Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 12

User:AntonioMartin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Specifically, the history of the page. Because this user page had plenty of wiki-projects info that the user is a part of, and five barnstars and they were all deleted. Reason for speedy delete was the user's biography which was written on it but the user had not been made aware that user biographies are by policy not allowed or that their page was up for speedy deletion. user requested that the page be fully reinstated, and the user be given a couple of days at which point the biography and other information sections will be removed and placed in another website that allows for personal blogs. But so far that request has not been fulfilled either. Here is my originasl message to UTHER SRG: "Hi! I need to have my user page reinstated. I have several awards, wikiprojects, etc that need to be re-instated. Also, for at least a couple days, the biography, until I find some other website where I can put that. Thanks, and God bless!". Antonio De Tresss Martin (Que hubole?) 11:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn and fully restore the page, including history. The user is active and entitled to a user page. The biography was a bit long-winded but in my view within the latitude allowed to an editor. Deleting it outright was out of process and inappropriate; even if it was excessive content I would have expected an attempt to engage with the user about trimming it down rather than just deleting it. The deleting admin compounded their error by refusing to adjust their action when asked. WP:TROUT should be issued. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not aware at the time of the prior post that there were concerns around BLP violations, and would agree those should have been/should be removed and revision-deleted. The page itself should be, and I believe has been, restored. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c) Overturn speedy. WP:U5 only applies "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages" and this user has, since 2002, made over 30,000 edits to main space[1] and has created over 2000 articles.[2] In carrying out this deletion the guidelines in WP:DELETEOTHER do not seem to have been followed to the slightest degree. The user should I'll gently suggest the user might edit their user page to make it more appropriate[3] but the way this matter has been handled is utterly unsuitable. Thincat (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome but not process. The pseudo-"biography" contained some very questionable material such as accusations that individuals whose full name was used committed criminal acts, including assault and drug use. So, the user page should have been deleted due to containing BLP violations. I would, however, have no objection to returning everything but that back to this editor, such as the awards and list of projects they're active on, but given the BLP issues the biography material should not be restored, even as page history. I don't, however, think that's why this deletion was actually done, and had those problems not been present, I'd be arguing to overturn, but given that, we've still got a case of "right outcome for the wrong reason". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that *is* why, though didn't think BLP applied in the userpage realm, so removed via U5. I have no problem returning all but the BLP tainted material. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now restored all but the BLP-related material. I did not restore the history. With ~650 edits, redacting the BLP portions out is a high burden task. UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Were your deletions valid under WP:REVDEL?

  Are you able to correct the deletion log? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said more briefly... at ~650 edits to that page, the task to determine which edits can and can't be revdel'd is onerous. I think WP:IAR can apply here as which of the revisions are good or bad would take several hours of work. This wasn't a case of a short time period of one user putting up BLP tainted material. The 650 edits were made over a 20-year time period. UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IAR deletion of a very old userpage is not justified. Maybe it was G10 eligible. Otherwise it’s for MfD. U5, no. When we made U5, the laxity of the NOTWEBHOST component was importantly, necessarily, balanced by the user being not a project contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So? Laziness is not an excuse to violate deletion policy. It wouldn't be that hard to use a tool such as Wikiblame to find when the allegedly BLP-violating content was added and revdel everything since, although if it's truly been there for a long time that may indicate that the community disagrees it is objectionable at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks SRG. I have a question. Can I at least post a link to my biography's new page for those interested (which, granted there might be no one)- joke aside, can I? Thanks, and God bless!". Antonio A Thousand Lovers Martin (Que hay?) 09:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your biography was highly probable. I see no purpose - joke or serious - in providing access to it. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Comment so anyways, can I or can I not? Antonio Grandview US Martin (Que hubole?) 09:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ... Comment - Does "Nancy Reagan apply"? "Just Say No"? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn / WP:SLAP the deleting admin, User:UtherSRG. WP:U5 objectively and obviously did not apply. Admins with the delete button must be expected to be able to read the CSD criteria. Blatantly misusing the criteria, even for an arguable right outcome, brings the entire admin corps into disrespect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted I agree with Seraphimblade - while U5 wasn't applicable due to the user's large edit count, it is not acceptable to use your userpage to accuse named, presumably-living people of committing crimes, and I don't think the deleted history should be restored here. I'm sure we can email the deleted text to the OP if they want to rewrite it to remove these portions (and in general it's a bad idea to use your userpage to make any claims about other named people). Hut 8.5 13:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and send to MFD if someone wishes to go that route. It is obvious that U5 does not apply and I don’t believe any other CSD apply. An argument could possibly be made for G10 but it appears that the user page was not exclusively an attack page so this wouldn’t apply either. With no CSD applying the page (and its history) must be restored. Frank Anchor 00:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn U5. The page is clearly questionable in some aspects, but U5 refers to Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. The user has made around 40,000 edits in total with 90% in mainspace, so this criteria clearly doesn't apply. The inappropriate BLP violating material containing info on crimes by BLPs should not be added again, but otherwise the materials in the user page are not entirely an attack page qualifying WP:G10, so I would disagree with the CSD. If the page is otherwise still unacceptable, send it to WP:MFD. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn U5 - I didn't see the user page before its deletion and haven't seen it. However, U5 does not apply to the user page of a long-time editor. The reviewing admin did have an alternative to either deleting the user page, leaving the user page alone, or sending it to MFD, not another speedy deletion of the page, but deletion of the offensive material, which could have been redacted as RD2. However, we are here. Now that the page has been restored minus the BLP violations, I don't see that anything more needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There have been errors by two experienced editors. The less serious was by the deleting admin, who should not have used U5. The more serious was the BLP violations. Admins make mistakes. Experienced editors should not use their user pages to accuse other editors of misconduct. But DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Well, technically speaking, I did not accuse other Wikipedians of wrongdoing. Everyone listed there is not a Wikipedian, and as far as people named there, there are probably a thousand people who share those names. Some of the others mentioned read the content and enjoyed it as well. Just a comment, because none of that will be back on my user-page, only on my new user-page at a blog site. Antonio Losing my Self Control Martin (Orale!) 09:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. WP:CSD#U5 requires the user to have "made few or no edits outside of user pages", which is meant to deter single-purpose accounts that are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is never meant to be applied to userpages of long-time, experienced editors. ✗plicit 07:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The deleting admin has copy-paste restored a version of the user page lacking some material said to be offensive. I think that DRV has nothing more to do here. I would observe that there seem to have been some non-trivial edits in the original user-page history by users other than AntonioMartin, and if these are still in the current version, some form of crediting those editors is necessary to be CC/GFDL compliant. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think that final comments to the author and to any future reviewing admin are in order. To the author: Any questionable material may result in the user page being deleted at MFD or in a block or both. To the reviewer: Any questionable material can be deleted as RD2. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn basically per Explicit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, keep history deleted. It is a misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost to use one's user page, which is intended to assist in intra-project collaboration, to host lengthy autobiographies. This applies to all editors, longtime or not. Sandstein 09:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But U5 is not a mechanism allowing one admin to unilaterally decide for a long term user. If a long term user’s Userpage is not OK, MfD is the forum to discuss it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is obviously not G5 U5 (or any CSD), so the only way this page and its history can be deleted is via MFD. For now everything MUST be restored. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  U5? VickKiang (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thanks for catching that. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ji-han (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Because his father became a leader of Bereaved families group of Itaewon disaster, KoreaTimes his role in the disaster is significant. Ghorosu (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument, and doesn't demonstrate that the closure was incorrect. With regret, I do not recommend even trying to draft this, because unless something very directly about his career prior to his tragic and untimely death emerges, this is the sort of article that is inappropriate for Wikipedia regardless of your enthusiasm. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but this does not appear to be an appeal of the close. The proponent should be allowed to develop and submit a draft, but, as Jclemens says, the draft is likely not to establish notability either. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the closure of the discussion was entirely reasonable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The numerical consensus is 4-1 (delete to keep), with the delete side's argument of failing WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:VICTIM being IMO somewhat stronger than the lone keep vote from the article creator and DRV filer. It's also unclear what other outcome DRV filer is asking for. VickKiang (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is for handling failure to follow deletion process; it is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the consensus of the discussion was clear and I don't think that argument would have made any difference if it had been made in the AfD. Hut 8.5 13:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]