For ease of future reference, I will use this page to keep a list of known public accounts on the English Wikipedia. The passwords are in guillemets («…»).

1. Ablebakercharliedelta «deltacharliebakerable»
2. BABBUØ «babbubabbu»
3. Badlytwice «twicebadly»
4. Bag Of Moldy Tangerines «bomtbomt»
5. Be Excited About Reading «bearbear»
6. Calvin Coolidge's Bird Dog «paloalto»
7. Daffy Dean «deandaffy»
8. Dancesince «sincedance»
9. Earthboat «boatearth»
10. LBJ's collie «blanco»
11. Learndraft «draftlearn»
12. Libertyvalley «valleyliberty»
13. Mumsword «swordmum»
14. Patchcock «cockpatch»
15. Selaw Serutan «natureswales»
16. Sureupon «uponsure»
17. Unctious Uncle «uncleunctious»
18. VOPØ «vopvopvop»

They are all blocked, and the one that isn't is password scrambled.

That's All She Wrote …

That's All She Wrote …

Jonny

Incidentally, a few administrators have taken to automatically and blindly reverting bona fide contributions by all accounts that it enters their pointy widdle heads to free associate with previously banned accounts.

Let's help em …

Jonny

Well that is an interesting quandry those admins have found themselves in.

Case in point: The Charade That Is Piperdown Banned as Wordbomb

That makes me a sock of a banned user, who was banned prior to my wikibirfday in March 2007.

So all of my edits, articles created, etc, are fair game for the delete/revert hammer.

Will someone please get right on that? Do refer to my wikicontributions on the left margin here.

We can't have Wikipolicy subverted.

And we can't have wikidikitater idi-admeens like David Gerard be made a fool of by not following policy, and the applicable trickle down effects of their edicts.

Well, get on it yerself. How hard is that? Not A Bit.

Though it isn't actually necessary to use public accounts, there's really no reason not to do so. All you have to do is drop a few clues about your preferred styles of usernym-password association, and you're off and running with the PACMAN in-crowd.

It's Φun ! It's EZ ! Tell your φrenz !

Jonny

hmm. well since I don't have the expertise necessary to go through the efforts to make ip/sock account edits, only to find them reverted 0.05 seconds later, I'd prefer that a WP'ian with the In-Crowd follow their own policy. I'm an outlaw, just like Johnny Cash, so any reversions I'd make would just be reverted under the first layer of the policy, and no one would bother to fully apply that same rule, consistently (kind of like how SlimJay let Berlet edit in his own shit, but not Sparkzilla. And Weiss. And Winans. Etc.), and so down the piper's articles and edits.

Revert The Sender …

Removal of Text

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have been trying to remove the contributions of a banned user. Although Wikipedia policy does prohibit banned users from editing, it is not the case that all of their contributions made prior to the ban must be removed. If you have concerns about the article content itself, feel free to discuss on the talk page. The other thing to note, it is better to use a deletion process rather than simply blanking the page. Thanks, TeaDrinker 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

I am simply following the de facto policy that I have observed being practiced time and time again, on a consistent and I dare say a persistent basis, by trusted administrators. DABBUØ 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: You seem to be confused about the ban policy. The policy states that we must revert all edits made by the banned user after the user is banned, not the ones before. There is no de facto policy saying that all edits made by the banned user before the ban must be reverted. Kurykh 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies say a lot of things, and half of them contradict the other half. On top of that, we have the spectacle of Wikipedia Administrators persisting with impunity to violate both the letter and the spirit of a free and open, quality-based wiki project. Faced with all that confoundation of reason, I am forced to resort to common sense, and lucky for me you have a rule that says I can. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense tells me this. A body of editors that uses an author's work, that does not allow the author to continue improving that work, that allows its leadership to destroy work blindly and automatically on the basis of a personal vendetta without even looking at the quality of the revisions — that body of editors has forfeited the right to use that author's work. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: Wrong. The author releases all rights to his/her work the moment he/she clicks the "save page" button. You do not own anything here. Kurykh 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made no claim of ownership. Nor is one demanded. I am simply defending the intellectual and moral rights of all who have them. It's an often dirty job, but someone has to do it. DABBUØ 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: I meant "you" in the general sense. However, you still seem confused; once you post here, you have no "intellectual and moral rights" over the information you submit. The submitted information is now "free" (with restrictions due to licensing) to be used and/or modified ad infinitum by others for any purpose other than that explicitly forbidden. Kurykh 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributors do not press that "save page" button in empty space, but in a context filled with pretensions authorized by the WikiMedia Foundation. Those pretenses have turned out to be false, and so whatever gentleperson's agreement might have been implied by that conjoint transaction is now utterly null and void. DABBUØ 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

: Then whatever grievances you hold with the Wikimedia Foundation should be taken up to there. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia, a collaboration of volunteers under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation and whose members often have no affiliation with the Foundation other than being users and administrators (with implies no official position) of Wikipedia. Kurykh 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was simply telling you how I view it, and how at least one common sense person will most likely continue to view it. Your body of volunteers harbors the seeds of your own disruption. Look Homeward. DABBUØ 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributors do not press that "save page" button in empty space, but in a context filled with pretensions authorized by the WikiMedia Foundation. Those pretenses have turned out to be false, and so whatever gentleperson's agreement might have been implied by that conjoint transaction is now utterly null and void. DABBUØ 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Source. English Wikipedia User Talk Page For DABBUØ, 13 Nov 2007 UTC 12:12. For the sake of context, the full page is copied below.

Removal of Text

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have been trying to remove the contributions of a banned user. Although Wikipedia policy does prohibit banned users from editing, it is not the case that all of their contributions made prior to the ban must be removed. If you have concerns about the article content itself, feel free to discuss on the talk page. The other thing to note, it is better to use a deletion process rather than simply blanking the page. Thanks, TeaDrinker 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

I am simply following the de facto policy that I have observed being practiced time and time again, on a consistent and I dare say a persistent basis, by trusted administrators. DABBUØ 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: You seem to be confused about the ban policy. The policy states that we must revert all edits made by the banned user after the user is banned, not the ones before. There is no de facto policy saying that all edits made by the banned user before the ban must be reverted. Kurykh 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies say a lot of things, and half of them contradict the other half. On top of that, we have the spectacle of Wikipedia Administrators persisting with impunity to violate both the letter and the spirit of a free and open, quality-based wiki project. Faced with all that confoundation of reason, I am forced to resort to common sense, and lucky for me you have a rule that says I can. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Common sense tells me this. A body of editors that uses an author's work, that does not allow the author to continue improving that work, that allows its leadership to destroy work blindly and automatically on the basis of a personal vendetta without even looking at the quality of the revisions — that body of editors has forfeited the right to use that author's work. DABBUØ 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: Wrong. The author releases all rights to his/her work the moment he/she clicks the "save page" button. You do not own anything here. Kurykh 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made no claim of ownership. Nor is one demanded. I am simply defending the intellectual and moral rights of all who have them. It's an often dirty job, but someone has to do it. DABBUØ 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

: I meant "you" in the general sense. However, you still seem confused; once you post here, you have no "intellectual and moral rights" over the information you submit. The submitted information is now "free" (with restrictions due to licensing) to be used and/or modified ad infinitum by others for any purpose other than that explicitly forbidden. Kurykh 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributors do not press that "save page" button in empty space, but in a context filled with pretensions authorized by the WikiMedia Foundation. Those pretenses have turned out to be false, and so whatever gentleperson's agreement might have been implied by that conjoint transaction is now utterly null and void. DABBUØ 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

: Then whatever grievances you hold with the Wikimedia Foundation should be taken up to there. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia, a collaboration of volunteers under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation and whose members often have no affiliation with the Foundation other than being users and administrators (with implies no official position) of Wikipedia. Kurykh 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was simply telling you how I view it, and how at least one common sense person will most likely continue to view it. Your body of volunteers harbors the seeds of your own disruption. Look Homeward. DABBUØ 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can speak solely about moral rights, all aside from the matter of how moral rights correlate with legal codes in diverse and sundry locales, and I can do no more than appeal to the court of common sense for its considerations and and its mediate decisions.

Hmmm.... It would be easy to reply with the standard answer, i.e., that the terms "moral" and "common sense" have never figured into anything WP has ever done, unless maybe you put the letters "im" in front of "moral" as a prefix. ("Common senselessness," maybe?)

But seriously though, what are the chances that some sort of morality-based principle could be imposed on WP of the sort that you're advocating? There have to be a few people over there with some sense of morality, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to put it as simply as I can, you're saying that if someone writes a bunch of articles, gets banned for violating policies that changed after the articles were written - changes the author consistently disagreed with - and the articles themselves are substantially unchanged from the original author's versions, the moral thing to do would be for WP to "courtesy-delete" the articles on the user's request, correct?

Like you suggest, this would be putting aside the issue of whether or not they're legally obligated to do so (and most would probably agree that they aren't, not in the strict sense at least).

Personally, I think that would be the moral thing to do, absolutely. But I'll also say this: If you couch it in terms like "Wikipedia has failed to live up to its promises," IMO they'll ignore you 100 percent of the time. Putting it in terms that are more like a standard logical argument might at least win you a few sympathizers among the Faithful... I still doubt it would be enough to generate even one AfD nomination, but you never know, I suppose.

Interesting problem!

Hmmm … It would be easy to reply with the standard answer, i.e., that the terms "moral" and "common sense" have never figured into anything WP has ever done, unless maybe you put the letters "im" in front of "moral" as a prefix. ("Common senselessness", maybe?)

But seriously though, what are the chances that some sort of morality-based principle could be imposed on WP of the sort that you're advocating? There have to be a few people over there with some sense of morality, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to put it as simply as I can, you're saying that if someone writes a bunch of articles, gets banned for violating policies that changed after the articles were written — changes the author consistently disagreed with — and the articles themselves are substantially unchanged from the original author's versions, the moral thing to do would be for WP to "courtesy-delete" the articles on the user's request, correct?

Like you suggest, this would be putting aside the issue of whether or not they're legally obligated to do so (and most would probably agree that they aren't, not in the strict sense at least).

Personally, I think that would be the moral thing to do, absolutely. But I'll also say this: If you couch it in terms like "Wikipedia has failed to live up to its promises", IMO they'll ignore you 100 percent of the time. Putting it in terms that are more like a standard logical argument might at least win you a few sympathizers among the Faithful … I still doubt it would be enough to generate even one AfD nomination, but you never know, I suppose.

Interesting problem!

One of the odder things about my block is that they deleted my photo, and those of Londoneye, RachelBrown and Taxwoman, on the spurious grounds that if we are sockpuppets we might not have copyright. (The real reason, of course, is that who wouldn't want Taxwoman back if they saw all the photos?) However, they have not deleted any of the dozens of photos of railway stations and thing uploaded by Londoneye. She has no more and no less right to upload those, but of course the powers that be want to keep those.

What would happen if an author copyrighted the original articles, as posted by that author on another site?

Doesn't Wikipedia have a WP:Rule against appropriating copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder?

What would happen if an author copyrighted the original articles, as posted by that author on another site?

Doesn't Wikipedia have a WP:Rule against appropriating copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder?

What would happen if an author copyrighted the original articles, as posted by that author on another site?

Doesn't Wikipedia have a WP:Rule against appropriating copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder?

If he or she copyrighted them before posting on WP, the act of posting is a surrender of copyright. If it was after posting on WP, it would be a withdrawal of the GFDL, which is allegedly not possible.

Poetlister, why haven't you corrected the subtitle of this thread yet? As you must know, it's "Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light."