Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 31

Hidenori Kusaka – Closed. Block evasion by blocked user. – Black Kite 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

WP:CSD#G5 doesn't apply for two reasons. First, the user in question wasn't banned, as, per policy, a user whose account isn't blocked is allowed to create a new account and stop using the old account. As Mathemagician57721 wasn't SuperNerd625's first account, and the original account hasn't been blocked, he is permitted to create a new account and stop using the old account. Second, G5 requires that it has had no significant contributions by other users, which also wasn't the case. 75.13.226.177 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and block nominator for block evasion. You, the person behind the account, is blocked and may not edit Wikipedia, regardless of the account, or IP, you are using. Tim Song (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm allowed to create new accounts provided that my original account isn't blocked and I stop using the original account. As both of those conditions are met, I'm allowed to create an alternate account per WP:SOCK#LEGIT ("If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account"). As my original account isn't blocked or banned, this allows me to create a new account. --75.60.14.239 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're forgetting that if you have been blocked before for disruption or any other reason, then that block stands, regardless of what account you edit under. It is you, not the account, that is blocked. No other administrator in their right mind would even consider unblocking you, considering your persistent block evasion – see here. Hence, you are de facto banned by the community from editing. MuZemike 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should probably consider the wording of this text the user sees when blocked. The text implies that it's the user account or IP address that's blocked and not the person behind the keyboard. Which is nonsensical, I agree, but that is what it says.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So we should pander to wikilawyering? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, sorry, what I said was unclear. We should probably consider amending the wording, is what I should have written.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually agree with Tim Song, but perhaps this bears a little more investigation. What we have here is a blocked user attempting to make a constructive edit (it would be possible to write a sourced article with this title) and attempting to engage with Wikipedian processes (by opening a DRV). I think that rather than stonewall immediately and give this user an incentive to sockpuppetry, we're in territory where we might reasonably ask the blocking admin for his view.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Said user already engaged in sockpuppetry - which is why they were blocked in the first place. See archived SPI reports. Regardless, I notified the blocking/deleting admin. Tim Song (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin – This is clear sock puppetry orchestrated by de facto banned user Mathemagician57721. As with the other numerous IP addresses, they all geolocate to Springfield, MO and all to the same ISP. I stand by the deletion of the page in this case. MuZemike 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My original account isn't Mathemagician57721, and it hasn't been blocked, so, per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, I'm allowed to create a new account provided I stop using the old one. --70.250.212.122 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be repeating dialogue used by blocked user User:CombinationPermutation here and here. We're not fooled. MuZemike 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to point out that after I said that, I haven't made any more disruptive edits, meaning I'm not trying to pull anything on you guys. The purpose of a block or a ban is to prevent a person from disrupting Wikipedia; a ban becomes useless and even counterproductive when the user has realized that what he did before is wrong and he wishes to legitimately contribute to Wikipedia. --75.6.4.59 (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Block evasion by blocked user. Ray^Talk 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of spammers – The approach to this issue is non-standard (particularly in its direct self-referral to deletion review), but there is not consensus that any of these means employed were inappropriate. Other means may have been used, but the community has endorsed the actions that were taken in this case (in light of broad discretion from WP:BLP). Recreation that addresses the concerns about the list is, of course, permitted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I just deleted this myself, a second ago. I think a page at this title (or perhaps a less blunt one) should exist, but without any sources at all, it constitutes a pretty severe BLP violation. I'm listing it here in hopes that someone will create a userspace version and link to it here for consultation. Alternately, I suppose, you can overturn and throw me to the wolves for admin abuse, but I'm hoping you won't. The old contents, without the old history, are here, underneath a blank page. The old history is deleted at the original title. Thanks, and sorry for a somewhat odd use of this process. Chick Bowen 03:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse admin action, good deletion. You needn't have come here unless challenged, though. Ray^Talk 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my reasoning was that, since this is a perfectly reasonable topic for an article in my view, I could list it here and see if others are interested in trying to recreate it with sources (it would be a bit tricky depending on the definition of "scammer" but doable). But if there's no interest in that, then sure, we can just endorse and leave it at that. Chick Bowen 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this horrendous admin abuse. Tim Song (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections to recreation. Tim Song (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close this unnecessary DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ayup, can't argue with that close. BLP violations out the wazoo. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. For a list that's just a list of articles, can't the article itself serve as the source? I only scanned half of them, but all seemed to indicate they were spammers in the lead. Or just copy one source from each article and put it in the list? Hobit (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm with Stifle. DRV is for challenging deletion decisions, and this seems outside our remit, because nobody's challenged a deletion decision. Just close it.~~—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) — Struck owing to DGG's remark below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and check the individual articles listed. If the sources are good enough, & it's the main element of notability or a major element of it, I fail to see BLP concerns. I do challenge the deletion, & I think Hobit does also. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse an orderly admin action. Crafty (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this action, which is justified by WP:BURDEN as the removal of what seems, prima facie, to be unsourced negative information about living persons. That's what BLP policy is properly for. I dislike BLP being used to delete articles that have sources, but this is obviously not the case here. No objection to the creation of a sourced article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deleting negative unsourced BLPs is an entirely appropriate action. Kevin (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question so basically we are deleting a list because the sources are in the links and not in the list article itself? I've no real objection to that if BLP points us that way, but it seems odd... Hobit (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The list contained redlinks, and therefore unsourced accusations; this was a reasonable method to deal with it. We do allow sourcing by way of a link to a full article (compare List of suicides), but I see no evidence this was done scrupulously; in any case, the redlinks had no sources. I may have a go at creating a sourced list. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: My proposed draft list is at User:Gavia immer/LoS, restricted to existing articles with acceptable sourcing. Any comments on it are welcome. As noted, I continue to endorse the original deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allow recreation and express annoyance at deletion Replacing my earlier comment as completely rethought this. Use Gavia's recreation importing sources from the relevant articles. However, there was no good reason to delete this. It would have taken about five minutes to glance at the articles in question to make sure that there was sourcing, and simply remove the red links. Then it would have taken another 5 minutes to move those sources over into this list. Deletion in this context is overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. It took about ten minutes of actual work to make that cut-down draft, so I obviously agree that it could have been done that way instead. I've also endorsed the original IAR deletion, because I think that we ought to support administrators who take steps to avoid BLP problems. The original list contained redlinks, bluelinks to people who happened to share a name with some spammer, and a couple of articles that I've outright prodded because they seemed to belong on someone's enemies list rather than in an encyclopedia. Deleting that version was out of process, but deleting it and poking people about it was a net benefit to the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but Allow Recreation per Joshuaz Triplestop x3 03:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with comment: a putative list of (alleged) spammers where the references are inside the articles themselves already exists as Category:spammers. If there is a list in articlespace, then each entry in the article should be referenced individually. Bwrs (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Carlos_Arroyo_(architect) – Restored automatically as contested prod; now listed for full debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Arroyo (architect). The nominator's attack on the deleting admin was uncalled for and incorrect, and he is asked to assume good faith. – Chick Bowen 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

It has been deleted by Juliancolton on the 23rd October, and then on the 29th Juliancolton quitted Wikipedia, saying he is disenchanted with the project. Maybe he was upset in those days. The reason he gave for deletion does not really stand. No impact? With international awards and honours, a long list of academic publications, TV programmes, radio broadcasts, and exhibitions in Venice Biennale or Paris Cité de l'Architecture, I find that Juliancolton's description is totally unfair. Carlos Arroyo is in the Scientific Committee of Europan, a most respected European-wide institution. He writes and publishes in El Croquis. His buildings are in Guidebooks. Guest lecturer in Tokio, New York's MoMA, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Milano, the whole of South America. Megustalastrufas (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)--Megustalastrufas (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the nominator's attack on the deleting admin entirely unacceptable, and if this had been an AfD I would have !voted to speedy close on that basis. But it is a prod, so, with reluctance, restore as a contested prod. Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was restored and sent to AfD. I suggest closing this now-pointless DRV. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.