Misplaced Pages

talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:15, 30 November 2006 editRobdurbar (talk | contribs)11,477 edits →Keep Voters on the AfDs: modify← Previous edit Revision as of 09:35, 30 November 2006 edit undoAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 editsm →Vote-stacking?: noted proxy (200.106.170.4) user allegedly in BogotaNext edit →
Line 35: Line 35:


:::: --] 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :::: --] 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Good eye, A.B.—it's a proxy. ] ] 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


OK ], its reached the point that your history of deception in these discussions limit my ability to believe your statements. On at least two occasions you have recreated articles that were deleted and you have removed editorial notices from other articles. ''Now you tell us that you wrote for both Kafenio and Suite101?'' Why did you not disclose this in your defense of the Kafenio AfD? Indeed earlier in this Suite101 AfD discussion you wrote, "I agree that it is bad style to have a company employee write an article for Misplaced Pages." Why didn't you come clean at that time and admit that you wrote for that publication? ] 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) OK ], its reached the point that your history of deception in these discussions limit my ability to believe your statements. On at least two occasions you have recreated articles that were deleted and you have removed editorial notices from other articles. ''Now you tell us that you wrote for both Kafenio and Suite101?'' Why did you not disclose this in your defense of the Kafenio AfD? Indeed earlier in this Suite101 AfD discussion you wrote, "I agree that it is bad style to have a company employee write an article for Misplaced Pages." Why didn't you come clean at that time and admit that you wrote for that publication? ] 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:35, 30 November 2006

Vote-stacking?

As anyone who's read my flip-flopping on this article knows, I don't have a strong postion as to whether to delete or keep. I nominated it so as to get an honest discussion about what to do. I was concerned to note the following:

Coincidence?

--A. B. 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

213.42.21.78 (talk • contribs) -- Note 213.42.21.78's support for Rough in a totally unrelated editing dispute. --A. B. 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
See the comments I left for the admins that closed the two other AfDs:
--A. B. 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we are vacationing both on the same Greek Island, have both contributed to both Kafenio and Suite101 and we seem to be in agreement, besides that Mark Shapiro -- IP -- is a good friend of ours, so why would you be surprised? Rough 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If you would have looked at User talk:Moondyne over CWA you would have found that the discussion was about an article that YoueTrue did not vote for in the article mentioned before on his list. I was going through Moondyne's : Moondyne edit list to see how he got to that article (lomg expoerience editing french wikipedia) and found that he had deleted CWA previously entered by YouTrue. I just told him that it was a legit organization. Hope this helps Rough 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The IP address 200.106.170.4 is in Bogotá, Columbia so it's doubtful the person is related to Rough. --Oakshade 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
or ... --A. B. 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Good eye, A.B.—it's a proxy. Æ. ✉ 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK Rough, its reached the point that your history of deception in these discussions limit my ability to believe your statements. On at least two occasions you have recreated articles that were deleted and you have removed editorial notices from other articles. Now you tell us that you wrote for both Kafenio and Suite101? Why did you not disclose this in your defense of the Kafenio AfD? Indeed earlier in this Suite101 AfD discussion you wrote, "I agree that it is bad style to have a company employee write an article for Misplaced Pages." Why didn't you come clean at that time and admit that you wrote for that publication? SteveHopson 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty confused. There are all these people that are now involved with the Suite101.com AfD that were involved with
I why multiple editors would be independently involved with all 4 of those articles/AfDs since Ms. Jacobson is a common element -- but why would all these editors then reconvene for the Suite101.com AfD? Why not one of the many other fine AfDs also underway such as Florence High School (Alabama), CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series, or Estonian Orthodox Church Pilgrimage? As already conceded on my talk page, I'm a sorry detective -- someone help me out here. Thanks, --A. B. 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Voters on the AfDs

Considering:

First of all, I think that Rough/Youtrue's explanation is adequate BUT the fact that in the other AfDs that they didn't reveal they were linked to the topic means that I would be tempted to re-list - I know at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kafenio I would have seriously reconsidered how I closed it if I had known they were associated with the journal.

To tidy this all together, we could list all those who have voted 'keep' on one of these AfDs:

  • User:Bessielil - only two contributions, both to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor
  • User:Rough - registered for about 3 weeks. Most of his contributions have been to articles related to these four; he has claimed that he has contributed to both Kafenio/Suite1010
  • User:Youtrue - 9 contributions, of which 5 are directly linked to all this. Has been revealed as a friend of Rough and a contributor to both Kafenio/Suite101. That's no reason not to believe Rough's claims that their views are reached independently, however
  • User:Caknuck - established user; I think Caknuck's keep vote should indicate to us that these articles, even escluding the votes that we might be suspicious about, are at worse bordering on notability
  • User:Oakshade - as above
  • User:213.42.21.78 - slightly odd one - either an occaisional user or a shared computer of some sort. No real reason why we should be suspicious about this one though.
  • User:200.106.170.4 - two of three edits to pages on this topic, first two edits to AfDs. Has admitted to editing Suite101 - possible meatpuppet but I doubt it.

So what do we have? I suspect that we have a few friends who have come together and voted keep out of good faith, but on a topic that they are linked to. Given that the topic is an internet one, its not inconceivable that people who have contributed to it could stumble accross this page. They may not have done this deliberatly, but the effect is the same as if meatpuppets had been used.

I think, therefore, that we should consider relisting the closed afds. I wouldn't ban the above users from participating in them per se but I think that their contributions should be caveated. --Robdurbar 09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)