Should there be a category for admin sockpuppets, Bishonem refuses to have hers in a category Options

[chrisoff]

To Bishonen on her talk page

"Would you mind creating a category for your alt-accounts/sockpuppets? It's hard to keep track of them all. Thanks,"


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428077150

Some of her sockpuppets:

User:Little Stupid
User:Bishzilla
User:Bishapod
User:Bish and chips
User:Maxypode
User:Ka of Catherine de Burgh
User:Darwinbish
User:Bishzilla/Bishzilla diet
User:Bishonen/Bishapod
User:Baby Stupid
User:Darwinfish

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Tue 10th May 2011, 5:47pm

[Malleus]

Who cares? Did you create a category for all of your sockpuppets?

[chrisoff]

Are you asking me?

I don't have any. I thought they weren't allowed.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Admins are a different kettle of fish, since some of them routinely employ the tactic of banning their opponents in content disputes, using the sock accusation. Therefore when those admins sock they should wear some sort of scarlet letter.

[Theanima]

Bishonen can be a bit of a troll, but he/she is hardly the worst admin out there.

[chrisoff]

I'm not saying just her. I'm saying all of them.

Why are admins a special class that are allowed to do this?

[Silver seren]

I kinda made a proposal in regards to that. I was too pessimistic to think it would actually go anywhere (and it didn't), but I felt that I might as well try.

[Malleus]

I kinda made a proposal in regards to that. I was too pessimistic to think it would actually go anywhere (and it didn't), but I felt that I might as well try.

But it contains a logical inconsistency. Unless editors are required to identify on registration then all that's being registered is a name, not a person. Sockpuppets are socks of a person, not a name.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Tue 10th May 2011, 7:43pm

[Silver seren]

Well, the proposal wasn't about sockpuppets, but about alternate accounts. There is a difference, albeit a very tiny, almost insignificant one. Sockpuppets by an established user should be grounds for a block, even if people so often weasel out of it because they are established users.

[chrisoff]

There are categories for socks. I am asking why admins are exempt from this policy? I believe somewhere it says that socks should be declared. Why don't admins have to do this?

That is my question. Like a certain admin. He left editing at all rather than continue editing after his good hand/bad hand sock was identified, even though he was still allowed to use it. His whole problem wouldn't have existed if he had declared his sock to begin with.

My complaint is that admins are exempt from the socking rules, even when they use socks abusively.

This post has been edited by chrisoff: Tue 10th May 2011, 9:54pm

[gomi]

Well, the proposal wasn't about sockpuppets, but about alternate accounts. There is a difference, albeit a very tiny, almost insignificant one. Sockpuppets by an established user should be grounds for a block, even if people so often weasel out of it because they are established users.

You say "potato" ....

[Ron Ritzman]

As if Ron Ritzsock isn't obvious enough?

[Ron Ritzman]

To Bishonen on her talk page

Some of her sockpuppets:

User:Bishzilla

This one is actually used as an example of a "humor account" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

[A Horse With No Name]

You say "potato" ....

And I say "Lâche Pas La Patate"

[melloden]

There are categories for socks. I am asking why admins are exempt from this policy? I believe somewhere it says that socks should be declared. Why don't admins have to do this?

That is my question. Like a certain admin. He left editing at all rather than continue editing after his good hand/bad hand sock was identified, even though he was still allowed to use it. His whole problem wouldn't have existed if he had declared his sock to begin with.

My complaint is that admins are exempt from the socking rules, even when they use socks abusively.

Get the hell over it.

[Michaeldsuarez]

This one is actually used as an example of a "humor account" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405837433

Was there a discussion or consensus for this new exception?

[chrisoff]

This one is actually used as an example of a "humor account" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405837433

Was there a discussion or consensus for this new exception?

No.

[Silver seren]

This one is actually used as an example of a "humor account" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405837433

Was there a discussion or consensus for this new exception?

I've been looking for one, but I have yet to find it.

If someone wants to take the time, you might want to check when that part was added in and by whom. If it was added by Bishonen or one of his socks, well...that says more than enough right there.

[melloden]

This one is actually used as an example of a "humor account" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405837433

Was there a discussion or consensus for this new exception?

I've been looking for one, but I have yet to find it.

If someone wants to take the time, you might want to check when that part was added in and by whom. If it was added by Bishonen or one of his socks, well...that says more than enough right there.

Nope, by Jehochman. I think it's one of those convention things--after all, the community has tolerated such accounts. Whether for better or for worse, is another story altogether.

I don't know why this is such a big deal to you, Silver. Why make Wikipedia look more legitimate than it really is? If someone wants to have a confusingly long list of "humor" accounts, what's it to you?

[The Joy]

I believe Catherine de Burgh and the Ka of Catherine de Burgh are Giano, not Bishonen.