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

Sockpuppet arguments

So they're disrupting disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, socking and what else? 05:40, 15 November 2009

Not that I think they should be creating any at all like this or disruptively socking, but they can't even follow their own guidelines. So once again if they're disruptively socking and going beyond the bounds of this supposed "experiment" why aren't they blocked? 11:35, 15 November 2009.

This entire mess is a classic case of disruptive sockpuppetry-- the only reason the perpetrators are being given a pass is because they, supposedly, have good intentions. 13:47, 15 November 2009

Essentially, you're putting people off doing it, and you're forcing them to deal with what is esentially (sic) time-wasting through disruptive socking and the deliberate creation of crap articles. 14:00, 15 November 2009.

I see neither merit not mandate to perform this "experiment". I see no justification for can only be seen as admitted disruptive socking. 12:12, 16 November 2009

The guidelines of this experiment strictly say that shouldn't be the case and I maintain that these are disruptive socks making pointy edits. 01:34, 16 November 2009.

You actually don't see why sock puppetry. deception and entrapment are corrosive of trust and abusive of good faith editors that wade through mountains of crap every day trying to weed out the worst. 17:02, 9 January 2010

I don't see anywhere on WP:SOCK where "gaming the system to catch out people we don't like" is a valid reason, but I do see quite a few valid reasons for not doing so. This is just people playing at being spies, and it smacks of so much of the "let's all pretend we're actually really important" attitude that poisons this place. 21:49, 16 November 2009.

Experienced editors creating articles which don't belong on wikipedia is disruptive. They created those articles while using socks. The did this to try and prove some point. 08:44, 17 November 2009.

If they're talking about creating more disruptive socks to do more tests, they need permission and mandate. 00:56, 21 November 2009.

Because if you look under Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts You won't see anything that covers this situation. not to mention that the editors are intentionally trying to make "bad" edits and behave as noobies and make mistakes to appear new and fool New page patrollers into believing they are so as to be treated as a new editor would be treated. For a long-term editor to start doing that, is in my opinion, disruptivie in itself to begin with. 14:12, 21 November 2009

There is no useful data, 6 NPP have quit, some of the socks were used inappropriately, and there are a lot of "borderline" things happening all over that created numerous issues. 15:26, 21 November 2009.

I still don't agree that these socks were legitimate accounts. Experiencing the site as a new user is not the same as impersonating a new user to the degree that some users introduced bad edits and inappropriate articles to wikipedia, that is disruptive. 01:22, 22 November 2009.

I said they need the communities permission to create socks which violated policy, which some clearly did. 01:58, 22 November 2009

In short, questionable sock activity from experienced users arguably against policy happened from admins performing questionably unethical tasks to arguably trap editors into what they thought were "tough calls" on new articles to see if they would get a speedy delete tag. 14:07, 7 January 2010.

Intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to try and prove this point, through the misuse of sockpuppets creating purposely poor articles (including marginal BLPs) is all that was achieved (in addition to pissing off those who work hard on new page patrol dealing with real new editors) 21:00, 7 January 2010.

No. Every established editor who created a sock and masqueraded as a new user lied. That's an established fact, and has nothing to do with assumptions or bad faith. 19:59, 9 January 2010.

Why don't you stop defending the indefensible? The fellow who started the newt page changed the sock policy to suit his purposes. That it persists there is an ongoing embarressment (I won't fight that battle because i don't have the clout).

ideal stub

WP:IDEALSTUB:

"When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context—articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted."

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A1:

Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." This applies only to very short articles.