It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
This page in a nutshell: Don't remove all/most items from a category (before/after nominating it for discussion). This may violate WP:CFD policy, and hinder the community in assessing the category's purpose and whether/how its items are related. Improper ECOOPing is sanctionable as disruptive editing.
Don't empty a category (or box) because you just don't like it. Nominate it at CfD and discuss what should happen with the items, instead of just removing the items from the category.
Users – editors, admins, and bots – should not be emptying categories out of process (ECOOP). That is, remove all/most items from a category before nominating it, or after it has (by that user or another user) been nominated for discussion (deletion, merging, renaming, or splitting). Doing so may constitute a violation of WP:CFD policy, and make it harder for the community to assess the purpose the category may serve, or have served, or could possibly be re-purposed to serve, as well as whether/how its items are related to each other.
Improper emptying (depopulating) of categories shortly before or after nominating them (in order to enable their deletion per this provision) is known as emptying out of process. Cases where a category could get or has been deleted due to having been emptied out of process are known as out of process deletions. There is a rough general agreement that this should not be done, but it is not always clear what exactly constitutes "emptying out of process", and in which cases such conduct should be sanctioned (and how) or not.
Sometimes emptying categories out of process is a sincere mistake anyone can make, and a warning and explanation is enough. In some cases, however, editors knowingly inappropriately empty categories out of process without disclosing this, which is considered disruptive. Such inappropriate ECOOPing may be sanctioned per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing with temporary blocks lasting for several days, indefinite topicbans, and even indefinite blocks (see #Sanction precedents).
This section employs definitions and recommendations derived from current or former official policy, sanction precedents, case studies, and common practice or parlance in the mainspace or the projectspace (mostly at WP:CFD/WP:CFDS). As a whole, this section does not currently enjoy community consensus, but most of its constituent elements do.
Nominator or nom: The user who nominated a category for (speedy) deletion. This is often, but not necessarily, the user emptying categories out of process.
Participant: Any user (editor or admin) other than nominator who participates in a CFD discussion or speedy deletion discussion (including opposed requests).
Emptying categories out or process (ECOOPing; "emptying" is also known as "depopulating"):
Removing all items from a category, thereby intentionally or uninentionally setting a WP:C1 speedy deletion process in motion.
Removing all items from a category AND nominating the category for speedy deletion per WP:C1 or normal deletion at WP:CFD.
Removing all items except 1 eponymous item from a category AND nominating the category for speedy deletion per WP:C2F.
Removing all items except a few (usually 1 or 2) from a category AND nominating the category for deletion per WP:SMALLCAT.
Doing any of the above to a category nominated for discussion by someone other than yourself (ECOOPing by people other than nominator).
Recategorising (moving) all items (perhaps except 1 or 2) from category A to category B so that category A becomes (nearly) empty to enable or effect a WP:C1, regular WP:CFD, WP:C2F or WP:SMALLCAT deletion.
It is generally recognised that ECOOPing under scenarios no. #1 to #6 is inappropriate, and should not be done. It may be a mistake the first few times, but repeatedly ECOOPing without disclosure is considered disruptive, and is sanctionable as such.
It does not matter whether the user does this manually, using HotCat, or using a bot.
It does not matter whether the user is technically right that the category should be deleted, nor that the items in question do not belong in the category. They should follow procedure (the deletion process), and not empty categories out of process.
It does not matter whether the user who does the ECOOPing is an editor or admin, nor whether they are a newbie or a long-serving and highly respected editor or admin. Without disclosure (which may not necessarily be a sufficient justification), ECOOPing is inappropriate. If anything, newbies may be forgiven for not yet knowing how Wikipedia works and needing an explanation and warning; more experienced users are expected to know, or able to look up, the relevant policies & guidelines, common practices, and places to ask questions in case of doubt, and they are more liable to sanctioning if they do not comply. (See also WP:Competence is required and WP:Competence is acquired).
What DOES matter is whether a user discloses what they have done, and why, at the speedy deletion discussion or CFD discussion. It may still be out of process, but not necessarily inappropriate, as (other) participants can still check (at the user contributions) which items were in the category before the user emptied it (almost) entirely. It is generally recommended not to do this, but sometimes it can be appropriate, and the disclosure may serve as justification for why a user emptied a category out of process.
It is often recommended that the user who emptied categories out of process, and has acknowledged their mistake, should undo their own edits and restore the status quo ante.
How to prevent emptying a category which should perhaps be deleted:
Recommended approach: When considering whether a category is appropriate or inappropriate and should perhaps be deleted, it's best to check all items first, and write down somewhere whether or not each item fits the category. If none (or just 1 or 2) of the items fit the category, take it to WP:CFD and write down your findings in your rationale, to convince other users (participants) that the category should be deleted (or merged, renamed, or split).
Mistaken approach: Everyone makes mistakes. If you check every item as to whether it fits the category, and remove it as soon as you have judged it to be unfit for the category, you may end up – intentionally or unintentionally – emptying the entire category if none (or just 1 or 2) of the items fit the category. It may be that beforehand, you thought the category could be legitimate, and only some of the items in it may be unfit and need to be removed. But in the process of checking and removing, you discover none (or just 1 or 2) of them fit, and by removing them, you have unintentionally emptied (almost) the entire category. Inexperienced users in particular are prone to making this mistake, but even experienced users can sometimes end up doing this before they know it. Users who do this need to be warned, and explained/reminded how the deletion process works.
Acknowledging mistakes and the rules: It is generally recommended that the user acknowledges they didn't know it worked that way. It would be polite if they also apologised as an expression of goodwill, but it's not strictly necessary. Additionally, it is often recommended that the user who emptied categories out of process, and has acknowledged their mistake, should undo their own edits and restore the status quo ante. Acknowledging not having known the rules, apologising, and restoring the old situation is good practice, and happens a lot in #Case studies. That the user in question publicly acknowledges they now understand what the rules are, that the rules are important and should be followed, and that they are prepared to follow them in the future, helps the community in establishing/confirming that the ECOOPing user acted in good faith. It also serves as a reminder for the user themselves that in future cases they should know better, and are more liable to sanctions for noncompliance with the rules. It shall not be a sufficient excuse for a user to say they "didn't know the rules" and it was just a "mistake" after having received multiple explanations and warnings, and yet persisting in ECOOPing. Repetitive undisclosed ECOOPing is a disruptive approach.
Disruptive approach: If you see a category you just don't like, or there is something wrong with the category name, category parents (supercategories) or category children (subcategories), or the way the items in the category have been grouped together, and you just remove them all from the category (and perhaps nominate the category for discussion or speedy deletion) because it is obvious to you that the category is inappropriate, and you provide no disclosure, your actions may be disruptive. You should explain your thinking, preferably in a nominator's rationale at CFD for why you think the category is inappropriate and should be deleted, or in exceptional cases perhaps in a disclosure for why you removed (almost) all items out of process.
Especially if you already know that certain people will oppose it, or that you've already had disagreements with the person who created this and similar categories that you find inappropriate before, you should nominate the category at CFD rather than just emptying it. It's unacceptable for you to knowingly ignore the rules and the community, and empty the category of your own volition; you can be sanctioned for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing if you do.
The best tool for detecting whether a category has been emptied out of process is the script User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer. It allows users to view the last 50 items and subcategories which have been added to or removed from a particular category in the past month. It includes information about at which time, and by whom, these changes were made. To install it, simply create a user subpage called User:YOURUSERNAME/common.js (if you haven't already), and add the following text to it:
To help admins check for, and if needed, reverse potential out-of-process deletions, there is also Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions. This is an automatically generated overview of pages which might have been deleted out of process, including articles, drafts, templates, and categories. For the latter, this may include categories emptied out of process.
§Speedy (WP:CFDS – top) provides that Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}.
§Ready for deletion instructs admins: Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.
WP:C2F provides that a category may be speedy-deleted if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination.
Nobody disputes that categories which are empty can be deleted after 7 days per WP:CFDS. But it is also clear that in certain situations, users are not allowed to remove items from a category in order to make it empty, and thus effect or enable such a deletion.
WP:C2F indicates emptying a category (save for 1 eponymous item) shortly before nominating it will not satisfy its speedy deletion criteria.
§Ready for deletion indicates that emptying out of process in order enable "out of process deletions" is not in line with "the WP:CFD process", and that "the editor who emptied the category" thus did something wrong.
But these two provisions are vague about the circumstances and criteria, and other than "inform[ing] the editor who emptied the category" how "the WP:CFD process" is supposed to work, there appears to be no enforceable punishment for emptying out of process. It operates under the assumption that only poorly informed editors are capable of emptying out of process, and that no editor would deliberately do that in order to delete a category they don't like. This is a good general assumption in line with WP:AGF, but there have been enough cases of malicious emptying out of process that enforceable sanctions are necessary, and have been taken in various cases (see #Sanction precedents).
If you just empty a category, you might create a bit of a mess... Everyone makes mistakes, but if you repeatedly ignore the rules and make a mess, you may be disrupting Wikipedia as a collaborative project. Please don't.
Is emptying, deleting and undeleting categories out of process "disruptive"?
As several case studies (below) show, there have been several suggestions that
if editors or admins empty categories out of process in order to enable or effect their deletion; or
if admins move/delete (empty) categories out of process; or
if admins undelete pages (such as categories) out of process;
they may be committing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and could be sanctioned as such. WP:DISRUPTIVE does not discuss categories explicitly, and only mentions "disruptive deletions" once under WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which may or may not be relevant for ECOOP (second emphasis not in original):
A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as (...) editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
Might we interpret emptying categories to enable their deletion as "repeatedly removing" a category from a "group of articles in pursuit of a certain point" (such as "this category is nonsensical" or "anachronistic"; see the "Roman Walls" and "[Years] [something] in Austria" cases below)? This does appear to be the case. Regardless of whether an editor empties a category to enable an (automatic or manual) WP:C1 or WP:C2F speedy deletion, or takes it to a normal WP:CFD, an emptied category makes it harder for the community to assess the purpose the category may serve, or may have served, or could possibly be re-purposed to serve. This is because admins at Speedy or regular editors participating in a CFD can no longer instantly see which items the category had before being emptied, and thus how the items might be related to each other, and whether the category name and scope make/made sense or not. Part of the problem is that the page history of categories does not show which items have been removed from it (except for users who have installed a #Detection tool); only the page histories of individual items show which category it has been removed from.
In short, emptying categories shortly before or after nominating them for deletion, or in order to enable an automatic WP:C1 deletion, disrupts other Wikipedians' easy access to information about the category and its items, and evaluating the emptying editor's deletion rationale. They now need to turn to the emptying editor's user contributions list to see which items were removed from the category to re-construct what the category looked like before the emptying editor came along. Certain nominations themselves can be considered "disruptive", and therefore be closed procedurally or early (WP:PCLOSEWP:EARLY). But note that the emptying editor can be someone else than whoever nominated the category for deletion, which is even harder to detect, let alone sanction.
Imagine the following scenario (which sometimes happens at CfD):
Editor A nominates Category X for deletion at CfD.
Editor B comes along and empties Category X (usually also !voting Delete in the CfD) secretly because they just don't like it, and want to enable a deletion.
Editor C, noticing that Category X is empty, will usually inspect the user contributions of the nominator – editor A – but not find any edits of A emptying Category X. They may not know, or even have reason to suspect, editor B is the one who emptied it.
Having done their due diligence of checking whether nominator – A – has emptied X out of process, and concluding that they didn't, C may !vote to Delete X as well, not realising they are supporting an out of process deletion enabled by B's arguably disruptive editing.
Editor A may not realise what B has done either, especially if they didn't monitor what happened to their CfD, disengaged and just went on to do other things (which is fine). Regardless of A's rationale, B may de facto hijack the nomination by !voting Delete and pointing out the category is empty, recruiting C to their cause without C realising it.
As a result, closer D comes along and decides to close the CfD as Delete per A's nomination and the !votes of B and C.
Admin E deletes Category X per D's closure.
This out of process deletion is to be blamed on B, not A. More importantly, it may be difficult to detect what B has done (wrong), as neither A, nor C, nor D, nor E noticed any procedural wrongdoing.
The primary responsibility of not emptying categories out of process is upon editors: they need to guard against doing it themselves, and to point out to others that it shouldn't be done. Deliberate ECOOPing by editors is sanctionable as disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPTIVE). As of July 2023, there is a small number of #Sanction precedents taken against editors who have been found to be deliberately emptying categories out of process in order to effect out of process deletions, including temporary blocks ranging from 31 hours to 72 hours, indefinite topicbans, and even indefinite blocks. Additionally, several case studies show several admins and editors arguing that it can and sometimes should be sanctioned in certain situations.
Apart from editors, §Ready for deletion also instructs admins (administrators) to check whether categories weren't emptied out of process so as to prevent themselves from performing out of process deletions, and "[to] inform the editor who emptied the category" how "the WP:CFD process" is supposed to work. Admins could – mistakenly or deliberately – delete pages (including categories) out of process (a well-known phenomenon that is known about outside Wikipedia, so much so that it is briefly covered in Wikipedia's mainspace: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia#Out-of-process deletions). b:en:How Wikipedia Works/Chapter 7#Processes also briefly explains how this might happen (emphasis not in original):
Processes should generally be followed, unless very good reasons are given for not doing so; for example, administrators can delete pages out of process, but they risk inciting controversy if they do. On the other hand, processes have a tendency to get out of control, and rule-bound processes should not exist for their own sake. Quoting Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), it adds: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict.
Rules aren't set in stone, but there are ways to resolve ECOOP issues case by case, creating precedents.
Conversely, admins can also – mistakenly or deliberately – undelete pages out of process, with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review saying:
If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the administrator who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.
So if admin A deletes a page out of process, admin B "may choose to undelete it immediately", and "should inform" admin A about it. However, if admin B undeletes a page out of process (namely, "without gaining consensus"), this might also constitute disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPTIVE), and be sanctionable as such. There is an apparent a tension between
the instruction that admin B "may choose to undelete [the page] immediately"; and
the instruction that admin B should take care to avoid "undeletions without gaining consensus".
This suggests that admins shouldn't immediately undelete a page out of process without gaining consensus first, even though they are allowed to, at the risk of that immediate-undeletion-without-gaining-consensus-first being viewed as "disruptive" (and thus sanctionable). This raises the question in which cases admin B needs to gain consensus first, and which cases they don't. The "How Wikipedia Works" Wikibook and WP:NOT suggest deliberate out-of-process deletions by admin B risk controversy, but are not disruptive if they "follow the spirit of the rules". Whether they actually did "follow the spirit of the rules" is probably to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which has probably led to a kind of jurisprudence (a series of precedents deciding whether deliberate undeletions by admin B were "disruptive" or not).
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether, apart from undeletions, admins are also liable for disruptive editing if the admin deletes a page out of process, nor whether this also applies to deleting inappropriately emptied category pages specifically. But it stands to reason that similar rules apply here, as one case study of an admin moving/deleting categories out of process shows, which at least one editor identified as "disruptive" (see below).
There is general – but largely unwritten – agreement that a user cannot just go around emptying categories that they dislike just so that these categories can be tagged for deletion. But what exactly constitutes "emptying out of process" has not yet been formally written down anywhere (as of July 2023). The July–November 2020 talk thread Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? failed to come up with specific criteria under which scenarios and circumstances this would or would not be allowed (see #Proposals). Therefore, it is unclear what users may or may not do, and appropriate sanctions to be taken for whenever they have done something they were not allowed to do. By default, the current #Official CFD policy and #Sanction precedents, with possible inspiration from #Former official CFD & CFD How-to policy and #Case studies (in that order), should be followed in practice until new policy or guideline provisions are written and accepted by the community. In addition, the #Overview and #Interpretation in this essay may help editors and admins navigate various scenarios until then.
Jurisprudence: cases which have set precedents for sanctioning ECOOPing editors. These precedents are not meant to rehash old discussions or cast all contributions of sanctioned editors or admins in a bad light just because they have been sanctioned once or multiple times for ECOOPing.
Temporary blocks for disruptive editing involving emptying categories; indefinite topicban for failure to observe consensus
23 January 2011: blocked for 31 hours: Disruptive editing: manually emptying categories
8 March 2011: blocked for 72 hours: Disruptive editing: repeatedly emptying categories without seeking consensus
19 January 2013: blocked for 48 hours: Edit warring: Across multiple articles and categories
26 August 2023: indefinitely topic banned from maintaining categories. In addition to discussing categories and their maintenance, this includes – but is not limited to – directly adding or removing categories from pages, and moving or renaming categories.Reason: failed to observe the consensus reached at CfD and has emptied categories out-of-process.
Closing admin: [Editor A] is indefinitely banned from making any edits relating to [topic area], broadly construed. The consensus reflects the position [Editor A]'s unilateral deletion of categories was willfully done in bad faith and due to a personal bias. That said, the emptying of categories, which has the effect of improperly subverting deletion process, is disruptive from a procedural standpoint as well. Blanking pages without good reason is a violation of policy per WP:PAGEBLANK and WP:PRESERVE, and blanking with malicious intent is even classified as vandalism. Therefore, on top of the topic ban, [Editor A] is given a final warning that should he engage in any improper addition or removal of categories whatsoever, or improperly blank any pages whatsoever, he will be blocked indefinitely.
Takeaway:
The precedent confirms that ECOOPing by WP:GAMING the Wikipedia:Deletion process to enable or effect out-of-process deletions constitutes WP:DISRUPTIVE editing that can and will be sanctioned, in this case with an indefinite WP:TBAN, and could even be sanctioned with an WP:INDEFitine block if the misconduct persists.
These policy provisions used to apply to WP:CFD#HOWTO, but are not longer in force, and can no longer be enforced. This section is not meant to rehash old discussions or cast the actions of certain editors or admins in a bad light merely for having apparently done something wrong in 2004–2007.
Some early admins and editors on English Wikipedia tried to establish a new WP:CFD policy in July–August 2004. (There was a parallel process by which categories could be deleted, called "votes for deletion (VFD)", which was later merged with the CFD process and no longer exists on its own). At the time, there were very few categories in general, and the primary concern was to not get items (mostly articles) orphaned. It was therefore common practice to move items from inappropriate category A to appropriate category B before deleting inappropriate category A, to prevent items from being orphaned. (Sometimes, emptying a category was also called "orphaning" or "depopulating"). In other words, categories had to be emptied before an admin was allowed to delete them. The question was whether it was appropriate for editors or admins to empty those categories before nominating (listing) them for deletion, or not until consensus was reached to delete them.
The first-ever version of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (31 May 2004) stated: All categories listed here must be emptied and orphaned. It is unclear whether the editor (admin?) in question had consensus to claim this as a requirement, as neither Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004 nor Wikipedia:Categorization contained such a statement at the time, although it could have been established practice in the earliest category discussions. Either way, by mid-July 2004, this convention was being challenged as impractical and problematic: if the discussion resulted in a consensus to Keep, the emptying had to be entirely reverted; and, any editor or admin could game this convention in order to have a category they disliked deleted.
On 19:15, 11 July 2004, Editor D (apparently without consensus, but in a well-meant attempt to address this issue) added a boldened sentence to WP:CFD stating: While all categories listed here should be emptied and orphaned, this cant always be done for large categories. Category X was already under nomination, and Category Y would follow soon; both were, or were alleged to have been, depopulated before or during the CfD by an admin (in the case of X) and an editor (in the case of Y) while the discussions were still going on, to the frustration of other admins and editors.
Admin 1: There do not seem to be any firm policies for category deletion, so let me suggest some... If you object to anything here, feel free to add comments and/or suggest alternatives (...)
If the category is empty and obviously the delete is non-controversial, it gets deleted and immediately delisted from this page. (...)
If a non-controversial category has more than 3 items in it, it can not be deleted, and can be delisted from this page within 7 days; 2 days if more than 10 items. (...)
Non-empty categories can't be deleted before they are emptied.
Categories about which there is some debate should be kept and delisted after XX days without debate if no consensus is reached.
Controversial categories that have reached consensus to delete should begin to be emptied by participants after XX days. (...)
Admin 1: Empty categories with poor descriptions will be deleted. There's no point in keeping them (...) However, emptying articles from a controversial category before a consensus is determined is not a good thing.
Editor A: I agree that the category should not be emptied first.
Editor A: As I understand it, CFD operates parallel to VFD, in that candidate categories are voted on and may be either kept or deleted, rather than this being a maintenance page with listed categories being automatically deleted. For that reason, I suggest listed categories not be emptied before being listed, so that if they are voted to be retained, all the emptying work does not need to be undone. At any rate, what I really think needs to happen is that the CFD and VFD pages be merged. The people likely to be interested and the policy considerations for deletion or retention are not that different as between categories and articles.
Editor B: It would be tremendously unproductive if people start emptying categories, listing them here, and then having to re-fill them because of a consensus to keep.
Editor C: I've just realised [Category X] has disappeared. I started the category. Added people to it. I now find that someone has presumably orphaned it, then called for it to be deleted, all without me noticing what was going on and having a chance to make the case for the category.
Admin 2: Categories cease being important when they're empty. [Category X] passed through CfD indeed [and was deleted by "category janitor" admin 3].
Admin 4: This is precisely the problem I outlined above, which appears not to have been resolved. What's happening is that someone creates a category, populates it. Someone who dislikes it depopulates it then lists it for CfD. In effect this is saying that the population of a category cannot be taken at face value.
Editor D: I agree - and have changed the main rule from depopulate the category to do not depopulate the category (delete category tags from articles) until it has been voted for deletion. I didnt write the first version (...)15:37, 26 August 2004; courtesy link.
Admin 4: (...) I've looked at the above again. [Admin 3] is the category janitor? I shall direct him here to ask how his deletion edit summary on [category X] was not misleading. He has put content was... followed by the definition I wrote. This gives the entirely misleading impression that the category was empty. It was only empty once it was emptied by... [admin 3]! I really think we need some more input here, so I'll be canvassing for a proper debate.
Admin 4: Here's an example of consensus not being sought let alone ignored:[1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5]etc, etc. Forget which category this is and examine the underlying procedure. It is trivial for one person to go around and depopulate a category before listing it here and essentially presenting the jury with a blank category. This cannot be the way to approach category deletion. I think policy has to be to list populated categories (except when there never has been anything in it) and discuss whether the category is to be depopulated and then deleted.
Editor E: (...) If you look at [admin 4]'s examples more carefully (...) this is not a case of depopulating a category then listing it for deletion because it is empty. The category was deleted for being POV.
Admin 4: Damn. All due apologies to [admin 3] for that misrepresentation. I'm a bit too fired up about all this, I think. However, certainly when [category Y] went up, someone was depopulating it even as the votes were coming in. I'm not even sure if I'm able to investigate how things have been proceeding without admin powers as only admins can see the history/fossils of a deleted category, can't they?
On 15:37, 26 August 2004, editor D changed the CFD instruction to Do not depopultate the category(delete category tags from articles)until it has been voted for deletion. with the edit summary: Major revision in policy to address legitimate complaints, but again apparently without consensus.
After some back and forth, editor F reworded it on 1 September 2004 asMany editors consider it good practice discuss a category deletion before it is de-populated (category tags removed from articles).
Several changes were made unilaterally in subsequent weeks, including:
Do not depopulate / remove the category tags from articles before the community has made a decision.[6]
It is recommended that no one depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.[7]
Unless the category to be deleted is noncontrversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.27 September 2004
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
From 2 July to 24 July 2006, editor A made several significant changes – all apparently undiscussed – to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to. On 15 July 2006, editor A removed the provision "Unless the category...made a decision" from the instruction list itself down to the text below it. Then A moved around several times, eventually to the lead section, for no discernable reason.
Between 21 and 24 July, editor A was the subject of no fewer than 3 ANIs, one of which A started on 19:30, 21 July 2006 in order to accuse editor B of vandalism.
Epilogue: Admin 2's "cleanup" seems to have largely been intended to revert editor A's undiscussed changes to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to throughout July 2006. Given A's other unhelpful behaviour that was frequently complained about at ANI in those days, this is understandable. But admin 2 merely removed the lead section; they did not restore the pre-2 July 2006 version of the CfD how-to instructions. Apparently unintentionally, the official policy provision against ECOOPing was thus removed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/How-to, and has not been restored to it in any way, shape or form ever since.
On 6 and 7 October 2005, four editors at the WP:SPEEDY talk page agreed that if empty categories are nominated for speedy deletion, people should first investigate whether a category had been emptied just to enable or effect a deletion. They noted the software problems involved in trying to check this. (They didn't have a script like CatChangesViewer yet).
Editor A: One cannot tell whether a category ever contained articles from looking at the category. And if it has no articles presently, it may be hard to guess or otherwise find the articles it once contained. We would need software support for this: the software would need to give us some indication what articles were added/removed from the category when. Later, A added that a criterion allowing the deletion of any empty category after 24 hours was badly flawed (bold in original), adding: Categories that once contained articles must go through WP:CFD. Period.
Editor B: The purpose of this [criterion for speedy deletion], I figure, is to be able to speedy delete categories that no longer serve a purpose. It does so rather badly. So, instead of deleting it, why not think of something that works better?
Editor C: I agree, it wasn't the best of [criteria for speedy deletion] to begin with and the fact that it can easily be abused just makes it worse.
Editor D: There is a fundamental flaw with the [criterion for speedy deletion] of empty cats after 24 hours, if you compare it to closing procedures on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion_policies. If a discussion is closed no consensus, and it is empty, it should not be deleted for 30 days, that's a bit longer than 24 hours. I am not saying empty cats shouldn't be deleted, but I am running around repopulating categories that users orphan just to put a {{cfd}} tag on. If anything I think it should at least be upped to 72 hours.
Editors A and D agreed on the proposed text of A. On 23 October, D extended the minimum time to 72 hours and added a sub-rule that it doesn't apply to categories listed on CFD. See this discussion for further info.
Be sure to check the history of the category. If it has a non-trivial history or isn't relatively new, it is likely that the category once did contain articles, and deeper investigation is needed before deleting the category to make sure that it wasn't emptied just to bypass WP:CFD.
Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. This does NOT apply to categories being discussed on WP:CFD. If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed.
In August 2007, there was a controversy about the speedy deletion criteria of copyrighted, fair use images. It got so heated that on 21:27, 8 August 2007, the WP:SPEEDY page was {{pp-semi-protected}}. Two edits later, 09:06, 9 August 2007, someone appears to have accidentally removed the sentence (Note: If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed.) from no. #1 the "Categories" section while also removing the words or deletion review in no. #4 of the "General criteria" section. The edit summary suggests they were only interested in removing the latter: I've been thinking about this... but if novice users have the misconception that DRV is not a deletion debate, we should NOT reinforce that misconception here. The sentence in no. #1 the "Categories" section is not about deletion review / DRV , i.e. about discussing possibly undeleting a page after it has already been deleted (=undoing an out-of-process-deletion of any page), but about checking whether items have been recently removed from a category before deciding whether to delete it or not (=preventing an out-of-process-deletion of category pages specifically).
Takeaway: And so, the provision on the need for deeper investigation of a possible emptying out of process of an old category seems to have been accidentally removed from the WP:SPEEDY policy page.
Technical note
From 20 November 2009 to 4 December 2013 the policy page Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion transcluded the criteria for deletion of categories from a discussion page instead of having them directly coded in the policy page. To see the history of that section of the speedy deletion policy during that period, see the editing history of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria.
These case studies are just examples. They are not meant to rehash old discussions or cast the actions of certain editors or admins in a bad light merely for having apparently violated the rule of not emptying or deleting categories out of process. None of the people involved in these case studies were immediately sanctioned for ECOOPing.
A didn't say anything at all in their edit summaries, while B tried to tell A to explain their removals on the talk page or nominate the entire category for deletion if you don't like the cat at all?[8], and to tell them categories should not be emptied without deletion discussion. [9].
A argued that (...) the new cat. is consistent with other [names] about Italian parties (...). B: You're still not supposed to empty a cat on your own initiative. You should list it on categories for deletion. (...) A: OK, thanks. The sole thing is: "You are supposed to" is not such a nice expression to use, at least with me here. B: Well, I thought maybe you weren't familiar with the accepted procedures. (...) See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion for details. A admitted I did a mistake, ok., but still found it unhelpful to have two duplicate categories simply because you're sticking on paper procedures instead of consistence, and asked B what to do next. B explained categories should not be emptied out of process like A did Because maybe someone will object to the change. Not me; I don't really care. But someone could. You should undo the mistake by listing the category on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.
Separately, Editor B had asked on the CFD talk page: Where is the instruction that says you're not supposed to empty a category rather than (or prior to, or at the same time as) listing it for deletion? I know I've seen it and now I can't find it. [Editor A] is currently in violation with regard to category:Forza Italia politicians.
Admin 1 responded 3 days later (27 April): It's the second bullet under step 5 in part II of the instructions at WP:CFD. As reconstructed at #CFD:HOWTO policy September 2004 – July 2006, admin 1 referred to the sentence (bold in original): Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Admin 1 didn't tag B, so B was not notified of this answer, might've missed it. Admin 1 also never seems to have investigated whether A had committed the violation of not emptying categories that one seeks to delete instead of nominating/listing it for deletion.
Neither editor A, nor editor B, nor admin 1 undertook any action thereafter.
Editor C, who originally created the category on 4 April 2006, emptied it on 7 May 2006 (which was allowed, because duplicate categories were considered non-controversial) and nominated it for speedy deletion per a predecessor criterion of WP:C2E, namely: Author requests deletion. Editor C, the only contributor, indicated they mistakenly createdCategory:Forza Italia politicians as a duplicate of Category:Members of Forza Italia.
Note: if anyone other that editor C at the time would have emptied the category and nominated it for speedy deletion, that would not have been allowed. On 7 May 2006, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion stated about categories: Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. This does NOT apply to categories being discussed on WP:CFD. If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed.
Editor A had good intentions to make names of political party member categories consistent, but was unaware that categories should not be emptied out of process (in this case through recategorisation).
Editor B did know, but not where they read that "rule about emptying cats", had to ask at CFD talk where to find this rule. B only got a (correct) answer three days later from admin 1, who didn't tag editor B.
After edit-warring with B, Editor A admitted their mistake, but was annoyed by the fact that they did not know that this rule existed, let alone where to find it.
Admin 1 correctly told B where to find the rule on not emptying categories out of process, but failed to properly notify B, and failed to check whether A had committed a policy violation.
B never told A about admin 1's answer (if they even read it); B only told A to repopulate the category and then take it to WP:CFD if A wanted to have it deleted.
The correct course of action would have been for A (or B, or admin 1) to take it to CFD, but none of them undertook any action thereafter.
Over 2 weeks later, Editor C emptied their own category for a legitimate reason, and had it deleted for a legitimate reason.
The whole saga shows both Editor A and Editor B had, to a greater or lesser degree, a lack of awareness of what the relevant policies and guidelines were, where to find them, and how to apply them in practice. Both asked questions on what the rules were (A to B, B to admin 1), but didn't follow that up with an action when they were given an answer to their question. It would have helped if admin 1 had tagged B, and admin 1 should have checked for violations of policy. Therefore, awareness of the actual policy was not raised, it was not implemented, and potential violation of it was neither investigated nor addressed.
Therefore, the problem persisted until someone else found a different method of solving the problem according to existing procedures. It also left A and B a bit annoyed with each other, without a clear way forward in future scenarios, although there appear to have been no subsequent disagreements.
Editor A repeatedly empties a set of categories and tags them for speedy deletion, edit-warring with patroller B who reverts the emptying.
Patroller B takes the matter to ANI.
Admin 1: I wondered why I've seen [this set of] categories on the Empty Categories list more than once. I've posted a message on [editor A]'s talk page asking that he explain why he emptied the category out of process. Unfortunately, although this is an improper way to get a category deleted (rather than nominating it at WP:CFD), it's more common than it should be. Doing it once is taking an unacceptable short cut but doing it several times means it is behavior that needs to be explained and addressed.
Editor A: My apologies. I was not aware that categories that are so redundant should remain unchanged. (...) but as has been said, I should pursue that through CFD, although I'll probably just drop the entire issue. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Patroller C: [Editor A]: the discussion here is not about whether these categories should exist or not, which is basically a content (or organisation of content) dispute. The discussion is about the way you approached this. You should not have emptied these categories repeatedly (perhaps not even once, but that would fall under WP:BRD probably) but should have sent them to WP:CFD instead. That's why we have that process, and you shouldn't try to avoid or override it by exhausting the other side of the discussion by reverting and templating them. If there is a genuine dispute, like here, take it to a wider audience, like CFD.
Editor A: [Patroller C]: Thanks for your comment. As I noted above, I fully realize that the discussion is not about whether the categories should exist, and I fully acknowledged that I should have first gone to CFD, which I will do in the future now that I realize that is the way it should be done.
Takeaway:
Editor A appears to have been sincerely unaware that ECOOPing before nominating a category for deletion should not be done, and even edit-warred over it with a patroller. But when explained it was about the procedure, not the contents, he apologised and promised not to do it anymore in the future, but take the matter to CFD. Admin 1 indicated that ECOOPing "is an improper way to get a category deleted", and repeatedly ECOOPing is "unacceptable", "to be explained and addressed."
Editor A: (...) This user is a regular at WP:CFD and is not ignorant of correct procedure for deleting categories. [Editor B] should be warned and if if [sic] still continues to make this type of edit should received a block if he fails to use the correct procedure in future.
Editor B makes a content-matter argument.
Editor C: [Editor B]: Please nominate these for upmerging as normal. The year vs. decade vs. century thing has been controversial forever as pedants decide we must have categories for every year on every topic.
Editor B: Alright, I'll do.
Takeaway:
The editor acknowledged the mistake, and to follow procedure in the future.
Roman Walls & Limes. An editor asked another editor in 2017:
Hi, you seem to be systematically emptying categories of the articles. You seem to have a preference for Category:Roman defensive walls in Britain. Why is this? What's your problem with categorising walls / limes by Roman province?
They replied: Roman Walls is a nonsensical category. There are many thousands of Roman walls most of which do not warrant a description nor certainly a category. (...) "Defensive wall" is clear, obvious and better.
Do not empty a category you dislike by transferring items to a category you like better. What may be a "nonsensical category" or a "clear, obvious and better" category to you does not necessarily reflect the consensus. The community consensus may decide it is in fact (in the words of one user) a "sensible" and "appropriate" way of naming / categorising items.
Please use the CFD process. I noticed that you have emptied Category:1892 establishments in Austria and presumably others today, without discussion. As you are an experienced editor you are fully aware that emptying categories out-of-process is not a light matter, and could result in sanctions being taken against you.
You made a few nominations of multiple categories earlier this year, the last of which (including the category linked above, which you have just emptied) failed to achieve consensus, and this lack of consensus was explicitly because you had chosen not to comply with previous advice to make a comprehensive nomination for what remained. Please desist from emptying categories without discussion. As for the ones that you have emptied, either repopulate them for discussion, or at least have the diligence to redirect them like the ones that were merged following consensus at earlier CFDs.
Takeaway:
Categories should not be emptied without discussion, certainly not by experienced editors who are aware that emptying categories out-of-process could result in sanctions being taken against them.
Editors who have inappropriately emptied categories are expected to repopulate them themselves.
The editor in question did not respond to the admin's message. It is unclear whether the editor repopulated the categories they emptied. No sanctions appear to have been imposed. The category mentioned was deleted per WP:C1, so apparently not out of process. Other related categories such as Category:1891 establishments in Austriawere also deleted, but later re-created.
Epilogue:
These [Year] (dis)establishments in Austria categories have gone back and forth over the years.
A recent CfD did reach consensus to Delete/Merge all pre-1803 "[Year] [something] in Austria" categories per implicit WP:SMALLCAT (users agreed categories had to have more than "1 or 2 articles" or "5+ articles"), and indirectly because they were deemed "anarchonistic" (modern "Austria" didn't exist yet).
(...) some editor is depopulating director categories on Wikipedia. Starting with the "A"s (first name) yesterday, 5-10 director categories are being emptied out a day. You can see the daily list on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. At WP:CFD, this is called "emptying out of process" because the correct way to delete categories en masse like this is to post a proposal at CFD and argue for deletion. And it's difficult for editors, like me, who are unfamiliar with film to know what films are being removed from these categories or to know whether this editing is following a decision made by this members of this WikiProject to eliminate these categories for lesser known directors. (...) categories deleted simply for being emptied can be restored whenever they are needed. What we try to avoid though is for individual editors to set about doing mass changes that then have to be undone later.
This turned out to be a misunderstanding, as the editor indicated: In the German WP, a category that has no corresponding main article, is routinely tagged and quick-deleted, especially if it has been around for a while without the article been created. But on English Wikipedia, it is not a quick delete criteria. So I stopped tagging categories that way, but removed the films in preparation for bringing these categories into CfD. Apparently that was an error too, because I have now been mass reverted by JJMC89, who has also restored the two deleted categories, calling them "inappropriately deleted". Obviously there are differences of opinion even amongst admins where these sort of categories are involved. I will of course now stop removing films from the categories without a main article.
Takeaway:
Categories do not need to contain a main article. Emptying them for (speedy) deletion is out of process.
The bot JJMC89 is running a certain script which instructs it to revert "inappropriately deleted" categories. This may be a good thing, depending on which instructions it has been given. But since there appears to be no agreement under which circumstances emptying for deletion is "inappropriate", it is unclear whether this bot is carrying out policy or not, but in this case it appears to have been correct. The user in question was evidently not aware that dewiki and enwiki worked differently in this case, their edits were reverted, they admitted their sincere mistake and said they would stop doing it, and so there was no need for sanctions.
Editor A claimed that editor B had been repeatedly emptying categories after their proposals to Merge certain categories at CfD resulted in no consensus. Editor A and admin 1 (twice) and admin 2 asked B to stop emptying the categories. B continued emptying categories and A asked him once again to stop, which B ignored. A went to ANI requesting that B please be forced somehow to stop doing this? He may obviously disagree with the CfD result, but he is not at liberty to simply ignore it (and the pleas of multiple people to stop this).
Admin 3 responded: [B]: When you completely ignore multiple people asking you to respect the CFD process, when people are polite and patient and you simply ignore them, I guess the next step is to mirror your rudeness. If you change this category again on any page before there is a clear consensus to do so, I'll block you from editing for intentional disruption until you explicitly promise to stop.
Editor C: this appears to be a clear-cut case of ignoring a specific consensus a user doesn't agree with, especially considering they brought this to CfD (...) If they continue to recategorise in this manner I think a block will be necessary to prevent further disruption.
Editor D: I think topic-banning [B] from categories, narrowly construed, is an excellent idea.
Editor E: It's long been a problem that people (including [B]) have been able to ignore the rules in this respect without sanction, & I would strongly welcome a tougher approach.
B's defence did not address the act of emptying categories (out of process), only defending their view on the content matter.
Editor F: editing in defiance of existing consensus (or lack thereof) and ignoring advice by fellow editors is not really compatible with the purposes of a collaborative project and I'm quite sure [B] should know better (...) instead of editing in as though they were in their own bubble.
Admin 4: I see that [B] has two blocks, in 2011 and [2011], for emptying categories out of process and one more in [2013] for "edit-warring across multiple articles and categories". This means that they are perfectly aware of the problem and are not interested in following our policies. This means they should be blocked long-term. I think we may be a bit lenient while they keep their promise not to touch categories without consensus having been establish, but one edit against consensus, and I am prepared to apply a long-term block. For these blocks, see #Sanction precedents.
Editor E: As well as many category edits, [B] does write articles, which don't afaik cause trouble. A ban from category edits is an option.
Admin 4: Yes, but it can not be technically imposing by partial block from the category namespace, it should be then imposed and logged. May be this is the easiet outcome indeed.
Admin 1: I think a ban from category edits might be the solution if the problem persists. I have no opinion on [content matter] but since I deal with empty categories every day I have big issues with an editor emptying categories "out of process" based on their own opinion. We have a process, WP:CFD, one that can be time-consuming and is far from perfect, but we have a community process on how to deal with category title changes and for experienced editors, ones who participate at CFD, to ignore it, hits a nerve for me. And to persist when people are saying there is a problem brings one into possible blocking territory. But if [B] has ceased to empty out categories and will wait for the results of another community discussion before categorizing [content matter]-related articles and categories, I see no reason to impose a block at this moment.
Editor G: I think a ban from all category edits regarding [content matter] or whatever would be appropriate, but anything wider would be grossly unfair as the vast majority of category edits by [B] are wholly positive. A proposal (by [E], if memory serves) at Category talk to sanction more severely the emptiers of categories did not carry (Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like?).
Takeaway:
Multiple editors and admins told B to stop emptying categories out of process, deliberately ignoring community consensus or where a CfD on that very category had resulted in no consensus. Virtually nobody – even several people who content-wise took the side of B – considered the conduct acceptable, with one admin and one editor explicitly identifying this conduct as (intentional) disruption.
Multiple editors and admins suggested B should be sanctioned with a temporary block, one admin – recalling that B had previously received three temporary blocks for ECOOPing and edit-warring over categories several years earlier – suggesting a long-term block if the problem persisted. Two editors suggested a topic-ban from category areas in the disputed content area (one fiercely objecting to a ban on category edits outside the disputed content area), one editor and one admin suggested a total ban from all category edit if the problem persisted.
No blocks or bans were imposed on B on the presumption that they had ceased emptying categories and were pursuing other means of resolving the content dispute.
Editor A was accused by editor B of nominat[ing] dozens of categories for deletion and merge. Before the nominations are closed, has started emptying some of them without any notice. (...)
Non-admin closer stated: No administrative actions are called for after 2 weeks of discussion, though [editor A] should note there are legitimate concerns with some of his actions regarding categorizations. There is some sense that a discussion at WT:CFD could better establish when it is inappropriate to move articles out of categories that are (or will soon be) discussed at that forum.
Takeaway:
There were no clear rules on undisclosed ECOOPing prior to nominating categories for deletion or merging. Therefore, editor A could not be sanctioned for having done anything wrong, although there were legitimate concerns about his actions. Clearer rules should be established on ECOOPing to prevent such incidents in the future.
Please do not empty categories "out of process". This is considered disruptive editing. If you believe a category should be renamed, merged or deleted, make a proposal at Categories for Discussion. All of the information you need is on that page about how to go about doing this. Category renames need to be discussed so please nominate categories, do not empty them. Thank you.
An admin identified ECOOPing as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. What is unclear, however, is whether the editor in question actually did anything wrong. Looking at their contributions, they seemed to be knowing what they were doing, removing categories of diseases where they didn't apply, and only really emptying Category:Pig diseases, which the same admin then deleted (WP:C1), undeleted ("mistaken deletion") and deleted again (WP:C1).
Takeaway:
Emptying out of process might constitute Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and thus be punishable as such. But this appears not to have been an example of that. The editor appears to have correctly recategorised items and emptied an unnecessary category, which was then deleted.
Long story short: a new user emptied the categories of an old administrative structure that had been abolished 2 years earlier in the country in question. an experienced user checked that it was correct. Later, the same newbie created a new category structure with initially mostly empty categories to reflect the country's new administrative structure, instead of populating each new category one by one. Both were sincere procedural mistakes by the inexperienced new user, who admitted it and apologised for it. But when checked, the intention and effect of their edits was okay or corrected, so no sanctions were necessary.
In this context, "moving" means renaming a category and deleting the old URL to it so that it becomes a redlink. In this case the categories were not emptied, but the old category names (URLs) were deleted out of process, which makes it relevant for studying admins who deleted categories out of process.
female vs women moves; Category:Fictional women assassins; Category naming. For a long time (since at least 2013), there had been (and still is) no consensus on English Wikipedia on whether to use "female" or "women" as an adjective in category names. In April 2023, an admin ("admin 1") manually moved categories without discussion by replacing the word "female" with "women". Several editors objected to these undiscussed moves. Editor 1 said it was "incorrect" and "misleading" to use "women" for fictional characters and nominated 4 "fictional female" category names to be restored after having been Moved without discussion, adding: After seeing these edits without consensus as well, I have created a CfD discussion to move the categories back. A move like this is potentially controversial and shouldn't have been done manually. Separately, editor 2 agreed, and posted on admin 1's talk page calling these undiscussed category moves "disruptive":
I am [opposed to the "female" to "women" moves]. Please stop and take them to WP:CFD. Changing "female" to "woman" in the case of fiction is inaccurate. Gerber Baby and Daisy Duck are just 2 of many examples of problems with this[.] Miscategorizing is disruptive. Admin 1 admitted their mistake immediately, after which editor 2 responded: You're very welcome : ) To be clear, I honestly don't care if living adult people are categorized as female or women, I'm merely asking you to revert the fiction edits. and thanked admin 1 after they did so.
More important was the reaction to admin 1 undiscussed category moves by other admins. Admin 2 reverted all undiscussed moves and speedy-closed editor 1's CfR:
The result of the discussion was:RESTORE STATUS QUO ANTE These and several other categories were moved out of process and must be reverted to their original location before any discussion can proceed.
Admin 2 then went to admin 1's talk page:
Admin 2: Please stop moving categories arbitrarily and revert all your changes. If you wish to rename a category you should propose it at WP:CFD, not present a fait [accompli].
Admins may not arbitrarily move/delete categories without discussion or consensus, let alone against long-established non-consensus, let alone do so massively (hundreds at a time). This moved was evidently controversial, and clearly out of process. Like all editors, admins should propose category moves at WP:CFD, which at most should be sets of related categories, to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Admins who arbitrarily move/delete categories without discussion or consensus might be liable for disruptive editing. In practice, admin 1 was told to stop doing it, revert their actions, and desist from doing similar actions in the future by multiple other admins and editors. The only editor who implicitly suggested possibly sanctioning admin 1 for potential disruptive editing immediately relented and accepted admin 1's apology (for what appears to have been a severe but sincere series of mistakes), insisting they still revert their own mistakes.
Like editors, admins are expected to revert their own mistakes. In practice, a bot was tasked to do most reverts (hundreds), while admin 1 and admin 2 did dozens of reverts manually.
Editor B was aware of what had happened, and nominated the maliciously created category for deletion at CfD.
Editor C came along and !voted Delete for their own reasons, not really because of B's rationale.
Editor D came along and !voted Oppose / Keep for their own reasons, not really paying close attention to B's rationale either, and believing Category X to be legitimate, or that it could be made legitimate / re-purposed based on its then-contents and surrounding category structure.
Editors B and D discussed the merits of Category X, and eventually D understood what A had done, and that WP:TNT might be best.
Meanwhile, Editor E came along and emptied Category X out of process except one somewhat eponymous item, arguably disrupting the discussion between B and D about possibly re-purposing or deleting and re-creating Category X. D only noticed that E was emptying it because D had earlier seen some of the items Category X contained before E removed them. D complained that E had violated the conditions of WP:C2F.
Editors F and G came along, saying X should be deleted / WP:TNT'd per D's eventual conclusion.
Takeaway:
Editor A committed a series of outrageous violations that rightfully resulted in a permablock. Editor B was right to nominate maliciously created Category X for deletion. Editor D (and also C) misunderstood what A had done by not carefully reading B's rationale.
The process of D (and C) understanding nominator B's rationale was arguably disrupted by E emptying Category X. Editor E had good intentions by undoing the violations caused by A, but arguably disrupted the constructive discussion happening between B and D, and possibly violated the conditions of WP:C2F. Without the actions of E, it would have been easier for D to understand B, and to draw WP:TNT as a conclusion, which was then supported by F and G.
6 Wikipedians were categorising categories, as one does. Editor A accidentally emptied a category out of process without realising it. Admin 1 sent an automatic message to Editor B that their empty category would be deleted. B incorrectly concluded that admin 2 had emptied a category out of process and told them about it on 2's talk page. Admin 2 correctly identified A as the emptier and tagged them, but A still seemed unaware of having made a mistake. Meanwhile, B nominated a set of "by century" categories for renaming and noted that one of them had been emptied out of process. Editor C came along, didn't understand, initially also mistakenly blamed admin 2 and tagged them in B's CfR, only to then find editor B, admin 2 and editor A discussing the whole thing on admin 2's talk page. B had tagged admin 1 twice to notify them how the emptying had happened, but admin 1 was apparently busy and could not respond. Editor C figured it out and tagged A in B's CfR, explaining that they had probably emptied a category by mistake, which A acknowledged as a mistake. C sighed it took them half an hour to find out who did it. Editer D told them about User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer.js.
Takeaway:
All CFD regulars are recommended to install User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer.js in order to quickly and correctly find out who emptied a category out of process, so that the matter can be efficiently addressed, and mistaken responsibility can be avoided.
If a category exists, any articles clearly meeting the definition in the category name should not be removed from it, other than for diffusion to a subcategory, or because they are repeated in a sub-category (per WP:OCAT). If a category is considered inappropriate as a whole, it should not be emptied, but a deletion discussion started at WP:CFD. Disagreements over the scope of categories, or whether particular articles fit the category, should be resolved on talk pages of the articles or category, or if necessary by a Cfd discussion.
This informal proposal achieved no consensus, with about the same number of supporters and opponents. After a while, the discussion just ended without conclusion. Earlier proposals in the same thread were mostly earlier versions of this draft proposal that never made it.
Editor Alpha proposed a reform of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline as they considered the current wording too vague.
Editor Bravo argued that if SMALLCAT reform will lead to a minimum number of items (threshold) that all categories will need to have at all times (an idea held by several editors, but that did not have community consensus yet), ECOOPing may become an issue, and "ECOOPing in combination with a SMALLCAT nomination should be considered sanctionable as WP:DISRUPTIVE if it happens deliberately, maliciously, and repeatedly".
Editor Bravo: Setting a specific number of items "at all times" may be a good idea, but is also at risk of WP:GAMING. Example 1:
Editor A who really wants to group items #1, #2 and #3 into Category X, but needs 2 more items to reach the hypothetical minimum of "5 items at all times", might add #4 and #5 which don't really belong in the same group, but at least help editor A reach the threshold.
Conversely, editor B who just doesn't like Category X can simply commit ECOOPing (emptying categories out of process) by removing item #4 and/or #5 and take Category X to WP:CFD per WP:SMALLCAT.
Is it wrong for editor B to do so? Is it even "out of process", or just a valid correction of the inappropriate categorisation of #4 and #5 to X by editor A? I think not emptying the category before taking it to CfD is the most appropriate course of action, but removing items #4 and #5 beforehand may not necessarily be wrong. Especially if B discloses at the CfD that they removed items #4 and #5 beforehand, and why, B does not disrupt the CfD process.
However, if we do decide that we need a minimum number items at all times ("5" in this hypothetical example), and we consider what B does (without disclosing it) as ECOOPing, then ECOOPing in combination with a SMALLCAT nomination should be considered sanctionable as WP:DISRUPTIVE if it happens deliberately, maliciously, and repeatedly. Example 2:
If editor C goes around emptying eight categories they just don't like until each of them fails to reach the minimum threshold, and then nominates them (either jointly or successively) for deletion per SMALLCAT, I think that should be sanctionable as disruptive.
This is because C is making SMALLCATs out of eight categories that weren't SMALLCATs before C came along and partially emptied them, thus enabling an out-of-process deletion.
Whether items #4 and #5 belong in Category X or not – in other words, whether editor C is technically right or not – doesn't matter. C is not following procedure by emptying categories out of process (ECOOP), and thus hindering fellow editors and admins at CfD to check whether items #4 and #5 do or do not belong in Category X, because C – without disclosing it – has already removed items #4 and #5 from sight inside Category X, thereby disrupting the CfD process.
If, instead, editor D nominates Category X for deletion, but with a different rationale (e.g. WP:ARBITRARYCAT), and then editor C comes along and removes items #4 and #5 from Category X while under D's nomination without notifying the CfD participants, C has also committed ECOOPing. Even if participants afterwards establish a consensus to Delete X per SMALLCAT (rather than per nominator D's rationale of ARBITRARYCAT), it will be out of process because C has gamed SMALLCAT by ECOOPing. In such a case, Category X should not be deleted, but the discussion redone, and C warned and possibly sanctioned for disrupting the CFD process.
