User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet, in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not prohibit this) and the only edits were polite questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow policy.
It is outrageous that admins block users simply for making legitimate requests for explanation from other admins about why they did not follow policy.
Please help.
Norrath
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
Norath Norath (norath2005@yahoo.com) [050707 06:44]:
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet, in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not prohibit this) and the only edits were polite questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow policy.
Role accounts are not allowed on en:. And part of declaring the sock is saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on Wikipedia and particularly not in the project pages.
(The account declared itself a sock and role account in an edit to [[User talk:Sam Spade]].)
It is outrageous that admins block users simply for making legitimate requests for explanation from other admins about why they did not follow policy.
If you are another admin then I am Enviroknot.
Please help.
You can tell my abusiveness by the fact that I disappeared this email when I saw it in the queue. Oh, wait.
- d.
This is not a 'role account', nor can I find any mention of a prohibition on them. This account was blocked because it asked questions about another administrator. Your actions only justify my legitimate fear of raising these issues with my other account. Norrath
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Norath Norath (norath2005@yahoo.com) [050707 06:44]:
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for
"admitted
sockpuppet and role account". This account is
indeed a
sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner. The account was declared as a
sockpuppet,
in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does
not
prohibit this) and the only edits were polite questions to Snowspinner about why he did not
follow
policy.
Role accounts are not allowed on en:. And part of declaring the sock is saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on Wikipedia and particularly not in the project pages.
(The account declared itself a sock and role account in an edit to [[User talk:Sam Spade]].)
It is outrageous that admins block users simply
for
making legitimate requests for explanation from
other
admins about why they did not follow policy.
If you are another admin then I am Enviroknot.
Please help.
You can tell my abusiveness by the fact that I disappeared this email when I saw it in the queue. Oh, wait.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Norath Norath (norath2005@yahoo.com) [050707 07:00]:
This is not a 'role account', nor can I find any mention of a prohibition on them.
[[User talk:Sam Spade]] (why the account exists) [[meta:Role account]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Role account]]
This account was blocked because it asked questions about another administrator. Your actions only justify my legitimate fear of raising these issues with my other account.
If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover.
I see no evidence of trolling, simply a legitimate question. Maybe you have a different definition of trolling. Try adding "disagreeing with the people in charge" to [[trolling]] and see how long it is before you're reverted.
I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to construct straw man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority" in the article? Because if not, it really should be.
As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive. When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but we're more likely to go watch TV.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:16 PM, SPUI wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover.
I see no evidence of trolling, simply a legitimate question. Maybe you have a different definition of trolling. Try adding "disagreeing with the people in charge" to [[trolling]] and see how long it is before you're reverted. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to construct straw man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority" in the article? Because if not, it really should be.
As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive. When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but we're more likely to go watch TV.
I see no problem here. Someone with the username "Involved in trolling" made what appear to be good faith edits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Involved_in_trolling ), and was blocked without an explanation. I'm not bringing this up because it's against policy but because it doesn't make sense.
When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but we're more likely to go watch TV.
So in other words, you think admins should have the ability to invent new policies on the spot. Why don't you propose a new policy that allows that and see what kind of response you get? I doubt you will, because you'd end up getting a consensus in opposition to it.
Someone commenting and asking questions about why someone blocked is hardly a 'problem' and doesn't warrant action, it's just plain censorship of dissenting views. In fact, I challenge you to propose a policy to ban people from doing that, but you wouldn't do that either since you know it'd get rejected as well.
No matter how you look at it, these actions are not in accordance to any sort of consensus, they're entirely indicative of a bureaucracy.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
So your argument is: 1. This user has complained about me and my friends.
2. I think this is a problem, so I blocked them.
3. If you don't think it's a problem, you're a problem, so I will block you.
4. The fact that there is no policy allowing me to do this is not a problem
5. If you think it is, you are a problem, and I will block you.
Well, there's not much to say in response really is there? Nothing the community says is relevant, since none of it applies to you. Anyone who disagrees with you is a problem and will be blocked.
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I'll decline, but is "willfully misreading claims to construct straw man arguments and thus have a position of alleged moral superiority" in the article? Because if not, it really should be.
As for your other complaint, Wikipedia policy pages are descriptive. When we are faced with a new problem, we do not spend a month or more working out a policy and then go to look if the problem is still around so we can fix it. Rather, we fix the problem, and if a particular style of solution to a particular style of problem becomes regular, we might get around to writing a policy page about it, but we're more likely to go watch TV.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:16 PM, SPUI wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
If your questions are of value you can ask them
with your name.
Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover.
I see no evidence of trolling, simply a legitimate
question. Maybe
you have a different definition of trolling. Try
adding
"disagreeing with the people in charge" to
[[trolling]] and see how
long it is before you're reverted. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
[[meta:Role account]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Role account]]
Neither of those mentions a prohibition on them. If there was, there would be a policy page somewhere, but there's not one. You don't have the authority to invent policy on a whim.
If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover.
That's a nice logical fallacy, ad hominem.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
[[Wikipedia:Role account]] redirects to [[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account]], which says that ''A role account is an account that is not associated with a particular person''. This account is associated with me, so it is not a role account. It is an account used to protect my main account from retribution while I raise a complaint about powerful users abusing their power.
Norrath
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Norath Norath (norath2005@yahoo.com) [050707 07:00]:
This is not a 'role account', nor can I find any mention of a prohibition on them.
[[User talk:Sam Spade]] (why the account exists) [[meta:Role account]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Role account]]
This account was blocked because it asked questions about another administrator. Your actions only justify my
legitimate
fear of raising these issues with my other
account.
If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
David Gerard wrote:
Norath Norath (norath2005@yahoo.com) [050707 06:44]:
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet, in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not prohibit this) and the only edits were polite questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow policy.
Role accounts are not allowed on en:.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple_accounts says nothing of that sort. "not officially sanctioned" is very different from "not allowed". In any case, it doesn't make sense to block this user, something that should take precedence over any supposed policy violations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden... is also over the top. I am involved in trolling. I troll various people online sometimes.
On 7/7/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
And part of declaring the sock is saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on Wikipedia and particularly not in the project pages.
Beg pardon? Edits aren't anonymous?
Since when?
You have clearly not read the policy. For the record, it clearly says that protecting identity is a legitimate use for multiple accounts. Norath
Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users may wish to experience Wikipedia to understand how the community functions for those new to the community. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.
Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons. A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.
Users with an expertise in mathematics, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to detailed mathematical articles with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects. Others might use different accounts in talk pages to avoid extending conflicts about a particular area of interest into communitywide political conflicts related to user identity rather than to article content. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion by engaging a particular user in unrelated but philosophically motivated debate outside of that discussion.
Multiple accounts also serve to protect identity. Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on their interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity.
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
And part of declaring the sock is saying who it is. Edits aren't anonymous on
Wikipedia and particularly not
in the project pages.
Beg pardon? Edits aren't anonymous?
Since when?
-- Pete, who can show you a long list of anonymous edits on just about any article you care to name. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
On 7/7/05, Norath Norath norath2005@yahoo.com wrote:
You have clearly not read the policy. For the record, it clearly says that protecting identity is a legitimate use for multiple accounts. Norath
Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users may wish to experience Wikipedia to understand how the community functions for those new to the community. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.
He's currently leading the chess championship, but don't go telling everyone that.
I'm not exactly sure what I expected in joining this list, but I have made the complaint that I have been blocked indefinately for doing nothing more than asking an admin why he blocked two other users. I have received no useful advice here, only faceicious or fallacious comments. The admins in question have raised random and erroneous justifications for their actions, which do not hold up to any scrutiny. What should be my next step in trying to address this problem? Norrath
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I'd love to.
Unfortunately, Gerard has made perfectly clear that any contradiction of his behavior is punishable by summary banning from Wikipedia. So, I could theoretically revoke such a block, but (a) Gerard or one of his flunkies would just reestablish it anyways and (b) they would impose penalties upon my own account for doing so.
As he is one of Snowspinner's protectors, you're stuck.
Sucks to be this way but those in power don't care about policy unless they can use it as a bludgeon to smack someone with.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Norath Norath norath2005@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet, in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not prohibit this) and the only edits were polite questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow policy.
It is outrageous that admins block users simply for making legitimate requests for explanation from other admins about why they did not follow policy.
Please help.
Norrath
Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
A. Nony Mouse (temoforcomments4@hotmail.com) [050707 06:52]:
I'd love to. Unfortunately, Gerard has made perfectly clear that any contradiction of his behavior is punishable by summary banning from Wikipedia. So, I could theoretically revoke such a block, but (a) Gerard or one of his flunkies would just reestablish it anyways and (b) they would impose penalties upon my own account for doing so.
If you're an admin, then I'm Enviroknot. As it happens, you are. Back to moderation you go.
- d.
On 7/6/05, Norath Norath norath2005@yahoo.com wrote:
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner.
Regardless of whether a block was within policy or not, creating another account to circumvent it is against policy. This is especially what the list was made for and if you asked to be unblocked while citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you could get a lot more admins to unblock you if you contacted them privately, than when you go straight to accusations of abuse.
--Mgm
Regardless of whether a block was within policy or not, creating another account to circumvent it is against policy. This is especially what the list was made for and if you asked to be unblocked while citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you could get a lot more admins to unblock you if you contacted them privately, than when you go straight to accusations of abuse.
It wasn't an account created to circumvent it. From what I understand is that it's an account used by multiple people (a role account) and in this case the person using it was someone else asking questions about the block on their behalf.
David Gerard cited a non-existent ban on role accounts as the basis for the block and since it was demonstrated that there is no such thing, he hasn't bothered responding. Furthermore, snowspinner has now justified it by openly saying that admins can block for whatever they wish, even if it's not in policy.
It seems to be standard policy on this list that if an admins claims are refuted, they just stop responding completely so as to avoid making themselves look worse. When I asked Fred Bauer (sp?) that he present an actual link of evidence of where I refused to cite sources in regards to my arb case (it was used as evidence against me even though it was fabricated out of thin air), he just completely ignored it and only focused on the part about personal attacks. The thing about personal attacks was dropped when he realized that his theory wasn't followed by most wikipedia users, including admins (no consensus).
I came across something interesting recently (a comment from David Gerard): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_dele...
Apparently when it comes to speedy deletions simply specifying a personal attack is too ambiguous, but when it comes to the personal attacks policy, it's something that "any reasonable person" (his idea of what admins are supposed to be) would know. Complete disconfirmation bias.
I think a lot of this could be solved if the admins actually tried to see what the actual consensus on their actions was. A lot of the things done by the more abusive admins would fail basic tests of consensus and they know this very well, which is why they refuse to ever poll on the matter. The best most recent example is snowspinner's "we don't need policy to block people" theory which was used to censor someone on Wikipedia asking about blocks.
I think the solution is to create a Wikipedia: space page to watch admin abuse (like an admin abuse notice board or somesuch) that compiled wonderful examples of what they had done. It could also hold votes regarding self-invented policy by admins that, even if unofficial, could at least demonstrate that they are clearly doing things outside of consensus. I have no doubt that when that was demonstrated they'd start trying to invalidate all the various votes for asinine reasons (especially as per the self-invented "lets remove blank oppose votes" policy).
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
This is true, except that this is not a role account. It is used only by me, and only for the purpose of asking a question to an admin about a block. That was the only reason for the account being blocked indefinately.
Narruth
--- "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org wrote:
Regardless of whether a block was within policy or
not, creating
another account to circumvent it is against
policy. This is especially
what the list was made for and if you asked to be
unblocked while
citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you
could get a lot more
admins to unblock you if you contacted them
privately, than when you
go straight to accusations of abuse.
It wasn't an account created to circumvent it. From what I understand is that it's an account used by multiple people (a role account) and in this case the person using it was someone else asking questions about the block on their behalf.
David Gerard cited a non-existent ban on role accounts as the basis for the block and since it was demonstrated that there is no such thing, he hasn't bothered responding. Furthermore, snowspinner has now justified it by openly saying that admins can block for whatever they wish, even if it's not in policy.
It seems to be standard policy on this list that if an admins claims are refuted, they just stop responding completely so as to avoid making themselves look worse. When I asked Fred Bauer (sp?) that he present an actual link of evidence of where I refused to cite sources in regards to my arb case (it was used as evidence against me even though it was fabricated out of thin air), he just completely ignored it and only focused on the part about personal attacks. The thing about personal attacks was dropped when he realized that his theory wasn't followed by most wikipedia users, including admins (no consensus).
I came across something interesting recently (a comment from David Gerard):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_dele...
Apparently when it comes to speedy deletions simply specifying a personal attack is too ambiguous, but when it comes to the personal attacks policy, it's something that "any reasonable person" (his idea of what admins are supposed to be) would know. Complete disconfirmation bias.
I think a lot of this could be solved if the admins actually tried to see what the actual consensus on their actions was. A lot of the things done by the more abusive admins would fail basic tests of consensus and they know this very well, which is why they refuse to ever poll on the matter. The best most recent example is snowspinner's "we don't need policy to block people" theory which was used to censor someone on Wikipedia asking about blocks.
I think the solution is to create a Wikipedia: space page to watch admin abuse (like an admin abuse notice board or somesuch) that compiled wonderful examples of what they had done. It could also hold votes regarding self-invented policy by admins that, even if unofficial, could at least demonstrate that they are clearly doing things outside of consensus. I have no doubt that when that was demonstrated they'd start trying to invalidate all the various votes for asinine reasons (especially as per the self-invented "lets remove blank oppose votes" policy).
Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
The account was not created to circumvent a block. It was created to protect the identity of a user in good standin from negative consequences from the admins involved. Their actions only confirm how well founded that fear was.
I cannot contact them privately, since the account is blocked and I do not have an email address attached to it, so I am raising it here, as instructed on the block page.
I have cited the relevant sections of policy. They are clearly in breach of it
I am still waiting for any constructive suggestions.
Norrath
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/05, Norath Norath norath2005@yahoo.com wrote:
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for
"admitted
sockpuppet and role account". This account is
indeed a
sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner.
Regardless of whether a block was within policy or not, creating another account to circumvent it is against policy. This is especially what the list was made for and if you asked to be unblocked while citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you could get a lot more admins to unblock you if you contacted them privately, than when you go straight to accusations of abuse.
--Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com