User talk:SDPatrolBot/ErrorReports/Archive/2011/June

Subsequent edits on undeleted articles

I had similar issue in Risuke Otake, although I was both the original article creator (years ago, before current unreferenced people CSD criteria was introduced) and the admin who undeleted the article before adding references. Perhaps the bot should check recent undeletions and not bother the undeleting admin at all? jni (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this in detail, but shouldn't you have contacted JzG (talk · contribs) and talked to him about it, rather than undeleting the article yourself? I don't see why this case should not be subject to the CSD policy, which does not allow you to remove deletions from an article you created (the fact that you undeleted the article too just makes it worse to my eyes), and that when the article was created the CSD policy was not in place is irrelevant, because when you took the relevant action (removing the template and restoring) it was in place. I don't really see why admins undeleting pages they created should be in anyway given special treatment, and the CSD policy certainly does not indicate this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this! Actually when I pressed undelete button I did not remember that it was me who created this article back in 2004 :-) The Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people policy says that "the biography may be undeleted when an editor is prepared to add a reliable source." Strictly speaking this is true only for articles tagged {{prod blp}} and not for CSD process, but in practise, why should undeleting admin be constrained by the arbitrary fact that someone used CSD A7 instead of ProdBLP over a year ago (as it was tagged BLPUnsourced and deleted for this reason)? I think the differences between these deletion processes are really unimportant technicalities in this case as the article can be fixed by adding references. Also I don't think the concept of "page created by editor" in various policies should be interpreted at all when there is a considerable time difference between relevant actions, over six years in this case. This is because every article was created by someone and we have WP:OWNER. Consider this scenario for your bot:

1. Some vandal nominates Shotgun, Jupiter and dozen other well-established pages for speedy deletion.
2. User:Jimbo Wales reverts the bad-faith CSD tags.
3. Your bot reverts Jimbo repeatedly in Shotgun, just because Jimbo happened to create this article a decade ago.

This is not a very common occurrence but if a bot behaves like this, I'd call it a bug nevertheless. Thanks, jni (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ProdBLP is entirely different from CSD A7, one of them is about references in BLPs, the other is about the importance of the subject. Note that A7 "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources". The differences between these two are not unimportant technicalities, and an A7 can not necessarily be fixed simply by adding sources (see the previous quote). In any case, the bot can not tell for sure if the CSD does still, or even did, apply, and it does not need to because the policy makes clear that the creator can not remove the tag, regardless of if it is correct or not. They should simply post to the talk page and let someone else deal with it. Waiting a bit longer does no harm. As for the time since creation, this could indeed be a factor, and I could get the bot to account for it. However, the policy at the moment makes no mention for it: Get consensus that it should be taken into consideration, and I will be more than happy to implement it for you. Regarding your example, the correct procedure would be

1. Some vandal nominates Shotgun, Jupiter and dozen other well-established pages for speedy deletion. (Noting, as I said earlier, that the facts that this is a vandal, a bad faith nom, and an established page are all irrelevant).
2. An uninvolved administrator reverts all the vandal's edits and blocks him.

With the optional second step of Jimbo posting on the talk page. Jimbo should not remove the CSD notice himself, and he should certainly not edit war with the bot over it. I personally do not see the issue of using my two/three steps in stead of yours. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)