 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Draft space isn't exempt from core policies. BLP violations, copyright infringement, and spam need attention regardless of namespace. |
You're patrolling recent changes, rolling back vandalism. Your filters are set to mainspace because that's where the action is, right? That's where readers see content, but most importantly, it's where the vandals are at, and we want to have some fun!
But while you're watching mainspace like a hawk, draft space is filling up with BLP violations, copyright violations, and promotional spam all warming up in the bullpen waiting for its chance at the majors.
Draft space isn't some magical policy-free zone where the rules take a vacation. When someone adds "John Smith was arrested for embezzlement" without a source, it doesn't matter whether that's in a published article or a draft, John Smith's reputation is on the line either way. When someone copies three paragraphs verbatim from a copyrighted website, the Wikimedia Foundation's legal exposure is the same whether it's in mainspace or hidden in a draft.
Yes, drafts are supposed to be workspace. Yes, we want new editors to have room to learn without getting bitten. But there's a difference between "this draft needs better sourcing" and "this draft is actively violating BLP policy." The first can wait, the second can't. Sometimes it's a good idea tomind the draft.
Many patrollers stick to mainspace, treating drafts as a safe zone where content can wait. Drafts do serve as workspace for developing articles, but certain policy violations cause harm or create legal issues before articles ever reach mainspace. The problem is that policy violations will sit in draft space, sometimes for months, until either moving to mainspace (creating extra work for new pages patrollers) or staying put indefinitely while potentially causing damage.
The strongest case for draft patrolling involves biographies of living persons. A defamatory or poorly sourced claim about someone does the same damage in draft space as in mainspace. The article's subject doesn't know and shouldn't have to care about Wikipedia's internal namespace distinctions.
Take an unsourced claim that "John Smith was arrested for fraud in 2015" or "Jane Doe had an affair with her business partner." These statements cause potential harm to real people now, without waiting for publication. Same with Copyright law. A draft copied entirely from a copyrighted website remains a violation. Waiting until mainspace only delays the fix while broadcasting it to readers. The same can be applied to promotional content. Some creators hope promotional drafts will slip through to mainspace unnoticed. While a merely promotional draft might get tagged for the creator to fix, drafts that are purely spam with no encyclopedic content should get prompt attention.
The distinction matters between "needs work" and "violates policy."
When someone adds policy-violating content to a draft, especially BLP violations, don't hesitate to revert it just as you would in mainspace. Notify the editor on their talk page explaining what happened and why.
Example workflow: Someone adds "Smith was accused of fraud" without a source to Draft:John Smith. You click "undo," provide an edit summary like "unsourced BLP violation perWP:BLP", then leave a message on their talk page. Takes thirty seconds and protects a living person while educating the editor.
Rather than immediately deleting fixable problems:
{{Copyvio}} for copyright issues (unless G12-eligible){{Advert}} for promotional content{{BLP unsourced}} sections for BLP problems{{Db-attack}} for attack pages{{Db-spam}} for unambiguous spamTrue for normal learning curves. Not true for serious policy violations. Being educational and kind while enforcing fundamental policies helps new editors more than letting them invest time in problematic content.
"Aggressive" is the key word. Educational, friendly intervention explaining policies differs from harsh criticism or deletion without explanation. Research on new editor retention suggests constructive feedback actually helps editors learn and stay.
Draft space serves an important function for developing content. But certain core policies apply everywhere on Wikipedia. Living persons deserve protection from BLP violations regardless of namespace. Copyright law applies everywhere. Blatant spam needs attention wherever it appears.
"Mind the draft" doesn't mean treating every draft like mainspace. It means recognizing that fundamental policies transcend namespace boundaries. A few extra moments of attention to serious violations in draft space can prevent larger problems later.
Patrollers who extend their work to serious violations in draft space protect living persons, safeguard the Foundation from legal issues, reduce burden on new pages patrol, and maintain Wikipedia's content integrity across namespaces.