Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

Momentary dumping ground

I'd started writing something up, then had to do some IRL stuff, anyway just dumping this here for now until it can be fixed and moved over Levivich, Thryduulf, and Awesome Aasim this was mostly an attempt to get your ideas in more concrete form, so feel free to change things around. I'm probably going to have to bow out anyway in the next day or so since the next month will have me way too busy to risk Wikipedia and honestly perhaps not until this summer. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not intended to be exhaustive as the discussion was a bit long and unwieldy

• A: Do nothing. ECR has been working fine for half-a-decade without any changes to the CSD or any other policies or processes. Indirectly suggested by Thryduulf with sticky prod > nothing > A12, probably could use some wordsmithing
• B: All articles created in violation of ECR should be draftified and ECP protected. Other pages should be left alone. From Levivich's post I kind of gathered that some kind of explicit statement that no CSD should apply is also desired in conjunction with this, but wording here is just for demonstrative purposes
• C1: Add a new CSD covering articles A12: Creations in violation of bans, blocks or general sanctions
  This criteria applies to any article created in violation of an extended confirmed restriction, with no substantial edits by others not subject to the sanction, and that is unlikely to survive an AfD. 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 A12 would no longer apply. Awesome Aasim's suggested wording, but tweaked to apply only to articles
• C2: Same as C1 but add after it has been tagged for seven days after AfD. Simplest and least confusing way to add a hold period prior to deletion as desired by some
• D1: G15: Creations in violation of bans, blocks or general sanctions
  This criteria applies to any page created in violation of an extended confirmed restriction, 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 G15 would no longer apply. Awesome Aasim's suggested wording, but as a separate CSD rather than part of G5
• D2: Same as D1 but add after it has been tagged for seven days after XfD. see C2
• E1: Same text as D1 mutatis mutandis but added as a new part of G5.
• E2: Same text as D2 mutatis mutandis but added as a new part of G5.
• F: None of the above and make it explicit that pages created in violation of ECR restrictions may not be speedily deleted. This condenses Thryduulf's earlier proposal to account for the simplification of the sticky process within the CSD framework.

184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to apologize, I'm clearly not going to get the chance to go back through and try to document all the verbiage ideas, working from memory here, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Other wording ideas for CSD that came up in the VPP thread

• Specific prohibition on unilateral deletions without tagging by a third party. think this was from Graeme Bartlett
• Borderline cases only think this was from Crouch, Swale
• Wording that makes it clear there's no social expectation against declining the speedy think this was from Mach61

Some of these may now be sufficiently covered by options already added, but I haven't had the chance to compare closely.

Sorry for not trying to getting this documented earlier, it wasn't my intent to prioritize a few editors ideas over others; that was just the portion of the txt notes I was drafting into something more concrete that looked good enough for dumping when it was clear my time was running short, and at this point it's clear I'm not going to have time to for anything more, so I'm leaving the raw material here.

If someone else would like to go through the discussion to make sure all ideas have been captured I'd appreciate it; I'm sure I missed something. Thanks, 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ensuring wide-participation

Might also be a good idea to advertise this workshop to some WikiProjects and WT:CSD at least, as dissatisfaction with the level of participation was a recurring theme in the VPP discussion. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Informal survey

At VPP SmokeyJoe suggested running an experiment by sending covered pages to deletion discussions to gather more information. Setting this up to solicit workshop participants opinions as to whether such an experiment is desired prior to launching the RfC, and if so for how long it should run. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It really is simple. If you think something (outside mainspace) should be able to be speedy deleted, send it to MfD. Repeat several times. If they are all SNOW deleted, you were right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing question 3

I suggest removing question 3. A sticky CSD is incompatible with existing CSD practice. Accidentally inventing a new type of deletion, sticky csd, would be a bad outcome because of the amount of complexity it would create. If you still want to give the option for a sticky prod or something like that, I'd suggest adding these as answers to question one. But I think not polling this at all would also be fine, due to the outcome of the previous rfc. Also I think sticky prod needs to copy an existing deletion type, such as blp prod. It would be messy and inefficient to invent a brand new deletion type that we would need to teach our admins, new page patrollers, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• C1 and a few of the F* CSDs have seven day delays, allowing something to stop it. So there’s precedent. But they don’t use the word “sticky” and using that word will confuse things. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My idea for a sticky prod was for it work similarly to BLP prod. A delayed CSD isn't a new type of deletion - it's part of WP:CSD#C1 and more than one F criterion. However, I do think sticky PROD would make more sense as part of question 1 than question 3. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Specifically it's F4, F5, F6, F7, and F11 in addition to C1 and the old T3 with week-long holds. I think one of the FCSD actually has a hold shorter than seven days. Calling anything sticky is is unhelpful per SmokeyJoe. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• I would be fine with any of the things as long as we state that it should not be done for obviously useful pages and that users should not be able to be blocked if they personally haven't done anything wrong/disruptive. Otherwise I'm happy with the enforcement measures including the suggestions to have it as a new criteria or part of G5. Very importantly though unlike normal G5 the "sanction" deals with new users who may have personally done nothing wrong so we don't want to attack them/their work just because others have caused problems. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Making it clear to the people whose work is deleted that they've not done anything personally wrong is one of the reasons I think a separate criterion is better than merging it into G5 (which is for people who have done something wrong, and know that) and something other than speedy deletion is more preferable still. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense then, I agree it should be a separate criteria to G5 if this is implemented. They are (or at least should be) 2 different situations. If I was a user who edited the topic weather for a long time with numerous problems and it went to ANI with a topic ban proposal and there is a consensus which I reluctantly accept that it is in the interest of the project and myself to be banned from that topic and I go and create an article on a weather topic it generally should be deleted under G5 but if I was a new user who had no idea about a general sanction such an article should not be deleted unless of dubious qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly my problem with this. Speedy deletion means that there is no point of discussion. This push for broad speedy deletion is rife with WP:ABF and WP:BITE. Is ABF justified by virtually all cases involving POV-pushing? I don’t think so.

  A sufficient response to bad faith POV pushing is immediate draftification. It’s immediately out of mainspace. Then, inform the author of what the problem is. Even if 1% are genuine Gail faith newcomers, it’s worth it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor nitpick

When this goes live it should probably be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD for ECR or similar to make it clear the discussion is not just a simple binary between either expanding or not expanding G5. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Needing a neutral title is more than a minor nitpick, but essential for an unbiased discussion. I'd suggest something like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement of ECR by deletion as it's not a binary between CSD and nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved the title in userspace. Would this title be appropriate? We could do "deletion policy expansion" but that is quite vague. Awesome Aasim 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Title is imprecise

I'd suggest changing it to something like "Enforcing ECR for article creators" –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Done. Awesome Aasim 21:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pointless if we don't include Draft articles.

Whether we expand G5 to include EC violations (and other violations) or create a new criteria, I don't care, as long as we do one of them. What I DO care about, is that it also covers Drafts. Otherwise, a new editor (or sock, or whatever) can create a Draft and soak up 500 edits on that Draft, so they can push it into mainspace, which would completely bypass the intent of the policy. Frankly, non-EC editors don't need to be working with Contentious Topics at any level, mainspace or Draft, which I believe is the original intent of the policy. Creating this loophole is just going to come back to bite us. Again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Is this being pursued? I don't see a lot of edits. Perhaps it needs to be advertised more widely, as it is a topic worth addressing, but you need interested bodies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown That will be included in this RfC. The general criteria expansion will include drafts. Awesome Aasim 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)