Wikipedia:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC

ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC

Several discussions, both recent and in past years, have brought up questions regarding the utility and fairness of how we deal with promotional names. It seems as though a review is in order so that consensus on how the community wants this policy enforced is more clear. 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relevant policy sections

From ORGNAME: The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:

Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event ...
and
A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" block settings. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account or have their current username changed. Before taking action, any disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable or not should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names first.

From G11: G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion ... This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

Rationale

There is obviously broad agreement that using Wikipedia for promotion of any kind is unnacceptable. However, there is also often a presumption that all users doing so are malicious spammers acting in bad faith, when it is far more likely that in most cases they are simply mistaken about the scope and purpose of Wikipedia.
There is also the question of whether issuing no-warning soft-blocks to ORGNAME violators is the right approach. The soft block allows the user to create another account and try to edit without running afoul of our spamming policies, but, by making creating a new account the easier option, we lose track of these editors, we often don't know if they simply gave up or if they created a new account with a more acceptable name. It is also worth noting that the ORGNAME policy was created at a time when it was still possible for non-autoconfirmed accounts to create pages in article space. This has not been the case in some time.
The purpose of this discussion is to gauge community consensus on these issues and additionally to possibly alter current procedures to avoid biting newcomers who have not been advised of these issues before being no-warning blocked.
Additional proposals may be added, but please confine them to the subject of the RFC, which is blocking of ORGNAME accounts and promotional or semi-promotional content in user sandboxes.

A quick note on terminology

In the world of username blocks, a "soft block" is a block without autoblock enabled and with account creation enabled, and where the user is explicitly told they are free to simply create a new account. Currently, this is often used when the name is a violation, but all edits have been in their own userspace or in a draft. A "hard block" is a block with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled, and the user is instructed that they must choose a new username and convince reviewing admins they will cease adding promotional content in order to be unblocked. This is usually the default option when a users' name is a violation, and they have been posting promotional content in article space.

Proposal:warn instead of block in some cases

The current common pracice of soft blocking ORGNAME violators, as often as not, ends up giving no clue as to whether the user chose a new name, or if they simply gave up on Wikipedia. Many such users have never actually edited an article at all, but have submitted a draft or created a page in userspace regarding the organization their name represents. Such edits are not harmful to reader-facing content, even if they do still qualify for deletion as promotional.
In the cases where they do appeal this type of block, they are often renamed, but not immediately unblocked, due to the ongoing backlog of unblock requests. As of this writing there are eighty items in Category:Requests for unblock, and that is not unusual. So these users have done as they were asked yet remain blocked. If they were told "change your name and stop adding promotional content" before they are blocked, that provides a greater chance for a course correction.
It is also likely that in the majority of cases the user genuinely did not know how harshly promotional content is viewed on Wikiedia, and the project is better served by educating users as opposed to blocking them with no warning over a username violation they didn't know they were committing and a single edit in user or draft space.
The following is therefore proposed:

In cases where the user's name is an ORGNAME violation, but they have made no mainspace edits, admins are advised to warn rather than block. Offending content in user or draft space may still be deleted at the admins' discretion. If the user chooses to ignore the concern and continues editing, still outside of mainsapce, they may then be soft blocked. This explicitly does not apply to users with ORGNAMES that have posted promotional content in article space, who may be hard or soft blocked at the discretion of the blocking admin.

Support:warn instead of block in some cases

• This seems like the best way to go to avoid biting good-faith users and more readily distinguish them from those acting in bad faith, aiding editor retention. All of these are things that will benefit the project, with no to very minimal downsides. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• As proposer, I support this appraoch. We give vandals who are acting bad faith more opportunities to change their approach than we do to people who submit spammy drafts at AFC. That just doesn't feel right. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - there should not be an automatic block for this. GiantSnowman 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, avoids biting users who haven't caused actual disruption, while still giving them constructive advice they might have missed between all of our policies and guidelines. To close a loophole (users having made innocuous edits in mainspace, while having only posted problematic content in user/draftspace), I suggest replacing no mainspace edits with no promotional mainspace edits. Also, still outside of mainsapce should be still outside of mainspace, I'm not sure if I can fix typos in the original proposal after the RfC started. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:warn instead of block in some cases

I'd like to begin the conversation by making it clear that this is not intended to call out individual admins or admin actions. It has been standard practice to block these accounts for many years,and I am absolutely as guilty of it as anyone else. Recent conversations have caused me to strongly question whether this approach is fair, and also whether it is actually effective. One user or draft space edit + a username you probably didn't know was against policy = indef block. That's how it has been being done by myself and many others, but I think it is time to reexamine that approach. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• So these users have done as they were asked yet remain blocked. Does this actually happen? I haven't seen it. It's usually the other way around - they're waiting on a renamer, for ages and ages. -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Question:Should G11 apply to sandboxes?

User sandbox pages are expressly in existence for users do experiments and tests, and are supposed to have much looser standards for what is acceptable than any other kind of page. They have no profile on search engines and readers would have to know exactly where to look to even find them
Therefore the following question is posed:

Should more lattitude be given regarding deleting content that would otherwise qualify for G11 if that conent is in a sandbox and has not been submitted to AFC as a draft? Should users be blocked solely for promotional content in user sanbox pages?

G11 generally applies to sandbox pages equally with other pages

• Yes AfC and use of draft space are entirely optional for autoconfirmed editors and a new account can become autoconfirmed during the process of drafting a promotional pseudo-article. That sandbox can then be instantly added to the encyclopedia. It is best, in my view, to nip such commonplace promotional efforts in the bud by tagging with G11 as soon as the incipient advertisement is detected. As for blocking, not solely for that, but if the username is also promotional, they should be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - G11 should apply anywhere/everywhere. GiantSnowman 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. I do tend to be more lenient when reviewing G11 tags in userspace (and draftspace) than in main. On the other hand, the worst such pages mostly don't make it into mainspace anymore, which I interpret as the system working. —Cryptic 21:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, G11 should apply in user sandboxes, although with a lot more leniency, similar to draftspace. User sandboxes do not expire (unlike drafts), but are even less visible. However, companies can still use a sandbox as a "fake Wikipedia article" destined to people not familiar with it, although I am not sure how frequently that happens (and WP:NOTWEBHOST still applies). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:Question:Should G11 apply to sandboxes?

• Just some thoughts- Sandboxes are also used to draft articles for submission via Articles for Creation by new users unaware of WP:WIZARD or Draft space(especially once they figure out new accounts can't create articles directly). On the other side, some of them think that sandboxes are private and test drafting an article about something they are familiar with- their company/employer/organization- with no intention of submitting it or publishing it in the encyclopedia at all, unaware that all edits are public. Most of those don't mind it being deleted as promotional. I would tend to think that there should not be a blanket prohibition on G11 in sandboxes, but maybe some clarification. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's why I worded it this way, I'm thinking of just being less hardcore about it all the time, not saying it can never happen. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) I think two separate questions are being asked here - one about whether, and if so how strictly, G11 should be applied to sandbox content (my answer: yes, but very rarely - pretty much only when the user has repeatedly created extremely spammy content and has been warned not to multiple times) and the second whether editors should be blocked for posting promotional content in sandboxes (my answer: only if they have ignored multiple explicit warnings). As you can see, I'm also finding it tricky to answer a simple yes or no to either of those questions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is for sure the thornier of the two issues. I'm not really totally sure I've even presented the right question. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some stats: just short of 44% of G11 deletions in 2024 were in userspace; about 42.5% of those were specifically the /sandbox subpage. —Cryptic 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox this is a mismatch between the question posed in the section and the specific question posed in the box in detail. Yes to an answer in the section would say use G11 where as yes to the specific question would say "hold on there with G11". I would suggest these be harmonized. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  There was something about this making me vaguely uncomfortable and I think you've just clearly defined it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• I personally don't process G11 in user space, well, at all to be frank. Among a few reasons, it just doesn't seem like a good expenditure of time, for some of the reason of findability. Maybe it's worth continuing to use G11 in this space in case we should ever change our minds about whether to index the user space (which I honestly see to be something in the realm of possible, if even in any given year you might see an RFC otherwise - not that we've had one since we turned indexing off). Izno (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  And I wonder whether 'sandbox' should be taken to mean 'subpage' or also perhaps someone's user page, some of which are tagged with G11 as well. Izno (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, don't most G11 user pages also fall under U5 already? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Izno in my opinion, anyway, we ought to be particularly hesitant to delete user sandboxes, over all types of possible crap creations, since we explicitly tell editors (in the sandbox template, in many of the twinkle warning messages) to "practice editing" in their user sandbox. It's pretty harsh to delete/block for taking us at our word. -- asilvering (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) I think this is a poorly worded RfC. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the statement more lattitude [should] be given regarding deleting content that would otherwise qualify for G11 if that conent is in a sandbox and has not been submitted to AFC as a draft. So you'd think I'd be able to respond "yes" to the question. But "yes" appears to be intended as the opposite of agreeing with the stated question. And the yes/no answers don't really follow from the question anyway, leading to the problem Thryduulf has observed. (I agree, actually, with the "yes" statement.) I think it's intensely bitey to delete sandboxes and we should do it really very sparingly (my own rule of thumb is, more or less, if it's not bad enough to block for, it's not bad enough to delete, either). There have been several discussions on my talk page to this effect. But I can't really !vote for either side of this RfC. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)