I've been having a lot of problems on Wikipedia lately. I also notice that admins apply double standards. Now I've been accused of beginning a "sockpuppet" account, and I want to begin by complaining about a suspected "sockpuppet" account myself.
Wikipedia needs improvement. There's no doubt about it. The mechanisms in place at the moment do not function well and seem too difficult to use. Moreover, it's too much for someone who doesn't want to have to spend too much time with the political part of the organization as he already has another organization and other things to do. I think I want it to end with a good approach to the Arbitration Committee if necessary, and I've refrained so far because I haven't wanted to "illustrate a point." However, even the rules get questionable descriptions and arbitrary applications.
Ideas/Help?
Thanks!
Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
I've been having a lot of problems on Wikipedia lately. I also notice that admins apply double standards. Now I've been accused of beginning a "sockpuppet" account, and I want to begin by complaining about a suspected "sockpuppet" account myself.
Wikipedia needs improvement. There's no doubt about it. The mechanisms in place at the moment do not function well and seem too difficult to use. Moreover, it's too much for someone who doesn't want to have to spend too much time with the political part of the organization as he already has another organization and other things to do. I think I want it to end with a good approach to the Arbitration Committee if necessary, and I've refrained so far because I haven't wanted to "illustrate a point." However, even the rules get questionable descriptions and arbitrary applications.
Ideas/Help?
Could you be a little more specific? If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, you need to say who, otherwise no-one can do anything about it. What parts in particular do you think need improving? (You are certainly right, things aren't perfect, and never will be, but we need to be specific about what is wrong if we are going to improve anything.)
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:01:32 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Could you be a little more specific? If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, you need to say who, otherwise no-one can do anything about it. What parts in particular do you think need improving? (You are certainly right, things aren't perfect, and never will be, but we need to be specific about what is wrong if we are going to improve anything.)
This is, if I remember rightly, [[User:John Wallace Rich]], who is a veterans' rights activist who has had trouble due to his promotion of his organisation on Wikipedia. There is a sockpuppetry case against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/John_Wallace_R...
He started a SSP case against two editors who are self-evidently no socks, on the ground hat both of them are in dispute with him over his POV edits.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
This is, if I remember rightly, [[User:John Wallace Rich]], who is a veterans' rights activist who has had trouble due to his promotion of his organisation on Wikipedia. There is a sockpuppetry case against him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/John_Wallace_R...
I couldn't help notice this on his "sock puppet" account's talk page...
"I may be willing to believe, however, that you are, rather than John himself, a friend or relation, but that would make you a Meatpuppet, which is equally unallowable on Wikipedia. This account is also self-admittedly a role account which is not allowed either; I recommend that you create separate accounts for each person; it's not too hard to log in and out. --Scott Wilson 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)"
On the one hand, he is being told that if the second account is a "friend or relative" then he's a "meat puppet" which is not allowed. On the other hand, if it's an account used by several if his family members, then it's a "roll account" which is also not allowed and each "family member" should make a separate account but if they did that then that would make them "meat puppets" which would break the first rule. It sounds like Mr. Rich is being told that he is the only person in his house allowed to participate on WP.
I am not familiar with Mr. Rich or this KIA edit war but it looks like he has been put in a "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" situation.
On 12/03/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
then he's a "meat puppet" which is not allowed.
Worst neologism ever.
On 3/12/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
"meat puppet"
Worst neologism ever.
I have mixed feelings on this one. While it's annoying to have a bunch of people drop out of the sky (here or anywhere else) and take the opposite side of a debate you are involved with, to label someone a meatpuppet comes close to "assuming bad faith".
"I may be willing to believe, however, that you are, rather than John himself, a friend or relation, but that would make you a Meatpuppet, which is equally unallowable on Wikipedia. This account is also self-admittedly a role account which is not allowed either; I recommend that you create separate accounts for each person; it's not too hard to log in and out. --Scott Wilson 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)"
The key part that should have been included in that message is: "You have been acting on John's instructions." That is what makes the account a Meatpuppet, not the fact that they are a friend/relation. I imagine Scott Wilson assumed that part was obvious, so didn't explicitly include it.