On 4/19/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I see 'Infodmz' in there. You could try pointing out to him that > that's your account and you'd like to use it please, and that you're > not using it as a deceptive sockpuppet - Ryulong deals with a lot of > troll and vandal crap so tends to terns block messages, but is quite > approachable and not a bad guy.

I already requested unblock, I'm more shocked he would do something like this.

On 4/19/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Except he appears offline leaving multiple admins (likely) blocked needlessly and against policy, based on the inevitable IP autoblock.

The SPA's used for the disccussion were acceptable under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, and I will be seeking to make formal complaint against the actions of this administrator in attempting to bring people out of the wood-work who were following policy and protocol with their SPA's. Whether you think people should use their real ID or not is your opinion, those who used and SPA are backed by policy. -Cascadia. "Info Control" <infodmz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191538n618e9fe7v7b9ed3ac8ac4806a@mail.gmail.com ... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Your trolling on this mailing list is also not helping your cause either. On 4/19/07, Cascadia &lt;cascadia(a)privatenoc.com&gt; wrote: will administrator -- Pilotguy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Anyway, would someone be willing to review these blocks? Ryulong's action appears to be violating the block policy as there is vio by using SPAs as pointed out:

So, for trying to protect their privacy further, at least a half-dozen admins are currently [blocked]. And, perhaps unwilling to now ask for direct unblock, to avoid exposing who they were...

Presumably they can still edit under their existing usernames.

Users have no right to sock. Multiple accounts are tolerated.

In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.

I don't consider it a right, my statement of 'incorrect' was directed at the 'lack of a rule' part of the quote, I'll be a little clearer next time :)

when someone says that the process is abused because theres no rule against it, the implication is that its not addressed. It's akin to me saying 'Theres no rule that says you have to put POV into articles'.

In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.

On 4/20/07, Brock Weller &lt;brock.weller(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Don't make a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia. It is not something to rely on. The conduct of socks on that thread was not our finest hour, and if these socks become more disruptive they will be blocked. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 4/20/07, Cascadia &lt;cascadia(a)privatenoc.com&gt; wrote: saw There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock, stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime" called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community" Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just rabble-rousing. on completely I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. There is no implication of bad faith, just an unfortunate tendency to treat written policy as holy scripture. not The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock, stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime" called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community" Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just rabble-rousing.

The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.

Cascadia: Written policy isn't the only policy on wiki. Jimbo enjoys whats gently poked at as God-Kingship because he owns the site,

its his,

we do what he says when he pulls that card in his subtle way.

Not because its really codified, but as convention. Many countries, including the UK, have constitutional rights that aren't in the constitution,

they evolved as convention over hundreds of years.

I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??

I'm not trying to rile things up, I have serious disagreements with the definitions of "disruption" and "trolling" that have been used today.

The comments cited by Tony show less disruption and more of "I don't like their comments, so they are disruptive and trolling".

"Tony Sidaway" &lt;tonysidaway(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704200417s6e055daeh26399aa39211a714@mail.gmail.com... Well... let's see. Jimbo Wales made the decision to unblock Daniel Brandt. The whole discussion is whether or not he had the authority to do that. I think that accurately describes the situation.

Tony Sidaway wrote: Come now, how did Ryulong's actions put people in danger? His block *prevented* them from editing Wikipedia. We still don't know their

the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have

On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway &lt;tonysidaway(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

> I hope the checkusers have > investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).

I hope that any checkusers abusing the privacy of their peers with undocumented, out of policy, out of bounds, and wrong use of the tool would be hauled in front of ArbCom and/or desysopped/banned.