Charla de Wikipedia: Criterios para una eliminación rápida

¿Conflicto del G8?

Imagine que creo una charla de usuario: Nyttend/subpage. Suponiendo que no hay ningún problema con el contenido que puse en la página, es una página perfectamente buena; No lo eliminaríamos en G8 simplemente porque Usuario:Nyttend/subpage no existe. Ahora, imagine que creo Usuario:Nyttend/subpágina con contenido problemático, por ejemplo, spam descarado. Alguien viene y lo borra. ¿Debería eliminarse la página de discusión (porque es la página de discusión de una página eliminada), o debería permanecer (porque es una subpágina válida en el espacio de usuario), o es algo que deberíamos dejar a juicio del administrador?

Además, imagine que creo User:Nyttend/subpage con el contenido #REDIRECT ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5, o creo la página con contenido válido y luego la reemplazo con la redirección rota. ¿G8 (redireccionar a una página inexistente), mantener (subpágina del usuario establecida) o criterio del administrador?

Esto me vino a la mente hace un momento mientras estaba eliminando spam en el espacio de usuario; Eliminé User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox después de eliminar User:BassettHousePic/sandbox, y no estoy seguro de que esto siempre sea correcto. Aquí estaba (el usuario ha sido bloqueado como spam y no tiene otras ediciones), pero ese no será siempre el caso, especialmente si la página de usuario se elimina a través de U1. Nyttend ( discusión ) 23:25, 31 de mayo de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Por lo general, termino eliminando las subpáginas de discusión del usuario y, en general, considero un error que la opción "G8: Página de discusión de una página eliminada" no aparezca en el menú desplegable de eliminación y que no haya un enlace a la página de discusión desde la pantalla posterior a la eliminación. Supongo que la distinción es que User talk:Nyttend/Archive 42 es principalmente una subpágina de User talk:Nyttend ; mientras que User talk:Nyttend/spam sandbox, que normalmente consta de plantillas de wikiproyectos del asistente de creación de artículos, sería principalmente la página de discusión de User:Nyttend/spam sandbox.

Para un U1, u otros casos ambiguos donde la eliminación no sería objetable para el propietario de la página, probablemente dejaría una nota en su página de discusión o tal vez en el registro de eliminación para solicitar la eliminación de la subpágina de discusión del usuario por separado si así lo desea. No ha surgido. - Cryptic 00:29, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Quizás diría que las páginas de discusión de los usuarios deberían ser una excepción (a diferencia de solo archivos de páginas de discusión) del G8. Crouch, Swale ( charla ) 06:01, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Hmm, mi impresión siempre ha sido que las "Páginas de discusión del usuario" en la lista "no elegibles para el G8" solo se aplican a la página principal de discusión del usuario y equivalentes, es decir, Charla del usuario:Nyttend , pero no automáticamente a todas las páginas de discusión de una página en el espacio de nombres de usuario. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( discusión ) 07:52, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Esa también ha sido siempre mi impresión. Obviamente habrá algunas excepciones (por ejemplo, una charla teórica de usuario: Thryduulf/Subpágina/Archivo 1) que requerirán discreción del administrador. Las formas más fáciles (pero no ideales) de resolver esto probablemente sean usar la plantilla {{ G8-exempt }} de manera proactiva y tener un listón muy bajo para la restauración cuando se le solicite. Thryduulf ( charla ) 11:23, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

En mi opinión, depende de si la página de discusión era en realidad una página de discusión para la página eliminada. Si, por ejemplo, Charla de usuario:Billy Bob/archive1 es un archivo de su página de discusión, crear tonterías aleatorias en Usuario:Billy Bob/archive1 no cambia eso. jp × g 🗯️ 19:48, 8 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Procedimiento para artículos redactados rechazados y envíos de AfC rechazados/rechazados movidos incorrectamente o copias al espacio principal

Entonces, esto es algo que he visto suceder en algunos casos, generalmente involucrando a editores sin experiencia que acaban de obtener una confirmación automática. Primero está el caso que he tratado, donde se redacta un artículo (cuando lo hago, generalmente es por falta de referencias) y el autor lo recrea inmediatamente moviéndolo o, más a menudo, copiando y pegando. No he visto un consenso exacto sobre qué hacer en este caso. Algunos han dicho que podría aplicarse db-copypaste, pero no todos los administradores eliminarán en este caso. Las otras opciones serían volver a redactar, PROD o AfD.

La otra instancia serían los envíos de AfC rechazados que se mueven o copian al espacio principal sin mejoras. Tengo entendido que las páginas AfC rechazadas que se vuelven a enviar sin mejoras generalmente se rechazan sumariamente. Si un envío se rechaza varias veces, eso indicaría un consenso de que la página, en su estado actual, no es adecuada para ser un artículo, colocándola en una posición similar a una página que cumple con G4. TornadoLGS ( discusión ) 22:01, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Creo que ir directamente a AfD suele ser la opción correcta. Si ya se ha trasladado al espacio principal después de un declive, hay fuertes razones para creer que se impugnaría un impulso. Y como eliminación impugnada, no es realmente un buen candidato para una eliminación rápida. Dicho esto, AfD no es obligatorio. Sucede que el revisor del borrador puede estar equivocado. Dirígete a AfD sólo si todavía crees que no es notable. - David Eppstein ( discusión ) 22:30, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Es una lástima, ya que AfD ocupa mucho más tiempo de edición que CSD. Pregunta rápida sobre eso. ¿En qué momento cuenta la impugnación de una eliminación? Desde que he visto a muchos autores optar por la opción "eliminación del concurso" en G11, U5 y al menos un A7, pero el administrador de eliminación la ignora. TornadoLGS ( discusión ) 03:43, 2 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

No estamos aquí para eliminar tantas cosas en el menor tiempo posible de edición, sino para tomar decisiones adecuadas sobre si algo es o no adecuado para ser un artículo de enciclopedia. G11 y A7 también son posibles veloces para algunos borradores trasladados al espacio principal, pero no son válidos para muchos de ellos. - David Eppstein ( discusión ) 04:31, 2 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Supongo que pensé que un borrador que había sido rechazado o rechazado (especialmente varias veces) podría ser lo suficientemente inadecuado para el espacio principal como para eliminarlo rápidamente. Había estado planteando tentativamente la idea de si se podría establecer un nuevo criterio de CSD para este caso, aunque parece que ese tipo de criterio no funcionaría en este momento. TornadoLGS ( discusión ) 22:33, 2 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Rechazada es sólo la opinión de un editor. En ocasiones he movido dichas páginas al espacio principal, ya que claramente el rechazo no era apropiado. Una eliminación rápida en la situación que usted dice que es controvertida, por lo que lo mejor es la AFD u otra eliminación rápida existente (por ejemplo, publicidad o ninguna afirmación de importancia). Graeme Bartlett ( discusión ) 01:54, 7 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

( editar conflicto ) Draftspace y AfC son opcionales. Si alguien mueve una página del borrador al espacio del artículo que no cumple con un criterio de eliminación rápida existente, pero usted cree que debería eliminarse, entonces PROD y AfD son sus únicas opciones. Los rechazos de AfC representan la opinión de los revisores, no el consenso. Thryduulf ( charla ) 22:31, 1 de junio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Just noting that if a copy/paste has been performed, unless the original editor is the only content editor a {{histmerge}} will be necessary. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use AFD, there shouldn't be a criteria for deleting such articles as it would discourage people from using AFD in the first place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A small update to U1

Currently, if I want to delete Module:Sandbox/Nickps or one of its subpages, I have to use G7, which means that if another editor edits it, I will have to go to MFD to get it deleted. However, those pages are user sandboxes (see Module:Module sandbox for the communal sandbox) and are only placed in the Module namespace for technical reasons, so U1 should apply instead. So, I propose that the first sentence of U1 is changed into Personal user pages, subpages as well as Module:Sandbox/<the user's name> and its subpages (but not their corresponding talk pages) upon request by their user. Nickps (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider updating U2 in a similar way. Nickps (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has this ever actually happened? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing. I didn't find anything in TfD or MfD but there might be IAR deletions that admins have done over the years. That probably means rejection on the grounds of NEWCSD#3 anyway, but I still think my suggestion is correct, even if IAR ends up being the justification. Nickps (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a criterion for UPE creations

I'd like to revisit the idea of creating a new speedy deletion for criterion for articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of undisclosed paid editing. This was previously proposed in 2017 but narrowly failed to achieve consensus. However, I think that many of the assumptions made in that discussion are no longer valid in 2024, due to the changing nature of undisclosed paid editing. Specifically, the closer wrote the objection to the proposed criterion was based on the following:

the relative vagueness and/or subjectivity of its definition and/or applicability in practice due to frequency of edge cases – we have become much more organised about handling undisclosed paid editing cases since 2017. There is now an off-wiki reporting mechanism and a group of trusted functionaries actively monitoring it. Blocks for UPE based on nonpublic evidence are documented on-wiki using a process set by ArbCom, similar to checkuser blocks. Adding a clarifying bullet to the new criterion saying that it is only applicable if UPE is demonstrated by solid evidence on-wiki (rare in practice) or endorsed by a functionary should therefore be sufficient to overcome this objection. It wouldn't be any more vague or subjective than G5.
other criteria already cover most cases (e.g., WP:A7, WP:G11) – UPE operations are smarter than they were seven years ago (or if they didn't get smarter, they couldn't survive). They don't write articles that without a claim of significance, they create the appearance of notability by WP:REFBOMBing citations to articles they have paid to be placed in superficially reliable sources. They don't write blatant advertisements, they just only write positive things and neglect to include anything their client doesn't want mentioned. I cannot remember the last time I came across a UPE creation that was so clear-cut as to meet these criteria.
the normal, slower deletion processes are sufficient given a purportedly low incidence of pages that would meet the proposed criteria – the functionaries receive reports of undisclosed paid editing almost daily, and it is not unusual for them to reveal dozens of paid creations. Sending them en masse to AfD would flood it, and discussion there is in any case complicated by the nonpublic nature of the grounds for deletion.

Another approach suggested in the past was to expand G5 to cover these. And it is true that the vast majority of the regular UPErs we see were blocked long ago. But I don't think this is a good approach for two reasons. First, we frequently can't link them to a specific blocked account. Second, the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for them. This technically doesn't preclude G5 but does make it a lot less clear cut and in practice I think it has become less and less useful for UPE.

I'm not proposing this criterion right now. I'd like to hear whether others think it is viable and workshop the wording a bit first (so please hold the support/opposes). – Joe (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get UPE listed as a WP:DEL#REASON first.

Show that these lead to SNOW deletions second. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 48#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments SmokeyJoe. Just as an aside, you might want to consider how structuring them as a series of terse commands comes across. The first WP:DEL#REASON is "content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion", so in a way trying to get UPE listed there is exactly what I'm doing now :). But I understand that your broader point is that there should be an existing consensus that a CSD is a deletion reason. I believe that already exists for UPE creations. First and foremost, they are explicitly forbidden by the WMF Terms of Use, and that pre-empts local policy. We can also look at practice: in my experience, UPE creations only survive the unmasking of their creator if they have been significantly rewritten by other, uninvolved editors. Otherwise, they are deleted under G5, G11, at AfD, or G13 after being moved to draftspace. These are all long-standing, accepted practices but, as I explained above, they are inconvenient, and a more specific criterion would make combatting paid-for spam much easier. A final point of evidence is the discussion I linked above, where there was nearly consensus for precisely this criterion, and little doubt that it was a valid reason for deletion, just a series of (well-placed) concerns that I believe are now either no longer relevant or can be overcome.

Thanks for pointing out the 2019 DELPOL discussion – I didn't know about it, but I'm familiar with the arguments there. I think TonyBallioni's view, that a combination of WP:SOCK/CheckUser and WP:NOTPROMO/G11 is sufficient to deal with UPE, has long been influential and reflects his firsthand experience in countering the first wave of UPE outfits in the late 2010s. However, I think I remember even Tony himself saying that things it's no longer the case. The big UPE sockfarms were all blocked, they adopted new tactics, and we need to adapt too. Ivanvector and Thryduulf's argument, that we should only delete content for what it is and not where it came from, is more a point of principle, but ultimately I'm more interested in how the deletion process works in practice, i.e. does it do enough to support overstretched volunteer editors in dealing with people who try to spam our encyclopaedia for a living. As the late great DGG put it in that discussion: In practice, over my 12 years here, I have seen almost no satisfactory articles from people who are writing an article for money. – Joe (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smokeyjoe is right. Before we can even consider making this a speedy deletion criterion you need to show that every time a page is nominated for deletion solely for being a UPE creation by someone G5 does not apply to the consensus is to delete. Unless and until you can do that then any criterion will fail WP:NEWCSD point 2. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terse? Sorry if that disturbed you.

I agree with all of your intent, except the attempt to creatively wikilawyer a solution in under CSD. This style of management further breaks the community into admins and nonadmins, where admins only deal with UPE. I also disagree with the premise that AfD can’t handle UPE-based, or even -mentioning nominations. XfD should most definitely be used to provide evidence of a need for a CSD. That’s what we did for U5 and G13, and every step of the process worked well and the outcome remains good.

The T&Cs are at odds with policy as written. T&Cs are often ignore rambling gobbledygook. I don’t see where the T&Cs authorise speedy deletion. I remain frustrated that agreement can’t be found to have deletion policy even mention undeclared paid editing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Joe. They are much more sophisticated and some have also started including a minor negative incident to hide UPE and to prevent the article from being tagged as UPE/NPOV type issues. For folks who are not familiar with UPE tactics, it goes well beyond just creating articles. They are also hired to participate in AfDs (different people than the article's creator) who bombard it with Keep votes and various poor sources which makes it extremely time consuming because you have go through all the sources presented and explain/argue why they do not meet the criteria. Only so many editors have the time or are going to take the time and often these are not brand new accounts; they have hundreds, if not thousands of edits, and perms so not SPAs/obvious to those unfamiliar. WP:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur) is an example. In that instance they were blocked as socks but not until after the AfD and even so the article was not G5 eligible because they were not proven to be socks of an already blocked editor. Had it not been for the efforts of @Jeraxmoira and @Usedtobecool the article may have been been kept at AfD.

They are also hired to remove maintenance tags and of course update articles. There are articles where almost the entire editing history is blocked UPE but not G5 or G11 eligible. Sure, you can nominate it for AfD but again, you might have to deal with UPE participants so you need to be prepared to dedicate time and cross your fingers at least another non-UPE editor participates. S0091 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe is completely correct, and our failure to do basic stuff like make UPE creations automatically CSD-eligible is one of the main reasons there are UPEs -- our policies not only permit it but openly encourage it. Why should they wait eight months fo a draft to be declined when they can spam their slop shit into mainspace and flip a coin on having it stay forever? jp×g🗯️ 19:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with works accused of being UPE is that very often these accusations are made with little or no visible evidence. Sometimes even when the accuser is directly asked they will refuse to provide any evidence on the basis of not spilling beans. If an editor is actually determined to be a UPE-creator and blocked for it we can apply G5. If it's blatantly promotional we can apply G11. If neither, we need a clear and transparent process, not a hidden and unanswerable tribunal of UPE-inquisitors. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Joe's proposal, the account(s) must be blocked for UPE in order for the article(s) to be eligible for CSD and I agree that should be requirement. S0091 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it's redundant to G5. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be redundant - a person can be editing for pay without disclosure without also evading blocks. UPE accounts are often also sockpuppets but the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for them and the freelancers were never themselves blocked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or they do end up being blocked for UPE but either they are not sock of an already blocked user or likely a but the master is unknown or it's not until later it is discovered they are the master but masters aren't G5 eligible. Happens all the time. S0091 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which case we're back to needing to get consensus at XfD that these creations should always be deleted. Only when that consensus exists can we consider speedily deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you catch my other response above which addresses AfDs? Editors are hired to participate at AfDs as well. S0091 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? If you want to speedily delete a class of pages it is an absolute and non-negotiable requirement that you get community consensus that that class of pages should always be deleted. If you think that AfDs are being tainted by paid editors then you need to get consensus that their comments can and should be excluded from determining the result. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the comments on Justin Jin were given equal weightage apart from the SPAs/IPs - How would you get consensus that an editor's comments should be excluded from determining the result when they are not blocked yet? Am I misunderstanding your point? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we are talking about undisclosed paid editing which per the Terms of Use is already prohibited so we do not need consensus their comments should be excluded. Of course, it has to be proven which can be a time-consuming endeavor and often not possible during the course of an AfD because you have prove several accounts are UPE, not just the creator. As it stands now even if the creator is proven to be UPE, G5, G11, etc. are often not applicable. I will also note in the Justin Jin case, a UPE editor also closed it as no consensus. Jeraxmoira had to go to DRV to have it reversed so not only did the community have to spend two weeks in a robust AfD discussion with several UPEs, the community also had to spend a week in a DRV discussion all because of UPE. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that showing unanimous consensus at XfD is the only way to demonstrate that a proposed new criterion meets point #2 of WP:NEWCSD, and scanning through the archives of previous successfully-proposed criteria, this isn't routinely asked of them. That almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted could also be demonstrated by consensus in an RfC, for example. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joe Roe, ease back on “unanimous”. Can you point to several AfDs that show a pattern? User:S0091 pointed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked. I can, but in my experience these aren't handled at AfD too often. – Joe (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So where is your evidence of consensus that these pages should be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've already answered that question. – Joe (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a lot of words without actually answering the question. Where is the consensus that all pages (or all promotional pages) created by undisclosed paid editors that do not have any other problems should always be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the test will be whether there's a consensus to establish this CSD or not. – Joe (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, like it or not, we do handle UPE through a hidden and unanswerable tribunal of inquisitors. If there's a better way of doing it within the very strict limitations we have on discussing off-wiki evidence on-wiki, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter. But as far as I know nobody has been able to come up with one, and until we do CSD has to work with the processes we have, not the processes we'd like to have. As I've mentioned above, while a combination of G5 and G11 used to work quite well, UPEers have countered this by avoiding blatant promotionalism and subcontracting out creation instead of using block-evading sockfarms. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Document this secret unanswerable tribunal. It would have to be covered by a different policy, not creatively squeezed under G5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that arbcom and the checkusers are neither secret nor unanswerable, and yet are entrusted with private evidence. So there can be no need for any UPE investigators to keep themselves secret and unanswerable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, two people (Bilby and Extraordinary Writ) are currently publicly applying to become entrusted to see and deal with non-public evidence regarding conflict of interest editing (with which paid editing is an overlapping set), See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/July 2024 appointments - it needs more attention. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up until recently it was CheckUsers that handled UPE reports. Now it's CheckUsers, Oversight, and the special appointments (the first two linked above). So this is already documented, at Wikipedia:Functionaries and now Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports.

But functionaries aren't given special powers when it comes to deletion. That's why CheckUsers need G5, and why we need a new criterion for this. – Joe (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that those actually handling UPE reports desire additional deletion options? I've never seen it mentioned on the Functionaries list. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm one of them... so that's one data point. @Moneytrees, Spicy, Blablubbs, GeneralNotability, Bilby, and Extraordinary Writ: Do you want to weigh in here? – Joe (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @DatGuy:, plus apologies to others that I've surely overlooked. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My general position on this is that deletion of UPE work is necessary if we actually want to meaningfully disincentivise this form of abuse. accounts are cheap and plentiful – simply blocking them does nothing to threaten the viability of UPE as a business model. Deleting the work product, however, does, because that's the part people get paid for.

I also agree that in practice, G5 and G11 often don't "cut it" unless construed quite broadly, because the proliferation of technical obfuscation measures deliberately employed to evade CU complicate long-term tracking of farms, and many spammers have figured out to write unbalanced promotional garbage while falling just shy of promotion that is sufficiently overt for G11. A criterion that would allow us to delete stuff that was verifiably bought and paid for would fix that problem. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, @Blablubbs Is bang on in terms of G5 being easily worked around; there are tons of SPIs that likely stem from the same master/firm, but aren't eligiable for G5 because the socks haven't been technically connected together. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before talking expansion of CSD, they should send cases to AfD to verify that they are aligned with the community. Is this a community run project, or oligarchy? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One requirement should be they are made of aware of WP:PAID/TOU. There are editors who meet the definition of PAID but legitimately do not know about the disclosure requirement but once made aware comply or at least make an AGF effort to comply. S0091 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is written down anywhere, but the usual practice is only to block people if they've previously been made aware or are experienced enough that they can't plausible claim ignorance. When it's just a newbie that didn't know the rules, we just tell them about them, and usually that solves the problem. So if we link this criterion to blocks (which seems necessary), that wouldn't come up. – Joe (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is linked to blocks then either your duplicating G5 or deleting pages created before the block, which is what you claim above you don't want to do. Which is it? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's to be used to delete pages created before the block. I don't believe I've said otherwise. – Joe (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we're talking about where UPE is discovered and determined by other means, I don't see how this can go anywhere. Sometimes in NPP I see a case where after a thorough review, I'd say I'm 95% sure it's UPE. Wikipedia has no place to go with this information (e.g. for further review) ....the folks who ostensibly we're to report these to do not consider it to be their purview which is only to review submitted off-wiki evidence. And 95% sure is not enough to anything with. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any article created by a proven UPE should be deletable, but very often that accusation is made with no evidence. I remember that some years ago, when I was editing as an IP, the accusation was made against me that I was either a sockpuppet or a UPE (I still don't know which, but was neither) and the accuser (who is still editing) was asked to substantiate the allegations and replied that he had private evidence that he wasn't willing to disclose, even though we have procedures for disclosing such evidence to Arbcom. Yes, any (or at least most) methods should be used to get rid of the scourge of UPEs, but we need to avoid witchhunts. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it only applies to articles, then why can’t it be solved by draftification? Draftification would have the advantage of nonadmins being able to see what’s going on. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it is handled in practice now. But I'm uncomfortable with it because it violates WP:NOTBACKDOOR. These drafts aren't going to be improved; the creator is blocked and nobody else wants to earn their payday for them. Keeping unwanted, ToS-violating content in draftspace for six months before G11 kicks in is a waste of time, and risks encouraging gaming by UPErs, who have been known to try and exploit their client's ignorance of how Wikipedia works by passing off drafts or old versions of articles as live ones. – Joe (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTBACKDOOR. That’s WP:Deletion policy. That goes back to my earlier point. Get UPE included as a reason for deletion. Carve it out of NOBACKDOOR. Get ToS violations written into deletion policy. Creative solutions in CSD is the wrong approach. CSD is only for when consensus to delete is established to be obvious, objection, unobjectionable. The reason not even being listed at Deletion policy is a pretty obvious reason to object. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought draftspace was created so that AfC drafts could be moved out of Wikipedia space, because PAID editors were getting paid because clients thought Wikipedia space was good enough, and we thought the Draft prefix would not satisfy them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you and Thryduulf have made that same point numerous times now; I respectfully disagree. If you are right, then an RfC on this proposed criterion will not gain consensus and you have nothing to worry about. In the mean time, I would really like to focus on workshopping the actual proposal text. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose to waste the community's time on an RFC that is doomed to failure if you wish, alternatively you can start listening to the feedback you've solicited and formulate a proposal that meets all the requirements of WP:NEWCSD and thus stands a chance of succeeding. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will have noticed that you and SmokeyJoe are not the only people who have responded above. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But none of them have actually refuted or contradicted any point we've made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand from your and SmokeyJoe's feedback is that you don't think this is a viable proposal and won't be unless we spend a considerable amount of time (years?) taking test cases to AfD. Since I can't really act on that feedback right now, I'm choosing to focus on the feedback from others who were more positive about the proposal's chances. I hope you can see that that's not the same as ignoring your feedback altogether. Since we're at the point of workshopping a proposal rather than trying to get consensus for it, I don't think there is any need to engage in debate. – Joe (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe's feedback is that you don't think this is a viable proposal and won't be unless we spend a considerable amount of time (years?) taking test cases to AfD.

No, send dozen cases in a week. Seven days. Maybe longer with relists. Not a forever goose chase. We can trust the functionaries word that they have compelling evident the authors are UPE. Let’s test the DGG conjecture, no UPE ever writes a good article.

Undelete or re-mainspace and list at AfD some recent past cases if you don’t have a dozen right now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it only applies to articles, then why can’t it be solved by draftification? …

That's how it is handled in practice now. … – Joe (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to some of these draftified pages please? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me know if I understand this correctly: the official paid-editing policy is that you're allowed to do it and we have to go through a seven-day-long process biased towards keeping the page so long as you include the phrase "is notable for" somewhere in the pile of slop? jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the rules on disclosure then you are allowed to edit for pay, yes. If you want to change that then you're in the wrong place. If you think AfDs should be biased towards deletion in some circumstances then again you're in the wrong place. If you have a proposal that meets all the requirements of WP:NEWCSD then you are in the right place, however all I've seen so far is complaining that it's too difficult to get the evidence required for point 2, rather than any attempts to actually get that evidence. If the community is as against paid editing as you believe then it will be very easy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "the official undisclosed paid-editing policy" -- considering "we block the throwaway account you took thirty seconds to create but we keep the article you got paid $2,000 to write" to be "you're allowed to do it" (e.g. their goal is to have the article kept, they aren't getting paid $2,000 to have an unblocked sock) jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of evidence

Based on the above discussion, the main concern (aside from those who don't want this criterion at all), appears to be how we will ensure that it is only a. I also think I assumed too much prior knowledge of how UPE enforcement and handling of nonpublic evidence currently works, which will also. To address this, I suggest making deletion explicitly conditional on a prior block for UPE, and inserting some more links for context on how these happen. So this would be the proposed text:

AXX. Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use
This applies to promotional articles created by a user who is indefinitely blocked for violating the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of undisclosed paid editing
This criterion only applies to undisclosed paid editing, not paid editing that has been disclosed or any other types of conflict of interest
Mere suspicion of undisclosed paid editing is not enough; there must be a consensus documented on-wiki or nonpublic evidence reported through the proper channels (see below), and the user must have been blocked for it
If the block is based on nonpublic evidence, it must have been placed or endorsed by a functionary or administrator authorised to handle nonpublic evidence for this criterion to apply
Unlike WP:CSD#G5, this criterion applies to articles created before the block was placed

The insertion of "promotional" is so we don't end up deleting non-paid creations alongside paid ones. I'm not sure if this also needs an explanatory bullet point.

Feedback and suggested modifications welcome, but I'm hopeful we're zeroing in on something that can be put to an RfC soon. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it applies only to promotional articles then it's entirely redundant to G11. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G11 applies to "unambiguous" promotion and "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles". The intention is that this would be broader. That's what I was wondering if we might need an extra bullet to explain. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the consensus that such pages should be deleted rather than fixed? Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, do you want to spend your time fixing something like this, so somebody else can get paid for it? – Joe (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What either of us wants to do is irrelevant, what matters is that there is a demonstrated community consensus that the pages should always be deleted. If you don't have that then a speedy deletion criterion is impossible. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "there must be a consensus documented on-wiki", what qualifies as consensus? For example if I have a discussion with you on-wiki, provide evidence of UPE and you agree so you block the user, does that qualify as consensus? As for "or nonpublic evidence reported through the proper channels", does nonpublic include WP:BEANS where all the evidence is on-wiki but you don't want to give UPEs any ideas about how to circumvent detection or game Wikipedia's processes? Also, reading the 2017 RfC, there was growing consensus for a sticky prod. What is you reasoning for proposing CSD over the sticky prod idea? S0091 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "conditional on a prior block" deletions address the issue, because UPE creators can also create throwaway socks and it could plausibly be much easier to determine that an article is UPE (because it matches the particulars of some paid-editing request) than that it was created by some known sockmaster. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Is blanking a problematic userpage an acceptable alternative to speedy deletion? Ae245 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It depends on the problem. Don’t blank instead of WP:G10 or WP:G12, but you might do better to quietly blank an old problem if you are not sure it reaches the G10 or G12 threshold. If you’re talking WP:U1 or WP:G7, it’s entirely your preference. Note that most CSD don’t apply to userpages.

Blanking is almost always preferable to MfD-ing someone else’s problematic Userpage, especially if they are long inactive. You can use {{Userpage blanked}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ae245 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to revise CSD R3 for foreign language redirects

I've put together a proposal to revise and extend R3 to better address redirects in languages other than English. Your feedback is welcomed. — Scott • talk 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]