Wikipedia:Deletion review/Simon Strelchik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate about the deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review renomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect.

Even after discounting the rampant attempts to abuse the decision-making process, the consensus among established editors was sufficient to restore this page as a redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Given the clear abuse in this discussion, I am going to undelete the history and make the article a protected redirect. I will leave it to someone more familiar with the topic to carry out the recommended merger but any editor can do that by researching through the redirect's history. Rossami (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Strelchik

  • First - Keep
  • Second - 'No consensus (with sockpuppets included)
  • Third - Speedy Delete (due to contamination of the 2nd AFD by sockpuppets).

There has never been an AFD that showed consensus to delete this article and I'm not seeing a CSD that this falls under. I suggest that it should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kotepho 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't Curps who chose Speedy Delete, but JzG. And there was a debate clean of socks, the first AfD. Gsinclair 10:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If checkuser was used, WHY was I banned? I have nothing to do with all this. And I looked at checkuser and I didn't see my name once. I'm really ticked off that I worked really hard on my wikipedia edits and then you banned me. Gsinclair 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong undelete, agree with MCB. Gsinclair 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What you said was "Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal". Gsinclair 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You guys have gone too far. People are afraid to make edits to this deletion review now, not to mention the other related articles, because everybody ends up banned. As Simon_Cursitor puts it, "the attitude appears to be that, no matter how many edits you have made, the criterion for blocking is whether or not your view agrees with that of the Cabal". Look at my talk page. You should unban the people that are not proven sockpuppets and have an open debate. Gsinclair 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't gotten involved here, and for obvious reasons, but this is simply too rich. It is impossible to have an "open debate" on anything related to this Vaughan stuff because as soon as you allow for one, you get 52 socks popping up accusing actual editors of being socks and generally disrupting the operation of this service. All you need to do Gsinclair is take a look at some of these AfD's, for Strelchik, for Frankl and so on and you'll see what I mean. We tried, since January, to make things work, only to be taken advantage of by the VaughanWatch Gang. - pm_shef 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This figure of "52 socks" is entirely made up. And within this figure includes my login and many other people. I looked on checkuser and nowhere does it say this figure. What has happened is that you have taken one vandal, and painted everyone else with the same brush. Gsinclair 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Joe says in the second AfD that his being a founder of Free the Children (NOT Save the Children) is cited by the Canadian Jewish News and by the CBC. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The two references are somewhat unreliable:
1) The Canadian Jewish News article is essentially interviews of three candidates -- want to bet that their information comes courtesy of the candidates themselves?
2) The CBC ref is a candidates' information page, and I'd bet folding money all the information in it was supplied by the candidates. Certainly the photos of Strelchik and Kadis used in both articles are identical (Maybe Reale sprung for the quantity discount at the photographer's). --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Calton should know what WP:V says: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. GSinclair 08:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment Lest anyone should infer from Double's recitation of my AfD comment that I concur with his/her assessment, I should note that I raised the same objections Calton raises here; I have elsewhere undertaken to explain why our ascription of apocryphal to the claims apropos of "Free the Children" wouldn't be original research (or otherwise a contravention of WP:V), but I won't recapitulate that argument here, if only because it's only tangentially related to the instant DRV. Joe 23:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Also I looked at the Checkuser page, and some of the people labelled sockpuppets weren't actually found by checkuser to be such. This includes CasanovaAlive and Munckin. I count 9 Keeps therefore, check the page yourself here. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    They don't care, they block anyone that they don't like or that votes the wrong way. Gsinclair 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
*This user is a confirmed sock puppet of VaughanWatch, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.
  • Who's unsigned comment is this above? I'm not a "confirmed sock puppet", nobody even asked me. I'm guessing the same thing happened to some of these other people. I looked at checkuser and you had like 8 people or so found as sockpuppets, some of them in the list below, but then you banned everybody that wasn't on wikipedia for like 2 years. You should unblock them, so maybe they can say something in this debate. Gsinclair 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a header, as should have been obvious to anyone with minimal reading skills. Inserting your comment only served to obfuscate that -- which I'm guessing was your intent. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user is a confirmed sock puppet of VaughanWatch, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.
  • comment: This user's first edit was 29 April 2006, 5-days after this deletion review started. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And of the ones you claim not to be sockpuppets:
  • If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 Hmm, that behavior pattern looks familiar.
  • So they make a lot of edits, that means they're the enemy? You guys need to get a life. Gsinclair 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to come up with less transparently bogus misreadings. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Can't imagine why anyone would think they were among the 50+ sockpuppets of VaughnWatch. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment You can't even spell it correctly. There are people banned all over, and yet you're so sure of it all. Look what somebody wrote on my page: "For obvious reasons, to do with not being blocked, I am unable to help you. You will, however, note on my own Talk page that the attitude appears to be that, no matter how many edits you have made, the criterion for blocking is whether or not your view agrees with that of the Cabal." Gsinclair 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't even spell it correctly And you can't sockpuppet believably. My typing skills versus your transparent sockpuppetry -- which is a better sign of credibility? --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many people primarily voted Keep in the AfD:

GSinclair 08:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, 2 sockpuppets and their sockpuppeteer -- already pointed out -- are on that list, provided by a brand-new user with eight edits. Say, isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? --Calton | Talk 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You just call everybody a sockpuppet, don't you? But do you have any proof of that? No. I checked each of those, and none of them were sockpuppets. And none were found out to be by checkuser. Gsinclair 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You just call everybody a sockpuppet, don't you? No, I called the actual declared, confirmed sockpuppets, sockpuppets. I even used a number -- 2 -- that anyone can read. It's generally accepted that when making falsehoods, it's best not to do so immediately by things which demonstrably contracdict them -- you should learn that lesson. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [2]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
  • Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't be a bully. Gsinclair 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm merely pointing out that repeatedly doing the same transparently obvious sockpuppetry isn't convincing the 12th or 20th time you do it -- and when I say "you", I don't mean the general you, I mean you, specifically. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • VaughanWatch is the name of a website which publishes partisan views on local politics in Vaughan; Strelchik appears to be one of VW's endorsed candidates, but he's not directly involved in the site AFAIK. Most of us following this matter have been operating from the assumption that VaughanWatch and his socks were Paul DeBuono, the president of the organization, and not Strelchik himself. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're also misrepresenting my vote; I pretty consistently communicated each time that my preference was to merge into a party candidates list, per the existing precedent on unelected Canadian political candidates. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You wrote "Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal". Gsinclair 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User blocked indefinitely as a Vaughan sock. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There is, however, a valid concern about a legitimate discussion taking place. The level of sockpuppetry is almost unbelievable. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamieTalk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete and relist. Guys this article should be here, i'm surprised it isn't. It survived two keep votes in like two months, and then gets killed after a debate that lasts 1 hour and 15 minutes with only one person commenting. GoinHome 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) User's 15th-17th edit. G'wan, tell me you were surprised. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Comment restored Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • User:GoinHome has now been blocked, for reasons please see [3]. -- Curps 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yet again, somebody apparently wishing to pose valid arguments in this debate is banned by a band of Corpses.Gsinclair 10:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And now he has created sockpuppets Goinhome, Goinhome1, Goinhome2, Goinhome3, Goinhome4 for the purpose of disrupting and vandalizing this Deletion review discussion just like he did for the AfDs. Accordinly, this page has been sprotected. -- Curps 06:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. A separate article is not necessary, but the content is useful on that page and a speedy deletion was out of order. A redirect is certainly necessary. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 20:25 UTC
  • Comment I agree that the speedy deletion was out of order, for the first and second AfD voted to Keep. The solution though is to follow the consensus and relist. GoinHome 11:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: This user's first edit was 29 April 2006, 5-days after this deletion review started. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Comment restored. Moved by GoinHome underneath another editor's comments. Naughty naughty. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This user has now been blocked, for reasons please see [4]. -- Curps 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete this - it is a verifiable article about a candidate in an election. For great justice. 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and merge and carpet bomb Vaughan. That should solve the problem. Ground Zero | t 17:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • He isn't a Vaughan politician though; he ran for MP in the federal election for Thornhill. Gsinclair 10:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thornhill is in Vaugha, thus making him a Vaughan politician. Good try though. - pm_shef 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review renomination). No further edits should be made to this page.