31 October 2019

[[:{{{page}}}]]

[[:{{{page}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page}}}|links]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page}}}|action=watch}} watch]) ([[Special:Undelete/{{{page}}}|restore]])

I understand that there were multiple issues with the Chris Ronayne page that were not addressed. However, the page was not being monitored previously. Since its deletion it has been my responsibility to update and recreate the page. If I am not entirely sure what I am doing, but I am just looking to undelete the page so that I can update it, and fix the previous issues with the page. Chris Ronayne is an important political figure within the Cleveland, OH community, and if necessary I have the sources for that. I know that there were 3 specific issues with the page mainly concerning source citation. I am currently looking looking to fix those issues and believe that I can. In addition he is the CEO of of University Circle, a location in Cleveland with an accredited page. Not only is his page important for those looking to learn more about him politically, it is also essential for University Circle, so that we can inform our readers of who is running our organization, what our values are, and why Chris is someone essential to the success of University Circle. Abbeyhughes13 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Premeditated Chaos: I assume we're talking about Chris Ronayne here, in which case, this was an expired WP:PROD. I suggest that we just treat this as a misplaced request for WP:REFUND and go ahead and restore it. I'll hold off on actually doing that, for the moment, in case I'm mis-understanding the history. It sounds like there's some other issues with WP:COI, but that shouldn't prevent the WP:REFUND. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile infantry (closed)

User:SashiRolls/SWAPP

User:SashiRolls/SWAPP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe this page has been wrongly speedied. U5 doesn't apply as this is very relevant to Wikipedia, and G10 doesn't apply to alleged WP:POLEMIC violations. The latter belongs to MfD, so I recommend starting a MfD discussion. And in my opinion, the page is completely valid as SashiRolls is documenting a current dispute. This would not be the first time RHaworth fundamentally misunderstood CSD. wumbolo ^^^ 01:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn CSD. The deleted page is a crazed rant, to be sure, but WP:CRAZEDRANT isn't a CSD. WP:U5 doesn't apply. U5 only applies to pages that are not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. This is a rant about things that happened on the wiki, so, rant or not, it's about wikipedia. WP:G10 also doesn't apply. While this rant certainly says some unkind things about other editors, I really can't see it being called an attack page. I suppose others might disagree on that, so I'm not going to tempdelete it; I beg the indulgence of non-admins on this one. I don't see how this page is useful to wikipedia, but it doesn't fit either of the CSD it was deleted under, so it should be restored and brought to MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn CSD to Keep as per RoySmith, . This is as clearly about Wikipedia as it could be, it is an account, from one user;'s PoV, of a series of on-wiki actions. I don't see hoe this could have been deleted as a U5. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn of U5 and/or G10, as per User:RoySmith. Ugh. Based on what has been written, there unfortunately does not appear to be any CSD criterion to get rid of a WP:CRAZEDRANT, and we can't allow Ignore All Rules deletion, which would result in anarchy. Ugh. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This was ineligible for U5 because its author has plenty of mainspace contributions, but not because it's relevant to Wikipedia. That's not what U5's about, and the page wasn't relevant to Wikipedia's goals, which is. Unless dispute resolution is now one of Wikipedia's goals in its own right. No opinion on it as a G10. —Cryptic 07:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean Overturn - It's obviously not a U5; it's specifically mentioned as a response to r to Mr or Mrs Butternut's ARCA filing (per the first edit summary); the relevant AN/I is now closed, I don't see anything at ArbCom. It's however plausible, that it's still needed for dispute resolution at somewhere I'm missing, and an MfD where SashiRolls can make that case makes the most sense to me (which is to say, I'm not confidently able to discern whether it meets the "and serves no other purpose" of G10, it's certainly not obvious, so it would appear to at least merit a discussion on that point. WilyD 08:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An MFD in which SashiRolls could make that case would require that SashiRolls be unblocked, and DRV is not an unblocking forum. Someone else will have to try to make that case unless SashiRolls is unblocked in the normal course of unblock requests. If I understand the circumstances, I would oppose an unblock, at least unless they meet the usual conditions of understanding why they were blocked and a willingness to try to change that. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion as out of process: by accident rather than anything more, hopefully. ——SN54129 09:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, and for the record, although the nomination mentions RHaworth, it is true that they deleted the page U5/G10 in May this year; but another admin deleted it in June under the same criteria. ——SN54129 09:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn WP:POLEMIC allows The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner., not U5. --Pudeo (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost just wrote something like "there's no way it's going to be used in a 'timely manner', its creator is blocked indef", except it seems its creator was blocked indef specifically for creating this page and then linking to an offsite cache of it after it was deleted (admin-only diff). If we're overturning this deletion, we'd be hypocrites not to unblock SashiRolls too. Yes I know this isn't the right forum for that. —Cryptic 16:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified the most recent deleter and the blocking admin of this discussion. The first is something I do anyway while clerking intake at DRV, so normally I wouldn't mention it, except so far I'm the only person even vaguely leaning endorse. —Cryptic 16:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave deleted, since SashiRolls obviously has a complete copy of this offline, and would not be able to use it onwiki, being blocked and all. And since it concerns someone with whom he was about to be (or maybe has been, haven't checked) interaction interacted on a subject he is about to be topic banned from. Whether or not U5 or G10 applied at the time of deletion doesn't matter too much; what matters is that is is not useful to anyone, and can be considered damaging to someone, now. It should stay deleted for now. If SashiRolls is ever unblocked, and the interaction topic ban isn't enacted doesn't make the dispute moot, and it can still legitimately be considered useful in dispute resolution (3 big if's), then we can undelete. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it WP:NOTBURO: Is there any serious question about what the end result of an MFD would be? It's a three month old "preparation" for an (almost certainly futile) arbitration case from a now-blocked user. It's not as if there was anything preventing SashiRolls from using this evidence at any point in the last 90 days - what possible purpose would this serve? @RoySmith: I haven't seen the actual Wiki version, but the off-site version that was linked yesterday contained a section rhetorically asking whether that user had stumbled into an off-wiki conspiracy, so that would seem to undercut the view that this was about behavior on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 16:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that I have blocked SashiRolls indefinitely for circumventing the deletion of this page, which was deleted twice, both times as an attack page. They effectively restored it a third time by placing an external link to it. I'm not sure why they didn't just go through the DRV motions to get it restored the right way, but I did consider such a restoration to have been disruptive. Were they to launch an unblock appeal whereby this is acknowledged, an unblock (and a resumption of the AE case), may become viable — although I'm still concerned about the user having already been indeffed and unblocked so many times. El_C 17:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - How is it that several of those !voting here are non-admins? This is a deleted page. Presumably the only people who would have insight other than admins are people already involved in disputes concerning this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saved a copy before it was deleted. – Levivich 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok... but, I mean, why? :) That seems pretty unusual. Regardless, it rather makes my point above that that non-admins !voting here are already people so invested in this dispute that they would, apparently, save someone else's userspace page. Since Wikipedia pages are, of course, stored indefinitely, the only reason I can think of to do this is if you knew it was problematic enough to be deleted but wanted a copy anyway? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find this troubling, too. We have Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment; I realize that this isn't linking, but the spirit of it is that it borders on harassment to see something that one knows is about to be deleted, and to make sure to keep an external copy just before the deletion goes through, so as to be able to, in effect, undo the deletion. It's not like Levivich intended to promptly contest the deletion at DRV, so it's pretty hard to argue that it was kept in order to save something from an erroneous deletion. Rather, it seems more like thumbing one's nose at the deletion decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean, this line of thinking is just a distraction. The link he was blocked for posting, which I assume is the page in question, isn't exactly hard to find. It's been posted elsewhere. Arkon (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lucky me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've notified Toddst1, who tagged the page for speedy deletion both times. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. However, that was a few months ago and I don't remember what the page contained or even if I was somehow involved. As a non-admin, I can't look at it to find out so I will refrain from commenting. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, I believe that this page should remain deleted. It contains nothing of value—it's simply a page of vitriol primarily against Tryptofish. The level of snark, and the "interestingly"-captioned picture make this page unsuitable for an ArbCom case. On another note, weren't TryptoFish and SashiRolls interaction-banned or very nearly interaction-banned at that point in time? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, not quite. That's my bad. Though, eventually, there was consensus for a one-way interaction ban, I screwed up the formulation of the sanction itself, so I'm not sure about how applicable it can be seen, from a procedural standpoint. Plus, I failed to properly log it. All in all, not my finest moment. El_C 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the ping; I otherwise would not have known what was going on. First, to answer Reaper Eternal's question, just before SashiRolls was indeffed yesterday, he was under a 1-way interaction ban with me (as an AE sanction), but that ban went into effect after the creation of the deleted page, not before. Now, to the merits of the DR. As the subject of the deleted page, I feel very strongly that it should remain deleted. Let's look at the policy basis for this review. There were two CSD reasons cited. One was that we are not a web host and such material should be kept only if there is an intention to use it in the near future for the purpose of dispute resolution or constructive commentary. SashiRolls kept the material for quite a long time without ever initiating any dispute resolution about me, although he did make threats to use the material externally for press release in a manner that edged up to WP:NLT. So is the argument here that, one day after he has been indeffed, it's a good time for him to initiate dispute resolution against me? What a strange assertion! Procedurally, let's wait to see if his unblock request is (God forbid!) granted, and then evaluate whether or not the page is going to be useful for the purposes of Wikipedia dispute resolution. But as long as he remains blocked, that reason to overturn remains nonsensical. And his 1-way IBAN with me remains in effect if he is unblocked, so the argument that it's permissible commentary about Wikipedia is similarly meritless unless that, too, is overturned. Now the other CSD issue is about it being an attack page. In other words, whether it was an attack page about me. Now, there have been serial versions of the page, including recreations after the first of two deletions. I'm not an admin, so I cannot have the pleasure of seeing what version we are talking about here. (I've heard rumors about off-wiki mirrors, but non-admins should not assume that those are identical to what would be undeleted.) But when I first complained about the page at ANI, it was describing me as "bonkers" and "shitty". If the consensus here is that that does not amount to an attack page, I have a request. I would like to be given a special permission to call every editor who supports undeletion here "bonkers" and "shitty". Does that sound like fun? And has Wikipedia really degenerated to the point that stuff like that gets taken seriously as "dispute resolution"? During the recent Framgate debacle, the WMF threatened to take over civility enforcement from the community. Letting this kind of garbage pass for dispute resolution or legitimate commentary (about someone he is IBANed from commenting about!) reflects pretty damn badly on the editors who want to do so. Maybe there is some kind of bureaucratic reason to put it through MfD instead of CSD. Well, I hope that no one will want to make me suffer through that. This DRV lacks a basis in policy, and is morally shameful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The version that was deleted contains neither "bonk" nor "shit". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, isn't that wonderful! Should we start a celebration? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that, in light of this DRV, I have conditionally restored SashiRolls' talk access so that they can launch a proper unblock appeal. El_C 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion and unblock Sashi – per Pudeo and Cryptic's rationales. The page is a collection of diffs and commentary about the diffs, in Sashi's usual impressionist prose style. It's definitely not U5, and I don't agree with the characterization of it as an "attack page". But it's definitely not any CSD criteria. It should never have been speedy deleted in the first place. Ergo, Sashi's block for linking to the incorrectly-deleted page (which I don't really understand where in policy this is forbidden anyway) should be overturned as well. – Levivich 19:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You saved a copy before it was deleted?????? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, this is not a place where an unblock decision can be made. The discussion is about whether to overturn a page deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tryptofish, I'm still going to address it, though. Levivich, the policy is disruptive editing (please see my first comment here). It is disruptive to continue to restore a deleted page that is deemed an attack page, be it directly, or by linking to it externally. That it may not be deemed an attack page now is not something I could have accounted for at the time. As also mentioned, if SashiRolls acknowledges this misstep, an unblock indeed becomes viable. Ordinarily, I would have just gone with a warning, but due to SashiRolls' troubling history of multiple indefinite blocks, I decided otherwise. El_C 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given WP:ILIKEIT and so forth, I think it would be appropriate for editors who want to overturn the deletion to explain what specifically makes the page legitimate constructive commentary about Wikipedia, and not an attack page. Citing freedom of speech isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about how it provides constructive commentary, and how it constitutes WP:CIVIL discourse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Needed background. With Rhododendrites comment, I'm not an admin, but have seen the page in a few iterations on-wiki and been subject to some of the behavior dealing with Sashirolls. To be clear for those that likely don't know the history as Tryptofish has discussed in-depth above and El C has mentioned with sanctions, the SWAPP page has been used as an attack page and already deleted twice as an attack page. Two things that those voting keep above are likely not aware of:

1. Sashirolls is under a 1-way interaction ban with Tryptofish. This means Sashi can be working on material in prepping an appeal focusing on their own behavior, but not circumventing the ban under the guise of it by continuing to pursue battleground behavior and vilification of Trpytofish for which they were banned. If the most recent revival was anything like previous versions, it would be a violation of the spirit of their ban. WP:G5 can easily apply in such a case too.
2. The page hasn't been used in a timely manner in terms of WP:POLEMIC. Instead, they frequently dangle threats out there in admin discussions of creating lists saying maybe they'll bring it to the press instead, for which EL C explicitly warned Sashirolls about already.[1] The tone at ANI, etc. has been more about veiled threats than an appeal when they bring that page up.

It should stay deleted since Sashi obviously has a copy, and it won't do anything but harm them in the long run in terms of their current sanctions. If the category needs to be reclassified, G5 related to WP:POLEMIC policy and the interaction ban, but WP:G10 can also apply. Classification is the only real potential "mess up" here, and WP:NOTBURO is policy with respect to letting the behavior issues continue despite multiple warnings. If the page were legitimate use and they weren't being disruptive, they would have gone through this very process instead of circumventing the deletion by creating it off-site and linking it, so WP:U5 does have some bearing too. One can discusss which one is the best classification, but covering multiple categories in varying degree isn't grounds for overturning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave deleted, per Tryptofish.  If this sort of thing is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, then decent people will continue to be driven away. In the absence of more decent editors, the disruptive editors who remain will be treated as more valuable than they are, and the vicious circle will continue.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I read the deleted version and honestly can't find anything rising to the level of U5 or G10. I mean, it's mostly quotes with commentary on them, not a rant - seems relatively structured (and thus somewhat relevant to the project). See also RoySmith's comment. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]