User:Ferien/Administrative observations

This is a list of observations about use of admin tools that I want to note down somewhere, after being an admin for two years. I realised just before creating this that the title sounds similar to w:WP:OWB, but it definitely is not comparable in what it's talking about and definitely not as well-written! I might add to this more later.

Quick deletion

This section contains content from Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion, please see that page for attribution.

G1

• All of the text is nonsense. Nonsense includes content that does not make sense or is not meaningful. However, this does not include bad writing, bad words, vandalism, things that are fake or impossible, or parts which are not in English.
• G1 is simple, but occasionally misunderstood.
• I personally only use G1 for nonsense that is "wueihfjb" sort of nonsense.
• Something that I have noticed a few people say is that if the content of a page is not related to the title, it is eligible for G1, but this is not the case. The content does make sense, it should just be moved to a different title.

G2

• It is a test page, such as "Can I really create a page here?".
• G2 appears to me to be so limited in scope that I almost never use it.
• G1, G2, A1 and A2 are often used for similar types of pages. I will be happy to use G1, A1 and A2 on most G2 noms – unless a page is clearly a test, I will always use the other three options, even though it really doesn't matter that much.

G4

• Creation of content that is already deleted. It includes an identical or similar copy, with any title, of a page that was deleted, after being discussed in Requests for deletion, unless it was undeleted due to another discussion or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the Administrator should be sure that the content is similar and not just a new article on the same subject. This rule cannot be used if the article was only quickly deleted with no request for deletion.
• This is part of why RfD is generally better than quick deletion, for non-notable people, if a page has been recreated multiple times.
  • Let's say an article of a non-notable person has been created. It is first deleted for promotion, then on the second attempt, its promotional tone is removed, but there is no claim of importance/notability. On the third attempt, neither of these issues apply anymore, so the article is no longer eligible for deletion through the quick methods and we must go through a full RfD. While quick deletion should always be used for spammy articles first, some spammers are so persistent that it is actually a better use of time to discuss the article for a week, rather than trying to use quick deletion criteria when it does not apply, because G4 gives us a reason for deletion pretty much every time.
• If the RfD did not have any !votes, it cannot get deleted again per G4. This is for two reasons:
  1. WP:SOFTDELETE. If an RfD has no comments, it is treated like a PROD is on enwiki.
  2. G4 mentions after being discussed in Requests for deletion. If no other person has commented, it is not really a discussion.

G5

• Created by a blocked or banned user, who is evading their block or ban when the page was created. The main contributor of that page is the blocked/banned user, and no other user has made significant good-faith edits to the page. This does not mean that an administrator must delete every article created by a blocked or banned user who is evading their block. Any other user can ask for the page to be restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review if they want to improve it.
• After being very boldly removed within 13 minutes in 2008, this QD criteria was bought back with a somewhat surprising amount of community support in 2023, thanks to the ideas from Operator873 and Fehufanga.
• I have rarely had an opportunity to use this reason yet. I think I have used it once, maybe twice. Partly because I have been on Wikibreak for half of its existence, but also because in most cases, the other QD criteria usually apply.
• It was stated at m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) that The QD (CSD) criteria over there is piss poor to say the least ("created by a sock" is apparently not a valid reason for deletion). I don't think this is an unreasonable comment honestly. It is good we have got rid of a reason for closing this website down.

G6

• Housekeeping. Pages that do not need discussion to be deleted, for example if the page needs to be deleted to merge histories.
• This is only for pages that should be deleted on a temporary basis but in the past, I have noticed this has been used for articles that have no references.

A3

• Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text. If an article is being simplified, the {{simplifying}} template can be added to it. That does not allow the article to remain complex forever, but it gives editors some time to simplify it.
• If a page does not have complex text but has been copied from the English Wikipedia, it does not have to be deleted. Attribution can be added.
• If it's not that complex, you can also just simplify it yourself, then also add attribution.

A4

• Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD with a result to keep, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead.
• This is, without a doubt, the most controversial quick deletion criterion on this project.
• Note that the criteria says does not say why the subject is important. This does not mean the article has to claim to pass notability guidelines.
  • For example, social media followers are not irrelevant in notability. But if someone has 1,000,000 followers on Twitter, some people would say they are famous and so important. So an article about that person, stating that fact, cannot get deleted under A4.
• Technically speaking, per the above policy, if someone disagrees with an A4, it is no longer eligible for A4. In practice, admins usually delete anyway.

Requests for deletion

No references

Not a good reason for deletion. References can literally be added in seconds with the Cite button in visual/2017 wikitext editor. This issue can be solved in minutes. Also, thousands of articles on our wiki (unfortunately) have no references.