Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nangaphobia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 closed as a trainwreck, per IAR. Original essay has been moved to the more neutral WP:Sockophobia. From there, I have redirected it to the existing essay Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, but have not deleted the history, so if anybody still thinks there is something of value in this essay that is not already covered by the other and could be turned into a useful essay on its own, they are free to work on it. I have deleted the redirect from the original title, because it constitutes an implicit personal attack against the known victims of this particular sockmaster/harasser. I was --->|this|<--- close to blocking the author of the essay for aiding and participating in the harassment campaign with this essay. Another maxi-trout goes to the second editor who felt it was a good idea to contribute to this sorry affair, and who really, really, really ought to have known better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Nangaphobia[edit]

Wikipedia:Nangaphobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We should not make essays on a prolific sockpuppeter who stalks and harrases editors. Who calls editors "racists" "bigots" "Stalkers" "EDL members" and a host of other unpleasantries. All this will do is encourage more of the same attacks from Nanparbat, And before the accusations start an edit to this came up on RC page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:DENY. Achowat (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:DENY what a waste of time, People who created this are glorifying the Sock-puppeteers and in that way endorsing sock puppetry. The intentions are obvious because one of the contributors of the given page loves to keep !votes from socks. --DBigXray 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friends of User:Nangparbat are clearly unhappy to see his socks being packed to banland as soon as they arrive. --DBigXray 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really, friends of NP? That is a very blunt accusation. And if you havn't seen, SMS actually reverts his socks. [1]. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is in fact a WP:COATRACK against User:Darkness Shines who is being harassed by Nangparbat and now his friends. May be SMS had reverted a clear case of vandalism but I have seen TopGun editwarring to keep !votes of Nangparbat's socks on RFC's. --DBigXray 08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact issue I've raised, the new users are labeled as socks even before they have been proved to be a banned user or even shown poor edits, and this has resulted in genuine newbies being attacked often. I've just proved your statement as a No true Scotsman fallacy.. it should be disregarded. Btw, COATRACK is for the main space article content. Also before you start making personal attacks on me, notice that I did not create this. I only added things not to be done. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and how does this helps the Encyclopedia ? --DBigXray 06:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is true that some editors are too quick to think new users are old SOCKs. This essay has an element of some serious treatement of this issue. It can be retained without crossing WP:DENY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This particular banned user uses multiple dynamic IPs to evade detection and he is being supported with such comments. In my opinion Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet addresses your concern in a much better way. So again, how does this particular page helps encyclopedia ? --DBigXray 07:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This essay is further interpretation of the "don't be too quick essay" and covers concerns specifically that are not covered there. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: (move to a new name) this essay is nothing but informative and project related, actually addressing many issues around a few contentious topic areas. This has nothing to do with the banned user per se if you read the essay, rather about the new users and how they are treated. I was already thinking of renaming it later, and I am sure SMS will rename it too. But the essay itself is not even remotely poor. The nomination is not only evidence of contribution stalking to an obscure page but also WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:BATTLE. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I dont see any history repeating itself anywhere.Infact both of them discuss about the same issue mostly...so why don't you merge them then? ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 10:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read both essays? They are different; same topic, different prospects. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why can't merge it. I think this is a case of WP:ILIKEIT. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying WP:ILIKEIT would be moot as I just stated WP:IDONTLIKEIT above, let's not go into a spiral. Why it can not be merged with that is because that essay is complete in itself and covers the main prospect of not accusing others of being a sock. If the title of this essay is changed, there would be no issues in my opinion. It covers a separate sub issue that is being faced. Many users are treated as socks even on their very first edit (except for when they are obvious ducks - my comment does not stand for that). Do you know what I just noted above, the essay you are referring to was also suggested to be merged to WP:AGF at it's own deletion discussion... and evidently all policy related pages will finally merge to a single page. That can not be done per the deletion discussion of WP:DBQ which was kept and is a much quoted page today. Just for the sake of it, WP:DENY is also an essay and does not have any more weight than this one. This essay is not giving recognition in an appreciative sense to the banned user in any way - take another read. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:DENY also this essay is WP:COATRACK to attack other editor and its not acceptable.I would agree to rename it to Wikipedia:Sockaphobia per earlier suggestion--Shrike (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:DENY and because this essay is clearly being used as a means to attack an established editor because of content disputes in the India/Pakistan topic area. To everyone familiar with the India/Pakistan content area it is very clear to whom the Nangaphobia is meant to refer. It refers to an editor who has done great service - which has been appreciated by multiple other editors - to the quality of wikipedia by detecting dozens of socks used by Nangparbat. Given that all the dozens of sock IPs and accounts were actually Nangparbat the name is completely misplaced as it infers that the editor in question was suffering from some kind of paranoia when it fact Nangparbat's dozens of socks are a reality. His opponents in content disputes try to ridicule the achievements of the editor in this field through the essay although people have been warned not to engage in attacks against each other and to focus on content. Also, a neutral essay on the issue in a general manner (independent from any specific editors) already exists: Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. JCAla (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This essay does not mention or refer to DS. But it does address the issues, you know DS is banned from filing SPIs against Nangparbat for the very reasons addressed in here. For your last part refer to my reply above to Vibhijain. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think people are stupid? JCAla (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might have that opinion, but that's not what we're here to talk about. Keep your comments civil and to the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one directly mentions the name TG.As JCA already said, anyone familiar with Indo-Pakistani disputes will understand the real motive behind the page. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that makes you a bit less familiar, because DS is not the only person who does this, many editors tag newbies as socks even before they are indeffed... that's a job to be taken care of after a case and a block. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other user other than DS who identifies Nangaparbat's socks and get them blocked. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you prove my point. User:Elockid is one of the users who identifies his socks among many others (though this essay does not say that all of them have the issue of tagging every newbie as a sock). NP has been socking since 2008, there have been many users identifying his socks. And the essay addresses a bigger picture. NP is not the only sockmaster on the wiki. There is a bigger concern here which is being censored. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh..is it.... Nangaphobia refers to all the socks...I never knew that...Thanks! [sarcasm] ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 10:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That point has already been addressed about the rename. The content does not give any example of Nangparbat, all it is doing is empathizing, not sympathizing (except with the poor newbies ofcourse). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per DBigXray and JCAla.A page to ignore socks already exists. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does the page ignores that socks exist? It actually endorses that such happens due to previous socking. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not stop this discussion. Some one might revert that per WP:BRD or per consensus of this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2012 (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/Wikipedia:Nangaphobia&oldid=1136450195"