Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule

Section G5 of the criteria for speedy deletion is often associated with efforts to combat sockpuppetry, as any page that a sockpuppet creates while evading a block would be eligible for deletion under G5 as long as no one else has made substantial contributions to it.

Like all rules on Wikipedia, G5 is not a firm rule. Section G5 of the criteria for speedy deletion allows administrators to delete unilaterally pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. Administrators often use this criterion to combat sockpuppetry and block evasion: if an editor is blocked on one account and then creates a second account to continuing editing in spite of that block, then any page that that blocked editor creates with their second account would be eligible for speedy deletion under G5 as long as no one else has made substantial contributions to it. Importantly, the page must be created while the user is blocked on one of their accounts—it does not apply to any page that the user might have created before they were blocked.

G5 does not mean that administrators must delete all pages created by blocked or banned users; rather, G5 allows administrators to use their discretion to apply the policy in cases where there is sufficient doubt as to whether a particular page is helpful to the encyclopedia. For example, a common use case for G5 is to respond to users who create many sockpuppet accounts to try to create articles about non-notable or borderline-notable subjects. Ordinarily, deletion nominations for lack of notability have to go through a seven-day deletion discussion, but G5 allows us to save time on this process at our discretion if the creator was evading a block or ban—which makes sense because blocked editors should not be editing anyway.

Administrators do sometimes make mistakes and delete pages that are genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia, but such cases are more the exception than the norm. If you believe that an administrator has erred in this way, you can respond either by asking the administrator to restore the content or by recreating the page yourself under your own name.

Spirit of the policy

The spirit of G5 descends from Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors and Wikipedia:Banning policy § Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, and G5 should be interpreted in the light of the principles underlying those policies. These policies discuss what should happen when a user attempts to circumvent a block or ban, e.g. by creating a new account to edit despite a block or by making edits to a topic from which the user is topic-banned. Specifically, the blocking policy states:

“ Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. ”

Similarly, the banning policy states:

“ Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. ”

These policies make sense. Editors who are blocked or banned should not be editing in the first place, so these policies allow us to save time dealing with the ambiguous cases in which it is not clear whether the blocked or banned editor's contribution was constructive. There is no need, for example, to engage in talk page discussions or content dispute resolution with blocked or banned users—just revert and ask an administrator to block their new account or IP address, and that would be the end of it. Importantly, however, both the blocking and banning policies make clear that they do not compel us to revert in all instances.

G5 is a natural extension of these policies: G5 does not mean that pages must be deleted just because they were made by a banned editor (new pages that are obviously helpful can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to delete.

What to do when an administrator deletes a helpful page

On several occasions, editors have proposed unsuccessfully that G5 should be amended or outright abolished. A common justification is the observation that G5 creates situations where administrators delete content that is genuinely helpful to the encyclopedia. It is important to remember that the determination of whether content is "helpful" is not always black-and-white. One fundamental utility of G5 is that we can use it to stop the blocked/banned user from wasting other editors' time in ambiguous situations where it is not clear whether the content they have added is "helpful". Nevertheless, it is true that administrators do sometimes delete genuinely helpful pages under G5 where the content could have been accepted as a valid contribution to the encyclopedia if they had been made by another editor.

If an administrator has used G5 to delete a page that you believe should be kept, you have a few options:

Option 1: Reach out to the deleting administrator

Firstly, you could reach out to the administrator that deleted the page. Many administrators would not have objections to restoring content they deleted under G5 if you can make a plausible argument that the page could be helpful, as in such a case, you would be taking responsibility for the content in the place of the blocked or banned user. As a starting point, you could ask that they restore the content of the article into your userspace (i.e. "userfying") so that you can work on improving it.

Option 2: Recreate the page yourself

Alternatively, you could recreate the page yourself. It is not improper to do this unless you are blindly doing it with the intent of enabling the blocked or banned editor to continue editing. Although our rules on "proxy editing" generally do not allow editors to make edits just because a banned or blocked user asked for it, the same rules provide an exception for editors who are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. The policy makes explicit that Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. If you are restoring the deleted content verbatim, then for copyright reasons, you should still provide attribution to the blocked user in your edit summary (e.g. by mentioning their username): see WP:CWW.

Relationship to "banned means banned"

There is a section of the banning policy which states that Bans apply to all editing, good or bad (the shortcut to this section is WP:BMB because in the past the policy contained the phrase "banned means banned"). The views expressed in this essay do not conflict with the view expressed in that section. "Banned means banned" refers to the idea that even if an editor makes a "good" edit to an area from which they are banned, they will likely still be blocked for violating the ban. However, for the reasons stated here, that does not mean that the edit or page that they contributed must be reverted or deleted—if it is obviously helpful, then it can be allowed to stand.

Notes

Footnotes

References