoax information, then deleting it is very close to just being outright vandalism. Honestly, if everyone who socked only made such articles, that would be an amazing result. Silverseren^C 00:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There may be many indefinitely blocked people who might create decent articles if they were to sneak in under new names and we allowed it. We don't mourn those because if they're indefinitely blocked, it's because net net their activities on Wikipedia were harmful. And blocked has to mean blocked, not "please sneak back on under another name if you plan to write a good article for us". It isn't "vengeance", it isn't as though sportsmanship is involved here. Deleting an article that a blocked user has created is no worse than the absence of other articles we might have if other blocked users were to pull the same stunt. If the person wants to return and create good articles and not cause net harm while doing so, let them follow the unblock process and make a decent and convincing request. The only exceptions I make are when I see the sockpuppet has fixed something that was broken. In those cases, I'm certainly not going to re-break the article. But even in those cases, when I review the sock account, there's typically been one or two real corrections and 20 acts of vandalism or erroneous edits. Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleting an article that a blocked user has created is no worse than the absence of other articles we might have if other blocked users were to pull the same stunt.

This is an empty statement. You could extrapolate such a claim towards literally any article. Obviously removing an article on a notable subject that is properly written with no issues is a bad action. It doesn't matter the reason for it. If the article would meet all the requirements if a non-banned user had created it, then removing the article is harming Wikipedia. Full stop. Because, as I noted, we are here to build an encyclopedia. That is the purpose. And deleting every article or edit a banned editor made is not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. It is for the purpose of "obey the rules, listen to our authority", which is not about making an encyclopedia, but demanding control. Blocking such users when they are discovered is fine and, if they indeed made any vandalism, that should be removed (as it would be if it was done by anyone and was vandalism). But removing positive content is not for the purpose of building this encyclopedia. Indeed, if a banned user could manage to make only positive contributions to Wikipedia and was never found out, that would be a net positive and a great thing. Indeed, statistically, there are many that have likely accomplished that to this day. Silverseren^C 03:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Let's get rid of blocking. Everybody can do all the damage they want as long as they placate us by writing one good article once in a while, or at least hold out the promise of doing so. Fantastic.

It's almost as though you imagine that Wikipedia would have 50% more wonderful articles than it does now if only we let blocked users sneak good ones past us. It's the tiniest drop in a bucket, and for the greater overall benefit. Largoplazo (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you don't actually have a reason against this? No one is advocating that blocked users shouldn't continue to be blocked and banned from editing (even if they make good edits per WP:BMB). What we actually are saying is that good-faith editors can request the undeleting of a page when the page itself is fine. If the page is a nice B-class on a notable topic, but only edited by one person who is banned, why delete the article? To prevent them from returning? That doesn't seem likely to work (in fact, it does the opposite, from what I know; please prove that deleting their work demotivates rather than motivates them to try again). It is needlessly WP:POINTY, and it overtly does not help the encyclopedia on the content side of things. Why do you think that having the ability to go through the WP:REFUND process where an admin can look at the page for problems to potentially restore a fine page is bad? Why? I Ask (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You should re-read what I said. I said we should keep blocking them whenever found. Particularly because they generally get found out when they go back to their old actions that got them banned, usually non-neutral edit pushing. But if a banned user can manage to avoid the topic area or whatever issues lead to the ban, contribute positively, and is never found out to be said banned user because of that, then it's a net positive because they've stopped the actions they were banned for and are actually trying to improve Wikipedia. If they can't manage that, then as I said, they'll be discovered and should be blocked once more. Silverseren^C 03:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I do not think that a single user asking for undeletion should be sufficient to restore the article to article-space, without any further qualifications. Adding this would allow any user who disagrees with G5 deletions to subvert the whole process by requesting all deleted articles to be undeleted en masse whenever a G5 deletion happens. If you're going to modify the criteria to add a backdoor making G5 useless, the correct thing to do is to build consensus to remove G5, not to trick other editors into agreeing to make it useless. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is a ridiculous hyperbolic example. If an uninvolved editor wishes to support the content of the deleted article, then they are already de facto allowed to. Silverseren^C 00:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but writing it into the rules that they can always do so, with no safeguards, mean that they can always do so for all G5'd articles, and therefore that people who feel that "G5 remains the worst of all the CSD criteria and exists only to allow certain editors to make Wikipedia worse as some sort of revenge spree against someone for socking" could take revenge themselves about G5 by making such a request for all articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Then they would be blocked for disruptive editing, duh? Someone still has to review the requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. They can decide if someone is acting in bad faith. Just because there is no "safeguard" is not a compelling reason. I could tag every article for deletion if I wanted to in retaliation. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  All you'd have to do is say that editors in good standing can make requests for undeletion of G5 deleted articles and take responsibility for the content, but should first request the undeletion from the original admin who deleted the page. Seems like simple enough wording to me. That is already the de facto process that exists and explaining it explicitly would actually be helpful, since many don't know about the contacting the original admin part. Silverseren^C 00:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as obvious forum shopping. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  How is it forum shopping? I am asking for there to be a change in the way G5 is applied and providing an example of how I think it should be applied. Your lack of good faith is terrible. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  You've made a minority-of-one argument against at least 3 other editors that this article should be restored at the DRV, and are now trying to get policy changed to endorse that argument even though it's clear it doesn't have consensus (and edit warring on a policy page to remove similar language that resulted from a RfC). That looks like forum shopping to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because my argument is actually supported by a policy in WP:BANREVERT while the others are arguing over text that does not exist. I am requesting undeletion to keep the useful edits. I am taking responsibility for the article (per WP:PROXYING saying that: Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content). What I am doing is supposed to be allowed per those two policies. G5 just currently does not say it (but it also doesn't say the opposite), so I am trying to rectify it for clarity. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just start the article yourself without using the deleted content. Simple enough, because if you're really checking the banned user's work with a fine toothed comb, it's no additional work for you. Jclemens (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why would I do that when restoring it is a few clicks? This also doesn't account for future needs. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because I'm assuming good faith that you're not so reckless to assume that banned user edits can ever just be undeleted and assumed to be good to go without thorough checking. If you don't understand that, I can't help. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  When did I ever say they were going to totally be unchecked? The admin has to review it for disqualifying things (e.g., copyright and BLP violations). Otherwise, they are good to go. We have banned users that were once featured article makers. It's not that hard to say that their edits are helpful even if their presence is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Again, your naivete is not winning me over here: If it's complex, it needs as much work to vet as it does to recreate. If it's simple, it's trivial to recreate. The number of ways banned user contributions can be problematic appears to be outside your experience. Again, we're not talking underlying policy, just the wording of G5 to point out how to resurrect content. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've got it! You don't have an actual consensus-based reason! This is a list of shootings. It's literally numbers and dates that I don't want (or need) to input again because it's time-consuming. It had already been done perfectly before. You also haven't even provided how restoring this page would be problematic. You've just maintained that it is because you don't seem to actually have a reason. And I'm sorry, but starting an article from scratch is way harder than reviewing and revising one that may have objectionable content. I kindly suggest reviewing Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Your rationales are rife with ad hominem and never go above a contradiction. Simply saying "no" because of "experience" is not an argument. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of the why behind the ban policy does not mean that my noting this is ad hominem in any way. I'm not calling you ignorant, I'm calling your argument ignorant of the implications. You appear to have been here almost three years. The people you're disputing with, myself included, often have 5x that experience. Why do you think the consensus just isn't going your way? It could be we're all intransigent... or it could be we don't see that the change you're proposing is worth the potential damage it would cause. Jclemens (talk)

  If you think that it would cause more harm than good, then that's also fine. What is not fine (from you and others) is assserting that policy somehow supports your position. Your age on Wikipedia and opinions formed from that do not change what is currently written. It is true that an editor is allowed to request the restoration of a G5 as it currently stands. If you want to say that you do not want to add it here because of WP:BEANS, then I will not argue with you there. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• What is the proposal actually? That the text of G5 should mention that anyone can ask for undeletion? That's unnecessary as it applies to the majority of speedy criteria. If you want such a page restored, you can just go to WP:REFUND. That's how things are at least in theory. In practice though, I acknowledge that G5 is one of the most haphazardly applied criteria (I've had difficulties both ways: admins refusing to delete creations of obviously disruptive editors, as well admins creating a mess by mass-deleting technical pages like dabs or redirects and then making the cleanup of that mess more difficult by refusing to restore the deleted pages).
  Or is it about this text that allows G5 to override prior AfD results? I agree that this should go, but it's unfortunately the result of a 2017 RfC. A lot of time has passed since then, so revisiting the issue in a new RfC may now be viable (incidentally, I couldn't help but notice among the supporters in that RfC the names of several now infamous indeffed editors). – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, the text of the 2017 RfC is something else, but I do not want to start a whole other discussion while this is active.

  But apparently, WP:REFUND is vague stating that pages can be restored under certain speedy deletion criteria (and G5 is not one listed). Per several admins (such as User:Liz and User:HJ Mitchell) and at the deletion review above, there is a pervasive belief that pages deleted by G5 should not be restored (whether they are right is another thing, and I have shown policy-wise why I disagree). As you have also said that some admins have refused to restore pages, I think a direct statement saying that it is allowed (rather than being implied by text at WP:BAN) is probably in the best interest. Otherwise, we are just going to have this discussion somewhere down the line. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:REFUND doesn't list all the CSD's that can be restored there, it only lists the ones that can't, and G5 isn't there (though it used to be in the past). – Uanfala (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I see it lists the opposite of criteria that is not allowed to be requested and G5 is not there, so I question these admins' refusal to overturn the deletion. Would anyone oppose me adding clarifying text here, though? Why? I Ask (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Did you, in fact, ask for a WP:REFUND and get refused? All I see at the DRV is something else: asking for an opinion on the validity of the original deletion decision and getting an overwhelming consensus that it was performed appropriately. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein: The editor that opened up DRV already asked Liz, the person that deleted it, and she refused based on "rules" (what rules those were is unclear). And whether it's at WP:REFUND or WP:DRV matters little. All that matters is if you have policy-based reasons to overturn a deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:REFUND admins have been quite explicit that they are hesitant to restore any G5'ed articles and prefer you discuss with the original admin first. Silverseren^C 02:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't that easy. My request to refund Tekla Åberg was rejected at WP:REFUND, and then was only refunded by the deleting admin because there was a comment at the SPI supporting that action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs)

• Oppose as not helpful in building the encyclopedia. As I alluded to in DRV, G5 is the way it is, and shouldn't be changed, on the basis of years of experience with banned users editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  So you disagree with WP:BANREVERT and think that all banned editors should have their revisions removed? I'm sorry, but that is needlessly WP:POINTY and actually unhelpful when building an encyclopedia. I would prefer an actual policy based reason rather than you arguing that we need to enforce bans more. Yeah sure, we can do that, but removing a page that editors want and not restoring it after asked is not enforcing a ban. It's a waste of time. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nope. I don't want the wording changed per WP:BEANS. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The way G5 is and has been for a long, long time is that you can indeed request undeletion and have the articles be restored if you are willing to take responsibility for the content. That is de facto how the system works and we should be explicit about how it is done. Silverseren^C 02:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. I have occasionally speedied articles under G5 and have restored them on request, but I have always taken account of both the article and the person making the request. When the article subject seems notable, the page is written constructively and the person making the request is an experienced user in good standing, then I have no objections to undeleting an article written by a sock puppet, but it's not exactly automatic. So, in short, I like the system as it is now: articles written by sock puppets may be speedily deleted, but administrators may also decide to restore them if it appears warranted under the circumstances, with DRV as the final safety valve/sanity check. Salvio ^giuliano 08:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't like giving administrators more power than they need. Obviously, as an admin, you reserve the right to refuse restoring anything that is copyrighted, libel, or anything that meets another CSD. But, you also don't get to single-handedly decide what is and isn't notable or even "warranted" (especially when there is another editor that objects). That is the purpose of community outlets like AfD and DRV. Thus if one good-faith uninvolved editor requests restoration it should happen. Take it to AfD if the page still sucks. That's what would have happened if it wasn't created by a sockpuppet. If there are worries about "gaming" the system, then by that notion, we shouldn't have AfDs either since sockpuppets have always disrupted there, too. Distrusting good processes because of bad actors is a terrible decision. And even as it stands with what you said, I still think there needs clarifying that people are allowed to request undeletion of G5. Several admins have thought otherwise as shown with this discussion.

  (Also, would you restore the page at the deletion review in question?) Why? I Ask (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's how I interpret WP:PROXYING: "[e]ditors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits".
  G5 is a specific application of WP:BANNEDMEANSBANNED, whereby all edits made by blocked and banned users are supposed to be reverted. In these cases, since there is no "clean" version of the article, the page is deleted, so there is no need to have an AfD. Restoring an article on request is, on the other hand, an application of the exception described above and that is why administrators may restore an article, but it's by no means automatic. And you can't say that it's what would have happened if the page hadn't been created by a sock puppet, because it was and you can't overlook that. Salvio ^giuliano 08:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, WP:BMB does not call for every edit to be overturned (as I have pointed out multiple times WP:BRV exists). It simply says that even if they try to make good edits, they are still banned since they have been held to be a net negative. It says absolutely nothing about needing to revert. And "independent reasons" is pretty vague, but as I have repeatedly asserted, as an "uninvolved" editor, they would be "independent" by default. And yes, it's pretty obvious with the existence of other pages by the same person (e.g., List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom) that they would be kept. But your entire reason is a gross misapplication of what WP:BMB actually says, so the second half of your argument about a "clean page" is untenable, anyway. (See why I don't think admins should have too much power.) Why? I Ask (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that so many experienced users and administrators interpret policy differently should tell you that, at least, your interpretation isn't as clear-cut and obvious as you think,, especially considering policy is descriptive and not prescriptive anyway... And I agree that independent reasons is vague, and that's why I say that I take into account the article and the person requesting its undeletion, but I disagree with your opinion that it's enough that the request should be made by an uninvolved editor, because they are independent by default, since that interpretation of the clause basically makes the relevant condition meaningless. Salvio ^giuliano 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but when the policy explicitly says the opposite of what you're saying, then it is your interpretation that is wrong. It's not like there's wiggle room like with some policies, it literally, directly says the opposite. Here's what you said: whereby all edits made by blocked and banned users are supposed to be reverted. See, but here's what actual the policy says: This does not mean that edits must be reverted. Sorry for being so pithy, but you cannot use the "interpretation" excuse here. And also, it doesn't make it meaningless, because that whole "independent" part is written to prevent meatpuppets and other bad actors from joining the fray. An uninvolved editor that has no ties to the banned user (after a check for suspiciousness) would be independent and then take responsibility for it. If there's confusion on what independent mean, we can start another discussion there. What do you think it means? Why? I Ask (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody can be forced to revert edits by a banned user, but such reverts are allowed, and mass reverts are a standard practice. —Kusma (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, such reverts are allowed. That is what I said. They clarified that they are supposed to which is an entirely different modifier. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you want my opinion, the default should be to mass revert all edits by banned users without considering the content of the edit. (If a user is not banned, we triage their edits: revert the bad edits and keep the good ones. If a user is banned, we should not waste any editor time on triage). The policy as written makes this way of dealing with banned users fully within policy, but it also allows people to spend more time on banned editors than on non-banned editors if they think that is a productive use of their wikitime. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, and that's great, but it doesn't address my point. When another uninvolved editor requests the restoration of material reverted or deleted due to a banned user, they should get that. That does not conflict with what you just wrote. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not to repeat myself, but they get it, as long as the administrator is satisfied that the editor in question is "able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" (for an example, see here), but it's not and, as far as I'm concerned, should not be automatic. Salvio ^giuliano 10:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like you're missing the key word of WP:PROXYING: at the direction of. That's the only time they actually need to be independent and verifiable as the policy is currently written. (I think I got that wrong earlier, too). If they aren't at the direction of the sock, then doesn't that mean they have the right to restore content? Why? I Ask (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  You need to read all parts of the policy in conjunction, you cannot pick and choose the parts of the policy that support your interpretation. Bans apply to good and bad edits; good edits can be allowed to stand (which is why the policy says that it's not like they must be reverted), but to determine which ones can be allowed to stand you refer to wp:proxying, which includes the conditions I highlighted above. Salvio ^giuliano 09:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose weakening G5. I don't mind occasional restorations of banned-user-created material to other people's userspace, but there should not be a codified right to do this. Remember that a large number of bans are done not because the banned user produces mostly problematic content, but because their interaction with others harms the community. We have to consider more than just the present state of the encyclopaedia, since we are more than that: we are a community that writes an encyclopaedia, and we need to have mechanisms to defend that community against abusers. G5 is one of those mechanisms. —Kusma (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  If someone reverted a sock's edits (purely on the basis of sock) and another editor reverted it back because they liked those edits, those edits would stay, right? (Barring any sort of content dispute). The exact same thing applies with articles. You should have the right to revert back to an article you liked. It's just you need special permissions to do that. And the whole "defense" of the community is something I ain't buying. We defended the community by banning the perpetrator. Someone that sees the banned editor's content as encyclopedic shouldn't be refused a chance to restore that content. And thus, it should be noted that they have a right to request undeletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  "Banning the perpetrator" doesn't do anything if it isn't enforced (so the community defense is done by making sure the ban is enforced). The enforcement for "you are not allowed to create articles" is to delete any articles that are created in violation of the ban. This content is not welcome here, no matter its quality. So you can't just ask for its undeletion, you would need to make substantial edits to the article so it is no longer made up only of edits that are violations of the ban. —Kusma (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing in the policy that says that. Sorry, but you would need to get larger community consensus for that idea that every edit by a blocked user should systemically be deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose there certainly isn't anything in the banning policy which says people have a right to restore contributions from banned editors, which is what this would establish. On the contrary, bans apply to good editing as well as bad, and if we've decided to ban someone then we've decided having them editing is more trouble than it's worth. Hut 8.5 18:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  They aren't editing, so that policy you cited isn't applicable. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  How is creating a page not editing? Hut 8.5 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because this is talking about other editors that wish to use already made edits. The banned editor has already made their edits and had them deleted. There should be a place for a good-faith editor that still wishes to use those edits to do so. They are allowed to for undeleted edits, why not for pages that were deleted? Why? I Ask (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  If any page is deleted for any reason then those edits are not available to be used anywhere. That argument is against deleting pages at all. Hut 8.5 19:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, because there needs to be a history for attribution. I'm saying that good--faith users should be able to request undeletion (since in all other cases, they'd be able to restore reverted content). An undiscussed deletion shouldn't change that. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I get that you think that there should be some sort of right for editors to request that G5ed pages be restored, but I don't agree. We delete articles created by banned users for good reasons and they shouldn't be restored lightly. G5 isn't a mere piece of housekeeping like the other criteria which allow restoration on request. Hut 8.5 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  You don't agree, and that is fine, but the policy is against you. At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, there is nothing prohibiting a user from requesting it. They intrinsically have that right. There are twelve criteria that are refused: F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12. Notice the one that is missing? Because they are already allowed to do so! This is about the fact that editors have the right to request, not that it should automatically be restored. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  You are rather creatively interpreting the instructions there. Yes, some criteria are excluded from consideration at REFUND, but it doesn't follow that pages deleted for any other reason will be restored. The important bit is the first sentence: Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted. Anything which wasn't uncontroversially deleted is out of scope. And while I suppose you do have the right to ask, it will likely be declined. I've handled about 3,000 REFUND requests so please don't tell me I don't know how it works. I also don't see where you got the idea that the instructions at WP:REFUND are policy. They aren't. Hut 8.5 22:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I never said they had to be restored. I just said that they are allowed to request it, and that they should not be denied purely on the basis that it was deleted due to a G5 (since administrators each have different philosophies on this issue). And define "uncontroversially deleted". Basically, anything deleted without a discussion or legal issue (e.g., a PROD) is deemed "uncontroversial". Anything with a discussion is deemed "controversial". So G5 would apply as a deletion without discussion. Furthermore, it also says "certain speedy deletion criteria"; care to expound on what those are? Why? I Ask (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• So, I notice that List of mass shootings in Australia is (as of my writing this) still a redlink. Is there a reason, Why? I Ask, you haven't just created the article and started writing it yourself? --Jayron32 19:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why the heck would I waste time searching and adding sources and formatting a table when there was a perfectly good page to begin with. Do you have any reason not to restore it? The idea that we should just delete work and start over to get to the exact same result is baffling. The only reasons put forward is that "banned users should be reverted" (which is an opinion and opposed by policy) and that doing so "helps enforce bans" (which is another opinion not supported by any formal discussion, evidence, or policy). The gross misapplication of administrative power to override what users are both de facto and explicitly allowed to do is worrying. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  As you have been told several times, you misunderstand this long-standing policy, which has been applied for as long as I can remember (and I became an admin in 2006). Your continued WP:BLUDGEONing assertions that everyone else is wrong are starting to be disruptive. —Kusma (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, they are wrong. You have asserted something about a policy, but have not shown where it says that. If you think that a banned editor should have all revisions reverted, that is fine. It is allowed. What is not fine is not allowing a good-faith editor to independently vouch for those edits and keep them as the content was fine. The citing of WP:BMB does not say anything on this matter, and to say so is wrong. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I rest my case. —Kusma (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I rest mine as well. You still have not shown where editors are prohibited from requesting undeletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why the heck would I waste time searching and adding sources and formatting a table... You don't have to do anything. This is a volunteer organization, and nobody told you to do any of that. You also don't have to have started this entire discussion, nor spent all the time you already have wasted contributing to it. I would have thought that time would have been better spent writing an article into Wikipedia that you were interested in. You don't have to do that. What I am saying is "The effort you spent on this discussion would have been better spent writing the article". If you don't want to write that article, then what the fuck is this all about anyways? --Jayron32 12:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's about future cases, as well. This counterargument seems pretty awful. Firstly, I never said I had to, but since I want to, I shouldn't be denied to use material that was perfectly suitable. If I recreated it perfectly (copyright non-withstanding), then what was the purpose of deletion to begin with? Why? I Ask (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this change to G5 per WP:BMB, and per others' comments about gaming the system if anyone can request undeletion at any time. Personally I'm happy to provide copies of a G5-deleted article to any editor in good standing who asks, so that they can write their own article, but I won't restore banned users' work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Can't someone already request undeletion? WP:REFUND does not prohibit a user from requesting the undeletion of a G5 edit; it is not one of the criteria listed. So it's already allowed, right? An admin is free to personally refuse, but what they are not allowed to do is say that requesting an undeletion is against the "rules". Why? I Ask (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:REFUND is only for cases where restoring the article would be uncontroversial, which is generally limited to housekeeping deletions. Restoring G5ed articles isn't usually considered uncontroversial. Certainly the reaction you got when you asked for this one to be restored shows it isn't uncontroversial. Hut 8.5 20:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  You would first need to add G5 as one of the specified prohibited requests, then. Otherwise, see my above comment. It is allowed. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I think a more productive use of time would be to focus at what is allowed to be requested at WP:REFUND, otherwise there will never be consensus here. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There appears to be strong consensus here. It's just not in favor of your proposals. Please try to read the room when participating in discussions. And also avoid bludgeoning. All this tension is avoidable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The logic makes no sense: Currently, it is true that you allowed to request undeletion. So why is it not said that you can do so for clarity? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed it's true. There's therefore no reason to adjust the policy? Especially for one single criterion? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Because admins have repeatedly denied requests for restoration under that provision that it is against some sort of rule. And above, some editors have outright said that you can't request it. Therefore, there obviously is a current misinterpretation of what you are allowed to do, so spelling it out is beneficial. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I believe you've identified the flaw with DRV which is that it is mainly a test against deletion policy. It was a policy-compliant deletion, so it fails at DRV, regardless of the merits of the content. That's been that way for a long time. If you've come across other admins refusing to restore it, remember that admins restoring banned content also acquire 'complete responsibility' (or whatever the current wording is) for the content. I know of many banned users whose content I would never consider even looking at as I don't trust them. I still think you haven't presented the case for this highly singular addition. More words is more instruction creep. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't an issue with DRV, it's one with WP:REFUND. And several admins have already said there isn't any issue with this page other than the G5. If there are other issues, then it doesn't qualify. And admins are fine to refuse to restore. They can't say you're not allowed to request. (If you want my case for this singular page, ask me at my talk, please). Why? I Ask (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. If an editor wishes to take responsibility for content provided by a blocked or banned editor they are explicitly permitted to do so. There is no policy that requires articles to be deleted just because a banned editor contributed to it, nor would doing so improve the encyclopaedia, so if someone wants to take on a G5-ed article then as long as they are acting in good faith and accept the responsibility for any errors in it then there is no reason to deny the request (assuming there are no copyvios, etc, but those should be deleted per G12 instead of/as well as G5). However, I don't think the CSD policy (and especially a singular criterion) is the place to note this, rather it's an issue with WP:REFUND. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, many good points made above. One that hasn't been made is that, assuming the requester is a non-admin, they generally cannot assert that the deleted content is unproblematic, as they cannot see the article. All they have is the article name. If admins, who can see it, deny restoration, then there might be a good reason. A power imbalance for sure, but the more wily editors have a neat trick to get around this: they can use the time that might be spent sifting through a problematic article to see what is usable to instead write the article themselves under the same name! CMD (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Then the admin needs to clearly state: "it was not restored because..." Most editors can also get copies of deleted pages. But for using that content, per copyright policy, it needs to be undeleted to be usable. And the idea that creating an article from scratch is in anyway less time-consuming that simply checking over an already existing article and running it through a copyright violation checker is fallacious. Obviously, if some felt that was the case, they would not be requesting undeletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  If your idea of checking for issues is to run the text through some particular copyright violation checker, then I can see why admins may hesitate to restore problematic content for your use. HJ Mitchell has kindly offered to provide all the relevant sources. If you don't actually want to write the article despite all the time spent on these talk pages, I would be willing to take a look at the sources myself. CMD (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, that is not the only thing I'd do, obviously. And this is a list article. There is hardly anything to write. Literally, it's inputting dates and numbers into a table with a description. It is purely time-consuming. I also would like to ask you what problematic content there is on this page? Why? I Ask (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Happily, there isn't any problematic content on the page now, as it's a redlink. It is however a pretty obvious magnet for the sort of disruption that brings about discretionary sanctions, so I can see why it might have drawn the problems it seems to have drawn. If the sources HJ Mitchell provides are high-quality, then that's great! If they are not, I suppose there are probably high-quality sources to be found. CMD (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  The only problem it had was that it was created by a banned user. Two other pages with the exact same scope exist, created by the exact same user (with one's content surviving AfD). Why? I Ask (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I can't confirm that, per my initial post here. However, why are there three pages with the same scope, and if there are why don't we redirect this one to them? CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Same scope, but different countries: List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom and List of mass shootings in Switzerland. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  Troubling, two articles lacking any sources establishing their core definitions, or sources speaking directly to the topic. I hope we are not seeking to create a third one. CMD (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I understand it, G5 applies to page that were created by a banned user after they were banned. Pages created by a banned user before they were banned are not eligible for deletion under G5. The intent, as I understand it, is to deny recommendation to pages created by a banned user after they were banned. It comes down to timing. When were each of the three pages created? Donald Albury 15:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• I will say that uninvolved editors can always ask. If they are involved it will invite a block. But then the issue is: should admins ignore or action or deny the request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Empty monthly maintenance categories

I was reviewing some of the links from the speedy deletion categories today and came across Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source. There are several monthly daughter categories there which are empty, and are flagged by the category template for G6 speedy deletion, but that template doesn't populate the G6 category. Evidently since they're not properly flagged there are some that have been sitting empty for months. These should be eligible for WP:C1 speedy deletion, and I'd like to update the template so that similar empty categories will populate Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories, but this is one of those complicated templates that calls daughter templates and modules, and I couldn't figure out where to actually put the code.

I also noticed Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, which seems like it's duplicating the function of the CSD category above, and the articles in it are also not populating the C1 category. They should, shouldn't they? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (never mind, answered below) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Empty monthly maintenance categories usually appear under G6 rather than C1, which would make more sense (C1 would require the category to be empty for a week before deletion, G6 doesn't). Can they populate the G6 category instead? Hut 8.5 18:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just as a minor note regarding Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion - this is the "holding cell" of sorts for the C1 nominations that are not yet a week old. Pages in this category should not be deleted as empty because they have not yet been nominated for the required duration. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Both good points. The {{Monthly clean-up category}} templates are already date-sensitive (the current month isn't flagged if it's empty) and since they're monthly there shouldn't be new members added to previous months. If both of those assumptions hold, then any monthly category that is empty and not the current month should be eligible for deletion. I'd be fine with that being G6 deletion instead of C1, although I think making a carve-out in C1 for this purpose would also be sensible. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought that the bot both created and deleted these monthly categories. If that isn't actually the case, maybe it should be... Primefac (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The bot creates them, but it's a handful of admins that delete them. Fastily has done a few today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The bot operator did think about writing a bot to delete the categories when no longer needed, but it turned out humans were doing it fast enough there was no need for a bot (see User:AnomieBOT III#In development * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving them from the very overloaded G6 to an amended C1 or a specific new C3 would seem sensible for both clarity and as part of the gradual process of fixing the problems with G6. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think so too. I wasn't going to bring it up and I don't want to go off on a tangent, but G6 is used too much as a "no other criteria fit" category, when it's supposed to be for unusual cases of uncontroversial deletion, whereas if there's a novel and repeatable situation not covered by existing criteria, we should make new ones. Maybe we just need a C3 for old, emptied monthly maintenance categories, which is the same as C1 but without the 7-day hold. We would have C1 for emptied content categories, and C3 for maintenance categories where the maintenance is finished (other than those with {{Possibly empty category}}). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 3#Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories (result: keep). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sometimes these categories get repopulated when old deleted pages are undeleted. I just ignore the red category link in these circumstances. But should the category be undeleted too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  That would return the article to their correct spot in the cleanup queue, which is probably the right thing to do to avoid articles having a cleanup tag for ten years, being deleted and undeleted, having a new cleanup tag applied and then wait another ten years for the cleanup to actually happen. Or even longer. (We have some super-duper embarrassing things like Category:BLP articles lacking sources from January 2007). —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: C4 Empty maintenance categories

C4: Empty maintenance categories

• This criterion applies to categories in (a subcategory of) Category:Maintenance categories that are empty and which have no further use, for example dated clean-up categories for dates in the past. This excludes categories that are only temporarily empty, including those tagged with {{Possibly empty category}}, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions) and category redirects.

This is based on the discussion above, and may benefit from wordsmithing (it is numbered C4 as there was previously a C3). If this passes, the first bullet of G6 "Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past" would be removed to avoid redundancy. The change should be widely publicised, e.g. in the Administrators' newsletter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing what problem this is supposed to solve. All it seems to do is shift these deletions from one category to another, and while I agree that G6 is overused, the proper solution is to talk with admins who are using it incorrectly (and go to DRV if necessary), not to make a new criterion for something that undeniably is "uncontroversial maintenance". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Support I would word it even more narrowly as applying only to subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month and Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month, but otherwise see no problem with this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the editors who commented above: @Kusma, Graeme Bartlett, Primefac, Ivanvector, and Hut 8.5:. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Why don't we just leave them in G6? Creating new SD cats just makes more work for hundreds or thousands of people to learn. Deleting these really is uncontroversial, so they are a good fit for G6. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  "Hundreds or thousands of people" seems exaggerated. Surely nobody other than the small handful of admins clearing this deletion queue needs to learn anything new (the tagging is done by template magic). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but compassing a new SD category is a non-trivial task that does affect people needing to understand it, update (or not update) tools, etc. Thus the question: is the hassle worth the improvement? I'm not seeing a clear "yes" answer either. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  The categories concerned would normally be bot-tagged, and would rarely (if ever) need to be human-tagged, so the number of people who need to know of the new criterion would be those admins who actually perform deletion (a few hundred, maximum) plus one botop. Only one tool would need to be altered - the bot that scans for qualifying categories. As I see it, part of the rationale for this is to reduce the number of legitimate G6 deletions, so that it is easier to spot G6 misuse. After all, the proposed new speedy deletion criterion does meet Objective, Uncontestable and Frequent, it's just Nonredundant that is the issue - because it's presently bundled with several otherwise-unrelated uses for G6. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  because it's presently bundled with several otherwise-unrelated uses for G6 - and yet, we've had a half-dozen discussions in the last year about making G6 easier to understand, trying to get it even more narrow, and eliminating some of the feeling that "well this needs deleting but nothing else fits so G6 it is!" that seems to pervade the criteria. I said it somewhere else, but if the bot isn't deleting the maintenance categories it creates itself, it should. Barring that, the empty categories should be tagged for C1 at minimum. In other words, I'm not sure whether we need a new C4 category, since by definition these empty categories already meet C1. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC) whoops. see below. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  One motivation is indeed to reduce the misuse of G6 (G6 at present does not meet the objective and uncontestable points of NEWCSD) by simplifying it and moving points out that clearly do meet NEWCSD.

  @Primefac C1 explicitly excludes maintenance categories so it would need amending if we want to delete the categories using that rather than G6. We could do that, but I think a new C4 would be both clearer and simpler and I've long been arguing that a long list of short and simple criteria is better than a short list of long, complicated ones. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sometimes I amaze myself with completely forgetting rules and regs that I've been dealing with for almost a decade... you are correct, so I would support C4 for this purpose. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• We should reduce the number of things covered by G6. Merging into C1 could also work (with or without the one-week wait), but a separate C4 is probably cleanest. —Kusma (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - thanks for the ping, I made the thread above and then kind of forgot about it, it's a mental Swiss cheese time of year in my world. Monthly maintenance categories are meant to be temporary, even though some may stick around for years we expect that they will eventually be empty and not repopulated. It's also desireable to remove the empty categories, otherwise they clutter the cleanup category views and cause editors to waste time looking for a category with work left to do, rather than only seeing active categories. Thus "empty monthly maintenance categories" easily meet the first three header criteria for new criteria (that's a mouthful). For the fourth, "nonredundant", this is not redundant to C1 because there is no reason for a seven-day hold for this narrow application, and I agree with Thryduulf that many narrowly-defined criteria are preferable to expanding the already-too-broad definitions of G6, and creating a carve-out for this in C1 would be unnecessarily complicated (the modified C1 would apply in different ways to different pages, making it much less objective). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  As for technical issues, I expected that tagging would be handled by code in {{Monthly clean-up category}}. The template already flags the page for G6 deletion if it is empty and not the current month, the proposal really is just to change that to C4. C4 could then be monitored by a bot and members automatically deleted, instead of piling them in with all the other unrelated deletion reasons covered by G6 which really require human review. That would reduce the workload on admins monitoring G6, possibly significantly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• No objection to this but I don't see much advantage over having it as part of G6, it doesn't really make the policy simpler and these are uncontroversial maintenance. Hut 8.5 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• I completely agree that we need to narrow the scope of G6, but I actually think the C1 carve-out is the way to accomplish this. We already have a similar carve-outs in F5 and F7. In particular, F7b/c/d are not given their own criterion because they all stem from the same "issue": an invalid fair-use claim. For C1 and the proposed C4, the "issue" would be the same: an empty category. I would also be fine with not making a carve-out and waiting a week before they are eligible for deletion: they do not need to be deleted urgently. HouseBlaster^talk 01:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maintenance categories are currently explicitly excluded from C1, we would need to remove or alter that if we included these in that criterion, which would either make it even messier than with just the one carve out or require a complete rewrite into C1a (content and structural categories, 1 week wait) and C1b (maintenance categories, no delay). I think C1 and C4 are much simpler than C1a and C1b (cf. A7/A9, F4/F6/F7; F1/F8). Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree in principle, but the sheer amount of effort required to implement this proposal (e.g. retraining editors, updating bots/templates/scripts/docs) simply outweighs the value we'd get out of it. Also worth noting that maintenance category deletions are low frequency relative to other types of deletions. -FASTILY 01:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also worth noting that maintenance category deletions are low frequency relative to other types of deletions - The last time I did a G6 taxonomy they were the most common individual type of deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is that so? In comparison to other G6's or all CSD? -FASTILY 01:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  It was in comparison to other G6s. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 83#New taxonomy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ah I see. My original statement above was made in relation to all CSDs & XfDs. -FASTILY 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even compared to all deletions, it's about 1%. Given that there are 40 CSD criteria, that's not as low as you would think, and certainly more frequent than many other standalone criteria. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting, I had no idea there were so many. If anything, that's a stronger argument to maintain the status quo. -FASTILY 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Based on other comments in this thread the number of bots that would need to be updated is 1, the number of templates that would need updating is approximately 0 (afaict at a quick look none of the templates in Category:Speedy deletion templates make specific reference to this line of the G6 criteria), the number of templates that would need creating is approximately 1 ({{db-C4}} or {{db-C1b}}). Scripts requiring updating, approximately 1 (Twinkle, but as I don't use it I can't be sure). Editors have coped without any issue since R4 and G14 were spun out of G6. So the amount of effort required to make this change is much less than you seem to have guessed, and the value greater than you seem to have guessed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Monthly clean-up category/core would need to be updated, I think, and there may be other templates, too. - Eureka Lott 19:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like updating that template would take a matter of seconds, changing "G6" to "C4". That's hardly a significant burden. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

CSD for AI generated content

Should there be a CSD for when someone uses AI like Chat GPT, Bing and Brad etc Qwv (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed here in January. It's a good idea in principle, but currently we don't have a completely accurate way of determining whether text is AI-generated (there are various detectors online, but they're a long way from being perfect). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No, because in such cases there ought to be a record of a consensus being reached that the contribution is a product of AI. That is, unless there's another AI product out there that can incontrovertibly detect AI authorship of a text. Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what would be the point anyways. The editor submitting it is taking responsibility for the content. If said content is factual, not copyvioed to some other source, and has a reliable source as a reference that it is accurately summarizing from, then that content would be fine. How the words themselves were created is irrelevant. If the content being added violates existing policies and guidelines, then it should be removed regardless of said word construction source as well. If AI is used to construct better prose while following all of our rules in general, then that's just a benefit. Otherwise, our existing rules are more than good enough. Silverseren^C 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this pass the four criteria at the top of this page? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking one and two, clearly not. Three, disputable. Four, probably OK. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If it isn't a copyright violation (hard to say with AI generated content), then WP:PROD/WP:AFD is the better way to go until we have enough experience with AI content to distill it into criteria that pass WP:NEWCSD. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a speedy deletion criterion is going to work - how is a random admin supposed to check that text is AI-generated? I certainly don't know of any tools that can be trusted to judge that. Also, is all AI generated text always so bad as to warrant undiscussed deletion? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No there should not be a speedy delete criterion for this. Some AI generated stuff is fine. (Even when typing here, I use an AI spell corrector). And as mentioned, it is not clear if something is AI or not. It is easier to tell if it has other problems, and they can be considered to determine of the page is delete-worthy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Not only should being written by an AI be speedy deletion reason, it shouldn't be a reason for deletion at all. If it's a copyright violation, then treat it as any other copyright violation, if it's unreferenced treat it as any other unreferenced content, and similarly for any other given problem - treat it exactly as you would human-written content that has the same problem. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Do edits to draft pages by human sockpuppets reset the G13 clock?

Strictly according to WP:G13, the deletion criterion applies to pages that have not been edited by a human in six months. This does not explicitly exclude sockpuppets of blocked or banned humans doing so in contravention of their block/ban. What is the official position here? If the intention is that such edits should not reset the clock, should this be made explicitly clear?

Apologies if this has been asked - I could not find this specific issue in the archive.

Dorsetonian (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well sockpuppets are humans, so yes this resets the clock. And I don't think this situation is nearly frequent enough to justify adding a rule specifically excluding them. Hut 8.5 10:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The edits do reset the clock. If this causes issues, MfD and mention there that the page would have been a G13 if not for the sock. This should not be made explicit in the rules per WP:BEANS. —Kusma (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you responding to sockpuppet edits? They are probably doing it to play with you. Note your observation at the SPI case page, and per WP:DENY, do not start MfD discussions or WT:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, but not worth correcting - they're draft space articles, if it takes a few extra months for them to be deleted it doesn't matter, and isn't worth the effort of good faith editors to identify and correct. BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that, as currently worded, any human edits do reset the G13 clock, including those by sockpuppets. Counter BilledMammal I would say this is worth correcting, since it's an idiosyncratic exception to the general way that Wikipedia allows people to pretend sockpuppets never existed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is the prior discussion that led up to thei RfC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

They would reset the clock. G13 deletes are supposed to be speedy and should not involve a sockpuppet investigation of contributors. So it is too much trouble to add that rule and implement it. If a sock does edit the page, then consideration has to be given to the whole lot being a sock creation, or banned editor creation. In which case a G5 can be used. If not a revert and additional wait is not serious. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and this is not a problem per Billed Mammal and the first part of Graeme Bartlett's comment. As with everything in draft space, if the page is actively causing a problem then fix it, take it to MfD or alert WP:OVERSIGHT as appropriate. In all other cases ignore it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course getting rid of WP:G13 altogether would mean that this is no longer a problem. It would also have the effect that draftification would no longer be a backdoor route to deletion, as it currently is. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's just crazy talk. The WMF is clearly going bankrupt and cannot afford the disk space for what's in draft space as it is! /sarcasm. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

U2 and global accounts

U2 "applies to user pages, user subpages, and user talk pages of users that do not exist". The criteria instructs us to check Special:ListUsers. Special:ListUsers only lists people who have registered or edited locally. However, the {{db-nouser}} template links to Special:CentralAuth which provides global account information.

I'm looking at User talk:Aa, which is tagged as U2. They do not have a local account, but do have edits on the Kyrgyz language Wikipedia, and an account on the Japanese Wikipedia (no edits there). I am totally lost as to if this qualifies for U2 or not. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This qualifies as G5, which I'll be doing shortly, thus spoiling the question. Interesting question though. I'd say unless it relates to relevant activity somehow (which excludes an out of context welcome message), then it qualifies as U2. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• This criterion dates from before SUL was a thing so going back to the original discussions wont help. Given that accounts are created when you read pages on a wiki (tested by going to special:centralauth/Thryduulf and looking for a project I didn't have an account on (I chose the Walloon Wiktionary), visiting it, then looking at my centralauth list again. I do now have an account on that project even though I have never done anything other than read. This means that someone without an account here is definitely not engaged with the project, and so I think U2 should apply, regardless of whether the account exists on another Wiki. Off-topic for this discussion, but if you see someone leaving welcome messages for accounts that don't exist, they might be gaming auto (or extended) confirmed status. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sometimes an account is spontaneously created without visiting that Wiki. For example, Special:CentralAuth/Redrose64 lists 234 different wikis; of these, 160 are Wikipedia in various languages, and I have visited several of them, but I don't think all 160. Of the other 74, there are the expected all-language wikis such as commons, wikidata, meta, species plus varying numbers of language-specific wikis - wiktionary, wikisource, wikibooks etc. Some of these language-specific non-English wikis were linked as long ago as 2009, but I am absolutely certain that I have never visited any of the three non-English wikiversity wikis, nor six of the eight wikibooks wikis. Some are mysterious: until I analysed this list, I had never even imagined that bd.wikimedia.org, ru.wikimedia.org and ua.wikimedia.org might exist. What on earth are they anyway? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikis associated with Wikimedia chapters, for the record. The usual other cause of an account being auto-created is if an edit they made is imported, which is what happened to you, at least with the chapter wikis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)