Geni is taking a "personally interpretive" look at the actual "rule":
In order to run you will need to have 1000 edits on en.wikipedia.
I asked Geni by private e-mail: "I don't see how you're reading the words 'only one account counts' in the above statement. I only see the word 'you', which doesn't mention accounts, but does imply talking about a person, which I am one."
Geni replied with the usual humorous wit:
"Reading? I wrote it."
Geni might want to look at [[WP:OWN]], and also explain to us why she wrote the rule with the word "you", when she apparently intended that it apply to "a single user account". This seems to be yet another case of "rule creep" to try to address single, uncomfortable situations that sometimes arise. Just what I was talking about.
Guy, I'll be the Aunt Sally, if you want to throw sticks at a man who's tied down.
On 11/7/06, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Geni is taking a "personally interpretive" look at the actual "rule":
In order to run you will need to have 1000 edits on en.wikipedia.
I asked Geni by private e-mail: "I don't see how you're reading the words 'only one account counts' in the above statement. I only see the word 'you', which doesn't mention accounts, but does imply talking about a person, which I am one."
Geni replied with the usual humorous wit:
"Reading? I wrote it."
Geni might want to look at [[WP:OWN]], and also explain to us why she wrote the rule with the word "you", when she apparently intended that it apply to "a single user account".
Because they were thrown together rather losely to allow further debate.
This seems to be yet another case of "rule creep" to try to address single, uncomfortable situations that sometimes arise. Just what I was talking about.
I fail to see how haveing you run would be an "uncomfortable situation". Pointless extra work yes but that is a normal part of the election. No I just don't want to have to deal with dozens of accounts that suddenly disscover they have socks with extra edits.
Guy, I'll be the Aunt Sally, if you want to throw sticks at a man who's tied down.
Please when the community lynches people they tie (or clasicaly I belive the word is string) them up.
and now this is getting crazy. It is accepted, if not written down, that using another account or editing anonymously while banned is ban evasion, and can get you banned. Second, I believe that editcounts are by account not user for these purposes. True, in a RfA people will take anons and other accounts into account, but here with a cut-and-dry cutoff I think it should not be counted. I read once that many admins have non-admin accounts for editing freely. That account doesn't get the adminship(even if they want it to - see TawkerbotTorA or whatever), so why should you get edits from a blocked account?
On 11/8/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
and now this is getting crazy. It is accepted, if not written down, that using another account or editing anonymously while banned is ban evasion, and can get you banned. Second, I believe that editcounts are by account not
Editing anonymously to evade blocks can get you banned even worser, yes. See [[WP:BLOCK]].
Steve
I thought so, thanks
On 11/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/8/06, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
and now this is getting crazy. It is accepted, if not written down, that using another account or editing anonymously while banned is ban
evasion,
and can get you banned. Second, I believe that editcounts are by account
not
Editing anonymously to evade blocks can get you banned even worser, yes. See [[WP:BLOCK]].
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l