Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (idea lab) (section)

== Restricting page creation ==

Hello. I've seen a ton of trash drafts and AI garbage throughout my tenure at AfC, and I have a new idea. Temporary accounts and unconfirmed accounts can't create articles in any way whatsoever. Autoconfirmed users can only submit through AfC, <s>and extended confirmed users can either use AfC or make a userspace draft.</s> It may not do much, but a decent chunk of trash I've seen is created by unregistered users or temporary accounts. Please tell me if this is a bad idea. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 18:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:The point(?) of AfC drafts (and New Page Patrol) are to prevent the public-facing encyclopedia from being filled with articles made by people who have no idea about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Temporary accounts are already under enough restrictions. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 17:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::I'm thinking from the perspective of the reviewer here. From my experience, I see so many temporary and unconfirmed accounts making useless drafts that do nothing but waste our time. If TAs and unconfirmed accounts are unable to create AfC drafts, then hopefully, there will be less trash clogging the review list. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 17:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::If temporary accounts are prevented from creating AfC drafts, then the people behind them will, for the most part, register an account. So the reviewer will see "a ton of trash drafts and AI garbage" created by registered users, rather than by temporary accounts. How long does it take to reject a draft anyway? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::4 clicks, so about maybe 10 seconds at most? [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 18:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] This idea was created with the assumption that at least some of the people dumping trash into AfC would not be persistent enough to get an account and make it to autoconfirmed status. Still a good point, however. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 19:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Why refer to it as people "dumping trash"? New editors' submissions are often misguided, but rarely malicious. If every draft was obviously trash, we wouldn't have a backlog. If we prevented temporary accounts from making drafts, we would be [[WP:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater|throwing out the baby with the bathwater]] for people who make constructive contributions, and encouraging people to make useless edits to game the system in order to create articles. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 19:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I've just re-read the proposal and noticed that it said, "extended confirmed users can either use AfC or make a userspace draft". By preventing everyone from creating articles directly surely this generates a lot more work for reviewers? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] Thanks for pointing that out! If this goes anywhere, userspace drafting will be left alone. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 19:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:I have to say I would support this, or a variant thereof, if it came to a formal policy proposal.  I don't care if it would create more work for AfC or if it would just prompt temporary users to create permanent accounts.  Our policies seem to mostly assume it's still the mid-2000s and the vast majority of users are good-faith contributors who need to be encouraged to contribute.  That world is gone.  We are now flooded with drive-by editors trying to troll us, or to promote their stupid company/social media account/new cryptocurrency, or to game AI summaries.  Probably two-thirds of the articles I reject at AfC are mostly or entirely LLM-written on trivial subjects, startup businesses, or the intersection of two random topics ("Breast cancer in Laos").  Any speed bump we can create to slow down automated or low-effort article creation would be welcome, however imperfect. [[User:WeirdNAnnoyed|WeirdNAnnoyed]] ([[User talk:WeirdNAnnoyed|talk]]) 22:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::[[Breast cancer in Laos]] is a notable subject; it's a top-10 cause of death among Laotian women, and they have the highest [[Triple-negative breast cancer|triple negative]] rate in Asia.[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38751698/] If you get such an article and can't evaluate it correctly, then please request help from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] I'm sorry if I sound rude, but the example provided by WeirdNAnnoyed was likely just 2 random subjects stapled together with no regard for whether the topic was actually notable. The spirit of the statement was that oftentimes, drafts are either hoaxes, ads, AI garbage, or an intersection of random topics. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, I'm sure he intended it to be two random subjects stapled together, and it turned out not to be a good example of that.  But it's a good example of my point, which is that what appears to an individual editor to be two random subjects stapled together might not be a non-notable subject.  This is why seeking help is a good idea. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:I wonder if the rate of Draft: creation (or page creation/whatever we can realistically measure) has actually gone up compared to a couple of years ago.  It might be worth asking at [[Wikipedia:Request a query]].   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::Said question at request a query was answered, saying that half of all drafts not moved to mainspace or deleted are made by TAs and unconfirmed accounts, and the other half is made by autoconfirmed and higher users. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 14:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:I'll tell you what - let's just ban article creation completely. That way reviewers will have no work whatsoever to do. While we're at it let's block everyone from editing, After all, Wikipedia has been going for 25 years now, so it must be complete, mustn't it? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] There are still genuinely good drafts submitted to AfC, so people should still be able to submit articles. My proposal is just to make it to where people must be autoconfirmed to create drafts, and all things considered, ten edits and four days isn't much, but it may be enough to deter spur-of-the-moment vandalism. Also, the encyclopedia is far from complete. Just click on the random article button and chances are, you will find a maintenance tag. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 14:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:CabinetCavers|CabinetCavers]] The above response by Phil Bridger is sarcasm. If I can reiterate: New editors are unlikely to know that what they submit is violating a bunch of guidelines. That's what reviewers are for. We are given the tools to deal with bad-faith contributions, hoaxes, and advertisements before the rest of the world sees them. It's a ''good'' thing AfC exists and catches these things first. Even the harshest reviewers have draft acceptance rates above 30% - putting this barrier in place could lower that number simply by decreasing the number of existing submissions. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 15:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::<s>I concede</s> Where are you getting this 30% from? <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 15:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Here's one example: https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/?user=Zxcvbnm -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 15:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you! <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 15:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Here's one question to think on:  Are submitted drafts supposed to be "genuinely good drafts" (e.g., grammatically correct, non-promotional description that is longer than a stub), or are they supposed to be a starting point for a "genuinely notable topic" (e.g., an obviously notable subject, regardless of writing quality – e.g., the latest album released by the most famous pop star, which has a 0% chance of being non-notable)? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], from the perspective of reviewers, submitted drafts are not ‘supposed’ to anything other than documents for review that have been penned by  non-registered (or registered) users who assume that Wikipedia will accept them (except of course for obvious graffiti, vandalism, and other bad faith); one should not fall into the trap of believing that notability is the only criterion. 
:::: {{tq|New editors are unlikely to know that what they submit is violating a bunch of guidelines}}: while this is only partly true - some criteria are common sense - still nothing is being done after 25 years of Wikipedia to ensure that those editors who are determined to create an article as their first edit are properly informed at the moment of registration about [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|what is appropriate and what is not ]] (two similar community initiatives are  currently under discussion with the WMF).
::::So, @[[User:CabinetCavers|CabinetCavers]], no , it is not a bad idea at all. In fact in 2018 by a resounding 90% consensus of a large turnout following 7 years of resistance from the WMF, users were required to be auto confirmed before they can create an article in mainspace. Maybe it is now time to consider  applying the same rule for the creation of drafts. It would not deter those who are determined to write what they genuinely believe to be an appropriate article but it would probably make those think twice who intend to paste utter nonsense and AI garbage and waste their own and everyone else’s time. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I wonder whether "AI garbage" in drafts correlates with paid editing.  I suspect that it does. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I think my comment was clear enough - It was long but tried to keep it as short as possible without going into unnecessary minutiae. 'and other bad faith' covers it quite adequately[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::But it affects the utility of a rule against creating drafts until you've made 10 edits.  You will recall in 2018 that very soon afterwards, we had a burst of "new" accounts that posted spammy articles on their 11th edit, and then disappeared.  If a Draft: requires the same, then I think the paid editors will adapt.  The cost of creating an article will go up by US$1 to account for the necessity of making 10 simple edits.  But we'll still get the same garbage from those same spammers in the end. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::This is exactly my thought as well - COI editors will go through the extra hoops because they are being paid to do this/have a vested interest, while casual new editors thinking "why isn't there an article about this government official/historical figure/species of tree?" are more likely to be shut out by the autoconfirmed requirement. I just now saw that CabinetCavers edited the first comment in this thread which makes me less worried but I still want to bring this up. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 14:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::It does. I often see blatant AI in drafts where a COI was disclosed. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 01:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]]I fully understand your point Phil, but in the last three years the genre and quality of articles finding their way into the NPP feed and AfC lists has changed significantly. On NPP this has had the effect of further reducing the enthusiasm of patrollers to do any  reviewing. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

As a preface, we should not confuse article quality issues with the "should this article exist? issues.  New folks often don't know the "should this article exist?" criteria, and other creators don't bother with that question, pushing the job on the NPP'er to search the world and see if the required coverage exists.  So we have folks creating articles who have no idea what Wikipedia's requirement is for existence of an article, and others who ignore those criteria and so pushing the job onto NPP to "prove a negative" when they don't meet the ignored criteria.  They also get to beat up the NPP'er when the NPP'er doesn't thoroughly do their job for them.      And AFC folks often don't follow their own criteria, declining articles for quality issues, making AFC sort of a rough random route.  Maybe it would help to strongly suggest and create an expectation for reading wp:notability before creating a draft, and also note to them that in most cases, it requires in-depth coverage of the subject by published sources. And also create the expectation that when creating articles which need sources to meet wp:notability that they put on the talk page which of their sources they feel are most likely to fulfill this requirement.   IMO this would help a great deal with the issue of this thread, as well as helping with the NPP issues. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 14:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me! <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 15:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::I thought the original point of AfC was to provide a route for non-registered users to create articles after they were prevented from doing so directly in main space. It would be ironic if AfC became the reason to stop them. There are some people who have edited for years with IP addresses and really don't want an account; some are very productive. It would be a pity to alienate them. To my mind, it makes total sense to make it clear during article creation that unless the creator provides three good references or otherwise fulfil policy (e.g. NPROF), the article will be rejected at AfC without the AfC reviewer being expected to do any searching whatsoever. The creator then has six months to find three references. If they can't, or won't, I don't see their article as having any huge value to wikipedia. I wouldn't object to a similar rule for NPP: if your article doesn't have three references and you haven't made a case that it meets some policy like NPROF, it will be kicked into draft-space automatically, and if not eligible for draft-space because you already moved it from there, kicked to AfD instead. This wouldn't be a big burden on NPP/AfC. At worst, it's a burden on AfD, but that's why AfD exists. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 17:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::North8000's proposal would be the ideal one if this is taken out of this section, not mine. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 17:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Your NPP idea is several levels stricter that the current reality, mine was a bit softer than that. Right now for most of the que (which is over 6 months) a NPP'er can't send any article to draft for any reason. Which just leaves AFD. And there even a creator who provides zero GNG references gets to use WP:Before to beat up the NPP'er for not doing their job for them. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 19:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I do think I would support a change to the rules in this respect; I don't think it should be the responsibility of AfD nominators/NPPers to do the research for an article creator who is too lazy to do so just because the topic is arguably notable enough for inclusion. We shoukd be able to say "this is includable, but not with this article." [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 00:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:@[[User:North8000|North8000]], Thank you so much for this, you have yet again succinctly reiterated what I have been pushing multiple times for action on since 2022. {{tq|...we should not confuse article quality issues with the "should this article exist? issues.  New folks often don't know the "should this article exist?" criteria}} - because nobody and nowhere is telling them ''before'' they begin. {{tq|...other creators don't bother with that question, pushing the job on the NPP'er to search the world and see if the required coverage exists}} – these are the lazy 'editors' who believe that we have 100s of users just waiting to pounce on new articles and complete them.  @[[User:Reconrabbit|Reconrabbit]]: As for other bad faith users and paid editors who will create an account anyway, we will always have these but these but by filtering out the others before they even reach the New Page Feed or AfC will permit the reviewers to concentrate on identifying and dispatching these bad faith actors. Unfortunately too much conjecture is offered by users who do not have in-depth experience of working in AfC and NPP and with a long [[Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC|institutional memory of these issues]] and anecdotal evidence. {{tq|I thought the original point of AfC was to provide a route for non-registered users to create articles after they were prevented from doing so directly in main space}} Too many weak arguments against heightened controls are posited by users who still take the mantra 'Anyone can edit' far too literally. Correctly, it should be: ''Anyone can edit but there are policies and guidelines to be observed, and registration is/could be one of these.'' [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, but my desire is that we nobble articles that ''are'' bad rather than editors who ''might'' be bad. {{u|North8000}} has got a good point about NPP's getting beaten up; this is why I haven't applied for the job. Would it help if we restricted AfD's "BEFORE" requirements to pre-existing articles that have been in main-space for a while, and insist that the obligation to check sourcing of new articles is on their author (or whoever triggered their move to main-space, either by hitting "submit" on an AfC, or moving it themselves)? Also permit draftify from AfD even if the article has previously been in draft space, as an alternative to deletion? [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 14:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]], {{tq|...we nobble articles that ''are'' bad ...}}, but there are many different kinds of 'bad' articles to nobble and behind them is a significant number of bad faith actors who need to be nipped in the bud. However, a great many new articles in the feed are created by users who simply fail to grasp what an encyclopedia is; in February this year (excluding redirects):
:::*32.2% of new articles were created by users with < 100 edits. 
:::Apart from that, @[[User:North8000|North8000's]]  comment about NPPers getting beaten up is very real and probably the very reason why only a tiny fraction of the 800+ accredited reviewers are thick skinned enough to persevere;  [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_53#Investigating_the_cause(s)_of_backlogs|this research]] (still being evaluated) will explain. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

====Restricting new page creation from existing redirect====
Part of the problem involves TAs turning redirects into full articles. We should be restricting the removal of a redirect tag. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:@[[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] Certainly. <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 17:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]], @[[User:CabinetCavers|CabinetCavers]] This is probably  a loophole that wasn't closed at the time of rolling out [[WP:ACPERM]]. It would require code written into MediaWiki that checks autoconfirmed status when converting a page from a redirect to an article. We would need some stats on how often this occurs because it would need WMF buy-in and might not be common enough for the devs to spend time on it. An idea would be to request it at the Wishlist. and see what happens. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 18:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I think this could be done in [[Special:AbuseFilter]].  That would only require community approval.  We would probably need some stats on not just how often it occurs, but also how often it's problematic to get a consensus for 'disallow' rather than 'warn'. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The raw number of new editors doing this is pretty easy:  2.5 redirects in the mainspace being un-redirected per day by non-autoconfirmed editors,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?userExpLevel=newcomer&hidebots=1&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&hidenewuserlog=1&namespace=0&tagfilter=mw-removed-redirect&limit=1000&days=30&title=Special%3ARecentChanges&urlversion=2] of which 45% have been reverted already, and 10 per day by TAs,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?userExpLevel=unregistered&hidebots=1&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&hidenewuserlog=1&namespace=0&tagfilter=mw-removed-redirect&limit=1000&days=30&title=Special%3ARecentChanges&urlversion=2] of which 66% have been reverted already.  (Note that if the redirect status is edit-warred over, then the same article can appear multiple times in this count.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::For comparison, about 42% of redirects removed by autoconfirmed but non-extended confirmed editors were also reverted.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The abuse filter is what we threatened to use for [[WP:ACPERM]] if after our 7 year battle the WMF still steadfastly refused  to entertain it.  @[[User:Binksternet|Binksternet's]] concern is germaine and we should consider looking into it. The fist step however is to know if the occurrence is significant enough to spend time on ''any'' solution. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 19:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

:This happens a lot in music topics. Logged-out socks of blocked accounts go to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects]] and ask for new redirects to be made. After the redirects are approved and created, unregistered users arrive to create the page from redirect. Here's a typical sequence from July 2024, with a Texas IP requesting a redirect in July,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&diff=next&oldid=1232495448] followed by a different Texas IP creating the page from redirect in August.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Dream_Tour&diff=1240363108&oldid=1232525445] New albums are often followed by requests for redirects for every song on the album, to make it possible for unregistered users to create the song articles.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&diff=prev&oldid=1241880789] Independent songs can attract the same attention.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects&diff=prev&oldid=1278638940] The same sock farm is seen in action at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.189.247.245 Texas IP 64.189.247.245] who made many redirect requests for the purpose of sidestepping the requirement that new articles must come only from autoconfirmed users. The frequent edit warring involved in this kind of activity can be seen at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_Brotherhood_(song)&action=history the page history of Dark Brotherhood (song)]. Everything I listed in this paragraph comes from ban evasion by [[User:Rishabisajakepauler]].  [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 20:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]], I think there is certainly potential for addressing this with an abuse filter.  It figures that it should have been part of [[WP:ACPERM]] but we didn't think of it at the time. Our main objective was to reduce the the permanent backlogs at NPP (The effect of that has now largely been lost over time and NPP is in a crisis).  Perhaps someone with the Abuse Filter Manager right could come up with a proof of concept before the Community's time is wasted on an RfC. So back to @[[User:CabinetCavers|CabinetCavers]] original post: I've been working for a while with the WMF on a possible solution that would reduce the the backlogs at NPP and RfC by nipping the junk and trash from new users in the bud. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 20:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] Yay! <span style="background-color: black">[[User:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: pink">CabinetCavers--</span>]][[User talk:CabinetCavers|<span style="color: yellow">--DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer]</span>]]</span> 11:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

::@[[User:Reconrabbit|Reconrabbit]], this wouldn't prevent TAs from creating drafts, so no baby's will be thrown out with the bathwater. Indeed, it ''will'' stop them making junk articles, but at the same time it will encourage them to produce drafts that with some TLC are likely to be promoted to mainspace rather than consigned to the rubbish bin. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 20:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::If this solution as proposed is techincally possible (remove ability to remove redirects) then I support it. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 21:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:I attest to the fact [[WP:AFC/R]] is abused by LTAs such as [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24|TotalTruthTeller24]] among other LTAs, UPE sock farms and  [[WP:GAMING]] in general.  For example [[Draft:Charles Dumont (cyclist)]] was originally a redirect I created via an AFC/R request which the TA immediately turned into an article.  An NPP reviewer moved it draft and is now up for G13 so I got the notice as the creator.  Also because these are created under the reviewer's name, G5 is extremely difficult if later it is discovered the requestor was a [[WP:BMB]] qualifying sock because there is no transparency like with Drafts submitted to AfC.  G5 is declined because sock did not create page. {{pb}}There was a discussion about eliminating both AFC/R and [[WP:AFC/C]] because of the consistent abuse ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 60#Eliminating AfC/C and AfC/R]]) but that hobbles AGF requests.  The most recent notification about abuse was a couple months ago  [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 62#Creation of redirects at the behest of sock accounts]].  Pinging {{ping|Ponyo}} because they are familiar.  [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 21:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)