What is the problem with constructive sockpuppets? It doesn't matter whether the "puppet" is vandalising og highly constructive! I thought WP were looking for more comstructive users, but they aggressively roll ovdr users showing the will and intention to straighten up.

How do you define "constructive"? Because if you define it the way most people define it, Wikipedia isn't interested in those people at all. They've already got all the articles they need, so anyone who wants to be "constructive" (by the standard definition) is little more than a potential territory-challenger.

I might also suggest that if your recent thread-starts here on WR are any indication, your own definition of the word "constructive" might be even more unconventional then theirs.

Of course, even going by a "fringe" definition of the term, a constructive person would still routinely use a spell-checker.

Agreed. I was constructive in that I was answering requests at the Illustration Workshop. After uploading two files that were requested an over-zealous admin (Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) blocked me as a sockpuppet.

I've been blocked countless times yet I've never had one edit that could be construed as vandalism.

They like vandalism, though I suppose it might be more accurate to say it's "the thing they love to hate." What they really don't like are people who force them to make hard decisions about who should be allowed to do what, because hard decisions are... hard. Nobody likes that!

I disagree, I think it's an ADD sort of thing. If you can keep the argument going that someone should be unblocked/blocked then sooner or later they lose interest, especially if the next bit of dramah comes along. Hence the unblocking of Fred the Oyster on Commons. What started out as 'give no quarter' ended as a 'meh' where no-one apparently gave a shit.

It's the dramah that these oiks want. A chance to show their mettle. The bigger the audience the more chance of an execution.

I suppose that their argument is that if someone is blocked once, they can never be trusted again. Even if they seem to be constructive, it could be subtle vandalism. Maybe they do not believe in redemption.

They believe that a bit of power is worth hanging onto and being displayed as often as possible.

I think Wikipedia should consider an amnesty policy but I doubt that will happen as long as some admins see whack-a-mole as a recreational exercise. Jpgordon even has a whack-a-mole barnstar.

I think it should be a conditional amnesty, not a general one.

Editors blocked for 'incivility' and other trivial reasons but who were otherwise constructive should get an amnesty, but those who have shown an intent to do the project genuine harm should not.

You have to see things their way. They see Wikipedia as their club and opening a user account as accepting an invitation to membership on their terms. If you don't abide by the rules, you don't deserve an account, end of story. It's hard to quarrel with this position in general.

If you want userpage full of Junior High trophys, "This user is a Wiki scalphunter with over 1,000 scalps under his belt and counting" sort thing, then your only real option is to apply for a second chance and abide by their rules in future.

If you want to add content you can usually do so on an IP address. Almost all the editing I have ever done is on IP. If your IP is blocked (because you've been blocked) then a good VPN to use is VyprVPN, which comes free with one of the big Usenet providers. This is the VPN that admins like MuZemike use for their own socks and the Washington server is always open, can't imagine why ... .

If you want to add content to a protected page or make yourself available for email, for example if you are trawling for right wing extremists, then you should create a non-controversial looking sock specifically for that page. For example if you want to add content to the James Blunt page (huge extreme right wing scene there) create a user called "JamesBluntFan88" (rather than, say, "AnotherAnneClone88"), use it exclusively for that page avoiding suggesting James is a neo-Nazi pedophile with sado-masochistic tendencies and his songs complete crap anyway, and you should be all right.

Wikipedia is sometimes a public nuisance. For example it was over the pedophile issue and it probably was over Breivik and certainly still is over right-wing extremism. From time to time an individual editor needs to be taken out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_de...rder#Lead_image. In those circumstances, according to your conscience, I think it's fair to toss the rule-book out of the window (the notorious fifth pillar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars).

Happy socking!:("This Wikipedia Reviewer is a Wikipedia fucknut crusher with over 1,000 socks in his closet and counting").