|
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I've been told by an arbitrator to ask for a review.[1] This SPI concerns an on-going Arbcom case, and since its deletion, its essence concerns one more on-going Arbcom case.[2][3]
The deletion of this SPI was out of process, there was no policy based rationale to delete the SPI since it matched no deletion criteria. I had discussed it with the deleting admin, and he said that he could find similarities between me and suspects, but that had to be posted on SPI instead.
In fact, the provided evidence was strong, contained similarities such as similar userpages, comments, notifications, collections, AfD, etc. Since the deletion of the SPI, I have happened to discover 2 more suspects and nearly 2 times more reasonable evidence. In every sense, restoration is needful and the interactions that were made on the SPI would be further helpful in solving this issue. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no deletion policy that applies to SPIs barring the generic CSD criteria. I regularly delete SPIs with essentially zero evidence like that one, since they're essentially just an advanced form of ad hominem. Attempts to get your "enemies" banned by frivolous SPIs will continue to be removed with prejudice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to gather a consensus for "zero-evidence SPI" to become a speedy deletion criterion, but until then, we need to apply the criteria as they are. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need 100+ different speedy deletion criteria pertaining to every possible little edge case that can result in a page needing deletion. That's just process creep, and unnecessary since we can just delete vexatious SPIs already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion under criteria G10 of speedy deletion policy applies in this case - if necessary, undelete and re-delete with the correct deletion rationale. The page existed almost entirely to harass and intimidate two editors who participated (as 'Other Parties') on OccultZone's Arbitration case workshop page.
- If OccultZone didn't have this enormous track record of refusing to listen to what he's being told, I'd say to undelete the page, get a couple of uninvolved checkusers to review the SPI and re-delete the page if it's still complete nonsense (which, realistically, it is - the evidence is as flimsy as wet cardboard). I don't know if OccultZone will accept the result unless checkusers agree with him, regardless of the evidence, so I don't know if undeletion really is in the best interests of the community. Nick (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- G10 is not for SPI where evidence with diffs had been added, and nothing was unsourced or disparaging. I would like to inform you that this request is not for continuing your arguments. This request only concerns the deletion that met no deletion criteria. Your overall statement suggests that deletion was indeed improper. Since you agree that checkuser is warranted, I can rest my case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I said, if you would accept the outcome, it would be a good idea to get a couple of checkusers to review the SPI. That means, for the avoidance of doubt, finding two or more checkusers, asking them to review the SPI case page (the page you want undeleted) and if they believe it necessary, comparing the technical evidence to determine whether or not the two named accounts are connected. It would be for the checkusers to determine if the evidence you've prepared is sufficient and whether their use of the checkuser tool in the circumstances is acceptable. You've not confirmed whether you would accept the findings of a review into the SPI by other checkusers - so, would you ? Nick (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion the admin who deleted the page is also a CU. The evidence provided were very specific and no serious connections was shown. We try to minimise the drama here not increase it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:VOTE and WP:DRV. The aim of this page is not to continue your off topic disagreement that you have already expressed before.[4] DRV is about the deletion, not about the sock puppetry, which would be discussed on SPI instead. Just like the deletion of this SPI was not justified and was out of scope per deletion policy, same way an AfD or MfD couldn't be deleted for a given non-policy based reason either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Reaper Eternal and Nick. Checkusers have - and must have - substantial discretion in controlling behavior at SPI. This is not the first time that a retaliatory SPI has been deleted and it won't be the last.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It can have all the 'evidence' you want to submit, but if, in the opinion of the reviewing admin (especially CUs who are almost always very experienced in this area) there isn't enough evidence then there isn't a reason to keep the SPI except as evidence of the submission itself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, it's fairly standard practice at WP:SPI for SPIs which are not supported by evidence are deleted usually as G6 housekeeping but, after being found to be incorrect (ie not enough evidence to indicate that socking has occurred) G10 also likely applies. Also consider that many userlinks templates will show Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YOURNAME as a blue link when that isn't actually the case as the SPI was rejected/thrown out. Bbb23's point about CUs (and through them the clerks) need to have discretion regarding behaviour and pages at SPI is also a good one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of scope, defer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. —Cryptic 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WP:IAR if nothing else. The evidence presented included the fact that both editors have participated in humourous deletion discussions, they have used the words "oops" and "loop", that they have both used scripts written by the same editor (not even the same script) and that they both use (different) custom warning templates. It was, in short, not remotely close to the standard where it could possibly be taken at all seriously, and the most charitable explanation is that it was created to further some other dispute. Having an SPI in your name as a blue link could certainly cause harm to someone, no matter how ludicrous the allegations, so deletion is appropriate. Hut 8.5 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per standard procedure for handling of ludicrous SPI cases. The SPI case was devoid of real evidence, and amounted to little more than harassment of two editors opposed to OZ in the ArbCom case. —DoRD (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
