- Greyfriars, London (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
(Withdrawn, see below) This article was created by Peter Damian V (talk · contribs), a sock of banned user Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I declined the sock's unblock request (in which they threatened more socking) and deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5 because no other users had made substantial edits to it. Without either contacting me or asking for deletion review, as he should have done if he disagreed with the deletion, Nev1 (talk · contribs) undeleted the article with the rationale "clearly satisfies notability guidelines and deleting it thoughtlessly damaged the encyclopedia". Following discussion at User talk:Sandstein#Greyfriars, London, I ask that my speedy deletion be reviewed and, unless there is consensus to overturn it per DRV rules, that the deletion be reinstated. Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds? Are you disputing the content of the article or is it just because it was created by an ostracised editor? Nev1 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter, see WP:BAN. Banned sockpuppeteers have no right to edit Wikipedia, and keeping their contributions, even good ones, just encourages them to sock even more. Incidentally, the content of the article appears to have been copied without attribution from User:Quisquiliae/sandbox, so it is technically also a copyvio. A checkuser in the audience may want to check whether Quisquiliae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created yesterday, is another Damian sock. Sandstein 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was afraid that it was the latter reason which shows a complete disregard for the encyclopedia and treats Wikipedia as a game. Discarding good quality edits because you don't like the author is nothing short of ludicrous. Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#G5 says that deletion is discretionary not mandatory and Nev1 is correct in labelling the removal is was an act of vandalism. I for one would be interested in a history of this site, regardless of who the main author is. It contained tombs of Marguerite of France, Isabella of France, and Eleanor of Provence. In addition it was an important part of medieval scholarship. It occupies an important place in UK history. John lilburne (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the credited response. Nev1 is not banned, he is apparently not violating copyright, and he is not continuing any imaginable disruption by posting this clearly encyclopedic content. Do not redelete. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, yet another very new account with a strange editing pattern. Sandstein 16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it hard to parse the above non sequitur, it looks like an attempt to be sly, so perhaps you may like to correct that impression.
- But yes I am a new user. However, new user or not, I did noticed that you similarly deleted another good edit by Damian today. So that you can improve in the future I'll simply remind you that a discretionary power is not exercised if one always acts in one particular way. John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't redelete This subject clearly warrants an article, which is why I contributed to editing it. I am currently researching it, so if it's deleted then I will end up re-creating it in some form or another, although I'm not sure how attribution can be properly maintained if that happens. I don't want to claim the article creation for myself just so as to "not encourage" future sock puppets, neither do I want to reword large portions just for the sake of it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deletion was proper per WP:BAN (though I personally disagree with WP:BAN on this unless the user was banned for copyright or related problems). Nev1 should have politely communicated with the deleting admin rather than undeleting his own and claiming the deleting admin acted "thoughtlessly". Sandstein did something well within policy and that policy has had a lot of thought put into it. The general consensus is that these deletions should be done. Given that significant edits by a non-banned editor have now been made to the article, redeletion isn't appropriate, but a WP:FISH to Nev1. He did improve the encyclopedia, but doing so in a non-civil way hurts the encyclopedia too, and there he failed. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't engage in civil discussion. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse both deletion and undeletion Practise is that any user may remove content provided by a banned user but users are also allowed to restore content if they are prepared to take responsibility for the edit so both actions appear to be correct. I recommend the closing admin trout both the nominator and the undeleter for failing to behave with decorum about the whole thing. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Greyfriars, London should clearly have an article on Wikipedia. (I'm also personally of the opinion that Peter Damian seems to be making a sincere attempt to generate encyclopaedic content and we should consider giving him another chance accordingly, but that's not a matter for Deletion Review to decide.)—S Marshall T/C 20:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that's actually the case. Content creation is a side effect of his stated purpose. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not re-delete Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia. To the extent even our most difficult editors do work, so much the better for us all. I recognize the need to find an effective way to deal with sockpuppetry, and for banning to have some effect, but the current tactic of deleting even good work by banned editors does not seem to be working, and therefore, on balance, is interfering with building the encyclopedia. I congratulate the undeletor for their courage in pursuing the proper course to improve Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article- I agree entirely with the three editors directly above me, and can add nothing to what they have said. Reyk YO! 11:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the CSD is there for a purpose and the undeleting admins failure to recognise that and general attack to this seems somewhat lacking. As mentioned by other above there is room in the criteria for some leeway so overturning the outcome just because it wasn't handled well would be silly. On the overall issue this isn't really an area which DRV is good at answering, if there is a general problem with an admin being out of touch with the communities wishes by undoing G5s etc that's a DR/RFC type issue, similarly if there is a belief that the communities intent on G5 is no longer generally supported, that's really better suited to broader discussion at CSD. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as in accordance with policy about banned users. Endorse undeletion as also in accordance with policy about banned users, assuming Nev1 is prepared to take responsibility for the content. Suggest that the tone taken by both Sandstein and Nev1 is unhelpful. Especially Sandstein, who as a recent ArbCom candidate presumably knows better. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR was written to remind us that the content and quality of WP comes first above everything else. Thus, this nice article should be kept, and damn the rest. SBHarris 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is I have had issues in the past with sockpuppets and I understand the deep frustration that is felt when dealing with editors who abuse their editing privileges. Often this turns into an effort to sweep away anything that the editor in question had touched, sometimes without a thorough evaluation of the validity of the sockpuppet's contributions. In this case, we appear to have a properly sourced encyclopedic article and Wikipedia is better of with it than without it. There are clearly instances where a sockpuppet's work should be deleted, but I do not believe that this is the case with this article. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (there's no consensus toward a G5 is a must, and Nev1, by undeleting, has made the article his responsibility) and close this DRV quickly; we're just making users targets for WR giggles now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn the request to review my deletion because the article has now been substantially edited by non-banned users and cannot therefore be re-deleted per G5.
I advise those who believe that Peter Damian should be unblocked because he does good content work to encourage him to appeal his ban through the proper channels, or to take WP:OFFER, instead of socking. Otherwise any work by him remains liable to be speedily deleted. I do not think that it is helpful to encourage a banned user to continue evading their ban, even if it is to do good content work. Sandstein 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|