User talk:Robert McClenon/The Checkmarx DRV
Views of User:DESiegel[edit]
Since I am mentioned in the essay, I am boldly choosing to reply and express my views here on the talk page.
I did indeed point out that soem reviewers decline to approve a draft at an AfC review if the topic is salted in mainspace. Indeed I have seen a reviewer decline a draft on that ground alone, which is in my view not helpful to anyone.
But I also pointed out that AfC is not supposed to be mandatory for anyone. It is intended to be a way for inexperienced editors to get help in creating valid articles, and a way for users who are not yet confirmed, or have not registered accounts, to start an article. But any user may register an account (unless s/he is currently blocked or banned) and can easily become autoconfirmed in only 4 days of editing. After that, sauch a uer may start articles direcxtly in mainspace, or in user space or draft space without using AfC.
The essay expresses the view that when a title has frequently been created in promotional form, and been protected against creation, and users (possibly paid editors) have attempted to evade the restriction by creating it under alternate names, then an AfC review, and an AfD discussion should be required for a new article on that topic. It says We, Wikipedia, are sometimes unrealistic in thinking that we should never be punitive.
I disagree. I think that we should not be punitive, and what is more I think that Wikipedia policy forbids us from being punitive. This is certainly true of the blocking policy. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not so explicit on this point, but none of the 14 reasons listed in the section WP:DEL-REASON mention past editor behavior. The closest is point 4: Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content
but that refers to the current content of an article, not to past different versions, nor to the behavior of past editors.
It is my view that when an arti8cle titel has been salted, if an editor in good standing (not a sock or a previously promotional editor) presents a draft of a new version of the article (whether in draft space, or a sandbox, or a userspace draft) an application may be made to WP:DRV for unsalting, and if the draft is neuitral free from promotion, and with at least reasonable sourcing, DRV cna and should unsalt the title. At that point the dtaft may be moved to mainspace, or the creator may OPT to go through an AfC review for further improvement, but DRV should never mandate this. Nor should DRV in such a case mandate an AfD discussion, although of course any editor may start an AfD on any article, with a valid reason. But a past history of promotional content is not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion when there is no current non-neutral content, and any nomination which provides no other reason should be speedily closed as presenting no reason for deletion.
I think the guidelines should be updated to make this explicit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)