|
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.
|
|
Should there be a category for admin sockpuppets, Bishonem refuses to have hers in a category |
|
|
chrisoff |
|
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=428077150Some 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:
|
|
|
|
Ron Ritzman |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined:
Member No.: 10,523
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Ritzman |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Silver seren |
|
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=405837433Was 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 |
|
.
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=405837433Was 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?
|
|
|
|
Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:59am) 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.
"His"? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:24pm) 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?
Because he's an unflinching bureaucrat with a humour deficiency and needs to lighten up a bit?
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
The addition of "humor" accounts. (first addition), January 11, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405882394Why should admins with multiple "humour accounts still not have to categorize them? Otherwise, the owner of the sockpuppets is operating incognito, and newbies and editors not in the "in group" are made fools of. Humour varies across ages, nationalities, etc. Not everyone is British. This post has been edited by chrisoff:
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 11th May 2011, 11:23am) QUOTE(chrisoff @ Wed 11th May 2011, 4:16pm) Otherwise, the owner of the sockpuppets is operating incognito, and newbies and editors not in the "in group" are made fools of. Isn't that the definition of trolling? So shouldn't trolling admins still have to identify their sockpuppets per policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428303113
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:00pm) The joke accounts exemption was added by one user to the policy by Jehochman, an admin, with no community concensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405882394 Darwinbish ran for admin. How are new users, or those not in the cabal supposed to make sense of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=407658504I hate to be a Wiki-lawyer (and I usually don't agree with much of Jehochman's actions), but Jehochman is technically in the right in this case. Wikipedia policies usually begin as de facto common practices and, after a long time, become de jure policies. Early on, Wikipedians just did whatever they thought was best and what they did became policy for good or ill. Jehochman has stated that it is a common practice for Wikipedians to accept (or at least begrudgingly tolerate) alternate humor accounts. Except for a few complaints, there has never been an uprising or community discussion to put an end to alternative accounts or limiting their use. Until then, Darwinfish and friends are free and clear. Unless those accounts act in a way to sway a consensus discussion as a bad sock would, they are only, at worst, annoying. And if being annoying is enough to get people banned from Wikipedia, there would hardly be any Wikipedians left! It does seem that in recent years, you can hardly sneeze without a community discussion on Wikipedia. That isn't how it was before and it is downright impossible to gather enough of anything you could call "Community consensus" to make any changes. The purpose of the early organic management of Wikipedia (which created "Ignore All Rules") was to avoid bureaucratic entanglements such as getting dozens or hundreds of editors together to change the rules. Alas, there is no balance between the "organic" and "bureaucratic" philosophies on Wikipedia. Another reason the site suffers so.
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
"See, the thing is, Iridescent falls for the seduction of the dark side of the sock anyway! Once you move away from ''a straightforward "no more than ONE account for anyone and they have to be clearly linked" rule for everyone'', you've lost any chance of getting agreement to it. Some people will give you good reasons for two accounts; some will explain that three are needed. And so on, until you get to six (for 'Shonen, 'Zilla, 'Poddie, the Darwin twins, and a spare). A rule of one would have the saving grace that there's a chance Geogre would still be with us had it existed from the start, but realistically, that's all too late now. Once you've accepted that people need/like having a few accounts, you've got to accept that under current rules Jack is discriminated against. And don't forget that since his socking days of 2007/2008, Jack has consistently edited from only one account until he felt the need to protest his outdated restriction by kicking against it with Gold Hat. One can only assume that had he not made a fuss, he'd be kept under indefinite restrictions until the heat death of the universe. " - Famously Sharp http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428943100 (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) This post has been edited by chrisoff:
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
"FWIW, Arbcom has a secondary mailing list; when a member of the committee is recused from something controversial, the supplemental list is broken out of hibernation, all discussion related to the topic is shunted across to it, and the member in question is temporarily unsubscribed. Arbcom is considerably less corrupt than a lot of people think; if the shit ever does hit the fan, the Arbcom archives are where the subpoenas are gonna be aimed, so it's much more by-the-book than you might believe. There's also the obvious point that if Arbcom were really working as a cabal cooking up deals behind the scenes, we wouldn't have quite so many situations (including this one) where it's impossible to get anyone to agree on anything. The Arbcom mailing list isn't so much "stitching up backroom deals", but more "OK, whose turn is it to reply to [insert crank-of-the-day] this time?". "WRT this particular case, I'm coming round to the view that the right way to stop Jack being singled out for special treatment is to keep the one-account-without-good-reason-to-do-otherwise restriction on Jack, but to spread that ruling out project-wide, even if it means sending Zilla and Catherine into retirement. The time sucked up by endless "is this account legitimate, is that account legitimate?" threads must add up to an impressive figure by now; a straightforward "no more than two accounts for anyone and they have to be clearly linked" rule for everyone would have saved most of this time." – iridescent http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428931720
|
|
|
|
Ron Ritzman |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined:
Member No.: 10,523
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 13th May 2011, 5:07am)
I hate to be a Wiki-lawyer (and I usually don't agree with much of Jehochman's actions), but Jehochman is technically in the right in this case. Wikipedia policies usually begin as de facto common practices and, after a long time, become de jure policies.
BINGO Take a look at the history of WP:NOT which is one of the most often quoted policies. It was first marked as "policy" back in 2005 without any discussion at all. ( or even an edit summary) Most likely because it was already "de facto" policy. Try that today without an RFC and you get raked over the coals.
|
|
|
|
chrisoff |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 199
Joined:
Member No.: 17,248
|
QUOTE Take a look at the history of WP:NOT which is one of the most often quoted policies. It was first marked as "policy" back in 2005 without any discussion at all. ( or even an edit summary) Most likely because it was already "de facto" policy. Try that today without an RFC and you get raked over the coals. Really? Cause Jehochman added the joke sockpuppet provision on January 11, 2011 with no discussion, no RFC, and with the edit summary "more" which is not exactly explaining anything. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405882394This post has been edited by chrisoff:
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Sat 14th May 2011, 10:46am) QUOTE Take a look at the history of WP:NOT which is one of the most often quoted policies. It was first marked as "policy" back in 2005 without any discussion at all. ( or even an edit summary) Most likely because it was already "de facto" policy. Try that today without an RFC and you get raked over the coals. Really? Cause Jehochman added the joke sockpuppet provision on January 11, 2011 with no discussion, no RFC, and with the edit summary "more" which is not exactly explaining anything. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405882394Possibly due to the scarcity of people who distribute a rodent's posterior.
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sat 14th May 2011, 5:54pm) QUOTE(chrisoff @ Sat 14th May 2011, 10:46am) QUOTE Take a look at the history of WP:NOT which is one of the most often quoted policies. It was first marked as "policy" back in 2005 without any discussion at all. ( or even an edit summary) Most likely because it was already "de facto" policy. Try that today without an RFC and you get raked over the coals. Really? Cause Jehochman added the joke sockpuppet provision on January 11, 2011 with no discussion, no RFC, and with the edit summary "more" which is not exactly explaining anything. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405882394Possibly due to the scarcity of people who distribute a rodent's posterior. Don't bother, Zoloft. Chrisoff didn't bother listening when I told him five posts ago. This post has been edited by melloden:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |