Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigation Unit

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 delete, disregarding comments from users who have not made substantial contributions elsewhere in the project. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigation Unit

Duplicate of WP:SSP, falls prey to same issues as the WP:CVU had of being process-bloated, likely to encourage harassment or forum shopping. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, confusing and not helpful. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This organisation seems to duplicate the purpose of WP:SSP, as explained by MBisanz, and I don't think that's particularly helpful. By all means, if editors who would have signed on as "SUI's" wish to contribute to the field of sock puppet identification, I see no reason why they could not do so at SSP; however, establishing a separate club that ultimately is unrequired isn't the way to do things. Having multiple forums investigate the same issue simply leads to resources (ie., editors' time) being wasted. No, I think we should keep things firmly at one central location.
Anthøny 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless duplication of WP:SSP Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You guys aren't understanding the main point of the unit. We're not looking to do cases or give conclusions or outcomes on a socketpuppet situation. We want help investigate an ongoing or potential case on WP:SSP. We are also looking to help editors with what to do before summiting a case on WP:SSP or any other noticeboard. We're not in anyway looking to duplicate the WP:SSP but to just help other editors draw up cases, give help and advice and tell them the right page to submit the case. Like I said, NO outcome or conclusions will be made by the unit. Please let me know if you have any other questions. --DJS24 16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

likely to encourage harassment or forum shopping. MBisanz I don't find that to be the case, editors would come to us for help, we wouldn't be searching for trouble. Just because that might have happened at CVU doesn't mean it would occur with us. Like I said, editors would need to come to us before we helped them out.--DJS24 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP is perennially in need of competent, fair-minded investigators. It seems, however, that it would be better to put a "List of users who are willing to help format and investigate cases" on SSP or its talk page, rather than create a separate wikiproject. Thatcher 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the merger at SSP2, wouldn't that sorta list be redundant to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Thatcher is understanding our point. We are looking to help investigate the cases ON WP:SSP and to help other editors with questions on (Where to summit the case; what evidence to include; How to draw up a good report: ect..). By no means are we looking to duplicate to WP:SSP. --DJS24 17:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Projects lead to "projectism", such as the disputes between the US Highways wikiprojects and individual state roads wikiprojects over naming and other stylistic issues. Such factionalism is bad. It seems that you can accomplish your purpose without a project page and special userboxes and such. Thatcher 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just going to complicate matters, and I don't see what's wrong with WP:SSP or WP:RFCU in the first place. Checkusers are always available and will respond quickly, and if an SSP report sits for a little while, you can poke an admin or experienced user. Not a big deal. Let's avoid WP:CREEPing around here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, go ahead and help by all means, but this project isn't needed for you to do that. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. miranda 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, the two involved users are certainly to be commended for their exuberance and willingness to help out. DJS24, perhaps you should look into helping clerk at SSP? I imagine they could use another set of hands there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who you might ask about procedure and such. GlassCobra 02:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would rather not have MFD take on the role of deciding what is and isn't redundant. If the group is not needed, it should be able to merge/shut down/redirect/etc. on its own without the need for outsiders to forcibly interfere. WP:NEIGHBORHOODWATCH Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded or redundant. Clerks and other experienced editors individually can fulfill this role, if you are still happy to help. Synergy 11:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the concept of the unit and it is a good idea. But I think the rassle dassle should be limited. (userboxes,etc.)--RadianSeize (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete encourages over active sock hunters which poison the project every time they accuse somone of beign a sock when they aren't Viridae ^Talk 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Guy, Hersfold, and Thatcher's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep let it play out and see where it goes. And what the heck is with the people supporting deletion because it's "redundant"? This is Wikipedia, and we do accept multiple ways to approach such situations. Failing keep, my second choice would be to userfy. It's not being disruptive or problematic, and none of the editors here can predict the future. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support Thatcher's proposal above. Changing how people think about this page will likely address the concerns brought up by the other users. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --203.194.15.123 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC) — 203.194.15.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockdrawer Guy (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) — Sockdrawer Guy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note/CommentThe two votes above should not be taken into consideration. It would appear they are most likely SPAs and are most likely (ironically) socks. I only say this because they have not made a lot or any edits to any other subject but the ones related to this MfD. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin} 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sockdrawer Guy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of MascotGuy. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Darn the Socks! Omorashi Guy (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)— Omorashi Guy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would bet that the guy above me is a sock too.--Black Watch 21 17:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You win that bet, he is a sock of Mascot guy..most obvious from the name. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin} 18:48, 10 August 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.