Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 16

@RoySmith: I think your closure is correct. In terms of the audit, while I don't have server-side access to verify this claim, I think the "damage" is confined to the redirects listed on User:DannyS712/CSD_log/1 (the four redirects that you restored) and User:Cabayi/CSD_log#April_2019 ("Socks of Brett Cox" section).

I've had some pushback from the Twinkle maintainers for wanting to change the CSD G8 functionality. Instead of requesting a change to Twinkle, Amorymeltzer suggested that we should be trouting User:Cabayi and User:DannyS712 for not checking page history before nominating redirects for G5 / G8 deletion (most of these redirects had page history by other editors).

@Plantdrew: Would you please go through the plant name list under "Socks of Brett Cox" on User:Cabayi/CSD_log#April_2019 to see if there are any that you would like to restore? I saw from the deleted page history that you had tagged many of them. Deryck C. 17:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck Chan Apart from the fact that:

in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#More nuance needed with WP:G8 for redirects to deleted pages Amorymeltzer made no mention of trout;
I issued no G8s, just G5s; and
a redirect, by its nature, whether created directly or as the consequence of a page move, wouldn't contain "substantial edits by others" to exempt it from G5, the substantial edits would be on the target page;

apart from those misplaced points, what have I done to merit your fish? Cabayi (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Most of the redirects you tagged for G5 in the "Socks of Brett Cox" batch have in fact been edited by Plantdrew after the now-blocked user had created them. Twinkle (or one of the two users involved in the G5 batch) should've noticed this and considered consulting Plantdrew before deleting the redirects. Deryck C. 18:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deryck Chan, I don't dispute that the redirects may have been edited but I don't see that the structure of a redirect offers any scope for a substantial edit sufficient to override the imperative to enforce a legitimate block and to WP:DENY sockpuppets. By the same token, I have no problem with the redirects being recreated (by other editors) but the restoration of sockpuppets' redirects does not respect the user's original block or the admin who applied that block.

Alternatively, the way RHaworth handled the G5 on Snowdon alplily was classy, deleting the article and restoring just those revisions not made by the sockpuppet, so that Plantdrew now appears to be its creator. Cabayi (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Cabayi. I understand your point and I know those on the front-line of sock-fighting have a hard job! Thank you for your hard work. Deryck C. 18:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan:, thanks for pointing out the list of redirects Cabayi deleted. I've now restored most of them. Plantdrew (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Plantdrew. Deryck C. 18:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]