User:Tamzin/Draftification draft

Brainstorming a proper draftification guideline

Draftification is moving an article from mainspace to draftspace so that it may be improved. This guideline also covers userfication, returning an article to a user's userspace. Such acts are a courtesy to the article's author and others who may be interested in it, to avoid the deletion of a possibly meritorious article. They are not a substitute for the deletion process, and should never be used as a form of "backdoor deletion", nor (except with community consensus) against the wishes of an article's author or significant contributors.

Criteria

An article may be draftified in the following situations:

By the author, or by another user at the author's request, if there are no other significant contributors or all other significant contributors have agreed.
For technical reasons or to correct an obvious error.^[1]
To revert move vandalism, block/ban evasion, or other unambiguously bad-faith moves.^[2]
Based on a consensus at articles for deletion or, in ad hoc cases of large-scale creation of problematic content, a discussion at a major noticeboard.

The following criteria should only be applied by an administrator or new page reviewer, and only to a recently-created^[3] article:

When any criterion for speedy deletion of an article would apply, but no criterion would apply in draftspace.
When the article contains unsourced negative material about a living person or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. (WP:BLPDELETE may also apply.)

Non-criteria

An editor should not draftify an article simply because they think it is non-notable, poorly written, or otherwise non-encyclopedic, even if they are confident that it would be deleted at articles for deletion. They should either communicate to the author that the page is likely to be deleted, and suggest they draftify it themself;^[4] or propose or nominate the article for deletion.

Whether an article originated in draftspace has no bearing on whether draftification is appropriate, even if it was declined as an articles for creation submission (unless the user is required to submit their articles by AfC).

Procedure

Administrators and page movers may draftify by moving pages without leaving a redirect. Others may move with a redirect and then immediately tag the redirect under WP:CSD R2; editors who do so frequently should consider applying to be a page mover. To avoid creating an admin backlog, mass draftifications should be effected by administrators or page movers.

Under criteria 5 and 6, a draftifying editor must notify the article's author, and other substantial contributors as appropriate. Notification may also be advisable under criteria 1–4 depending on circumstance. Remember that many users whose articles are draftified are new and will likely not understand the process. Be direct and honest with them about what they should do before moving the article back to mainspace; do not say or imply that they are forbidden from doing so.

Objections

Draftification is done as a courtesy to an article's author and other contributors or potential contributors, so an editor generally has the right to revert one and instead be subject to the harsher standards of mainspace, with the following exceptions:

If moving the page would violate a policy or guideline
If the editor is prohibited from doing so by an editing restriction
If the page was draftified by consensus (criterion 4) and the reasons for draftification have been not resolved.

Do not move-war over draftification, even if you are right. If the reversion of a draftification constitutes a user conduct issue, this should be reported to administrators, but does not justify move-warring.

Considerations for specific criteria, if draftification is reversed without the issues being remedied:

Criterion 2: The first step should be to discuss further with the editor. If that fails, resolve as a content issue. (In some cases a criterion for speedy deletion may apply.)
Criterion 3: Report to administrators.
Criterion 4: Re-draftify in lieu of G4 speedy deletion, and explain to the user. If they revert, treat as a user conduct issue.
Criterion 5: Tag under the applicable criterion for speedy deletion.
Criterion 6: Take necessary steps under the BLP policy, such as stubbing, blanking, reporting to administrators, and/or reporting to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, as appropriate.

Abuse

Editors who repeatedly or egregiously move-war over draftifications, in either direction, may be blocked, partially or sitewide, and may lose relevant user rights or be restricted by the community.

Notes

^ This includes cases where the author appears to have accidentally published the article prematurely (just empty section headings, unfinished sentences, etc.). However, wait at least an hour from the last edit to make sure that they are not simply improving the article in mainspace.
^ "Unambiguously bad-faith" here refers to the decision to move, not the content of the page. For instance, publishing a promotional draft may be bad-faith in the sense that the content violates WP:PROMO, but the move itself is not the problem. The proper remedy is deletion under CSD G11, not draftification.
^ There is no strict definition of "recently-created", but per a 2022 RfC, 90 days should be considered a rough upper limit in most cases.
^ Suggesting to the creator that they may draftify it themselves means that the page is eligible to go through the (optional) AfC process. Given the circumstances, it may (or may not) be appropriate to present this as an opportunity for the content to be improved by attracting some critical input from more experienced editors; this, in turn, causes the article that comes out of the process much less likely to be nominated for deletion. The creator who considers such a recommendation can look toward the following set of desirable future outcomes: the encyclopedia is enriched with another article of reasonable quality, they are gratified to see that their idea for a new article led to this, time is not spent on discussing deletion, they gain experience on how to make better content. Whether a creator really sees this as an opportunity and agrees to draftify (or consents that someone does it for them) or declines is up to them. When editors who are already experienced article creators are involved, this will generally not be an appropriate suggestion.

[1] This includes cases where the author appears to have accidentally published the article prematurely (just empty section headings, unfinished sentences, etc.). However, wait at least an hour from the last edit to make sure that they are not simply improving the article in mainspace.

[2] "Unambiguously bad-faith" here refers to the decision to move, not the content of the page. For instance, publishing a promotional draft may be bad-faith in the sense that the content violates WP:PROMO, but the move itself is not the problem. The proper remedy is deletion under CSD G11, not draftification.

[3] There is no strict definition of "recently-created", but per a 2022 RfC, 90 days should be considered a rough upper limit in most cases.

[4] Suggesting to the creator that they may draftify it themselves means that the page is eligible to go through the (optional) AfC process. Given the circumstances, it may (or may not) be appropriate to present this as an opportunity for the content to be improved by attracting some critical input from more experienced editors; this, in turn, causes the article that comes out of the process much less likely to be nominated for deletion. The creator who considers such a recommendation can look toward the following set of desirable future outcomes: the encyclopedia is enriched with another article of reasonable quality, they are gratified to see that their idea for a new article led to this, time is not spent on discussing deletion, they gain experience on how to make better content. Whether a creator really sees this as an opportunity and agrees to draftify (or consents that someone does it for them) or declines is up to them. When editors who are already experienced article creators are involved, this will generally not be an appropriate suggestion.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]