User:Ikip/Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/complaints

The abusive sock puppet argument

Many critics state that NEWTs use of sock puppets was abusive, or socks are mentioned in the context of disruption

Policy allowing new user experiments with socks existed for five years, 5 months

On 05:11, 20 February 2004, 6 days after Wikipedia:Sock puppetry was created, User:UninvitedCompany added the 7th edit to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. This edit included the sentence:

"For example, prominent users may wish to experience Wikipedia to understand how the community functions for those new to the community."

A form of this sentence remained for five years, 5 months, for 1490 edits. In July 2009, the sentence read:

"For example, longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users."

Sentence modified

On 12:11, 23 July 2009 an editor changed the sentence[1]:

For example, longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.

→

For example, longterm contributors using their real name may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with.

Note: "longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." was not disallowed by the change.

The editor never edited the talk page of Sock puppetry. The editor never had before nor never did after discuss the change discuss the change on the Sock puppetry talk page.[2][3]

Sentence restored;

After less than three months, on 08:06, 6 October 2009, an editor restored the portion of the sentence..."or longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users."[4]

For the next 144 edits up to today, the sentence has remained on the policy page, "or longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users."[5]

Arbcom never sanctioned NEWT

Critics argue:

Folks keep saying that they reported their sock accounts to arbcom before they use them to create the new articles. However, while this appears to give the impression that ArbCom has specifically sanctioned this project, they have not and this actually doesn't mean much. 06:11, 16 November 2009.

The breach experiment argument

Critics have repeatedly called NEWT a "Breaching experiment":

"...I'm not coming back to NPP either. So this disgusting breaching experiment has driven away good NPPers, good admin NPPers and one very very good admin possibly permanently." 08:16, 26 November 2009.

"But a breaching experiment that drives away high-quality editors in order to prove a point is quite literally the last of many, many other options to try first." 08:46, 26 November 2009

"I expect our 'crats not to take part in breaching experiments designed to prove a point and thus alienate some of our best editors. People who do that have no place as a 'crat." 15:12, 6 January 2010.

"...terrible judgment with the breaching experiment called NEWT." 19:54, 6 January 2010.

"Creating bios of marginally notable living person as a breaching experiment is abuse. We don't need more poorly watched bios of marginaly (sic) notable living people." 14:10, 7 January 2010.

"...recent involvement in a breaching experiment and the creation of a fake account to take part in it." 14:43, 7 January 2010.

"Thus, even though it was not the original intent, it became a breaching experiment..." 01:28, 7 January 2010.

Breaching experiment is defined as:

"In the field of social psychology, a breaching experiment is an experiment that seeks to examine peoples' reactions to violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms."

Critics claim that NEWT members were "examin[ing Wikipedian's] reactions to violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms." rules by doing the following:

Create a new wikipedia account (remembering of course to inform Arbcom per WP:Multiple Accounts by emailing (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org)
Write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria

"Creat(ing) a new wikipedia account": See #The abusive sock puppet argument
Write an article that doesn't meet the deletion criteria: i.e. write an article that meets Wikipedia standards.

What commonly accepted social rules or norms were broken?

Criticism of entries

Critics argue about a one-sentence stub created by NEWT:

"You used a sock to create a BLP on the non-notable Russ Meneve that said, in its entirety: "Russ Meneve is a comedian from Hawthorne, NJ. He was on TV at Jay Leno."". 17:02, 9 January 2010

Compare too a one-sentence stub created by Jimbo Wales:

"In September 2007, Jimbo Wales....posted a one-sentence stub about Mzoli's, a restaurant on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa. It was quickly put up for deletion in 22 minutes."[6][7]

New editor treatment

The continued treatment of new editors: PC PRO magazine journalist: "I decided to attempt an edit myself [on Wikipedia]…I wrote a roughly 100-word potted history of [The Political Quarterly]… within five minutes I received a message to the effect that this entry has no content...and has been put up for "express deletion"

"In September 2007, Jimbo Wales....posted a one-sentence stub about Mzoli's, a restaurant on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa. It was quickly put up for deletion in 22 minutes."[8][9]

"This weekend (September 2007), the English Language Wikipedia surpassed two million articles with the creation of El Hormiguero it was promptly listed on Articles for Deletion within 24 hours of creation." Andrew Lih Blog: Two Million English Wikipedia articles! Celebrate?

I am leaving NPP argument

I shan't be new page patrolling for a while now. 21:49, 16 November 2009.

But you did manage to chase away some NPP and create some ill will. 04:32, 17 November 2009.

There is no useful data, 6 NPP have quit... 15:26, 21 November 2009.

Since 6 people were chased away and we have actual clear evidence of that, the actions taken by the users of this project while using socks was clearly disruptive, regardless of their intent. 01:22, 22 November 2009.

Sorry but not one person here has defended that driving away 6 new page patrollers wasn't disruptive. 01:58, 22 November 2009.

There was no point to this experiment argument

Since this wasn't scientifically conducted, what was the point exactly? What will you take away from this other than some meaningless anecdotal evidence? The sample size was too small. There was no control, there was zero benefit from this other than User X can say they created a sock, made a pointy edit and someone did or didn't tag it in X time. What that means in the grander scale of wikipedia? Zilch. 04:32, 17 November 2009

There is no useful data... 15:26, 21 November 2009.

You haven't provided anything to back up your assertion that this was useful. 01:22, 22 November 2009

No, NEWT proved nothing. It showed what we already know already. 21:00, 7 January 2010

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Just as bad as, say, trying to prove the RFA process is broken by creating a sock with the sole intention of getting adminship to show it can be done. 21:02, 7 January 2010.