The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Deletionists and sockpuppetry, Is there a link and why?
Casliber
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 10:27am
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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??)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 11:19am
Post #2


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Casliber
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 11:54am
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 11:58am
Post #4


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 12:33pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 3rd July 2008, 6:27am) *

...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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 1:02pm
Post #6


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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 cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 3rd July 2008, 1:04pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dzonatas
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 1:47pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon 9th Jun 2008, 8:40pm
Member No.: 6,529



QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 3rd July 2008, 4:54am) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Poetlister
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 3:12pm
Post #8


Poetlister from Venus
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,018
Joined: Fri 3rd Mar 2006, 12:17pm
Member No.: 50

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
that one guy
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 9:40pm
Post #9


Doesn't get it either.
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 2nd May 2008, 4:35pm
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firsfron of Ronchester
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 11:21pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 16th Jun 2007, 1:38pm
From: , Location, Location.
Member No.: 1,715

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Casliber @ Thu 3rd July 2008, 3:27am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SomeRandomAdmin
post Thu 3rd July 2008, 11:36pm
Post #11


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 12:01am
From: UK
Member No.: 4,281



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 this 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kurt M. Weber
post Fri 4th July 2008, 12:35am
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun 21st May 2006, 10:44pm
Member No.: 199

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SomeRandomAdmin @ Thu 3rd July 2008, 6:36pm) *

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 this 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
prospero
post Fri 4th July 2008, 12:44am
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue 27th May 2008, 4:17pm
Member No.: 6,357

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.

This post has been edited by prospero: Fri 4th July 2008, 12:48am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SomeRandomAdmin
post Fri 4th July 2008, 1:11am
Post #14


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 12:01am
From: UK
Member No.: 4,281



QUOTE

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?


QUOTE(prospero @ Fri 4th July 2008, 1:44am) *

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.

QUOTE
Just because people have the same views doesn't automatically mean they're socks, but repeatedly going the same way will draw suspicion.


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.


This post has been edited by SomeRandomAdmin: Fri 4th July 2008, 1:19am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firsfron of Ronchester
post Fri 4th July 2008, 1:36am
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 16th Jun 2007, 1:38pm
From: , Location, Location.
Member No.: 1,715

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SomeRandomAdmin @ Thu 3rd July 2008, 6:11pm) *

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 here. It doesn't cover sockpuppetry deletionism, though.

This post has been edited by Firsfron of Ronchester: Fri 4th July 2008, 5:21am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LamontStormstar
post Sun 6th July 2008, 1:24pm
Post #16


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,359
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 7:25am
Member No.: 342

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sun 6th July 2008, 1:24pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
badlydrawnjeff
post Sun 6th July 2008, 1:31pm
Post #17


Writing four featured articles made me a danger to the project.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu 22nd Feb 2007, 5:47pm
From: Manchester, NH
Member No.: 1,007

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LamontStormstar
post Sun 6th July 2008, 1:33pm
Post #18


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,359
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 7:25am
Member No.: 342

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Everything about wikipedia is mustering up cronies.

It's the same way on digg, too: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Digg

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Sun 6th July 2008, 1:44pm
Post #19


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



QUOTE(SomeRandomAdmin @ Fri 4th July 2008, 2:11am) *


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! biggrin.gif It should be made easier to delete such stuff from the wiki, but unfortunately the fans often get their way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Casliber
post Sun 6th July 2008, 2:25pm
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 7 14, 3:37am