Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2020 November 8
2020 November 10 >

9 November 2020

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Arizona Wranglers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Similar to the Craig Foster case, this page was speedy deleted solely because it had been created by a sockpuppet, with no regard for any other detail added to the page. As a team of the Indoor Football League with several notable players with NFL experience signed, this team meets the criteria for notability (and I had added some information to spruce up the page beyond what it had been before. Therefore, I would like this page to be restored, and for the admin to be more careful when automatically speedy-deleting pages going forward. Tom Danson ( talk) 04:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Allow Re-creation (and more). I also support re-creation by an editor in good standing. However, I do not support the suggestion that the admin needs to be more careful. we have policies and guidelines for a reason. I won't suggest for a second that every single one of those policies and guidelines is written perfectly; there is undoubtably room for improvement in many of them, but when one disagrees with a policy or guideline, I think the best approach is to open a discussion about that policy or guideline and persuade the community to make a change to the policy or guideline. When an editor chooses to ignore those policies and guidelines, not just once or twice out of ignorance or even good faith disagreement with the interpretation, this can lead to blocking or banning if the offenses are serious enough. The entire point of blocking and banning is to send a message to the editor that there blatant disregard of policies and guidelines is a net negative to the project, even if some of their edits, evaluated in isolation, might be acceptable edits. The editor has to show a commitment to understanding and respecting the policies and guidelines before continuing to contribute to the community. If we permit sock puppets, we are essentially saying that if you violate our policies to the point that the community feels the need to ban you, or an admin blocks you, you can avoid the responsibility of living up to our policies and guidelines by creating a sockpuppet account. some of the edits of that sock puppet may be problematic but if any are acceptable, we will accept them. This sends a message to a sock puppet that they have no need to care about our policies or guidelines they can edit as they choose and some of the material will remain. This will encourage the sock puppet to continue editing rather than rethinking their approach to editing, and will create a significant burden on the community who now have to carefully evaluate every single edit by that sock puppet. I support the notion that an editor who has shown blatant disregard for policies and guidelines ought to be removed from the community until such time as they show a willingness to follow our policies and guidelines. Permitting an article to stand that has been written by a sockpuppet is essentially saying that we decided to ignore the sock puppet policy. if you agree that sock puppet should be allowed to contribute, change the policy, don't simply support the retention of an article created by a sock poppet because the community is too lazy to re-create the article. If the article ought to be written, energy is in good standing can start it over from scratch, which will help remove the incentive for a sock puppet to continue to ignore the communities policies and guidelines.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Can we get a temp undelete please? Or at least a judgement from an uninvolved admin if it is clear if there were substantial contributions by others or not? Hobit ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There's absolutely no issue here with recreation, and I literally was just looking at this league's page (trying to gauge whether indoor american football was still a thing) and was surprised this team didn't have an article. The only question is whether we restore the prior draft or require a recreation from scratch, which requires a history check which I, like Hobit, cannot see. SportingFlyer T· C 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and WP:TROUT the deleting admin. [1] shows that someone other than the creator of the article had significant contributions. Not G5 eligible. Hobit ( talk) 06:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn clear misapplication of WP:G5. Cheers to WilyD for the temphistrestore. SportingFlyer T· C 09:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Do you think we should close the discussion now? Because I think we've reached a clear consensus to restore this page and nobody's commented in a couple days. Tom Danson ( talk) 01:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. This edit prevents this from being a G5 case. As to the deleting admin,  it sounds like a trout quacking into a megaphone to me. 147.161.8.192 ( talk) 19:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Craig Foster (filmmaker) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was apparently deleted because it had been created by a sockpuppet. However I had structured, tidied and added some detail to the page (spending quite some time to hunt down one specific detail), and I think the subject passes the notability test. I and another editor had posted a comment on the talk page as per instructions to contest the deletion at the time, but there didn't seem to be any response to these before deletion. I don't really have the time or inclination to create a new page, and having lost the history this would take quite a bit more work. It just seems a shame to lose a bit of good information, and his latest film My Octopus Teacher is popular on Netflix. (I don't know how to find the deletion discussion, so I'm not sure what to do about instruction no. 5 about listing this deletion review, sorry.) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Laterthanyouthink, It's my practice, when reviewing a G5 nomination, to confirm that the article was created by someone who has been banned or blocked, and if so to delete the article. It is not been my practice to assess whether there are substantial contributions by others. I am very sympathetic to the fact that good-faith editors may have worked hard on an article whose subject meets notability requirements, and thus it would be a shame to lose all that work. I don't have a complete sense about the communities views, but I am happy to participate in a discussion to determine how this should be handled. S Philbrick (Talk) 02:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for the reply and info. It's not huge but potentially useful, so it seemed a shame to lose it. I am equally happy for admins to review the history and come to a decision based on usual practice, not knowing enough about how these policies are applied, myself. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Robert McClenon. Is it possible to recover the history so I can use what has been done though? I'm not sure of the process. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Content emailed to Laterthanyouthink S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and undelete because it appears the deletion was contrary to policy. WP:G5 "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others". From S Philbrick's statement above I am not clear whether they ignore this statement of policy because they personally disagree with it, or whether, in their view, WP:G5 is actually a (severe) mis-statement of what the community's policy really is. I note they did not assess whether the edits by others were substantial. An assessment should have been made and acted upon. Thincat ( talk) 10:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I do disagree with the wording of G5, that was not why I deleted it. I apparently misremembered the policy and applied a policy that made sense as opposed to the actual wording of the policy. I don't object to and deletion of either of these files given the wording of G5. I'll try to remember not to act on G5 nominations in the future.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You're welcome to do so, just check the page history first. SportingFlyer T· C 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, I don't see why you shouldn't continue with G5 deletions though if you feel very strongly the written criterion is wrong you could leave them to someone else. Quite recently WP:G13 was changed to allow G13 with less checking [2] after discussion [3] (making it even more mindless in my opinion). So changes of policy are possible. Thincat ( talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thincat, Although Wikipedia:Deny recognition is merely an essay and doesn't carry the force of guidelines or policies, I don't think there's any dispute that dealing with banned and blocked editors is a time-consuming and exhaustive exercise. G5 is an important tool in that never-ending battle. However insisting that an article created by a banned or blocked editor is not eligible for G5 if it has been substantially edited by others is not just a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, but actually encourages sock puppetry and meet puppetry. I don't think we should be crafting policies that actually encouraged problem we are trying to stop. I am not missing that such editors sometimes create articles that are acceptable. However, if we think that the creation of acceptable articles is so important that it should be an exception to G5, then we ought to simply stop trying to block or ban anyone, and judge each edit on its merits. I trust it is obvious that such an approach would be unworkable, yet the exception to G5 essentially says we don't want any edits by block or banned editors unless they are good enough to attract some other editors who might be sock puppets or meat puppets) to the article. Yes, I know that policies can be changed, but I have far too much on my plate to take this on, so I'll let others work on deletions and I will work in other areas. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have now received the content of the article from Sphilbrick (thanks for that!), so I could re-create it, but obviously it's not all my work - and without being able to review the history again, I cannot say with certainty exactly how much I contributed. I move through so many articles that I forget after a week or two! But I did structure it with headings, and added some content and citations, and possibly categories and projects on the talk page. I won't do anything until/unless someone pings me and lets me know what if anything I should do here (and if I should re-create, what should the edit summary say?). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • In practice, if you use any of the content other than the wholly new stuff you added, it'll need to be undeleted rather than re-started, to comply with the licence conditions Wily D 06:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Ah, yes, I thought that might be the case, thanks WilyD. I have just thought to have a look at the page views, and it has been fairly popular (averaging 900-1000?), so it would be good to have it restored asap, if everyone's agreed. Thanks to all for your participation and education on this one (with apologies to Sphilbrick- I did not intend for you to be trouted!). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Temp undeleted for discussion Requested by multiple people Wily D 06:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, this article has significant edits by an innocent user. See this edit. According to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. If the edits by the good faith editors are substantial, G5 no longer applies." All I can say to the deleting administrator is that this looks like a trout quacking into a megaphone to me. 147.161.8.59 ( talk) 00:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Comment (I !voted above). I'm not serving trout in my restaurant. The matter of G5 has been discussed very many times over many years at WT:CSD (too many times to list). Not particularly about the "no substantial edits by others" clause but whether G5 should exist at all. People feel very strongly for and against. Last night I discovered "no substantial edits by others" was added back in 2007 so far as I can see without discussion before or afterwards by someone who shortly afterwards was blocked by Arbcom for sockpuppetry ( diff). So the clause has a very bad provenance. Should policies be adhered to strictly as written? Well, some think they should and that a policy statement, if no longer appropriate, should be changed rather than disregarded. But policy statements are often said to be descriptive rather than normative in which case they should be adjusted retrospectively to fit any changing community norms. We can never know for sure whether a time for change has come. Thincat ( talk) 09:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    A) because speedy deletions can often happen with no review by a clueful editor, it's really important that admins follow those rules. B) Sure we can know, start an RfC. Until the rules change, they should be followed. I think the deleting admin has taken all that on board, but I'd urge folks not to just wing it with CSD. Hobit ( talk) 14:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    If in 2008 someone had come along and said the "no substantial edits by others" clause shouldn't have been added, the details of who added it may have been relevant. Once this clause has been there for 13 years, it's clearly part of the policy and should be followed unless a consensus shows otherwise. 147.161.12.192 ( talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Came across the page notice and conduced a search. There seems to be some coverage of a viral video, on three continents. If its a single sock/group of socks/UPE only worked on it, then perhaps somebody could create a wee 1.5k/2k article, sufficient to fill the space left. There is certainly enough there. scope_creep Talk 10:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_November_9&oldid=1039506274"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2020 November 8
2020 November 10 >

9 November 2020

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Arizona Wranglers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Similar to the Craig Foster case, this page was speedy deleted solely because it had been created by a sockpuppet, with no regard for any other detail added to the page. As a team of the Indoor Football League with several notable players with NFL experience signed, this team meets the criteria for notability (and I had added some information to spruce up the page beyond what it had been before. Therefore, I would like this page to be restored, and for the admin to be more careful when automatically speedy-deleting pages going forward. Tom Danson ( talk) 04:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Allow Re-creation (and more). I also support re-creation by an editor in good standing. However, I do not support the suggestion that the admin needs to be more careful. we have policies and guidelines for a reason. I won't suggest for a second that every single one of those policies and guidelines is written perfectly; there is undoubtably room for improvement in many of them, but when one disagrees with a policy or guideline, I think the best approach is to open a discussion about that policy or guideline and persuade the community to make a change to the policy or guideline. When an editor chooses to ignore those policies and guidelines, not just once or twice out of ignorance or even good faith disagreement with the interpretation, this can lead to blocking or banning if the offenses are serious enough. The entire point of blocking and banning is to send a message to the editor that there blatant disregard of policies and guidelines is a net negative to the project, even if some of their edits, evaluated in isolation, might be acceptable edits. The editor has to show a commitment to understanding and respecting the policies and guidelines before continuing to contribute to the community. If we permit sock puppets, we are essentially saying that if you violate our policies to the point that the community feels the need to ban you, or an admin blocks you, you can avoid the responsibility of living up to our policies and guidelines by creating a sockpuppet account. some of the edits of that sock puppet may be problematic but if any are acceptable, we will accept them. This sends a message to a sock puppet that they have no need to care about our policies or guidelines they can edit as they choose and some of the material will remain. This will encourage the sock puppet to continue editing rather than rethinking their approach to editing, and will create a significant burden on the community who now have to carefully evaluate every single edit by that sock puppet. I support the notion that an editor who has shown blatant disregard for policies and guidelines ought to be removed from the community until such time as they show a willingness to follow our policies and guidelines. Permitting an article to stand that has been written by a sockpuppet is essentially saying that we decided to ignore the sock puppet policy. if you agree that sock puppet should be allowed to contribute, change the policy, don't simply support the retention of an article created by a sock poppet because the community is too lazy to re-create the article. If the article ought to be written, energy is in good standing can start it over from scratch, which will help remove the incentive for a sock puppet to continue to ignore the communities policies and guidelines.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Can we get a temp undelete please? Or at least a judgement from an uninvolved admin if it is clear if there were substantial contributions by others or not? Hobit ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There's absolutely no issue here with recreation, and I literally was just looking at this league's page (trying to gauge whether indoor american football was still a thing) and was surprised this team didn't have an article. The only question is whether we restore the prior draft or require a recreation from scratch, which requires a history check which I, like Hobit, cannot see. SportingFlyer T· C 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and WP:TROUT the deleting admin. [1] shows that someone other than the creator of the article had significant contributions. Not G5 eligible. Hobit ( talk) 06:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn clear misapplication of WP:G5. Cheers to WilyD for the temphistrestore. SportingFlyer T· C 09:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Do you think we should close the discussion now? Because I think we've reached a clear consensus to restore this page and nobody's commented in a couple days. Tom Danson ( talk) 01:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. This edit prevents this from being a G5 case. As to the deleting admin,  it sounds like a trout quacking into a megaphone to me. 147.161.8.192 ( talk) 19:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Craig Foster (filmmaker) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was apparently deleted because it had been created by a sockpuppet. However I had structured, tidied and added some detail to the page (spending quite some time to hunt down one specific detail), and I think the subject passes the notability test. I and another editor had posted a comment on the talk page as per instructions to contest the deletion at the time, but there didn't seem to be any response to these before deletion. I don't really have the time or inclination to create a new page, and having lost the history this would take quite a bit more work. It just seems a shame to lose a bit of good information, and his latest film My Octopus Teacher is popular on Netflix. (I don't know how to find the deletion discussion, so I'm not sure what to do about instruction no. 5 about listing this deletion review, sorry.) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Laterthanyouthink, It's my practice, when reviewing a G5 nomination, to confirm that the article was created by someone who has been banned or blocked, and if so to delete the article. It is not been my practice to assess whether there are substantial contributions by others. I am very sympathetic to the fact that good-faith editors may have worked hard on an article whose subject meets notability requirements, and thus it would be a shame to lose all that work. I don't have a complete sense about the communities views, but I am happy to participate in a discussion to determine how this should be handled. S Philbrick (Talk) 02:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for the reply and info. It's not huge but potentially useful, so it seemed a shame to lose it. I am equally happy for admins to review the history and come to a decision based on usual practice, not knowing enough about how these policies are applied, myself. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Robert McClenon. Is it possible to recover the history so I can use what has been done though? I'm not sure of the process. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Content emailed to Laterthanyouthink S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and undelete because it appears the deletion was contrary to policy. WP:G5 "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others". From S Philbrick's statement above I am not clear whether they ignore this statement of policy because they personally disagree with it, or whether, in their view, WP:G5 is actually a (severe) mis-statement of what the community's policy really is. I note they did not assess whether the edits by others were substantial. An assessment should have been made and acted upon. Thincat ( talk) 10:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I do disagree with the wording of G5, that was not why I deleted it. I apparently misremembered the policy and applied a policy that made sense as opposed to the actual wording of the policy. I don't object to and deletion of either of these files given the wording of G5. I'll try to remember not to act on G5 nominations in the future.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You're welcome to do so, just check the page history first. SportingFlyer T· C 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, I don't see why you shouldn't continue with G5 deletions though if you feel very strongly the written criterion is wrong you could leave them to someone else. Quite recently WP:G13 was changed to allow G13 with less checking [2] after discussion [3] (making it even more mindless in my opinion). So changes of policy are possible. Thincat ( talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thincat, Although Wikipedia:Deny recognition is merely an essay and doesn't carry the force of guidelines or policies, I don't think there's any dispute that dealing with banned and blocked editors is a time-consuming and exhaustive exercise. G5 is an important tool in that never-ending battle. However insisting that an article created by a banned or blocked editor is not eligible for G5 if it has been substantially edited by others is not just a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, but actually encourages sock puppetry and meet puppetry. I don't think we should be crafting policies that actually encouraged problem we are trying to stop. I am not missing that such editors sometimes create articles that are acceptable. However, if we think that the creation of acceptable articles is so important that it should be an exception to G5, then we ought to simply stop trying to block or ban anyone, and judge each edit on its merits. I trust it is obvious that such an approach would be unworkable, yet the exception to G5 essentially says we don't want any edits by block or banned editors unless they are good enough to attract some other editors who might be sock puppets or meat puppets) to the article. Yes, I know that policies can be changed, but I have far too much on my plate to take this on, so I'll let others work on deletions and I will work in other areas. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have now received the content of the article from Sphilbrick (thanks for that!), so I could re-create it, but obviously it's not all my work - and without being able to review the history again, I cannot say with certainty exactly how much I contributed. I move through so many articles that I forget after a week or two! But I did structure it with headings, and added some content and citations, and possibly categories and projects on the talk page. I won't do anything until/unless someone pings me and lets me know what if anything I should do here (and if I should re-create, what should the edit summary say?). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • In practice, if you use any of the content other than the wholly new stuff you added, it'll need to be undeleted rather than re-started, to comply with the licence conditions Wily D 06:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Ah, yes, I thought that might be the case, thanks WilyD. I have just thought to have a look at the page views, and it has been fairly popular (averaging 900-1000?), so it would be good to have it restored asap, if everyone's agreed. Thanks to all for your participation and education on this one (with apologies to Sphilbrick- I did not intend for you to be trouted!). Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Temp undeleted for discussion Requested by multiple people Wily D 06:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, this article has significant edits by an innocent user. See this edit. According to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. If the edits by the good faith editors are substantial, G5 no longer applies." All I can say to the deleting administrator is that this looks like a trout quacking into a megaphone to me. 147.161.8.59 ( talk) 00:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Comment (I !voted above). I'm not serving trout in my restaurant. The matter of G5 has been discussed very many times over many years at WT:CSD (too many times to list). Not particularly about the "no substantial edits by others" clause but whether G5 should exist at all. People feel very strongly for and against. Last night I discovered "no substantial edits by others" was added back in 2007 so far as I can see without discussion before or afterwards by someone who shortly afterwards was blocked by Arbcom for sockpuppetry ( diff). So the clause has a very bad provenance. Should policies be adhered to strictly as written? Well, some think they should and that a policy statement, if no longer appropriate, should be changed rather than disregarded. But policy statements are often said to be descriptive rather than normative in which case they should be adjusted retrospectively to fit any changing community norms. We can never know for sure whether a time for change has come. Thincat ( talk) 09:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    A) because speedy deletions can often happen with no review by a clueful editor, it's really important that admins follow those rules. B) Sure we can know, start an RfC. Until the rules change, they should be followed. I think the deleting admin has taken all that on board, but I'd urge folks not to just wing it with CSD. Hobit ( talk) 14:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    If in 2008 someone had come along and said the "no substantial edits by others" clause shouldn't have been added, the details of who added it may have been relevant. Once this clause has been there for 13 years, it's clearly part of the policy and should be followed unless a consensus shows otherwise. 147.161.12.192 ( talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Came across the page notice and conduced a search. There seems to be some coverage of a viral video, on three continents. If its a single sock/group of socks/UPE only worked on it, then perhaps somebody could create a wee 1.5k/2k article, sufficient to fill the space left. There is certainly enough there. scope_creep Talk 10:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_November_9&oldid=1039506274"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE