Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect

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 debate was Keep in light of rewrite. Xoloz (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect

As it stands nothing on this page is salvageable. It is against this accepted guideline and more generally it goes against current accepted practice: that one can delete warnings and such from their own user page. It is also accepted that any deletion is taken to mean that the editor has read/noted it. R. Baley (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edited to add) For the record here is a link to the relevant rejected policy proposal (circa Aug 2006). There have also been discussions that pop up every now and again Oct 2007 also Oct 2007 and June 2007. R. Baley (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not this clear-cut. The sockpuppet notice is placed for the benefit of other people, not just to notify the user. You can certainly make the case that the practice should be changed, but MfD isn't the right place for that. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not document accepted practice, so I'm not suggesting a change. It's actually against accepted practice. R. Baley (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does document accepted practice. Under accepted practice, this is not considered a "warning and such", so it can't just be removed. Do you have any examples where someone was allowed to remove the template (obviously excluding clearly bad-faith cases)? -Amarkov moo! 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not going to look around for template removals. Every discussion I have seen indicates there is no consensus for this, but this page has the appearance of policy and people are linking to it. If you look at a couple of the discussions I linked to, ssp tags are discussed/included in a "warnings" context (one example). It's ok if we disagree. . . do you want to wait for others to weigh in? R. Baley (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, then I'm certainly willing to do that. -Amarkov moo! 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and btw, that "moo!" thing is great. :-) R. Baley (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update the page to reflect current practice. Deleting it outright would not be a good idea; aren't those suspected of sockpuppetry entitled to some advice on how to deal with the system (as well as to a presumption of innocence)? Wikipedia's processes can often seem confusing and arcane for new users, and since we have no equivalent of the right to legal counsel, a user who isn't experienced at dealing with the system won't be able to defend themselves against allegations which may be false. Walton^One 09:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an innocent new user needs guidance. My objection was that this page was almost solely geared towards telling the SSP when they could (or more importantly, when could not) remove the tag. There has not been a consensus with respect to this idea. Thanks for weighing in. R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Walton One. As to removing the sock template, I do not think it should be removed if it has been reported, i.e. the discussion link is not a redlink. Just update the page. --Bduke (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above; it offers helpful advice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, suspects should be provided with some advise, keep it--Phoenix -wiki 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (per Walton One) Delete (per nom). — $PЯINGεrαgђ 03:49 6 January, 2008 (UTC)
Comment: No position on keeping or deleting the page, but I've edited it to remove the "you may not remove the notice for ten days" language, which by general consent is not appropriate or enforceable. See the talkpage of the subject page for more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Walton's reasons & NYB's re-write.--12 Noon ^2¢ 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator I no longer object to the page in its current form. As long as the page adheres to the spirit of the current status. I can withdraw if necessary. Or someone can close as "consensus keep" based on the changes. . .whatever works best. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (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.