FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
Should there be a category for admin sockpuppets -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

 
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Should there be a category for admin sockpuppets, Bishonem refuses to have hers in a category
chrisoff
post
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
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: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

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:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post
Post #22


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
Who cares? Did you create a category for all of your sockpuppets?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post
Post #23


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
Are you asking me?

I don't have any. I thought they weren't allowed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post
Post #24


Ãœber Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 18,566
Bishonen can be a bit of a troll, but he/she is hardly the worst admin out there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
I'm not saying just her. I'm saying all of them.

Why are admins a special class that are allowed to do this?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post
Post #28


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:40pm) *

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:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post
Post #29


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post
Post #30


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
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:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post
Post #31


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th May 2011, 1:21pm) *
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" ....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Ritzman
post
Post #32


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined:
Member No.: 10,523
As if Ron Ritzsock isn't obvious enough? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ron Ritzman
post
Post #33


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined:
Member No.: 10,523
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Tue 10th May 2011, 1:45pm) *

To Bishonen on her talk page

Some of her sockpuppets: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

User:Bishzilla


This one is actually used as an example of a "humor account" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post
Post #34


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 10th May 2011, 6:47pm) *

You say "potato" ....


And I say "Lâche Pas La Patate"



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post
Post #35


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:29pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post
Post #36


Ãœber Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(Ron Ritzman @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:45am) *
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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrisoff
post
Post #37


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th May 2011, 9:29pm) *

QUOTE(Ron Ritzman @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:45am) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined:
Member No.: 36,940
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:29am) *

QUOTE(Ron Ritzman @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:45am) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post
Post #39


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:59am) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:29am) *

QUOTE(Ron Ritzman @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:45am) *
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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post
Post #40


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
I believe Catherine de Burgh and the Ka of Catherine de Burgh are Giano, not Bishonen.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)