Universa Blockchain Protocol – No consensus; deletion maintained by default. The apparent policy conflict needs wider community discussion to resolve.
The broader issue here is which of two apparently conflicting community-created rulesets prevails:
WP:CSD (disallowing speedy deletions of this kind,
WP:IAR aside) or
WP:GS/Crypto (allowing such deletions in the view of some). If one favors the latter, then of course this very discussion is out of process, but because, as explained below, I find that this DRV discussion arrives at no consensus and therefore has no effect in any case, that procedural point is moot.
In this discussion, 9 editors including the nominator are of the view that the community sanctions at issue do not allow speedy deletions. 4 editors believe that they do and endorse the deletion, while 1 other would instead endorse the deletion per
WP:G11. 1 other editor (as well as 4 of the endorsers) are of the view that any objections to this deletion should be discussed as a sanctions appeal, not at deletion review.
Numerically, this gives us a majority but not consensus to overturn the speedy deletion. Whereas at AfD, administrators are expected to weigh arguments in the light of policy and guidelines, DRV practice gives greater weight to numbers because, normally, admin judgment is precisely the matter under discussion and opinions are generally more policy-based. I'd also find it difficult to weigh the arguments here, as there are good reasons to support either point of view, and in any case a discussion among a dozen people cannot authoritatively resolve an issue of community-wide importance. The
WP:AN and
WT:CSD discussions linked to by Cunard don't seem to come to any clear conclusion either.
That being so, the deletion is (to the extent DRV may be authorized to decide this) maintained by default for lack of consensus to overturn it. While in such circumstances I could relist the deletion, there is no AfD discussion to relist, and creating an AfD discussion would only divert the policy discussion to a new sub-venue (especially given that the merits of the deletion as such don't really seem to be contested). The community discussion needed to resolve the apparent policy conflict instead needs to happen in a wider venue, such as in a policy RfC, and any who are interested in this issue are invited to initiate such a discussion. – Sandstein 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Addendum: I've explained
on my talk page why I didn't follow the practice of overturning speedy deletions with a "no consensus" DRV outcome in this case. Sandstein 06:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Speedily deleted without providing any valid
WP:CSD reason; under the flag of “page-level sanction under
WP:GS/Crypto” which, no matter enabling some new possible page-level and editor-level sanctions, doesn’t enable any new administrator capability/“sanction” in deleting the pages especially speedily; deleted as “Covert advertising” overriding the ongoing page deletion discussion (if I recall correctly; being a non-admin, I cannot find it anymore) which provided sufficient argumentation about the page notability.
We had a discussion on the talk page of deleting administrator
User_talk:MER-C#Selectively_deleting_the_Crypto/Blockchain_related_articles_for_the_reason_of_WP:GS/Blockchain, whether using a
WP:GS/Crypto as an explanation of speedy deletion is acceptable to override the consensual decision regarding page notability; but they insisted that WP:GS/Crypto permits for “…any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project”, even though this is related to the editor-level sanctions in the original sanction document, rather than any page-level.
As to me, it seems that the community has authorized WP:GS/Crypto regime to prevent the tendentious and biased editing of the articles, rather than to give a simpler non-
WP:CSD-requiring path to administrators to immediately delete pages they single-handedly consider spammy. As a Subject-Matter Expert in this area who made some edits to this page to make it more verifiable, and the person who probably could make this page even better, I’d happily get any guidance and objective third opinion if something indeed looks spammy/insufficiently encyclopaedically, and how it can be improved; but deleting a rather informative page seems an overkill.
Honeyman (
talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse as standard
discretionary sanctions (which these are, even if community authorized) grant administrators the authority to take any reasonable action on pages as well as editors.
WP:AC/DS is the controlling bit for the non-1RR section, not what Primefac copied from the Syria sanctions when formatting this page. I don’t see any of the protections being challenged here or at AN, and if they were, they’d be laughed out. The community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content, not just content disputes in the area in question. Additionally, as these are community authorized discretionary sanctions, only AN, not DRV has the authority to Undelete this page without the consent of the deleting administrator.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 19:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
As long as they are the sanctions indeed. As I’ve mentioned already before,
WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all. Standard
discretionary sanctions doesn’t seem to explicitly allow “speedier deleting” of the pages either (and “or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project” part hardly fits – removing a page is really tough to consider “proportionate”, as deleting a page is always a most extreme measure; and
WP:DELETE suggests that improving should be preferred whenever possible). Therefore this looks like just a speedy deletion.
Honeyman (
talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful.MER-C has claimed this as an enforcement action, which means it is presumed one until the community at
WP:AN rules otherwise and only the community at AN can rule so, not a DRV discussion. This is because community authorized discretionary sanctions are authorized by the community as a whole at a more prominent noticeboard, so questions as to their validity are subject to community oversight at AN. This deletion can only be overturned there, so yes, I endorse MER-C's call for a speedy close. Also, of course it is proportionate: the creator is trying to destroy the encyclopedia to make a profit. Deletion is the only proportionate page-level sanction for that.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 21:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree that he's trying to destroy the encyclopedia. He's trying to use it, abuse it, take advantage of it, but not destroy it. A successful parasite doesn't kill their host. --
RoySmith(talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair point: makes my point as just well.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I trust that the creator and
User:Honeyman are not implied to be the same person? Who was the creator? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I made some changes, rather technical ones, to the article; and even found out and provided the logo image to be used in the article; but most of the article I believe was written by someone else. Being a non-admin, I cannot even check it; and even being an SME, I am not sure if I could have direct contacts of that person/organization. From my side, I could (as much as I can) try to help bringing the page to the Wikipedia level and provide the non-controversial information for it (as much as it seems non-controversial for others and doesn’t involve COI); though I’d definitely love to get some independent eye on it.
Honeyman (
talk) 17:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I mean, Subject-Matter Expert. Seen this term on
WP:COI when have been trying to understand for myself if I am in COI with this topic, or just an SME to it.
Honeyman (
talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Definitely reject the speedy close request. DRV is the highest court for reviewing deletions. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn discretionary sanctions don't allow administrators to delete arbitrary pages within the scope of the sanction.
The only sanctions permitted for pages (as opposed to editors) involve imposition of 1RR. The complaint here seems to be that the page was created by an undisclosed paid editor, which hardly justifies extraordinary measures. If the page was created by someone violating a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions then you could use G5, but I don't see any suggestion that's the case. Hut 8.5 21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The 1RR is automatic, and is not discretionary. Discretionary is broader than that and gives admins much wider discretion. As this is the only DS authorized for promotionalism, we’re in uncharted waters, but MER-C’s actions make sense.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This does not make any sense to me. The wording being cited to support this (which is from ArbCom sanctions) is that admins are allowed to take "reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Really? The smooth running of the project requires that this page is deleted now, and not, say, in a week after an AfD? If we were dealing with a serious BLP violation then that may be reasonable, but the only violation cited is undisclosed paid editing, which many people think isn't a valid reason for deletion at all. Numerous attempts to add a speedy deletion criterion for undisclosed paid editing have been proposed at
WT:CSD and failed to reach consensus, it isn't appropriate to bring one in through the back door as discretionary sanctions enforcement. Hut 8.5 06:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The use of Wikipedia for the
illegal touting of securities has the potential to be just as bad for Wikipedia's reputation, if not worse, than serious BLP violations. This page was, on the face of it, created by a PR company acting on behalf of the subject.
MER-C 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
If the page needs to be deleted for legal reasons then the WMF should either do it or establish a policy directing us to do it. If it doesn't need to be deleted for legal reasons then I don't see the urgency. It would at best sit around for a week with a bunch of warning tags at the top. Even
non-blatant copyright violations aren't summarily deleted. And again the discretionary sanctions this is supposedly done as part of don't permit page deletion. Hut 8.5 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This is much more limited in scope than those anyway, and yes, the DS permit any action deemed reasonable as page level sanctions: I linked to the arbcom page, but that is because these were authorized as ARBIPA equivalent sanctions, which are standard ArbCom DS. There is only one page on this project that defines standard discretionary sanctions, and that is
WP:AC/DS. I'll grant whether or not this is a valid use of the sanctions is an open question, but that's not one that DRV is really equipped to handle. DRV typically reassesses consensus or determines if something was a deletion outside the normal process. The question as to if this was a deletion outside the normal process is an obvious yes: the point of general and discretionary sanctions is that the normal process isn't working so we need to give more flexibility for the subject area. The question of whether it is a reasonable use of sanctions is one for AN.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:Blockchain outlines what is permitted as part of the sanctions in this area. It covers a wide range of restrictions on editors but the only page restriction mentioned is a 1RR restriction. There's nothing there that would justify deleting a page. While this wasn't an arbitration sanction I don't think deleting a page would be likely to be seen as a reasonable use of arbitration sanctions.
WP:AELOG lists zero cases of arbitration discretionary sanctions being used to delete pages, which means there haven't been any at all in at least the last four years. DRV is the accepted forum for reviewing deletions, including deletions done outside the usual deletion processes, and an attempt to appeal a page deletion to AN would be directed here instead. Hut 8.5 20:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse/speedy close - this page was deleted under GS. First, I believe that such spam should be removed as a sanction on the original creator (and possibly recreated from scratch by s.o. independent). It does not matter whether said subject is notable or not, whether there have been significant edits, it should go - no trophies. Second, the page was deleted under GS, so this is the wrong venue to discuss whether these deletions actually fall under GS and whether a DRV could be warranted, or whether other processes should have been followed or not. —
Dirk BeetstraTC 22:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Restore' and take to AfD. WP:DS/Blockchain, is not a reason for Deletion, and no DS ever can be. DS are about conduct, not content. I know of no DS ever that that specified deletion as a remedy, and I consider that that such a remedy would be beyond the jurisdiction on ANI or ANB. (or , for that matter, ArbCom). Admins have a role in deletion, which is to interpret the consensus of the community at AfD, or the implied consensus at WP:PROD, or in obvious cases the assumed consensus of Speedy. DS would permit us to ban a person inserting spam, but not to remove the article. The article might of course fall under Speedy criterion, and if so it should be deleted as one -- by another administrator, and that decision, if challenged, can be brought here. DGG (
talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I would apply this also to
Payment21, deleted by the same admin under the same rationale. DGG (
talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Even if a community general sanction could authorise speedy deletion, which it can't, the sanctions linked above don't specify deleting a page as a specified remedy. Needs to go to AFD and a consensus obtained.
User:TonyBallioni quotes requirements that appeals of ArbCom discretionary sanctions must go to ARCA/AE/AN, but this action is not taken under an ArbCom discretionary sanction; it is taken under a community general sanction.
Stifle (
talk) 11:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Stifle, the standard DS rules apply to general sanctions minus the arb stuff. Regardless, the page itself makes it clear only AN can hear appeals Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. from
WP:GS/Crypto. Any appeal here is invalid, and can’t be used to Undelete a claimed sanction here, and I think that matters as the odds of this getting overturned at AN are significantly lower than they are of getting overturned here.Re: the merits of your point, the sanctions authorized were ARBIPA equivalent, which is an authorization for standard DS plus automatic 1RR, which authorizes admins to make any page level sanction they feel neccesary for the operation of the project.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 13:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
These have never been applied in such a way as to permit page deletion as a sanction. Trhying to fit an entirely novel proceedure into a general clause dealing with something else does not make policy. Admins deleting articles must follow deletion policy. Nobody in WP has the sort of plenary power that would permit doing "anything", and ANI or ANB or ARB cannot just assume it for themselves. Page sanctions mean sanctions applying on apage to page basis, not enforcement related to the actual content of a page, or to its inclusion in WP. I think we need to decide here in such a way as to put a stop to any such extension of arbitrary power. Normally, when an admin does a Speedy, any other admin can if the situation is clear enough reverse it for good reason after discussion with the first admin, and does not necessarily have to come here--and if disputed only has to come here, not to ANI/ANB. . Making it a page-level sanction means that any admin could delete any article within broad categories and force the discussion on overturning it to go to ANI, which would be a prime example of turning orderly discussion into chaos. DGG (
talk ) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
DGG, I actually think those are fair criticisms, but I also think that this situation is unique in that the community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content that was flooding this area. There is no other group of sanctions authorized for that purpose, so we've never had a situation where deletion could be used as a remedy under them (though, to use the ARBIPA example, I do think we've had some summary deletions there for 500/30 violations, but I couldn't list them.) I think the novelty of this is in part why this is better suited for AN than here. I think
MER-C was acting in good faith and in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, but clarifying the limits here should be left to the community as a whole on the board that authorized the sanctions, not to a much less watched board that tends to focus on bureaucracy and process rather than outcomes. That has its place, but it really isn't the best way to resolve this particular question.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
If the sanctions allow admins to ban spammers easily but not delete the spam they added that would seem, from the outside, rather bizarre. The sanctions should allow comprehensive solutions to promotional behavior. Let's figure out the answer to the general question first, then decide what to do with this page.
MER-C 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not bizarre.
WP:CSD#G5 does not apply retrospectively, and
WP:BANning can't be applied hypothetically based on future actions by a user. Perhaps the creator was already a banned person? Is there evidence for that? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
We have a method for dealing with spam: G11. It has fairly well established limits and methods for review. It's not subject to individual admin idiosyncrasy-partly because it is an established convention (though not a absolute requirement that no admin delete under it without a prior nomination by someone else), and partly because of the availability of the present process, Deletion Review. The wording used in this DS has been used in other previous ones, and has never to the best of my knowledge been used to justify deletion of the articles. Using it here is my my opinion overinterpreting the wording, rather resembling wikilawyering. It's an example of what we have seen here beofre, wiki-panic, which is a form of moral panic, bu which a particular problem is seen as so immediately critical that it rerquires extraordinary measures. It's never a constructive response. It's especially not a constructive response to a situation where there is already well-established and workable proceedures.
Doing so is a major change, and in my opinion requires a general consensus to modify deletion policy, rather than the limited consensus of an ANI discussion.
There is, in fact, a very good reason why we don't have this sort of sticky singlehanded deletion at G11. The definition of spam is not necessarily as obvious as a single person thinks it is. My main current activity here is dealing with spam, and I deleted many thousands of G11s- and nominated many thousands that other admins have deleted. enormous amount of work in deleting spam. I think I am about as willing to use G11 as anyone else here--I don't think anyone could say I have ever been willing to compromise with promotional editing. Nonetheless, a few of my G11s have been challenged, and a very few of them have even not resulted in the article being deleted. Similarly I've challenged G11s from others, and usually they go to afd or prod, and are deleted--but a few of them have been kept by consensus. No one here is perfect in any aspect of their activity.
The point of having DS for this topic area is precisely the opposite of what you have stated. We already have an excellent way to remove the spam. We did not have an equally effective way to deal with the spammers. Now we do. Behavior is the role of DS, not content. DGG (
talk ) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with
User:DGG, which is itself something. Trying to wedge a general deletion power into general sanctions without obtaining very broad consensus cannot stand. Trying to strip DRV of its core power which is to review deletion decisions and correct those which do not follow policy cannot stand either. The assertion that some class of poorly-specified disruption can allow an end-run around consensus and the normal decision and policy making arrangements on Wikipedia does not stand up to scrutiny. Strong overturn.
Stifle (
talk) 11:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Refer the deleting admin
User:MER-C, and
User:TonyBallioni commenting above the the first line of
WP:CSD (admitedly after crawling through an awful lot of hatnote clutter) that says: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here."
The deletion of mainspace pages is most certainly a content matter, and is out-of-scope for arbcom. If the speedy deletion of bitcoin pages is authorised to any admin discretion, then get it written into
WP:CSD. Note however the
new criterion criterion, or is it that Wikipedia governance has been usurped and this is no long a community run project. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not relevant here as it was conducted under different authorization. I also consider
Cunard’s notification at WT:CSD inappropriate: that is by far the most rabidly anti-deletion talk page on all of Wikipedia. This DRV should be shut down immediately and taken to AN which is the only valid forum for review here.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The notification was highly appropriate, as what is going on here is a massive extension of deletion policy and speedy deletion policy. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
It was a notification on a page where you could probably find consensus to remove the ability of admins to delete at all if you tried on the right day.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I find that unreasonable. WT:CSD has found and supports a very large number of diverse and broad criteria for speedy deletion, I have proposed a number of new criteria, and have found support and opposition there to always be very reasonable. Once the speedy deletion criteria is supported, there is barely any possible appeal short of questioning that the objective criteria applied. A much bigger issue is ArbCom rulings being interpreted as being above deletion policy. This discussion should probably be list at
WP:CENT, or even as a watchlist banner. The policy expansion principle is massive. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This is one page. Of course we don’t need a CENT notice on this. We just need an AN review of one deletion claimed under the sanctions. We’ll have to agree to disagree on WT:CSD.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse-Per TonyBallioni's reasoning and IAR.
∯WBGconverse 06:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn - Deletion did not come up at the community discussion that authorized GS in this area at all. Even if you can argue deletion is in the letter of GS (I don't think it is), this is clearly not what the community had in mind when they authorized GS here. If you want to use GS to delete, you need a community consensus somewhere that says deletion is an acceptable GS enforcement action. I haven't found any such discussion, and would invite a link to one if one exists. Addressing the article narrowly, change to G11 if it applies, IAR delete it if you can make an IAR case, or send it to AFD. This also applies to
Payment21, per DGG. Cheers,
Tazerdadog (
talk) 07:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
After reviewing the article, change to G11. That page would require a rewrite to be encyclopedic and has very little value otherwise. There's no need to use an out-of-process deletion method here.
Tazerdadog (
talk) 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
to expand on what
Tazerdog and
Stifle and I and others have said above, basic policies at WP cannot be overridden by ANI. Suppose under the asserted authorization to do anything necessary for dealing with Crypto, an admin had decided that the best way to deal with the problem was to remove every existing article in the field. Suppose an admin had rewritten an article on a cryptocurrency to be less promotional (which is fine), and fully protected his own version. Suppose an admin had thought necessary for balance to insert a poorly sourced negative statement about a living person. Suppose an admin had thought it appropriate to insert a copyvio from another publication. What the adoption of the sanction means, is that an admin had authority to use any appropriate remedy within the usual scope of what is done at ANI. All rules are to be interpreted reasonably, as
Tony Balloni said above. . DGG (
talk ) 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Inquiry I can't view the article, but I suspect it could be deleted per
WP:G11, could some admins comment on whether they feel that is the case? If so, the rest of this discussion is not needed here, and the debate over whether Discretionary Sanctions allow for page deletions can be handled at the correct forum (probably ARCA).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I am still requesting temp undeletion. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse call for temp undeletion
Tazerdadog (
talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks. As a straight G11, it is a complicated one because it was
WP:Reference bombed (from the first version). I support
User:MER-C's block of
Artox.rb (
talk·contribs), which includes the talk page notice that tells them how to appeal, in the unlikely case of a mistake. With the page history reviewable, I see the user was a four year old barely autoconfirmed sleeper account. I still think
Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product is a better approach, one that allows non-admins to be involved in the fight. Even without access to deleted contributions, I think I can see clear patterns in an increasing amount of UPE spamming. I think this spammer is otherwise a user well known to us. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn No GS does not allow admins to speedy delete out of process. That way lies madness.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 23:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
GS also doesn't allow its provisions to be circumvented or interpreted at random other noticeboards: THAT way lies madness. Settle/clarify the issue in the right place; i.e., not here. --
Calton |
Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy close or endorse. Do NOT overturn. This falls under
WP:GS/Crypto: if you think it doesn't, this isn't the place to decide or argue the issue. --
Calton |
Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Given that this was a reasonable interpretation of GS powers and the correct forum for reviewing those decisions is important I agree with those who say this is the wrong forum for appeal. Also strongly agree with those who suggest that GS didn't authorize circumvention of CSD policy (but I also think it should have and could be with further community consensus). Most content in this area is a scourge on the reputation of the encyclopedia and appropriate actions should be taken to prevent its infiltration. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
endorse after checking the content it is clear that the purpose is promotion. A g11 delete would be appropriate. The advertising is not that covert.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 07:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Graeme, it’s not a surprise that it might be G11-eligible, but do you endorse the deletion log summary “09:31, 4 July 2018 MER-C (talk | contribs) deleted page Universa Blockchain Protocol (Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto.)”? —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no requirement to link to
WP:CSD or any of its anchors in a speedy deletion log comment. If you accept that this was a valid G11, then "advertising" was enough. —
Cryptic 15:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Cryptic, surely you mean to include fundamentally when using screaming hyperbole to cover a lack of logic? There is fundamentally and absolutely no requirement to be correct when logging deletions, least of all to respect the old policy
WP:CSD, now that ANI, once a mere
kangaroo court, has appointed itself sufficient to bypass deletion policy through the mechanism of “general sanctions”. Crypto spam must be countered, wikilawyering be damned,
Wikipedia:Etiquette is for punces. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Is anyone other than the nom advocating to keep this article on its merits? Unless other people are, I'd suggest a "The consensus is to delete the article" close and having everyone trundle on over to
WP:AN to address the GS deletion question.
Tazerdadog (
talk) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That's not the point. There is no speedy deletion criterion for "stuff I don't think should be here". Administrators are only allowed to delete pages in certain circumstances. Chuck out that principle and all sorts of pages could be deleted just because someone doesn't like them. Overturning the deletion would establish that these types of deletion are not appropriate. If you want to discuss the merits of the article then the best place for that is AfD. This discussion is about the merits of the deletion. Hut 8.5 21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Even me, being the nom, do not request to return the article and keep it as it is. If the article looks non-encyclopaedically - let’s polish it (and the independent eyes who examine what parts are bad and what parts are worthy to keep, are highly appreciated). If the topic looks insufficiently notable for Wikipedia – let’s put it to AfD, but I am almost sure it will be rather easy to find the news sources proving it is notable enough. The nom’s opinion: Wikipedia will be better with the de-spammed version of this article, than without this article at all.
Honeyman (
talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn and list at AfD. The article is bad, but not G11 bad. A redirect to
Alexander Borodich may be the result of the AfD so it's worth having a discussion, as opposed to deleting due to a consensus here (and/or IAR). I don't see anything on
WP:GS allowing for deletion per General Sanctions.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Just noting my recent suggestion for moving forward at AN here:
[1]. I think this was a valid deletion, and that the correct closure of this DRV is likely no consensus based on both the numbers and the arguments, but also think a way to move forward would be for MER-C to mark these deletions as G11 and also subject to the appeal provisions of GS/Crypto. That would both root it in policy while also respecting the wishes of the community for administrators to have more discretion in this area.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 20:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
In principle, this G11 deletion should be listed at AfD for discussion, because some editors in good standing disagree with it meeting G11. I am sympathetic to it meeting G11. It is all non-independent fact-based promotion of a commercial thing, no independent qualitative commentary whatsoever, and the first three sources are 1 & 2 non-
secondary source and non-independent and source 3 is a single mere mention, and I think articles on commercial things thing carry the onus of present the best 2-3 sources attesting notability upfront. It is a common trick to
WP:Reference bombWP:CORP-failing promotion, and it is not reasonable to expect Wikipedians to evaluate the lot. I would personally hesitate because the page was unusually polished looking, and because there are mentions of the topic in other articles, but at NPP I would definitely PROD or AfD it. At AfD I would !vote “delete”. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
If one is only sympathetic to it meeting G11, it does not meet G11. For a valid speedy it has to unquestionably meet G11 (though we normally interpret "unquestionably" to mean something more like "very clearly" or "clearly". Looking again, I don't think it meets G11. AfD exists for a purpose, which is to decide whether an article should to stay in WP, rather than make it a matter of opinion. DGG (
talk ) 04:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
overturn Speedy deletion isn't something we do outside of the rules given at CSD because it's so ripe for abuse. It's not a clear G11, so send it to AfD if you want it gone. IAR is a fine thing, but if you want a new criteria, start an RfC. Also a non-trivial trout to any criticism of starting a discussion on the issue at the place that all speedy deletion issues are discussed. That's just silly.
Hobit (
talk) 04:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Universa Blockchain Protocol – No consensus; deletion maintained by default. The apparent policy conflict needs wider community discussion to resolve.
The broader issue here is which of two apparently conflicting community-created rulesets prevails:
WP:CSD (disallowing speedy deletions of this kind,
WP:IAR aside) or
WP:GS/Crypto (allowing such deletions in the view of some). If one favors the latter, then of course this very discussion is out of process, but because, as explained below, I find that this DRV discussion arrives at no consensus and therefore has no effect in any case, that procedural point is moot.
In this discussion, 9 editors including the nominator are of the view that the community sanctions at issue do not allow speedy deletions. 4 editors believe that they do and endorse the deletion, while 1 other would instead endorse the deletion per
WP:G11. 1 other editor (as well as 4 of the endorsers) are of the view that any objections to this deletion should be discussed as a sanctions appeal, not at deletion review.
Numerically, this gives us a majority but not consensus to overturn the speedy deletion. Whereas at AfD, administrators are expected to weigh arguments in the light of policy and guidelines, DRV practice gives greater weight to numbers because, normally, admin judgment is precisely the matter under discussion and opinions are generally more policy-based. I'd also find it difficult to weigh the arguments here, as there are good reasons to support either point of view, and in any case a discussion among a dozen people cannot authoritatively resolve an issue of community-wide importance. The
WP:AN and
WT:CSD discussions linked to by Cunard don't seem to come to any clear conclusion either.
That being so, the deletion is (to the extent DRV may be authorized to decide this) maintained by default for lack of consensus to overturn it. While in such circumstances I could relist the deletion, there is no AfD discussion to relist, and creating an AfD discussion would only divert the policy discussion to a new sub-venue (especially given that the merits of the deletion as such don't really seem to be contested). The community discussion needed to resolve the apparent policy conflict instead needs to happen in a wider venue, such as in a policy RfC, and any who are interested in this issue are invited to initiate such a discussion. – Sandstein 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Addendum: I've explained
on my talk page why I didn't follow the practice of overturning speedy deletions with a "no consensus" DRV outcome in this case. Sandstein 06:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Speedily deleted without providing any valid
WP:CSD reason; under the flag of “page-level sanction under
WP:GS/Crypto” which, no matter enabling some new possible page-level and editor-level sanctions, doesn’t enable any new administrator capability/“sanction” in deleting the pages especially speedily; deleted as “Covert advertising” overriding the ongoing page deletion discussion (if I recall correctly; being a non-admin, I cannot find it anymore) which provided sufficient argumentation about the page notability.
We had a discussion on the talk page of deleting administrator
User_talk:MER-C#Selectively_deleting_the_Crypto/Blockchain_related_articles_for_the_reason_of_WP:GS/Blockchain, whether using a
WP:GS/Crypto as an explanation of speedy deletion is acceptable to override the consensual decision regarding page notability; but they insisted that WP:GS/Crypto permits for “…any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project”, even though this is related to the editor-level sanctions in the original sanction document, rather than any page-level.
As to me, it seems that the community has authorized WP:GS/Crypto regime to prevent the tendentious and biased editing of the articles, rather than to give a simpler non-
WP:CSD-requiring path to administrators to immediately delete pages they single-handedly consider spammy. As a Subject-Matter Expert in this area who made some edits to this page to make it more verifiable, and the person who probably could make this page even better, I’d happily get any guidance and objective third opinion if something indeed looks spammy/insufficiently encyclopaedically, and how it can be improved; but deleting a rather informative page seems an overkill.
Honeyman (
talk) 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse as standard
discretionary sanctions (which these are, even if community authorized) grant administrators the authority to take any reasonable action on pages as well as editors.
WP:AC/DS is the controlling bit for the non-1RR section, not what Primefac copied from the Syria sanctions when formatting this page. I don’t see any of the protections being challenged here or at AN, and if they were, they’d be laughed out. The community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content, not just content disputes in the area in question. Additionally, as these are community authorized discretionary sanctions, only AN, not DRV has the authority to Undelete this page without the consent of the deleting administrator.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 19:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
As long as they are the sanctions indeed. As I’ve mentioned already before,
WP:GS/Crypto doesn’t enable any sanction like “deleting a page”, at all. Standard
discretionary sanctions doesn’t seem to explicitly allow “speedier deleting” of the pages either (and “or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project” part hardly fits – removing a page is really tough to consider “proportionate”, as deleting a page is always a most extreme measure; and
WP:DELETE suggests that improving should be preferred whenever possible). Therefore this looks like just a speedy deletion.
Honeyman (
talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful.MER-C has claimed this as an enforcement action, which means it is presumed one until the community at
WP:AN rules otherwise and only the community at AN can rule so, not a DRV discussion. This is because community authorized discretionary sanctions are authorized by the community as a whole at a more prominent noticeboard, so questions as to their validity are subject to community oversight at AN. This deletion can only be overturned there, so yes, I endorse MER-C's call for a speedy close. Also, of course it is proportionate: the creator is trying to destroy the encyclopedia to make a profit. Deletion is the only proportionate page-level sanction for that.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 21:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree that he's trying to destroy the encyclopedia. He's trying to use it, abuse it, take advantage of it, but not destroy it. A successful parasite doesn't kill their host. --
RoySmith(talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair point: makes my point as just well.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I trust that the creator and
User:Honeyman are not implied to be the same person? Who was the creator? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I made some changes, rather technical ones, to the article; and even found out and provided the logo image to be used in the article; but most of the article I believe was written by someone else. Being a non-admin, I cannot even check it; and even being an SME, I am not sure if I could have direct contacts of that person/organization. From my side, I could (as much as I can) try to help bringing the page to the Wikipedia level and provide the non-controversial information for it (as much as it seems non-controversial for others and doesn’t involve COI); though I’d definitely love to get some independent eye on it.
Honeyman (
talk) 17:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I mean, Subject-Matter Expert. Seen this term on
WP:COI when have been trying to understand for myself if I am in COI with this topic, or just an SME to it.
Honeyman (
talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Definitely reject the speedy close request. DRV is the highest court for reviewing deletions. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn discretionary sanctions don't allow administrators to delete arbitrary pages within the scope of the sanction.
The only sanctions permitted for pages (as opposed to editors) involve imposition of 1RR. The complaint here seems to be that the page was created by an undisclosed paid editor, which hardly justifies extraordinary measures. If the page was created by someone violating a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions then you could use G5, but I don't see any suggestion that's the case. Hut 8.5 21:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The 1RR is automatic, and is not discretionary. Discretionary is broader than that and gives admins much wider discretion. As this is the only DS authorized for promotionalism, we’re in uncharted waters, but MER-C’s actions make sense.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This does not make any sense to me. The wording being cited to support this (which is from ArbCom sanctions) is that admins are allowed to take "reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Really? The smooth running of the project requires that this page is deleted now, and not, say, in a week after an AfD? If we were dealing with a serious BLP violation then that may be reasonable, but the only violation cited is undisclosed paid editing, which many people think isn't a valid reason for deletion at all. Numerous attempts to add a speedy deletion criterion for undisclosed paid editing have been proposed at
WT:CSD and failed to reach consensus, it isn't appropriate to bring one in through the back door as discretionary sanctions enforcement. Hut 8.5 06:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The use of Wikipedia for the
illegal touting of securities has the potential to be just as bad for Wikipedia's reputation, if not worse, than serious BLP violations. This page was, on the face of it, created by a PR company acting on behalf of the subject.
MER-C 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
If the page needs to be deleted for legal reasons then the WMF should either do it or establish a policy directing us to do it. If it doesn't need to be deleted for legal reasons then I don't see the urgency. It would at best sit around for a week with a bunch of warning tags at the top. Even
non-blatant copyright violations aren't summarily deleted. And again the discretionary sanctions this is supposedly done as part of don't permit page deletion. Hut 8.5 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This is much more limited in scope than those anyway, and yes, the DS permit any action deemed reasonable as page level sanctions: I linked to the arbcom page, but that is because these were authorized as ARBIPA equivalent sanctions, which are standard ArbCom DS. There is only one page on this project that defines standard discretionary sanctions, and that is
WP:AC/DS. I'll grant whether or not this is a valid use of the sanctions is an open question, but that's not one that DRV is really equipped to handle. DRV typically reassesses consensus or determines if something was a deletion outside the normal process. The question as to if this was a deletion outside the normal process is an obvious yes: the point of general and discretionary sanctions is that the normal process isn't working so we need to give more flexibility for the subject area. The question of whether it is a reasonable use of sanctions is one for AN.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 18:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:Blockchain outlines what is permitted as part of the sanctions in this area. It covers a wide range of restrictions on editors but the only page restriction mentioned is a 1RR restriction. There's nothing there that would justify deleting a page. While this wasn't an arbitration sanction I don't think deleting a page would be likely to be seen as a reasonable use of arbitration sanctions.
WP:AELOG lists zero cases of arbitration discretionary sanctions being used to delete pages, which means there haven't been any at all in at least the last four years. DRV is the accepted forum for reviewing deletions, including deletions done outside the usual deletion processes, and an attempt to appeal a page deletion to AN would be directed here instead. Hut 8.5 20:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse/speedy close - this page was deleted under GS. First, I believe that such spam should be removed as a sanction on the original creator (and possibly recreated from scratch by s.o. independent). It does not matter whether said subject is notable or not, whether there have been significant edits, it should go - no trophies. Second, the page was deleted under GS, so this is the wrong venue to discuss whether these deletions actually fall under GS and whether a DRV could be warranted, or whether other processes should have been followed or not. —
Dirk BeetstraTC 22:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Restore' and take to AfD. WP:DS/Blockchain, is not a reason for Deletion, and no DS ever can be. DS are about conduct, not content. I know of no DS ever that that specified deletion as a remedy, and I consider that that such a remedy would be beyond the jurisdiction on ANI or ANB. (or , for that matter, ArbCom). Admins have a role in deletion, which is to interpret the consensus of the community at AfD, or the implied consensus at WP:PROD, or in obvious cases the assumed consensus of Speedy. DS would permit us to ban a person inserting spam, but not to remove the article. The article might of course fall under Speedy criterion, and if so it should be deleted as one -- by another administrator, and that decision, if challenged, can be brought here. DGG (
talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I would apply this also to
Payment21, deleted by the same admin under the same rationale. DGG (
talk ) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Even if a community general sanction could authorise speedy deletion, which it can't, the sanctions linked above don't specify deleting a page as a specified remedy. Needs to go to AFD and a consensus obtained.
User:TonyBallioni quotes requirements that appeals of ArbCom discretionary sanctions must go to ARCA/AE/AN, but this action is not taken under an ArbCom discretionary sanction; it is taken under a community general sanction.
Stifle (
talk) 11:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Stifle, the standard DS rules apply to general sanctions minus the arb stuff. Regardless, the page itself makes it clear only AN can hear appeals Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. from
WP:GS/Crypto. Any appeal here is invalid, and can’t be used to Undelete a claimed sanction here, and I think that matters as the odds of this getting overturned at AN are significantly lower than they are of getting overturned here.Re: the merits of your point, the sanctions authorized were ARBIPA equivalent, which is an authorization for standard DS plus automatic 1RR, which authorizes admins to make any page level sanction they feel neccesary for the operation of the project.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 13:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
These have never been applied in such a way as to permit page deletion as a sanction. Trhying to fit an entirely novel proceedure into a general clause dealing with something else does not make policy. Admins deleting articles must follow deletion policy. Nobody in WP has the sort of plenary power that would permit doing "anything", and ANI or ANB or ARB cannot just assume it for themselves. Page sanctions mean sanctions applying on apage to page basis, not enforcement related to the actual content of a page, or to its inclusion in WP. I think we need to decide here in such a way as to put a stop to any such extension of arbitrary power. Normally, when an admin does a Speedy, any other admin can if the situation is clear enough reverse it for good reason after discussion with the first admin, and does not necessarily have to come here--and if disputed only has to come here, not to ANI/ANB. . Making it a page-level sanction means that any admin could delete any article within broad categories and force the discussion on overturning it to go to ANI, which would be a prime example of turning orderly discussion into chaos. DGG (
talk ) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
DGG, I actually think those are fair criticisms, but I also think that this situation is unique in that the community specifically authorized these sanctions to deal with promotional content that was flooding this area. There is no other group of sanctions authorized for that purpose, so we've never had a situation where deletion could be used as a remedy under them (though, to use the ARBIPA example, I do think we've had some summary deletions there for 500/30 violations, but I couldn't list them.) I think the novelty of this is in part why this is better suited for AN than here. I think
MER-C was acting in good faith and in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, but clarifying the limits here should be left to the community as a whole on the board that authorized the sanctions, not to a much less watched board that tends to focus on bureaucracy and process rather than outcomes. That has its place, but it really isn't the best way to resolve this particular question.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
If the sanctions allow admins to ban spammers easily but not delete the spam they added that would seem, from the outside, rather bizarre. The sanctions should allow comprehensive solutions to promotional behavior. Let's figure out the answer to the general question first, then decide what to do with this page.
MER-C 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not bizarre.
WP:CSD#G5 does not apply retrospectively, and
WP:BANning can't be applied hypothetically based on future actions by a user. Perhaps the creator was already a banned person? Is there evidence for that? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
We have a method for dealing with spam: G11. It has fairly well established limits and methods for review. It's not subject to individual admin idiosyncrasy-partly because it is an established convention (though not a absolute requirement that no admin delete under it without a prior nomination by someone else), and partly because of the availability of the present process, Deletion Review. The wording used in this DS has been used in other previous ones, and has never to the best of my knowledge been used to justify deletion of the articles. Using it here is my my opinion overinterpreting the wording, rather resembling wikilawyering. It's an example of what we have seen here beofre, wiki-panic, which is a form of moral panic, bu which a particular problem is seen as so immediately critical that it rerquires extraordinary measures. It's never a constructive response. It's especially not a constructive response to a situation where there is already well-established and workable proceedures.
Doing so is a major change, and in my opinion requires a general consensus to modify deletion policy, rather than the limited consensus of an ANI discussion.
There is, in fact, a very good reason why we don't have this sort of sticky singlehanded deletion at G11. The definition of spam is not necessarily as obvious as a single person thinks it is. My main current activity here is dealing with spam, and I deleted many thousands of G11s- and nominated many thousands that other admins have deleted. enormous amount of work in deleting spam. I think I am about as willing to use G11 as anyone else here--I don't think anyone could say I have ever been willing to compromise with promotional editing. Nonetheless, a few of my G11s have been challenged, and a very few of them have even not resulted in the article being deleted. Similarly I've challenged G11s from others, and usually they go to afd or prod, and are deleted--but a few of them have been kept by consensus. No one here is perfect in any aspect of their activity.
The point of having DS for this topic area is precisely the opposite of what you have stated. We already have an excellent way to remove the spam. We did not have an equally effective way to deal with the spammers. Now we do. Behavior is the role of DS, not content. DGG (
talk ) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with
User:DGG, which is itself something. Trying to wedge a general deletion power into general sanctions without obtaining very broad consensus cannot stand. Trying to strip DRV of its core power which is to review deletion decisions and correct those which do not follow policy cannot stand either. The assertion that some class of poorly-specified disruption can allow an end-run around consensus and the normal decision and policy making arrangements on Wikipedia does not stand up to scrutiny. Strong overturn.
Stifle (
talk) 11:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Refer the deleting admin
User:MER-C, and
User:TonyBallioni commenting above the the first line of
WP:CSD (admitedly after crawling through an awful lot of hatnote clutter) that says: "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here."
The deletion of mainspace pages is most certainly a content matter, and is out-of-scope for arbcom. If the speedy deletion of bitcoin pages is authorised to any admin discretion, then get it written into
WP:CSD. Note however the
new criterion criterion, or is it that Wikipedia governance has been usurped and this is no long a community run project. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not relevant here as it was conducted under different authorization. I also consider
Cunard’s notification at WT:CSD inappropriate: that is by far the most rabidly anti-deletion talk page on all of Wikipedia. This DRV should be shut down immediately and taken to AN which is the only valid forum for review here.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The notification was highly appropriate, as what is going on here is a massive extension of deletion policy and speedy deletion policy. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
It was a notification on a page where you could probably find consensus to remove the ability of admins to delete at all if you tried on the right day.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I find that unreasonable. WT:CSD has found and supports a very large number of diverse and broad criteria for speedy deletion, I have proposed a number of new criteria, and have found support and opposition there to always be very reasonable. Once the speedy deletion criteria is supported, there is barely any possible appeal short of questioning that the objective criteria applied. A much bigger issue is ArbCom rulings being interpreted as being above deletion policy. This discussion should probably be list at
WP:CENT, or even as a watchlist banner. The policy expansion principle is massive. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
This is one page. Of course we don’t need a CENT notice on this. We just need an AN review of one deletion claimed under the sanctions. We’ll have to agree to disagree on WT:CSD.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse-Per TonyBallioni's reasoning and IAR.
∯WBGconverse 06:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn - Deletion did not come up at the community discussion that authorized GS in this area at all. Even if you can argue deletion is in the letter of GS (I don't think it is), this is clearly not what the community had in mind when they authorized GS here. If you want to use GS to delete, you need a community consensus somewhere that says deletion is an acceptable GS enforcement action. I haven't found any such discussion, and would invite a link to one if one exists. Addressing the article narrowly, change to G11 if it applies, IAR delete it if you can make an IAR case, or send it to AFD. This also applies to
Payment21, per DGG. Cheers,
Tazerdadog (
talk) 07:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
After reviewing the article, change to G11. That page would require a rewrite to be encyclopedic and has very little value otherwise. There's no need to use an out-of-process deletion method here.
Tazerdadog (
talk) 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
to expand on what
Tazerdog and
Stifle and I and others have said above, basic policies at WP cannot be overridden by ANI. Suppose under the asserted authorization to do anything necessary for dealing with Crypto, an admin had decided that the best way to deal with the problem was to remove every existing article in the field. Suppose an admin had rewritten an article on a cryptocurrency to be less promotional (which is fine), and fully protected his own version. Suppose an admin had thought necessary for balance to insert a poorly sourced negative statement about a living person. Suppose an admin had thought it appropriate to insert a copyvio from another publication. What the adoption of the sanction means, is that an admin had authority to use any appropriate remedy within the usual scope of what is done at ANI. All rules are to be interpreted reasonably, as
Tony Balloni said above. . DGG (
talk ) 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Inquiry I can't view the article, but I suspect it could be deleted per
WP:G11, could some admins comment on whether they feel that is the case? If so, the rest of this discussion is not needed here, and the debate over whether Discretionary Sanctions allow for page deletions can be handled at the correct forum (probably ARCA).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I am still requesting temp undeletion. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Endorse call for temp undeletion
Tazerdadog (
talk) 04:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks. As a straight G11, it is a complicated one because it was
WP:Reference bombed (from the first version). I support
User:MER-C's block of
Artox.rb (
talk·contribs), which includes the talk page notice that tells them how to appeal, in the unlikely case of a mistake. With the page history reviewable, I see the user was a four year old barely autoconfirmed sleeper account. I still think
Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product is a better approach, one that allows non-admins to be involved in the fight. Even without access to deleted contributions, I think I can see clear patterns in an increasing amount of UPE spamming. I think this spammer is otherwise a user well known to us. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn No GS does not allow admins to speedy delete out of process. That way lies madness.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 23:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
GS also doesn't allow its provisions to be circumvented or interpreted at random other noticeboards: THAT way lies madness. Settle/clarify the issue in the right place; i.e., not here. --
Calton |
Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy close or endorse. Do NOT overturn. This falls under
WP:GS/Crypto: if you think it doesn't, this isn't the place to decide or argue the issue. --
Calton |
Talk 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Given that this was a reasonable interpretation of GS powers and the correct forum for reviewing those decisions is important I agree with those who say this is the wrong forum for appeal. Also strongly agree with those who suggest that GS didn't authorize circumvention of CSD policy (but I also think it should have and could be with further community consensus). Most content in this area is a scourge on the reputation of the encyclopedia and appropriate actions should be taken to prevent its infiltration. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 04:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
endorse after checking the content it is clear that the purpose is promotion. A g11 delete would be appropriate. The advertising is not that covert.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 07:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Graeme, it’s not a surprise that it might be G11-eligible, but do you endorse the deletion log summary “09:31, 4 July 2018 MER-C (talk | contribs) deleted page Universa Blockchain Protocol (Covert advertising. Page-level sanction under WP:GS/Crypto.)”? —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no requirement to link to
WP:CSD or any of its anchors in a speedy deletion log comment. If you accept that this was a valid G11, then "advertising" was enough. —
Cryptic 15:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Cryptic, surely you mean to include fundamentally when using screaming hyperbole to cover a lack of logic? There is fundamentally and absolutely no requirement to be correct when logging deletions, least of all to respect the old policy
WP:CSD, now that ANI, once a mere
kangaroo court, has appointed itself sufficient to bypass deletion policy through the mechanism of “general sanctions”. Crypto spam must be countered, wikilawyering be damned,
Wikipedia:Etiquette is for punces. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Is anyone other than the nom advocating to keep this article on its merits? Unless other people are, I'd suggest a "The consensus is to delete the article" close and having everyone trundle on over to
WP:AN to address the GS deletion question.
Tazerdadog (
talk) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That's not the point. There is no speedy deletion criterion for "stuff I don't think should be here". Administrators are only allowed to delete pages in certain circumstances. Chuck out that principle and all sorts of pages could be deleted just because someone doesn't like them. Overturning the deletion would establish that these types of deletion are not appropriate. If you want to discuss the merits of the article then the best place for that is AfD. This discussion is about the merits of the deletion. Hut 8.5 21:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Even me, being the nom, do not request to return the article and keep it as it is. If the article looks non-encyclopaedically - let’s polish it (and the independent eyes who examine what parts are bad and what parts are worthy to keep, are highly appreciated). If the topic looks insufficiently notable for Wikipedia – let’s put it to AfD, but I am almost sure it will be rather easy to find the news sources proving it is notable enough. The nom’s opinion: Wikipedia will be better with the de-spammed version of this article, than without this article at all.
Honeyman (
talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Overturn and list at AfD. The article is bad, but not G11 bad. A redirect to
Alexander Borodich may be the result of the AfD so it's worth having a discussion, as opposed to deleting due to a consensus here (and/or IAR). I don't see anything on
WP:GS allowing for deletion per General Sanctions.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Just noting my recent suggestion for moving forward at AN here:
[1]. I think this was a valid deletion, and that the correct closure of this DRV is likely no consensus based on both the numbers and the arguments, but also think a way to move forward would be for MER-C to mark these deletions as G11 and also subject to the appeal provisions of GS/Crypto. That would both root it in policy while also respecting the wishes of the community for administrators to have more discretion in this area.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 20:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
In principle, this G11 deletion should be listed at AfD for discussion, because some editors in good standing disagree with it meeting G11. I am sympathetic to it meeting G11. It is all non-independent fact-based promotion of a commercial thing, no independent qualitative commentary whatsoever, and the first three sources are 1 & 2 non-
secondary source and non-independent and source 3 is a single mere mention, and I think articles on commercial things thing carry the onus of present the best 2-3 sources attesting notability upfront. It is a common trick to
WP:Reference bombWP:CORP-failing promotion, and it is not reasonable to expect Wikipedians to evaluate the lot. I would personally hesitate because the page was unusually polished looking, and because there are mentions of the topic in other articles, but at NPP I would definitely PROD or AfD it. At AfD I would !vote “delete”. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
If one is only sympathetic to it meeting G11, it does not meet G11. For a valid speedy it has to unquestionably meet G11 (though we normally interpret "unquestionably" to mean something more like "very clearly" or "clearly". Looking again, I don't think it meets G11. AfD exists for a purpose, which is to decide whether an article should to stay in WP, rather than make it a matter of opinion. DGG (
talk ) 04:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
overturn Speedy deletion isn't something we do outside of the rules given at CSD because it's so ripe for abuse. It's not a clear G11, so send it to AfD if you want it gone. IAR is a fine thing, but if you want a new criteria, start an RfC. Also a non-trivial trout to any criticism of starting a discussion on the issue at the place that all speedy deletion issues are discussed. That's just silly.
Hobit (
talk) 04:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.