User:Valereee/draft

This is the draft for what will go live at the pre-RfC workshop discussion about article creation and deletion at scale. Please feel free to make comments on the structure at the talk. Initial proposals of issues/solutions also welcome at talk and will be inserted into the draft.

Introduction
This pre-RfC discussion has been announced at the articles for deletion talk page, the Arbitration Noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, the Bot policy talk page, Centralized discussion template, and the Village pump (policy).

Background
Page-related actions done at scale can overwhelm the community's ability to adequately monitor and participate effectively. The issue is exacerbated in the case of article creation at scale because it escapes the normal notification system.

In the past, Wikipedia did not discourage article creation at scale (see Definitions below) under the assumption this was the best way to achieve broad coverage of vast subjects such as sports, plant and animal life, geography. There exists a policy that automated or semi-automated creation requires a bot request for approval. More recently (when?), concerns have been raised in multiple venues (diffs) that the continuing creation of such articles has overwhelmed editors’ ability to track and assess these articles, and that the churn has become a waste of time and a cause of disruption. In a 2022 August decision, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has ordered an RfC addressing "how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion" (termed "AfD at scale").

A strong argument has been made that the article creation at scale (sometimes known as mass, rapid, or large-scale creation) is one of the causes of dysfunction at AfD with regard to article deletions at scale, and that addressing this issue is a necessary precursor to the ArbCom-ordered RfC addressing AfD at scale.

Purpose of this discussion
This discussion is to identify the issues with article creation/deletion at scale, to workshop initial proposals in preparation for the RfC(s), and to decide how to handle the RfCs.

Specifically, you are asked to address the questions:


 * 1) What are the primary problematic issues surrounding the article creation or deletion at scale which should be addressed in policy? (Proposed issues)
 * 2) How might we address these issues? (Proposed solutions)
 * 3) How should we structure the discussions? That is, do we need to run two RfCs, or can we run one? And if we do need two, do they need to be run consecutively or can they overlap?

Rules

 * 1) All editors are required to maintain a proper level of decorum. Rudeness, hostility, casting aspersions, and battleground mentality will not be tolerated. Inappropriate conduct will result in a partial block (p-block) from this discussion.
 * 2) The sole purpose of this discussion is to identify problematic issues surrounding article creation/deletion at scale and to workshop proposed solutions to be used in the resulting RfC(s). It is not a venue for personal opinion on past creation or creators of such articles or about previous tolerance of such creations, nor about past mass deletions, ditto. Editors posting off-topic may be p-blocked from this discussion.
 * 3) All comments must be about problematic issues and proposed policy changes surrounding article creation/deletion at scale or about structuring the resulting RfC(s). Comments about any contributor are prohibited and will result in a p-block from this discussion. Any violations will be reverted, removed, or redacted.
 * 4) Please do not make changes in issues/solutions that have already been posted. Anyone is permitted to post additional issues/solutions, below the existing ones. Moderators may at their discretion merge, edit, or condense issues/proposals at any point in the process. Any user may suggest such changes.
 * 5) Please make all proposals within seven days of the start of this discussion. Subsequent proposals may be brought up in their own section on the talk page for consideration and inclusion at the discretion of the moderators.
 * 6) Please use subsections to number proposed solutions to correspond to a particular issue; that is, if you have a second proposed solution for Issue 1, number that as Proposed solution 1.2 and insert it between Proposed solution 1 and Proposed solution 2.
 * 7) This discussion will be unthreaded. Please create your own section within the comments section, placing your username in the section header. Within your own section you may present your opinions on the proposed issues or proposals to be addressed, post questions to other editors, or respond to other editors. Threaded comments will be moved or removed by moderators.
 * 8) Within their comment section each editor is limited to 800 words, including questions to and replies to other editors. (word count tool) Overlength statements will be collapsed until shortened.
 * 9) If you believe someone has violated these rules, please speak to a moderator on their talk page, not here. If you believe the moderators are behaving inappropriately, please speak to an arbcom member on their talk page or by email.
 * 10) This discussion will be open for at least 7 days and will be closed by the moderators at their discretion.
 * 11) Any appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

Definitions
For purposes of starting this discussion, "at scale" refers to rapid and/or mass creations/deletions of stub articles. Refining this definition for the RfC may be a necessary part of this workshopping.

Moderators of this discussion
The Arbitration Committee has appointed two moderators for this discussion and the RfCs:

Proposed issue 1: Mass creations
Mass creation of articles from entries in a database. - Donald Albury 14:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed issue 2: Stealth WP:FAITACCOMPLI
The mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to review, while the mass deletion of articles cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject to review. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussed because the addition of articles is not discussed because it is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia. The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed issue 2a: Stealth and fait accompli
The mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to community review. Individual articles are patrolled by individual new page reviewers. Because they are individuals, they have a harder time picking up on a pattern than the community does at the centralized venue of AfD. On the other hand, the mass deletion of articles at AfD cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject to extended community discussion. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussed because article creation is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.

The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made. HouseBlastertalk 11:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Proposed issue 3: Trainwrecks
Deletion nominations of multiple pages sometimes become train wrecks. (That's what a Wikipedia train wreck is.) This happens because one or more editors split their support or opposition to deletion between different pages. Then multiple editors take multiple positions that are not just forms of Keep or Delete or overall alternatives to deletion.

This is even more likely with mass nominations for deletion than with bundled nominations of up to ten or twelve articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08 am, Today (UTC−4)

Proposed issue 4
If the subject of an article is verifiable and met an SNG when it was created, no matter how it was created, there is no immediate problem with it existing. Such articles are effective seeds for development. In other words, there is not problem with mass creation.

If articles, or groups of articles, are considered not to be notable then they can be dealt with through standard deletion routes. Of course, with some geographical articles verifiability might be a key issue.

I feel some balance is necessary here. This is a valid perspective on the issue and thinking outside whatever box this discussion seems to have gotten into. Ideally there might be some middle ground that could be reached - but this is Wikipedia, so I doubt it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed issue 5
Some SNGs, notably WP:NSPORTS, have been used to support mass-creation, based on thresholds of notability besides besides GNG. These articles are subsequently taken to AfD on the grounds that while their subjects meet participation criteria listed in NSPORTS, for example, they do not meet GNG. Without commenting on the merits of these articles, if the threshold for notability is functionally different when articles are being created versus when they are discussed for deletion, we will necessarily have a stream of repetitive AfDs and considerable associated conflict. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed issue 6: Mass creations without consensus

 * Mass creation of articles without consensus is a significant issue as it presents opponents with a fait accompli that exhausts their ability to contest the creations while attempts to do so through existing processes results in those processes, like AfD, being overwhelmed. BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed issue 7:
Add new proposed issues below

Proposed solution 1.1 (to issue 1: Mass creations):
Require new articles to be supported by at least one citation to a reliable source that is not a database. - Donald Albury 14:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC) (Edited 14:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC))

Proposed partial solution 2.1 (to issue 2: Stealth/Fait accompli):
Reports should be developed that can be either run by a bot and posted to a project folder for review or run by a human and posted to a project folder for review. The reports can show what editors have produced the most articles by categories in a day or month. A high rate of production may be either cause for recognition as a contributor or cause for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed partial solution 3.1 (to issue 3: Trainwrecks):
First, define a size threshold where any nomination to delete more than N items will be considered a bulk nomination, and subject to special restrictions. One of those restrictions should be that the nominator must specify the logic, e.g., by defining a query that populates a category. This may focus discussion on the merits of deleting articles that belong to the category rather than deleting the individual articles.

Second, for bulk nominations, disallow any !vote to exclude certain articles from the nomination. If the editor disagrees with some of the articles, they are stating that the bulk nomination is not appropriate. A decision to Keep a bulk nomination will NOT prevent a bulk nomination to delete most of the previously nominated articles. Improvement of the scope of the nomination will be by repeated nominations, not by a split close. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08 am, Today (UTC−4)[ reply]

Proposed partial solution 3.2 (to issue 3: Trainwrecks)
Establish a venue where editors can collaboratively discuss proposed bulk nominations of pages for deletion with the sole aim of determining whether one or more groups share sufficient commonality such that if nominated for deletion (or merger, etc) together the nomination would be unlikely to end in a trainwreck. This venue would explicitly not determine whether or not the pages should be kept, deleted, merged, etc. It is recommended that relevant wikiprojects and/or editors active on the articles/in the topic area are alerted to these discussions.

Use of the venue prior to a bulk nomination would be optional but recommended. There would be no obligation to proceed with a (bulk) nomination after discussion. Bulk nominations made contrary to consensus at this venue should have a lower threshold for being speedily closed as a trainwreck, bulk nominations made in accordance with consensus should have a higher threshold for such closures. Thryduulf (talk) 6:44 am, Today (UTC−4)

Proposed partial solution 3.3 (to issue 3: Trainwrecks)
To avoid WP:FAITACCOMPLI, indiscriminate mass creations should be handled by mass deletion. Create a process whereby hundreds or thousands of similarly mass-created articles can be deleted at once without the requirement for individual WP:BEFORE searches. This would be appropriate for cases where, for example, an editor duplicates the contents of a sports or geography database that contains a mix of notable and non-notable entries. This would have a higher standard of community participation than AfD, for example it could take place or be advertised at Village Pump. The idea is that although some notable topics would be deleted, their re-creation would place a smaller burden on the community than evaluating each one individually for notability. A mass nomination could use criteria such as "Articles created by (X editor) sourced only to (Y database)". –dlthewave ☎ 11:04 am, Today (UTC−4)

Proposed solution to issue 4
If an article is verifiable, do nothing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed solution to issue 5:
The threshold to be met when an article is created needs to be the same threshold that is applied at AfD. SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG therefore should not be used to justify mass creation. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed solution (to issue 6: Mass creations without consensus)
Editors are permitted to nominate groups of related mass-created articles for draftification. Any group nominated through this process must meet the following criteria: Opposition to these nominations may only be on the basis that one or more of these requirements are not met; closers would be required to discount opposition on other grounds, as well as opposition that is on these grounds but is not supported by evidence.BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) They were all created by the same editor
 * 2) That editor engaged in the creation of large numbers of similar articles - i.e. mass creation
 * 3) A significant majority of the articles in the group are not suitable for article space - i.e. they fail WP:N or violate WP:NOT

Proposed solution to issue 7:
Add new proposed solutions below

Comments by Donald Albury
Proposal 1.1 would still allow the creation of new articles using a database, but a requirement for at least one citation to a non-database reliable source would slow down the rate of creation, and make it more likely that new articles will meet notability requirements. This proposal avoids any attempt to meter the rate of creation of articles. It is a rough proposal, and if anyone finds merit in it, please refine it. - Donald Albury 14:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Editor 2
Add new comments sections below