- Kyrgyz Khanate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
1) Article deleted by User:Liz on the following grounds: "(G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Cianzera) in violation of ban or block, many different sockpuppets have been at work here.)" [1] User:Liz seems too busy to respond on her Talkpage... I don't blame her, she seems quite active with clean-up tasks. Technically, I believe WP:CSD#G5 does not apply here: AFAIK, the page was created before the user was banned ("To qualify, the edit or page 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." per WP:CSD#G5), and I for sure, and possibly a few other users, did contribute significantly (images, maps etc...) ("...and articles that have no substantial edits by others" per WP:CSD#G5).
2) In terms of article content, I think the rather rich Kyrgyz Khanate article about the independent Kyrgyz polity in the 16th-17th century (circa 1510-1680) was probably quite legit (some random sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7]), although it was indeed a bit inflated and mainly serviced by a recurring sockpuppet/IP from... Kyrgystan, but I had started to contribute to it recently as part of an overhaul of articles related to the History of Central Asia. It's a bit sad to see a rather important part of Central Asian history vanish, just because of sockpuppet stuff... I suggest that we should reinstate the page, and protect the article from the recurring single-purpose "newcomer" that has been active on it, because indeed sockpupettry cannot go on like this. Protecting the article should be enough, and it will allow other users, such as myself, to improve the page. The sockpuppet seems to be rather enthusiastic and well-intentioned [8], but at a loss with Wikipedia rules, so I suggest him to follow a proper un-ban request, and try to get a second chance on Wikipedia after the required, sad but necessary, 6-months probation period. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy heads up to @Blaze_Wolf who was also discussing this on Liz's page.
- Star Mississippi 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm already aware of this since i provided a bit further reasoning as to why I nominated the article for G5 in the first place on पाटलिपुत्र's talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I missed that. Star Mississippi 17:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll admit that this was a judgment call that took some time to decide and others might disagree with my decision to delete this article. Typically, CSD G5s are much simpler than this one and involve the page creation by one sockpuppet who is the primary or sole contributor to the page but this article was the work of the combined efforts by a number of sockpuppets. This article deletion was not a statement about the value of an article on this subject. It's just that the vast, vast majority of edits to the page were done by a variety of sockpuppets including User:Aykol Manas, User:Shoqan Ualikhan, User:Ardash Moghul, User:Th3Shoudy, User:Lauriswift911 and User:Foggy kub. Admins can look at the deleted contributions and judge how many were done by sockpuppets of User:Cianzera and User:Th3Shoudy (who is a suspected sockpuppet of Cianzera as well). If those examining this deletion review don't believe it met the threshold for a CSD G5 deletion, I accept that but in my judgement, it was almost entirely written by sockpuppets. I also protected the page because it is such a sockpuppet magnet for this sockmaster but that page protection can be lifted or reduced if reviewing editors believe that it is inappropriate. But should you look into the case of Cianzera and their identified sockpuppets, you'll see that concerns go beyond this article to their general behavior on their project, particularly attacking specific ethnicities that they have issues with and I thought it best to discourage all of their activity on this project because they were such disruptive editors. Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I was the user who applied the G5 to the page I feel I should provide a bit more explanation as I was unable to do so with G5. I don't remember how I came across this article originally, however after the most recent sock contributor to the article was blocked, I attempted to find the revision to revert back to before the sockpuppetry per WP:BANREVERT. However upon going through the edit history I discovered that the article had basically exclusively been edited by socks. So I checked the article creator and sure enough they were also a sock. I brought it up on Discord and was basically told "If you think a tag is warranted then add it." (the discussion consisted of a bit more but that was the general idea). So I added the G5 tag to the article so an admin would decide if a G5 was warranted. Due to the extensive socking on the article I feel that this wasn't solely a G5 but also a WP:TNT as there was no good revision to go back to since the article history consisted solely of sock edits (with the occasional non-sock edit in between). I would like to note that
I suggest him to follow a proper un-ban request, and try to get a second chance on Wikipedia after the required, sad but necessary, 6-months probation period is not possible outside of VTRS since the user is globally locked meaning they are unable to log into their account. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse for a start the edit history is astounding: the deleted article was 68kb in size and had 300+ edits in the history, and almost all of it was written by sockpuppets. There were an enormous number of sockpuppets used, and the sockmaster switched between them at random intervals, and once used a sockpuppet to revert an edit made by another sockpuppet. The OP is correct that this isn't technically a valid G5 because the author wasn't blocked or banned when the page was created, the article was created on 6 November 2022 and it doesn't look like the socks were identified until February 2023. However there are several suggestions at the SPI that this user has a track record of hoaxes, and I'm willing to overlook this technicality. The OP made 7 edits to the page, the most significant of which added an image and a 7 word caption. The rest were more minor and involved formatting images, removing an image, adding a Chinese translation and adding a citation, and I don't think they are enough to qualify as significant edits under G5. There were some edits from other non-sock editors, but again they look minor and the very new editors who made them may also be sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 18:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Hut 8.5. WP:BMB. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This appears to be a situation where a non-admin should rely on the judgment of admins who can cross the yellow tape to inspect the crime scene. I am distrustful of the work of users who were "not yet blocked" and about to be blocked for sockpuppetry, so I would probably endorse if I knew the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: I agree that only those with access to the page history can formulate a meaningful opinion and others are largely trusting those opinions. What I know about Liz though is that she is usually a stickler for doing things "by the book" (I mean that respectfully), so if she thought that a technical exception could be made on this occasion, i'd be willing to believe that as being the most appropriate decision. However, like you I can't really express an endorse on witness testimony alone, but feel on balance that's probably the right call. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
