The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Levivich took responsiblity and moved to draftspace. Per WP:PROXYING and comments in this discussion and I guess WP:IAR if I need to invoke it, I've moved the page to draftspace as "my responsibility." Anyone who is EC can go work on it there. There really is no need for this MFD (and for the arguments herein). (non-admin closure)Levivich (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted as violation of WP:ECR. User gamed system to get EC. User was denied userfication/draftification. User's EC rights were revoked. User recreated article in user space. - UtherSRG(talk)17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Single sources, and POV, are not forbidden from userspace, but are supposed to go there. “Could be worked out on an article talk page” is absolutely no reason to restrict use of userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the editor has the necessary number to be EC anyway, and if not then move to my user space. NPOV isnt a requirement for userspace works in progress. There is material here that should be incorporated into multiple pages, and the nominating admin is the one who revoked EC anyway (and denied the REFUND request), without the necessary basis for it IMO as I do not believe this is gaming the system, but that isnt even relevant to the deletion request here. I am EC and I am asking that it be refunded. Should be enough to resolve any of the procedural hurdles that have been put up here. nableezy - 21:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and treat it as if it were the work of User:Nableezy, who has offered to adopt it. Also:
Not sure I understand. You have to be ECP just to write about a subject in your own userspace? Regardless of what happened in mainspace, why would we delete someone's sandbox that's clearly relevant to Wikipedia (that's not to say the quality is good or that it should be in mainspace, but it's clearly not unrelated to the encyclopedia). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly reasonable is userspace. To my reading, the speedy deletion of Cultural_and_intellectual_destruction_of_Palestine was improper. It does not match the wording of WP:G5. If there was a user’s specific ban, I can’t find it, and the deleting admin, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, should have pointed to it in the deletion summary. I don’t find where userfication was denied, but I can’t imagine how the denial is justified, short of an explicit user’s specific topic ban, and in which case there should be a warning on their talk page. I see no warning blankings on their talk page. This case looks more like admin overreach and harassment of User:JoaquimCebuano. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ECR violation deletions are commonly tagged G5 as they were created in violation what essentially amounts to a topic ban. When I deleted the article they were not extended-confirmed and no one else has edited it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ECR violation is not a user’s specific ban. You are misusing G5. You should use AfD instead. “Commonly tagged” is very weak justification. And that aside, did you decline a request for userfication? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators may, at their discretion, delete articles created in violation of ECR, as is explained at WP:ECR, Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. I did not return their article to user space, though I did refund via email as their ECR permission was pulled for gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a clear conflict between ECR interpretation and CSD. ArbCom has no right to override policy like CSD.
That upon finding out they needed EC to edit in the topic area they spent six hours making mostly minor edits to meet the technical threshold. Such behavior is generally found to be gaming, although there's a lot of differing views on where exactly the line is. I was planning to take it to AN, but that became moot when UtherSRG removed, correctly in my view, their extended-confirmed permission. See this discussion for some context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For what it’s worth, noting my limited experience with controversial topics, and more experience with the details of deletion policy, I think ECR gaming is a behavioural issue that should be dealt with by warnings and blocking, and the mainspace violation should have been userfied. Admins should avoid using deletions tools to rule the project. I don’t count redirect suppression as on par with page deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer policy: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert; in the case of page creation, a 'revert' can only be construed as 'removal.' Equally Pages created by banned... users in violation of their ban... are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. The original call was a good one, IMO. ——Serial13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ECR violation is currently implemented as a non-WP:XC ban. Any non-XC user who creates a ECR-topic article is breaking that ban. Whether you agree with that implementation or not is valid, but that's the current situation, and the current wat to delete the articles is via G5. - UtherSRG(talk)15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's effectively a community-authorised topic (not site) ban for editors the community feels are unlikely to have the necessary qualities to work within without further experience of Wiipediadia's occasionally Byzantine policies and procedures (like any other topic ban). One of which SmokeyJoe, is WP:BLUDGEON. No need to answer every vote you disagree with! Cheers, ——Serial16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the point of this website is to be an encyclopedia, not a place where we make up rules and enforce them. Anyway I copied it to my sandbox in case this actually gets deleted. This discussion should have ended when an EC editor said they'd take responsibility.
If you look at this page, and you want to delete it, I really don't know what you're doing on this website. Why would you want to delete a well researched start of an article? Do you not know what the start of an encyclopedia article looks like? Or are you like, "I don't care how good it is, he broke a rule!!!" I just don't get the thought process here.
Guys: forest, trees. You should always be trying to make it easier for people to write here, not harder. ECR is important, but not so important we should start deleting people's good userspace drafts even when other EC editors want to work on them. Levivich (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.