User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hey man im josh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
What to do about recreated deleted pages?
Hi, I was just given permission to review pages, and I often see recreated pages such as Technology Connections. This page was recreated 16 days after deletion, but I am doubtful it applies for WP:G4 as a duplicate. What is the standard procedure for these pages, since I don't have permission to see the original pre-deleted version? Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 19:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @1ctinus: G4 tag is typically the appropriate route. Some folks will read over the AFD to see if it's easy to tell whether the comments there were addressed in the new version and then tag the page. That's part of the pain though as a non-admin, you don't know whether what you're tagging matches or not since you can't see the past version. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirects from another language
I am just wondering what you use, when reviewing redirects from an alternative language to english. Blethering Scot 21:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Blethering Scot, good question! WP:RLANG is my go to on this one. It can really be summed up as, is the alternative language relevant? If yes, then probably okay, if not, then RfD. Using Tokyo as an example, a redirect from the name in Japanese would make sense, I'd mark it as approved, but a redirect in German I would send to RfD. We don't provide translations via redirect for every language in existence and the language has to be relevant in some way to the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello. See Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobanfasil. Both the creator and the user that moved the page from Draft space for the millionth time, see log, are sockpuppets of Bobanfasil, the IPs as well. They just haven't blocked them yet because of backlog I guess. See the logs and see also Real Malabar F.C. and Real Malabar FC and you'll understand. The G5 is blatant and repeated many times over and over again. Jonteemil (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil: Until someone makes a block and decides the accounts are linked, G5 does not apply. The page also had substantial edits from editors other than the alleged sock, which, per WP:G5, also makes it ineligible for G5 deletion. If all the accounts that made substantial edits were linked to socks then the page may be eligible, but as of now, it's not. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to wait for a block, it's obvious for anyone that opens their eyes. On Commons the accounts are blocked in a minute but here it takes several weeks, unbelievable. @Wikishovel: can you help me out here? All substantial edits to the article are socks or IPs used by the same master and the page should be deleted, like it's been several times before. Unbelievable that it even has to be argued for. You are likely editing in good faith and I do respect that it's just so frustrating that you don't see what I think is so obvious. Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- HmiJ is right, and when I recently nominated another of the same puppeteer's articles A7, G4, G5 and G11, HmiJ correctly declined the G4 and G5, while leaving up the A7 and G11. (The AFD outcome was speedy G5, therefore ineligible for G4, you see... sigh.) And yes, you're also right that it's frustrating. It's also a gift to the spammers, many of whom get paid by ignorant clients while an SPI churns it way through the backlog. But that G5 policy was decided quite a while ago, by consensus. Ironically, if the Real Malabar FC article weren't being recreated over and over by sockpuppets, I think the AFD outcome would likely have been "keep", so this pest really is shooting themself in the foot. Wikishovel (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Wikishovel. @Jonteemil: First off, I do appreciate your efforts, and I can relate to the frustrations you're feeling. Unfortunately, there is actually a need to wait for an admin block or link the accounts in some way before I G5 a page they've created. I see that you've submitted the names to SPI, which is good, but the G5 tag does not force me to do process the SPI and do the leg work of making a comparison and a proclamation that someone is or is not a sock. Generally when a G5 tag is added we check whether the creator has been blocked and whether there are significant contributions to the article outside of that person and we also don't let G5 tags linger indefinitely until the SPI has been processed.
- I'm sorry that this is frustrating for you, but that's just how it is, we wait for the accounts to be linked before we go and delete them all, we don't just go deleting before a block or link has been made. It's the whole mantra of innocent until proven guilty, and I'm not investigating whether the accounts are linked, I'm investigating whether the G5 tag, in its current state (at the time of processing), is valid, which it was not in this case. Additionally, because of the changes made by LeapTorchGear, the page also would not be eligible for G5 deletion. In the future, please just be patient and wait for the accounts to be linked/blocked. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- HmiJ is right, and when I recently nominated another of the same puppeteer's articles A7, G4, G5 and G11, HmiJ correctly declined the G4 and G5, while leaving up the A7 and G11. (The AFD outcome was speedy G5, therefore ineligible for G4, you see... sigh.) And yes, you're also right that it's frustrating. It's also a gift to the spammers, many of whom get paid by ignorant clients while an SPI churns it way through the backlog. But that G5 policy was decided quite a while ago, by consensus. Ironically, if the Real Malabar FC article weren't being recreated over and over by sockpuppets, I think the AFD outcome would likely have been "keep", so this pest really is shooting themself in the foot. Wikishovel (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to wait for a block, it's obvious for anyone that opens their eyes. On Commons the accounts are blocked in a minute but here it takes several weeks, unbelievable. @Wikishovel: can you help me out here? All substantial edits to the article are socks or IPs used by the same master and the page should be deleted, like it's been several times before. Unbelievable that it even has to be argued for. You are likely editing in good faith and I do respect that it's just so frustrating that you don't see what I think is so obvious. Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
September backlog drive
Hi there,
I have a question regarding the drive. If I were to review an article and push it to the mainspace, but it turns out to be a sock-created article (or other blocked editor) and is speedy deleted, would those points then be deducted? Conyo14 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Conyo14, that's a fair and good question. In short, based on how the bot counts reviews, it will still be counted unless manually deducted. I do not intend to deduct points from anybody who this happens to because I'm giving all NPR members the benefit of the doubt that they would not have done so if they had known it was created by a sock/blocked editor. As such, I see no reason to penalize them in any way if they put the time in. Pinging co-coord @DreamRimmer to make them aware that I've made this declaration. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)