Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rohishaw1999/sandbox

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 02:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rohishaw1999/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)
 * ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 03:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

attempt from now banned undeclared paid editor  DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainspace and allow listing at AfD. The subject looks notable.  Ignoring the WP:PAID rules does not have consensus as a reason for deletion, see WT:Deletion policy/Archive 48.  Personally, I agree with minority opinions there, such as
 * Editing in defiance of our rules is not legitimate editing It's vandalism, an attempt to destroy WP. Paid editing without declaration is both a deliberate defiance of our terms of use, and almost always a deliberate defiance of our most fundamental policy, WP:NPOV.
 * If anyone here thinks NPOV is of little importance, we need a discussion elsewhere.
 * Assuming that I'm talking to people who do care about NPOV: the POV when one writes for money is very strong and very direct. In practice, over my 12 years here, I have seen almost no satisfactory articles from people who are writing an article for money. As one declared paid editor told me, they don't get paid if they do not do what is wanted (and that editor is about to leave the business, because of the lack of customers who actually want a neutral article.) The articles we have been able to detect from undeclared paid editors have almost never been satisfactory. Looking back over the articles about organizations that have been accepted in earlier years about 1/4 are basically paid propaganda or advertising. Do we want to continue this?   DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a worthy test case. Send it to AfD where real decisions are made.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For a very similar case by the same editor, already mainspaced and AfD-ed, see Articles for deletion/Marcel Miska. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * no objection, but for draft, MfD is the equivalent. But you are right that AfD is the more visible, and may help spreading the word that undeclared paid editing will be deleted.( At present, I'm experimenting a little to find the most effective ways of doing this)  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I have seen at least one declared paid editor who regularly did very good work here. In any case, an accusation of paid editing is not grounds for deletion, and moving to mainspace with the intent of seeking deletion at an AfD is improperly gaming the system. An editor should not move a draft to mainspace unless that editor thinks, in good faith, that the draft is a valid article, and would be prepared to favor keeping it at an AfD. I think that this principle has been established by RfC in the past, although I do not have a link at hand, and perhaps I am mistaken. Besides all that, it looks to me as if this poersom may well be notable, in whioch case it should not matter who writes the article, although it very much does matter that it adheres to WP:NPOV. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that the draft trivially passes the AfC standard. Easily plausibly notable, sufficiently sourced.  I don't think AfC is qualified to be a WP:PAID-compliance gateway, as much as they try.  Neither is MfD.  Deletion due to believed WP:PAID violation, ToU violation, and defiance of WP:NPOV, arguably Wikipedia's most fundamental policy, is most in scope for WP:AfD over any other forum.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Isn't the basis for MfD is that it has the same flexibility as the other XfDs, it's simply a specialized place to relive the burden on AfD, not a subsidiary place. ? DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, MfD has huge flexibility, which is why guarding against scope creep is important. MfD is subsidiary to AfD with respect to articles, and examination of notability. We could agree here to delete this sandbox due to a PAID violation, but I think it will not set any precedent, and participation is too low here.  I don’t know the answer, I think the community is divided on the question of PAID violations.  My best running idea is to require telephone validation of new accounts, because the underlying problem is the cheapness of throwaway registered accounts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * has hallmarks of an inept first round throwaway account. His main account probably received warnings about promotional editing. This throwaway anonymised account didn’t even de-redlink his main userpage.  His next one will create the userpage as a blank page.  Later iterations, and he’ll learn to get autconfirmed before starting the next job, doing a few mainspace edits to look non-SPA.  AfC will catch him, but after one or two more attempts, the next job will not touch AfC.  Even expert PAID editors do not engage in conversation, that’s the final test, it’s hard to play multiple personas before someone catches your style.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I continue to think the equivalent:MfD does not deal with articles, nor AfD with Drafts. It's subsidiary only in the sense that the condition for a Draft passing AfC is that it will likely pass AfD as an article, so ultimately the notability standards as they are applied at AfD prevail. The community is in my opinion not yet of a single consensus on deletion of paid articles and drafts --unless the person or one of his puppets has been previously banned or indefinitely blocked, in which case G5 prevails. In practice, we often avoid accepting paid material by a broad application of G11, sometimes by applying very high notability requirements, and sometimes by in effect ignoring the "previous" in G5 by assuming there must have been a previous banned sock even if we haven't yet figure out which. But we can also delete (or not) on the basis of consensus to apply IAR--and here you do indeed have a point, because there are often many fewer people paying attention here, and a temporary consensus can be easy to obtain--although those who do hang out here are the ones who care particularly about this part of WP.  I also agree that until we end anonymous editing we cannot remove paid editors, tho voice  certification will only remove those people with a bare command of English who pretend its their native language. However, anonymity is one of the pillars, and   I can not imagine that it will ever be disallowed in WP.       We can and should  insist that people writing about companies say whether or not they are a paid editor before we review their articles, but if they say they are not, we can't force them to prove it--though if we later do find they were deceptive it makes it very easy to ban them.  The only realistic goal is to repress undeclared paid editing, not totally stop it. For any stronger action we are dependent on the foundation; I & others have tried for years to persuade them, but in practice they will never do anything effective.  Basically, we have to do ourselves whatever we can using a combination of every legitimate approach that the community will tolerate. What you will see me doing, is repeated rotating through  all possible techniques, not focussing on one.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, yes. One note:  I do not suggest voice certification, but receipt and entering of a code sent to a mobile telephone number.  It doesn't have to be your phone, but you have to be able to access it once.  It is hard for most people to access a code sent to many different phone numbers.  I would have the number used recorded indefinitely for checkusers to access.  It would enable them to detect farms of throwaway accounts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Deleting the works of banned editors is often a good idea, and this is one of the cases where it is a good idea. The subject may be notable, but this draft would need to be blown up and started over, because it is tainted by promotionalism and tone issues.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] ||  03:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said in a below page, if the draft was in article space, there might be reason to stubify it instead of delete. As it stands, though, there's no chance of it leaving draft space, because the user was an UPE, and (I assume) blocked. It helps protect the encyclopedia to delete it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 04:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.