Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iyeth Bustami

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There's consensus that once contested in good faith and brought to AfD, G5 can be ignored if that is to the benefit of the project. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyeth Bustami

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G5. The article was created by N. Alicia J, who is a sockpuppet of Asphonixm, a banned editor known for creating sockpuppets to gaming the system. WP:BMB specifies that bans apply to all editing, good or bad, implying that even constructive edits by banned editors are subject to be reverted. According to WP policies WP:G5 and WP:BRV, articles created by banned editors and where the banned editor is the primary contributor are eligible for speedy deletion, which can be applied to this article. Once deleted, the article may be recreated by other editor (except for sockpuppets), as there are no issues with the article content itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article that could then be re-created immediately seems pointless. The individual is an elected politician and would meet notability. I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to roll back edits, only to redo them... "subject to reversion" doesn't mean "shall be reverted". Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, primary deletion reason is Wikipedia:Banning policy. By keeping edits and article created by banned editor, then it'll defeat the purpose of ban in the first place. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. And I think banning policy is also quite straightforward on this issue, as it also mentioned A number of site-banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Unlike most AfD cases, this isn't about questioning the notability of an article, the real question is whether we'll enforce the banning policy? Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I care about the content of Wikipedia foremost. The politics that go behind it are secondary. Such users should be banned, absolutely. However, we do not need to revert every good addition in the pursuit of some form of justice. That seems counterintuitive to the actual purpose of the project: building an encyclopedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Refer to Arbitration discussion a ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I am not disputing their ban. Whatever they did, they probably deserved it; not my purview. My purview is keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that you are not disputing the ban, but I think you still missed the point of ban itself, banning policy explicitly states The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. WP:BANREVERT also states Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I am advocating to follow the policy, while you're suggesting to ignore policy and the your reason is to keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. However, if we delete and recreate the article, there'll be no changes on Wikipedia as that article would still be informational, and we are also take away the reward for sockpuppet for violating policy, which is aligned with WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, delete it, let me copy the exact same article with the exact same citations and re-upload it. What does this accomplish? Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first instance. The sockpuppet has created multiple articles, and all articles created after he was blocked were deleted under G5. And few "good" articles were re-created by other editor. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, the goal for deleting article created by sock isn't to punish the sockpuppet, but to take away the reward for violating policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we really punishing, though? The sockpuppets or the readers of the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not punishing anyone, we are preventing banned editor to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content (WP:BMB). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, recreating the article as it is without crediting the original, banned user breaks copyright. This means that whatever is written on the new version has to be something new. That's a larger hurdle to overcome than simply recreating it exactly under a different account. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually that's to remove any connection to banned editor. Afterall banned editor is not allowed to make any edit in the first place. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To properly contest deletion under G5, supporters must either present evidence of why it doesn't meet G5 criteria or offer compelling reasons to ignore the ban policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, they don't: If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why now we have this AfD. And those who support (or vote for "keep") should either present evidence of why it doesn't meet G5 criteria or offer compelling reasons to ignore the ban policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my arguments above. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From our discussion above, it seems you're not disputing the G5 criteria, so you understand that the article was made while the editor was banned, breaking the banning policy. But you're still suggesting to keep the article because it is "informational", and we should keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. You also mentioned that The politics that go behind it are secondary, which indicate suggestion to ignore Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BATHWATER. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. -- Mike 🗩 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not questioning about WP:GNG, but it's about enforcement of Wikipedia:Banning policy. Furthermore WP:RUSH also states if this page was created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines, it must be deleted in a hurry, which it is since it's qualify for G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the next bit which states this: This includes abusive practices like attack pages, autobiographies, spam and advertising pages, blatant copyright violations, and intentional inaccuracies. For all others, there is really no hurry to have the issues addressed.-- Mike 🗩 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the next sentence, as it mentioned example actions that disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines and IMO, the last sentence which starts by For all others.... refer to other deletion request for pages that is NOT created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines. banning policy is quite straightforward on this case Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. So, are you also suggesting to ignore WP:Banning Policy? Ckfasdf (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that we don't hurt the encyclopedia. WP:IAR states that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. -- Mike 🗩 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we have WP:IAR, however please also note WP:NOTIAR suggest "Ignore all rules" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies and "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. These editors don't appear to know that pages can be salted to avoid recreation in the future, saying Deleting an article that could then be re-created immediately seems pointless, which would not happen should the page be salted. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell would I want it salted when the subject is notable? The whole point is that we want an article about a notable singer and politician. We just don't want the banned user to get credit or game the system. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that now you grasp the intention behind WP:BANREVERT. If this indicates that you no longer oppose the deletion, could you please strike out your "Keep" vote above? Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the thing you linked literally says: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement refer to an edit by blocked/banned editor, NOT page created by blocked/banned editor. For the later, please look up the third sentence of that section: Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ban policy is very clear about which types of edits by banned editors are still allowed: 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). Ckfasdf (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechie, I urge you to read this discussion for more than 2 seconds. Respectfully, it is clear you have no idea what is going on here. This is an article on a notable topic which was created by a banned sockpuppet. The editors above are debating whether WP:G5 should apply or not, not that it shouldn't be re-created. Curbon7 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly notable, banning policy discussion is TLDR. Desertarun (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun: This AfD is not questioning about notability, but it's about whether we should or should not follow the Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing into the hands of the sock by using up community time on this AFD. Just let people vote. Desertarun (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun: It's true about using up community time. That's why page created by sock is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Ckfasdf is WP:Bludgeoning the other users on this page. Desertarun (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Ckfasdf, your opinions on the matter are clear. You don't need to reply to every comment. -- Mike 🗩 12:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, WP:G5 clearly applies, it clearly applies to notable topics, the small number of edits by other users don't put it over the line, and I'm not even sure the speedy should have been removed without making a substantive edit. I strongly suggest to those who wish to keep this to make a substantive edit, above and beyond tidying sources, and then this whole thing can be moot. Otherwise I'd support deletion or even draftifying, if someone plans to save it after this AfD finishes. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 can apply, but if good faith users want to keep it, then the policy pretty clearly says it does not have to be deleted. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of those who voted "Keep" have really addressed the main issue, which is the contested WP:G5. They've all focused on notability, which isn't the issue here, and haven't explained why this article shouldn't qualify for G5 or why the banning policy should be ignored, as if the notability guideline overrides the banning policy. The banning policy clearly states what kinds of edits by banned editors can be kept, which are only typo fixes and vandalism removal. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.