Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 16#New templates

:{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924|article=}}

Four ISO 15924 templates group discussion here, see below. All four were speedy deleted for {{tlx|db-g5}}. Asked the deleting admin to restore, reply was negative [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIronholds&action=historysubmit&diff=445131076&oldid=444998359]. (Some were deleted by other admin - I notified [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGfoley4&action=historysubmit&diff=445127955&oldid=445121208])

The four templates are now part of a well-used and well-versed set relating writing systems. The deletion creates redlinks through well-used templates, see :Category:User Cyrl and Khojki. I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates (of course, I cannot point to such edits now). And, since it is about a template, "editing with" as in transcluding can be understood so as well. Then, I find the response by the deleting admin not constructive.

a. they did not check for usage of the template,

b. did not act to solve that graciously beforehand,

c. may have wrongly claimed there are "no substantial edits" as per db-g5,

d. the declining editor starts wikilawyering without helping to keep or reproduce good templates at all.
They should be restored (by speedy). To be clear: I do not need temporal restoring and then having construct a way around it or so. DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:Notified two editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfoley4&diff=445132604&oldid=445127955] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=445132896&oldid=445132402]

DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::OMG. This one is spoiled too. Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Wikilawyering" is "using the rules to produce an utterly perverse result". It is not "applying the rules precisely as they are written, for the purpose they were intended" which is what I did. The fact that each page serves a purpose does not matter for the reasons laid down in policy; and no, I did not pre-clear speedy deletions with anyone who might possibly find them awkward. That is not what we do. I will address the specifics of each template at each DRV entry. For ISO 15924, fellow admins will see that the content started at 1,226 byes. DePiep's contribution was to remove it all and instead include the /doc page (which is covered below) - hardly a substantial contribution, or even, really a contribution at all. Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::Replacing all content is not substantial ... nice. Checking for usage is not about clearing with persons, but at least hit the WLH button. All in all, even whithin your just-the-rules claim, you could have decided opposite. Leaning to the negative is a choice you made. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Not "replacing" - removing. Do not put words in my mouth. Please explain what "WLH" refers to? Ironholds (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::Okay, so "what links here" - again, there is no obligation to do that (it'd be utterly ludicrous if there was) because whether or not the content is useful is not a factor. Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:If destroying nearly every template in the Writing Systems Wikiproject is not a perverse result, you're going to need to enlighten me. VanIsaac_WS 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that Ironholds was technically within his rights to delete the template under g5, but once he'd exercised that right, it then became his responsibility to co-operate with editors' attempts to fix the various broken pages arising from his speedy deletion.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:Just because he was in his rights doesn't make it a good decision. Just because he doesn't have to restore them doesn't make his failure to do so after knowing that he'd broken an entire WikiProject any more justified. VanIsaac_WS 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• :Sure, and I'd be happy to do that - although it wasn't originally suggested to me, I was just told "you have broken templates, please restore the things you deleted". I'm not quite sure how DePiep expects me to fix the templates except [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16 by copying-and-pasting the deleted code], which not only defeats the point of WP:DENY but is also a WP:COPYVIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Does it matter when? Even after it was mentioned to Ironholds, they keep tight to the negative.

:::Since I cannot see their history, I have no access to Ironholds arguments in this (see also the other templates below). I request someone less involved review the whole history when claims are made re substantiality. For example, contributions of other editors may indicate serious stuuff.

:::Curiously, on my talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep&diff=445135905&oldid=444713485] Ironhold rubs it against me that I cannot see the history, concluding I "admit" that I do not know about it. -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::DePiep, the entire point of DRV is that uninvolved users give it a looksee. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::Frankly, neither of you have handled this well. The model first contact with Ironholds would have been a great deal less confrontational, but equally, the model response from Ironholds would have been more like: "The reason why I won't do what you want is xyz, but what I can do to resolve your problem is abc."—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• :And what could I have done? Copied all the content over manually, thereby borking attribution? Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

::*I'm sorry to take a slightly harsh tone with you here, Ironholds, but if you don't know what you could've done to fix it, then you'd probably have been best advised to leave the deletion to an admin who does.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:::*S Marshall, what I was saying was "I do not know template syntax well enough to rewrite the entire template from scratch", which was what would have been required as an acceptable resolution. The standard you are setting would require you to only ever delete articles on subjects that you are personally knowledgeable about; after all, by that, we could only delete things if we had the personal knowitall to write an article on the subject, from scratch, with no reference to the original. Ironholds (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

::::*No, I didn't say anything about articles at all, Ironholds. Deleting an article doesn't break other articles, so that doesn't seem like a useful analogy to me. What I said was, I do not think you should have deleted a template unless you had the technical skill and knowledge to fix the resulting transclusions. My position is that you were elected as an admin on the basis that users trust you with the "delete button", which includes being able to foresee the more obvious consequences.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There does not seem to be a substantive issue here: User:Ironholds was right to delete the templates under G5. The "significant contributions" is a bit of a red herring. Ironholds acted appropriately within the scope of G5. That the template no longer existing raises problems for other articles may be an unfortunate consequence of a G5 deletion, but that's not "wikilawyering" nor does it mean that the deletion was inappropriate. The point of WP:DRV is to contest when closers/admins make the wrong decision at deletion. This wasn't the wrong decision per policy. The issues which might follow a G5 deletion of a template are a WP:REFUND issue which can be resolved by any admin and doesn't require DRV of the admin's decision. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::I understand DRV and REFUND so that this is the right place. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::I introduced the word wikilawyering when talking about the denied reversal, not the original deletion. COPYVIO was not introduced by me at all. I just asked for support in recreating the templates. -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Please explain how saying "no; I was correct to do it" constitutes "wikilawyering"? Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::You cherry pick rules "I am allowed to" when it suits you, and "I don't have to" when it does not suit you. You introduced COPYVIO. But hey, looking forward: what solution do you propose? -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::Which rules have I cherrypicked, precisely? And yes, I introduced WP:COPYVIO - because you made a request which would have created a copyright infringement. How's this for a solution; you try for WP:REFUND and stop claiming that anyone who doesn't do precisely what you tell them to do is obviously shirking their duties, acting improperly and wikilawyering? Ironholds (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::So do I understand that Ironholds does not oppose REFUND? If not, I cannot state "uncontroversial" there. If any other editor could take that step, that would be great too; clearly I might be on a side. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not oppose you attempting to use refund. I'm not going to make any comment on whether or not it's a good idea. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::So Ironholds does not support any solution. Then this would fail the first treshold at REFUND. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::{{ec}}About WP:REFUND: in the intro, above the table of content, twice is stated that DRV is the place to go when editors talk page (i.e. Ironholds's in this case) does not solve it. If Ironhold were in a solution here, I wouldn't mind giving it equal weight as being resolved. But alas, not so. So it stays here. -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Undelete (this and the other three) and list at TfD. The purpose of most speedy deletion criteria, G5 included, is to avoid pointless discussions for obvious cases. Here, an editor in good standing is making a reasonable objection to the speedies, and clearly wants a discussion. Let him have it. This discussion is clearly would be much better handled with the template and history in full view, and with the participation of editors interested in templates. No criticm of the deleting admin for performing the deletions, but if a speedy (excepting G9, G10, G12, F7, F9) is contested by an editor in good standing with a plausibe story, then undeletion and listing at XfD should be done by default (just as if the CSD tag were removed). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::Thank you Carl for the temporary restorations. This DRV, with a number of cross-points and subsections, has exceeded my ability to comprehend. I still think that "send it all to TfD" is a a sensible decision for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• :Really? Because I was under the impression that the purpose of G5 was to enforce WP:DENY. Nice to find out I was wrong. Ironholds (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• : Before someone else says it WP:DENY as an essay is something we are unlikely to enforce, and G5 pre dates the creation of WP:DENY. It's there to enforce WP:BAN --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::At this moment, the only one laughing is the banned editor. So far for denying. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• :Ironholds, yes WP:DENY is a good reason to delete banned editors contributions, if done quietly. However, once a contest by an editor in good standing has been raised, WP:DENY is already moot. Better to send this matter to TfD where the focus will be on technicalities of the template, on a need for a past or replacement template os something. If we stay here the discussion is unfocused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• I consider Ironhold's action an inappropriate use of the rules. DENNY is perfectly appropriate policy, and should be pursued, but wWhat he should have done after deletion, is re-created the template or made a substitute. The solution at this point is for someone else to do so. If copyvio is a concern, let it be done by manual editing. When two policies conflict, the one that should be followed is the onethat improves the encyclopedia . Another way of looking at it is when DENY conflcts with Copyright, Copyright is more important. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• :DGG, have you considered the possibility that I do not know how to create magical template syntax? Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• :: Yes you do. There's a little link next to each of the article names reading "restore". Press that button. It's a button that turns you into a magical template syntax god. VanIsaac_WS 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• :: Furthermore, if you don't know anything about templates, why do you think it's OK to go in and just delete things? This is absolutely baffling. If you don't know what the hell you're doing, you shouldn't be doing anything. I can't figure out if you're clueless or malevolent, but you sure aren't mature enough to be an admin. VanIsaac_WS 01:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• :::And this, Vanisaac, is why I'm not going to engage with you further. Please try to remain civil. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• For God's sake, at least undelete them for now so we can Get All The Broken Infoboxes, Templates, Sidebars, and Navboxes Working Again!!!!! VanIsaac_WS 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely unacceptable. I've called for help at WP:ANI. If you guys can't effect a simple fix to a problem you caused after 13 hours, but you can argue about how you were justified, there's something seriously wrong here. VanIsaac_WS 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn all these ISO 15924. It's clear the templates were substantively edited by other non-banned editors. Even if they weren't, they were clearly used and useful. Merely deleting them to satisfy a WP:GAME requirement (that too many admins love so much) is clearly counterproductive. The COPYVIO claim is a red herring. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Subthread: about WP:COPYVIO

Deleting admins Ironholds (starting here at DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=445137148&oldid=445136387]) and User:Gfoley4 (Gfoley4 in a different but quite parallel db-g5 topic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfoley4&diff=445178054&oldid=445133958]) point to the possible problem of WP:COPYVIO when copyediting code back into public WP. However, since the four templates are either fully recreated content (as Ironholds has noted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=445134355&oldid=445133363]: "DePiep's contribution was to remove it all and instead include the /doc page" -- bingo) or a Simple, non-creative lists of information, namely the well-published ISO 15924/Unicode alias list, which is not a "creative expression". For sure, manual recreation of such a list would yield the very same list. So no copyvio to be claimed, and I might add that any cooperative admin who does deletions and calls COPYVIO, could have come up with this constructive outcome too. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment for this page (ignore the others for now) if the content at deletion was merely inclusion of the documentation, then it appears the easiest solution is just to recreate it with the inclusion and ignore the history which is presumably not relevant to the new content. I can't see how that can raise any objection ? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Surely it's about attribution. We shouldn't use people's contributions without crediting them.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Exactly, S Marshall. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Did one follow the note and link to Simple, non-creative lists of information? And btw, Gfoley4, you deleted the page that has no content any more from the banned user. As explained above: recreation is possible while contributing the content correctly to the sole (last) editor who according to Ironholds did all the content, and who is not banned. Deleted content & banned user stay out of view and we do not have to attribute (now this is COPYVIO well read). Solved. And here are the current results while I am waiting for anything constructive. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Nothing to do with attribution, which we often seem to get rather obsessed with, we attribute as part of the copyright license requirement, once we stop using the work of someone in an article then the requirement vanishes. That is the case here, we don't need to undelete, just recreate the page with the simple inclusion of the doc page, which is pretty much all DePiep's work, there is nothing to attribute to anyone else. For the other stuff then we'd need to look closer which, I would suspect as DePiep points out that the work in question doesn't qualify for copyright protection (I can't see it so this is guess work) and so we wouldn't need to attribute anyway. Simple lists of facts etc. are not copyrightable, in the US they do not recognise sweat of the brow. It also sounds like the kind of stuff which could be more or less "automatically" generated from the ISO source, merely formatting up to fit in the template structure. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with this. Given our template format and the factua information ,there is essentially no other way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

;Ironholds behaviour

This is getting nasty. A big part of this thread (all four templates) is about "substantial edits by others [than the banned editor]" after creation of a page (see WP:SPEEDY {{tlx|db-g5}}). In this, non-admins like me are dependent on admins for that look at the histories. Several times I have pointed to the "substantial edits" part: OP note c [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=445132359&oldid=445107460] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=445138618&oldid=445138550], and to Ironholds selective reporting by only mentioning & deminishing my, DePiep's, edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=prev&oldid=445147174] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=445151988&oldid=445151159]. Now it appears Ironholds has effectively left out substantial edits by other editors (half a page added!) to suit their argument [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_16&diff=445228706&oldid=445228075].
To me this is acting in bad faith by Ironholds, through (ab)using their admin's rights, especially since a non-admin is dependent on such information. I want a full and open review of the histories. That is, of course, only if there is not a better & faster solution (reverting right away). The arguments here of Ironholds are to be considered irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::I have moved my part of this thread to ANI -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that Ironholds' actions constitute bad-faith behaviour. I am responsible for half the content of two of these templates and was not even notified that they had been deleted. I consider this extremely disruptive and abusive behaviour. The only way an admin can have the support of the community is if they acknowledge when they screwed up and FIX THE PROBLEM! The fact that Ironholds has engaged in a lengthy justification for G5 deleting articles that are over half made by editors in good standing is an affront to the speedy delete process. It's been thirteen hours, and several posts to this review, but no fixing his screw-up. Clearly Ironholds is only interested in abusing his power, rather than doing the right thing. VanIsaac_WS 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:I think you too are getting overly excited and need to calm down. Where (what mainspace page) is the problem worthy of panic? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

::Well, let's see, template:infobox writing system is currently debilitated - that one, BTW, is transcluded on almost 300 pages; Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode is completely FUBAR because of you guys. Oh wait, you're supposed to check those sorts of things BEFORE YOU DELETE THE F-ING PAGE!!!! Just. Restore. The. Templates. Now. VanIsaac_WS 00:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:::SmokeyJoe, nothing wrong with the Main page, thank you, good we checked. Whatever panic you see may be related to admin activity. Which nicely brings this subthread back on topic. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:I'll calm down when those templates get restored and we can have this conversation while things still work. Right now, you have us held hostage, and you don't seem to understand that you've fucked everything up and aren't doing what you need to do to fix it. I'm sorry for having to swear, but you don't seem to give a rat's pitutie that everything's been broken for half a day, and I can only do so much without the ability to yell at you on the phone until you do your job. RESTORE. THE. TEMPLATES. NOW!!!!! VanIsaac_WS 01:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• When you calm down, I will be willing to engage with you. Until then, your continually over the top behaviour is more likely to induce me to say something I'll regret than anything else, and as such I will not be responding. I have already made clear my position; if you want the code restored, either wait until the DRV closes or put a replacement together yourself. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• :I'm not asking for engagement, I'm asking you to fix your mistake. Two of these templates were over half created by the two good-standing editors right here. You deleted those pages under G5. You were wrong to do so. Your continued refusal to revert those templates to undo all the damage you have done is unacceptable. Period. I'm not asking for engagement. I'm asking that you fix your mistake and repair the damage you have done because I can't revert your actions like I could any other editor who screwed up. VanIsaac_WS 01:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• And as I have said, I will not do so, and the appropriate action is to wait until this DRV concludes or to get someone familiar with the code to rewrite it. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:The code's not the problem. The templates are just a simple lookup table, controlled by a single #switch function. It's the content that we need. If you need to, paste the |160 |Arab = 160 format data on my talk page. VanIsaac_WS 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have moved my part of this thread to ANI -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

;Prepare

Next pages to go, because, eh, they will be deleted for a reason:

• Template:ISO 15924/doc
• Template:ISO 15924/name/doc
• Template:ISO 15924/alias/doc
• Template:ISO 15924/numeric/doc

Just listing them here, just in case. Of cascading nonsense. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates were restored for the duration of the Deletion review by an outside admin. VanIsaac_WS 03:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:I see that the 4 original templates have been restored, which enables us non-admins to see their history, but the corresponding 4 talk pages (Template talk:ISO 15924, Template talk:ISO 15924/name, Template talk:ISO 15924/alias, and Template talk:ISO 15924/numeric) still show their G5 speedy deletion and thus we can't see their history. What contributions to those talk pages were made by the banned editor, and what by other editors? Is there any reason why the talk pages can't be restored pending the outcome of this review? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

::I believe that the Writing Systems Project template was the only content of those talk pages, unless I am remembering faultily (is that even a word?). I'm quite sure that there was really no substantive content on the talk pages that would shed light on this discussion, but it's good that somebody thought about this. VanIsaac_WS 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

;Actual discussion of substantive issues

Now that we've taken care of the drama, let's see if we can come to an understanding on this guy. The actual template:ISO 15924 page really only exists to anchor all the sub-templates and the documentation page. I'm wondering if we couldn't turn this into a template that simply returns the 15924 data fields in a standard format. Perhaps also an alternate call mechanism for the sub-templates (eg. {{ISO 15924|XXX|code}} would output the same as {{ISO 15924/code|XXX}}. What do we think? VanIsaac_WS 02:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are still areas of the collapsed section which we need to follow through on, perhaps we can try and keep it calm.
• :The main template here in it's final form contained no real content but a transclusion of documentation generated by another user. If we consider the case that the template had been deleted and that other user came a long and recreated it with that final content, then there would be no attribution/copyright issue since it isn't a reuse of copyright material from the original banned editor. I can see no reason why we wouldn't just redelete the template and have someone recreate it with that final content and move forward from here (the next point also is true for this template to a point)
• :For the other templates the content is mechanically created from the ISO data, the content is dictated by the template "language" of mediawiki. We have a couple of things to consider here - (1) is there an attribution issue with just reusing that content - I believe not as mechanically created it isn't copyrightable - as such we could just recreate the final versions and ignore the rest removing any reference to the banned user. (2) If we disagree with (1) then how can we proceed, the form if the content is essentially the only way to do this. We can either (a) enforce this such that we are now blocked from ever having this content in it's convenient template form due to the lack of any other way of doing this and not wanting the banned editor association/attribution or (b) take the pragmatic view on this, that as the content is valid and the only real way of doing it, then we'll have to ignore the rules for the benefit of improving the encyclopedia (ie WP:BAN/G5 in this case).
• :Personally I don't care if we have this or not, I do also strongly agree with the principle of G5 that we should make clear that bans are just that, bans. However I do care about the implication of being over rigid in such cases as this, where the content is more or less fixed, not something someone else could write in different terms etc. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Would editors please stop collapsing discussions that are still in progress. It's unacceptable to do that.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know how else to move this project forward unless we can put away the past. I've asked questions about how to move forward on all of the templates under contention, and received no response to three of them. Given that the only outstanding question is how we get these templates uncontaminated by their origins, I find it dismaying that nobody has anything constructive to say. I have no idea how to move forward on any but the main template, and I've already done everything to it that I can think of. So if you have any actual constructive comments, I would be very happy to hear them.

:Rehashing what should have been done may be appropriate for talk pages, but it is counter-productive to moving forward. Quite frankly, I think this incident has brought up a rather glaring hole in the Speedy Delete criteria that needs to be addressed. The fact is, apart from debatable determinations regarding substantive additions under the G5 criteria, Ironholds didn't actually do anything against policy, which means that current policy isn't working to advance the purpose of the speedy delete process - the simple implementation of uncontroversial deletions.VanIsaac_WS 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

::*This is a deletion review. The "review" part of it means that our job, here, is to rehash and decide what should have been done. Please stop trying to "move it forward", and also please stop creating subthreads. This is not AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:::*So that would be a "no" on the constructive comments question. Anyway, I started up a thread on the Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion in order to see if we can't get some more clarity in the actual speedy delete criteria on templates. VanIsaac_WS 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

;New templates

I have created from scratch three new templates.

• {{tlx|ISO 15924 name}}
• {{tlx|ISO 15924 number}}
• {{tlx|ISO 15924 alias}}

After testing & sandboxing some pages have them in production throug: {{tlx|Infobox writing system}}, {{tlx|ISO 15924}} and some listing subtempates. Please note, even if they are OK, this DRV should not be closed prematurely and the disputed templates should not be deleted.

Now let me see, where do I have all these admin barnstars. Hope I have enough of them. -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Overturn ISO 15924. The fourth template (and first mentioned on this DRV page), is {{tlx|ISO 15924}}. It was an idle template, it was only a collecting main page with multiple /subtemplates like: {{tlx|ISO 15924/code}}. Already before deletion, all content by the banned user was substantially and totally replaced. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AISO_15924&action=historysubmit&diff=444388556&oldid=443596081]. Not a single letter of contribution remained. For this reason alone, the page can and should stay. db-g5 argument does not exist here any more. And recently, during this DRV, the republished page was converted into a functioning template, again without using any of the banned users edits. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AISO_15924&action=historysubmit&diff=445431957&oldid=444388556]. This sy doubles its right to stay. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

::I corrected my !vote. To the same effect. -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn WP:DENY is not a policy. But WP:BURO is a policy and so jobsworth attitudes and behaviour are improper if they do more harm than good. Warden (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion if done gracefully for {{tlx|ISO 15924/name}}, {{tlx|ISO 15924/numeric}} and {{tlx|ISO 15924/alias}}. To be clear: the reason for speedy deletion I do not support. Had the procedure gone more standard (say TfD or restoration for DRV without having to invoke ANI), we could have used and discussed the situation. That way any outcome could have been processed without disrupting the transclusions. But the developments here, especially careless speedy-tagging and admins (all those passing by) not acting, left me distrusting the process (quite simple: right when DRV was started, or when the Speedy-G5 was contested, restoration was obvious & correct). It is for this distrust in any further process that I have rebuild the templates from scratch and under time pressure (listed above). Which is not the way to go. As with any TfD, the deletable templates go into the holding cell (see also instructions and process) and are processed to prevent disruptive results. That is what I propose right now for these three: gracefully. -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924/name|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924/name|article=}}

See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For ISO 15924/name, fellow admins will see that the content started at 3,956 byes. DePiep's contribution was to add an extra 1.5kb, comprised entirely of numerical ISO codes for the specific names - hardly a substantial contribution. Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:So adding ISO code or numbers in an ISO template is not substantial? And if I remember well, I also added notes on as-of checking. Which is, re ISO, quite relevant. And I doubt if the edits in these templates are by me alone. -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• :No, there are also contributions by another user which were substantially reverted by your changes. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Reverting can be a substantial edit too. There even was cooperation, and the result was an improvement. Now my questions are: why do you personalise the argument, and what else does the history say that might be opposing your argument? -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I'm not quite sure how I'm personalising the argument. Could you explain? Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::Here on this page: you leave out other editors contributions, you focus on my edits only. If there was any development through history, you do not mention that. Part of the editing was: using it in other templates, sandboxing, just every day template jobs; you have not looked into that as possible relevant edits. At my talk page, you create a logic that I would have "atmit[ted]" I don't know about page's (to me invisible) history. And this, again, only about my edits: "but you have not made such edits to these pages". All of this: it shouldn't be about me. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• When you make statements like "I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates " - you make it partially about your edits, particularly since in the case of some templates - such as Template:ISO 15924/alias - you were the only contributor other than the banned user. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::Substantial edits can be made by any editor, not just the contesting editor. -DePiep (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::I never said that was the case; I was explaining why I referred particularly to your edits, which were also in some cases the only edits. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I added half the content of this template and was never consulted. Now what exactly was Ironholds saying about no substantive contributions by other users? VanIsaac_WS 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

;Actual discussion of substantive issues

Now that we've taken care of the drama, let's see if we can come to an understanding on this guy. Ironholds, do you believe that half of the template content by good-standing editors still should qualify this for deletion? Given that the current data is all that this template will need until the next update of the ISO 15924 standard - a standard that updates about once a year - what else could we do to make this template compliant? VanIsaac_WS 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924/alias|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924/alias|article=}}

See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• For ISO 15924/alias, fellow admins will see that the content started at 2,605 bytes. DePiep's contribution was to bring it down to 2,492 bytes, which was done by...removing all the spaces'. Not a substantial contribution. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::I recall there were more edits. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::One more, which added...81 characters. Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

;Actual discussion of substantive issues

This one's a bit different. Most of the content was created by the blocked editor. Ironholds, given that the content of this template is actually completely comprehensive until the next update of the ISO 15924 standard, what can we do to remove the stigma of a bad editor from the page? VanIsaac_WS 02:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Template:ISO 15924/numeric|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:ISO 15924/numeric|article=}}

See above -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• For ISO 15924/numeric, fellow admins will see that the content started at 2,190 bytes. DePiep's contribution was to allow for default switching through, for example, replacing 20 with 020, and so on. Not a substantial contribution. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::Wrong. I did not replace 20 with 020, I added it. Which is, in template world, relevant. So I changed #default output. In template world ... that is quite relevant. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:::And barring the 0-dropped numbers that DePiep added, I added exactly HALF of the entire template. If Half of a template is not a substantive contribution, I don't know what is.

:::Furthermore, these template calls are being used in a WikiProject infobox, which is currently broken. I've commented out the calls while we wait for an admin to restore those templates, but breaking things to uphold a vendetta is not good practice. That's what a What Links Here check would have revealed to an admin thinking about what he was doing: a template that was in use in hundreds of writing system articles. VanIsaac_WS 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::::Ironholds, how is yours a faithfull description of "no substantial edits"? -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

;Actual discussion of substantive issues

Same as /name: Ironholds, do you believe that half of the template content by good-standing editors still should qualify this for deletion? Given that the current data is all that this template will need until the next update of the ISO 15924 standard - a standard that updates about once a year - what else could we do to make this template compliant? VanIsaac_WS 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

: This debate has been made exceedingly difficult to follow by the non-standard formatting, but I'm yet to see a compelling reason given to overturn? While the "everything's broken!" cry is one that I do have sympathy for, unless there is something actually wrong with the deletion than that's not really Ironhold's problem. Administrators cannot be compelled to use the tools. I've always found him perfectly reasonable and willing to help out when approached in a reasonable manner, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:: The reason to overturn was that two of the templates were deleted under G5 criteria, even though over half the content was created by editors in good standing. The G5 criteria explicitly states that it does not apply if substantive edits were made by other editors, so policy was not followed. The fact that it broke everything was merely the reason why we were so desperate to get them back while this review was ongoing. If these templates hadn't been transcluded across the Writing Systems WikiProject, no one would have noticed or cared that they were deleted.

::In fact, DePiep and I have been working on completely replacing these templates and moving the transclusions to templates with good provenance, so that these ones can undergo a regular old, tell-everyone-involved-and-discuss-the-issue deletion in the near future. We feel deceived and abused by the guy evading his block and creating this stuff, so we want most of these templates (all but ISO 15924) deleted too. We just need the time to actually get everything ready, so that we can erase every sign that the block-evading so-and-so was even here. VanIsaac_WS 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:::re Aaron Brenneman: I'm sorry for the bad layout, I had to find a way to start a DRV for deleted four pages in one. It would have been better when the DRV templates do not have a multiple-page option.

:::Now you and others here, including admins, are misguided about the nature of a WP:DRV page. After a Talk with Ironholds I declared the speedy deletions controversial, started this DRV, and then it is open for all. The topic is not with the deleting admin any more. Nor is this a sort of Talk-page to improve these pages. This page is about: review the deletion. My claim is simple, and fits with your "sympathy" for the eveything-is-broken statement: the reason for the speedy deletion was contestable, and by keeping the pages away the mess stayed on longer while making it nearly impossible to solve it. I have not summoned Ironholds to do something, but just by the starting of a DRV the deletion is contested and could have been reverted by any admin. I asked: put them back, so we can get rid of these ugly red links nicely.

:::About your "I've always found him perfectly reasonable" - keep the good memories. Ironholds contributions to this DRV page did help not a single letter to get the mess away. Even worse, Ironholds acted in bad faith using his admins tools. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Vivek Kumar Pandey|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Kumar Pandey|article=}}

1) No valid reason for deletion and Article can be modified by wikipedia contributor to fulfill the need to be notable. 2) Admin ignorance of many Indian IPs who were familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey> 117.211.83.245 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC) -->

:You already did this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_14 Dream Focus 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::This is the correct location for the deletion review since it was started on August 16. The other one should be closed. Calathan (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• 117.211.83.245, WP:Register and request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::Based on the edit history of this page, it looks like User:Kook2011 tried to create this deletion review but accidentally placed his text inside a comment. IP user 117.211.83.245 then tried to fix the the deletion review. I don't know if User:Kook2011 is the same person as the IP, but perhaps it could be userfied to User:Kook2011. Calathan (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

:Are any of the citations found reliable sources? You can post them on the reliable sources message board, and asks. Or do any of those sources already have their own Wikipedia article? Did the person meet any of the requirements at WP:ACADEMIC? Dream Focus 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Let's consider what this particular 117.211 IP claims. (1) No valid reason for deletion: Yes there was; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FVivek_Kumar_Pandey&action=historysubmit&diff=443444043&oldid=443437488 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FVivek_Kumar_Pandey&action=historysubmit&diff=443505455&oldid=443504456 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivek_Kumar_Pandey&diff=next&oldid=443505455 this], and more. (2) Article can be modified by wikipedia contributor to fulfill the need to be notable: This might be credible if the IP hinted at how this could be done. As it is, not even a hint is provided. If Pandey indeed [has] his name included in list of "TOP 100 SCIENTISTS 2010" of International Biographical Centre (as the deleted article claimed), then somebody is keen to attempt to promote him in about the shallowest and most gormless way imaginable. I suggest that, unless given a time limit (e.g. till the end of September '11) userfication would be an opportunity for more (more or less ludicrous) puffery and would invite more time-wasting, nothing else. (3) Admin ignorance of many Indian IPs who were familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey: Yes, the many Indian IPs (most of whom came from a small range of IP numbers and appeared to share an idiolect) do indeed seem to be familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey. It's hardly the fault of any admin to be ignorant of the IPs, given that the latter didn't deign to create a username, or anyway to use it. However, this is a mammoth irrelevance: what the IPs wrote is what mattered, but what they wrote failed to convince a single non-SPA. Indeed, the IPs seemed curiously reluctant to read (or eager to ignore what they'd read); consider: (i) they touted a page at "Wikibin" as an indicator of notability; (ii) I debunked "Wikibin" as an authority; (iii) with no attempt to find flaw in my debunking, they just kept on citing "Wikibin". ¶ This kind of insistence that V K Pandey is notable is curiously reminiscent of episodes in the long and tiresome history of the article on V K's uncle; see this user's list of contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) ..... PS It was me who created the AfD (who nominated the article for deletion), if this makes a difference. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse There was adequate discussion at both AfDs; both times, all regular editors here, including myself, were unanimous that it did not meet WP:PROF. No reasonable admin could have closed either of these any way but delete. An entry on an International Biographical Centre listing is not a RS for notability , as the article on it will indicate. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Update. The article has already [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVivek_Kumar_Pandey&action=historysubmit&diff=445313197&oldid=434552484 been userfied], by 117.211.83.243. To see why userfication (or anyway userfication for any longer than a fixed period, not to exceed one month) might not be a good idea, look at the last member of the list of "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azamgarh&oldid=445626678#Notable_people Notable people]" within "Azamgarh", as last edited by User:Vivek Kumar Pandey. Or, more dramatically, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramapur&oldid=445629583 this extraordinary article]. -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:*There are some clear WP:COI issues. If the bio cannot be quickly demonstrated to meet WP:PROF, it will have to be blanked or deleted as failing WP:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)