User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/07

Mussolini's Mare Nostrum
I notice you closed this AfD with the conclusion to "merge", giving the justification: “There is insufficient evidence to show that NRex4 is a sockpuppet of a banned user; otherwise, the content is fine.” I am asking you to reconsider this. The evidence that NRex4 is a sockpuppet of a banned user is here, and, as one of the guiding principles in such cases is that cheats should not prosper, I would have thought this was an open-and-shut case. Also your comment that "the content is fine" is at variance with the statements, made by several editors, that this is a content fork, which is itself grounds for deletion. This article (or it's previous incarnation) has already gone through a merge process (contrary to this comment, the previous AfD recommended its issues "be addressed by re-writing, merging or re-directing it", which was done, per consensus, after lengthy discussion); it is not only disruptive, but panders to the banned users agenda, to force everyone to go through the whole thing again. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You yourself admitted that there is not enough evidence to prove that NRex4 is a sockpuppet: "Fair enough; I’d assumed Nrex4 was a sock of User:Brunodam, who wrote the original article, but on looking,the connection isn't asserted anywhere." I did indeed see his block log with checkuserblock, but I could not find any link to who the original sockpuppeteer might be. This is important, because articles created before a ban are not subject to G5. As for the content, content forks are subject to deletion "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate." Many !voters in the AfD have suggested that a merger is indeed appropriate. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying
 * As to your second point, I think "many voters" suggesting a merger is a bit of a stretch; of the 9 contributors only Carrite actually went for that one, though he did say it several times. However, to cover that point I have invited him (her?) to comment at a Merge discussion here, together with the participants of the last merge discussion.


 * The first point, though, is a problem because it has (I feel) a wider implication. What I accepted was that there was insufficient evidence given that NRex4 was a sock of Brunodam; but it is evident he is a sock of somebody who is a banned user, so the objection should be valid by virtue of that. (I've asked for a clarification on this, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Saying "articles created before a ban are not subject to G5" is a fairly generous interpretation of "even if the (banned) editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good" (here),
 * or "(where a)n editor who has been banned or has had their account blocked, and tries to evade this by creating a new account, ... the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted, as discussed above" (here),
 * or "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason" In the case of the proviso "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits ...must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor", it goes on to say "but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". (here). (I've asked for comments on this, too (here)Xyl 54 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC))
 * So to say that a banned user can come back with a new account and their edits are OK until they are outed is to create a cavernous loophole in WP:BAN: Is that really what we mean? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment on this issue. It is not enough to say that an editor is the sock on another editor who is banned. What we need is to know exactly who the banned user is. Otherwise G5 cannot be applied. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarifying what I mean by "articles created before a ban are not subject to G5": If a user gets banned, and then creates a sockpuppet to evade that ban, then any articles the sock creates are subject to G5 because they were created after the ban (ban is per user, not per account). But if a user already has a sockpuppet, uses it to create an article, and then gets banned, that article is not subject to G5 because it was created before the ban. That is why we have to know the identity of the sockpuppeteer. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I can see what you're (both) getting at (though it still seems like cutting a lot of slack). On the subject of "who", though, the banning admin said it was, in fact, Brunodam; I don't know how that affects things. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A statement from a person in the know is enough. Deleted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed this; thanks for doing that! and my respect to you for grasping the nettle, on this one. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LG Electronics.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:LG Electronics.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Random House Bertelsmann.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Random House Bertelsmann.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)