Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale

Status as of 16:47 (UTC), Saturday, 14 December 2024 (Purge)

NOTE: This RfC is NOT OPEN YET, but you may comment on the proposed format at WT:ADAS

Introduction

NOTE: This RfC is NOT OPEN YET, but you may comment on the proposed format at WT:ADAS This is the second of two RfCs surrounding article deletion at scale; the first is being conducted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale.

Per the rules below, please feel free to add to questions/proposed changes for the first seven days. Comments should be made within the discussion section for each question; please open a subsection for each. Please do not make more than a single response within each subsection; if you feel the need to respond more than once in a given section, please take it to the talk page and open a section there.

This RfC will be announced at the articles for deletion talk page, the Arbitration Noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, the Bot policy talk page, Village pump (policy) and Centralized discussion.

Background

Page-related actions done at scale can overwhelm the community's ability to adequately monitor and participate effectively. In a 2022 August decision, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) ordered an RfC addressing "how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion" (termed "AfD at scale").

The previous RfC dealt solely with creation at scale. This RfC may include further discussion of creations at scale.

Evidence

Statistics for mass creation

Collapsed here for convenience
  1. Editors who have created more than seven articles in the past week, including lists and disambiguation pages
  2. Editors who have created more than seven articles in the past week, excluding lists and disambiguation pages
  3. Editors who have created more than ten articles in June
  4. Editors who have created more than ten articles in July
  5. Editors who have created more than ten articles in August
  6. Editors who have created more than 100 articles in the past year
  7. Editors who have created more than 100 articles in the past year, by month
  8. Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2021, by month
  9. Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2020, by month
  10. Editors who created more than than 10 articles in 2019, by month
  11. Editors by number of articles created in the past five years

Notes:

  1. None of these contain redirects that were converted into articles by the listed editor, but they do contain redirects that were converted into articles by other editors. I'm looking into fixing the latter; the former can be fixed for smaller datasets, but is too intensive for larger ones.
  2. External links counts can be suggestive about the quality of the article, it can also be meaningless - a low number may be because a large number of offline sources were used, while a high number may be because a template that provides links to a large number of database sources was added.
  1. Articles by editor by day over one year (1138 editor-days exceeded 10 articles; 163 exceeded 25)
  2. Articles by editor by week over one year (922 editor-weeks exceeded 20 articles, 150 exceeded 50)
  3. Articles by editor by month over one year (640 editor-months exceeded 40 articles, 123 exceeded 100)
  4. Articles by editor by year since 2020 (1156 editor-years exceeded 80 articles; 407 exceeded 200)

Note that these do attempt to exclude false positives from editors converting redirects created by the original editor, but some still exist, and this attempt does result in some false negatives. This is also the reason why a hard technical limit will be difficult; we will need some way to identify editors converting redirects into articles, and count those articles towards their count rather than towards the count of the original article creator. (Compiled by BilledMammal)

Further evidence sections may be added by first posting to the talk page for discussion of the value of including.

Purpose of this discussion

This RfC is to find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article deletion at scale.

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 RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding deletion of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions. Editors posting off-topic may be p-blocked from this discussion.
  3. All comments must be about issues and proposed policy changes surrounding article deletion at scale and its causes.
  4. Please do not make changes in RfC questions that have already been posted. Anyone is permitted to post additional questions/proposals, below the existing ones. Moderators may at their discretion merge, edit, or condense questions at any point in the process. Any user may suggest such changes.
  5. Discussion will be threaded. Please create a topic subsection within the discussion section for each question. Please limit yourself to a single response within any subsection; further discussion should be taken to the talk page.
  6. Within a comment subsection each editor is limited to 300 words, including questions to and replies to other editors. (word count tool) Short quotes from other editors to provide clarity are excluded from the word count, but quoted material may be trimmed by moderators at their discretion. Moderators may at their discretion grant extensions following a request on the talk page that includes a brief explanation of why it is needed; please ping for such requests. Overlength statements will be collapsed until shortened. Hint: pipe long page titles and don't bother signing posts in your own section.
  7. If you believe someone has violated these rules, please speak to a moderator on their user talk page. If you believe the moderators are behaving inappropriately, please speak to an arbcom member on their user talk page or by email.
  8. This discussion will be open for 30 days and will be closed by a panel of three editors with experience closing discussions and who will be appointed by the Arbitration Committee prior to the start of the RfC. The closing panel will summarize and evaluate what consensus, if any, exists within the community.
  9. Per their order and this amendment, any appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The community retains the ability to amend the outcomes of the RfC through a subsequent community-wide request for comment

Moderators of this discussion

The Arbitration Committee has appointed two moderators for this RfC:

Additional clerking help: MJL (talk · contribs)

Closers

The Arbitration Committee has appointed a panel of three closers for this RfC:

Proposals

NOTE: This RfC is NOT OPEN YET, but you may comment on the proposed format at WT:ADAS

Question 1: (Short descriptor)

Proposed: (Explanation of proposal)

Support Q1: (short descriptor)

  1. support statement

Oppose Q1: (short descriptor)

  1. oppose statement

Discussion of Q1 (short descriptor)

(Descriptive title for discussion)

Please open a subsection for each new discussion. Please comment only once within any subsection and take further discussion to the talk page.

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Requests_for_comment/AfD_at_scale