Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 27

27 December 2013

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deleted via G5, despite my objecting to such on its talk page, having previously edited the article. Deleting admin declines to recreate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Just to note I declined to restore it, I had already said it could be recreated by another user if required. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Pigsonthewing objected on the talk page based on whether the article was notable. It was tagged for speedy deletion not for notability but under G5 because the article was created by a banned user. He's welcome to recreate the article. The article will probably have a deletion discussion at some point if he does recreate for 2 reasons- That aviation accidents in Russia are so common that all of them aren't notable and secondly that cargo plane accidents are also very common and usually not considered not notable. Of course an AFD would let editors argue it out whether what I wrote above is true....William 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• User:Arelder created the 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash article at 19:47, 26 December 2013, the article was G5 deleted at 13:58, 27 December 2013 and User:Arelder was blocked 6 minutes later at 14:04, 27 December 2013.[1]. If you want to recreate an article on the topic, the five references used in the article were: [2][3][4][5][6] -- Jreferee (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't; I want the article, which I had edited, and which should not have been speedily deleted in the light of that and in the face of objection, to be undeleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • CommentThis editor is being disingenuous. He was provided with a copy of the article a day ago and informed he could get the entire contents of the last edit box just by asking the closing administrator. He's failed to do so. In fact, the above comment is written well after that offer was made. So why does he continue to complain he wants the article? Because he wants the article created by a banned editor posted? Why enforce the ban then? It probably goes back to failure the grasp that deleting an article under G5 has nothing to do with notability. His first edits after the CSD tag was put on the article were about notability....William 13:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not for you to impugn my motives; it is for you and MilborneOne to justify the speedy deletion, which was made out of process and with disregard for the wording of the criteria used. You have each failed to do this. (And, as noted, below, the copy you sent was devoid of templates and other wiki markup) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see what is so offensive about the User:Arelder account that we can't acquiesce to Pigsonthewing's request. Yes, it is preferred that the article be re-created based on the reference list, meaning that the blocked account is unattributed, but if Pigsonthewing insists, it is better to have content than not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of the speedy deletion. Letthecommunity decide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Would the parties involved be amicable to a userfy to Pigsonthewing? What's the issue with re-creating the article? You're essentially taking responsibility for it in either regard in terms of campaigning for it to be kept when its been questioned in terms of lasting notability. Mkdw^talk 02:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If userfied, and if any writing by User:Arelder is used, even for reference only, User:Arelder must be given attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Restore or userfy – the "offer" that the article can be recreated is disingenuous – it had been edited and while there are cached versions at some search engines, they only show the rendered web page and none of the parameters which populated the article's infobox; the version of that cached page is also uncertain. Attribution will not be a problem as the article's full history will also be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The person who started this DRV was provided with a copy of the article if they wished to recreate it. As of now, they haven't. As for the article being edited, the only edits were copyedits to fix the usual mistakes Ryan kirkpatrick makes. No substantial edits were made....William 13:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • As noted above, this request is for undeletion, not recreation (and the copy you provided was devoid of templates and other wiki markup). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Question. @WilliamJE:, how would Andy re-create the article with the existing content and not break attribution? Even banned users retain attribution rights. Your suggestion doesn't make sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• For all those who support undeleting The article was created by a banned editor and has been confirmed[7] as such. If the article is restored, then do you support unbanning Ryan kirkpatrick? Since his ban he has created over 100 CONFIRMED sockpuppet accounts. By restoring his work, you're allowing him to edit here again....William 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Your Slippery slope comment is irrelevant here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note apparent canvassing at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5d article at deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The reason we have G5 is that we balance the value of enforcing site bans against the damage of losing (possibly) good encyclopedic content. Once an editor in good-standing makes contributions to such an article, the value of the loss increases and will reach a point where it outweighs the value of enforcing site bans. That is the reason why we have the exception "and which have no substantial edits by others". The moment there exists some debate about whether such edits are "substantial", then a speedy deletion becomes inappropriate. I should not have to remind admins that "These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion." The best course of action here was to take the article to AfD. In addition the suggestion from MilborneOne "to raise it at Wikipedia:Deletion review" was equally sub-optimal: the purpose of deletion review is to examine whether the process was carried out correctly; a far better suggestion would have been to make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, which could have reached a satisfactory outcome without sacrificing so many innocent electrons. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Your quotation from WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#Introduction to criteria applies to only the noncontroversial subset that "may be used to delete pages that have survived deletion discussions", not including G5. The header of WP:Requests for undeletion is clear that speedy deletions (except G6 and G13) should be challenged first with the deleting admin and then at DRV. Flatscan (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note Further to WilliamJE's accusation that I am "being disingenuous", perhaps he could explain why his assertion that my "first [my emphasis] edits after the CSD tag was put on the article were about notability" does not reflect the facts? What actually happened is that, after he tagged the article, I removed the tag, in accordance with CSD procedures ("If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice"; my emphasis), and he reverted me. Only then did I post my objection to the talk page.
  Furthermore, his description of these events, on his user page is also misleading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn - G5 requires that the banned editor be the only significant editor to the article. If POTW regards themselves as a significant editor to the article, G5 should not be applied. WilyD 08:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I can't check a procedural G5 without being able to see the history of the page. Can it be temporarily undeleted so we can see what actually happened rather than comparing two conflicting hearsay accounts? Neonchameleon (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I have restored the history for the purposes of this DRV. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I note from that (I didn't see it at the time, that Michael Bednarek wrote "Before anyone answers with WP:DENY: that's an essay which, in its own convoluted language, applies to vandalism which this article is not", and yet WilliamJE (who also replied to Michael, so must have seen it), subsequently wrote on my talk page "You couldn't be bothered to read [...] WP:DENY... It is by the authority of the wikipedia community that Ryan kirkpatrick was banned from editing. As a banned editor, WP:DENY comes into effect". (The various allegations he makes about me in that edit are all false.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn. Inappropriate use of G5; it may be time to defang G5 to prevent these sorts of incidents. As is clear from the talk page the deletion was contested by multiple users. Andy had made useful edits and clearly intended to make more. It's inconceivable that AfD would delete this article. The canvassing by WilliamJE on the CSD talk page is inappropriate, and suggests to recreate from the top revision would break attribution. Procedurally this is a mess from beginning to end. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mr. Mabbett's edits consisted of replacing "bored" with "board", replacing a comma with a decimal point, and adding a UTC equivalent to mentions of the local time. While these were useful edits, they are not substantive. With Rk's almost 200 sock accounts, why it it such a bad thing for an editor of good standing to start again? Rk has said on several occasions that he will keep socking as long as his work is kept. It appears to me that re-creation by someone else is a good outcome; the article doesn't have to use the same format, refs or even the same name. YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn If the speedy is contested by other editors, it must go to AfD. The community sometimes decides to delete in these cases and sometimes not. I understand why we have G5; I suspect it is often futile. Deleting their work may discourage some, but it has been shown a many times that it will not discourage others, who will continue to try to evade the ban despite it If it does not discourage someone, it is not protecting the encyclopedia, and so the deletion becomes punitive. Perhaps the entire concept needs a community discussion. In the meantime, we retain the right to make exceptions DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Clearly trivial edits by Pigsonthewing do not qualify as "substantial", and there's no reason that the article can't be recreated from scratch by any interested editor. It did qualify for speedy deletion, and it would be impossible for Pigsonthewing to "fix" its tainted origin, so his protests on the talk page were correctly ignored.—Kww(talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• overturn and Undelete as per Mackensen and others above. Frankly I don't really approve of G5 at any time, nor of the philosophy behind it. But in any case the policy is clear that if another user (in good standing) is willing to take responsibility for any edits by a banned user, that user may reinstate the edits. That is the policy that should apply here. Preferably this should have been taken to WP:REFUND and there automatically restored. I am tempted to simply restore it myself, but since it is being discussed here i will follow procedure. DES ^(talk) 04:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion once on the 26th of December as it had been created by a banned user. This was entirely in line with policy. The Speedy Deletion was then removed by Pigsonthewing - again entirely in line with the practices of Speedy Deletion. At this point it became a contested speedy deletion. As such, unless there was a reasonable reason to suppose that Pigsonthewing was a sockpuppet (may all socks put such work over the course of 10 years into Wikipedia!) the speedy deletion notification should not have been replaced - for one thing it Pigsonthewing was claiming part ownership of the article and for another it was effectively edit warring - for all practical purposes a revert of a revert. After the Speedy had been disputed (and demonstrably not by the article creator) it should have been taken to AfD. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, WilliamJE was wrong to have reverted Pigsonthewing's removal of the G5 tag, but he did it and the article was subsequently deleted. So here we are, arguing about whether we should argue about keeping the article at an AfD. Again I ask: what is so bad about a User of good standing re-creating an article with this crash as the subject instead of reinstating a serial sockpuppeteer's work? If someone wants to nominate for deletion based on notability concerns after that, well and good, and we can discuss whether it is a wikinotable subject. YSSYguy (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - While the replacement of the speedy tag may not have been proper, what's done is done, and the fact of the matter is that this article was created by a sockpuppet of a community banned editor who has used at least one hundred and sixty-four named accounts. He has been informed on many occasions about the standard offer, and informed several times that continued sockpuppetry would be disruption indistinguishable from vandalism and treated as such. The fact that he continues unabatedly to sockpuppet indicates that he is nothing more, and nothing less, than a troll. As such recognition must be denied. Yes, this is a notable and noteworthy accident. But there is no deadline, and it's better for Wikipedia that an editor in good standing recreate the article, instead of feeding the troll. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So what? DENY is an essay, not a policy, and there's nothing in the deletion policy that says a G5 trumps all. You do realize that by counting all his accounts, and treating his contributions as something special, you're granting him the very recognition you say we should deny him? Getting back on track, speedy deletions may be contested. G5 is no different. This one was contested. Do you have any views on that? Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have views on that. Andy's "contest" of the G5 did not address any of the issues that form the basis of a G5 deletion, so it is irrelevant.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• I've started a new version of the article, not based on the banned editor's work. However, someone has objected to my rewriting, at User_talk:Rybec#Irkutsk_Antonov_crash. —rybec 05:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)