List of mass shootings in Australia (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted due to it being created by a sockpuppet account even though it contained adequate and relevant citations. In addition it also had other contributors to the article besides the sockpuppet. Two articles created by the sockpuppet are allowed to stay up and were not removed, so why was this one? The two articles in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_Kingdom & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Switzerland. Abatementyogin (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The United Kingdom article has had non-trivial edits made by editors in good standing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse aside from the creator the only edits were by an IP who may well be another sockpuppet, and in any case all that IP did was add a few categories. (Plus the person who tagged it for deletion under G5, but that hardly counts.) G5 only applies if there were no substantial edits by others, which I suspect is why the other two pages haven't been deleted. The banning policy makes clear that bans apply to all editing, good or bad. If someone has been banned then we've decided that the downsides of having them here outweigh the benefits of their edits. Hut 8.5 08:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:REVERTBAN: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor... changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand. Abatementyogin (and I) find this page useful. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hut 8.5, about your reference to WP:BMB and the bit that bans apply to all editing, good or bad. With a quick reminder to casual readers that bans are different from blocks, was this article a violation of a ban? I haven't looked at all the sockpuppets, but as far as I can see from the original account's talk page, they were topic banned from topics to do with US politics, and the list of Australian shootings doesn't fall under the scope of that. Is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If nothing else the user is clearly banned under WP:THREESTRIKES, given the enormous number of confirmed sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 08:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as deletion process has been followed correctly. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct application of G5. No prejudice against recreation by any user in good standing. Frank Anchor 16:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per what I learned about this deletion from Hut 8.5. Seems like a normal G5. —Alalch E. 19:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: I urge editors to use some WP:COMMONSENSE when looking at edits by blocked users. Assuming that the page was well sourced and had no other problems, it should be allowed to stay. The rationalization that edits should be removed even if they were good is unhelpful to building a better encyclopedia. (Why waste editor time building it up to the exact same page?) You could say that it prevents users from risking sockpuppetry knowing that their revisions will be reverted and deleted, but we have other outlets to punish them. The topic is notable and was (presumably) sourced. If a user outside of the sock opposes G5, it should almost always stay before an actual AfD. Also, the ban policy only refers that people that are banned should not edit (whether good or bad). It doesn't say that their edits, if found useful, should still be automatically overturned. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The ban policy does cover enforcement including what can be done with edits: Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the policy explicitly says that you can keep good edits. This is (from what I know) a good edit. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And I haven't suggested that it does state they must, regardless my comment was in response to your claim "Also, the ban policy only refers that people that are banned should not edit (whether good or bad)", when clearly it does cover removing edits done in contravention of that. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can remove those edits. It doesn't say you have to remove those edits (and edits include page creation). This is what I said in my comment in the next sentence; there is no provision to automatically overturn their edits. It seems everyone here agrees that this is a suitable topic and there is no prejudice against recreation. Why add a middle man and not just restore the article? There is no policy reason not to, which some editors think there is. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, all the substantive content was added by the now-blocked sockpuppet. Other than the creation and the G5 tagging, the only other edits were an IP editor adding categories. If anyone wants to re-create this independently, they should do so. I'll happily send the sources to anyone who asks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If one (a good-standing editor) was to get a copy of the deleted page and recreate it using that, that would be totally allowed, right? If so, I'd do it. It just seems absolutely silly to do that rather than just saying we should still keep it and restore it that way. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that would be a copyright violation. And proxying. And generally a bad idea. But if you took the sources from this article and did your own research and produced a new article not tainted by sockpuppetry, that would be allowed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If copyright is an issue, then just restore the article for the article history. There's nothing that says that sockpuppet edits have to be removed. Also how much copyright is there in this case? There's also little prose, so aside from the lede and descriptions, I should be able to still copy-paste the actual list (since numbers/dates and tables are not copyrightable). Also, it is absolutely not proxying. Please learn what that actually is. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I am personally opposed to removing constructive work of sock puppets, however the consensus-supported policy of G5 says delete any sock puppet work should be deleted. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I have already demonstrated above that consensus-supported policy actually says the opposite. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What that policy says is that no human is obligated to blindly revert all edits of a sockpuppet, not that if some human decides doing so is worth their time that their action can be challenged. It's a trivial result of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, not a counter to the way G5 works. Endorse * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: The text states changes that are obviously helpful... are allowed to stay. A decently sourced article is helpful. Your reading of it referring to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is a completely made up interpretation. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It actually says that changes that are obviously helpful [...] can be allowed to stand. There's no must there, and it was entirely consistent with policy for Liz and whoever CSD tagged this to decide, without further reason, that this article should not be allowed to stand, even if they thought it was obviously helpful. It would also have been entirely consistent with policy for her to rely on that clause to decline to action the CSD, but that's not the choice she made, and DRV has no jurisdiction to force her to make a different one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not opposing that G5 was applied correctly. I'm saying that because an uninvolved editor wants it back, it should be restored because we all agree it is a suitable page. And I never said it must stand. Where'd you get that? I said it is allowed to stand if there is consensus that it is a helpful edit (which I am not seeing any detractors in that case). Deletion review is here to decide if there are policy-based reasons to overturn a page deletion, and there is a reason simply by me wanting it back per WP:PROXYING. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse in regards to it being a proper use of G5, but if an editor in good standing requests the undeletion of an article per G5, it should be done, as they are vouching and taking responsibility for the content. This is already allowed in the first place. Meaning this Deletion Review is unnecessary. Silverseren^C 00:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The G5 deletion of this page was perfectly appropriate, but what was not appropriate was the deleting admin's refusal to restore the article once a good faith editor had requested it. The policy has already been quoted above, but the ensuing !votes suggest this needs to be repeated: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor [..,] but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. Guys, it can't get any more explicit than that. I find it bizarre that several experienced editors and admins could get something like that wrong. If an editor restores a sock edit and vouches for it, you let that be: it would be silly to edit-war to re-revert it. It's similarly strange to stop people from having the page restored. There can be two situations where it would make sense to have such reservations: either if the creator was known for misrepresentation of sources, or if they were so pernicious to the community that we would be willing to sacrifice content just so that they'd be as disincetivised to come back as possible. After a quick glance at the sockmaster's talk page and at the SPI archive, I don't see indications that either of these apply. If there are any concerns about their content at all, then the article can be restored as a draft and moved to mainspace only after review. – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G5 is G5 for a reason. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who want to keep "good" edits by bad users, all the experienced users commenting here have scars to prove that there is no such thing. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had plenty of G5 deleted articles restored with no problems resulting from that. Do I not count as an experienced user? Silverseren^C 01:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have experience dealing with sockpuppeteers? Or just in cleaning up their articles? I was referring to the former; sorry, I can see how that wasn't ideally clear. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice opposition citing policy! Oh wait... Sorry, but the "scars" of "experienced users" is not a policy. (And heavy shame on you for trying to argue that several members here are unexperienced. Also, weren't you the one that tried to argue against me that I wasn't following policy to the letter in a few earlier discussions? How ironic...) Why? I Ask (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to discuss policy, 1) Learn the difference between a statement and an argument, as well as the logical fallacy that would have been a better target for your retort, and 2) Policy need not be wikilinked to be present implicitly, and 3) conflating discussions will fall somewhere between WP:WAX and WP:NPA, and I don't recall ever seeing such an argument be effective.

Sorry, but your endorsement is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to discredit those that disagree with you. (And wrong too, as I've dealt with reporting and sniffing out socks before.) What policy is implicitly implied? The policy I've cited for you pretty explicitly states that there are good edits by bad users. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as s clear-cut G5 deletion. It would be helpful if Why? I Ask would refrain for bludgeoning the discussion; it would also be helpful if they didn't try to do an end run around the DRV by asking an admin to restore the article while this discussion is underway. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am allowed to ask an administrator for a WP:REFUND, and they told me elsewhere they are often willing when given a reason. The correct application of G5 does not matter in that case. Was G5 applied correctly to the page? Absolutely! Does G5 mean that the page is refused restoration on request? Nope, not at all. Two other editors have already pointed that out. However, some administrators are willing to and some administrators are not (purely due to a belief in punishing and preventing socks). Thus, it is currently up to the whim of the administrator's personal philosophy to restore it. That is not fair to editors with different beliefs (especially if the content is fine). Why? I Ask (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Perfectly valid G5. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is this an appeal to overturn the G5, or a request to refund the deleted article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal to overturn the G5, based on the comments of the administrators who have seen the history and concur that this was a valid G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow restoration of the deleted article to a good-standing user so that they can recreate it as an article with a good-standing history. That doesn't require overturning a G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a useful discussion to read over because I semi-regularly get editors coming to my talk page asking for restoration of an article that is the result of a CSD G5 criteria deletion. I've been told that restoration is "possible" (not mandatory but possible), if the editor making the request agrees to "take responsibility for the article". But what does "taking responsibility for an article created by a sockpuppet" mean in terms of how admins handle these requests? I don't think this "taking responsibility" exception can be found anywhere on policy pages but has just emerged from admin practice of handling requests like this.

The only thing I'm sure about here is that there is no agreement on this question among admins and except for admins who adhere to a strict "No, never, ever" policy, I think whether a request is granted can depend on what the article is (is it just a redirect, for example?) and who is making the request (experienced article writer vs. new editor). I considered offering the OP the references to this article but it was a list article and each item on the list had a separate citation so it was not possible to provide a few references and recreate this article...each event listed had its own citation. It's generous that HJ Mitchell has agreed to go through the deleted article and supply all this.

I see two things being discussed here though and that is a) whether my CSD G5 deletion was valid and b) whether articles deleted by CSD G5 can ever be restored. The second question is a worth-while conversation to have but I think it is better to have it take place on WT:CSD than deletion review. I know I'd participate in that discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should WP:REFUND allow for articles deleted through the CSD criteria of A7, A9, A11, G5 to be userfied or restored as drafts? and the earlier discussions. There are a lot of editors advocating that G5 pages should stay deleted, always. However, this seems to conflict with what WP:BANREVERT. Either all edits by banned users need to be reverted or editors are allowed to advocate for banned users edits (including deleted pages). It seems strange to deny this page while two others created by the sock with the same scope are allowed up. The User already has had their edits kept (even one at an AfD). It seems weird not to allow this one too. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Choudhary (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please review the deletion of Priyanka Choudhary. It was deleted back in 2021 and later protected with a note saying to ask here to recreate the page. Draft:Priyanka Choudhary has been created. It seems like a WP:BURDEN of proof has fallen disproportiontely on some of the editors who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking rejection can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). All the issues which lead to deletion of the article of Priyanka Choudhary back in 2021 has been addressed. Also, Choudhary meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. She's played lead roles in a television show and several films and declared the second runner-up in the biggest reality show of the whole country Big Boss. The draft has good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles she's played and some basic details about her personal life. Please review the draft as it's ready to be moved to the main article. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page exists as a redirect, which isn't protected, but which has been reverted recently from an attempted expansion. I don't see anything for DRV to do here--you need to use the AfC or talk page process. As a TOOSOON deletion, the expectation is that you will provide newer reliable sources which were either not known/discussed or (more likely) not yet written at the time of the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the two AFDs. I have marked the draft as under review (by me), which I intend to do within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon, something that may help is the appearance in an apparent film Burhan which (of course) isn't mentioned in the main body but only in the list of films. [1] suggests she has a major role in the film. I would think that this is something the interested editors would expand in the article and be helpful towards showing notability. It was an OTT release, but if there are reviews from a notable reviewer that has coverage, it would be very helpful. Still a lot of the same concerns from the prior AFD's. Ravensfire (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per previous AfDs. The title was salted after the second AfD, but the article ended up making it back to mainspace anyway--a separate draft was created as Draft:Priyanka Chahar, quickly moved to mainspace by the creator, then an admin moved that article to Priyanka Choudhary over the protection without being aware of the past history. Note that Draft:Priyanka Chahar Choudhary also exists. Also noting that the continuing saga of this article includes at least three different SPIs (1, 2, 3). Subject may yet achieve Wiki-notability at some point, but the current situation is...tiresome. --Finngall ^talk 21:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will add to what User:Finngall has commented. The subject may or may not be notable, but her chances of having a Wikipedia article are being eroded by the actions of her ultras. As long as her fan club tries to sneak or power an article into the encyclopedia by gaming the system, such as changing the spelling of her name, it will be necessary to prevent gaming the system by techniques such as salting of titles and the title blacklist. Her fan club is her worst enemy. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the outcome of multiple AfDs, rejected drafts, etc. List at DEEPER and salt every possible variation of the name. And when someone finds a title that isn't salted, delete that per G4 and salt it. Wikipedia documents people who have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and if or when this person meets those criteria, the article can be re-created but no amount of bludgeoning every process will generate that coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuliram Ronghang (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article fails WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He is Chief Executive Member and Member of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability." ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment: This review request cites an explanatory essay that 1) did not exist at the time of the AfD in question because the essay was started less than a year ago, 2) has not been shown to have consensus support, 3) goes beyond the guideline it is supposedly explaining to address a level of government that is not even mentioned in the guideline, and 4) even then only says politicians at that level "may" be notable. I fail to see how that would be the basis for overturning a unanimous consensus in the AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:NSUBPOL is an essay and not a guideline. WP:NPOL says that politicians who have held "state/province–wide office" are presumed to be notable, but Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council isn't a state, province or equivalent (it's part of Assam, which is a state), so the subject fails NPOL as pointed out in the AfD. As such I highly doubt that argument would have made any difference if it had been raised. Hut 8.5 08:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NSUBPOL is the explanation of WP:NPOL and WP:NPOL is a guideline which means WP:NSUBPOL is an explanation of notability guideline. We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments because they are federal and I think this should be undeleted because he served as member of a parliament which is federal or have similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  NSUBPOL does not have guideline status, a fact the essay makes clear. We keep members of state/province level parliaments because politicians at that level are likely to have enough coverage in newspapers and other sources to be notable, but that's not the case for lower level politicians. The Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council does not rise to state or province level, it's part of the state of Assam. Hut 8.5 12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Hut 8.5, just to clarify, I agree with the endorse, but these statements about the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council are not correct. For example, the Council is not subject to the Gauhati High Court (which has jurisdiction over Assam), but rather the Supreme Court (ie national apex court). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which court it's subject to isn't relevant, all that counts for NPOL is whether it's "state/province–wide office", which in the case of India is state level. Hut 8.5 08:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. WP:NSUBPOL is an essay. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This essay being created in the meantime is not the kind of new information that would justify recreating the deleted page. Were one to start an AfD now, that AfD would also possibly result in a consensus to delete. —Alalch E. 09:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse While consensus can change, an essay that the community finds compelling is typically descriptive of change, rather than prescriptive. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Even if WP:NSUBPOL were a guideline rather than an essay, it would not call for overturning the close, because the essay says that district-level polititicans may have presumed notability, and the AFD concluded that the subject did not. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A district in India is analogous to a county in the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true for most districts, but not for an autonomous district, of which the nearest US equivalent is probably an Indian reservation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (Disclosure: primary author of NSUBPOL.) Correct closure on the basis of the information available and consensus at that time. However, consensus can change. Autonomous District Councils are not analogous to district level government; since this deletion, we've had a subsequent discussion which accepted the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Allow draftification. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. WP:NSUBPOL is an interesting essay that clarifies and expands upon some of the areas of WP:NPOL. However, it is an explanatory essay that does not reflect wide community consensus, which is made apparent from the disclaimer, contrary to what the OP might be contending, While consensus might change, and in one of the similar recent AfDs the NSUBPOL stance was generally agreed upon, a rough consensus in one isolated AfD supporting the essay IMO is clearly insufficient to overturn the result of an unanimous AfD conducted before the creation of the WP:NSUBPOL essay (which also only states that autonomous district councils emmbers may have presumed notability anyway). VickKiang (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Allow recreation. The close was correct at the time with the community's understanding of WP:NPOL. While consensus can change, it should not be the role of Deletion Review to revisit old closes based on new consensus. --Enos733 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E.@Enos733@Goldsztajn@Hut 8.5@Jclemens@Phil Bridger@RL0919@Robert McClenon I have recreated the article. If someone want to reopen the deletion discussion, they can open as consensus has been changed. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have opened a new deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination) . Robert McClenon (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]