Hi Black Kite. I do not see a consensus for a redirect to List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions. Aoziwe and I both supported retaining the page, while Knowledgekid87 and Cjhard supported deletion. No one supported a redirect. No one commented about the sources I posted. Would you clarify how you found a consensus for a redirect? Cunard (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two Deletes, a Keep and a Weak Keep but the latter voting on the basis that it was not covered at List of anime conventions before being pointed out that it was. This type of AfD is always tricky but now I see someone's nominated even the redirect for deletion. You can't win, can you? Send it to DRV if you want, I won't disagree. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a redirect is that List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions says "These are notable conventions that have at one time existed, but have either gone on hiatus for more than one year, were merged into other conventions, or have finished operating entirely." If AfD concluded that the Manifest convention is not notable, then it will no longer meet the List of anime conventions inclusion criteria. That means editors can delete Manifest from List of anime conventions and then delete the Manifest redirect because Manifest is no longer mentioned in the list. That is why Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 3#Manifest (convention) has a high likelihood of succeeding in deleting the redirect.
Closing admin Yes, I closed this as redirect on the basis that the content would be contained in the redirect target, but it now appears that it won't. On that basis, I have no objection to this being overturned to No Consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork and other deleted articles – Speedy deletions endorsed, as least as regards the outcome. This concerns a mass deletion of apparently around 80 articles speedily deleted per WP:G5 and WP:G11 as the suspected work of a paid editing sockpuppet network. There is considerable controversy as to whether the speedy deletions met the policy requirements for such actions, but there is consensus in this discussion to endorse them nonetheless, either on their merits or in the spirit of WP:IAR. – Sandstein 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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 terms of use's "paid contributions without disclosure section" was added 16 June 2014. Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014 so there is no terms of use violation.
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.
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.
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.
Endorse per the unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4, which was a similar case. Mass sock farms can reasonably be assumed to have previous blocked accounts. That a sock farm knows how to game 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]
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.
Jeremy112233 does not know how to game checkuser because if he did, checkusers would not have been able to technically connect sockpuppet accounts That's not how the CU tool works. The CUs are very reluctant to go on fishing expeditions to find accounts not included in an SPI case. That Jeremy112233 wasn't identified earlier tells us exactly nothing about whether he was connected to the other accounts or not. Rentier (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain? It shows he did not know how to perfectly game CU. But we ALL know that CU is not pixie dust and will not pick up most socks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We recently had a similar sock farm with an account operating concurrently recreate the material byte for byte as exact recreations of the article. That these accounts can get caught by CU once does not mean that CU can't be gamed by them other times. We also have had times where CU has found an account technically unrelated after an admin DUCK blocked them, later to find out through UTRS IP data that they were the same account and have it confirmed. Behavioral evidence is the standard with many of these large operations, with CU being used to help as much as possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is speculation. There is no evidence that Jeremy112233 had a prior blocked account. With no connection between Jeremy112233 and a prior blocked account, WP:G5 does not apply and speedy deleting 157 pages is inappropriate. If admins want a suspicion of a prior blocked account to be sufficient for WP:G5 speedy deletion, they should achieve consensus to change the wording at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It is not appropriate to speedy delete articles on notable topics like Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork that have passed AfD.
You see not concern that undisclosed paid socking accounts voted "keep" in both those AfD? If we cannot / do not deal with socks makes most of our processes meaningless. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles would have passed AfD even if Jeremy112233's comments were not taken into consideration. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse . CU is a primitive tool. It can suggest or in some cases prove that edits come from the same location but it's nothing compared to what other webmasters have access to nowadays. Our decision to block socks and/or delete their articles and those of paid editors relies on intelligent assessment of the evidence. And if the community decides an article goes, it goes. Wikipedia may be the result of crowdsourcing but that does not give any individual a constitutional right to edit or write it. Nor does it give any individual or company a right to have an article even if they found someone willing to accept money to write it. Wikipedia's inclusionist philosophy is sometimes too wildly accepted; IMO we should interpret the ToU as being sufficiently broadly construed to allow the deletion of such articles whether notable or not. With 5.5mio articles, the loss of a few in order to demonstrate that we don't tolerate sockpuppetry or paid editing is negligible, and IMO more than perfectly justified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per the above discussion. G5, G11, and TOU violations justify these deletions. Our readers deserve a Wikipedia that is independent of the subjects we write about. Not taking action is going to hurt our reputation and thus our shared brand. A lot is on the line here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusionist philosophy is sometimes too wildly accepted; IMO we should interpret the ToU as being sufficiently broadly construed to allow the deletion of such articles whether notable or not. – that is a valid opinion to share at an RfC about expanding the speedy deletion criteria to include terms of use violations. But it is not appropriate to speedy delete articles outside of the speedy deletion criteria and against consensus, especially considering that G14. Articles created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use was rejected in January 2017 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61#Proposed new criterion.
The terms of use's "paid contributions without disclosure section" was added 16 June 2014. Jeremy112233's account was created in 2012. Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014 so there is no terms of use violation.
All of them have had edits by Jeremy after June 2014. Did not delete the ones they have not edited since June 2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be a great tool if we could use G5 to delete the work of paid editors even if they weren't blocked at the time. However, when this was put to the community in July, it failed to gain consensus. I'm loathe to go against that community discussion and see it applied by stealth. That said I hope we can get consensus for deleting ToU violations - I'd just like to see community support first. In regard to the articles that had previously survived AfD, I'd like to see them restored. G5 does not apply in cases where the article has survived AfD, so it doesn't matter whether or not this editor had prior blocked accounts - we cant delete them using this method. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Were does it say "G5 does not apply in cases where the article has survived AfD"?
Per "Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014", those I believe were excluded from deletion (at least the ones that had not been edited by them after that date)
And finally this which you claim has not gained consensus has not been closed yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to AfD, I'm surprised you weren't aware of this. Per the policy on WP:CSD - "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below", and none of the criteria includes G5. Those articles should be returned, as they were deleted out of process, although there's only six or so that fall under that category.
You are correct that the discussion hasn't closed yet - that was my fault for following what I thought was an archive link. However, as it hasn't been closed, I don't think we can circumvent that discussion by unilaterally deciding to delete paid articles here while it is still being discussed. Once the community finds a consensus we can work with that, whatever it may be.
Finally, in regard to deleting articles because someone might have been blocked in the past - that's a very uncomfortable precedent, and not a principle that I'd like to support. We'd be far better off getting support for CSD on articles by undisclosed paid editors, than we would be by allowing articles to be deleted without discussion because we're guessing whether or not the editor may have had a problem in the past, but don't know either way. The former would be an invaluable tool in stopping paid editing; the latter is a dangerous precedent that would be very open to misuse. - Bilby (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal you linked to has nothing to do with G5. G5 is often applied, by different admins, to articles created by sockfarms (e.g. the Anatha_Gulati one) - even in the absence of identified previously blocked socks. There's been relatively little opposition to the common-sense presumption that older blocked socks exist. Rentier (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is very clear that someone had to have been blocked at the time they created the article. There are three issues - is it ok to delete using G5 if you don't know that the editor was blocked at the time; is it ok to delete on the grounds that it was created in violation of the ToU; and is it ok to delete under G5 an article that survived AfD. The last of these is simple - no. The first is a bit grey, but it isn't a precedent I like. The second is still under discussion, so I linked to the discussion of that proposal. Personally, I think we should separate out the articles that survived AfD and allow them to return, and look at the first as the issue for the rest. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say here that passing a prior AfD protects the content created by a banned user from deletion. The last of these is simple and it is AfD does not matter. If it was the case than undisclosed paid editors would have a great trick to "protect" the content they create before they are discovered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just read WP:CSD. G5 is not an exception, and we don't delete articles under G5 if they have survived an AfD. The policy is quite clear. Linking to another policy which doesn't say anything one way or the other about prior AfDs is not a way of getting around it. The community may wish to make an exception in this case, but you should have been aware of the CSD policy. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Bilby:"is it ok to delete using G5 if you don't know that the editor was blocked at the time" - if an admin is fairly certain that the editor was banned (not just blocked), then the action is reasonable; we appoint admins to use their judgement in such events. We may not agree in every particular case, but the principle that we trust admins with this sort of discretion is sound. "is it ok to delete on the grounds that it was created in violation of the ToU" - this is still debatable, but deleting on the grounds that it was created in violation of the ToU by a banned user is surely uncontroversial? "is it ok to delete under G5 an article that survived AfD" - it may be, where it complies with other policy. You need to ask yourself whether an AfD which was 'poisoned' by the lack of revelation that a participating editor was a banned user (especially where they were the sole editor of the article) should carry more weight than our Bans apply to all editing, good or bad policy and our Terms of Use. I have no doubt that it should not. As for "policy is clear", policy documents practice, not prescribes it. in any case, the CSD policy does not proscribe CSD G5 of the work of a banned user after an AfD because it does not mention it, nor does it state that the list of exceptions are exhaustive, by your own reasoning, it doesn't say anything anything one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly open to saying that IAR applies if that is the decision, and that the articles created by an editor that we're almost certain was previously banned can be deleted. I'd much rather an agreement that we can delete ToU violations, though, as that would be a far better tool, and hopefully consensus will go that way.
However, I disagree with you in regard to the application of G5. The community has always felt that we need to be careful not to delete useful material in order to spite a banned editor. Accordingly, if the content was approved through AfD, or if other people have made substantial edits to the material, it has been protected from CSD - especially given that it has already been examined and found to be worth keeping.
We can play at wikilawyering if we like, but the policy is clear. If an article has survived AFD it is no longer eligible for CSD, unless it meets the requirements for G6, G8, G9 or G12. If it does not meet one of those exceptions, we can't delete it via CSD. This accounts for a grand total of six articles in the list that Doc James deleted, so it isn't as if it is a big deal, but I think we need to treat those separately. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering is precisely arguing the letter of policy over its spirit, which - with all due respect - is exactly what you're doing in that argument. A poisoned AfD should never be protection from deletion, and the list of exceptions at CSD is perfectly capable of being expanded. These are not set in tablets of stone and must reflect practice, not define it. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still trying to play games. We don't change policy or define practice through one person deciding to go against what the community has repeatedly shown that it wishes to do. If the consensus is to endorse this deletion then it will be a one off exception under IAR, which is fine - independent exceptions happen and we should be ok with that if it is the consensus. If you want the exceptions under CSD expanded, feel free to give it a shot over there. But don't bother claiming that this is anything more than an IAR exception that goes against existing policy. To be honest, I would have been much more comfortable if that was the reason given by Doc James in the first place, than I am with attempts to invent justifications under policy which don't exist and which are based on a lack of awareness of a key part of CSD policy. - Bilby (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby we disagree on the interpretation of policy. Where has the community repeatedly expressed the desire to keep promotional articles created by massive sock farms run by undisclose paid editors with likely prior blocked accounts? Were has the community agreed that "paid for advertisements" should be kept? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're playing strange games still. You've followed the paid editing debates at least as closely as I have. Whenever someone tried to get support for a policy regarding paid editing, the problem was always that a large percentage argued that we should focus on the content, not the creator. It wasn't until the WMF stepped in and ran a RFC on meta that change happened, and only because it was held off en-wiki. There is an emerging opposition to paid editing that might override this in the future, but the reason why G5 is restricted in this way is because the community has wished for admins to respect the community decisions at AFD, and not delete an article that they have decided is worth keeping.
Very simply, if you want to say that an exception should be made under IAR to allow deletions out of process in this case, then ok. There's an argument to be made. But you keep trying to say that this is permitted under policy, when the policy is, and has always been, very clear about when G5 applies and when it doesn't. I agree strongly with S Marshall and SomkeyJoe - there may be a reason for an exception here under IAR, but this mess trying to justify it is a problem. - Bilby (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that the deletions are within the spirit if not the letter of policy. CU is not the only method used to link accounts to prior account. Undisclosed paid promotional editing is nearly always, well promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they were overly promotional, the articles that survived AfD would not have done so. But at least you seem to be acknowledging that the deletions were not within policy as written, which is something. - Bilby (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...if not the letter of policy". - Bilby (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- the deletions were within admin discretion. They were also supported by common sense and the in line with the goals of the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse--The deletions were perfect and in acc. with common-sense.Cunard has somehow equated CU with magic-pixie-dust.Winged Blades Godric 10:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, within common sense and within discretion. No objection if an editor in good standing wants to tackle any of these topics with a new article, but we shouldn't be restoring the work of undisclosed paid editors based on arguments around potential notability. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse as reasonable and necessary to control paid editing and socking. Further, Admins should be deleting drafts created by these sockfarms as well. I often find drafts of deleted articles lurking. Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily endorse speedily deleting the sock-created articles but am uncomfortable with the justification we have.
On the one hand, Cunard has shown that in at least some cases G5 did not, strictly speaking, apply because there were substantial edits by others. Cunard has also shown that in at least some cases G11 did not, strictly speaking, apply. Neither G5 nor G11 may be used to remove articles that have survived deletion discussions, and some of the articles had survived them. Terms of use violations may be very good grounds to speedily remove material but we don't have a rule that says so. I find it very hard indeed to square an "endorse" outcome with DRV's role in ensuring the community's long-established and finely-balanced deletion processes are correctly followed.
On the other hand, we clearly need effective means of expunging sockfarm-created promotional material from our encyclopaedia. We need to empower our sysops to do so promptly and with the minimum of bureaucracy. It's vital that the outcome of this DRV does not encourage sockfarms to AfD their own articles to inoculate them against G5 and G11, and I would endorse on these grounds alone.
I see a case for an amendment to our rules here that would retrospectively authorise these deletions.—S MarshallT/C 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I deleted any with "substantial edits by others". Happy to look at cases in which you feel this is the case. Would be happy to see our rules around this clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer a rule that specifically authorises sysops to use extraordinary measures including out-of-criteria deletions to clean up promotional material created by prolific sockfarms, after a full CU has taken place.—S MarshallT/C 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I was God of Wikipedia then there would be a general rule in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry saying something like, "Once a SPI has confirmed the existence of a prolific sockfarm (where prolific means connected with more than a dozen articles) whose purpose is advocacy, admins cleaning up their edits are authorised to use their judgment about how to do so. This includes speedy deletions that would otherwise be out of process, and the use of scripts or other automated tools to perform large-scale reversions or cleanup." There would also have to be a G14 ("cleanup of advocacy by CU-confirmed prolific sockfarms").—S MarshallT/C 16:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (i) The fact that Jeremy112233 is a sock of a banned user, linked to a large paid-editing sock farm is clear by both behavioural evidence and by SPI - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive. The 2012 admission that they had edited previously strengthens the conviction that this operation goes back many years, leaving no doubt that the edits made by Jeremy112233 are made by an indefinitely blocked user. (ii) A user who is indefinitely blocked and has no admin willing to unblock is considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" per Wikipedia:Banning policy #Community bans and restrictions, i.e. site-banned. (iii) All blocks and bans apply to the user. not merely the account. (iv) The community has decided, as a matter of principle, that edits by banned users, good or bad, are eligible for reversion or, for complete articles, speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Banning policy #Edits by and on behalf of banned editors: "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion.". There is no exception made at that policy for articles previously surviving a deletion discussion. (v) It is clear that we need to harmonise the CSD policy with the banning policy. It is worth noting that CSD #Pages that have survived deletion discussions lists uncontroversial reasons for speedy deletion. I contend that the deletion of an article solely edited by a banned user, is not merely uncontroversial, it is already policy. The fact that the edits are also unarguably a breach of our ToU strengthens that contention. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: G5 deletions were appropriate based on the common-sense presumption, supported by behavioural evidence, that Jeremy112233's previous accounts (which existed, by his own admission) were already blocked at the time of his edits. We can't wikilawyer ourselves into accepting articles created by sockfarms on procedural grounds alone. Rentier (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fie. Agree largely with S Marshall. I support deletion of the sock-created articles but am uncomfortable with the haphazard attempts at justification. Get ToU violations deletion policy documented, and call it IAR in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions per comments by RexxS. It would be controversial to restore articles created by socks, paid editors, or COI editors. CU does not let admins to go on fishing expeditions. Decisions to delete articles generated by paid socks relies on evaluating the evidence. I have been watching the COI noticeboard and the apparent COI and sock violations need to be dealt with swiftly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strongly endorse -- User:Cunard I can appreciate an inclusionist ethic, but what you are doing here is terrible on two levels. Please think this through. This socking paid editor has made money dumping industrial waste into Wikipedia and the editing community has already spent a ton of time cleaning up this industrial waste. All the time that went into identifying all the fake accounts that this person used as pipelines for industrial waste, was time not spent building good content. You are defending an industrial polluter andforcing us to waste yet more time on this. I and everyone else !voting here, are not building content, because we are here dealing with this. Why you would do this -- why you would defend an industrial polluter and make us waste yet more time on this -- is completely beyond me. If you think any of these are appropriate for an actual WP article, please go ahead and write them. That would be a good use of your time, and everyone else's. Just FIXIT instead of rewarding industrial polluters with this wikilawyering. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard's not forcing you to do anything, actually.—S MarshallT/C 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes technically that is true. This is a volunteer project and no one is forced to anything. But that is a complete bullshit remark - snarky, CWOT and beneath you and everyone who wastes time running their eyes across it. To be as tedious as you and drive your face into your own bullshit and smear it around -- to the extent that things are decided by consensus and there are people who close mostly by counting !votes, anybody who gives a flying fuck and is aware of this needs to respond here. So really, take your snark and use it... well, just don't use it. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
No snark here, Jytdog. You're rather overexcited. Neither Cunard nor anyone else is forcing you to participate in this unanimously endorsing deletion review. There's a discussion about process to be had, which you're welcome to disregard if it doesn't interest you.—S MarshallT/C 20:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your comment on my watchlist. Stopped what I was doing to come here and read it. More of a waste of my time. I fucking wrote that I fucking know that every fucking thing I do is here is fucking voluntary. Cunard wrote "It does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this content." and for anybody who gives a flying fuck that needs fucking rebutting. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)(strikes Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse per S Marshall, SmokeyJoe, and Jytdog. In general, I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to WP:CSD. I agree that, as currently worded, WP:G5 doesn't apply to creations of TOU-violators (see, for example, my argument near the bottom of WP:Articles for deletion/Gene Freidman). But, I think that, even if the letter of G5 doesn't agree, the spirt is clearly that people should not be able to benefit from performing forbidden actions. I agree that we should modify the wording of WP:G5 and/or create a new WP:CSD to deal with the scourge of undisclosed paid editing head-on, and with unambiguous language. Until that time, I'll proudly fly the WP:IAR banner on this endorsement. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I became aware of this discussion because I watchlist Doc James' talkpage. I think that this is a useful discussion, and I find no fault with the editors who are arguing for review, because I think that it's a good thing to have a close look at the underlying issues. For me, it comes down to how we can balance the genuinely massive harm that is done by these kinds of TOU-flouting sockfarms against the possibility that some page topics may in fact be notable. And the fact that good-faith editors remain free to recreate deleted pages with proper sourcing etc. puts me firmly on the side of "endorse". I looked at the two AfDs, and one was closed as "keep" with very little discussion while the other was closed as "no consensus", so it's not like anyone deleted a page that had strong community support. I don't much care whether it's IAR or just plain f--k the undisclosed paid editors and CSD fine print be damned. I do not see this as a violation of CSD rules, but rather as something that is desperately necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it's obvious that these articles were created by someone with a long history of paid editing and sockpuppetry and it is therefore very likely that one of their accounts has been blocked at some point. That's enough for me. The fact that CU didn't pick up the accounts means nothing. I am tempted to say that the ones which survived deletion discussions should be restored, as G5 and G11 do not apply there, however the fact that Jeremy112233 participated in both of those discussions brings the results into question. Hut 8.5 07:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per RexxS. CheckUser is not magic- this is proven by CU not finding Jeremy's self admitted previous account. In fact we have sockfarms who actively change their behavior after reading their own SPI cases, and sock farms are becoming more and more sophisticated in their attempts to circumvent CU, such that even clear DUCKs can be unrelated after a check. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse per RexxS's great policy analysis and Jytdog's amplifying comments on ways and means. Plus of course my owncomments at Doc James' talkpage that were part of the genesis of this review. 20:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)☆ Bri (talk)[reply]
Overturn 1) G5 is not retroactive, and the community declined to make it so, and 2) The evidence that these were created by previously banned entities is circumstantial, and 3) CSDs do not allow G5 if an article has survived its most recent AfD. I am concerned that the legitimate interests of preventing undisclosed paid editing (UPE) are causing us to abandon appropriate levels of evidence and due process. I am further concerned that this scorched-earth, evidence-light approach to punishing suspected UPE can be used maliciously by anyone smart enough to NOT fool CU to cause the unwarranted deletion of articles they dislike, or are perhaps paid to eliminate. Due process is a bulwark against such miscarriages. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Due process", "circumstantial evidence" and other legalistic terms are more evidence of wikilawyering on this matter. What's at stake is the credibility of the encyclopedia as a neutral source of information, not an advertising, and retention of our good-faith editors who at least want to know when they are interacting with paid creations. Deletion of ToU violating material is allowed, and arguing for it to be kept is counterproductive to the broad goals of the project as an ongoing enterprise. Arguing for massive amounts of ToU violating material to be fought piecemeal, article by article, agonizing over each specific source, quote and credibility of the source, is a suicide pact that need not be kept; rather it should be abandoned right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole much? There is no special risk to the encyclopedia, since any identified advertising content can be fixed through the regular editing process, and any assertion that there is such a risk is evidence that rational thought is taking a back seat to the desire to punish UPEs. G5 is about punishing banned editors by intentionally destroying their contributions regardless of merit. G11 is about denying ad space. Combining them to presumptively retroactively destroy UPE content--or anything suspected of being such--is not a good idea. As I've argued elsewhere, speedy deletion is not the right process for suspected UPE content, and yet your shrill response posits that I am somehow advocating for the foreseeable and imminent demise of Wikipedia by preferring more deliberative and transparent processes. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I hope you don't mind my asking (because it is a question out of trying to understand your logic here, and not a gotcha'), but what is the distinction you draw between G5 on these articles where it is pretty clear by the creators own admission that they had a previously banned account and your position at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4, where you had a sockfarm of a similar scale. I respect your view re: paid editing, and that isn't the reason behind my endorsement. I supported the CSD criteria for that, but it hasn't been adopted yet. There did seem to be consensus there when it was brought up that large sockfarms were already covered by G5. I certainly wouldn't support applying G5 to a family with only one or two socks, but this one had 30. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's an absolutely valid question, and three factors play into my slightly different take on this: 1) Scope, single article vs. dozens. 2) that one was a BLP, and 3) no one seems to be paying much attention to the 'yes, but...' opinions above, so I thought I'd speak out a bit stronger against it. Again, I continue to believe we need a deliberative and transparent way to handle these on a large scale, and while one G5 isn't going to make a difference, I'd rather see this broad number of articles dealt with other than as an IAR. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In my mind the distinction in making this G5 is the scale of the socking and the extreme likelihood given all the behavioral evidence that we have a blocked master that is not named in the SPI. I'd not support this for a one account TOU violator or even a 5 account violator. The 30 accounts though all but guarantees that if we had the technical ability, we'd be able to connect this to a blocked master before these articles were created. FWIW, assuming that this DRV goes as it is trending now, I think a discussion at VPP could be had about updating G5 to clarify for these type of situations without going to the extent of the proposed G14. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a passing comment, the user admitted to a prior account, but not to a prior blocked account. We're working on the assumption that the prior account was blocked to justify G5. - Bilby (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which I think is fair given the level of socking we've seen here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case - I actually think it is a bit unlikely, but possible, if only because most paid editors go from one long term account to individual throwaway socks per job, rather than one long term to a new long term account. However, I just needed to correct where you said that the editor had admitted that they were previously banned. This is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I actually didn't say that: I meant that by their own admission of having a previous account, it is pretty clear from their behavior here that it was likely banned. I see how you could confuse my wording, though. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: You're mistaken. Blocks and bans apply to the user, not the account. If one sock is banned, every account of that user is banned, whether we have made the connection or not. If a banned user admits to a prior account, that account is, of course, de facto banned as well. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is irrelevant. The question is whether or not they had a prior account (yes), and whether or not that prior account was blocked or banned before they edited as Jeremey112233, (which were are assuming is likely, but don't actually know). - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to tag the articles, and give the community a week to review the content and opine whether they should stay or go, in my mind. Yes, we want to ruin UPE's days, but not at the expense of our own processes, of which everyone seems to want to make everything a speedy (yes, I know THAT is hyperbole) when we should really have a transparent, deliberative process to make sure we're firing on all cylinders and not being inappropriately overzealous. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. We appoint admins on the basis that we trust their judgement when making a decision like "is it extremely likely that this is a banned user?" The benefit of having a speedy deletion process for uncontroversial deletions is that we don't have to sit around for a week arguing about something that's obvious. The downside is that only two pairs of eyes are needed to make the decision, but at least one of those is an admin, trusted to make that decision. In the event of mistakes, we have REFUND and DRV, but we should not be overturning something as clear cut as deleting the contributions of banned users, simply because we haven't yet codified the exact circumstances in which G5 is a sensible exception to the "survived prior deletion" policy. That is putting the letter of policy before its spirit, and our encyclopedia is founded upon doing exactly the opposite to that. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there weren't two pairs of eyes. However, the main issue is that we place limits on admin actions through policy, especially where the actions are difficult for a normal editor to reverse. CSD is very open to misuse, and to make sure that doesn't happen we have things like the restriction to G5, intended to avoid deletions of articles without consultation where the community has decided that the article should be kept. This isn't about due process as some strange bureaucratic court, but being transparent and careful so as not to override decisions of the community or to act against the community's expectations. - Bilby (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the point of view of the general public who is coming to Wikipedia and absorbing its content, I asked myself the following: Do I care if the subjects I am coming across in the encyclopedia are notable? Yes; do I care if the content was created by someone who was banned or is a UPE? Not really, so long as the content is good; do I care if Wikipedia editors have applied all of the extant rules regarding speedy deletion of content? Meh; do I care if I am reading content that is phrased promotionally? Yes, I don't want to see that; what about accuracy? Yes, I want accuracy; do I care if editors remove valid content by way of punishing someone who deserves it? Yes, I want to be able to see that no matter who wrote it or why; what about sockfarms? Shrug— I said I wanted things to be notable and accurate; even content generated by banned users? Shrug again. I understand we have rules about the kind of content we host as well as who is not allowed to create it, and I see the benefit of having these rules, but, to put it in simplest terms, if that restaurant is notable and the information was accurate and not phrased promotionally, I want to be able to read about it even if having that article is some kind of exception to the rules about edits by a banned user. That's my take, anyway. KDS4444(talk) 09:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: The bigger picture is Do I care if the encyclopedia gets flooded with borderline notable, promotional articles that have been placed there for payment, rather than to further the sum of knowledge? - Yes, too right I do. The reason we remove all content from undisclosed paid editors is not to punish anyone: it is to make the point that the community has agreed it is better to lose some usable content if it means that we demonstrate to those paying for promotion that they cannot benefit from it. The only way to stop undisclosed paid editing is to ensure that the source of income dries up, and for that to happen, we have to take a firm line. Of course, if you or anybody else wants to read the sources and generate a notable article afresh, please do so. Nothing is stopping you from that. Just don't expect to get paid for it and not tell anyone. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The moment any given rule prevents us from acting within common sense is the moment that rule needs to be ignored. What's best for the encyclopedia is showing spammers and their work to the door as quickly, permanently and non-disruptively as possible... and we should do the same for spam defenders/enablers as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? First off, 'common sense' does not unanimously say we discard otherwise good content based on who wrote it, especially in some of the cases decided above. Second, a wide diversity of opinion is welcome and necessary on Wikipedia, with exactly one exception: WP:CHILDPROTECT. We have all sorts of other disagreements about things from the ridiculous to the sublime, but your statement would put those who don't believe in witch hunts against possibly/probably UPE-created content in a category currently only occupied by pro-pedophilia advocates. That is not a consensus-building approach. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of things we do not readily compromise on. (1) One is child protect as mentioned (2) Is no legal threats (3) Is not adding material that is a copyright infringement (4) Is our Terms of Use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: Consensus is already clear: the banning policy has a section, "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad", and states "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. That has a footnote refering to arbitration decisions, that I'm sure you're aware of. We remove even good content to make sure that a ban remains a ban. There are no compromises on that. Of course the removal is without prejudice to an editor in good standing making use of good sources to re-add or re-create it. It's not as if we're "salting" the topic, and that sort of process actually fits better with CSD than AfD, because of the ease of REFUND for articles speedy deleted. --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know if the editor was banned or not when these articles were created. The question is not whether or not we should delete the work of an editor evading a block or ban, but if we should delete work on the basis that the editor might have been blocked or banned. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing gives us absolute proof that a person does not have prior banned accounts. CU is sometimes wrong aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this world is certain, except death and taxes, but if a user is banned then all of their accounts are banned. If you look through the creation dates of the linked accounts in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive, you'll see that they had a sizeable farm as early as 2014 - there's no might about that, or about the fact that they are banned. The actual question is if a user is blocked and banned for chronic systematic sock-puppetry, are their edits prior to being caught exempt from WP:BMB? Must we preserve their edits because we didn't catch them sooner? I say not. You should feel free to disagree, but you'll need good reasons to fly against the spirit of our banning policy. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're getting anywhere. G5 states "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion". The articles that we are discussing here were created by the user before the account was blocked. Therefore they would not normally qualify for G5. The exception that Doc James is claiming is that it is possible that the user had a prior account that was also blocked, but I'm very uncomfortable about using G5 in cases where we have no proof that the user was blocked before they created the articles. Your question, "if a user is blocked and banned for chronic systematic sock-puppetry, are their edits prior to being caught exempt", the answer is yes, in regard to G5, under existing policy.
Anyway, I'll let this be. I'll be disturbed if this becomes a precedent that we apply without community consensus to modify G5, but I'm always ok if consensus is to make a one off exception under IAR. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it may be worth, a significant part of why I'm comfortable with this particular IAR is that the deletions are not the same thing as WP:SALT. It's not like the content is lost forever. Good faith editors remain free to re-create the pages with their own writing if the subjects are notable. It is even possible to ask an admin to temporarily undelete a page in order to let one see what was deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting promotional articles created by large groups of socks were none of the socks appears to be a new account is already standard practice based on G5. This deletion review is just reinforcing that current practice still remains the consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby echoes my concerns: Y'all are pretty clear on your desired course of action, but the underpinning is flimsy and inappropriate. This isn't a discussed deletion, it's a SPEEDY deletion. No one opposed to the speedy deletion has said it would be inappropriate for a deliberative process to have killed this content with fire. Nor has anyone objected to proven banned editor content being speedily deleted. I have seen nothing to suggest that any urgency demanded the deletion of content without discussion. For those reasons, I oppose applying G5 to suspected banned editor contributions. I am greatly disturbed by the seeming presence of religion (UPE) and politics (banning policy) in the same cart. Again, nothing needed to be done via speedy. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair concerns. Giving admins the right to declare ToU violation and speedy delete masses of pages is not consistent with a community run project. I think maybe a new deletion forum, specifically for the past work of now banned editors. The assessment would be very different to notability guessing at AfD. The questions should include: Do editors in good standing share a significant proportion of the authorship? Is the topic of such low value that it should be simply deleted, or was it actually a wanted article that deserves retention of the good references, and stubification, stripping all content authored by the ToU violator. These discussions would then be appropriate records, should the decision be later questioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jytdog, Roy Smith, and S Marshall. If the current wording of G5 seems to compel us to overturn these deletions (and I don't agree that it does), then that's a reason to repair the wording of G5 rather than to restore these CVs and advertising brochures. ReykYO! 10:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's important to address the "there weren't two pairs of eyes" claim made above. Actually there were many more than two pairs of eyes prior to a single speedy deletion. Recounting events that led up to the deletions: Zeroth, the first Jeremy112233 COIN case on 2014-02-25. SPI first opened 2016-09-13. New evidence added two months later and again 2017-03-07, case closed 2017-05-26. I created the full list of their edits 2017-08-31, created new COIN case for community review and cleanup the next day on 2017-09-01, and I posted the first G5 for Bedgear Performance Bedding a few minutes after that with the explicit comment inline and in the edit summary [7] that it was a trial nomination to see if policy was met. Only after all this, and with no objections to my trial comment, did Doc James and other admins (n.b. Doc James did not delete Bedgear) start to delete the articles that I had nominated or listed, then he waited, then deleted some more. So laying this out as if there were a rogue admin on the loose is a reporting of events that does not accord with the actual events. RexxS's comment "the deletion of an article solely edited by a banned user, is not merely uncontroversial, it is already policy" is accurate and applies in every way to this case, where policy was correctly applied. This review (per emergent consensus) hasn't successfully challenged any policy nor (per my analysis) shown misapplication of existing policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I don't think that's right. This review has resoundingly endorsed Doc James' actions as appropriate and justified in the circumstances. But I think to say there's no policy issue here at all is to misstate the position quite badly.
During this deletion review what's come to light that the banning policy is at odds with the speedy deletion policy. As you rightly say, WP:BANREVERT says any edit by a banned user can be removed. But as Cunard equally rightly says, G5 is not listed at WP:CSD as one of the criteria that can lead to speedy deletion despite surviving AfD. This is a lacuna in the way our policy is written, and it's potentially a large problem because to leave policy untouched as a result of this discussion would be to encourage sockfarms to AfD their own articles to inoculate them against G5.
Fixing the lacuna would be a good outcome from this DRV.—S MarshallT/C 23:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can just see it: undisclosed paid sockfarms AfD-ing their own pages to game the system. Ouch! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree further clarification of CSD to close this potential "loophole" would be a good outcome of this DRV. Not sure if we need another discussion other than this or not. Have gone ahead and boldly added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As that's been reverted already, I volunteer to start the necessary RfC on WT:CSD once this deletion review has been closed.—S MarshallT/C 01:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just in regard to the "two sets of eyes" thing, wheat I meant was that Doc James deleted the articles without tagging. There are plenty of times when this is justified, but generally one person tags and another admin provides a second set of eyes to consider the tag and delete or not. Accordingly, there was only one set of eyes for each of these articles. This may well be justified - I don't have a particular problem with it, and do the same with clear cases of G5 - but it was in relation to RexxS' comment that CSD has two sets of eyes evaluate the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re Ball and Chain, the notability is even more suspect than expressed at AFD. (Would an admin mind copying exact info from my post on the now deleted talkpage...). The sequence of businesses at the location goes roughly: Ball and Chain 1 > other bar > Furniture shop for 20 years > Empty for X years > Nightclub 1 > Nightclub 2 > Ball and Chain 2. There's no continuity between the B&C1 and B&C2 apart from same name and building. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of talk:Ball and Chain (restaurant)
The 57 year gap, notability, etc.
Ref the AFD, I started out trying to patch the gap, began digging, (I know this is heading in the direction of OR) and the order of businesses as far as I can tell is:
Ball & Chain I (1935-1957)
Copa Lounge Tavern (1957?-1966?)
Futurama Furniture (1966?-199x)
?Empty? (199x-2008?) - this crossreferences with this 2007 photo
Kamazoo Nightclub, etc (2011?-2012?), mentioned only in this wire story, and address shows as 1513 SW 8th St
B&C2 (2014-)
While the omission of clubs from the standard narrative (and their website) might be understandable, it does mean that the B&C2 has even less continuity with the B&C1.
The building is not currently listed either singly or in aggregate. It's possible that something might happen if the National Trust, which designated LH one of the 11 most endangered areas in the US last year, designates the district as historic, but that's WP:CRYSTAL.
And on the Orlando Sentinel's "Two iconic buildings in the 1500 block predate Little Havana the Tower Theater, an art-house cinema, and the Ball & Chain", there's not any independent evidence available to show that the B&C building is actually iconic, there's few distinct (even if adjoined) buildings in the 1500 block, and Little Havana emerged as LH in the 1960s, so many buildings in the block appear to predate it (xref this thesis -- which is not usable as a RS but is at least indicative).
Uncertain I think it was definitely right to delete in these cases, and I agree with Doc James' interpretation , and with the others who support it. But this was a real violation of accepted procedure, and an uncollegial administrative action (even tho I agreer with the result). I consider it very poor administrative practice for an administrator to make speedy deletions without a prior nomination from another editor except in purely routine or in emergency situations. It's pretty well accepted we do not delete single-handed in situations involving A7 or G11, because judgment is involved, and nobody should fully trust their own. I think it poor practice to do it with banned editors, because it's sometimes not absolutely certain that the editor has in fact been banned at the time--and because it is sometimes possible for a responsible editor to adopt the article. I think it totally wrong for TOU violation, which is not yet really a fully accepted criterion. These deletions involved TPU violations, G5, and G11 ; none of which should be done single handed. And this was a bold use of the combination criteria, in a situation where opposition was to be expected from at least a few other admins. I would never work this way, and I feel just as strongly about they underlying situation as Doc or anyone else here--and in fact have been advocating doing exactly this for over a year now, so I am glad to see it done. But it should have been done by nominating them--there is as the discussion above shows no shortage or other admins to confirm and delete. I hope single handed action like this will never be repeated. (and I came very near !voting revert rather than uncertain because of this, much as I agree with the result.) DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in the discussion no evidence that handling them in this fashion was agreed on by consensus--re-reading it, I rather see a dispute on how to handle it. I do see two admins agreeing that the deletions should be done that way--but the requirement for confirmation by 2 people holds for individual articles--doing mass deletions that way requires more consensus than that. I see at the list no discussion of doing it this way either. As many of the articles on the list have not yet been deleted, I am working on removing them the proper way, one at a time, with a check by another admin via speedy , or by afd if it seems to warrant a discussion (In fact, one of my speedies was just declined, and will consequently go to AfD. ) The extent of subversion of WP that is being revealed should not be met by panic. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This talk about TOU and whether or not the editor was banned is entirely irrelevant, since G5 only applies when there are no subsequent substantive edits to the article (the G5 text is already quoted above). I even had an administrator refuse to delete an article talk page once, claiming that my DB-G5 speedy delete request added a substantive edit. The issue here is about two articles that went to AfD, so even without the article history there can be no doubt that the AfD template was applied and removed. These two AfDs represent a huge investment in good edits, which G5 is written to protect. Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
