Chris Ronayne ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I understand that there were multiple issues with the Chris Ronayne page that were not addressed. However, the page was not being monitored previously. Since its deletion it has been my responsibility to update and recreate the page. If I am not entirely sure what I am doing, but I am just looking to undelete the page so that I can update it, and fix the previous issues with the page. Chris Ronayne is an important political figure within the Cleveland, OH community, and if necessary I have the sources for that. I know that there were 3 specific issues with the page mainly concerning source citation. I am currently looking looking to fix those issues and believe that I can. In addition he is the CEO of of University Circle, a location in Cleveland with an accredited page. Not only is his page important for those looking to learn more about him politically, it is also essential for University Circle, so that we can inform our readers of who is running our organization, what our values are, and why Chris is someone essential to the success of University Circle. Abbeyhughes13 ( talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Premeditated Chaos: I assume we're talking about Chris Ronayne here, in which case, this was an expired WP:PROD. I suggest that we just treat this as a misplaced request for WP:REFUND and go ahead and restore it. I'll hold off on actually doing that, for the moment, in case I'm mis-understanding the history. It sounds like there's some other issues with WP:COI, but that shouldn't prevent the WP:REFUND. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support that. Chris Ronayne, president of University Circle, is plausibly notable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I also support, and if it turns out that Abbeyhughes13 had something else in mind, I would be strongly tempted to undelete on my own request. The deleted version of this article was sadly under-cited, but if i had noticed I would have objected to the deletion, and I would be surprised if a valid article could not be constructed about Ronayne. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Mobile infantry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Was closed as a false "Speedy keep" 2 days after the discussion began when there was clearly a dissenting opinion in the discussion and the nominator as well as myself presented valid points towards the page's removal that were not refuted. This was not a proper application of the snowball clause. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Relist - The close conflated a Speedy Keep with a Snowball close, as WP:SK#NOT says should not be done. The close was neither a Speedy Keep 1 or a Speedy Keep 3. An argument can be made that it was a snowball close, which, as noted, is not a speedy keep close, but that isn't how it was closed. For that reason, the close should be overturned and the discussion allowed to resume. It will almost certainly be a Keep, but process does matter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Do nothing. This shouldn't have even been at AfD. We'd never delete this page. The question of disambig vs redirect could have been considered on the article talk page. As for process, yes it matters, but not to the point that we overturn things merely because of a process fail. That's what trouts are for. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Things are commonly listed at AfD because A. redirect discussions on obscure pages get very little participation and B. it would be easily overturned unless it was decided at AfD it should be redirected. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 10:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. Bad NAC. Not a speedy keep, and the discussion was nowhere near unanimous enough to invoke the snowball clause. –  Joe ( talk) 10:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• comment - Someone did comment on my talk that it was a bad close - apologies. I have taken a second look, and I agree. I should have at least let it run a few more days for consensus. I am quite happy to self-revert if possible, unless this conversation also needs to reach a consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 10:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

User:SashiRolls/SWAPP ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I believe this page has been wrongly speedied. U5 doesn't apply as this is very relevant to Wikipedia, and G10 doesn't apply to alleged WP:POLEMIC violations. The latter belongs to MfD, so I recommend starting a MfD discussion. And in my opinion, the page is completely valid as SashiRolls is documenting a current dispute. This would not be the first time RHaworth fundamentally misunderstood CSD. wumbolo ^^^ 01:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn CSD. The deleted page is a crazed rant, to be sure, but WP:CRAZEDRANT isn't a CSD. WP:U5 doesn't apply. U5 only applies to pages that are not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. This is a rant about things that happened on the wiki, so, rant or not, it's about wikipedia. WP:G10 also doesn't apply. While this rant certainly says some unkind things about other editors, I really can't see it being called an attack page. I suppose others might disagree on that, so I'm not going to tempdelete it; I beg the indulgence of non-admins on this one. I don't see how this page is useful to wikipedia, but it doesn't fit either of the CSD it was deleted under, so it should be restored and brought to MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Deleted. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not go down legal ratholes. It turns out, the person who wrote this user-space page wants it deleted. Let's move on to something useful (and arguing about exactly which CSD gets logged isn't useful). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn CSD to Keep as per RoySmith, . This is as clearly about Wikipedia as it could be, it is an account, from one user;'s PoV, of a series of on-wiki actions. I don't see hoe this could have been deleted as a U5. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak Overturn of U5 and/or G10, as per User:RoySmith. Ugh. Based on what has been written, there unfortunately does not appear to be any CSD criterion to get rid of a WP:CRAZEDRANT, and we can't allow Ignore All Rules deletion, which would result in anarchy. Ugh. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• This was ineligible for U5 because its author has plenty of mainspace contributions, but not because it's relevant to Wikipedia. That's not what U5's about, and the page wasn't relevant to Wikipedia's goals, which is. Unless dispute resolution is now one of Wikipedia's goals in its own right. No opinion on it as a G10. — Cryptic 07:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Still no opinion on the most recent version's G10iness - it would require more familiarity with the underlying issues than I care to have - but the version deleted by RHaworth in May was pretty unquestionably an attack page. If the closer's inclined to go through the useless rigamarole of restoring this and then waiting for SashiRolls to retag it as a U1/G7, don't restore the May 2 revisions. — Cryptic 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Lean Overturn - It's obviously not a U5; it's specifically mentioned as a response to r to Mr or Mrs Butternut's ARCA filing (per the first edit summary); the relevant AN/I is now closed, I don't see anything at ArbCom. It's however plausible, that it's still needed for dispute resolution at somewhere I'm missing, and an MfD where SashiRolls can make that case makes the most sense to me (which is to say, I'm not confidently able to discern whether it meets the "and serves no other purpose" of G10, it's certainly not obvious, so it would appear to at least merit a discussion on that point. Wily D 08:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - An MFD in which SashiRolls could make that case would require that SashiRolls be unblocked, and DRV is not an unblocking forum. Someone else will have to try to make that case unless SashiRolls is unblocked in the normal course of unblock requests. If I understand the circumstances, I would oppose an unblock, at least unless they meet the usual conditions of understanding why they were blocked and a willingness to try to change that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion as out of process: by accident rather than anything more, hopefully. —— SN 54129 09:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, and for the record, although the nomination mentions RHaworth, it is true that they deleted the page U5/G10 in May this year; but another admin deleted it in June under the same criteria. —— SN 54129 09:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn WP:POLEMIC allows The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner., not U5. -- Pudeo ( talk) 15:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I almost just wrote something like "there's no way it's going to be used in a 'timely manner', its creator is blocked indef", except it seems its creator was blocked indef specifically for creating this page and then linking to an offsite cache of it after it was deleted (admin-only diff). If we're overturning this deletion, we'd be hypocrites not to unblock SashiRolls too. Yes I know this isn't the right forum for that. — Cryptic 16:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    I've notified the most recent deleter and the blocking admin of this discussion. The first is something I do anyway while clerking intake at DRV, so normally I wouldn't mention it, except so far I'm the only person even vaguely leaning endorse. — Cryptic 16:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Leave deleted , since SashiRolls obviously has a complete copy of this offline, and would not be able to use it onwiki, being blocked and all. And since it concerns someone with whom he was about to be (or maybe has been, haven't checked) interaction interacted on a subject he is about to be topic banned from. Whether or not U5 or G10 applied at the time of deletion doesn't matter too much; what matters is that is is not useful to anyone, and can be considered damaging to someone, now. It should stay deleted for now. If SashiRolls is ever unblocked, and the interaction topic ban isn't enacted doesn't make the dispute moot, and it can still legitimately be considered useful in dispute resolution (3 big if's), then we can undelete. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) I've made a hopeless mess of this, saying something 80% correct, changing it to something 50% correct, and now finally (I hope) getting it right. I'm just going to cross this out and start fresh, simplifying things in the process. New rationale is very simple: SashiRolls is one-way i-banned from Tryptofish. This deleted page is all about Tryptofish. There is therefore no possible benefit to undeleting this page. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Leave it WP:NOTBURO: Is there any serious question about what the end result of an MFD would be? It's a three month old "preparation" for an (almost certainly futile) arbitration case from a now-blocked user. It's not as if there was anything preventing SashiRolls from using this evidence at any point in the last 90 days - what possible purpose would this serve? @ RoySmith: I haven't seen the actual Wiki version, but the off-site version that was linked yesterday contained a section rhetorically asking whether that user had stumbled into an off-wiki conspiracy, so that would seem to undercut the view that this was about behavior on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 16:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Note that I have blocked SashiRolls indefinitely for circumventing the deletion of this page, which was deleted twice, both times as an attack page. They effectively restored it a third time by placing an external link to it. I'm not sure why they didn't just go through the DRV motions to get it restored the right way, but I did consider such a restoration to have been disruptive. Were they to launch an unblock appeal whereby this is acknowledged, an unblock (and a resumption of the AE case), may become viable — although I'm still concerned about the user having already been indeffed and unblocked so many times. El_C 17:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Question - How is it that several of those !voting here are non-admins? This is a deleted page. Presumably the only people who would have insight other than admins are people already involved in disputes concerning this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I saved a copy before it was deleted. – Leviv ich 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Ok... but, I mean, why? :) That seems pretty unusual. Regardless, it rather makes my point above that that non-admins !voting here are already people so invested in this dispute that they would, apparently, save someone else's userspace page. Since Wikipedia pages are, of course, stored indefinitely, the only reason I can think of to do this is if you knew it was problematic enough to be deleted but wanted a copy anyway? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
      • I find this troubling, too. We have Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment; I realize that this isn't linking, but the spirit of it is that it borders on harassment to see something that one knows is about to be deleted, and to make sure to keep an external copy just before the deletion goes through, so as to be able to, in effect, undo the deletion. It's not like Levivich intended to promptly contest the deletion at DRV, so it's pretty hard to argue that it was kept in order to save something from an erroneous deletion. Rather, it seems more like thumbing one's nose at the deletion decision. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
        • I mean, this line of thinking is just a distraction. The link he was blocked for posting, which I assume is the page in question, isn't exactly hard to find. It's been posted elsewhere. Arkon ( talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
          • Lucky me. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
            • To be fair, as a non-admin who votes on DRV articles simply because I find it the most interesting area of the wiki, I could have seen myself asking for the page to be undeleted to determine whether the speedy was incorrect. I'm just coming across this now, have the ability to read every drop of ink that's been spilled on this, and have been completely unfamiliar with the conflict, but DRV isn't just a place for admins (or else I need to be permabanned.) SportingFlyer T· C 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • @ Rhododendrites: I saved it before the second deletion because I was thinking of filing this DRV. I don't remember now why I didn't, but I'm glad that wumbolo did. – Leviv ich 04:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• I've notified Toddst1, who tagged the page for speedy deletion both times. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up. However, that was a few months ago and I don't remember what the page contained or even if I was somehow involved. As a non-admin, I can't look at it to find out so I will refrain from commenting. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Obviously, I believe that this page should remain deleted. It contains nothing of value—it's simply a page of vitriol primarily against Tryptofish. The level of snark, and the "interestingly"-captioned picture make this page unsuitable for an ArbCom case. On another note, weren't TryptoFish and SashiRolls interaction-banned or very nearly interaction-banned at that point in time? Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yeah, not quite. That's my bad. Though, eventually, there was consensus for a one-way interaction ban, I screwed up the formulation of the sanction itself, so I'm not sure about how applicable it can be seen, from a procedural standpoint. Plus, I failed to properly log it. All in all, not my finest moment. El_C 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for the ping; I otherwise would not have known what was going on. First, to answer Reaper Eternal's question, just before SashiRolls was indeffed yesterday, he was under a 1-way interaction ban with me (as an AE sanction), but that ban went into effect after the creation of the deleted page, not before. Now, to the merits of the DR. As the subject of the deleted page, I feel very strongly that it should remain deleted. Let's look at the policy basis for this review. There were two CSD reasons cited. One was that we are not a web host and such material should be kept only if there is an intention to use it in the near future for the purpose of dispute resolution or constructive commentary. SashiRolls kept the material for quite a long time without ever initiating any dispute resolution about me, although he did make threats to use the material externally for press release in a manner that edged up to WP:NLT. So is the argument here that, one day after he has been indeffed, it's a good time for him to initiate dispute resolution against me? What a strange assertion! Procedurally, let's wait to see if his unblock request is (God forbid!) granted, and then evaluate whether or not the page is going to be useful for the purposes of Wikipedia dispute resolution. But as long as he remains blocked, that reason to overturn remains nonsensical. And his 1-way IBAN with me remains in effect if he is unblocked, so the argument that it's permissible commentary about Wikipedia is similarly meritless unless that, too, is overturned. Now the other CSD issue is about it being an attack page. In other words, whether it was an attack page about me. Now, there have been serial versions of the page, including recreations after the first of two deletions. I'm not an admin, so I cannot have the pleasure of seeing what version we are talking about here. (I've heard rumors about off-wiki mirrors, but non-admins should not assume that those are identical to what would be undeleted.) But when I first complained about the page at ANI, it was describing me as "bonkers" and "shitty". If the consensus here is that that does not amount to an attack page, I have a request. I would like to be given a special permission to call every editor who supports undeletion here "bonkers" and "shitty". Does that sound like fun? And has Wikipedia really degenerated to the point that stuff like that gets taken seriously as "dispute resolution"? During the recent Framgate debacle, the WMF threatened to take over civility enforcement from the community. Letting this kind of garbage pass for dispute resolution or legitimate commentary (about someone he is IBANed from commenting about!) reflects pretty damn badly on the editors who want to do so. Maybe there is some kind of bureaucratic reason to put it through MfD instead of CSD. Well, I hope that no one will want to make me suffer through that. This DRV lacks a basis in policy, and is morally shameful. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• The version that was deleted contains neither "bonk" nor "shit". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Well, isn't that wonderful! Should we start a celebration? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Note that, in light of this DRV, I have conditionally restored SashiRolls' talk access so that they can launch a proper unblock appeal. El_C 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion as U5/G10 and unblock Sashi allow U1 – per Pudeo and Cryptic's rationales. The page is a collection of diffs and commentary about the diffs, in Sashi's usual impressionist prose style. It's definitely not U5, and I don't agree with the characterization of it as an "attack page". But it's definitely not any CSD criteria. It should never have been speedy deleted in the first place. Ergo, Sashi's block for linking to the incorrectly-deleted page (which I don't really understand where in policy this is forbidden anyway) should be overturned as well. – Leviv ich 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  Update: Given that SashiRolls has now been unblocked and what they wrote on their talk page (If the page is restored to my user space, I will delete it myself ... What needs to be removed from the record is the false claim that it was an attack page.), I support undoing the U5/G10 deletion and allowing Sashi to tag it for U1. – Leviv ich 03:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  You saved a copy before it was deleted?????? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  • @ Trypofish: Apparantly, it's been saved to archive.org. —— SN 54129 05:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Also, this is not a place where an unblock decision can be made. The discussion is about whether to overturn a page deletion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Tryptofish, I'm still going to address it, though. Levivich, the policy is disruptive editing (please see my first comment here). It is disruptive to continue to restore a deleted page that is deemed an attack page, be it directly, or by linking to it externally. That it may not be deemed an attack page now is not something I could have accounted for at the time. As also mentioned, if SashiRolls acknowledges this misstep, an unblock indeed becomes viable. Ordinarily, I would have just gone with a warning, but due to SashiRolls' troubling history of multiple indefinite blocks, I decided otherwise. El_C 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Given WP:ILIKEIT and so forth, I think it would be appropriate for editors who want to overturn the deletion to explain what specifically makes the page legitimate constructive commentary about Wikipedia, and not an attack page. Citing freedom of speech isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about how it provides constructive commentary, and how it constitutes WP:CIVIL discourse. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Tryptofish: Compiling evidence of WP:TAGTEAM and other problematic evidence with diffs is within what's allowed, especially given that the topic area has had WP:ARBGMO. I'm not sure about "timely manner" because I can't access the history anymore, and SashiRolls may have revised the page recently. That's what MfD is for. PS. You voted "keep" about a laundry list of diffs and stated that keeping diffs for a "month or two" is not unreasonable in a May 2018 MfD. It thus should be clear to you why some people would find the subpage acceptable, even if it's probably hard to be impartial because the diffs are about you. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The earlier MfD is WP:OTHERSTUFF and the specifics do not compare. But your research actually makes me aware of something I didn't know to comment about before. SashiRolls is also topic banned from GMOs (although there are some unresolved questions about the scope). So that TBAN would also have to be lifted before this page could be restored. Thanks for making me aware of that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Needed background. With Rhododendrites comment, I'm not an admin, but have seen the page in a few iterations on-wiki and been subject to some of the behavior dealing with Sashirolls. To be clear for those that likely don't know the history as Tryptofish has discussed in-depth above and El C has mentioned with sanctions, the SWAPP page has been used as an attack page and already deleted twice as an attack page. Two things that those voting keep above are likely not aware of:

1. Sashirolls is under a 1-way interaction ban with Tryptofish. This means Sashi can be working on material in prepping an appeal focusing on their own behavior, but not circumventing the ban under the guise of it by continuing to pursue battleground behavior and vilification of Trpytofish for which they were banned. If the most recent revival was anything like previous versions, it would be a violation of the spirit of their ban. WP:G5 can easily apply in such a case too.
2. The page hasn't been used in a timely manner in terms of WP:POLEMIC. Instead, they frequently dangle threats out there in admin discussions of creating lists saying maybe they'll bring it to the press instead, for which EL C explicitly warned Sashirolls about already. [1] The tone at ANI, etc. has been more about veiled threats than an appeal when they bring that page up.

It should stay deleted since Sashi obviously has a copy, and it won't do anything but harm them in the long run in terms of their current sanctions. If the category needs to be reclassified, G5 related to WP:POLEMIC policy and the interaction ban, but WP:G10 can also apply. Classification is the only real potential "mess up" here, and WP:NOTBURO is policy with respect to letting the behavior issues continue despite multiple warnings. If the page were legitimate use and they weren't being disruptive, they would have gone through this very process instead of circumventing the deletion by creating it off-site and linking it, so WP:U5 does have some bearing too. One can discusss which one is the best classification, but covering multiple categories in varying degree isn't grounds for overturning. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Leave deleted, per Tryptofish.  If this sort of thing is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, then decent people will continue to be driven away. In the absence of more decent editors, the disruptive editors who remain will be treated as more valuable than they are, and the vicious circle will continue.   Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I read the deleted version and honestly can't find anything rising to the level of U5 or G10. I mean, it's mostly quotes with commentary on them, not a rant - seems relatively structured (and thus somewhat relevant to the project). See also RoySmith's comment. Enterprisey ( talk!) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. As a non-admin, and as someone who does not want to do a web search to find the reposting of the page elsewhere, I'm working at the disadvantage of not knowing exactly what version is potentially to be undeleted. But as I piece together what other editors are saying here, perhaps the tone has been revised to be more polite than what I saw before, but it appears to be very largely about me, as someone who was supposedly involved in tag-teaming at GMO pages. (Feel free to correct that if I'm wrong.) As of just before the block, SashiRolls is IBANed from commenting about me, and is more or less TBANed from GMO pages. And the ArbCom GMO case concluded that it is disruptive to assert that editors are working together to defend GMO companies. So even if the page is no longer particularly attack-y, and even if it discusses things that are relevant to Wikipedia (both of which I rather doubt), it still remains the case that, if undeleted, it would very largely be about stuff that SashiRolls is banned from posting about. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  To clarify what I just said, it would be one thing if SashiRolls were using the page to make a case for having sanctions against him lifted, but quite another to complain about other editors. And two wrongs don't make a right, so if he were claiming that he should be unsanctioned because other editors are doing bad things, that's just deflection, not a valid argument. So it seems to me that the page cannot be justified as making a case for his own defense, and otherwise it's commentary about things he is banned from commenting about. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per WP:BURO. The page was deleted on 2 May 2019 and again on 28 June 2019 (the second version being longer but on a similar theme with a list of an opponent's shortcomings). The last edit to the page by SashiRolls was on 18 May 2019. Four months have elapsed since it was last deleted and it is pointless to argue that its merits should be relitigated when it was unequivocally a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host and an attack page. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted I'm not sure this actually meets any of the CSD criteria, although it comes close to some. It definitely isn't a U5 because it is about Wikipedia. The page consists of diffs of edits by other people, mostly Tryptofish, along with commentary by SashiRolls. SashiRolls is banned from interacting with Tryptofish but that sanction was imposed on 20 May [2] and SashiRolls hasn't edited this page since, so it isn't a G5 candidate. I think it's closer to G10, it certainly reads as an attack on the behaviour of editors who SashiRolls disagrees with. However we do give some leeway on this to people who are compiling diffs for dispute resolution purposes. I'm not going to support restoring this though because it has basically no chance of surviving MfD, it clearly violates WP:POLEMIC which bans Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. There is an exemption for dispute resolution material but only if used in a timely manner, and this is from May. Furthermore the editor who owns the page would be blocked if they made any further edits to it because it would be in breach of the interaction ban. Having this kind of thing lying around indefinitely doesn't help the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Two things: (1) I found the off-site edition of the deleted page, and it's pretty much what I said I surmised it was from what other editors have posted here. (2) SashiRolls has posted on his user talk page about this discussion. I won't presume to paraphrase it, but I encourage other editors to look there to see what he thinks about deleting or not deleting the page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What I will say is that it probably qualifies for CSD now, as a WP:G7. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse - I haven't seen the crazed rant. If different administrators disagree as to whether it was a G10 attack page, and if everyone who has seen it agrees that it should stay or be deleted, it probably is an attack page, and in any case should be deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• comment I have just read thoguht the nabove, and the version of the page just before its final deletion. That version seemed to consist largely of quotes from and links to statements by other editors posted publicly on en.Wikipedia. I see no explicit attack, and it cannot constitute an attack to quote what a person has chosen to say/post publicly. So this wasn't a G10. As SashiRolls was an experienced editor U5 cannot apply to him, but I would argue that comment on Wikipedia's internal processes cannot be a U5 in any case, even if posted by a user with ZERO mainspace edits. How Wikipedia works is vital to building the encyclopedia, and this no page on such a topic is outside its goals, nor doe U5 apply. I express no view on whether earlier versions of the page might have constituted attack pages. Oh and is not now a G7, it was never deleted by consensus after a discussion, that I am aware of. My error I was thinking G4, but no one has suggested that. Comment about G7 struck. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I wish to make it clear that none of the comments ion this discussion have altered the view I expressed above. 04:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn the "U5" call. No opinion on the G10 call. That may mean undeleting and redeleting with the right log reference. U5 must not be used to delete the subpages of contributors. The wide open broadness of U5 is balanced only by the narrow criterion that the user is a non-contributor. Note also that POLEMIC has never been close to be being a CSD criterion. If the rant was polemical, recording negative information related to others, then take it to MfD. There are WP:DR avenues for negative information, it is not outright banned. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Point of order: SashiRolls has been unblocked and said they want the page deleted. If they want the page deleted then the result of this discussion cannot result in undeletion; we are never going to force them to keep it against their will. Normally, the only reason to keep this discussion going would be to decide if they could change their mind later and request undeletion (typically yes if a WP:CSD#G7, typically no if a WP:CSD#G10). But in this case, due to the interaction ban, they cannot request undeletion until the iban is removed. So why waste more time? The next uninvolved admin to read this should simply undelete and redelete per G7, not because G10 was wrong (we don't have to decide on that), but because this argument doesn't need to keep going anymore. If I hadn't voted above, I'd do it myself; it's the only rational outcome now that SashiRolls has said they want it deleted, and so should be completely uncontroversial. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note that as i understood the talk page comments, SashiRolls said that s/he desired the page deleted only after it was decided that it was not an attack page, that is that G10 did not apply. I don't ever recall such a conditional G7. I suppose we could overturn (if that is the consensus) and then do a G7 delete. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • But we're not here to entertain SashiRolls. If it's an attack page, it stays deleted. If it isn't, it gets deleted per G7. Either way, it gets deleted, so there's no benefit to continuing to argue how many angels fit on the head of a pin. There's some legal or logical term of art for the type of argument that goes "If A is true, then B is true because of reason C. If A is not true, then B is true because of reason D. Therefore, B is true even if it is unknowable whether A is true or not". Unfortunately, I learned this so many years ago that I've completely forgotten the term. But it applies here. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • No, we're not here to entertain Sashi, we're here to determine if the U5/G10 deletion of page that was made on June 28 should be endorsed or overturned. I see a few key clarifying points in this discussion:
        1. This should be considered a DRV of the June 28 deletion of a page that was created on May 17. The earlier version of the page, created on April 30 and deleted on May 2, is a different page and a different deletion.
        2. CSD criteria are supposed to be unambiguous. That at least half or more of the editors reviewing the page don't think it's an attack page strongly suggests that it's not an unambiguous attack page, and therefore should only be deleted after discussion at an MfD.
        3. It's a user subpage, so it should be U1 not G7 (right?). Both U1 and G7 are if the author requests it. The author is free to make that request if the page is undeleted.
        4. Sashi wasn't under an IBAN when the page was created.
        5. The page wasn't deleted as an IBAN violation.
        6. "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" is an exception to WP:IBAN, and that should include creating an evidence page for an Arbcom case. Prior to both versions of these pages being created, there was a pending ARC and AE against Sashi, and I don't see a problem with Sashi creating an evidence page for what they thought would be an ongoing or forthcoming Arbcom case and/or for an AE filing.
        7. If this consensus is that this is not an unambiguous attack page, the G10 deletion should be overturned. At that point, Sashi can decide whether they want to keep the page as an evidence page to use in a dispute resolution forum, or blank it and request U1 deletion. It's great that Sashi has already indicated a preference for the latter, but if it was not a proper use of CSD, the ultimate decision should be Sashi's, and not ours. – Leviv ich 16:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
        • A G7 and a U1 have a sizable overlap. A page created and edited solely by User X, in X's userspace, comes under either or both. G7 includes pages solely edited by the requestor in any namespace; U1 includes pages in the requestor's namespace, no matte who created or edited thsoe pages. This is a minor point of clarification. I tend to agree with your points above. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The practical difference, currently, between endorsing this as a G10 on the one hand, and overturning as a G10 and then letting SashiRolls speedy as a G7 on the other, is that in the latter case SashiRolls can request it be restored at WP:REFUND at any time. As you say, they can't currently do that without violating their interaction ban. I help out once in a (great) while at WP:REFUND, and this isn't the sort of thing I check for; I don't think the other admins there do, either. So the effect of overturning on these terms would be to set up a time bomb for SashiRolls to request undeletion, get it granted by an admin who didn't know any better, and then have an admin who does know better to G5 the page and block SashiRolls for the iban violation. So no, we shouldn't restore either way at present, or even restore and then immediately delete as G7. At most, what should happen is a ruling here that the (post-May-2) revisions weren't an attack page, with a note explicitly added to the deletion log that those revisions can be restored on request when and if the interaction ban is rescinded. — Cryptic 16:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Delete a page because, in the future, an editor might improperly request a refund of it, which might be granted, and another admin might block the editor who improperly requested the refund? Seriously? That's a lot of paternalism and assumptions–including assumptions of bad faith. How about this instead: we assume that Sashi knows when they should and shouldn't request a REFUND, and if Sashi screws that up, then Sashi deals with the consequences? – Leviv ich 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• I guess one way to approach this discussion is to treat it as an algorithmic analysis of CSD criteria, and undelete the page so it can be deleted again – as if the sky would fall if there were the wrong CSD criterion involved! Or, we could use common sense and basic decency. The sole creator of the page wants it deleted. And no one else has a remotely reasonable use for the page in mind. We should let the deletion stand, and move on. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• I have restored the page and then immediately deleted it again per U1. I don't see any need for this conversation to continue and am closing it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply