Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sock puppetry cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was Delete If this needs to be restored for ArbCom purposes, it can be restored, blanked, and protected at that time, so that the history is viewable. Even so, it is good to have on record the community's judgment that it is unneeded. Xoloz 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sock puppetry cases

This page was mentioned on Wikipedia:Village pump (news) and on that page, I already mentioned my reasons against this page. They come down to two things: we shouldn't give sock puppeteers more 'recognition' than necessary (WP:DENY) nor do we want to give them ideas (WP:BEANS). Both pages I mentioned are essays, not policy, but I do think they have some very good points against the existance of pages like these. JoanneB 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The sockpuppeteer about whom is this page is not searching recognition, he wanted to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. The page is an usefull guide for Wikipedia community, showing how fake appearances can be build in Wikipedia by bad faith people. The case of this sockpuppeteer is still pending at the arbitration comitee [1]. I wonder why this debate was listed at "Miscellany for deletion" and not at "article for deletion".--MariusM 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've listed it here, as it is not an article in article mainspace, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. And regardless of the sockpuppeteer's motives that you're mentioning, you've created the page for sock puppets in general, who might very well have other motives. --JoanneB 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Then a solution can be to rename this page as WP:Mauco's sockpuppetry case?--MariusM 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with JoanneB; we already have the long term abuse list for identifying problem users - most of whom are sockpuppeteers - and suspected sock puppets for discussing those that are suspected. CheckUser requests provide a lot of insight on the puppeteers as well. This page, additionally, seems to be an offshoot of the long disagreement that MariusM has had with William Mauco. Best for MariusM to focus on the ArbCom case at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's amusing, but it violates the spirit of WP:BEANS. I know how to use sockpuppets, and I didn't before. (Not that I intend to cause any trouble...) I would be okay with a move to userspace, since userspace is a much less "public" place. YechielMan 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary duplication of other established pages. If one editor is compiling evidence, he could rename the thing and move it to his userspace until all cases are complete. Xoloz 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per common sense reasoning outlined already.--Alf melmac 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is basically just an attack page against an individual editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the public should get a view about sock puppet cases because it warns them not to do it. Even if they read the sock puppet article, they might now believe it till they see sock puppet cases. Thank you, joshuajosephs, April 22nd 2007 (UTC) — joshuajoseph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The page begins, "This page is showing some of the best cases of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia". Use of 'best' in this context seems to me to be a poor choice of wording, and to set entirely the wrong tone. In the event that such an incident needs to be recorded, I feel there is already an abundance of places to do so. For example, Wikipedia:Long term abuse, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case and the archives of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents all hold such records – Gurch 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    I rephrased the introduction.--MariusM 19:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now as there is a pending request for arbitration relating to this matter. Relist when that is resolved. Newyorkbrad 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the request for arbitration is about the Mauco case, then the page should be a subpage of something, somewhere (a couple of examples have been mentioned already). A page presented as 'the best of...' sockpuppetry, which appears to waiting for other examples (see the introduction text of the page: This page is showing some of the best cases of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia, with examples of tactics and techniques used by sockpuppeteers.) is not a good way of presenting evidence in an arbcom case. If the request for arbitration were about this very page (the existence of the concept, not the sock puppeteer that's currently the only content), I would agree with you. --JoanneB 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, I was too hasty in my characterisation and hadn't read the actual case yet. I've seen the evidence page now, though, and am wondering if this isn't just a copy of (part of) that? --JoanneB 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry Brad, but I don't quite understand your rationale here. Why would the Arbcom case be an argument for keeping the page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In case a party wanted to cite to the page or something on it in his or her evidence. You're right that that's probably more a theoretical than a practical issue in this instance. Newyorkbrad 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to have been created as an attack, serves no valuable purpose. Can be viewed by arbs, undeleted or restored as a subpage of the RFAr if it's important. --pgk 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete DENY isn't policy but I can see its merits. The main problem I have with this page is that the is POV and sometimes misspreresents people in its opening comments for some of the listings.--Dacium 04:47, 27 April 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.