Norath Norath (norath2005(a)yahoo.com) [050707 07:00]: [[User talk:Sam Spade]] (why the account exists) [[meta:Role account]] (redirected from [[Wikipedia:Role account]] If your questions are of value you can ask them with your name. Otherwise you're just attempting to troll from cover. - d.

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:

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 ----------------------------------------------

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. That's a nice logical fallacy, ad hominem. ---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------

David Gerard wrote: 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/Incide… is also over the top. I am involved in trolling. I troll various people online sometimes.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: ____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/

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

A. Nony Mouse (temoforcomments4(a)hotmail.com) [050707 06:52]: If you're an admin, then I'm Enviroknot. As it happens, you are. Back to moderation you go. - d.

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_del… 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 ----------------------------------------------

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com