Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ Deletionists and sockpuppetry
Posted by: Casliber
From time to time I participate at AfD and generally seems that the deletionists outnumber the inclusionists in most cases- I can only think of about 4 or 5 inclusionists and a rather larger number of 'the other side'. What has puzzled me, though, is the frequency that deletionists have either been confirmed using or being sockpuppets, or appeared highly suspicious. My question is, is this view only an apparent one, or is it a real association and if so, why? (i.e. why on earth sock if you outnumber the opposition anyway??)
Posted by: One
Well, I'm not on board with your proposition, but one possibility is that deletionists must outnumber their opposition by significant margin to accomplish their task. I think inclusionists would have a greater incentive to sock because each one of their votes is worth several delete votes in most contexts.
Posted by: Casliber
We've all seen odd pages here and there where mysterious users pop up to push for keeping, but I am talking on a larger scale.
Posted by: One
Can you be specific? I don't think that socking would happen much for deletionists in theory or in fact. Deletionists just work in packs. When one sees another they know who has voted to delete, they'll pile on. These pileons have happened from the earliest days of the project.
Posted by: thekohser
...why on earth sock if you outnumber the opposition anyway??...
Because without the socks, you wouldn't outnumber the opposition?
Too easy. Lay-up. Two points.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
My guess, based on the attacks that I witnessed at such HotSpots as Function (mathematics), Manifold, Relation (mathematics), Charles Sanders Peirce, Truth, and Truth Theory, is this:
Most so-called "Deletionism" on Wikipedia does not arise from any kind of principled minimalism, but is in fact a cover for personal animus and admin-winked-at vendettas.
Jon 
Posted by: Dzonatas
We've all seen odd pages here and there where mysterious users pop up to push for keeping, but I am talking on a larger scale.
You mean when there is like at least double the amount of contributors to the AfD entry than there are of the actual article?
Posted by: Poetlister
There are people who don't like certain types of article and flock to vote against them. See the AfDs on various Jewish lists and categories for example. There certainly was sockpuppetry there, such as User:Antidote, and Arniep and Runcorn's exposure of him was presumably the main factor in their downfall (plus their support for Newport and me of course).
Posted by: that one guy
Funny thing is that people who "vote stack" on AFDs and RFAs (trying to find a good example but sadly runcorn comes to mind) are more likely to "caught" doing it. Go over to AN/ANI and the chances drop (like SV and crew), which is totally weird.
Just because people have the same views doesn't automatically mean they're socks, but repeatedly going the same way will draw suspicion.
Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester
From time to time I participate at AfD and generally seems that the deletionists outnumber the inclusionists in most cases- I can only think of about 4 or 5 inclusionists and a rather larger number of 'the other side'. What has puzzled me, though, is the frequency that deletionists have either been confirmed using or being sockpuppets, or appeared highly suspicious. My question is, is this view only an apparent one, or is it a real association and if so, why? (i.e. why on earth sock if you outnumber the opposition anyway??)
This is an interesting topic. I've seen quite a few hard-core deletionist accounts turn out to be sockpuppets. The Eyrian/Varlak/THX1337/JohnEMcClure/Graevemoore/etc. accounts stick out in my mind, since Eyrian was an administrator.
The question is: since AfD "votes" are generally 2-to-1 in favor of deletion to begin with, why bother creating sockpuppet accounts when the process will naturally favor deleting articles? I guess it's to speed up the process. I remember the person behind the Displaced Brit account saying he hated "bloody smeggy lists", and didn't want any such pages on Wikipedia, ever. He actually nominated several articles for deletion using the words "another bloody smeggy list". That sort of personality seems sort of predisposed to "going the extra mile" to make sure a hated article really does get deleted.
The "keep my article because I like it" sockpuppet types are one-offs and are usually pretty obvious to spot; the hard-core deletionist socks just seem harder to spot.
Of course, Jon's experience with vendetta-type deletion happens all the time, too, which also reminds me of the Displaced Brit socks.
Posted by: SomeRandomAdmin
One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_14#Alien_and_Predator_timeline for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless.
Posted by: Kurt M. Weber
One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_14#Alien_and_Predator_timeline for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless.
Then you are part of the problem.
The fact is, anything with a verifiable existence is a perfectly appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Those who try to delete them regardless of this simple fact quite clearly hate Wikipedia, and need to be driven off.
You and your ilk need to go. There is no place for you on Wikipedia.
Posted by: prospero
Well I think that there is nothing wrong with being a rabid inclusionist. I wish we had more of them committed to making sound arguments at XfD.
Posted by: SomeRandomAdmin
Then you are part of the problem.
The fact is, anything with a verifiable existence is a perfectly appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Those who try to delete them regardless of this simple fact quite clearly hate Wikipedia, and need to be driven off.
You and your ilk need to go. There is no place for you on Wikipedia.
Nah, Kurt, you're missing the point. The fact that it spurs me to close such AfDs as delete doesn't mean I actually do it. After all, what's the point when you know you're going to get the inevitable DRV from the usual morons? Let's face it, Wikipedia is indistinguishable from a fanwiki these days anyway, another article about a random Star Wars character's father's brother's dog's favourite stick isn't going to make any difference now, is it?
Well I think that there is nothing wrong with being a rabid inclusionist. I wish we had more of them committed to making sound arguments at XfD.
That's actually the main problem. Most of them seem to have been taking lessons from Le Grand Roi de Complete Bollocks (notable exceptions being DGG, Casliber (usually) and a couple of others). Oh, if only Badly Drawn Jeff was here... well, perhaps not.
Gotta be careful with that, though. Have a look at the AfD record of Colonel Warden and Firefly322. Blatant socks, quite clearly. Checkuser put them in different continents, though.
Posted by: Firsfron of Ronchester
Oh, if only Badly Drawn Jeff was here... well, perhaps not.
Jeff is here. Or was here, at least.
Also, there's a pretty good post about deletionism http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=14920&view=findpost&p=70758. It doesn't cover sockpuppetry deletionism, though.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
The reason is that for many years, Wikipedia has gone on a witch hunt against trolls, accusing everyone they could of being trolls.
However, deletionists and reverters are immune to this. People can just be deletionist and reverter all they want and they're accepted. I personally think that most of the people who came to wikipedia and got banned for blatant trolling quit several years ago and are now all deletionists and fanatic reverters of non-vandalism.
Of course wikipedians still think the trolls are merely people who yell and get mad and criticize the admins and don't realize those are just angry people and the trolls have gotten subtle a long time ago and become deletionists and fanatic content reverters.
Posted by: badlydrawnjeff
I'm still here.
Deletionism is simply a ridiculous position that goes against the basic principles of Wikipedia to begin with, and too often involves ignoring the broader consensus of Wikipedians for the sake of battles of attrition. When an article can be nominated 6 times over 2 years to be deleted until you can muster up enough cronies, there's something wrong.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
Everything about wikipedia is mustering up cronies.
It's the same way on digg, too: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Digg
Posted by: wikiwhistle
Nah, Kurt, you're missing the point. The fact that it spurs me to close such AfDs as delete doesn't mean I actually do it. After all, what's the point when you know you're going to get the inevitable DRV from the usual morons? Let's face it, Wikipedia is indistinguishable from a fanwiki these days anyway, another article about a random Star Wars character's father's brother's dog's favourite stick isn't going to make any difference now, is it?
Lol!
It should be made easier to delete such stuff from the wiki, but unfortunately the fans often get their way.Posted by: Casliber
Why should it be easier to delete cruft? Who does it hurt? More importantly, who 'stumbles over' it if they are not looking for it? It amazes me how editors who appear antipathetic to material will spend hours trying to delete it.
I am generally pretty soft on notability, unless I feel an article by its very existence propagates misinformation.
What mainly irritates me about many pop culture debates is the lack of understanding of the shallowness of material on the net. For any Featured article I have written, and more an more Good articles, I need to find book or print sources to make them comprehensive, and often they increase the depth of the article by a huge margin. Thus I really hate the, no google hits= not notable chestnut. I have seen whole libraries devoted solely to pop culture material, just wish I had more in easy reach to reference things. I do try and source stuff where I can but the tide of deletion can be pretty strong at times.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
Why should it be easier to delete cruft? Who does it hurt? More importantly, who 'stumbles over' it if they are not looking for it? It amazes me how editors who appear antipathetic to material will spend hours trying to delete it.
It looks naff, amateurish and immature. People, even just visitors to the site, can find it if they hit random page, or via google.
I am generally pretty soft on notability,
I'm not.
What mainly irritates me about many pop culture debates is the lack of understanding of the shallowness of material on the net. For any Featured article I have written, and more an more Good articles, I need to find book or print sources to make them comprehensive, and often they increase the depth of the article by a huge margin. Thus I really hate the, no google hits= not notable chestnut. I have seen whole libraries devoted solely to pop culture material, just wish I had more in easy reach to reference things. I do try and source stuff where I can but the tide of deletion can be pretty strong at times.
Have you tried searching not using a general google search, but use http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn (which finds any articles in newspapers, mainly of the kind which are reliable sources) http://scholar.google.co.uk/schhp?hl=en&tab=ns (slightly academic work on the subject) or http://books.google.co.uk/bkshp?hl=en&tab=np (which enables you to search inside quite a lot of books in print.)?
I imagine you have if you've worked on GA's etc. Google news hits, in my experience, provide a good indicator of notability most of the time. You are right about 'proper' books really giving an article a boost, you can read a lot of extracts in google books but it might be nice to track down the whole book. However, unfortunately wikipedians tend to like a source to be something they or the reader can check themselves online.
Posted by: guy
It's not the removal of cruft. It's the removal of articles for ideological reasons (lists of Jews), because they want to deny that there are alternatives to Wikipedia (Wikinfo) or out of sheer spite (some of Taxwoman's articles).
One of the stranger Wikipedia rules is that articles about schools are exempt from speedy deletion; WP:CSD says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Why?
Posted by: prospero
It's not the removal of cruft. It's the removal of articles for ideological reasons (lists of Jews), because they want to deny that there are alternatives to Wikipedia (Wikinfo) or out of sheer spite (some of Taxwoman's articles).
One of the stranger Wikipedia rules is that articles about schools are exempt from speedy deletion; WP:CSD says "Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Why?
I think CSD has been subject to much instruction creep. There's always something that somebody doesn't like, so they then edit war CSD until everyone else gets tired and gives up. Quite remarkable, actually.
Posted by: dancercotillion
However, unfortunately wikipedians tend to like a source to be something they or the reader can check themselves online.
This is a vast understatement. There are editors who will revert you for violating WP:RS if you use print-only sources, the idea being that, if you can't check it online RIGHT THEN AND THERE, print is unreliable. I've seen it happen, and it always boggles my mind. Hell, I've seen it happen on articles about novels, when people use the text of the book in question to source a statement, and they're reverted simply because "How do we know that's what the book says? It's not published online, so you could be making this up."
Posted by: prospero
Another angry deletionist is trying to get Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Question_about_disruptive_editor at AN. You know, I've found this chap to be quite friendly and I see no reason why his passionate inclusionism should be denounced as disruption. I wish we had a few more like him.