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
> "An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet...", WTF? Expressed concern?
Piperdown
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:32am
Post #1


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995
WTF is this...did they change a template or something? I never noticed this weasel wording.

"An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of WordBomb."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piperdown

Expressed concern ? That's what it takes to get someone banned?

I'd like to express concern that David Gerard may be seriously fucked in the head. How's that?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robster
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:45am
Post #2


"Community"? Really?
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue 20th Mar 2007, 2:24am
Member No.: 1,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


Now it's judgment by random slander?

Nice. Welcome to Salem 2007, where finger-pointing carries the weight of evidence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:47am
Post #3


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,833
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042
Sorry you got blocked, but that post is really funny.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:48am
Post #4


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995
QUOTE(Robster @ Thu 15th November 2007, 2:45am) *

Now it's judgment by random slander?

Nice. Welcome to Salem 2007, where finger-pointing carries the weight of evidence.


Well, I wouldn't call that slander. Wordbomb is a better person than I am. It would probably be slander for wordbomb to be accused of being piperdown. ;-)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nathan
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:49am
Post #5


Retired
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,609
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:35pm
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 17

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


I also think think that wording is ridiculous.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:50am
Post #6


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995
QUOTE(Emperor @ Thu 15th November 2007, 2:47am) *

Sorry you got blocked, but that post is really funny.


No worries. I place being funny as a higher priorty in life than being allowed to give the slimeballs at WP free labour.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Thu 15th November 2007, 2:51am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WordBomb
post Thu 15th November 2007, 3:40am
Post #7


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed 26th Jul 2006, 4:09am
Member No.: 309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 14th November 2007, 10:48pm) *
Well, I wouldn't call that slander. Wordbomb is a better person than I am. It would probably be slander for wordbomb to be accused of being piperdown. ;-)
This might be the first time I've solidly disagreed with you. But thank you anyway.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Derktar
post Thu 15th November 2007, 4:38am
Post #8


WR Black Ops
******

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined: Sat 11th Aug 2007, 3:37am
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


Who is this mysterious "editor" they speak of...is he hiding behind the drapes?

Edit: Ah here we go.

And by the way, what the heck is up with all the collapsible javascript tables, when did they catch on?

This post has been edited by Derktar: Thu 15th November 2007, 4:42am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Thu 15th November 2007, 5:05am
Post #9


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


Well, if you say that "it is suspected", logic requires you to demonstrate that more than one or two people have such suspicions. If you just say that a concern has been expressed, you can block guilt free! Just so long as you supress actual rational thought, but who cares?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 15th November 2007, 5:34am
Post #10


Can't actually moderate
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,814
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
Perhaps these helpful, attractive templates will encourage other editors to come forward with their own suspicions about the alleged identities of their various fellow editors, which in turn could encourage those editors to express their own suspicions about them. Ultimately, this could lead to greater transparency and openness among all editors, eliminating the stigma associated with having a "pseudonymous" identity among otherwise "real" people. The end result? A veritable Utopia of camaraderie and cooperation, based on full knowledge of suspicions about everyone's multiple identities! Indeed, it would be a model society for all social-networking websites to emulate! Why, I can see it now!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
msharma
post Thu 15th November 2007, 6:01am
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed 15th Aug 2007, 2:27am
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 15th November 2007, 5:05am) *

Well, if you say that "it is suspected", logic requires you to demonstrate that more than one or two people have such suspicions. If you just say that a concern has been expressed, you can block guilt free! Just so long as you supress actual rational thought, but who cares?


Actually I think its better than "it is suspected". That does sound like everyone agrees, while the new wording makes it clear that the suspicion is just that, and not necessarily widely shared.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amarkov
post Thu 15th November 2007, 6:11am
Post #12


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:02am
From: Figure it out and get a cookie
Member No.: 3,635

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


QUOTE(msharma @ Wed 14th November 2007, 10:01pm) *

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 15th November 2007, 5:05am) *

Well, if you say that "it is suspected", logic requires you to demonstrate that more than one or two people have such suspicions. If you just say that a concern has been expressed, you can block guilt free! Just so long as you supress actual rational thought, but who cares?


Actually I think its better than "it is suspected". That does sound like everyone agrees, while the new wording makes it clear that the suspicion is just that, and not necessarily widely shared.


That's fine, if it's actually used to state a suspicion. But as we've seen, the template is used much more often as a block notice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BobbyBombastic
post Thu 15th November 2007, 8:00am
Post #13


gabba gabba hey
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,071
Joined: Mon 2nd Apr 2007, 6:27pm
From: BADCITY, Iowa
Member No.: 1,223
QUOTE(msharma @ Thu 15th November 2007, 1:01am) *

Actually I think its better than "it is suspected". That does sound like everyone agrees, while the new wording makes it clear that the suspicion is just that, and not necessarily widely shared.

The new wording also implies only one editor needs to be concerned that a user is a sock to place the tag, which I guess was done in practice anyway. What about this thing they call consensus? I thought that is how decisions were made on WP??? laugh.gif

BTW, what constitutes expressing concern? Foot tapping, maybe? Developing a twitch? Chain smoking, heavy drinking, etc? Perhaps just a troubled head shake would be enough concern...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Yehudi
post Thu 15th November 2007, 12:36pm
Post #14


Über Member
*****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed 6th Dec 2006, 10:52pm
Member No.: 694
So why not go round adding that tag to everyone's user page? Or is someone doing that already?

This post has been edited by guy: Thu 15th November 2007, 2:40pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 15th November 2007, 1:16pm
Post #15


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


I am concerned that ArbCom is insufficiently concerned about my concerns.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Thu 15th November 2007, 1:48pm
Post #16


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 15th November 2007, 1:11am) *

QUOTE(msharma @ Wed 14th November 2007, 10:01pm) *

QUOTE(Amarkov @ Thu 15th November 2007, 5:05am) *

Well, if you say that "it is suspected", logic requires you to demonstrate that more than one or two people have such suspicions. If you just say that a concern has been expressed, you can block guilt free! Just so long as you supress actual rational thought, but who cares?


Actually I think its better than "it is suspected". That does sound like everyone agrees, while the new wording makes it clear that the suspicion is just that, and not necessarily widely shared.


That's fine, if it's actually used to state a suspicion. But as we've seen, the template is used much more often as a block notice.


Challenging the validity of an account should be like challenging a word in scrabble. Some kind of penalty should result if the accusation is not substantiated with proof. Maybe the the challenger should lose his/her account as a consequence?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:00pm
Post #17


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


How about WP:NER (No Erratic Research).

As far as I am concerned, anyone suspected of Erratic Research should be served with an Indefinite Time Out (with no chance of repeal).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sparkzilla
post Thu 15th November 2007, 2:13pm
Post #18


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 27th Oct 2007, 1:41am
Member No.: 3,636

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


Jeez, check out the self-congratulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2#Feed...in_the_hot_seat
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: 22nd 5 13, 2:52pm