-
John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
This page was created by Elisa.rolle on 1 January 2018 and deleted as G12 by Fram on 8 March 2018. It was recreated by me on 18 March 2018 and deleted by Fram as G12 on 19 March 2018. Finally it was recreated by Fram as a stub later on 19 March and has since been expanded. It is the second deletion I am querying. I had partly rewritten the original article, with Elisa.rolle's cooperation, so as to remove the copyvios that were originally there. I asked Fram in what way my version fell foul of the G12 criteria and got no satisfactory response. The main issue seems to have been that I did not attribute Elisa-rolle in my edit summary. I am not looking to revive my version, but I am hoping that others will agree with me that G12 deletion was inappropriate in this instance.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 21:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse we allow for this use of G12. I hate doing it, but it is within admin discretion for cases where curing the attribution error would create other issues. In this case, the article was created by a serial violator of the copyvio policy who after it was recreated by Fram added more copyvio content that had to be revdel'd, removed the revdel template, and then reverted to restore the copyvio. Considering that the source text was written by someone who should have a CCI opened when our volunteers there get around to it, I'm fine with Fram's G12. Well within discretion. (Also, see my further explantion
here.
WP:DCV is the relevant policy.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 21:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn G12 deletions should not typically be used for cases where no attribution was provided. Per
WP:RIA "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted". The problem could easily have been fixed by making a dummy edit to the page to add attribution. Deleting the page as a copyvio for that reason alone is
gaming the system, unless there's some reason why the dummy edit approach is a bad idea. If there were copyright problems with the original author then that still isn't a valid reason for deletion, because G12 only applies to blatant, unambiguous cases. This isn't one of them, we don't even have a suggested source for any of the material. Pages like that can still be deleted as copyright violations but they should be sent to
WP:CP as they don't qualify for speedy deletion.
Hut 8.5 18:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
User:Hut 8.5:I agree with you typically, which is why I normally cringe when people G12 when a dummy edit would suffice, but I know of plenty of admins who do use G12 for attribution issues, so it isn't exactly like this is a fringe case. We also know that the revisions that are currently deleted do contain copyright violations in every single revision that had to be revdel'd when the original author reintroduced them after
Fram had cleaned the article (see
Talk:John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney.) We would be restoring only to revdel everything we restored.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I don't really care whether using G12 for attribution issues is common or not, it's still an abuse of G12. The issues on the talk page relate to at best close paraphrasing over a couple of sentences, some of which is a bit tenuous. It certainly doesn't justify a G12 speedy deletion and I think the revdel is a bit of a stretch.
Hut 8.5 21:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- A related discussion on G12s is
User talk:Ritchie333#G12; in my opinion, totally unsalvageable G12s are often G11s and / or A7s too, for other cases where the article has sources, trim to a stub keeping the sources, move to draft and redact the old revisions. Then rewrite. In the case of my redactions here, I was simply erring on the side of caution - the article is still visible and can be worked on by anybody.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I tend to side with the practice is policy philosophy, which is why I am hesitant to overturn, but I certainly get your point: under most circumstances, attribution issues should not cause G12, and I don't think I would ever do it myself. Regardless, at this point, I see no practical reason to restore revisions where RD1 is justified, which I think it probably is from a precautionary standpoint.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia is, very arguably, over-cautious with copyright. Wikipedia tries to do best practice, not just minimally allowed practice. G12 gets used generaously. Copyright zealotry is not frowned upon. The thing with G12 deletions is that the problem is easily fixed, there’s no lasting damage. Just move on. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I think the CSD criteria should be interpreted strictly – they themselves certainly say this, "They cover only the cases specified in the rules here." Like Tony I "hate" it when these rules are broken. I can see that sometimes a forced deletion is overwhelmingly desirable (I am not commenting on the current case) but it would be best to invoke
WP:IAR explicitly rather than stretch a CSD criterion. If the criteria are thought not to describe established practice there should be an attempt to change the wording of the rules – such attempts rarely succeed. I can think of a couple of serial offenders who consistently and knowingly make speedy deletions contrary to policy. I think it is they that are at fault rather than the rules.
Thincat (
talk) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Weak endorse. I'm normally a
strict constructionist when it comes to
WP:CSD. I make an exception for
WP:G12. Most of the CSDs are of the form, We allow this shortcut because it supports our editorial policy. But, G12 is, We allow this shortcut because it keeps us from breaking the law. Yes, sometimes all it takes to fix the problem is a retroactive citation in the history. In this case, it sounds like that wouldn't be enough, and somebody would have to go through and audit individual revisions. At some point you just say, that's more effort than it's worth, and it sounds like that's the case here. --
RoySmith
(talk) 16:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- weak overturn Only weak because I'm not certain I'm understanding the issue in its entirety. If the issue is that a Wikipedia author of the text isn't attributed, that's solvable in a number of ways. A blank edit would generally work where attribution is given. I don't see what part of the CC BY-SA license this would violate. Nothing in that says your exact contributions need to be noted. Could someone tell me what I'm missing here that makes this case so complex a blank edit with attribution wouldn't solve it?
Hobit (
talk) 01:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
- A nicer history is produced by a deletion and then doing it properly. A null edit summary requires looking for it. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
reply
|