Some reflections on the current 'sock' discussions;
If I've read correctly, dg is saying that there's no problem with Genisock, because that account is clearly linked to Geni. Which would seem to indicate that it's fine for Geni or Genisock to edit anywhere without geni being accused of abuse, or of causing disruption.
I wonder if any might agree that this seems somewhat in tension with this unambiguous final decision from the arbs;
"The use of sockpuppethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetryaccounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."
And hey, I can't let the following from Guy pass without brief comment;
"You had at least *eight* accounts, and your use of them was outside of community norms."
*This refers to activity over three years * two accounts never edited, unsurprisingly, there has been no assertion of disruption * two accounts less than 10 edits, no assertion of disruption * 1 account 28 edits 6 months ago, no assertion of disruption * 3 accounts used extensively (the ones I disclosed to you privately, the ones I consider pertinent) You are however correct that the arb.s have agreed with you. Further discussion discussion between us here seems only likely to bore and annoy, so feel free to have the last word........
Re : banned editing and vandalism;
"if he gets found out it will be really bed for him." - much as "really bed" actually sounds quite fun, I understand that I shouldn't be doing any editing, and I won't - your approach here though really is interesting to me. Is it correct to say that you believe I should not revert vandalism, because of my ban? I find that revealing.
Here's another diff that I spotted (fortunately this one got bot.ed pretty quick) - I'm glad that the vandalism I reported earlier only stood for a couple of hours in total (and only seconds after I reported it here - it was a bit weird to be unsure of what I should do for the couple of hours I was aware of it, and it was publicly visible.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socrates&oldid=175322777 best, PM
On Dec 2, 2007 7:06 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Here's another diff that I spotted (fortunately this one got bot.ed pretty quick) - I'm glad that the vandalism I reported earlier only stood for a couple of hours in total (and only seconds after I reported it here - it was a bit weird to be unsure of what I should do for the couple of hours I was aware of it, and it was publicly visible.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socrates&oldid=175322777
With almost 3 million Wikipedia articles, I suspect thousands are vandalized each day. Many vandals are reverted by bots, many others by editors. One banned editor is not going to make a significant impact on this, and the fact that some vandalism is not immediately reverted is not a good reason for letting banned editors edit.
On 12/4/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
With almost 3 million Wikipedia articles, I suspect thousands are vandalized each day. Many vandals are reverted by bots, many others by editors. One banned editor is not going to make a significant impact on this, and the fact that some vandalism is not immediately reverted is not a good reason for letting banned editors edit.
Heh, yeah. There must be a relevant movie scene here, where a handcuffed criminal says to the police officer, "you know, I'd love to wash your car, but you'll have to take these off me" or something.
People like "private musings" are far more interested in discussing their bans or philosophising about banning in general than they are in actually doing work.
PM>it was a bit weird to be unsure of what I should do for the couple of hours I was aware of it, and it was publicly visible.
Picture a police officer who has been fired for poor behaviour. The next day he spots a crime on the street. What does he do? Nothing. It's not your problem anymore, PM.
Steve
On Dec 3, 2007 6:57 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Picture a police officer who has been fired for poor behaviour. The next day he spots a crime on the street. What does he do? Nothing.
Hopefully he'd call the police.
Assuming that was an analogy, emailing someone who is willing and able to edit wouldn't hurt. Not me though, please, it's a pain in the ass to find an unblocked Tor exit node.
On 12/4/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 6:57 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Picture a police officer who has been fired for poor behaviour. The next day he spots a crime on the street. What does he do? Nothing.
Hopefully he'd call the police.
And if he did that to report someone jaywalking, and everyone on the police force was totally fed up with him and was glad to see the back of him? I have no idea if this analogy applies to PM, but in general, I think we're happy to forego a small amount of helpfulness if it means we don't have to put up with the trolling.
If and when PM or any other banned troll writes 5 FA-quality articles and needs permission to upload them, we can discuss this issue for real.
Steve
On Dec 3, 2007 6:57 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
With almost 3 million Wikipedia articles, I suspect thousands are vandalized each day. Many vandals are reverted by bots, many others by editors. One banned editor is not going to make a significant impact on this, and the fact that some vandalism is not immediately reverted is not a good reason for letting banned editors edit.
Heh, yeah. There must be a relevant movie scene here, where a handcuffed criminal says to the police officer, "you know, I'd love to wash your car, but you'll have to take these off me" or something.
People like "private musings" are far more interested in discussing their bans or philosophising about banning in general than they are in actually doing work.
It's not as if his 8 accounts ever did much vandal reverting to begin with.