| Revision as of 14:01, 12 February 2008 editSirFozzie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,149 edits Email from Jimmy Wales.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:01, 12 February 2008 edit undoGeorge The Dragon (talk | contribs)Rollbackers5,264 edits →So purely a SOCK issue here?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| '''"I have asked SirFozzie to quote me on-wiki because I am traveling a lot this week and will not have time to visit the issue directly until Friday. I support that this investigation continue, and request that it be done in a kind, thoughtful, loving way, and that any trolling be dealt with firmly. An investigation is not a negative mark against the | '''"I have asked SirFozzie to quote me on-wiki because I am traveling a lot this week and will not have time to visit the issue directly until Friday. I support that this investigation continue, and request that it be done in a kind, thoughtful, loving way, and that any trolling be dealt with firmly. An investigation is not a negative mark against the | ||
| accounts involved, and the best possible outcome is a firm confidence that the charges are not true."''' ] (]) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | accounts involved, and the best possible outcome is a firm confidence that the charges are not true."''' ] (]) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == So purely a SOCK issue here? == | |||
| I've been following this situation but am somewhat wary of getting involved as it seems anyone who takes a view on this is in danger of being accused of being a Wordbomb sock. But I agree that, having read all the evidence, as wide a view as possible is needed from the community. One question I have is, as the sub-heading suggests, are we just treating this as a standard case of sockpuppet abuse or are we concerned about who the editor (if it is just one) behind the accounts may be? Yes, this is a Wordbomb/WR issue that they'vep had for a long time, but let's not ignore the elephant in the room just because a "badsite" keeps telling us it's there. ]] 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:01, 12 February 2008
Wait, how does this work?
Should I have a separate outside view section? I'm not really "outside." Cool Hand Luke 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Durova's section suggests that I'm fine. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
First sentence, statement
Is a run-on. "There has been concern that User:Mantanmoreland, who had previously been warned by former ArbCom member User:Fred Bauder for using an alternate/additional account, User:Lastexit in ways that violated Misplaced Pages policy was using the account User:Samiharris to violate Misplaced Pages's rules on multiple accounts." Not sure whether it would be considered appropriate for me to edit this, so I'll note it here. Achromatic (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Durova's statement
Not sure if it matters, but in reply to this evidence:
Either Mantanmoreland or Sami Harris always edits from an open proxy.
Samiharris seems to admit that he uses an open proxy and explains why. Just thought I'd poin tthat out, dunno if it matters. daveh4h 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Email From Jimbo Wales
Posting this at Jimbo's request:
"I have asked SirFozzie to quote me on-wiki because I am traveling a lot this week and will not have time to visit the issue directly until Friday. I support that this investigation continue, and request that it be done in a kind, thoughtful, loving way, and that any trolling be dealt with firmly. An investigation is not a negative mark against the accounts involved, and the best possible outcome is a firm confidence that the charges are not true." SirFozzie (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So purely a SOCK issue here?
I've been following this situation but am somewhat wary of getting involved as it seems anyone who takes a view on this is in danger of being accused of being a Wordbomb sock. But I agree that, having read all the evidence, as wide a view as possible is needed from the community. One question I have is, as the sub-heading suggests, are we just treating this as a standard case of sockpuppet abuse or are we concerned about who the editor (if it is just one) behind the accounts may be? Yes, this is a Wordbomb/WR issue that they'vep had for a long time, but let's not ignore the elephant in the room just because a "badsite" keeps telling us it's there. Whitstable 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)