Useful page for deciphering RfA !votes Options

[LessHorrid vanU]

This page explains all. It is even better for having the stamp of truth upon it.

[Milton Roe]

This page explains all. It is even better for having the stamp of truth upon it.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) The longer you've been around WP, the funnier this is. Nice job.

[Eva Destruction]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

[Milton Roe]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Thanks.

bureaucrat n. An administrator so bland that they haven't managed to upset anyone.
See red tape.

Some of these are worthy of The Devil's Dictionary: "Uninvolved administrator; see Involved administrator" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Giggy]

Appropriate entry added.

[thekohser]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

spam
Any article about a company or product you've never heard of. These articles can be dealt with in one of three ways:

1. If the article is unreferenced, it can be safely deleted as nobody will bother to check how important it is.
2. If the article is referenced, it can be safely deleted and the author blocked for adding external links.
3. If the article is referenced and well-written but you've either never heard of, or don't like, the author, it can be deleted and the author tagged as suspected sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review or Runcorn.

[Giggy]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

spam
Any article about a company or product you've never heard of. These articles can be dealt with in one of three ways:

1. If the article is unreferenced, it can be safely deleted as nobody will bother to check how important it is.
2. If the article is referenced, it can be safely deleted and the author blocked for adding external links.
3. If the article is referenced and well-written but you've either never heard of, or don't like, the author, it can be deleted and the author tagged as suspected sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review or Runcorn.

Iridescent is a big fan of yours, it seems (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[thekohser]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

spam
Any article about a company or product you've never heard of. These articles can be dealt with in one of three ways:

1. If the article is unreferenced, it can be safely deleted as nobody will bother to check how important it is.
2. If the article is referenced, it can be safely deleted and the author blocked for adding external links.
3. If the article is referenced and well-written but you've either never heard of, or don't like, the author, it can be deleted and the author tagged as suspected sockpuppet of Wikipedia Review or Runcorn.

Iridescent is a big fan of yours, it seems (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

"referenced and well-written"... if that's my Wikipedia legacy, I'm happy.

[Cla68]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Thanks.

bureaucrat n. An administrator so bland that they haven't managed to upset anyone.
See red tape.

Some of these are worthy of The Devil's Dictionary: "Uninvolved administrator; see Involved administrator" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I have a copy of the Devil's Dictionary somewhere in my book pile. I should pull it out and start adding quotes from it to the top of my userpage or to my signature here. Anyway, this list is funny and some of the guide points are spot on.

[Giggy]

Don't neglect its parent page, WP:WIKISPEAK...

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Thanks.

bureaucrat n. An administrator so bland that they haven't managed to upset anyone.
See red tape.

Some of these are worthy of The Devil's Dictionary: "Uninvolved administrator; see Involved administrator" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I have a copy of the Devil's Dictionary somewhere in my book pile. I should pull it out and start adding quotes from it to the top of my userpage or to my signature here. Anyway, this list is funny and some of the guide points are spot on.

I hope you're on the lookout for a "Oppose, too quick to be involved in drama." (#21) next time you're up for RfA. I just wonder if anyone will pull a "Support per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[guy]

Appropriate entry added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225714800 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And here's Iridescent, bidding for the WR award for "Admin with the best sense of humour"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225038174

She also added the bit about Spam

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215789421

but the reference to Runcorn is due to Nousernamesleft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=220780413

[Alex]

This page shows precisely what a joke RfA is. Why can't it just be a straight vote, with no comments? It would certainly remove a lot of the nastiness.

[Eva Destruction]

This page shows precisely what a joke RfA is. Why can't it just be a straight vote, with no comments? It would certainly remove a lot of the nastiness.

Because then, A would vote "oppose" on B's RFA, but without giving an explanation B would then come to A's talkpage to ask why, thus spreading the incoherent ramblings across multiple pages; at least this way it keeps all the bitching and backstabbing on a single page which is auto-archived after five days. I could make a case for a secret ballot of established editors (along the lines of the WMF election), although I suspect you'd get a lot of "opposes" for really lame reasons. At least forcing people to explain their actions prevents the cabal of 12 year olds, for instance, from blatantly block-voting their buddies through.

The RFA process is undoubtedly a mess – lest we forget, it used to look like this – but nobody seems able to come up with a viable alternative. (I don't include "splitting the tools" as a viable alternative; even splitting off the relatively uncontroversial rollback function has caused huge amounts of idiocy and huge chunks of valid material "accidentaly" reverted. Once you get to the "high power" core admin functions, I can't imagine any grounds when I'd trust someone to block users but not to delete articles, for instance, so we'd still need an approval process for protect/block/delete.)

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[guy]

The RFA process is undoubtedly a mess ?Çô lest we forget, it used to look like this

Ah yes, much more civilised then. It's still like that on some of the minor wikis.

[Kelly Martin]

The RFA process is undoubtedly a mess – lest we forget, it used to look like this

Ah yes, much more civilised then. It's still like that on some of the minor wikis.

It's amusing looking over those old admins and noting "Hey, there's Stevertigo, who got desysoped in a rather ugly way"; "Ah, RickK, the sockpuppeting sysop" (it's been conclusively proven now that Zoe and RickK are the same person, although the proof is not widely known); and of course Alex756, aka Alex Roshuk, who is well-known for leaving Wikipedia in a huff when Jimmy & Co. dememberized the Foundation.

[Eva Destruction]

The RFA process is undoubtedly a mess – lest we forget, it used to look like this

Ah yes, much more civilised then. It's still like that on some of the minor wikis.

It's amusing looking over those old admins and noting "Hey, there's Stevertigo, who got desysoped in a rather ugly way"; "Ah, RickK, the sockpuppeting sysop" (it's been conclusively proven now that Zoe and RickK are the same person, although the proof is not widely known); and of course Alex756, aka Alex Roshuk, who is well-known for leaving Wikipedia in a huff when Jimmy & Co. dememberized the Foundation.

RickK, as in "Poster boy of the automated tools brigade" RickK?

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Kelly Martin]

RickK, as in "Poster boy of the automated tools brigade" RickK?

That's the one. Also known as User:Zoe. We long suspected that Zoe and RickK were one and the same, but had no proof, until recently. It's a moot point as Zoe hasn't edited since February 2007. If Rick is still around, he's editing under some other account that is, as of yet, not known to anyone other than him.

[thekohser]

This page shows precisely what a joke RfA is. Why can't it just be a straight vote, with no comments? It would certainly remove a lot of the nastiness.

Wikipedia wouldn't serve its purpose, then, to be the world's largest revenge platform.

[Giggy]

This page shows precisely what a joke RfA is. Why can't it just be a straight vote, with no comments? It would certainly remove a lot of the nastiness.

Wikipedia wouldn't serve its purpose, then, to be the world's largest revenge platform.

Yes, and hundreds of people would have nothing left to do.

[michael]

RickK, as in "Poster boy of the automated tools brigade" RickK?

That's the one. Also known as User:Zoe. We long suspected that Zoe and RickK were one and the same, but had no proof, until recently. It's a moot point as Zoe hasn't edited since February 2007. If Rick is still around, he's editing under some other account that is, as of yet, not known to anyone other than him.

Seriously? RickK was Zoe? How as this proof obtained? Did he admit to it, or what?

[everyking]

RickK, as in "Poster boy of the automated tools brigade" RickK?

That's the one. Also known as User:Zoe. We long suspected that Zoe and RickK were one and the same, but had no proof, until recently. It's a moot point as Zoe hasn't edited since February 2007. If Rick is still around, he's editing under some other account that is, as of yet, not known to anyone other than him.

I'd like to know more about this proof. I've always maintained RickK was one of the worst admins in WP history, but his legacy is much vaunted by some. A convincing display of evidence that he was engaged in such severe sockpuppetry would help in deflating the myth that such highly aggressive and unilateral admins can be a positive force.

[Kelly Martin]

I'd like to know more about this proof. I've always maintained RickK was one of the worst admins in WP history, but his legacy is much vaunted by some. A convincing display of evidence that he was engaged in such severe sockpuppetry would help in deflating the myth that such highly aggressive and unilateral admins can be a positive force.

The RickK and Zoe accounts both have the same password, and that password may be readily guessed from knowing RickK's email address, which is itself can be discovered with only moderate difficulty after analyzing some of Rick's comments on the wiki.

Technically, since RickK and Zoe never overlapped editing, it's not abusive sockpuppetry as defined by Wikipedia.

[Giggy]

You mean he made his password the same (or similar) to his email address? O.o

[everyking]

I'd like to know more about this proof. I've always maintained RickK was one of the worst admins in WP history, but his legacy is much vaunted by some. A convincing display of evidence that he was engaged in such severe sockpuppetry would help in deflating the myth that such highly aggressive and unilateral admins can be a positive force.

The RickK and Zoe accounts both have the same password, and that password may be readily guessed from knowing RickK's email address, which is itself can be discovered with only moderate difficulty after analyzing some of Rick's comments on the wiki.

Technically, since RickK and Zoe never overlapped editing, it's not abusive sockpuppetry as defined by Wikipedia.

How did you come to learn that they have the same password? Who did all this research? I don't see how this proof can be substantiated. Given my interactions with Rick, it's easy for me to believe that he was up to something like this, but given my interactions with you, it's hard for me to believe you about anything. I just realized something that makes me think you're telling the truth, though: Rick and Zoe were both extremely touchy about having Jimbo's approval. Zoe left the project over that, and I believe Rick threatened to. It may have been the reason he left as well; I don't quite remember. He claimed something about vandals being respected and good contributors being maligned, but since he constantly abused good contributors I doubt that was the real reason.

[Kelly Martin]

How did you come to learn that they have the same password? Who did all this research? I don't see how this proof can be substantiated.

I am not going to discuss how we found this out, or who was involved in the research. It could be substantiated by logging into both accounts with the common password, but I'm not enough of a fool to post the password to a Wikipedia admin account on Wikipedia Review, or give it to you privately.

Eventually, I would imagine, someone with a brain over in Wikiland will see this and decide to suspend both accounts as the security risk they are, but until they do...

This post has been edited by Kelly Martin:

[Kelly Martin]

Eventually, I would imagine, someone with a brain over in Wikiland will see this and decide to suspend both accounts as the security risk they are, but until they do...

Thatcher emailed me asking for the password. I, of course, declined to tell him. He could try emailing RickK and/or Zoe; both accounts are email-enabled, after all (different addresses, too, which kinda surprised me, but Zoe's account is a Yahoo freebie).

This post has been edited by Kelly Martin:

[Daniel]

It really didn't require a demonstration, but oh well. Both accounts desysopped and blocked.

[Newyorkbrad]

How did you come to learn that they have the same password? Who did all this research? I don't see how this proof can be substantiated.

I am not going to discuss how we found this out, or who was involved in the research. It could be substantiated by logging into both accounts with the common password, but I'm not enough of a fool to post the password to a Wikipedia admin account on Wikipedia Review, or give it to you privately.

Eventually, I would imagine, someone with a brain over in Wikiland will see this and decide to suspend both accounts as the security risk they are, but until they do...

Publicizing this information in this way was highly inappropriate.

[Kelly Martin]

Publicizing this information in this way was highly inappropriate.

Probably. However, as Thatcher was more than willing to tell me in email, nobody in Wikiland would have believed me anyway:

So you expect some steward to take your word for it, or you hope someone will figure it out and get up to mischief in order to get the accounts blocked or something?

Tell me, Newyorkbrad, have you known me to lie?

This post has been edited by Kelly Martin:

[Newyorkbrad]

Publicizing this information in this way was highly inappropriate.

Probably. However, as Thatcher was more than willing to tell me in email, nobody in Wikiland would have believed me anyway:

So you expect some steward to take your word for it, or you hope someone will figure it out and get up to mischief in order to get the accounts blocked or something?

Tell me, Newyorkbrad, have you known me to lie?

No. Incidentally, that second quote is not my writing. If it's an unauthorized quotation from a private e-mail, I would consider that inappropriate as well.

This post has been edited by Newyorkbrad:

[Kelly Martin]

No. Incidentally, that second quote is not my writing. If it's an unauthorized quotation from a private e-mail, I would consider that inappropriate as well.

It is an unauthorized quotation from an private e-mail (from Thatcher, as the text of my post indicates, although apparently not clearly enough; I tried to make the bbcode mark it as being Thatcher but I apparently fail at bbcode), and I don't care terribly much if you think it's inappropriate, as I'm sure you are already well aware. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Newyorkbrad]

No. Incidentally, that second quote is not my writing. If it's an unauthorized quotation from a private e-mail, I would consider that inappropriate as well.

It is an unauthorized quotation from an private e-mail (from Thatcher, as the text of my post indicates, although apparently not clearly enough; I tried to make the bbcode mark it as being Thatcher but I apparently fail at bbcode), and I don't care terribly much if you think it's inappropriate, as I'm sure you are already well aware. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I think I am getting a taste of what life would have been like had we been in the Cabal at the same time. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I think I am getting a taste of what life would have been like had we been in the Cabal at the same time. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Who knows, maybe you would have talked some sense into me, or vice versa.

As I said to Thatcher: "I have no real incentive to go out of my way to help Wikipedia; you've systematically treated me like shit for long enough that you have no expectation of anything other than arms-length dealings."

[Rootology]

Stupid question, but--what bit of publicized information was inappropriate, Brad? I'm assuming you mean the semi-vague instructions on how to find the RickK/Zoe password, assuming someone with a clue hasn't already changed it for security reasons, and not the fact the two accounts may be one and the same person? If it was a sock relationship why would that disclosure be inappropriate? Things like that are routinely disclosed...