Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet


 * 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 discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet
Attack page for those the original editor is having disagreements with. The capital letters and intentionally misspelled words do not assume good faith. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete :(see below) per Content forking of WP:AGF. While I think it's fine to nutshell this in AGF, the current form and format aren't reflective of the idea it is supposed to represent. — Ched :  ?  06:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all essays are based on one or more policies/guidelines. By your rationale all "essays" should be deleted as forks, no? -- PirateSmackK Arrrr! 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * huh? ... I'd have to reply "Got Syn?" I'd also like to mention a couple points for those who would be inclined to research.  1.)I offered both help and suggestions to the creator of the article on their talk page.  2.) I actually edited the article for improvement within 5 min. of its being tagged for MfD with suggestions on how to improve it further in my edit summary.  3.) The "essay" tag has since been removed, and in my opinion, improved as well.  4.) I based my !vote on my understandings of our policies and guidelines, not the time honored "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT".  5.)I'll watchlist the few items which I !vote in, and allow for the possibility of change, and I do this because I am open to changing my !vote. (as such, given the improvements that Unc. has made, I'm leaning toward keep at the moment - if we do the +essay thing to it.  6.)I was one of the very earliest supporters of moving our XfD process{es) from 5 to 7 days because I felt that due consideration should be given to all articles and editors.  SO .. before we start questioning Ched's "rationale", could we consider the possibility that he may actually think through things when he posts.  kthx. — Ched :  ?  16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)  addendum: Have you read the "nutshell" for the page we're discussing?  And to answer your question - a resounding NO! — Ched :  ?  16:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Who then was a gentleman?. Obviously an attack page. -- t'shael  mindmeld  07:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who was it attacking, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The users who were accusing the author of being a sockpuppet. -- t'shael  mindmeld  04:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? who are those users? where are they mentioned in the essay? Please be specific, as you are making a serious accusation. NoCal100 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FlyingToaster for one. While they weren't mentioned specifically in the essay, the attack was strongly implied in the original version of this page. However, as this page as been cleaned up considerably I am striking through my delete vote. -- t'shael  mindmeld  07:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FlyingToaster is not named in the essay, and was not named in the original version, either, so it is clearly not attacking him. I appreciate you removing your delete !vote. NoCal100 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that. What I was saying is that FlyingToaster is one of the users who accused the author of being a sockpuppet. -- t'shael  mindmeld  10:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going out on a limb here Uncle G, and as pure speculation, I'll hazard the guess that this may revolve around a recent thread at AN/I which discusses the (feared and respected) "Bish" family, a couple "poda" accounts, User:Daedalus969 and a WP:SPI report that was filed. — Ched : ?  16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have to speculate, go out on a limb, and hazard a guess, then it's clear that the article does not actually attack any identifiable person. NoCal100 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No arguments there NoCal. It was just a pointer for Uncle G, in the possibility that he wasn't aware of it. I'd also suggest that the reasons for any article should bear little weight in the decision to keep or delete.  Fair enough? — Ched :  ?  17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've made this very point, WRT the reasons for any article, in my comments. NoCal100 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant AN section is actually Administrators' noticeboard, and has nothing to do with Daedalus969. There's no evidence that the new account has actually attacked anyone.  If anything, the person with the new account appears to believe that xe is being attacked by others.  A better name for the original version of this page would be "defence page" rather than "attack page".  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While the spelling could perhaps use a tweak, it is not out of line with existing 'just kidding, only serious' essays. What the user has highlighted here really is a major problem that affects a number of genuinely new as well as IP's who create a user account. There is a general lack of sanctions against people who make the personal attack of sock puppetry accusations with little or no evidence to back it up. Unomi (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POINT piece by a now "blocked for being a disruption" editor who is obviously a sock him/herself. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 08:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Creating an essay to prove a point is just wrong. Law type!  snype? 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of our essays actually began as people wanting to explain and support a point that they were making. After all, how many people go to the trouble of writing an essay with no intention of using it, or with no point to make in mind? Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have misinterpreted my intent. While I'm aware that essays make points, this essay was made as a WP:POINT. Law type!  snype? 11:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear WP:POINT violation created by a sockpuppet. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a point that is worth making, irrespective of who originally began the page, especially given the irony that CheckUser has failed to find any evidence in support of the claim by the editors above that this page's creator is a sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also a point worth making that the creator of this essay, is now blocked and after asking to be unblocked, was declined with the reason:Hooey. You created a bunch of sockpuppets at the same time as you created this account; did you think we wouldn't check? Go away and stop wasting our time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 8:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5). So apparently it's been found out he is a sock afterall. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge all valid points into WP:AGF, which is where such discussions likely belong.  And possibly also into WP:DUCK which is what the real issue is with. Collect (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment UncleG has now done some minor spelling corrections on the essay. Please do reread and reconsider. Unomi (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't see any misspelled words, and that would not be a reason for deletion even if they existed. I am at a loss as to how the nominator knows these are 'intentionally misspelled words'. Who created the article and their motivation is irrelevant as an argument. The essay makes a point - you may agree with it or not, but disagreement is not grounds for deletion. NoCal100 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the page has since been moved on by other editors. This is the version which was current at the time of nomination. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. The article has been much improved since then, and in in its current state, I can't see any reason to delete. NoCal100 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Essay makes a point but isn't disruptive. If you ignore who the contributor is and whether or not they are blocked then its just another essay like others we have. I reject the deletion rationale provided by nom. "Attack page"? heh..-- PirateSmackK Arrrr! 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: the essay's logic fails on at least two counts: first, sock puppet accounts are often legitimate second accounts created by experienced users for various reasons. In that WP:SOCK says there is nothing wrong with this, people shouldn't have an immediate knee-jerk aversion to being asked whether they're a sock.  Second, the reality is simply that brand new accounts with advanced knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia are often sockpuppet accounts created for disruptive reasons, so it is unsurprising that a brand new user with a redlinked username who (for instance) closes RFA and AFD discussions and edits templates will attract attention.  Assuming good faith does not mean failing to scrutinize suspicious activity.  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All valid points, but they have absolutely nothing to do with arguments for deleting or keeping this essay. NoCal100 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me if you can't see them. Shall I make it clearer for you by changing to "delete"?  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will blame you because you've failed to articulate them. Your argument amounts to saying you do not agree with the article, and don't find its logic convincing. That's fine, but it is not an argument for deletion. NoCal100 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's that hard, NoCal. The main premise of the essay, that all sock puppet accounts are bad so it's bad to be called a sock, is fallacious: the relevant policy already explains that (some) sock puppet accounts are legitimate; this essay undermines that by making it appear as if a sock puppet is only and always a negative thing.  What this essay is really doing is saying assume good faith; we already have that as a policy too.  And as I already explained, despite this essay's claims, there are good reasons to be suspicious of brand new accounts with expansive knowledge of how Wikipedia works.  This does not mean failing to assume good faith.  Finally, as others have pointed out, this essay is really a suspicious account (a brand new account that left fake block templates on user talk pages, left posts reading "I'm not a crook," closed AFDs and RFAs early, and voted "delete" on various AFDs) attempting to make a WP:POINT.  Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again: who created the article and their motivation is entirely irrelevant, especially since it has been completely rewritten since then, by a different editor. It is also quite irrelevant that you don't agree with the essay's main premise and believe it is fallacious. Disagreement is not an argument for deletion. You need to make policy-based arguments, and you have not made any. NoCal100 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who created it and their motivation is entirely relevant to the question of whether an essay should be deleted. This is not an article that started out as a WP:POINT/attack page by a known sock and was subsequently brought to keepable standard.  This is entirely a WP:POINT attempt--look at the shortcut: WP:PARANOID.  The "nutshell" ("Don't be too quick to jump to certain conclusions without real evidence") is basically WP:DUCK restated, and the message is just WP:AGF.  It offers nothing new or useful, and by making a fairly strong suggestion that socks are inherently bad, actually undermines WP:SOCK.  Exploding Boy (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you can keep repeating that, but that will not make it any more convincing. If an essay has merit, it has merit regardless of who created it and why. You may want to read a bit about the Ad hominem logical fallacy to see why this is so. If an essay has no merit, you need to explain why - and do so convincingly. The nutshell of this article is not WP:DUCK restated, it is almost the opposite of WP:DUCK. NoCal100 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And the same to you. Obviously we're not going to change each other's minds.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an important point that merits consideration, and as essay, it's reasonably well formulated.  There's no reason whatsoever to delete it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason given to delete.  Majorly  talk  15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The original version was a clear candidate for deletion - not a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, but an attempt by a troublesome user to provide cover for activities that some people read as sockpuppeting or a breaching experiment. It was also of extremely low quality. The current version shares almost nothing with the original beyond its useful title; it should be kept. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Don't be so quick to delete content because of the contributor (anyone want to start?). -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. What?  Excellent essay.  What misspelled words.  If this essay is attacking someone, possibly they are being sensitive?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it looks much better now. But you should have seen it when this discussion first started. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 08:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You agree? Are you changing your !vote to "Keep", then? NoCal100 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not changing it. It was still created by a sock to make a WP:POINT, a sock that is now blocked for being a sock. I don't believe in rewarding socks. Sorry. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You agree with an editor that !votes Keep with a comment that calls this an 'Excellent essay'. The essay has been completely rewritten, by someone who is not a sock (not that that even matters). And even the nominator has withdrawn his request. Give it up already. NoCal100 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agreed that it looks better - my exact words. I didn't agree it was an "excellent essay". And just because you don't agree that the creator of the essay being a sockpuppet matters, doesn't make it a fact. You give it up already and stop putting down other people's opinion. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite the dubious source, it does raise some interesting points. WP:Fork does not really apply here-- the purpose of an essay is to broaden discussion, and this really cannot be shoehorned into WP:AGF. The premise of it being an attack page falls flat-- raising legitimate concerns about the possibility of wrongly bringing a serious accusation is not an attack. cheers, Dloh  cierekim  14:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And, this has been completely rewritten.  Dloh  cierekim  14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Considering it was originally written BY a sockpuppet, in a bad faith attempt to justify his actions. And may be used as an excuse for further disruption from sockpuppets in the future. I would support incorporating some of this material somewhere into Sock puppetry however, but letting this exist, even as a well-written improved version, only validates the sock's actions. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an Ad hominem fallacy. The identity and motivations of editors are not valid arguments to be used in a deletion discussionNoCal100 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements.  M C  10  &#124;  Sign here!  01:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based upon the utter rewrite of this essay, I would withdraw my nomination. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly noted but as delete !votes have been made, the discussion must run its course now. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I said would withdraw. :)  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the withdrawal of the nomination, and the excellent and total rewrite by Uncle G so that it is a completely new essay. As well as arguments, especially by NoCall100, that an essay is an essay regardless of who started it and any presumed motivations why. And as NoCal100 points out "Disagreement is not an argument for deletion." The essay is well written, and clearly does not attack anyone, nor violate any policy. The possibility of violating due process is one that clearly deserves discussion and a position essay. The essay does broaden discussion, as pointed out by Dlohcierekim, and that's a good thingTM. — Becksguy (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Let's see: a new account, accused of sockpuppetry, writes an essay about how it's bad to jump to the conclusion that new accounts who show profiency are sockpuppets ... and it turns out that the new account is a sockpuppet after all, and is blocked! So... in what way is this supposed to be a valuable addition to Wikipedia?  It doesn't say anything, essentially, that AGF doesn't already say, and the specific case which inspired it... well, it's just not one that should be held up as a paradigm.  I say get rid of it, or if there's something in it that someone thinks is specficially worthwhile, merge that into AGF. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet the version at nomination, that you refer to as having been written by a sockpuppet, doesn't exist anymore. It has been totally rewritten by Uncle G and none of the original content (basically five talking points) survives. The current essay wasn't written by a sockpuppet (if he was). I would have voted to delete the original version also, but this is an essay by Uncle G. — Becksguy (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The only thing we should be looking at on this is the contnent and whether it is useful as written or not. Who originally started the Essay is immaterial as well as their motivation.  If I was commenting on the essay as it was when it was nominated for deletion I would have to say delete it, but the essay as it stands is nothing like the original.  A new name 2008 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm amazed at people saying "who created it and their motivation for doing so is irrelevant". The quite opposite argument is used religiously at Article for Deletion so why is Miscellany for Deletion any different? A sockpuppet, who is now blocked because of being a sockpuppet, created this essay to make a point and disruption. Many times have I seen perfectly notable and important articles get deleted on these grounds alone as the masses shouted "off with his head!". Just because someone else came along and re-wrote this crumb of the evil doer's existence, doesn't negate the facts of how the crumb got here in the first place. We shouldn't reward those who don't follow our policies with a lasting memorial to their rule-breaking time at Wikipedia. Now, that is all. Carry on. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, because people are allegedly using similarly fallacious ad hominem arguments elsewhere, we should emulate their bad practice here? NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have assume good faith. Really, if we take a look at what wikipedia is not we see a reference to instruction creep.  I personally don't see the need for an essay that says we should be assuming good faith.  Fraud  talk to me  01:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If there's anything specific in this new essay that someone desperately wants not to lose, merge it into WP:AGF and let's be done with it! There's no need for the current essay, especially since I guarantee it'll be cited every time a sockpuppet is detected and is moaning about how he or she is just an innocent new editor - bah!  Why give them more ammunition, they hardly need it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen! -- OlEnglish (Talk) 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF's "See Also" section lists more than a dozen personal essay, which expound on some point made in WP:AGF. This essay is no different. NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This essay IS different. It's specifically directed at sockpuppets. And even IF people are quick to assume that someone is a sock, so what? They're still innocent until CheckUser proves them guilty. So this essay doesn't serve much more purpose than the already existing AGF. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 09:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This essay is about allegations of sockpuppeting, and WP:NAM is about angry mastodons, and Assume clue is about assuming users have a clue, etc... They are ALL variations on themes already covered in WP:AGF, so you argument applies in principle to all of them - and yet, we have over a dozen such essays. You don;t agree with the thesis of teh essay - that's ok, but i snot a reason to delete it. NoCal100 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would have said delete the original version, but the way it looks now, it is quite a reasonable essay. Lady  of  Shalott  01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Changed from delete. Article has been cleaned up considerably. -- t'shael  mindmeld  01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Changed from delete, per "Not the same article" as LadyofShalott, and -t'shael mindmeld mentioned. — Ched : ?  03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: in respect to some of the conversation regarding WP:POINT, and this is not directed at any individual editor, I prefer to look at the results. If the article is an improvement, or a benefit to the community, then I'm not really concerned with who created it, or even why.  Does it make Wikipedia a better site? yes=keep, and no=delete.  I personally think the article adds value to the site. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is kept, a new shortcut is needed, WP:PARANOID seems to be well on its way to deletion at WP:RFD 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmm .. assume => AGF, maybe WP:NOASSUME? — Ched : ?  04:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or we could, like, not have a shortcut? Viridae Talk 04:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I voted to delete that redirect shortcut, as overly vague relative to target, and per WP:POINT, unlike this essay. Hmmm... WP:NOASSUME as a shortcut might work. — Becksguy (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the current version seems pretty reasonable. Bits of it are questionable, but none of it is insulting or anti-policy - and besides, it's an essay, it doesn't have to have universal consensus. I don't think the fact that it was originally created by a now-banned user is relevant - there are several good essays still around of which the creators have since been banned. Robofish (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I know this user in question and they have a long string of trolling socks. In case anyone is wondering where "I am not a crook" is from, I also know more about their other socks if anyone cares 96.255.198.219 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite an ironic comment, seeing as you are an obvious sock yourself. NoCal100 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually your comment may win Irony of the Year, considering where we are at this moment. Law type!  snype? 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.