User:MC10/CSD Workspace

This is a CSD Workspace for me to work on my CSD work.

Criteria

CSD criteria

General G1. Patent nonsense. G2. Test pages. G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. G5. Creations by (a) banned or blocked user(s). G6. Technical deletions. G7. Author requests deletion. G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. G9. Office actions. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. Articles A1. No context. A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. A3. No content. A5. Transwikied articles. A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings). A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Redirects R2. Redirects from the article namespace. R3. Implausible typos. Files F1. Redundant. F2. Corrupt or empty image. F3. Improper license. F4. Lack of licensing information. F5. Unused unfree images. F6. Missing non-free use rationale. F7. Invalid fair-use claim. F8. Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons. F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement. F10. Useless media files. F11. No evidence of permission. Categories C1. Unpopulated categories. C2. Renaming or merging. A. Typographic and spelling fixes. B. A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices. C. A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names. User pages U1. User request. U2. Nonexistent user. U3. Non-free galleries. Templates T2. Misrepresentation of policy. T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances. Portals P1. Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article. P2. Underpopulated portal.

Useful links

• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (shortcut: WP:CSD)
  • Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Overturned speedy deletions
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (shortcut: CAT:CSD)
• Special:NewPages
• Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters (shortcuts: WP:WIHSD, WP:CASD)
• Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion (shortcut: WP:FIELD)
• User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion (shortcut: WP:10CSD)
• User:I'm Spartacus!/CSD Survey

Tags

1. Muskoff computer services – G11

   Agree with this one.Stephen! ^Coming... 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Katie Shoemaker – A7

   Have a read of WP:a7, and see why I declined the speedy deletion. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   I've BLPPROD'd the article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   Do you understand why I declined it? Stephen! ^Coming... 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   Is it not because she acted in several notable TV series, asserting importance? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's it. Assertion is the key word here. Remember, you are looking for credible assertions which is not the same as verifiable facts. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the article would pass AFD, that isn't your decision to make. If an article makes some assertion of notability, then it is allowed to remain for a bit longer, to give it chance to develop. The exceptions though are if it is negative unsourced BLP or copy-violation. Stephen! ^Coming... 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3. James Svendsen Thompson – A7

   Good call Stephen! ^Coming... 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Sandon Du – A7

   The page you tagged, had it been on its own, was indeed A7. But from looking at the history, it appears that this page was being used as an attack page, and had been blanked and tagged as such. That change was replaced with the one you had tagged. Rather than tagging for A7, restoring the attack tag would have been more appropriate. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Brian redban – A7

   Agreed. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Claire Talerico – A7

   Had there been any content on there, I would have considered moving it to Mia Talerico and redirecting. Or for that matter, even though there was no content on the mother's page, had there been something about her on Mia's page, I would have redirected. However, as there was nothing on either page, deleting as A7 is appropriate. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Salybia Mission Project – A7

   Agreed. This could also have been deleted as a copyright violation, as it is taken word-for-word from the About Us section from the organisation's website.

   When you get the mop, and you are faced with an article that looks like it has been copied from a review, or a blog, or from the History section of an organisation's website, I usually copy and paste a paragraph into Google and see what comes up. If I see a match, I will first check the article history to see whether or not there is an older version that can be reverted to. If not, then I would start cutting out the copyright violations before deciding what should be done.

   When I do that, I usually put in an edit summary like "Removing copyright material from [web address]; let's see what's left". After removal, I save the page as it is, and then assess. Generally the page gets deleted, as there is very little left (if someone was lazy in the creation of the page). It is very important that if the article was asserting notability that you do not delete it for A7, but because there is nothing left after removing copyright material. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Shy Talkers (Band) – A7
9. OrangeSky Websites – G11/G12
10. Begriffsklärung – A3
11. Da hunnid boyz – A7
12. Category:Bungalow Resorts – G7
13. ArtiosCAD – G11/G12
14. Eggtag – A7
15. Travis Deyoe – A7
16. What does waka waka mean ? – G3
17. Nick Maurer – A7
18. Mary Beach – G12
19. Katie meredith – A7
20. Justin Ondry – A7
21. Secure Federal File Sharing Act – G7
22. Tadashi Yuma – A7
23. Austen thiele – G10
24. Dominion Lending Centres – G11/G12
25. Butt tag – G3
26. User talk:X-romix/SciRefs – G8
27. Blue Star Learning, a ONE STOP SHOP for all you IT Training needs – R2
28. Thomas oconnor – A7
29. Drew Landon Harris – A7
30. Destiny Lynn White – A7
31. Ilveta, my lovley wife! – A1
32. Tony waka liturgical jazz – A1
33. Terreform – A7/G11
34. Jim Bo Wales – G10
35. Lee Iturbe – A3
36. MeCBS – G12
37. User/toddler619/ToddStruiksma – R2
38. Border-Walwa FNC – G7
39. Sasa and hwa yeon pay for mladens wasaga trip – G3
40. Faye Valintine – A7
41. A Challenge to Make a Change – A7
42. Philip MacGregor – A7
43. Melanismo (rock band) – A7
44. Michael Calcabin – A7
45. Friendship NGO – G12
46. The mama channel – A7
47. James Bilodeau – G10
48. Yanshikou – G2
49. Bull cracker – G3
50. National biscuit association – G3
51. Robert Borden Music – A3
52. ISB&M – A3
53. Panda The Panda – G3
54. Muzikmafia: From the Nashville Scene to the National Mainstream – G7
55. Thomas Rivasseau – A7
56. Ann Chong – G10
57. Adam Scalisi – A7
58. Femi Gureje – A7
59. Haimanti Shukla – G12
60. People that get shot on buses – G3
61. Uploading images – A3
62. SSENSE – G11
63. Power control services – G11
64. Shoppes at Grand Prairie – G12
65. Motherpooper – G3
66. Steve Baxi – G7
67. Dark star hollow – A3

Declined tags

1. User:Open Arts Foundation BG – Not sure whether the userpage counts or not as G11, so have not removed tag

   I agree, it is hard to say as it is all in Greek. When in doubt, WP:AGF applies. However, the action you can take here is to report the User regarding their username.

   Regardless of what an article is about, if it is written to encourage people to join/buy/use/donate, it is treated as spam and deleted. This applies as well if it is in User space. If it is an unreferenced article about club/product/organisation/company/charity, but is not written to encourage people to spend money on them, I usually leave it alone (if in User space).

   Question Can you think of any instances as to why a spammy article would not be deleted? Stephen! ^Coming... 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   I have thought of one instance: if most of the article is not spammy, but only one part of it is, we can just delete the spammy section but leave the other parts intact. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yup. Another instance is where a page has been restored and userfied so the editor can work on improving it. Always check the page history and logs to see if there is anything in there that you should be aware of before deleting. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Annette Groves – Removed A7 tag, as being a Canadian municipal politician seemed to show importance, but I BLPPROD'd the article

   Agree with this one, but can you in future explain on the edit summaries when you decline the speedy as to why you are doing so. Have a look at some of my declines to see what I mean. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   You might be interested to note that it has been nominated for deletion now (Prod was contested) and has quite a lively debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette Groves. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

3. List of Rin-ne characters – Removed A3 tag, as it doesn't apply; redirected to Rin-ne#Characters.

   Can't fault that. The author has since blanked the page, so I have deleted it. Stephen! ^Coming... 19:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

4. WW1 Egyptian Camel Transport Corps – Removed A10 tag, redirected to Egyptian Camel Transport Corps

   Agreed. Stephen! ^Coming... 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Shy Talkers (Band) – Removed G2 tag; added A7 tag (mentioned in tags above)
6. User/toddler619/ToddStruiksma – Removed R3 tag, replaced with R2 tag
7. Sasa and hwa yeon pay for mladens wasaga trip – Removed A7 tag, replaced with G3 tag
8. National biscuit association – Removed G1 tag, replaced with G3 tag
9. Dark star hollow – Removed G2 tag, replaced with A3 tag
10. Extraco Events Center – Removed G7 tag

Tasks

Hi! In addition to you marking up articles for speedy deletion (and posting them above as you are doing), I would like you to do a patrol of the CAT:CSD pages, especially the CAT:NNSD page. If you see an article that has been tagged incorrectly, remove it, and post a note on the talk page explaining why it wasn't a candidate (templated replies can be used, but I'd rather you write the explanation in your own words. Unless it is a bad faith nomination, in which case templates are fine) and what the person should do if it is turned down. Also post a note on here with (ideally) two links. One for the difference, showing you removing the link, and one for the talk page where you posted a comment.

The other thing I would like you to do is if you see a page whilst patrolling CAT:CSD that is legible for speedy deletion, post on here why the article is going to be deleted. If you can include a link to the difference that shows the db tag being added, then so much the better.

Also, if you nominate something for speedy deletion (such as you did for Muskoff), have a look at the username, and decide whether or not any action needs to be taken. In that case, the username was something like Pmuskoff, so I blocked them indefinitely for having a spam username.

Anything you use to expand your reasoning behind your actions (or what you would do if you had admin buttons) would show the community that you can be relied on to be responsible.

For now, carry on with your actions of nominating; when you feel comfortable, you can start patrolling. I'll keep a regular look on this page, so if you have any questions, please ask them here. There are no stupid questions; not asking questions is the stupid action.

Once again, thanks for letting me help you, and I will do my best not to let you down. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it very much. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Usernames

When you deal with speedy deletions, the chances are you will be dealing with new users. These new users may or may not have a username that fits the policy for usernames. Have a look at the following examples of usernames, and tell me whether or not they meet the policy for Usernames. If they don't, explain what part of the policy they are in violation of, and how you would deal with them. If you are blocking them, explain what sort of block they should receive (hard or soft), and the block notice you would leave.

1. User:Britney Spears
2. User:Britney Spears Fan
3. User:Britney Spears Fan Club
4. User:Britney Spears is a slag
5. User:dwsyhnsdhcsd
6. User:Dance like a robot

Good luck! Stephen! ^Coming... 20:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this is how I'll deal with these users.

1. User:Britney Spears – Unless this user gives proof that she is indeed Britney Spears, I would softblock this user as a misleading username, but allow the user to create a new account or have a username change.

   Blocking (of any form) is not the first thing you should do here. Unless the username is blatantly against the policy, you should always assume good faith. Assuming that the user is making positive efforts, then WP:RFC/N is the place to go, as well as talking to the user. If they are vandalising, then treat them as such. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

2. User:Britney Spears Fan – I see nothing wrong with this username; there's no reason why a user cannot be a fan of Britney Spears.

   Quite right Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3. User:Britney Spears Fan Club – I would recommend this user to change his/her username, as it is somewhat a promotional username, but I would allow the user to keep the username if he/she avoids creating/editing pages about Britney Spears's Fan Club. If he/she does edit/create these pages, I would softblock this user, but allow a new account or a username change.

   This user would not be allowed to keep their username, regardless of what sort of edits they were making, even if they were editing topics within Ancient Greece. Why? Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Since it states it's the "Fan Club", it appears to be a user shared by many people, and therefore should be blocked, though I'm not sure whether to softblock or hardblock. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   That would depend on the edits. If they are adding spam links to their website (and this advertising themselves), then a {{spamusernameblock}} is needed. If they are making genuine edits which can be seen to be helping the project, then {{softerblock}} is more appropriate. Stephen! ^Coming... 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

4. User:Britney Spears is a slag – I would hardblock this user immediately as a disruptive username, and would disallow this user from creating another account or having a username change.

   Yup. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

5. User:dwsyhnsdhcsd – Although the username is confusing, nothing in the username policy disallows this, so I would not take any action against this user. I would recommend this user to get a less confusing username, but it isn't required.

   Once upon a time this was against the policy, but it is no longer the case. You should look at their edits, and decide whether or not they will be an asset or a hinderance to the project. Remember WP:DUCK. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

6. User:Dance like a robot – I'm not so sure about this one, so possibly I may not block, but if I would, I would softblock this user as a misleading username, as only bots usually have usernames that end with "bot", but allow a username change/new account.

   Soft block is appropriate, but it is a bit more definite than "possibly". Re-read the WP:USERNAME page to see why. However, you may also want to read this recent RFC. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why you should always check links before you delete...

Have a look at the history for Alexis Castle, and the logs for that page. You will see that I reviewed the page, then deleted it under A7. I then looked at the links, and realised that it was a fictional character from a tv series. So what appeared as non-notable text was in fact a character biography. So I restored the page (to maintain the history of the page) and converted it into a redirect to the character's fictional father.

Moral of the story... always check the links BEFORE you delete, not AFTERWARDS! Stephen! ^Coming... 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for you to be a guinea pig

I have created a CSD exercise: User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises. I've been meaning to for some time, as I do want to get more involved with the RFA process. So, when you get a chance, can you please post your answers the questions on this page? You can do them in any order, and you don't have to answer them all in one go. If you are unclear about anything, please ask. I would suggest that you include a link with your answers to the relevant exercise page.

Once you've answered them all, I'll go through with you what I would do in those situations. Good luck! Stephen! ^Coming... 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here are my answers.

1. User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/A tory liar – I would delete this as a G10, not an R3, for calling someone "a tory liar", since the name of the article is considered as well. If the user has not been blocked indefinitely yet, I would block him/her indefinitely.

   What about the fact that this redirect has been around for a few years? Isn't there something about old redirects that can't be speedy deleted? Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

   Alright, so I'll take the redirect to RfD. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, you were right first time. The length of time that was up was a trick question; it was WP:POV pushing and an attack, and (if it wasn't for the fact that it was true, as shown by the references on the Jeffrey Archer page) it would be libellous. Speedy deletion of malicious redirects is the way to go, regardless of how long they have been around. Cases like this, a sanity check might be helpful, so after deletion you could post your actions on WP:ANI. But I would be confident that your actions would be upheld.

   Think of it this way - deletion of articles is like a game of cards - BLP and copyright violations trump everything. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

2. User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Deben High School – I would definitely decline the A7 tag, as schools are specifically disallowed from being deleted by A7. Since there has been consensus to keep all high schools (I forgot the exact pages, but I recall Wikipedia:Schools had to do with it), I would not tag the page with anything, or warn the IP.

   Quite right. You may wish to add categories, and maybe give it a stub tag as well. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

3. User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Malcom Hardee – I agree with the G10 tagging, and I would delete the page as violating G10. Since this user seems to be only disrupting Wikipedia, I would block him indefinitely.

   This is one of those cases where on the face of it, it appears to be an attack page. But is it really? Unreferenced certainly, and the vast majority of people would probably view this as an attack page. However, have a look at the article name, and the name in the article. Always double check to see if there is another page, especially if the title of a page contains a spelling error. Would you like to answer this again? Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

   I would redirect the page to Malcolm Hardee with {{R from misspelling}}, and remove the warning from the user's talk page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yup - that's the way to go. If you had deleted it as an attack page, I doubt anyone would have held it against you. The WP:DUCK test, whilst not policy, is widely accepted as a half-decent test. And lets face it - the original article had all the hallmarks of an attack page. Bad grammar, crude language, and didn't paint the person in a good light. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

4. User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/New article – This seems more like a good-faith test than vandalism, so I would decline the G3 tag, delete the page by G2, remove the G3 warning from the user's talk page, and encourage the user to test in the sandbox with a hand-written message; if he/she has not been welcome yet, I would welcome him/her.

   Spot on. I would also comment to the person who tagged the article not to be so bitey. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

5. User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Wizzy Wig the Clown – I would decline the A7 nomination, as the article seems to show importance. If this entertainer is still alive (which I assume is true), I would BLPPROD the article. Since the user's username is Wizzy Wig, I would ask the user to stay away from the article, since he may have a possible COI with the subject. I would also take the username to WP:RFC/U, to discuss if the username is acceptable (as you recommended above).

   Pretty much what I would do, although I probably wouldn't go to RFC/U. That's not to sat that isn't the proper approach though; what is it about the username that would make you want to discuss it at RFC/U? Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, after I think about it, I won't take the username to RFC/U. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

6. User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises/Athur the Great – I would delete this page immediately as A7, and I would ask an oversight to remove the personally identifying information on the article. Since it appears that the writer of the article is a child, I would recommend that they do not reveal any more personal information of themselves and their friend with a personal message to them.

   Up until yesterday, I would have the confidence that this was the correct response, but now I am not so sure. You have the bit about deleting the article and warning the user not to reveal personal information about themselves.

   However, it is the reporting it to Oversight that may or may not be the case. In the past, I have reported attack pages to Oversight concerning that "out" a minor, and these have been redacted. I have also reported pages that give away personal information about a minor (including email addresses), and these have also been redacted. Yesterday, I deleted and reported a page about a minor that gave away personal information about the minor's school and other details like that, but it was not redacted, as it did not come under the policy. So now I am a little bit confused as to what can or can't be redacted. I would say that as the article gives away someone's address, it probably would be redacted. If in doubt, err on the side of caution. Worse case scenario, the Oversighters will give you an extra lesson in what should or should not be reported. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

   No matter what the Oversights say, I would say better safe than sorry. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There, feel free to correct me. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Stephen! ^Coming... 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed being the guinea pig! Don't worry too much about not getting some of the actions not quite right (I'm thinking of the Malcom/Malcolm Hardee test here), as I don't think any of your actions would have been questioned had you got the buttons. These pages were chosen to show you some of the pages you could face when (and I am confident it is only a matter of time) you become an administrator.

The vast majority of speedy deletions are open and shut cases of delete or not delete. There are a few cases every now and then which aren't so clear cut, and the above have hopefully highlighted a few examples. One of the most common is the spelling mistake in the title and there is an existing page. So you need to decide if it is a feasible spelling mistake. Just remember to check the page you are about to convert into a redirect (or delete)... is there anything in there that can be transferred to the main article? Also, a courtesy note on the user's talk page pointing them to the correct article won't go amiss. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing words

I think you have improved a lot with your speedy deletions, and as such I don't think there is anything I can add that can't be taught by experience. So I would suggest that you carry on tagging for speedy deletions, and declining those that weren't candidates.

I would also suggest that you record your tagging/removing here (and where appropriate, the notes you left on user pages). This is because when you re-apply at RFA, your speedy deletion actions will be under close scrutiny, possibly more than your age. If you have them all in one place, then it will make it easier to show your improvement and competence.

Also, by having a history of appropriate tagging/removal beyond this training session, it will hopefully show that you have learned what to do, rather than having just been taught how to pass an RFA (a rather odd objection, but one I faced by quite a few people at my RFA).

If you have any questions, then by all means ask. If you feel you need more instruction, I will do what I can. I will still keep an eye on this page (it would be remiss of me to do so), but I probably won't make comments to any further tagging or removal actions, unless absolutely necessary.

I shall leave you with one last thought: Remember - just because an article can be speedily deleted, it doesn't mean that it should. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)