Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)
  • OK, I'll take it that you're traveling. But what about this new comment from 200.106.170.4 (talk · contribs)? Two of his/her only 3 edits have been to this AfD and to your Roberta Beach Jacobson article. --A. B. 01:30, 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 Wikipedia." 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

I still don't understand the connection between the Jacobson articles and Suite101.com. I would buy your theory, Robdurbar, but why would some of these people recongregate at Suite101 without coordination? And that open proxy in Bogota (200.106.170.4) that's only made 3 edits, one of which was to this AfD, another to the Jacobson article? Is that person traveling with them, too? If so, how, since 213.42.21.78 is in the United Arab Emirates?
These are Internet topics, but very obscure ones, as noted by all the notability questions. Maybe some are notable, but it's by the skin of their teeth. I'd bet 95 to 99.5% of Internet professionals editing Wikipedia have never heard of any of these (how could they, given the thin press coverage).
I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but it's getting to be harder work all the time. --A. B. 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I do not include User:Caknuck and User:Oakshade in my concerns. --A. B. 12:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice to see someone concerned. Now accusing User:Caknuck of siding with me after the fall-out we had after his deletion of an article of mine is slightly paranoid, sorry User:Caknuck. If you would have read 85.75.199.158 edit of ezine you would have noticed that if I wanted to stack any vote all I would have to do is leave a note in the Travelwriters.com chatroom. All professional zine travelwriters know each other, worked for the same zines multiple times. As for that UAE IP, if you would have bothered to check it with whois or some other net tool you would have discovered that it is a W-LAN hotspot at an international airport in the Emirates, not in Greece. I don't know how much sending power my laptop would need to get there (is there some Radio Amateur in our midst to tell us?). Sorry to miss this nice discussion for a few days. I am sitting now at Rhodes Airport on my merry way back to Canada, be around as soon as as I get home Rough 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify on Caknuck and Oakshade - my reason for mentioning them was: I'm not wanting to make accusations initially, I just wanted to list all the keep votes on the related articles. Secondly, I think its worth mentioning that they voted to keep on one of the articles to show that some users have totally independtly concluded that these are worth maintaining.
The link, as far as I can tell - between Suite101 and Kafenio, and thus the Kafenio contributor - is that Rough and Youtrue have contributed to them both. The link between Kafenio and The Irscable Profesor is Roberta Jacobson. The link between them all is that they are ezines. The contributions of Rough and Youtrue on all 4 topics shoul automaticlly be considered as both potential conflicts of interest and unintentional meatpuppets, in my view. This would not be to discount them; its up to the closing admin to use his/her discretion.
One of the IPs who we're considering - User:200.106.170.4 - should be considered similarly - the user has openly stated his/her prejudice.
Otherwise, though, I feel it perfectly believable that one or two users could have come to similar pages by accident - or rahter by virtue of their similar interests. Hell, Rough could have even mentioned the topic innocently in conversation to friend he knew was ineterested in it... the point is that ther's no reason to suspect that this has been done maliciously, BUT, the actions of Rough et. al. have had the same affect as malicious meatpupeteering.
Therefore, I think we should give the users the benefit of the dobut (after all if it were deliberate and any of them tried anything like this again, it would be far more difficult to expalin away) and not call for any sanctions, but re-nominate the articles too. --Robdurbar 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
See the Completewhois report for 200.106.170.4 -- sorbs.net reports this is an exploitable server: "Likely Trojaned Machine, host running trojan"
--A. B. (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting insight into the mind and skillset of 207.195.254.11, one of the "keep" votes in the Kafenio AfD. --A. B. (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Completewhois report for 87.203.140.24, a participant in the Kafenio [1][2] and Roberta Beach JacobsonAfDs [3] [4] notes that list.dsbl.org is reporting this IP as a possible open proxy. --A. B. (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the rampant use of proxies, I have some heavy doubts that this is only good faith meatpuppetry. I suggest we could run an RFCU, or perhaps bring it to AN and ask the administrators on this one. I'm guessing someone should receive a ban for obvious sockpuppetry. -Patstuarttalk|edits 13:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I notice, on two of the three articles where this user managed to bring about a "keep" vote, the article was subsequently deleted in a second afd. This appears to be a clearly malicious user. -Patstuarttalk|edits 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)