Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3: Difference between revisions
TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) Endorse |
|||
Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Endorse''' per the unanimous consensus at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 10]], which was a similar case. Mass sock farms can reasonably be assumed to have previous blocked accounts. That a sock farm knows how to hand CU should not prevent us from protecting Wikipedia. {{U|Doc James}}, would you mind also sharing the blocked accounts that are behaviorally connected? I think that would further your already strong argument. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:17, 3 September 2017
Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork and other deleted articles
- FlightNetwork (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Ball and Chain (restaurant) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Hi Doc James. Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 13 September 2016. The articles Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork were created before his block, so WP:G5 does not apply. While you said he may have had previous blocked accounts because of a comment he made in 2012 ("I've been away from Wikipedia for a while"), that is unverified and unknown. Would you restore Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork? Both passed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightNetwork. You also made 157 article and article talk page deletions for the same reason. You deleted and restored White House Community Leaders Briefing Series as being okay. I'm uncomfortable with 157 pages being deleted when there's no undeniable evidence that there's a WP:G5 violation. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
|
157 pages (articles and article talk pages) were speedy deleted with the rationale "G5,11,TOU". These pages included Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork, which had passed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightNetwork.
The pages were speedy deleted after creator Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs) was blocked 13 September 2016 after investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. The rationale for speedy deletion under WP:G5 is that Jeremy112233 likely had previous blocked accounts. The deleting admin said he may have had previous blocked accounts because of a comment he made in 2012 ("I've been away from Wikipedia for a while"). But that is unverified and unknown. No clear link has been provided between Jeremy112233 and a prior blocked account.
Therefore, WP:G5, which says:
This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.
does not apply.
The speedy deleting admin deleted 157 pages. He restored White House Community Leaders Briefing Series with the edit summary "Was okay." I am posting all the deleted articles here for review by the community since it is likely that more are okay.
Some of the topics like Ball and Chain (restaurant) are clearly notable and did not meet WP:G11. As Carrite (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball and Chain (restaurant):
Here's the thing — this place was established in 1935, it is a local landmark. I'm a little astonished at the Nominator's rationale, frankly... It does not matter a whit if all coverage is local, there is nothing in our General Notability Guideline that says "national good, local bad" — what we seek are multiple, published sources dealing substantially with the subject and of presumed reliability. This article passes GNG based on sources already showing in the footnotes.
It does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this content.
Here are all the deleted articles and talk pages:
Cunard (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Further details
Our undisclosed paid promotional editor "voted" in both the AFDs [5][6]
There SPI is here. It contains 30 blocked accounts.
As mentioned the Jeremy112233 was not new when it started. They very likely have prior blocked accounts seeing that they are using an army of socks. We have accounts prior to their creation that have the same editing pattern and are blocked.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse per the unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 10, which was a similar case. Mass sock farms can reasonably be assumed to have previous blocked accounts. That a sock farm knows how to hand CU should not prevent us from protecting Wikipedia. Doc James, would you mind also sharing the blocked accounts that are behaviorally connected? I think that would further your already strong argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)