lawyers.

And one can't help but notice the partisan divide. All the pro-Gila editors of course say no to this Nish guy even though he/she was bannished for similar reasons.

So Wikipedia community sets up an extremely tight though IMO oppressive Israel/Palestine-specific punitive system that has gotten rid of many editors with behavioral issues, yet now some joker is proposing dual amendments and all is forgiven? Good behavior in non-controversial area somehow makes all the shit one did before okay?

I just want some consistency. Either have strict and oppressive rules everyone must follow but not this crap. My modified appeal was rejected after serving 6 months and I haven't done half the shit Nish and Gilabrand are guilty of.

Asking Wikipedia to be consistent is like asking water to be dry. Won't happen, can't happen, and it wouldn't be Wikipedia if it did happen.

What I found more amusing in that small discussion is the reinforcement of the idea that sockpuppetry is a more heinous crime among Wikipidiots than pushing a partisan point of view and other "misconduct". This is comparable to getting a small fine for bank robbery, but the death penalty for wearing a disguise while doing so. They're a laugh riot.

Dry water. Love it! Bartender! Some dry water, please! A round for everyone!

Let me tell you about dry water. Drink it, and you can accomplish anything! Try it! The taste is .... beyond expression. You will never forget it, once you have tasted it.
Indeed.

I expect that you have. Can you please stick this stuff into Articles, Annex or Editors? Spamming General Discussion with titles like these isn't impressing anyone.





Eh? On anything like Wikipedia, sockpuppetry is always going to be a bigger 'crime' than simply pushing an agenda - which most people do even without realising it. How could it not?

Wikipedia could be designed in such a way that sockpuppetry offers no advantages. In fact, if the "only strength of arguments matters, not number of votes" propaganda were even remotely true, sockpuppetry wouldn't be the problem it is today, since having multiple accounts would only matter in limited situations (3RR and arb elections come to mind).

Yes, it is the 'anything like Wikipedia' caveat that is the problem. In other words, "in an online society composed of and governed by anonymous and pseudonymous actors, with no way of connecting these actors to their real life skills, experiences, conflicts of interest, etc, multiple identities strike at the power of the ruling class to enforce their version of order and discipline on the rabble. The inaccuracy and bias of the so-called "encyclopedia" must take second (or third) place to ensuring that those who will not pay homage and pledge obedience to the ruling class are prohibited from participation."

No caveat at all - I'm simply talking about what WP still is to many people - an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit (banned or not). Your other argument is another argument. I can't see how they can underplay sockpuppetry, and didn't myself see it being used as direct comparison with anything else, as you seemed to suggest.

I would agree that socking after being banned is different (ie not as bad) to doing it as an editor to game the system, but I personally think that the officer class look at sockpuppetry too lightly over all, including ISP-use between accounts etc. The right people do get away with quite a lot.

"Pushing an agenda" is hard to define and most editors, probably all, edit based on their own prejudices whether they realize it or not.

I personally see sockpuppetry as much greater offense as "agenda pushing." I couldn't care less if someone has an agenda as long as they edit fairly and in good faith, not constantly sucking up to admins or going to noticeboards when things don't go their way *cough*Nableezy*cough*.

Sockpuppetry is simply wrong. Making multiple accounts to circumvent bans, pack AFDs, edit-war, etc...unacceptable.

Users with behavioral problems can be mentored, but sock-puppetry is a redline for me.

What flavor is the Kool-aid this month?

Kool-Aid comes in colors, not flavors.

How is this any different from the lifting of Jayjg's topic ban? It's not.
How is it different than Gilabrand? Nishidani wasn't socking to evade his ban.

In the interest of full disclosure I'm not a neutral party. I find Nishidani's eloquence and wordplay endlessly amusing and would probably support him if he were a militant vegan Falangist. His series of sonnets deserves some sort of award. Not a funny piece but astoundingly elaborate for the purpose.

Yea Sol I know we know you're not a neutral party. I don't know a lot about Nish but if he wasn't socking a permaban seems unnecessarily harsh.

But this Gila character shouldn't be allowed back in. I can't fucking stand sock-puppetry. Users should own up to their edits and accept the reality of a block.

If editors decide to deliberately evade their block or topic ban through sock-puppetry than you know they don't respect wikipedia at all.

Hear, hear! I would be pleased if the mods would change the highly misleading title of this thread to something more appropriate for the whiny discussion that kicked it off. I would be delighted if the thread were then moved to The Annex.

how is this a misleading title? Why do admins keep changing titles of my threads? I wasn't violating any rules. Gilibrand IS NOT appealing, talk about misleading. Retards. This is about amnesty Kohser.

Or how about this?
You see, Wikipedia sanctions are not valid for Gila. They are just valid for those other fools.


And of course, Gila thinks Aruz Sheva is a "solid reference"