Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion/Archive 4

Does WP:REFUND imply that the undeletion will not be undeletion into mainspace?
Does WP:REFUND imply that the undeletion will not be undeletion into mainspace? For a deleted article, does it imply that the article will be userfied or draftified? The question arose for me here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No, not necessarily, there are cases where REFUND is used to restore something to mainspace e.g. contested PRODs.  Hut 8.5  12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally it's assumed that a deleted page will be restored to wherever it was when it was deleted. If someone wants it moved elsewhere after, and that's relevant to whether undeletion is granted (for example, to userfy or draftify a mainspace page deleted with an A-series speedy deletion criterion, or via afd), they have to say that in their request. —Cryptic 18:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This issue has come up at DRV twice in the last week. I added to the instructions here, telling REFUND requesters to specify the namespace that they would like the deleted article refunded to.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Zonic and, what, AllyCAD? Or Vinh Xuan massacre?  None of them were requested here, two of them not anywhere, and the third's request was basically impossible to read as anything but as a request to restore to mainspace (unless you're a mindreader, and if you are, you've got better things to be than an admin on Wikipedia).  People who know about userification and draftification either already know to ask for it when they come here, or they ask after the initial decline.  I think your addition is instruction creep, on a page we deliberately want to keep as simple as possible for the very new users who make the overwhelming majority of the requests here. —Cryptic 03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had that criticism myself as I did it. However, it's a pretty common confusion, as I can see.  The whole header is quite bloated.  There are so many words, meandering and repetitive, I don't think anyone has critically read it for a long time.

''' Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.'''


 * I suggest a major edit to cut bloat. Maybe:

I do not think the instructions should be so heavy with negative instructions (so many "not"s). I do not think that G5 should be summarily ruled out; Someone in good standing may very well request a G5 REFUND where they were also a major editor and assert that they will take responsibility for all the content. Similarly G10. The undeleting admins should be exercising informed judgement, don't spell out unusual cases in the header instructions.

G13 should not be listed as an example to be refunded here as immediately below there is an instruction to take these to WP:Requests for undeletion/G13.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm not sure why G5 should be exempt in particular either, there are often scenarios where it turns out more was added by others than the banned user, or perhaps someone was already expanding the content in draft space. And increasing clarity for potential newbies is useful too. Obviously we don't want to encourage more frivolous requests from spammers and people who just create junk, but we don't want to WP:BITE either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:FIU Panthers quarterback navbox
I would like to request the undeletion of Template:FIU Panthers quarterback navbox per here

Joeykai (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Please add James Morgan (American football) - as I don't know years to add I will not do it myself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

New UND option: dr (draftify)
I just added a new option "dr" (alias "draft" or "draftify") to UND to cover cases where a pafe is restored to draft space that had been deleted from mainspace, parallel with the userfy option. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sync
Hi User:UnitedStatesian. No action is necessary. Walt Hopkins appears to have been live since April 1. So this notice probably wasn't needed. Somehow he slipped through I guess? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging requestors
I want to suggest that when a request is dealt with, either having been restored, or marked as "not done" that the message from the editor who dealt with the request include a ping of the editor who made the request, if that person is a registered editor. Many requestors are comparatively new editors, and in any case a ping seems to me helpful. Does anyone object to making this a standard practice here? Does anyone agree? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging those active in responding to requests recently. Also, it occurs to me that it would be posisble to modify UND to have a parameter for the requster's username (from which to build a ping), or perhaps to modify the helper script to grab this info automatically. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do a ping if the requestor needs to do something soon, eg use a fair use file, or add references to a BLPPROD that was reset. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am content either way. I've been absent for a few years and am just finding my way again. Some things have changed for the better in the intervening period. I'm kind of not yet ready to have an opinion in this one, but am pleased to have been pinged. Hmm, that says 'in favour" then! Oh the irony.  Fiddle   Faddle  22:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A ping works for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy with a ping option. I do often ping people when asking them a question or doing something non-obvious but I agree it makes sense to do it more often.  Hut 8.5  09:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may suggest - we already have a template to ping people with, and everybody with any business answering undeletion requests knows where it is. Remembering what the new parameter to UND is - even remembering that it exists - is harder.  (Experience talking.  I screw up the name= parameter to drvnote all the time, and I've never seen anyone else even try.)  Just stick a ping or yo or re or whichever redirect you're already used to using in front, problem solved. —Cryptic 10:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even using the automated tools to deal with requests, it's not that difficult to put a ping in the specific comments. I'm sure I'm not 100% on doing that with registered editors, but I think it's good practice. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I said "registered editors" above because pings don't work for IP editors, I wish they did. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @DESiegel: That's why I said "registered editors": because pings don't work for IPs, there's no point. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If a parameter were to be added to UND, I would also add it to the skeletons in the edit notice, as an aid to memory. You are quite correct,, that a ping is easy enough and needs no new template, as I just demonstrated, but adding one that is optional wouldn't hurt either, and might save a few keystrokes. But what I most want is consensus that doing a ping is good practice, and that a reminder to do one can be added to the instructions for responders, or the edit notice. I came to this page after much time responding at the Teahouse, there a ping to the asker as part of a response is pretty much automatic, and based on that experience I have been adding pings to my own responses here. So far, no one seems to object to the idea. Would it be OK if I edited the editnotice to say so? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding a recent responder here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been no real opposition, and no further discussion in clsoe to a week, so I plan to go ahead with a change to the edit notice and probably to the UND template. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging a recent responder to perhaps join this discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; go ahead, DES. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So can anything be emailed to a reasonably trusted user?
Even G11s? I do not find the instructions particularly clear on this. I would hope the answer is "yes". Enterprisey (talk!) 07:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I expect that oversighted material will not be emailed. Someone considering emailing should evaluate how damaging the content is, as email may fall into the wrong hands. If the content is ilegal, then perhaps it will not be sent. But adverts, hopeless meterial or vandalism should not prevent it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

REFUND/G13 overhaul
WP:REFUND/G13 presently is an unsophisticated process that involves asking newbies to read difficult-to-understand instructions and expecting them to correctly make their request using a kludgy preload form. All of this isn't a great user experience and understandably leads to many malformed requests being made.

I am proposing that we overhaul this page using JavaScript loaded via Snippets/Load JS and CSS by URL technique. I have set up a new version of the page at WP:Requests for undeletion/G13/redesigned. To test it out,
 * 1) Go to WP:Requests for undeletion/G13/redesigned.
 * 2) Enable User:SD0001/G13-restore-wizard.js by putting   in the console or on your common.js page. no longer needed
 * Note that this is only needed for testing. Once the script is moved to MediaWiki namespace, the user wouldn't need to install anything on their end.


 * 1) Click "Request draft undeletion" button. This should give you a form where the draft title and reason is to be entered. The reason is live-previewed.
 * 2) Click "Make request" which *causes an edit* to WP:RFUD.

The highlight is in the draft title validation. The script will show an error if user tries to request refund of a page which does not have any deleted revisions, or which already exists.

SD0001 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not installed, so this may not be right, but looking that the .js I would guess it would stop the request going in if there were any problems. This would mean that people who cannot remember to put on the "draft:" or get punctuation, capitalisation or spelling wrong won't get their request in WP:REFUND, and they won't get any help like they do now. Since there is all the effort of a script, how about checking if the draft: needs to be added, or even if it is in the old Wikipedia talk:articles for creation space. Is it possible to check for a near miss in the name? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've enhanced the script so that
 * as you said, it checks if draft: or Wikipedia talk:articles for creation/ needs to be prepended to the title given
 * fetches the list of red-linked drafts and WT:AFC subpages on the user's talk page and makes these available as suggetions for the title input field. The user would have most likely received talk page notifications of the impending deletion.
 * Does this look good now?
 * THis isn't possible using the API available to non-admins. It's possible only for admins.
 * In addition to these measures, I don't think there's much need to worry since people would pretty much able to copy-paste the page name correctly. We could probably add a "I don't remember the title. File my request nevertheless" option but I am not sure if it's necessary. SD0001 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * THis isn't possible using the API available to non-admins. It's possible only for admins.
 * In addition to these measures, I don't think there's much need to worry since people would pretty much able to copy-paste the page name correctly. We could probably add a "I don't remember the title. File my request nevertheless" option but I am not sure if it's necessary. SD0001 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to these measures, I don't think there's much need to worry since people would pretty much able to copy-paste the page name correctly. We could probably add a "I don't remember the title. File my request nevertheless" option but I am not sure if it's necessary. SD0001 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have boldly went ahead and edited WP:REFUND/G13 to include the javascript-based wizard. It calls Mediawiki:G13-restore-wizard.js (which was recently moved out of my userspace). The old instructions are still retained in a collapsed box. – SD0001  (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Move request
Please move this to Mediawiki:G13-restore-wizard.js. This powers WP:Requests for undeletion/G13/redesigned, an easy javascript-enhanced alternative to the preload-based WP:REFUND/G13 process which is confusing for newbies. Discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_undeletion and hopefully can continue once the page is actually working. – SD0001  (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you have a section labeled "// temp: remove this:" - is this meant to stay in? — xaosflux  Talk 03:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was unnecessary (though harmless also). I removed it now. – SD0001  (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ (note your 'licensing' under MIT is fine, please note as you have published this on wiki you also have licensed under "CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL"). — xaosflux  Talk 11:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Update
Please update to User:SD0001/G13-restore-wizard2.js (compare). The update takes care of (i) some issues with live previewing functionality, (ii) fixes this bug (the appearance of "null" in text when used by an IP user), (iii) automatically appends a signature if not provided by user. Thanks, – SD0001  (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Reduce "can archive" from 7 days to 6 for technical reasons
WP:Requests for undeletion is sometimes in the category Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls and causes the XfD links to NOT appear. See WP:Parser functions, WP:Template limits, and revisions for more details.

The long-term fix is to raise the limit from 500 to something higher, either throughout the English Wikipedia or on pages that are on an administrator-managed list.

The short-term fix is to archive closed discussions after 6 days instead of 7. If 6 isn't enough to stay below the limit, then make it 5.

I don't know if it is technically possible to check the "current" count of expensive parser functions in templates or modules, but if there is, another possible short-term fix is to re-code revisions so if the expensive parser function count is too high, it ALWAYS displays ALL XfDs. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  15:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note It looks like there were many repeated additions by a now-blocked user on Sept. 21st, with comments made on Sept. 22nd. Hopefully once these hit the archives the issue will go away...  until next time. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I am setting this back to 6 days, there was a larger than usual number on December 14th. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  01:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be changed back on or about December 22. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Update of JS
Hi, I made some WP:BOLD edits to the Template:Refund/G13 to make the text sound less legalistic and a tad more informal. Could an administrator change the text in accordance with the changes I made here? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarify: such changes should be made at MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js and should update line 46 to say:
 * Note that I was not able to put in the 4 titles at the end of the message, however, the message should include them (for the signature) - as in ~ . Note that also the '' don't appear as well.
 * Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the markup to make the request clear. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the user is anonymous we do not want it to say "Hi I'mand I would like..." instead have something like  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was merely using the existing code, so that is probably why that mistake would have shown. Thanks for the suggestion (to be honest I'm not that familiar with JS). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit request adjusted: Please change the code in line 46 to say  Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 20:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a diff? I don't see that any changes were made to MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey yeah, thanks for keeping me honest! Looks like my session had expired so it didn't save.  Done now! ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Amory - thanks for making those changes (I didn't see them right away). Just looking at the result of the new code, would you mind changing the code to, so that there isn't an extra comma after their user name? For example, currently when using the wizard, users are saying "Hi I'm, (user), and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you.", resulting in a comma splice before their username. This will remove the comma before their username as in "Hi I'm (user), and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you." Thank you for fufilling the first request, and I would appreciate if you also fix this small bug. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Refunds for G5?
I just made a request for an article to be Refunded that was deleted under G5, Created by a banned or blocked user against ban or block. Not sure whether this is appropriate, I'd want it restored to Draft or Userspace to be checked first.Naraht (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally I won't restore G5 deletions, allowing banned users to make contributions is generally more trouble than it's worth, as the banning policy explains. But you might find another admin who's willing to restore it.  Hut 8.5  16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why I *don't* want it immediately restored to mainspace. I want it restored elsewhere (Draft and my personal area seem the most logical). I'm fine with the history including the banned user, I don't think those need to be REVDELed, unless there is a specific problem. (RuPaul's DragCon UK). This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, if I don't find anyone willing to WP:REFUND within a week, I'll start the article myself, I just don't consider myself a particularly good writer of text. (Yes, I know that RPDR has generated some *um* enthusiastic editors, I don't consider myself one.)Naraht (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, the G5 was actually invalid, as it was not created by a banned user, just heavily edited by one. We could ask the deleting admin to reverse the flawed action. But in this case, I just restored the non-sock early edits. But most G5 deletions are not like that. If the good faith requestor is prepared to write some content, and take responsibility for the deleted versions, then I think the G5 could then be reversed. Many of the G5 deleted things are also promotional or dubious so are not worth returning. And the requestor may also be worthy of a block because they are yet another sock. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A little confused here, do you think that I could be a sock of the banned user or are you speaking more generally.Naraht (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No I am speaking generally. A requestor for a G5 page should be checked. There is a high chance that it is the blocked user coming back again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sounds like a good policy. I've been editing for longer than RuPaul's Drag Race has been a TV Show, so not worried. :)Naraht (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you raise an interesting point when you suggest that my deletion of that page was invalid or flawed. I don't think it was. My understanding was (and still is) that the page was created by a sockpuppet with this edit on 1 January 2020, and the history of the page then at Draft:RuPaul's DragCon UK histmerged into it . I deleted the page on that basis, but perhaps I was wrong to do so? Do we have consensus somewhere that we should not delete sockpuppet creations if other versions of the page had previously been created by good-faith editors and later histmerged in? Either way, I fully agree with your refund of the early revisions – I only didn't do that because they were so feeble. I'm with on the general principle, though. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Query
I was looking to have Draft:The Marsh King's Daughter or Draft:The Marsh King's Daughter (film) (didn't recall the specific location I created it at) refunded but it was already recreated before I could. Is there a way to have the edit history restored? Rusted AutoParts 20:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've just restored the edit history for you (it's the first link).  Hut 8.5  20:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Rusted AutoParts  20:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Make REFUND instructions easier
I think the instructions are heavy reading. I think they should be made easier. I’m not sure exactly how, but here is an idea that I’d like to suggest before working on it...

I think there could be separate boxes, or a box with selectable check boxes, for each of the following possible REFUND requests:
 * 1. REFUND back to where it was. Eg contested PROD, reverse a U1,
 * 2. REFUND to userspace (userfication of a deleted article)
 * 3. REFUND to DraftSpace (draftification)
 * 4. REFUND by email (not for re-posting)

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe expand the JS-based wizard to cover everything rather than just G13s? – SD0001  (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

UVision Air Ltd.
Hello, my draft was somehow deleted and now the text over there is is the reason for a resubmit. Please help in resoring the draft actual text so I can improve it. Thank you, --Oshri1234 (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * can someone help? its been a month..--Oshri1234 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Replied to the most recent request.  Hut 8.5  17:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

can I get a point in the right direction?
I don't need or want a page undeleted, per se. On 26 December 2006, the long-gone deleted Flanvention as WP:CSD. No prob. I just want to know where that redirect pointed, first, and then ask if I can just get the sources therefrom. For this 2–3-step process, where should I start, and is it here? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 04:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * that redirect pointed to Browncoats' Backup Bash. That page only had external links rather than references, but they were, , , , and one more which I can't link to here because it's since been blacklisted (it's not a good source anyway). Flanvention did have an article at one point before it was turned into a redirect but that article was unsourced.  Hut 8.5  07:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh excellent! Thanks so much!  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed bot for restoring redirects to undeleted pages
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Restoring redirects to recreated pages. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Books
I didn't plan to make this post before the books were actually deleted but I might as well say it now that we've gotten one request for a book. The book namespace and all books within it will be deleted per Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_181 in a bit under a month. As the close states books will be available for refunds. For technical reasons the books had to be moved before being deleted, so a book at Book:Example is now located at Books/archive/Example. I anticipate this will be rare but it's still good for the regulars here to be informed. All this should be well documented and linked from affected pages, even after namespace deletion but if you have any questions feel free to ping me. --Trialpears (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 5 July 2021
Please add a comma:

 Thank you! Tol &#124; talk &#124; contribs 17:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tol  &#124; talk &#124; contribs 22:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Bugs placing the answers to requests
Hi guys! Is it me or there's some bug? The answers to the requests via helper are being constantly misplaced - I have to look for them manually and remove from the requests they were placed to. Am i doing something wrong? Have you had such problems? Best, Less Unless (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has since been fixed (see User talk:SD0001). – SD0001  (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 16 August 2021
Please sync with User:SD0001/G13-restore-wizard2.js (comparison).

At some point of time, the CSS class mw-ui-input was removed from MediaWiki. Since then, the UI has been looking horrible. The sandbox change improves the UI a bit, although a more proper fix would be to use OOUI. – SD0001  (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the UI we are talking about is accessed by going to WP:REFUND/G13 and clicking "Request draft undeletion". – SD0001  (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Page too long
Lowercase sigmabot III that was running everyday has stopped since October 7. Any idea why? Jay (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it appears to be some kind of bug per User talk:Σ/Archive/2021/November. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 15 November 2021
Please sync the edit from User:SD0001/G13-restore-wizard2.js (diff). This prefills draft page title from URL param value if available – SD0001  (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 11:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Opinion about IP user requests
What is the opinion of admins on undeleting articles and drafts based on requests by unregistered users? This is for the standard cases that have the personal undertaking I see that the majority of undeletion requests are based on this personal undertaking, and for registered users we check back and see how they have fared earlier, or check their contributions to see if their request is in good faith.

What is the guarantee when it comes to random IPs? I went through the last few requests by IP users that were accepted and see that the pages don't have any edits after the refund. Also, there are cases where an IP requests undeletion, but the subsequent edits are made by a registered user, probably indicating this is a way for the registered user to escape scrutiny, and get a page restored.

However, if you have been seeing that the IPs are working on the pages and fixing them after refund, then that will be good to know. Here are the samples that I looked up: Draft:ABG Lab, Draft:Lovelyn Chandrasekhar, Draft:Margaret Hogan Wyant, Draft:Richard Sayre, Draft:Mark Fried (Music Publisher), Draft:St Matthew's Piece, Draft:NRTC, Draft:Anton Omondi Odhiambo, Draft:Leon Mishnaevsky Jr., Draft:Abdul Majid Rawani, Draft:KBH Institution, Summer Fusion Open Air. Jay (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging a set of users associated with the examples given:, , , , . Jay (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi! I don't think it would be fair to decline IP's requests just because they are IP and we can't guarantee they will be improving the articles. Good faith is one of the core principles. I don't think we can guarantee anything at all here as often registered users don't work on the articles as well. Yes we can check their behavior during the previous requests but can this be a guarantee - not always. The undeletion guidelines also have no restrictions concerning IPs. Yes, draftspace is not a storage, but also I don't see much harm in a draft if it's not violating the guidelines - that's important and we can guarantee that when we review the refund requests. If I'm missing your point, please tell me. Best, Less Unless (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Less Unless. If an IP makes a request to undelete a draft, we AGF unless we have good reason not to, like promotion or they're not working on the draft. We have the "soft decline" option for drafts that were undeleted and then not worked on before being deleted again. I think I may also be missing the point. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above - IPs are people too. Also a new registered user editing as an IP may just be because the person forgot to log in, rather than because they're evading scrutiny.  Hut 8.5  18:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Occasionally it will be obvious that the IP is a block evader. And the request can be refused. The overall success rate of making it to article space is low. On an earlier check of my undeletions, about 10% of refunded pages go on to become articles, and less than 50% were worked on. Since this is the mechanism that IP users can create articles we should give them the same access to drafts as for those registered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was about the personal undertaking, or the wordings of the undertaking, which I think contradicts the nature of IP addresses, which can be random. Every time a unregistered user accesses Wikipedia, they may have a different IP. What is the validity or relevance of this undertaking in this respect, considering that for drafts, we give users 6 months to improve the page?


 * From what I have seen, while addressing an undeletion request, the admin checks not only the article/draft's reason for deletion, but also the requestor's arguments for restoration, which in a large number of cases is no argument, but only In such cases, we look at the credentials of the requestor. We may deny requests for long-standing registered users, so it is like they are punished for being registered and accountable, whereas IP users pass this filter by default.


 * would you soft-decline previously undeleted and abandoned drafts, if it is not the original user (or an IP) who is the requestor?


 * I checked again. For the examples I provided, the users did not come back to edit the article, for all except one. Jay (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I soft-decline when a previously undeleted draft was not worked on in the six months before deletion. I don't hold it against a user or IP for using the default so that I can make edits to it text or if it wasn't a draft they had previously worked on before. I will also decline if the draft looks bad, as in a social media page disguised as a draft or anything else appearing to be WP:NOT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Italics
Why are most requests coming entirely in italics? Jay (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The preloaded template for requesting G13 restorations (Template:Refund/G13) puts them in italics.  Hut 8.5  15:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Archiving unresponded requests
Why are requests that haven't been handled archived? It makes no sense.Jonteemil (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any specific request you are talking about? Jay (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The archiving software cannot interpret whether the request is actioned or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, several of my requests have been archived without action, so yes, but in the plural. Isn't that a problem?Jonteemil (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The bot is not a REFUND-specific bot, it's a general purpose bot for archiving talk pages. I suppose you could request that someone volunteer write and maintain a specific bot for archiving this page with custom logic, but unless someone is willing to do that we need to use the generic one. And requests which last that long on the page without being actioned probably aren't going to be actioned anyway.  Hut 8.5  18:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally I do go back through the page and look at unactioned requests. For the requests from Jonteemil, I think I have regularly given some textual response, but not always restored, as I may disagree on a copyright issue. What it means is that no one else is willing to restore it either, but they have not felt strongly enough to add a decline cross. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

edit request
Remove the italic from the G13 template per the change I just made. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 09:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @AssumeGoodWraith: What page are you talking about? Requests for undeletion is not currently protected, and given your message, I'm not sure whatever page you area talking about would be interface-protected, rather than template-editor protected or something like that. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The page is MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js which seems to be interface protected (I'm an admin and I can't edit it).  Hut 8.5  18:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay...and what italics are we trying to remove? Usually, edit requests like this are supposed to come as "change  to   on line Z of page W". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's the italics wrapping the string on line 49.  Hut 8.5  19:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * do you want line 49 changed? — xaosflux  Talk 18:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wanted to remove the italics there. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 00:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ OK, — xaosflux  Talk 12:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux an extra H at the start and a space at the end were removed. – SD0001  (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * doh, stupid "enhanced" editor, should be fixed now. — xaosflux  Talk 17:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED while there is some support for this proposal, consensus is clearly against making this specific change at this time. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 02:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion → Requests for uncontroversial undeletion – Trying to gauge consensus on a page move to clarify the purpose of REFUND. Old redirects will be kept. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 04:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support I agree this would be clearer just like Requested moves being for ones needing discussing and Requested moves/Technical requests being for ones that don't. My support is weak because this is a high importance page and could break many incoming links but a DAB here should work.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unfortunately - There will be still requests for undeletions that are not uncontroversial. Also, somewhat lengthier than it should be. Furthermore, "WP:REFUND" is easier to type, and I'm unsure whether many editors would bother to type either full title. Should be created as a redirect instead. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Old redirects like WP:REFUND can just be retargeted. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 02:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as lengthy name per George Ho. I'm not liking the word "uncontroversial" in the page title. Jay (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Question - is there a "Requests for controversial undeletion" page anywhere?  Tewdar   14:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Absolutely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's deletion review. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 23:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose as the new name is a bit of a mouthful and the disambiguation isn't particularly needed.  Hut 8.5  08:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It would probably be helpful.  It would be a bit of a mouthful.  A better improvement might be the wholesale revamping of the top of the page.  It’s pretty bad. It feels like a technical page, not a page for newcomers. Undeletion to userspace and draftspace needs more prominence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mouthful and pedantic. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If people can't read or understand the first sentence on the page, I doubt a title change would stop them either. We aren't talking rocket science here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being an admin who does some patrolling on the page, I think most editors who come requesting a page restoration think their request for undeletion is uncontroversial, even pages that have gone through multiple AFD discussions that decided to delete an article and where the page has been fully protected. I think experienced editors understand what "uncontroversial" can mean in terms of deletion/undeletion but I don't think it would make any difference to the editors, mostly new editors, who come requesting that their articles and drafts be restored.
 * I saw a talk page discussion the other day between two newer editors and one advised the other that any page could be restored if you just said "CSD G13" in your request, they didn't understand that this is a criteria for speedy deletion, they just thought that this was how you had to word a request to get a page restored. It didn't matter why it was deleted, those were the magic words. So, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what pages can and can not be undeleted and I don't think this title change would reduce the number of page undeletion requests that are posted which can not be done because they don't qualify as uncontroversial. But I will say that the proposed title does more accurately capture what happens at REFUND, I just don't think it would help reduce the number of misguided appeals to restore pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, more words that will just get ignored by users who already have no clue as to how Wikipedia actually works. Education is the cure here, and this doesn't really help with that. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Counter-proposal: I say WP:REFUND is the best place to go for uncontroversial requests, and should stay just as it is. If it's uncontroversial, it gets restored, if it is clearly a no-go, then it gets denied. Some articles are in a gray area however, so maybe there could be a second-tier review process for those? I don't mean DRV - that is strictly for people challenging an AFD result that they disagree with, and you are likely to have your appeal rejected at DRV if the close itself was rejected. But what about articles where the initial AFD close was within policy, but new sources or old sources that were not known at the time of AFD came to light? You could ask the closing admin to restore the article and they might do it or they might not; they might say go to DRV, and it might get rejected there as I mentioned above, and I have had these happen to me before. One good example is Articles for deletion/Burning Soldier, which was closed correctly, but look at the article today - sources were plentiful but not found by anyone who participated in the AFD. So, my proposal is this - uncontroversial requests would continue to be restored here, and articles that should not be restored under any circumstances will stay undeleted, but anything with a valid rationale for undeleting but potentially controversial can be kicked up to a second tier process by the reviewers of this page, and in that second process the old article and any sources presented for improving the article will be reviewed by volunteers with expertise willing to take the time, and if accepted the article would be restored outright or moved to draft or user space until it is fixed up. I'm not sure how much of that is currently done through this existing process, but I think it's about time we had a more formalized process for controversial but warranted requests. DRV would still be the venue when appropriate, and of course the closing admin can restore at their discretion, but I think this is where we need to have more eyes looking at deleted articles that had actual potential. BOZ (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the situation you describe you could request that it be restored to draft space (which isn't controversial), add your sources, and then move it back to mainspace.  Hut 8.5  08:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: if you want to do that, you should move Deletion review to Requests for controversial undeletion, but some articles may find themselves in the sweet spots. It may be "too soon" for the page to be exist. Thingofme (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Archival of REFUND
In a similar vein to the thread raised by Jonteemil above, I wonder if it would be beneficial to use a bot such as Cyberbot I to archive REFUND? As in, archive requests shortly after a /  has been placed in the section. Thinking out loud, it would have to wait longer if it finds the "promise me that you will actually work on it this time" mark. Archiving like this would massively decrease the size of the page, and would ensure that any requests are only archived once they have been responded to. From a technical perspective, how tricky would this be? Other thoughts? HouseBlastertalk 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The page is already archived by another bot. It looks like it's set up to archive anything more than 6 days old, we could reduce that to reduce the page size.  Hut 8.5  18:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me—what I am curious about is if going based on time is the best way to archive the page, as opposed to archiving requests that have been responded to. HouseBlastertalk 18:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestions by both HouseBlaster and Hut sound good to me to reduce page size. Jay (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Undelete for info retrieval
Is it okay to request an undeletion just to be able to retrieve the information that was in a draft? I had one deleted today that I totally forgot about, and I'd like to save a copy of the info. The draft can be deleted again after that. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RFU page says This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere. Jay (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * UNLESS the deleted content was a copyright violation. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Undelete and NPP issue
There is a proposal at NPP to automatically remove the patrol/review flag when an article is undeleted to ensure it reviewed again. This is to close a loophole that occurs when an unpatrolled article is sent to AFD, deleted, then refunded. Please comment there is you have any thoughts or concerns about the proposal. MB 02:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to be implemented. So I suppose we can "patrol" our undeletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was implemented. The scenario that led to this was an article that had been originally "patrolled" by way of AFD nomination. These are marked patrolled to remove them from the queue because the AFD should decide notability. The AFD closed as soft delete. The article was later refunded. It should not be automatically patrolled at this point - it needs to be reevaluated. It's probably better to leave this to an uninvolved reviewer. MB 15:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

G5
, you have declined couple of requests with the reasoning that they were deleted under WP:G5. Is there a Undeletion or Requests for Undeletion guideline or precedent you are following for declining these? Jay 💬 12:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * G5 has generally been a grey area, some admins have interpreted requests to restore articles deleted under G5 as uncontroversial, and some haven't.  Hut 8.5  17:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that restoration is up to admin discretion. Here, I'm referring to the straight declines, which has to be justified. Jay  💬 02:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have to look at the requestor and the page. The requestor could well be another sock of the banned user. If the user requesting is a long term good standing person, then further consideration can be given. The page could be checked to see if it has problems - promotion, copyvio. I like to just refer to the original deleter. But they may not know any more about the situation than undeleters. If the requestor takes responsibility and has content to add we could allow undeletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the requestors have disclosed that they are indeed socks (Paranisolambda, TTP1233) back after the unblock. Can they be denied per policy? Jay  💬 02:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Paranisolambda has already been restored per this discussion. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 03:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This venue is for restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted. G5s are not uncontroversial. In one case the user was referred to DRV as the correct venue yet they came here anyway. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfU says Please do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 be undeleted here. G5 used to be listed here, but was removed after a discussion. Are you saying that regardless of this, you'll consider G5 as ineligible for undeletion at this venue? Jay  💬 05:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes – per what I said before, and since it is likely that reversing a G5 deletion could be objected to, undeletion should be discussed with the deleting admin. I certainly would object to someone undeleting something I G5'd without discussing it with me first. RfU is not a policy, so what is stated there does not bind admin actions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jay: Which discussion suggested to removed G5 from the exceptions? Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I do not know what the immediate trigger was for to  from the DO NOT request list in Dec 2020, it could be an outcome of the 2016 discussion he started - WT:Requests for undeletion/Archive 3 I do not know if he also considered the May 2020 discussion - WT:Requests for undeletion/Archive 4 by .  Jay  💬 07:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * G5 undeletion should certainly involve a discussion with the deleting admin. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Namespace is irrelevant to G5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no trigger. I just happened to notice that the header section had been changed somewhat since 2016. From what I understood in the discussion, undeletion of G5s is entirely dependent on the ban/block reason, if it was something editing-related like copyright violations it wouldn't be restored, if it was something "meta"-related then restoring would be safer. Even if the final agreement is that the deleting admin always has to be consulted, it seems wrong to lump it in with G3s, G10s, and G12s which won't ever be restored. The provision is already made that "If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. I apologize if I may have misled people. RedPanda25 17:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Undelete for info retrieval unsuccessful because newer draft exists
I would like to request the deleted text of the first article European Network of Forensic Science Institutes draft deleted under CSD G13. A new draft has been created by another user, and the undeletion request script won't allow me to submit. I would like the plain text I had already previously created to be available in order to combine it into the new draft. Thanks for any help. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Enjoy! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple requests on the page
I notice several instances where an editor has made multiple requests on this page for refunding of deleted content. Can something be done to prevent this, or at least automatically label a second (or more) request as such? BD2412 T 18:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be possible for someone to write a bot to tag these, I think one of the clerking bots at WP:RFPP does something similar.  Hut 8.5  18:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just delete those subsequent entries if they are the same. If they say something different I will try to merge requests. For the recent Alley of Angels requests, just delete as they are disruptive. Bots are not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Same. I delete duplicate requests instead of closing as "duplicate", "done below", "done above", etc. Someone writing a bot to fix the problem may want to go over the issue described by at /Archive 2  Jay  💬 08:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and this is easy if the same request has been made twice in close proximity, but when they are far apart on the page it may not become apparent until you save an edit to a section and the save defaults to the other section somewhere up the page. BD2412  T 13:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Same. "rm dup req". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think it would be nice to have a bot that does this automatically. BD2412  T 13:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Or maybe have the code for the requesting check to see if the request already exists? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an instruction to that effect would help: "Do not make a request for a title for which a request already exists on this page; it will be removed". BD2412  T 13:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

rfud-helper Accept link issue
Since yesteday the hyperlink of the "Accept" link placed by WP:RFUDHELPER is long and incorrect, example "__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__h-Oxygen2022-20220808104500". This shows up in the edit summary as well, while accepting the request. Courtesy ping. Jay 💬 07:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to have changed a bit and now the edit summary says Subscribe: Accepting request (rfud-helper) which is not helpful either. Jay  💬 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was fixed for awhile. Now the tool has a new breakage, where neither the Accept nor the Decline links cause the dialogue box to pop up, making the tool unusable. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG thanks for bringing it up. Let me know if still there's an issue. –  SD0001  (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, thanks! UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Malformed (empty) requests
Can we disable the "Request undeletion" button if nothing has been filled into the "Page title" box? That should cut down on a significant number of malformed requests. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. At least default to a warning, as you can opt to do with edit summaries. BD2412  T 20:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the current kludgy preload-based workflow even supports adding such a restriction. We should look to using JavaScript here as well, like in WP:REFUND/G13, which blocks malformed requests. – SD0001  (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 21 January 2023
Please change line 29 to

This fixes the script on WP:REFUND/G13 from being borked in Vector 2022 – same issue as was fixed for another script here. – SD0001  (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 11:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Schlüsselfelder von Kirchensittenbach
Hi, I'm Immanuelle, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13. I accidentally made a page over it and want the original. Thank you. ~ Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you requesting it here on talk instead of on REFUND's actual page? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Which CSD shouldn't get refunded here?
Currently, it says at the top:

However, most of the entries in this fairly list were boldly added in 2021 by an editor who subsequently got indefinitely blocked for "incompetence". Hmmm.. not a great start, so are there reasons for these additions to stay? – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, F5, U5/G7, and G13 I think are the only CSD's eligible for refund. Anything else needs different handling. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's really an absolute list of forbidden criteria, and anything considered uncontroversial is in principle OK. For example a request to restore an article deleted under A7 to mainspace will almost certainly be declined, but a request to restore it to draft space for improvement will probably be accepted. Requests to restore copyright violations are usually refused, but if the request comes from an OTRS agent who's verified that the copyright holder has granted permission then it will probably be accepted.  Hut 8.5  12:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't feel qualified enough to comment on the F criteria, but A7 and A9 should definitely be removed. It's fine to request that articles deleted under A7/A9 be restored to draft space for improvement (not saying that all such requests should be accepted mind you). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * G3 and G10-12 I feel should stay. REFUND for copyright violations is an edge case probably better handled elsewhere. Not sure about G4 - that sometimes gets used when a topic has become notable since being AfDed a long time ago, in which case a request to restore the G4 version to draftspace might be reasonable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that G4 should be restored to a draft or userspace provided that the requesting user says in their argument how they will ensure it is not identical (they should be allowed a copy of the deleted page assuming it is not on Deletionpedia), preferably with several sources. A blanket statement that it should be restored without a reason should be refused. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You should be able to request the undeletion of largely anything deleted without discussion in the same vein of a WP:PROD. To say otherwise would probably need a larger, centralized discussion. Obviously, if there is a copyright violation (where OTRS has not rectified it), it is an attack page, vandalism, it should stay deleted. But as with anything, there should still be an outlet to at the very least request it and not have their reason denied purely on the basis of whether it is listed as eligible or not. For example, an A7 deletion should stay deleted until the requesting editor can adequately prove it would not qualify for CSD after their planned edits. Same for G5 and A9. If an admin still thinks the page is unsuitable for mainspace, then at the very least, A7s, A9s, and G5s are things that should be restored to the requesting user's draft or userspace. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The instructions are too much, they should be reduced. Any and all refund requests should come here.  The complexity should be for those doing the refunds.  I think there should be different boxes for “Refund back to mainspace” (mostly for Prods).  Refund to draftspace or userspace, for most deleted articles.  Refund by email, always an option, and sometimes the only option allowed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading some of the above comments, I think I agree with SmokeyJoe's point that it's not optimal to have a definitive set of user-facing rules for what can and what can't be asked for. Maybe have some explanation about the most common types of refusals, so that people don't post unfulfillable requests? However, I'm thinking now of the long-term sustainability of this venue. When new admins eventually begin processing requests here, how would they learn all the ropes? It would be helpful to have internal documentation, for example in an "Information for administrators" subpage. Rather than set out rules, it could just descriptively outline all the relevant considerations for each type of deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest something similar; something along the lines of a set of guidelines for requestors and refunders so as to manage expectations and minimize typically rejected requests. For instance, G13 and U7 are often refunded in placed, while G4 is most typically refunded to draft space, etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, look: there's an ongoing RfC: Village pump (policy). – Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And it was not closed formally, but archived: Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_180. But it look like people generally supported A7 and A9 refunds. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

How to deal with PROD refunds (particularly non-notable PRODs such as Parassala Pachan Payyannur Paramu)
The current REFUND instructions pretty much leave things up to individual REFUNDers to decide, but it would probably be best if we were in some kind of agreement on a standard approach. I noticed had denied this recent request, citing there's still probably a lack of notability. I was in the process of considering draftifying when went ahead and fully restored it. I don't think either of these are the best course of action. (They were both good decisions.) I'd previously been refunding such requests and immediately sending them to AFD, but that really isn't a fair way to handle them. It seems to me that a better middle ground is to draftify PROD refunds, or at least those that were PROD'd for lack of notability. This give the requestor some breathing room to fix the article; which is an explicit intention of draft space in the first place. Also, I believe this is in keeping with the spirit of WP:ATD-I, though I think an update there to acknowledge this route would be wise. I'm not looking to codify anything inflexible, as there will be too many corner cases, but I do think we need some standards in our approach. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. Just to note that I did not deny the request. I never deny PROD requests, but I do comment on what I can foresee happening with the page if restored, and that comment may or may not turn into a conversation. For me, a Deny would be explicit wordings such as "No", "declined", etc., or the "X" icon. Jay  💬 14:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; it wasn't an outright deny, but a soft "needs more juice". Still, my query stands, would draftifying be a better path? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)The requestor does not have any more context of the PRODed article than what is available in the deleter's summary in the deletion log. Whereas the admin can see the full PROD statement and contents of the deleted article. But when an admin restores it because the rule says a contested PROD should be restored, individual merits or demerits of the PRODed article become non-relevant. I agree that having an understanding is useful between regular RfU admins. I do see this happening with G13-deleted supposedly uncontroversial drafts that also get denied, because an admin foresees it won't stand a chance. Jay  💬 18:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftification would not be a one-stop solution for me. Sometimes I restore back as is, other times I try to gauge if the requestor is going to follow up and understands that an AfD is round the corner. It will be hard for newbie editors to either fix the problems with the restored article or defend at AfD, in such a case I offer them the option of draft, which I see many usually accept. Jay  💬 06:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't really any policy basis for denying requests to restore PRODs, Proposed deletion says they can be restored by anybody unless there's another reason for deletion or unless the requester is an undisclosed paid editor. WP:DRAFTOBJECT rules out moving something to draft space if anybody objects to it, and presumably the requester wants the page restored to mainspace.  Hut 8.5  18:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "unless there are other reasons for keeping it deleted" needs to be clarified as "unless it meets the criteria for speedy deletion". For example, failing to meet GNG (in the opinion of the admin processing the request) is not a valid reason to deny a REFUND IMO. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 19:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:DEPROD says we shall restore; however, it doesn't say that we must restore it to article space, and it does say we can immediately AFD it. But I wasn't asking whether this is against or allowed by policy, I'm asking what is best. If what is best ends up being disallowed by policy, well WP:CCC, and we can work on amending policy. If what is best ends up being not disallowed by policy, but is just not adequately covered by policy, again, we can work to amend policy. Is it better for a deleted PROD to be restored to draftspace instead of it being immediately sent to AFD? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms about restoring a PROD to draft and instructing the requester to go through the AfC process. I would also have no qualms about restoring a PROD and immediately sending it to AfD. BD2412  T 22:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PRODs are explicitly supposed to be restored on request, so immediately moving an article to draftspace - which is often seen as deletion by the back door - does rather go around this. If the requester objects to deletion then they probably object to draftification as well, and contested draftifications are supposed to go to AfD. You can ask that the requester use AfC, but there's nothing compelling them to do so. This is for a good reason, if we allowed forcible draftification of articles based on one person's opinion, and insisted that the draft couldn't go back to mainspace without passing AfC, then that would amount to allowing deletion of articles based on one person's opinion - for any reason. It is perfectly fine to send a contested PROD to AfD immediately, and I have done that a few times in the past.  Hut 8.5  12:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about forcing it to go through AFC. And I agree that to do so would be a form of fiat and we don't want that. What I'm looking for is the avenue that allows the requestor the best way to fix a problematical article with the least pressure. AFD seems like the highest scrutiny and therefore highest pressure path. Restoration to article space puts a problem article back to a fully live status. Draftifying seems to be a middle ground between those, as long as AFC is only requested, not forced. Sending a restored PROD immediately to AFD sends a message that can be read as "You've requested the restoration of a problem article. Fix it fast or it will be permanently deleted." Drafting instead has a softer read: "You've requested the restoration of a problem article. Here's six months and no pressure to resolve the issues. And if you don't, well, you can always ask for it to be restored again." I wonder if there's really a hidden need for another namespace that doesn't get G13'd, but isn't live. Or maybe a variant of AFD that is intended to allow more time for problem resolution. Or maybe it's just the lack of consistent messaging in these options. We have good templates for the REFUND process itself, but but nothing for this situation explicitly. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, any editor can be bold and draftify any article (absent move restrictions like we have on our highest-profile articles) at any time; and any editor objecting to that bold move can restore the draft to mainspace. Restoring a deleted PROD and then immediately moving it to draftspace based on a post-restoration assessment is permissible editing. BD2412  T 19:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If Jay makes a comment about an undeletion, I will leave the request alone for a while, so that the requestor can consider, and possibly make a response. But if there is no actual x, I will later go and restore it. Anyone else is free to nominate for AFD or shift it to draft, or even comment further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I request for multiple pages in one request
Hello everyone, actually I need contents of three similar deleted articles (football match result pages). Can I ask for all the three in one request or separate requests needed?? Please let me know by pinging me. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. Jay  💬 08:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Unusual and possibly off topic request
I'm not sure where else to ask this though. Every so often, when checking my "general statistics" in XTools, my count of deleted edits will mysteriously increment. Sometimes it's clear this is from an AfD that closed as delete, but more often I have no idea as to the cause.I was wondering if there's a way to provide me a list of article titles I've edited that have been deleted. No diffs, no content, just the titles of the articles, to satisfy my own personal curiosity. I have 33 deleted edits, so the list should be short. As a backup question, I wonder if there's any way I as a non-admin user can cross reference the deletion log with anything to deduce this information myself. I understand if neither of these is possible; there's no encyclopaedic benefit. I'm just a curious person and thought I'd finally ask about this. Folly Mox (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that there ought to be a way for an editor to see the list of his own deleted edits. In your case there are 20 pages - Amanda Long, Talk:Amanda Long, Armenia in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, Bal Krishen, Bill Stevenson (businessman), Draft talk:Bone divination, Evan (unit of length), File:DWZhenJi.jpg, Foreign visits by Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Lady Zhen, List of Dynasty Warriors characters, Maryland Department of Commerce, Sukhada Kane, Sun Chen, Sun Shao (Sun Ce's son), Talk:Sun Shao (Sun Ce's son), Template:People of the end of Han dynasty, Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation, Winfield S. Frazeur IV, Zhao Mao. Jay  💬 18:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Jay, thank you! My curiosity feels very satisfied. Folly Mox (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for undeletion
Hi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easa_Al-Gurg page was redirected to another page mistakingly as it was considered as the same person. But these are two different people. Please could you consider restoring the article (Jurrasicworld (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC))
 * This looks to be Yes check.svg Done . Note: You didn't need to put the full URL. You could have simply used the wikilink like this: Easa Al-Gurg. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging AfD nominators for soft-deletion REFUNDs
Hi all, a thought (and apologies if this has already been discussed and I missed it) - when we undelete an article that was soft-deleted at AfD or contested as a prod, is it worth pinging (or posting a message to the talk page of, if pinging isn't considered sufficient - although I think it should be) the original AfD nominator or prod-er? That way it can be renominated if so desired, rather than slipping through the cracks after being undeleted? I manually let a couple of AfD nominators know of this, eg. at User_talk:Timtrent. I also noted that Extraordinary Writ did it here, but should we make this the default process for all soft-deletion REFUNDs? Daniel (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, as long as the nominator isn't blocked, inactive, etc., I think a courtesy ping is generally a good idea. I guess the counterargument would be that anyone who's interested should just watchlist the deleted page, but there's no real harm in making sure they're aware, in my opinion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)