Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 30

30 July 2020

Derek Chauvin (police officer) – Request withdrawn. Sandstein 07:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Derek Chauvin (police officer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I request a HISTMERGE of the deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) and Derek Chauvin. Fuzheado closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer), justifying a speedy closure due to unspecified BLP concerns, and A10. Derek Chauvin is part of the fast-moving cluster of topics related to the Killing of George Floyd, and a good faith contributor starts a (new?) article, at Derek Chauvin. It subsequently has a G4 placed on it. A discussion begins, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Derek Chauvin, over Fuzheado's initial speedy closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer). Fuzheado's speedy delete is rapidly overturned. An administrative AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin - is opened following the closure of the DRV - closed as keep I requested a HISTMERGE at WP:REFUND - Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 348#Derek Chauvin (police officer). Administrator deepfriedokra turned down the request. G4 is supposed to be used when an article is "substantially identical" to previously deleted material. The contributor who placed the G4 was under the impression that an AFD closure permanently prohibited any contributor from ever trying to cover that topic, even if they did so with a brand new article. I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4. Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) This is not what DRV is for. Requests for history merging can be made by using {{histmerge}} or at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Primefac, I'm not sure this should be so summarily closed. There is a refused REFUND[1] point to HISTMERGE, and a refused HISTMERGE[2] pointing to DRV. Refused REFUNDS are welcome at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Histmerge requests are not made at REFUND. Also, you have linked to the same discussion twice. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Reopened per WP:NOTBURO: It looks like the submitter has been bounced back and forth by people citing "incorrect venue" rather than substantive reasons for denying the request, and summarily closing it would simply perpetuate this Catch-22. While decisions made at WP:REFUND are not mentioned at WP:DRVPURPOSE (as either an example of something appropriate or something inappropriate for DRV), I believe they fall within the scope here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) The reason I closed this is because it's patently not a DRV request, it's a histmerge request (and a "I want to review the G4 decline" request, which is just silly). You want to talk about NOTBURO, it's dragging this out when it's clear there's nothing to be done. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Ultimately, all admin decisions are appealable at WP:ANI. It's just that we've taken a certain subset of them and dedicated DRV to them. In choosing between these two venues, I think DRV is a more appropriate place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Decline histmerge; the two histories are completely different, both in content and in contributing editors. There is nothing to histmerge. The decline of the G4 was perfectly acceptable, as (to repeat myself) the two articles were/are substantially different. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Also, decline restoration. I said below somewhere that I didn't particularly care if the revisions were restored (because I was only looking at this from a histmerge perspective), but after looking at DFO's request for an OSer to go through the revisions for suppressible content I agree with Ivanvector's assessment of the diffs - there is really nothing to restore that a non-admin could see, which means there's no reason to do so. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Comment from admin who declined at REFUND I believe I was correct in declining to unilaterally reverse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) at WP:REFUND. The highlighted-in-green banner at the top of that page states Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page. I also stated in my earlier linked decline that I was not averse to a HISTMERGE. I went on to say, on the other hand, that as the deletion was via AfD, that undeleting for a HISTMERGE might be problematical Those problems being best addressed here. I am, of course surprised that an editor of OP's tenure should be unaware that WP:REFUND was the wrong venue. However, and despite the highlighted-in-green banner at the top, people do make requests there that are not suited to that venue. After-all, we are all fallible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC) @King of Hearts: Of course declines at REFUND because DRV is the correct venue are reviewable here. So much so that it is in at least one of the templated REFUND declines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Is this now the scope of DRV? Asking for a friend. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC) User:Deepfriedokra gave their reasons above. I think we are getting way way too bureaucratic here. Admin says you need to go to place A. Place A says "no you don't". So IMO the answer DRV seems to be creating is that this is at the discretion of any admin. I think that's reasonable. We just need to be sure there is a way forward to request the merge. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I honestly think the declining admin got it wrong. Nothing requires the history of a deleted article come to DRV. I appreciate the abundance of caution, but in this case it was the wrong call. As far as I can see each admin can make that decision on their own. If we conclude that DRV is needed then allow HISTMERGE as in general more stuff in the history is useful unless the time periods of the article greatly overlap. They are clearly about the same subject. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) WP:HISTMERGE is for copy/paste page moves. This was not that. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC) If the article were deleted, created in the same place, and then renominated at AfD with a result of "keep", I think it's valid to request for the old revisions to be undeleted. This is just doing the same thing, but at two different places. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I'm also not convinced that DRV is necessary based on the merits of the case, but the fact that multiple admins are disagreeing in multiple directions on the correct way to handle this case is ipso facto justification of its existence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) So, there are lots of facets to this. Firstly, on venue:- This is a contested administrative decision. The community has, in fact, three venues for reviewing contested administrative decisions: deletion review, move review, and the administrator's noticeboard. (There's also Arbcom, but that's not a place for community review.) Of those three, you could make an arguable case for MR, and an excellent case for DRV or AN. It's custom and practice, and to be fair it's also pretty bloody obvious, that DRV has a supervisory relationship with REFUND. All three venues are competent to review contested administrative decisions. If there's no one clear place to talk about it, then any place will do; that's policy. So it's in order to discuss it here. Secondly, on HISTMERGE:- The purpose of HISTMERGE is to comply with the terms of use. People are entitled to credit for their contributions. Therefore it's not needful to perform a HISTMERGE unless some of the text from the deleted article appears in the new article. Thirdly, on G4:- G4 is generally endorsed at DRV where the new version doesn't contain any plausible sources that weren't in the old version. We generally want a fresh discussion if there's a plausible source that wasn't analyzed in the previous XfD. Fourthly, on restoring deleted articles for DRV:- This is normally done where there isn't a copyvio or other overhelming reason why not. It would be surprising to refuse, in this case. It behoves administrators to be transparent. Any revisions that raise BLP concerns can be removed, and the disputed content can be restored to an unindexed space, if necessary. Finally, I'll be refraining from using a word in bold as I've edited quite a bit in this topic area.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Anyways, here's my take. There are two reasons to delete revisions of an article: 1) the article does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, and there is no other suitable place for the revisions to go; and/or 2) the revisions themselves are problematic. To illustrate the first example, if an AfD has 5 !votes for "delete" and only one for "redirect", and the redirect seems sensible to the closing admin and the "delete" !voters have not advanced an argument for why redirecting is inappropriate, then the page should be redirected and the history should not be deleted without a good reason. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) people have raised BLP concerns, but it's mostly in the context of BLP1E, which is more about not having an article on otherwise low-profile people notable for only one event rather than discussing the nature of BLP-related prose. While the deleted article was indeed more negative than the current article, the content appears to be referenced and true, so there is no justification for keeping it hidden under WP:CRD #2. Allow HISTMERGE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I don't really care if the deleted content of the redirect is restored, but I vehemently object to everyone saying that a histmerge should proceed. This is NOT a copy/paste page move and is not the reason histmerges are designed. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) struck now-invalid point, see my !vote above. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Ah, I see what you mean, I was so fixated on the deleted content that I conflated the two. Restore history, neutral on histmerge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC) No worries, and apologies if I'm coming across as a slavering fool, I've just declined a ton of histmerge requests like this in the last few weeks and it's starting to bug me. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Anyways, I still maintain that Deepfriedokra's refusal to restore the history at REFUND makes this a valid DRV filing, even though I would have restored the history on request myself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Originator of this request here. I did not realize this discussion had been re-opened. Please let me make a point I consider important. The original AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was rapidly overturned. An administrative AFD was started on Derek Chauvin, and that closed as keep. I think these closures not only mean Derek Chauvin should not be deleted, but that none of the versions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) ever deserved deletion. It sounded like deepfriedokra, the closer of my refund request, and Primefac, the original closer of this request, thought it was their role to apply their judgement and experience as to whether the deleted versions Derek Chauvin (police officer) merited being undeleted. Maybe some other people here think this. I am not an administrator, but I really don't understand why they didn't see the decision being made by the community at the first DRV combined with the second AFD. If Primefac is only objecting to merging the histories of Derek Chauvin (police officer) and Derek Chauvin, and is not objecting to restoring the full revision history of Derek Chauvin (police officer), I wish they had said that, so someone could have gone ahead and restored Derek Chauvin (police officer). I can live with that. As to why I wanted to see Derek Chauvin (police officer)... If the conclusions of the first DRV and the second AFD count, are administrators really authorized to require a further argument for undeletion of the deleted versions of the first article? Shouldn't undeletion have been pro forma? At Talk:Derek_Chauvin/Archive_1#Contested_deletion you can see comments from two administrators, who seem to claim that any AFD prohibited anyone from ever working on second, improved versions of articles that had been deleted at an AFD. They claimed all attempts to draft improved versions of articles were subject to G4 speedy deletion. So, yes, I think I can benefit from comparing the last version of the first article, and the early versions of the second article. As I wrote on Primefac's user talk page, I've requested userification of dozens of deleted articles, updated them with additional references, new developments, and restored them to article space. Every time i face the question "Have I improved this article enough it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion under G4, if I were to restore it to article space now." I think comparing the deleted revisions in this case is obviously going to be helpful with those decisions. Geo Swan (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I keep saying this, but no one on this discussion seems to understand. WP:REFUND is not for pages deleted via AfD. WP:DRV is. Where, at last, we finally are. REFUND is for ProDs and G13's. BTW, has anyone asked the admin who closed the AfD? It seems to me that would be the first step. Am I to understand that an WP:IAR undeletion of content deleted at AfD is in anyway acceptable? A deletion undertaken via WP:CONSENSUS that can only be reversed by a consensus discussion? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Courtesy @Fuzheado:. And, by the way, if anyone feels I erred in declining at REFUND, please feel free to accept now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC) If the deletion has already been overturned at DRV, why is the page now deleted as an outcome of the AfD? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Best I can tell, i did not take part in Talk:Derek_Chauvin/Archive_1#Contested_deletion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I do not see where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was overturned. Two separate articles. How could the DRV of one apply to the other? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC) There are many words above and linked that I haven’t digested, and I don’t think are relevant. The HISTMERGE aspects are irrelevant to DRV. What makes this relevant to DRV is a declined request to undelete some revisions behind a redirect. I think there is a BLPNAME reason to not undelete, but I don’t know, and think we have to trusts some admins who can see these deleted revisions to explain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I think HISTMERGE can occasionally be relevant to DRV, when we have to consider how to credit people for contributions that were originally made to an article that's now been deleted. In the past we've often seen history-merging as a relatively laborious procedure and preferred one of the alternative solutions in WP:RIA that finesse around the need to perform one. In this case it would only ne necessary to worry about that if any of the text from the deleted article appears in any of the revisions of the current one.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Clarification please. When a passage too long to be overlooked as de minimis is copied from one article to another the contributor who made the paste is supposed to leave a note on the new article's talk page, correct? But our lawyers say it need only say, material was copied from old article to this article, correct? Are fully compliant contributors supposed to add a diff? Well, in this particular case, if the contributor who started Derek Chauvin had copied passages from Derek Chauvin (police officer), and any passages remain in the article today, they should be attributed. Does that attribution need to be anything more than a note on Talk:Derek Chauvin? If the histories were merged that would eliminate the need for further attribution, correct? If the deleted revisions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) remain invisible, a note on Talk:Derek Chauvin, saying it included passages originally found in Derek Chauvin (police officer), would be effectively useless to anyone who wasn't an administrator, correct? Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Geo Swan, the relevant part of the Terms of Use says that people will be credited for their contributions: in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) So in other words, they key point is that we have to be able to tell who wrote the content, not that we have to be able to identify exactly which person wrote exactly which bit by way of diffs. If text has been moved from one article to another, it's sufficient to add a dummy edit with an edit summary that says something like: This article contains content written by usernames X, Y and Z. But in this particular case, that isn't necessary because of the timeline. I (personally) created the redirect from Derek Chauvin (police officer) after it was deleted, so the sequence is completely clean; a sysop could restore all the history prior to my redirect without performing a history merge at all. History merges are only normally needed for content that's been written on Wikipedia and then reused on Wikipedia without attribution, such as when someone copy/pastes article content into their sandbox during an AfD and then moves their sandbox into the mainspace after the AfD closes. The only examples I've ever seen were the result of inexperience or bad faith.—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC) I may have missed it in the great wall of text above, but it sounds like an "undelete history and maintain redirect" would meet the needs of everyone and be a lot simpler? Is that where we are now? Hobit (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Well, I made the request, and indicated above this outcome would answer my needs. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Endorse declined HISTMERG for the reasons Primefac said a few times (not eligible for HISTMERG), but allow a new refund request for the redirect's history if someone wants to make that request. I can't see the deleted content so I'm not sure if there is any problem with restoring the history, but seems like it should be processed as any other request for a history restoration. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Strong decline restoration of the history per Johnuniq's post below and BLP policy, if the restoration would restore the material referred to in the links below, which should not be restored. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Background to this issue can be seen at ANI permalink, 30 June 2020. Following that and some other discussions, I left a warning here. The history of the redirect contains material referred to in these links. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Welp, given the BLP issues, I'm glad I did not WP:IAR auto-restore out of process. Wikipeddia is not a bureaucracy, but sometimes we find policies and guiidelines exist for a reason-- to stop overly enthusiastic admins from doing the wrong thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) This means the restoring sysop will need to make selective revision deletions to remove the person's new name. It doesn't mean the history shouldn't be restored.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Could an oversighter go through and OS the selected revisions before restoring to prevent accidental revelation of that which is not to be revealed? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Note This is now at WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose restoration, oppose histmerge - I had a look at the deleted revisions in the redirect, and I see two (the most recent two, out of 66) which would not need to be revdeleted under criterion WP:RD2, for either inappropriately publishing living persons' names, or stating in Wikipedia's voice that living persons committed crimes for which they have not been tried. It's not worth anyone's time to restore two revisions that don't contribute to any current article content anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I trust Ivanvector‘s statement. Decline the requests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Orignal requester here I am withdrawing my request. As i said in the ANI discussion that followed this opening - I had never seen the deleted revisions. It was not until it was asserted here that I had any idea the deleted revisions contained a name that it has been decided not to include, and I would not have made this request if I knew that. Black Kite assured everyone, at ANI, that (1) Derek Chauvin (police officer) did contain that name; (2) Derek Chauvin shares essentially no content with the earlier article. On June 4th two administrator endorsed a claim that Derek Chauvin qualified for G4, which should only have been applied when the content of a later article was essentially identical to the content of a deleted article. I was skeptical of this claim, at the time, and I am going to place my trust in Black Kite's review. Thanks everyone. Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.