Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
@Isaacl: Thank you for raising this. Are you referring to the various section headings in the form :'''Comment by Arbitrators:''', etc.? If so, we can definitely make some changes. If we were to replace them with description lists instead (;Comment by Arbitrators:, with subsequent lines starting with one indent (:), would that work better? If not, could you propose a set of changes in a sandbox? If this is an issue, we will also make an effort to make the PD page more accessible, so please feel free to propose changes to that page. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are referring the empty lines between the lines starting with colons, as screen readers interpret those lines as the end of a list. See this edit which demonstrates what I believe they are referring to. BilledMammal (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about those gaps since they separate the pseudo-sections. Semantically, each pseudo-section is a separate list. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring specifically to the comments made by various contributors below the subheadings. I do think that ideally the subheadings would be real headings, and I don't think that the description term element should be used (as noted in the manual of style to which you linked, it's not semantically correct to use it for headings). I appreciate, though, that the current formatting is used to avoid having those headings in the table of contents, and {{TOC limit}} can't be used since there are level 4 headings elsewhere that are desirable to include. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still trying to understand. @BilledMammal: We can certainly consider doing that, which seems pretty easy.
@Isaacl: Which comments would you like corrected? If it'd be easier, you have my permission to make one edit to fix all of the comments as they stand, so I have a better sense of what you mean.
Regarding using description lists, if it's just "not semantically correct", that's going to have to be OK. The MOS applies to article-space not project-space and at ArbCom we have unique requirements which don't allow for full alignment with the MOS. Will it cause an accessibility issue?
Yes, this edit removed blank spaces between list items corresponding to people's comments and addresses the concern I raised. Thanks!
If headings aren't being used, then staying with a regular unbulleted (in reality, a description details) list item with bolded text, as is done now, is preferable to changing to using a description term as a pseudo-heading. Semantic issues are often accessibility issues, because assistive reading tools make assumptions based on the semantics of the HTML markup. In this case, though, it's probably not much worse than all description details elements that are created by each :-prefixed list item. (Headings are better for accessibility as assistive tools would enable skipping to or over each section, as I understand it. As I mentioned, though, I understand why they aren't used in this situation.) isaacl (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While most of the principles and both of the remedies I have proposed on the workshop page are aimed at administrators, rather than any of the parties to this case, I believe that the committee can do great service to the community just by reiterating what our policies already say. None of the principles are intended to be novel interpretations, and to the extent that they are, you have my sincerest apologies. Again, I think our deletion policies, as written, work well when implemented by reasonable people at a reasonable rate of speed. Hence, my last principle, which may indeed be applicable to user conduct. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How should I rebut Jclemens's proposals? I will go over a specific example for clarity. Policies and guidelines are distinct was previously posted as an overturn recommendation by Jclemens at WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 23#Katie Nixon. I would like to present the specific sub-discussion, my rebuttal (preferably its contents, not as a diff), and that the DRV was closed as Deletion endorsed despite Jclemens's objection. Should I post all of that on the Evidence page and link from the Workshop? What should I do if a proposal is added after Evidence is closed?
Do you have any substantial policy-based objections rather than nearly 10 year old and unrelated ad hominem? The fact that a DRV comes to a particular conclusion is at most a LOCALCONSENSUS and not a community commentary, let alone repudiation, of every argument advanced in a particular DRV. I'll note the irony that your linked rebuttal cited a non-policy page, in an attempt to privilege its wording regarding. the relationship between policies and guidelines. I trust the committee will evaluate it all appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I truly don't understand proposal #3. I think there is a grammatical error or a missing word that is obscuring the meaning of the first sentence. —ScottyWong— 05:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In plain English "policies" means "policies" and does not include "guidelines" unless the page actually says "policies and guidelines" or the like. What word needs to be added there? I went back and re-read it twice, and I grant that it's awkward, but it's my attempt at being very precise. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The first sentence reads, "When a Wikipedia project page refers to policy or policies and does not explicitly include guidelines or essays, it means only those principles accepted by community consensus as policies, rather than including guidelines or essays, per WP:POLICIES." The second clause ("it means only those principles accepted by community consensus as policies") seems to be missing a verb. Did you mean to say "it means only those principles accepted by community consensus as policies [should be used to defend a position]", or "it means only those principles accepted by community consensus as policies [apply to that project page]" or something like that? Otherwise I don't think it's a complete sentence. —ScottyWong— 04:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. If you want a bit more verb-y, I'd go with "When a Wikipedia project page refers to policy or policies and does not explicitly include guidelines or essays, it means only those principles which have been accepted by community consensus as policies, rather than including guidelines or essays, per WP:POLICIES." Does that clarify? Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that (similar to my evidence regarding WP:BEFORE) it's probably enough to show that there is significant disagreement over the policy interpretations presented there - or even that Jclemens' views are idiosyncratic or in the minority, though I suspect showing they are controversial is sufficient. ArbCom isn't going to hand down policy (or even controversial interpretations of policy). EDIT: I didn't read carefully enough; at first glance I didn't realize the last two things Jclemens was asking for were remedies, not findings of fact. That's completely out of scope - you cannot reasonably expect ArbCom to create policy by fiat. If you think individual administrators are ignoring policy, add them as parties to the case. In drastic cases a finding of fact might effectively have to weigh in on policy by making it clear that some things are so beyond the pale that they'll justify sanctions against administrators, but ArbCom isn't going to directly give instructions to every single administrator as a remedy. --Aquillion (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not correct. Groups of Wikipedians are reminded of certain expectations by the committee in any number of arbitration decisions. Reminders don't require adding anyone as parties, nor should they! The committee is indeed not supposed to make policy, but it is absolutely within the scope of Arbcom to remind the community, or certain members within it, of what our policies actually expect. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatscan if you're interested in discussing minority views in the abstract that section isn't great. But if you're interested with-in the realm of the case, that discussion has already begun as I noted, and so I would just say to join in. Can you clarify what you mean with your first question? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to present a hypothetical example borrowing BilledMammal's platypus topic. An editor interprets WP:What Wikipedia is not (policy, shortcut WP:NOT) incorrectly to mean that all platypus articles are inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia and must be deleted. They approach closers of relevant AfDs, encouraging them when they delete, and asking them to reconsider when they do not. This pattern of behavior is concerning because convincing a closer to follow this interpretation and put their finger on the scale has higher impact than convincing a mere participant. Would the user talk page discussions be in scope? Disclosure: This may be moot, as I expect to exhaust my allotment before presenting this evidence. I may repost this example in the workshop section. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one scratching my head as to why there are policy changes being suggested on this Workshop page? Everybody reading this knows that Arbcom can't make or change policy, right? It seems like a massive waste of time to be discussing on a Workshop page things that Arbcom has no power to decide, such as whether admins should choose an ATD even if none has been proposed, whether accuracy is more important than speed, or whether AFDs should be closed only by admins. Levivich[block]17:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom can't make or change policy, but it does interpret it and then applies that interpretation to determine if the conduct of any editors was incorrect. So to the extent that the discussion is about interpreting policy, which is what most of the principles discussion is about on the Workshop both in the abstract and as it applies to specific evidence that has been submitted, I don't think it's a massive waste of time. To the extent that it's about remedies that ArbCom has no power to impose, I agree that time might be better spent otherwise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Arbcom should consider making or changing policy in this matter, if the community isn't capable. But, that's for another discussion, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the US Supreme Court doesn't make law, it just interprets law, yet those interpretations determine people's substantive rights. Arbcom's interpretations of policy can similarly determine editors' "rights". There are some editors who appear to me to be attempting to use this case to change how deletion discussions are handled, and while I don't think any arbitrators would ever even think of using a case to change policy, I do think some editors on the Workshop page are wasting other editors' time. Levivich[block]19:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's hard for ArbCom to avoid a question, though. See eg. my comments on WP:BEFORE - since some people are overtly asking ArbCom to impose sanctions for what they consider insufficient BEFORE searches, ArbCom can't avoid weighing in on that to some extent. Obviously per my comments I don't think there's enough of a consensus behind the hard requirement to justify using it for sanctions, but no matter what they do it's going to have some effect on how the policy is interpreted and exactly where the line there is. They can suggest a community RFC to get more clarity, but in this specific case they still have to ultimately decide whether the situation outlined here justifies sanctions or not. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do think some of what is being brought up in the workshop does seem to be straying a bit over the line of what the commitee can or will make decisions on, but that's really not that unusual in the workshop. I am not really a huge fan of even having the workshop phase, and this is one of the reasons why. Originally, it was mostly used by the actual arbitrators to draft the upcoming proposed decision, that function moved to the arbwiki a decade or so ago, but the workshop remained a customary phase of each case. I've been on both sides of the coin, having filed or presented evidence in previous cases, and my impression is that it is fairly rare for anything other than the most obvious proposals to actually make it into the proposed decison. --Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remedies where ArbCom recommends that the community hold a policy RfC have fallen out of fashion, but I think that's because these remedies have never really had a great outcome because they've lacked structure and details. I would be open to considering remedy proposals that recommend a community RfC and include specific wording for the RfC question. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 23:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least I think we do need some sort of RFC about WP:BEFORE, and perhaps also about the mass-creation of stubs. Both seem fairly central to this case. That said I'm not sure we need ArbCom to tell us that such RFCs are needed - anyone could start one either way. One thing I was considering was a straightforward up-or-down RFC on whether editors are required to do a source search before nominating a mass-created article. Another possibility would be to focus on articles that have had only a single significant contributor, but that seems a bit more broad and not as on-scope. --Aquillion (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least the one I am familiar with, the process that created WP:WESTBANK as a result of WP:ARBPIA2#Community asked to come to a consensus on the preferred names, went very well as it was moderated and had the understanding that it would not simply flounder until "no consensus". I think they can be useful if there is an understanding that the result has some force behind it and that some result, any result besides "no consensus", will happen. nableezy - 00:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been thinking about that. I'd be open to a mandate like that if the circumstances justified it and I thought it could be done fairly. If something comes to mind I'd like to read it. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 01:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I developed a specific format for certain scenarios at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. Mutually exclusive options are presented, participants must choose only one. Additional proposals are not permitted. A panel of three uninvolved admins is recruited before the discussion is open, they administrate the process and do the close. This is a restrictive format meant only to be used when prior discussions repeatedly failed to achieve a clear consensus, so it may the right fit for the content policy aspects of these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another RfC from the past was about the GMO case. It was not called for by ArbCom, but was (creatively) carried out under DS. It was very successful in ending the dispute, in a way that the ArbCom case, itself, was not. It was about language to use on pages, so is not the same thing as what might be contemplated here. But the approach of conducting the RfC under DS, with administrators overseeing the process, and having a three-admin panel to close (different individuals than the ones conducting the RfC, and I would recommend keeping them separate so that the close will not appear "tainted" by disputes during the RfC), could be useful here. I also think that allowing members of the community to propose solutions (for example, proposals about BEFORE and proposals about mass stub creation), and then have polling to select which ones have consensus, could be useful. (It can provide a work-around for problems coming up with the initial wording of RfC questions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good format. I immediately thought of the recent WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC, where the non-consensus version of NSPORTS was protected off and on for weeks because editors opposed to the changes repeatedly reverted and then requested page protection which was then granted by uninvolved admins "to stop the edit warring". Close oversight along with discretionary sanctions, all the way through to implementation, would certainly be a benefit for any deletion/creation related RfC. –dlthewave☎05:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking findings of facts and remedies to evidence
Admittedly, I'm not someone that regularly participates at ArbCom, so I'm not particularly experienced here. I'm wondering if there has ever been a custom of attempting to link proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies back to specific pieces of evidence provided on the associated Evidence page of the case? Would anyone find that helpful? I understand the implication that findings of fact and remedies should be based on evidence, but without making a direct link from one to another, one is left to guess which piece(s) of evidence support each finding of fact and remedy. I'm envisioning a small hatnote at the top of a proposal that says something like, "this proposal is supported by evidence provided by Scottywong." Just a suggestion. —ScottyWong— 21:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently (half the time?), we will do this explicitly in the final decision by linking it at the end of the text of the FoF (example). So you should feel free to do so in workshop proposals – I know I would find that helpful. You can also link it in the "comments" section following a workshop proposal. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do a bit better than Kevin has indicated on this score. Our two full 2022 cases have been unusual as they have predominantly relied on private evidence but in every 2020 and 2021 case (I didn't check farther back) there was explicit linking of findings of fact to specific evidence. So I would say that this is the norm for final decisions. The remedy isn't quite as directly linked but it's normally given some kind of preface. So rather than saying "Foo is topic banned" it tends ot be "For edit warning Foo is topic banned" with the edit warring having been an FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Workshop pages would be much more useful if proposed principles cited principles established in prior cases (or the index) where appropriate, the relevant policies and guidelines when not so-established, and FOFs directly indicated the evidence they are summarizing - we do this today when drafting. Some of the case regulars also know to do this, but I wonder if that's a practice that is suggested in the guide to arbitration (it should be).
I also wouldn't hate it if the traceability both forward and 'backward' (from principle -> FOF -> remedy and then remedy -> FOF -> principle) were also obvious in a proposal; I know a few other arbs would probably be happy with that. Izno (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to put this in the Workshop page. But, if there was some way to control 'how many' pages are created (say per month) & how many pages were nominated for deletion (say per month), it might slow things down. Like I mentioned before, I rarely participate in AfD or MfDs, so I reckon I just don't have any solutions. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is the mass creation of articles is already restricted through WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT, but those restrictions are ignored. I am hopefully that ArbCom will produce a principle that restates that, which will in turn hopefully prompt stronger enforcement of those policies.
For deletion nominations, I am drafting a draconian remedy, in line with "At wits end", based on a broad interpretation of WP:DE, that will impose such a limit. I'm not convinced it is the best solution to the problem, as it treats the symptom not the cause, and its basis in policy is very weak, but it's one I think ArbCom needs to consider. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn from this Arbcom case. To avoid confusion, I merely scratched out my ideas, instead of deleting them. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is fascinating to watch, also slightly confusing, and educational - partly because the process is complex and I don't understand it. Partly because I think something is missing, assuming the goal is a solution.
To imagine a solution, I've been thinking about the problem. Here's my hypothesis, I hope this is helpful:
The problem is human tendencies. Consider the politician who makes the front page of the local newspaper for opening a school. Consider how no politician ever gets on the front page for quietly, smoothly running a school. It's human nature, we value starting things more than maintaining things. And it's the same here. Editors like to say how many articles we created, tools allow us to see that and compare ourselves. It plays to our nature: enjoyment of competition, gamification. Tools, as far as I know, don't make it easy to see how many articles we improved. Less editors, I think, boast on their user page how many gnomish improvements they made. I am sure I am not alone in getting a little dopamine hit every time I create a new article. Likewise I have seen people boast on user pages how many bad pages they got deleted, I am sure people get a little satisfaction knowing they improved the encyclopaedia, removed the junk, maintained the standards.
Which leaves us with behaviours, supported by tools and culture that gives little rewards for creating and little rewards for deleting. Less clear rewards and less strong incentives exist and to measure or undertake article improvement.
Humans respond to incentives. We are emotional animals that like to feel good about ourselves. We tend to do what we can measure.
We need to incentivise article improvement. Mass stub creation is only a problem when there is not an equal or larger effort to improve them, I say that with the assumption that all these articles about Olympians, sports people, islands, or TV shows are notable. I assume good faith by those who create them.
Wikipedia would be better if there were better ways to measure article improvement. We need to add gamification: rank editors by their efforts to improve articles. Maybe the Article Rescue Squadron should have been called the Article Improvement Team. Maybe the tendency to frame this as tension between deflationists and inclusionists is wrong and it's more of problem about lack of article improvement efforts and incentives.
I have been considering this problem, and while I don't have a solution to incentivize article improvement, I was considering nominating a number of templates and project pages for deletion; Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count, and all the templates listed in see also at Template:User article count ranking. I'm less convinced the ones about edit count, as opposed to creation count, need to be deleted, but they all incentivize quantity over quality, which I think is a huge part of the issue.
The other aspect is that editors receive a "reward" for creating pages; they receive a notice whenever someone links to that article, something later editors do not receive, even if those editors do the majority of the work - I'm currently receiving notices for redirect pages I created that someone else then did the hard work of turning into proper articles. I think either we should remove this function, or make it possible for any editor to subscribe to this feed, although as Tryptofish points out the proper forum for this is likely the idea lab, and I'll copy my comments across if someone wants to open a discussion there. BilledMammal (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I probably will take this to the ideas lab, but will wait and think and see if I need to refine it based on what others day. I agree with the above, but wonder if there are ways to add value to gnomish behaviour rather than ways to un-gameify the status quo. CT55555 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some solutions of my own. These are not things I feel ArbCom can do; they're stuff we would need to change policy for via the usual RFC mechanisms and the like. But this seems like a worthwhile place to muse about ways forwards, and perhaps will have some relevance to the issues raised in the case.
Make it easier to challenge articles that were mass-created without prior consensus. Specifically, if articles were automatically or semi-automatically created without prior consensus, they may be automatically or semi-automatically prodded in the same way. This fits with the requirements of WP:FAIT and with the principle that WP:BOLD actions may be reversed, after which they must be discussed.
Move the requirement to find sources for an article, once it has been challenged, to whoever created it or wants to retain it. Specifically, if an article is prodded or redirected based on a good-faith belief that it does not currently have sourcing in it that satisfies the relevant notability guidelines, then that action can only be reverted if the person reverting either adds or points to existing sources that they claim, in good faith, addresses the issue. A de-prod or de-redirect that makes no effort to do this is invalid and may be reverted. If there is a dispute over whether sources are sufficient, it goes to AFD / RM as usual; that is to say, a simple good-faith claim that the sources you are adding is enough. If someone repeatedly uses this rule in ways that strain good faith (eg. adding sources that are obviously insufficient) that is a matter for ANI and other conduct venues, but the default presumption is to trust the editors involved.
These would solve several of the problems we see here in a way that brings us in line with WP:V. People who want to create or maintain articles (the ones who know the most about the subject and who have the most motivation to put in the work) would be pushed to put in the work to maintain them. Rapid-fire article creation would still be possible, but unless you are completely certain it is uncontroversial you would want to seek prior consensus, as editors generally should. The WP:BURDEN for new articles is moved to the appropriate place, but we still respect WP:V's note that sourcing is only required when challenged, and therefore avoid WP:BITEing newbies. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion your first bullet makes me wonder about a "mass action review" (MARV) forum that was specifically empowered to deal with challenges to large-scale actions on a large scale. To this end I've started Wikipedia:Mass action review as a place to workshop that idea. I need to think more about most of your second bullet, but I strongly object to changing the requirements for a DEPROD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprised by how many people treat deletion as this total loss and I think re-framing that could improve a lot of headspaces. Not to be all 'get off my lawn'-y, but back when I was a much more regular editor it was standing policy that any user could request any administrator plop a deleted page into their userspace for them. Do we not do that anymore? I only recently returned here and haven't done enough or been involved so I don't feel like I'd contribute beyond this talkpage, but that really is the best of both worlds. Anything salvageable can be salvaged and in the meantime we don't have anything obviously subpar polluting google search results and making us look silly/dumb on the vague promise that someone, some day might get it up to snuff. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1ping/loopback07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility that I have been considering is whether we should only apply hard deletion under circumstances where oversight would be warranted. Instead, we implement a new form of deletion, where the page returns to "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" format, but with its history viewable; see the mock-up for how this could look.
We may need to use salt slightly more than at the moment, but in general I think it could be helpful in reducing how much is at stake at AfD and thus reducing tensions. However, I believe this would need work from the WMF, so I don't know how viable an option it is. BilledMammal (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the WMF would not allow deleted history to be viewable by anybody in this way - they require some sort of process to determine whether someone is appropriately trustworthy (RFA is how we currently implement that requirement and any alternative would need to be "at least as rigorous" if I remember the phrasing correctly). Whether they would allow for a new category of deletion viewable by (almost) anybody to be used only for things that are uncontroversial (no BLP vios, copyvios, harassment, etc) I don't know but that would require software changes anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concern about whether WMF would permit it; Barkeep49, I believe you interact with WMF more than most of us, do you know if this is something they would at least consider? BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A community process that establishes a user is trusted to view deleted content is a requirement from the foundation as I understand it (and I have had some conversation on this topic). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was an old proposal along these lines, the Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system. I've been a supporter for a long time. That proposal failed, but it failed over a decade ago - a lot has changed since then. As that proposal says, I think that the WMF's objections could be addressed by making it so we don't technically "delete" most removed articles - basically, revise the system to treat blanked articles as deleted in most respects (links are red, etc.) We then permit people to blank articles the same way they can redirect or move them, and blanking largely replaces deletion in most contexts. Full deletion remains an option and doing it or viewing stuff that it has been done to is limited to admins, but is only used when there's some pressing reason the article needs to be totally done away with, usually for history reasons. Existing deleted articles from before we switched to this system remain deleted but can be restored to a blanked state by an admin on request provided certain simple requirements are met (ie. ensuring it wasn't deleted to remove history that must be kept hidden - that is, the admin decides whether it meets the new requirements for deletion, and refuses to restore it if it does. Otherwise it's moved to the new system on request.) That meets the WMF's requirements (deletion, and viewing deletion stuff, still happens and still goes through trusted admins; access to previously deleted stuff is still gated behind an admin) but shifts deletion into something we only use occasionally, replacing it with blanking in most circumstances. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: +1 to all of this. It doesn't need work from the WMF to implement a new social norm for blanking (though cleaning up search results and link coloring may take some technical work). – SJ +16:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally forgot to request this earlier, but since 7&6's evidence came in so late, and only in the last few days was copyedited to be coherent, maybe the workshop should be extended so others have time to address that evidence? JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
