Admin Caught Socking by CU and ARBCOM, ARB R&I Sock Options

[Beer me]

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...tions/Mikemikev

[Mathsci]

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...tions/Mikemikev

This was all very strange and the outcome quite surprising. It was the second request for a sockpuppet investigation concerning Rrrrr5, but this time with checkuser ticked. Maunus made the first request, smelling a rat, but nothing was found then. It seems that the accounts are all operated by one person, so at the moment it doesn't seem to be a hacked password.

[melloden]

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...tions/Mikemikev

This was all very strange and the outcome quite surprising. It was the second request for a sockpuppet investigation concerning Rrrrr5, but this time with checkuser ticked. Maunus made the first request, smelling a rat, but nothing was found then. It seems that the accounts are all operated by one person, so at the moment it doesn't seem to be a hacked password.

CU evidence goes back three months. There's no way they could have told if the person using Spencer195 was the same one using it now.

[Detective]

CU evidence goes back three months. There's no way they could have told if the person using Spencer195 was the same one using it now.

Up to a point. If a checkuser is run now it can only go back three months. But maybe Spencer195 had been checked at some point in the past, whether for some reason or just because a CU felt like doing it That CU could have copied the results to a file and kept it. Or maybe Spencer195 was stupid enough to send someone an e-mail not using Gmail; then the IP would be in the e-mail header forever.

This post has been edited by Detective:

[melloden]

CU evidence goes back three months. There's no way they could have told if the person using Spencer195 was the same one using it now.

Up to a point. If a checkuser is run now it can only go back three months. But maybe Spencer195 had been checked at some point in the past, whether for some reason or just because a CU felt like doing it That CU could have copied the results to a file and kept it. Or maybe Spencer195 was stupid enough to send someone an e-mail not using Gmail; then the IP would be in the e-mail header forever.

Given that he stopped editing in 2005, I find that highly unlikely. Also, I doubt Mikemikev knows Mandarin.

[Mathsci]

CU evidence goes back three months. There's no way they could have told if the person using Spencer195 was the same one using it now.

Up to a point. If a checkuser is run now it can only go back three months. But maybe Spencer195 had been checked at some point in the past, whether for some reason or just because a CU felt like doing it That CU could have copied the results to a file and kept it. Or maybe Spencer195 was stupid enough to send someone an e-mail not using Gmail; then the IP would be in the e-mail header forever.

Given that he stopped editing in 2005, I find that highly unlikely. Also, I doubt Mikemikev knows Mandarin.

Mikemikev spent four months in China teaching English as a foreign langauge at the North China Electric University., although the timing is wrong.

Spencer195 has now been indefinitely blocked by Deskana, who gave these reasons for blocking.

[Gruntled]

Spencer195 has now been indefinitely blocked by Deskana, who gave these reasons for blocking.

Seems to be a masterpiece of Wikilogic.

Secondly, you state that the policy on alternative accounts was different and asked what policy you violated. That is not an adequate defense. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; the fact that the policy has changed does not mean that community standards have. Thirdly, I was active around the time you left and I can assure you that this kind of behaviour was also unacceptable back then, regardless of what the policy stated.

Deskana concedes that no policy was violated but claims that Spencer's behaviour was nevertheless so unacceptable that a block was needed. Why? On what grounds?

Thidly (sic), you also stated that you don't see what you did wrong. This is the most disturbing thing, and the one (sic) of the main reasons I have blocked you.

Fancy that! He believed that since he acted 100% in accordance with policy he had done nothing wrong!! Block him immediately!!!

[Milton Roe]

Spencer195 has now been indefinitely blocked by Deskana, who gave these reasons for blocking.

Seems to be a masterpiece of Wikilogic.

Secondly, you state that the policy on alternative accounts was different and asked what policy you violated. That is not an adequate defense. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; the fact that the policy has changed does not mean that community standards have. Thirdly, I was active around the time you left and I can assure you that this kind of behaviour was also unacceptable back then, regardless of what the policy stated.

Deskana concedes that no policy was violated but claims that Spencer's behaviour was nevertheless so unacceptable that a block was needed. Why? On what grounds?

Thidly (sic), you also stated that you don't see what you did wrong. This is the most disturbing thing, and the one (sic) of the main reasons I have blocked you.

Fancy that! He believed that since he acted 100% in accordance with policy he had done nothing wrong!! Block him immediately!!!

Favorite quote from this thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._of_permissions :

On a side note, does anyone know if "I'm an admin" pickup lines work? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

Favorite quote from this thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._of_permissions :

On a side note, does anyone know if "I'm an admin" pickup lines work? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The part that really caught my eye:

The opposite would also be a red flag situation. If an account remains active for much longer than a century, you can be sure that the original editor is deceased and the account has been handed over to someone else. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We do have some ninety years to come up with a procedure for such cases. — Coren (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure ... though the idea of hereditary adminship is rather appealing (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Roger Davies talk 06:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
... and some editors already think we're Lords in a fiefdom ... :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if that were the case, we'd need to determine whether administrative rights are transferred by cognatic or agnatic primogeniture. ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Why are you excluding matrilineal primogeniture? — Coren (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And Salic law. Let's not forget Salic law. Roger Davies talk 20:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The day we have the "Viscount of Vandal-Whacking", I'm running fast and far (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) SirFozzie (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User:SonOfPedro has already been promised his birth-right. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A) their idea of "humor" is extremely nerdy, and not the slightest bit funny;
B) I would not be surprised if a few of them really DO want Wikipedia adminship to be inheritable.
Now, THAT would be funny. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[melloden]

A) their idea of "humor" is extremely nerdy, and not the slightest bit funny;

Er, everything on the Internet is nerdy. Except non-tech-savvy people, who need to get off the Internet.