Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tony Pierce (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Single Purpose Account template abuse

Hello LADude, please stop applying the Single Purpose Account template to accounts it obviously does not apply to. This is completely unacceptable, as DJ28 has been here for 2.5 years, and it is very unlikely that he or she travelled into the past to create this account solely to vote on this issue.

Your justification for adding the tag is that you were "given the same tag after making only one edit on this page, and noone came to my defense. i'm feeling harrassed." First of all, the reason why nobody came to your defense as opposed to DJ28 might have been that nobody noticed, or it might have been that DJ28 has been here for five times longer than you, and has nearly twice as many edits, and that you don't even have a user page. Regardless, your justification of "somebody unfairly did it to me, so I have the right to do it to somebody else unfairly" is illogical at best and trolling at worst. Please address any complaints of unfair tagging in their proper place, as vindictiveness has no place on Wikipedia. The tag you added has been removed, and if you add it again it will be taken up on the administrator's notice board for an unbiased opinion on the matter. Regards, cacophony 08:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Vote stacking sleeper account? [1], [2], [3], [4]? This guy might have made his account two years ago, but I would call this a SPA, and that single purpose seems to be GNAA's war on blogs. This is exactly why we have the SPA template. LADude got this one right. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, two of the four linked edits are simply vandalism, and the fourth simply states that he supports the "war on blogs". Second of all, I think it's very important to note that the "war on blogs" has no apparent association with the GNAA, other than that a GNAA member supports it. Third of all, the user has edits which do not concern the "war on blogs" at all, and thus does not qualify for the single purpose account tag. Single purpose does not mean "single purpose, except for the edits which arent". Regards, cacophony 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not a SPA, he's a meatpuppet for the GNAA: The term meatpuppet is used by some as a variation of a sockpuppet; a new Internet community member account, created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues acting essentially as a puppet of the first user without having independent views and actual or potential contributions. While less overtly deceptive than sockpuppetry, the effect of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry on the community as a whole may be similar. Don't worry, it's not a vote, and the closing admin will take note. yandman 08:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys are joking, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm supporting delete too, but this is clearly a SPA. Tagging someone as an SPA does not invalidate their vote. SPA does not mean sockpuppet (although it can, that is clearly not the only time we use the SPA template) -- Ned Scott 08:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think its more likely that the reason Cacophony rushed to DJ28's defense is because they're both associated with the GNAA. My justification was not vindictiveness, but merely following a precendent that was set earlier on the debate page. Additionally, single purpose accounts make no exceptions based on how long the account has existed. Additionally, I have edits besides this page, and you have made no efforts to remove the tag from my vote while steadfastly defending this removal. --LADude 08:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've actually simply been watching the page history as the opinions roll in, but if you want to satiate your fantasies that everybody who disagrees with you is part of an online conspiracy, go right ahead. It only detracts from your credibility. cacophony 08:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conspiracy? Both you and Dj28 associate yourselves with the GNAA. Maybe this is just a coincidence. As for Dj28 besides that participated in one arbitartion committe vote, he's only vandalized, edited articles for deletion, and edited his own user page. I would think that the bulk of his minimal edits are for deletions of articles, this certainly qualifies as a suspected single user account. I think the credibility issue continues to be on your side. --LADude --LADude 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me, I do not associate myself with the GNAA. I don't mind your insane accusations, but the lies are unacceptable. cacophony 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit shocked at this. Yeah, LADude hasn't really been making helpful comments to the discussion, but it seems that removing the SPA note is more about LADude than it is about Dj28. The fact that people are making arguments for Dj28's time here, without even looking to see that his first batch of edits are simple vandalism, tells us we have a double standard going on here. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no double standard at all - before this AfD, LADude had 1/3 the edits DJ28 had, has been here for 1/5 the time DJ28 has, and doesn't even have a user page. That, in my opinion, is very suspicious. Then again, maybe LADude's vindicative, passive-aggressive, hypocritcal attitude is what discouraged people from coming to his aid. cacophony 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of time spent here, Dj has claimed to be a member of the GNAA, and is therefore a meat puppet for their leader. If only the GNAA could realise that the best way to get this article kept is to spam the discussion from meat puppet accounts. One wonders whether their leader isn't called Donald Rumsfeld... yandman 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's claimed to be a member of the GNAA? Well I guess I was mistaken, because I didn't see that claim anywhere. Any chance you could point it out to me? cacophony 09:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it in the user page history. cacophony 09:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LADude does need to calm down, though. With the way things are going, one could say it's coincidence that he tagged a user that was a bit shady. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but I do understand why people wanted to remove the tagging. -- Ned Scott 09:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)