Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CSD G5 on sock created articles that subsequently suffer public relations editing[edit]

IOActive was created as a stub by a sock and subsequently directed edited upon by a disclosed paid public relations clerk of the subject company which was highly promotional. This was mostly cleaned up only to have promotionally edited by a single purpose account. Because of having been edited by someone other than the article creator sock, it was denied CSD G5 removal. Shouldn't this loop hole be plugged up? In my experience, it's common for an article to be created as a stub, then contents added in great amount by COI public relations activity. There's been no real activity on this article other than by disclosed COI/U editing and a WP:SPA that appears to be COI. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's always an option but promotional editing always look for a way to make deletion as difficult as possible this loophole plays along with what they're desiring. CSD G5 could be modified so contribution by COI/U, disclosed PR agents, or presumptive UPE (such as SPAs) don't count Graywalls (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless I’ve missed something recently, the community has consistently failed proposals for a consensus to declare undisclosed paid editing as a reason for deletion. Maybe individual AfDs have seen substantial UPEditing as a compelling reason to delete, but I have not seen that. In the meantime, attempting to use G5 where it doesn’t apply to get around the difficulty, that AfD won’t agree, is an unacceptable use of speedy deletion.
My suggestion is to engage COI editors to declare the topics they have a COI, and to remind them of the rules at WP:COI. And even more so for undeclared paid editors. But be careful, WP:OUTING of their personal information is not allowed, even if you know they are lying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with SmokeyJoe, UPE by itself is not a reason for deletion, and if someone other than a sock has edited a page it is no longer a G5 candidate. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree completely with Smokeyjoe and Primefac. UPE has been explicitly rejected as a reason to speedy delete an article multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without having looked at the article - If the non-creator's edits were so promotional that they needed to be rewritten, then those revisions were by definition deletable as G11. I suppose if they've already been rewritten (not just reverted) by the time the socking is discovered, you'd need the agreement of the rewriter too to delete their revisions as G7; but the mere fact of there being contributions other than from the creator is immaterial if all those contributions are also speedyable. —Cryptic 04:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something I just learned is that G5 seems to be treated like a "soft delete". If sock puppetry is identified and G5 is invoked during AfD, it will fail subsequent G4 deletion when another sock comes back and re-create the G5'd article because it's not treated as letting the AfD going all the way through regardless of AfD was on track towards consensus of delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Dean's_Ocean_Front_Cafe Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G4 can only be used if the XfD closed as delete. It can't be used if there was a procedural close of the XfD because the content was deleted through a different mechanism, such as speedy deletion. For that reason, it could sometimes be desirable to wait out the XfD instead of deleting speedily.
I see that the account used for re-creating the article just has been blocked for sockpuppetry, so I don't see why it can't be deleted as G5 a second time. In fact, User:Bilby did this just as I was writing this comment. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stefan2: I see what happened here as a clear bureaucratic fail. If the same person goes back and re-re-create it a week later from a different location using a re-written composition to look different enough from the original, it might slip through C/U test and I'm concerned it'll be denied G4 again over the same reason taken to the letter. So, I think patiently letting the original Afd until the end would realistically have created a sturdier delete. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the same sock is recreating it, though, it could be easily G5 deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is clearly the result of a banned user (whether the same one or not) then G5 may be used to delete it (assuming no significant contributions by others, etc). If it is unclear then it cannot be - and this is a Good Thing. Except in the cases of attack pages and copyright violations, there is never any harm in waiting for a full XfD rather than speedy deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seem to be a few unfounded assumptions by the OP here. The "standard" way of deleting an article is by consensus at AfD. Speedy deletion is for clear-cut cases. Blatantly promotional articles can be speedily deleted by WP:G11, and rather less promotional articles can still be deleted at AfD for that reason. Articles that have been speedily deleted, rather than gone through an AfD discussion, can be speedily deleted again for the same or a different reason, just not via WP:G4 which is designed for pages that have been discussed. There is no "loophole" or "bureaucratic fail" here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say the "standard" way of deleting an article is via speedy; there are more articles speedied in an hour than AFDd in a day. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd be wrong to say that. XfD is the standard deletion process in all cases, PROD and speedy deletion are explicitly limited exceptions to the normal process. This is why objections to PROD or speedy go to XfD, and any cases where it is not clear whether speedy or PROD is applicable go to XfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depends how you define "standard". I define it as "most usual, most frequently invoked", and by that definition speedy deletion is absolutely standard. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the number of deleted pages it is the most common, but that does not mean it is standard. Speedy deletion is one of the two exceptions to the standard deletion policy that requires explicit affirmative consensus to delete a page (the other exception is PROD, where presumed consensus based on lack of opposition is accepted). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the point of G5?[edit]

Why bother deleting an article just because it was made by a blocked/banned user?

I understand why you'd delete it if it was in a violation of a topic ban but why do it if it was made by someone who's been banned/blocked from editing any page?

If the article follows all of the guidelines such as Wp:GNG then why bother? Isn't that just a waste of time? 172.58.241.204 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The waste of time is the banned user evading their ban, not admins deleting it. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If a user is blocked or banned, this is a way of saying go sit in a corner. If content created by the blocked or banned user is allowed, this is a way of saying that the user does not need to sit in the corner, he just needs to contribute under a different name. It is an invitation for sockpuppetry. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such an edit is a violation of a topic ban. The user has been banned from editing all topics. The justification is that it wastes time to check whether the edit is legitimate when the editor has been shown to make illegitimate edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why ban/block anybody for anything? If someone commits 100 acts of vandalism for every good edit, just keep reverting the vandalism while leaving the good edits in place and let the person keep wasting everyone's time, is that it? A block is meant to be a block, not just an inconvenience forcing the blocked user to create a new account before carrying on as before. It's also meant to relieve the rest of us of having to scrutinize the user's edits and additions individually.
Note, however, that G5 doesn't require a page created by a banned user to be deleted. If you find a page listed for G5 deletion and believe it's a good article, you can remove the tag. Largoplazo (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What Phil Bridger said about wasting time. Users are banned because their editing is so problematic that it's net negative to allow them to edit at all, either in a particular area for a topic ban, or altogether for a site ban. G5 (and related policies like WP:BANREVERT) are saying, "your editing has been so bad that you were banned, so we can presume any new edits you make are also bad and not waste our time checking." In the event that some other editor in good standing does review the edit and adopts it then G5 no longer applies, but then that user takes full responsibility for the edit's content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Otherwise it creates an incentive to keep trying to sockpuppet, which wastes even more time. – Joe (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • DF67 has a good allegory about this. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that the example uses paintings is actually interesting, given that sockpuppetry is not valid as a sole reason to delete images on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem I have is people like Slowking4. This person has been blocked for over 10 years. Since the block, they've created innumerable articles, many of which have been kept. The person is still a very active member of this project. 70 times now sockpuppets of this person have been brought to scrutiny. Yet, we still don't delete articles created by this person. In so doing, we are allowing them to be an editor here despite their ban from the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We certainly have G5-deleted many contributions by Slowking. I G5-deleted several uploaded images (along with rollbacking all added article content) from one Slowking sock just yesterday. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? (nothing against you) That explains why confirmed socks of Slowking4 have created more than 70 mainspace pages in the last month alone that remain undeleted. What is the purpose of a ban from the project if the editor continues editing? We are actively rewarding their behavior. This middle ground creates an undue burden on the project. Either we welcome Slowking4 back with open arms, or we start enforcing G5 against all their creations. As is, we're doing the former already. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • G5's purpose is revenge and punishment. It has nothing to do with actually improving anything on Wikipedia and, in most cases, is actively detrimental by deleting perfectly normally written notable articles. But getting revenge on banned users is more important to many than building an encyclopedia. Thus, the purpose of G5. SilverserenC 17:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is exemplified and shows claims above of checking edits taking too much time as being an incorrect reasoning by the fact that getting a G5 deleted article undeleted so that it can be worked on and kept is a massive hassle. Because admins don't want to do it. Because it's not about an editor in good standing taking responsibility for said article content, it's about punishing the banned user. And having the banned person's articles be undeleted for any reason isn't punishing them. Therefore, while G5 should be absolutely a reason why WP:RFU can be used (and, indeed, G5 isn't on the list of ones not allowed at RFU), it's close to impossible to get a G5 undeletion request on there approved. I've only managed it a handful of times after massive amounts of time and effort arguing, time and effort that showcases the claims of those above to be wrong. SilverserenC 17:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
G5's purpose is revenge and punishment is absolutely not correct. I wrote an essay last year here which attempts to explain the intent and spirit behind G5: Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. Mz7 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In practice, I've found G5 to be used pretty aggressively. Mass deletions of non-problematic articles by editors such as Starzoner and Kashmorwiki come to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagreement on interpretation of CSD[edit]

Posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Universal Sprout. Not by me, because I think this is the correct page instead, but I am reluctant to move it. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied there, but to reiterate, there's no rule that says only admins can remove CSD tags, and I'm sure community consensus would come down very strongly against creating such a rule. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G2 in user namespace[edit]

The rule that G2 does not apply to the user namespace is being rampantly violated by admins actually doing speedy deletions. I think it's time that we reflect the de-faco consensus here and delete pages in the user namespace from G2. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we should not. G2 in user space is currently only applied against newbies (like U5). If it is officially extended to all userspace, some people with too much time on their hands will go around and tag all pages called "test" or with a creation summary of "test" in your and my userspace for G2, which would not be enjoyable for any non-troll. —Kusma (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The correct solution is to advise those admins that their actions are contrary to the policy, and start a discussion to see what the current consensus is. Personally I am opposed to removing the userspace exemption, as someone who quite often does testing in my userspace. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't be too excited to see G2 expanded either. The broader problem here is that the only way to remind admins about the criteria is to leave a message for them and/or go to DRV, which, if we're being honest, most people (including me...) aren't usually willing to do because it typically comes across as making a big deal over something trivial. Pppery does yeoman's work in this regard, but it's not realistic to expect him to do it all himself. What other options do we have? It looks like the edit filter works on deletions, so would it be possible to use it to warn admins who are about to make a questionable deletion? This would require care and wouldn't work on everything, but for some things (e.g. the "wrong namespace" section of the database report) it might be worth considering. Any other ideas? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh oh. Two of those deletions in the current report are mine. You're welcome to bring them to DRV as a test case. I promise I won't be offended? —Cryptic 23:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, those could just as easily be called G6s (of the "unambiguously created in error" variety), and either way I still wouldn't be comfortable spending a week of DRV's time to undelete pages that everyone agrees should be deleted some way or another. A low-effort, low-drama way of reminding admins about this sort of thing on the spot would be worthwhile, though, and I'd be interested to hear thoughts about whether the edit filter idea or anything similar would be workable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's workable, and I'm not qualified to say whether it is or not, the edit filter seems like a good idea for the wrong namespace issues. Maybe a bot could iterate through the report and deliver a message saying "this deletion you did was possibly of process because X. If you think this is an error, please discuss it [here?]". Obviously there will be some false positives (e.g. misclicks on the deletion dropdown). Not instant feedback but reliable feedback, and it'll possibly highlight any obvious patterns. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An edit filter for wrong namespace should be workable, although I think the exact criteria would need to be rethought - when writing these database reports I aim hard toward favoring false positives over false negatives, whereas an edit filter should be designed more toward minimal false positives. "No criterion" is also technically edit-filter-able, and "not recently-created" probably is but I'm not 100& sure.
None of the other sections are edit-filter-able, usually because they rely on some data that the edit filter doesn't have access to. If someone wants to write a bot to monitor my report and notify people, they are welcome to, but it's not a project I feel like taking on. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could remove G1 and G2 from MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown for userspace pages, since they shouldn't be used. I've just checked on Twinkle and both of them aren't available in userspace. I wouldn't be surprised if people starting filling it in manually, but hopefully that would make a bit of a difference. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's technically possible (I have no idea), we should do that for all criteria not valid in a given namespace. I don't think it will completely fix the problem but it should help. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly possible - if you go to delete User talk:Cryptic, none of the article criteria, nor "G8: Talk page of a nonexistent or deleted page" will show up. It's something of a blunt instrument, though, since if you go to delete User talk:Cryptic/g2, that specific G8 variant still won't show up, even though it should. It's unclear how much parser function trickery MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown supports - I suspect not much, since otherwise surely someone would have made the "OVERSIGHTER ONLY CRITERIA, DON'T USE THESE YOU PLEBE" only appear to overseers - and I'm too lazy to go to a testwiki to find out. But plain namespace restrictions? Those are easy. —Cryptic 02:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the dropdown supports all parser functions, but parser functions can't do user-specific logic so the oversighter text has to be shown to plebs. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a very good idea, and one of us should probably just do it BOLDly unless there's an objection. Something else that's helpful is having the CSD templates display an error message when they're used in the wrong namespace. I see {{db-g1}}, {{db-g2}}, and a few others already do this, but there might be some benefit in expanding it to {{db-u5}}, {{db-a7}}, etc.—maybe someone skilled in template wizardry could take a look? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those two pages could properly have been speedily deleted as G8 given they consisted only of a single link to a page that was deleted/doesn't exist, although the one in . When speedy deleting it is as important to use the correct criterion as it is that the page meets a criterion, this is because it offers an easily understanable explanation to both other admins and to the editor whose page was deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Linking to a non-existent page is even less a speedy deletion criterion than creating editing tests in someone else's userspace. The same user's sandbox would be just as deleteable if these were proper G8s. —Cryptic 01:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
G8 for pages that are dependent on deleted or non-existent pages. A page consisting of literally nothing but redlinks meets that criterion. The user's sandbox could technically be deleted per G8, but there is no benefit to doing so Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lists of red links can be highly valuable. If pages consisting only of red links can be deleted under G8 (I don't think they can), G8 will need to be fixed. —Kusma (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Years ago I was accused of being prejudiced for thinking that, first by using G8 and then PROD; I never did get an explanation as to why I was a racist to think this was eligible for deletion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are non-redlinks there now so it definitely wouldn't be subject to G8 today, and even if they weren't all red I wouldn't speedy it as a bit of context could easily make it an article (whether it would survive AfD is irrelevant). Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What other options do we have? A simple solution might be to ping everyone in that report to this discussion, so they know not to do that anymore. Normally "G" means "all namespaces", so it's a reasonable mistake to make. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a crime to create a page in somebody else's user space - I offer User:Whispyhistory/Userboxes DYK for consideration. The scenarios that may happen include:
  1. User:A creates the User:A page or User:A/subpage
  2. User:A creates the User:B page or User:B/subpage, and User:B is registered
  3. User:A creates the User:B page or User:B/subpage, and User:B is not registered
Pages in case 1 are normally speedyable under U1, if requested by User:A
Pages in case 2 are also speedyable under U1, if requested by User:B
Pages in case 3 are normally speedyable under U2 - anybody can request this
In all three cases, G7 may be used by the page creator, and some other G criteria may apply - such as G10. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1176629897"