Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ExtraDry/Newington Sockpuppets

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Delete. The page contains accusations not yet proved, an abuse of userspace. The page is a source of conflict, is deceptive, and is not of clear benefit to the encyclopedia. The consensus of commenters below to delete is well-sustained in policy. Xoloz 17:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ExtraDry/Newington Sockpuppets

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Archifile, which was decidedly inconclusive, and the hosting user's extreme hostility towards those on this list, I believe this should be deleted per CSD G10. I have listed it here so the community can consider it. Orderinchaos 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

You just have to look at my talk paage to see the abuse i recieved from them. Here are some examples [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also between 09:56, 11 June 2007 & 11:09, 11 June 200 Castlemate made 13 edits to my talk page just to post harrasing comments. Tallum first edits were to the Industrial dispute section which the other sockpupets were editing heavely. [5], Waterdanks did the same thing also [6]. ExtraDry 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It looks like a general hit-list with absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry presented whatsoever. If you need a record of this information, please store it off-Wiki on your computer, but having a page on-site where you allege that other editors who have been proven to be unrelated are actually "sockpuppets" is a very inappropriate use of userspace. Sarah 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the contributions. I have added it to the main page thou. ExtraDry 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the checkuser, which came back negative. Twenty Years 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Silveriver Confirmed ExtraDry 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 17 accounts/IP's that have been mentioned on your page, only 8 have been found to be sockpuppets. Accusing people who have not been proven to be sockpuppets is a serious violation of policy. Twenty Years 03:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also linking Silveriver and Archifile isn't entirely sound, so it seems to be two separate, possibly unrelated groups. Orderinchaos 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may also wish to read WP:KETTLE in regards to your comments that others are Single Purpose Accounts (SPA). Twenty Years 03:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a SPA my edits are very varried, Its a pity that "Other Users" cough are forcing me to spend my time fighting sockpuppets and vandals. ExtraDry 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Exercise Robin Sage, Defence Force Discipline Act, Jessica Michalik just to name a couple. All have no connection to Newington College while the other accounts all of there edits have some connection. ExtraDry 03:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some connection being a teacher maybe? DXRAW was from what ive been told, which was a previous incarnation of yourself. Stop making up silly pages like this, where people like OIC have to come along and waste their time deleting. Twenty Years 06:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on TY, this person is DXRAW? Has that been confirmed? DXRAW was very disruptive and has quite a few disruption-type blocks on their log which should be linked to from their new block log if they've rescinded their right to vanish and simply created a new sockpuppet, rather than leaving as they claimed they were doing. Sarah 07:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonably certain from contribs that DXRAW and ExtraDry were the same person - checkuser declined it at the time per WP:DUCK. We didn't treat it too seriously as one had clearly left when the other started. There is also some instances of blatant disruption unrelated to DXRAW on *this* account, such as offering assistance to a troll (who got permbanned days later) who was menacing good faith users. Anyway, this is not a conduct review, it's an MfD, so we're a bit off topic. Orderinchaos 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are the same, and I agree it looks extremely likely, the block logs should be linked because this guy now has a clean block log and will start with short escalating blocks, when they actually have a block history and should be starting with longer blocks. It looks like the accounts weren't used at the same time but this new account was created months before DXRAW left and was essentially a sleeper account. Sarah 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide me a link to the checkuser request. ExtraDry 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick & tired of this. I'm not that guy. Why would I leave then come back. With false complaints going around I'm not surprised that he/she left. BTW Isnt it only sockpuppety if they are using Multiple accounts at the same time? Oh & TY who said that i was DXRAW, Thats right A WP:SPA that is a possible sockpuppet. ExtraDry 08:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, contribs prove to me and to anyone who's looked beyond any doubt that the two of you are the same person. Free Hugs Campaign, Ryde, wrestling, certain military topics, with an obsessive interest in Newington College and on alleged SPAs on it, a significantly lesser attention to The Scots College, with almost all other schools ignored by both, a consistent performance on AfD, a tendency to revert using a particular form of summary, and with edits on one account stopping on 27 May and edits on this one starting on 28 May. Even some of your unrelated-to-Newington enemies are the same people as those of the former account. Meanwhile, 430 of your 842 edits (including deleted ones) on this account relate to Newington and associated, with claims of and campaigns against alleged socks extending back to your second week on this account. (Interestingly, so have allegations that you are DXRAW). Orderinchaos 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, contribs prove to me and to anyone who's looked beyond any doubt that they are sockpuppets & some are proven ones at that. ExtraDry 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, and that crap is classic DXRAW, quoting someone's words back at them in a twisted way. There is absolutely no doubt now that you are DXRAW's latest account. You might care to explain this [7]. And I'd love to know why you were creating sleeper accounts months before you decided to "retire". As for your request for a link to the checkuser request, it is most likely that the request was made privately. Admins often use back channels to make such requests when investigating disruptive users, to lessen their opportunity for on-site disruption. Sarah 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ExtraDry, thank goodness im not an admin, or you wouldn't be coming back. Twenty Years 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although some of the information may be true about being being blocked. Calling someone a sockpuppet who is not proven to be a sockpuppet is quite a serious policy violation. Id agree with Sarah's comments, if you really want to keep it, then store it on your computer. Twenty Years 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. rationale and relevant guidelines:
  1. WP:UP, the content guideline for user pages, states, "What may I not have on my user page? ... Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process."
  2. WP:UP also states, "content is only permitted with the consent of the community..."
  3. This page is not in fact a list of sockpuppets. It is a mixed list of actual socks and suspected socks, the 'suspicion' being mostly the page creator's. Various accounts are labelled as "socks" that are at best only suspected socks. If this page exists for the creator, or to prepare a dispute case, it can be (per WP:UP) kept in a text file on his/her computer. If it is for others then a page telling others "XYZ are sockpuppets" with little visible evidence provided, but yet no intent to do anything beyond letting the accusation hang indefinitely in the air, is probably unfair (WP:NPA? WP:CIVIL? WP:AGF?) and poor use of a user subpage.
  4. In any event, a subpage listing (?suspected in some cases?) user misconduct issues by various editors is probably divisive and unhelpful, especially when it pejoratively assumes some of its assertations, and should not exist long term anyway. Deal with the dispute and remove the page.
Hence delete either way. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentavive keep per assuming good faith. I'm open to changing my vote, if some more involved editors present a case that ExtraDry is really engaged in inappropriate behaviour. In that case, that should presented to the administrators' noticeboard (or whereever it is you take take those things--Victor falk 10:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tentavive keepProcedural keep to be viewed as evidence in an eventual case. This user seems to have rather... unconstructive ways of editing, and I think there is a possibility that actions should be taken.--Victor falk 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:ExtraDry/Newington_Sockpuppets&oldid=1078587000"