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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
• (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)Reply
• 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)Reply