Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Who then was a gentleman?. Obviously an attack page. --t'shael mindmeld 07:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was it attacking, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • Agreed. I've made this very point, WRT the reasons for any article, in my comments. NoCal100 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete Creating an essay to prove a point is just wrong. Law _{type! snype?} 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

• 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. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reason given to delete. Majorly talk 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]