- Template:Deo Block (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The template was nominated for discussion at TfD, where the nominator argued for deletion and the only other !vote – mine – was "keep". Two weeks later, Bbb23 speedy-deleted it per WP:G5, effectively ending the discussion. The TfD was then speedy closed by another editor, but I'm not challenging their close here even though I disagree with its premise: at TfD, if the template is deleted while the discussion is ongoing, the discussion will be automatically closed by a bot anyway. It's the preceding speedy deletion that I would like to question. I'm not sure G5 was applicable to begin with – it requires that the page was not substantially edited by anyone other than the blocked user, and I remember having worked on the links in this template (that's a navbox, so that's as substantial an edit as it can get). More importantly though, the template was already at TfD, where there was a valid "keep" !vote. G5 is there to help with clean up efforts, not to override and undermine the consensus building of a deletion discussion. I argue that the page should be restored and the TfD reopened. I've asked as much of the deleting admin on two separate occasions, but have not received any reply. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have temporarily restored the template, with the {{tempundelete}} template, so that non-admins can see the page history. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete The navbox has dozens of items in it but only five links to articles, thus, it does not meet any of the criteria at Navigation template#Properties especially WP:EXISTING. It is just clutter at the bottom of any of the five articles that it could be added to. I would say turn it into a list article if anyone is so inclined. MarnetteD|Talk 16:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy
unless the evidence of sockng is presented. Apologies for my previous post. In all my years here I had somehow missed posting on a deletion review before. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a CheckUser block, so the evidence can't be presented here. I don't doubt the validity of the block and I don't think anyone else would. – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy deletion and return to TfD. Uanfala is correct that G5 excludes pages that have substantial contributions by other users, this template had a very significant contribution from Uanfala and significant contributions from an IP user who may or may not be the same person as the blocked creator (the user talk page suggests its an IP that is frequently dynamically allocated to a large number of users by a large ISP). Speedy deletion of pages being discussed at XfD that have good faith recommendations for keep should be done only when strictly necessary. Such deletions should always be accompanied by an explanation of why it was necessary to speedy delete despite that recommendation. G12 (copyvio) deletions are almost always necessary, but I struggle to think of any occasion where G5 is not optional (even if desirable). I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or not at TfD, but I see no reason to prevent the arguments being evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn speedy pretty much per Thryduulf. I'm also unclear why the deleting admin never responded. There may well be a good reason to have this speedy, but nothing has been explained. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist I think this is borderline for a G5. The template was created by an abusive sock and we can safely say that 103.93.201.2 is a sock of the same person given their edits were made minutes later and the IP has also been blocked based on CheckUser evidence. MarnetteD wanted the template deleted. That leaves this as the only edit by anyone else. That edit moves each item in a list onto a separate line, adds a few links and deletes some stuff. In mainspace I don't think that would constitute a significant edit but the OP has a fair point that we should be more generous for navboxes. I don't see much harm in allowing the discussion to continue. Hut 8.5 21:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at TfD. I'm not entirely convinced that Uanfala's edit is a "substantial contribution", but it's a marginal enough G5 that sending it back for a full discussion seems reasonable. I'm actually more concerned about why this had to be speedied at all, when there was already a discussion going on, with the only comment to date being an argument to keep. I'm also kind of concerned why Bbb23 has been silent in all of this, not responding to the reasonable query on your talk page, and not providing an explanation at the TfD why you were short-cutting the discussion. Maybe the speedy was OK, but without any feedback, everybody's left in the dark about the reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for pete's sake. I deleted the article because it was created by a sock. I didn't find Uanfala's contribution to be substantial, but I can see now that I may have been wrong about that part. As for the deletion discussion, those would never stop me from deleting a page created by a sock. As for not responding to Uanfala, that was wrong of me and I apologize for it (Uanfala has done everything by the book here and should be commended for it), but I wasn't being intentionally difficult. It was an unusual request (for me). I'm occasionally asked to restore a deleted page, even of a sock, because an experienced editor believes it's notable and will take responsibility for it. This kind of request was novel to me and, frankly, I wasn't sure how to respond, so I didn't. Fast forwarding to now: by all means, keep it restored, and reopen the deletion discussion. It's fine with me, to the extent that matters (doing that doesn't require my permission).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bbb23:
As for the deletion discussion, those would never stop me from deleting a page created by a sock. Frankly it should. There is no requirement to delete anything per G5, you should always defer to an ongoing deletion discussion unless you would be happy to snow-close that as delete. Indeed unambiguous copyright violations and office actions are the only times speedy deletion should override good faith recommendations to keep in an ongoing XfD. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I agree with the above. Although I'm neutral, leaning delete, on this particular template - given that it lacks any context and its main article is a red link - I think we're sometimes overzealous in deleting material created by socks or banned users. Presumably the letter of policy encourages it but if the content in question is otherwise neutral, well-written, verifiable, encyclopedic and useful, then it seems distinctly WP:POINTy to go around deleting it. All IMHO of course. — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
