Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 Keep / {{Courtesy blanked}}. This case was recently closed by administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise with the closing remark "Sockpuppetry excluded with near-certainty"[1]. Deleting this page won't undo the actions. Blanking may be reversed if requested by User:TTN. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN

A vexatious allegation of sockpuppetry, in pursuance of an editing dispute. There never was any credible evidence to support the idea that Henke37 is a sock of TTN. We delete uncertified RfCs for excellent reason, I believe we should delete this as well. There is absolutely no need to have a suspected sockpuppet page on user:TTN because TTN has never, to the knowledge of anyone involved, used sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I see no benefit to retaining this SSP page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kindly, would you please state why you see no benefit to retaining this SSP page please? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is a problem with this nomination for deletion, in that this should be modified as the second nomination. I'm not sure how to do that, so I'd appreciate it if this can be fixed.Ngchen (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the first nomination. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll below, it was speedied once previously, then revivied with deletion review. So it should be second.Ngchen (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a second nomination. And I know it was speedied, if you check the log you'll see it was me who speedied it. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep — I did not make this claim due to an editing dispute. Please see the SSP for why. On December 6, 2007 at 20:31 (UTC), User:JzG deleted the page with no Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD), no Proposed deletion (WP:PROD), and no Miscellany for deletion (WP:MfD), writing,

“This is clearly fatuous and I don't believe that Taric25's best friend would look on this as his finest hour. Deleting to spare his blushes.” (log)

I listed the article for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7(diff) writing,

“I do not believe this was a poor moment in my judgement, and I believe my claim deserves serious consideration. I do not think whatever my “best friend” thinks is my finest hour has anything to do with the hard evidence I presented. In fact, my Adopter, User:Matthew Yeager is taking a close look into it. Please undelete the page and let Wikipedians consider the evidence and judge for themselves. I echo User:Maniwar that it needs to remain until the case has been decided.(diff)” (diff)

User:W.marsh wrote,

“[T]here appears to be a whole procedure for archiving these things, even ones you think are incorrect! Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive. Deleting a page just because you don't like the question it raised is just a bad idea for what should be obvious reasons. --W.marsh 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)” (diff)

and

“[A]s far as I know we archive these pages, even if they turn out to be wrong, not delete them. It's like saying we should delete AFDs just because they resulted in a "keep" decision. --W.marsh 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)” (diff)

and

“This investigation was being conducted openly. At worst it should have been rejected and archived. --W.marsh 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)” (diff)

User:pd_THOR wrote,

“Even if the discussion were to have been snowball closed, the record should still be archived for transparency of process. Is TTN (talk · contribs) a puppetmaster? I don't know the user specifically, but generally support his practices and processes. Regardless though, one user seems to stridently believe so, and I would want to know the process and evidences proffered that resulted in the decision made. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)” ([2])

User:RMHED wrote,

“Even if the claim proves spurious a record should still be archived. If, as I suspect TTN has nothing to hide then what is the problem with archiving. Deleting this kind of report just looks shifty. RMHED (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)”(diff)

User:DGG wrote,

“[T]his is not where we decide allegations of sockpupppetry. Surely recent cases have made it obvious we must follow the full process in detail. No admin has the authority to unilaterally delete for reasons like this. DGG (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)” (diff)

If I was looking for the upper hand in a content dispute, I would have request checkuser under code D for vote fraud, not beat a dead horse by continuing the discussion. This case did not qualifty for checkuser, because User:Hemlock Martinis closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination) with us keeping the article to allow improvement. (diff) If my sole objective was to win that AfD, then I would have finished already and not given two cents about whether TTN was sockpuppeteering or not.(diff)

User:Xoloz overturned the deletion writing,

“Deletion overturned. if the claim is indeed deliberately malicious, archiving it helps build evidence against the filer; if it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. It is not yet clear whether the claim is meritless, in any case. Beyond blanket assertions, no one has presented any evidence on that basis here to justify the deletion.” (diff)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise did a check on Henke's and TTN's edit time patterns, excluding sockpuppetry with near-certainty.(diff) I am not going to contest the decision. I emplore Xoloz that since this was merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevert future such errors. Taric25 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. No one is going to read that book. Please cut it down to only what is relevant to this discussion. I (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a summary. The first paragraph describes how I came to suspect TTN of sockpuppeteering. TTN's writes that I claim consensus when it does not exist. I write back showing editors who only made one comment and did not stick around for the discussion. I did not mention Henke37. The second paragraph describes the initial evidence pointing to sockpuppeteering, including Henke37 nominating the article for deletion. TTN wrote that he wanted to do the same thing. The fourth paragraph is more evidence pointing to sockpuppetering. The fifth paragraph shows the pattern set forth in policies and guidelines. Guyinblack25 asked to take time to review the sources. The sixth paragraph shows how another user identifies TTN and how it matches a pattern. JzG deleted the SSP unilaterally. Next, I listed the SSP for deletion review. I included several quotes from trusted users who argued the we should overturn the SSP deletion. Xoloz undeleted the SSP and wrote that if my claim is indeed deliberately malicious, archiving it helps build evidence against me; if it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. Future Perfect at Sunrise did a check on Henke's and TTN's edit time patterns, excluding sockpuppetry with near-certainty. I am not going to contest the decision. I emplore Xoloz that since this was merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevert future such errors.
If you want to respond to something in specific, please see the specific evidence. Thank you! ☺ Taric25 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the polite request of User:Hiding on my talk page, I have decided to remove the repeated content from the SSP here. Taric25 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the SSP report and the repeated content here. I think all of that should be deleted. It defeats the point of nominating the report for deletion if you have repeated those assertions here, so even if the SSP is deleted, it will still effectively remain archived here in this mfd. I can't understand why you are still fighting so vehemently to keep this report around. Good faith report or not, does it benefit the encyclopedia? No. Does having this as a permeanent "black mark" against TTN have an effect on whether s/he wants to stick around and edit? Possibly. Why risk losing a great editor for a good faith mistake? Seraphim ^Whipp 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, so if an AfD results in a delete, we should not only delete the article but also delete the discussion?: no. Does archiving the SSP benefit the encyclopedia by preventing others from making the same mistake?: yes. Does a "black mark" against TTN have an effect on whether he wants to stick around and edit? If you take a look at TTN's talk page, he has plenty of "black marks" from dozens of editors, not to mention the current case at ArbCom. An SSP that proves he was not guilty does not. Taric25 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, I didn't suggest anything about deleting AfD discussions...not sure where you got that from. I meant you should remove the copy of the SSP report posted here, because it's like you're trying to game the system. When editors put excessive pressure on an editor and criticise them constantly and stress that editor out, that is when an editor has no reason to stick around. This project is voluntary and the fact that TTN decides to stick around still, even though he gets so much crap from editors who just haven't read the policies and guidelines, shows a strength of character. I don't see why this attack report should remain archived, when it might have the effect that we lose a great editor. I don't see why anyone else would make the same mistake and assume bad faith of TTN when TTN has proved their commitment to the encyclopedia. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I mentioned AfD because I was drawing a paralell to W.marsh's comment. We don't delete AfDs; we archive them, whether or not the closing admin kept or deleted the article in question. This allows us to establish precident and not have users make the same mistakes twice. If you are claiming that I am gaming the system, then are you assuming bad faith? Looking at TTN's talk page as well as the talk pages of many of the articles he edits shows that editors putting excessive pressure on him, criticising him constantly, and stressing him out is pervasive, not limited to just this SSP. If TTN has the strength of character to get this from so many editors who do not read policies and guidelines as you claim, then don't you think he's strong enough to understand that when I read policies and guidelines and suspected him for sockpuppeteering, I simply made a mistake, especially if the closing admin found him not guilty? If you believe this is an attack report, then are you assuming bad faith? The closing admin assumed good faith of TTN and excluded sockpuppeteering with near-certainty. No one is claiming that TTN was acting in bad faith, and preserving this SSP showing that TTN is not guilty shows that he acts in good faith. Taric25 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Personally I don't think the reason you have provided outweighs the negatives from keeping this. I'm unsure whether you are acting in good faith and I do sincerely wonder why you posted the SSP report here too, knowing that this discussion would be archived and ergo the deletion of the SSP would be circumvented. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, if you are unsure whether or not I am acting in good faith, then assume good faith. I did not post portions of the SSP repoprt here to circumvent the deletion. I want other Wikipedians to have an understanding of why I created the SSP in the first place in order to show them I was acting in good faith and simply made a mistake. If you believe there are negatives from keeping this, then what are they? Taric25 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Seraphim Whipp, since I have decided to remove the repeated content from the SSP here, I would appreciate your response. Taric25 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is anyone even thinking about this? Non-evil people do not delete records of past events without a good reason. That someone happened to be wrong is not a good reason. -Amarkov moo! 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, because just as Xoloz stated, if is it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. Taric25 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (To Amarkov) It's a good reason to delete when this report in error, does more harm than good. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • But it doesn't, though. Barring a good reason to do otherwise, accurate records should be kept simply for the sake of having accurate records. And we really can't start deleting records because someone might get hurt feelings. -Amarkov moo! 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - same principle as for RfCs. We don't keep records of unfounded allegations.--Doc^g 15:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you please state why you believe the allegation is unfounded by citing specific examples from the evidence I presented? Please remember that whether or not TTN was guilty has nothing to do with whether or not we archive it, because keeping an archive of a good-faith mistake helps other Wikipedians not to make the same mistake. Taric25 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Taric, the SSP report was soundly rejected. Nobody other than you seems to think it had any merit at all. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • You keep saying that, but you haven't said why you think it doesn't have any merit. Kindly, would you cite some of the evidence that lead me to believe TTN was sockpuppeteering and explain why you believe it doesn't have any merit please? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
        • You appear to have forgotten that the onus is firmly on you to prove your case, something you have very clearly failed to do. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
          • If suspect TTN is a duck, and I report him to Wikipedia:Suspected ducks, if by accident it turns out that TTN was not a duck and actually a goose, you still have to show proof that my claim was without merit, because I did show proof TTN has webbed feet, a bill, etc, and TTN is simply a misidentified anatidae. Taric25 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's clearly an unfounded allegation, but the record of it should remain. Having an archive of these things is always handy. The nom seems to be looking at it as a black mark on the record of User:TTN, but it's not, the page makes it quite clear he's not a sockpuppet. However, if there are issues involving User:TTN, User:Taric25, or the users named as socks in the future, this page should be around to reference past behavior. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant attempt to take advantage of existing processes in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The users who opened the request have been nothing but uncivil on AFDs the reported user has nominated (some of which were closed with a delete result and were not bad faith), and have done nothing but assume bad faith with regards to the user. If there is no abuse, there is no reason to file a report, and this particular report is pretty much an attack page. --Coredesat 21:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If the people who opened the request are acting so badly, isn't it a good thing to preserve records of their actions? -Amarkov moo! 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not take advantage of existing processes in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination) to Keep was due to the hard work of User:Guyinblack25 from WP:VG/C cleaning up the article, not me reporting TTN at SSP, and it would be impossible for me to gain the upper hand in a dispute that is already over. (diff) If you claim that I had been acting in bad faith and acting uncivilly on AfDs with TTN, then first of all, understand the only AfD in which TTN and I had ever both been involved was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, so do not use the plural (AfDs), because he and I had only been involved in one (1 AfD, singular) together. By the way, the result of that AfD was no consensus, not delete. (diff) Do not claim that I have been acting uncivilly, assuming bad faith, acting in bad faith, gaming the system, accusing others of gaming the system, being abusive, falsely claiming abuse, or participating in multiple deletion discussions that ended in delete, unless you can cite explicit evidence using diffs. Taric25 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I thought you were someone else. I withdrew my argument. --Coredesat 07:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I thank you for your understanding. Taric25 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this seems ridiculous. 1) It was not proven that this was a malicious or bad nomination, the case was withdrawn. 2) JzG autonomously deleted this case without community input, and the deletion was overturned see [3]. Now it appears that since JzG did not get his/her way that they are trying to delete it again. Like the previous deletion points out, be it a good faith or bad faith nomination, it should remain, but be archived. I may not support the sock puppet theory, but I do support keeping this article. What's the hurry and what is the personal agenda to delete this? --Maniwar (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be proven that it's a malicious nomination, the fact of it being withdrawn (if it was) is an incredibly strong argument for deletion, just as we would do with any withdrawn or uncertified RfC. What purpose, for the encyclopaedia, is served by retaining a page falsely accusingan editor of sockpuppetry? No personal agenda is necessary. We delete, completely uncontroversially, vexatious or uncertified RfCs, why would we leave a baseless sockpuppetry allegation lying around? How would you feel if someone picked a fight with you and then decided to create a sockpuppetry report on you, on the flimsiest of grounds, and with no supportable basis in fact? It's a pointless thing to keep around, all it does is make Taric25 look vindictive and foolish. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Your last sentence just said what I was trying to hint at: It shows that the user made a superfluous accusation against someone. If this user does so again in the future (or has done so in the past), having this serves as a record. If it's deleted, the record is gone. (Note: I'm operating under the assumption it is a superfluous accusation, I don't know the details, it's just an example of why something like this should be kept.) --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too much drama on Wiki already without every allegation being given an airing. Good faith does not extend to articles (especially non-mainspace ones), only to editors. Orderinchaos 11:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not understand your last sentance about how you believe good faith does not extend to articles. Kindly, would you explain please? Taric25 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even if we really, really like someone for helping to delete a lot of articles we don't like, the rules still apply to them. Until all declined requests are deleted, this one shouldn't be. --W.marsh 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a "declined request", it's an accusation of sockpuppetry whihc lacks any credible basis in fact. There is a difference. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Kindly, would you cite some of the evidence that lead me to believe TTN was sockpuppeteering and explain why you believe it is an accusation of sockpuppetry that lacks any credible basis in fact please? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Whatever the terminology, you want to delete this one and not all the many similar pages out there, where someone was accused but nothing came of it. That's not fair. --W.marsh 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Archiving discussions whenever possible seems the best course, for the sake of transparency and history. Having a record that is as complete as possible helps the community determine consensus and establish common practices, both of which go the heart of how WP:Policy is created and shaped. While I understand the distaste for "drama," ultimately you just have to not let all the drama affect you too much and realize that controversial discussion is one way for the community to articulate its values which issues it feels very strongly about, as recent events have demonstrated. - Orphic (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Courtesy blank. archiving stuff, even stuff that's clearly wrong, has a strong practical background. We archive these for a good reason: Either this stuff is meant to prove that there is a case, or that there isn't a case. However, if it's really that bad, it could be courtesy-blanked; I see no reason to delete the page history but the page could still be left out of sight. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have no problem with a courtesy blank...if User:TTN requests it. I find it odd that they haven't shown up to comment yet.--UsaSatsui (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should only consider a courtesy blank if TTN requests it himself. Taric25 (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as archive. The record clearly shows that TTN's name was cleared; indeed, I would contend that it's essential to keep this archive in order to preserve the evidence showing that TTN was not guilty of sockpuppetry. If TTN wishes to comment, his opinion should be taken into account here, but if I were in his place I would want to keep this page, as evidence that the allegations of sockpuppetry had no grounding in fact. (I may change my opinion if TTN states that he wishes it to be deleted or courtesy blanked.) Walton^One 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you please state why you believe my allegations of sockpuppetry had no grounding in fact by citing specific examples from the evidence I presented? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this page is awesome. 203.220.107.138 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your vote, but would you kindly give a reason why we should keep this page please? I doubt the closing admin will seriously consider keeping the page because you believe it “is awesome”. Thank you. ☺ Taric25 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep TTN was cleared of all allegations, the record should show this. Archive and move on. RMHED (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Courtesy blank. I can see the argument for keeping this, but there's clearly some real objections to it, based around the fact that it seems to be an entirely unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry and so keeping it might give a misleading impression (even though it was rejected). Given that, a courtesy blank seems reasonable to me - as has been mentioned, rejected Requests for Comment tend to get deleted without objection, so there shouldn't be much objection to this. The page's full contents would still exist in the history for anyone who really needed to see them. Terraxos (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kindly, would you please state why you believe it seems to be an entirely unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry by citing specific examples from the evidence I presented please? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Case closed, so keep it archived. If Guy wants, move the page to Wikipedia:Rejected evidence that failed to prove TTN is a sockpuppet (to avoid the stigma of it being a subpage of WP:SSP), or courtesy blank, but having a record of discussion is generally useful. Reviewing the page itself, I am not at all convinced by the allegations of sockpuppetry, and some of the logic seems contradictory. Gracenotes^T § 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Having it in some other space other than SSP isn’t policy. We don’t archive other SSPs that result in not guilty that way. (For example, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nrcprm2026_(4th).) Also, why does it matter what Guy (User:JzG) wants? JzG deleted the discussion unilaterally and Xoloz overturned the deletion. If anything, the community should decide what is best, not follow the want of a single user. Kindly, would you please state why you believe logic seems contradictory by citing specific examples from the evidence I presented please? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 09:15, 20 December 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.