Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:17, 3 September 2017

< 2017 September 2

Deletion review archives: 2017 September

2017 September 4 >

3 September 2017

Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork and other deleted articles

Discussion with closing admin

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)[reply]

I disagree and it's clear from Jeremy112233's habits of editing and facility, like this creation from his first few days after creating this account, and his self declaration that he was not really a new account. Given that apparently 100% of his edits (and those of his socks) matched undeclared paid editor profile, the G5 deletions were valid.

Given WP:NOTSUICIDE, it shouldn't be necessary to show legally conclusive evidence. However, if a new SPI were required to link to a preexisting LTA, I'd suggest looking at the sandbox similarities between Jeremy112233 and Sublimeharmony, for starters. If that's not cool enough, the Jeremy account was created less than two weeks before MooshiePorkFace. But it doesn't matter exactly who they are, the pattern is clear enough. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sublimeharmony was blocked by a checkuser 12 July 2013. Jeremy112233 was actively editing 12 July 2013. If these accounts were operated by the same person, the checkuser would have found and blocked Jeremy112233.

A checkuser on MooshiePorkFace was run at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MooshiePorkFace/Archive#21 November 2012. Jeremy112233 was actively editing 21 November 2012. If these accounts were operated by the same person, the checkuser would have found and blocked Jeremy112233.

That Jeremy112233 said "I've been away from Wikipedia for a while" and has Wikipedia experience does not prove there's a WP:G5 violation. I do not consider "it doesn't matter exactly who they are, the pattern is clear enough" to be sufficient to delete articles like Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork under WP:G5. When I reviewed the articles at AfD, neither qualified for deletion under WP:G11.

Cunard (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser shouldn't be treated like some oracle. These operators know how to use multiple networks to hide their tracks. At least sometimes. You want more? How about [1] and [2] . They are laughing at you, Cunard, and you are enabling them. What if you just stopped doing it? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not there's a possibility that the user was previously blocked, G5 and G11 don't apply in cases where the article has survived AfD. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CU is NOT magic pixie dust. It does not pick up all a person's socks, in fact it only picks up a small number of a person's socks. Did this person have previous accounts, definitely. Were they previously blocked, using common sense, yes. In fact we have blocked accounts as mentioned with a similar editing pattern. Were these articles paid for and thus were they advertising, certainly by looking at them. So yes G5 and G11 applies. There creation is also a TOU violation which some here are willing to enforce. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you did notice that Jeremy112233 voted in both AfD? [3][4] Both of these occurred after the TOU came into force.

Also we know that it is not that hard to create accounts that cannot be picked up by CU. We need to use common sense sometimes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the editor did have prior accounts, and it is possible that one of those prior accounts was blocked. But I think we have two issues. One is whether or not it is acceptable to apply G5 on the possibility of a prior blocked account. The other is whether or not G5 can be used on articles that have survived AfD. The second question isn't controversial - under CSD, we cannot delete articles under G5 or G11 if they have survived a prior AfD.

In regard to the other issue, I don't think we want to be in a situation where we allow articles to be deleted under G5 simply because of a suspicion of prior accounts. However, where it seems to be extremely likely, perhaps IGR applies? - Bilby (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Deleted articles

Several more deleted Jeremy112233 articles by RHaworth (talk · contribs):

Cunard (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 03:04, 3 September 2017 edit Doc James (talk \| contribs) Administrators 311,883 edits →‎Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork and other deleted articles: shortened ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:17, 3 September 2017 edit undo TonyBallioni (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers 49,292 edits Endorse Next edit →
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)