Re: sockpuppets |
April Arcus (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
These votes from the scifi.com'ers (where their only edit is the vote in an RFA) would likely be loudly decried as sockpuppets at a wikipedia RFA. Fortunately their scifi.com accounts buy them some cred. I hope they stick around after their vote though. (It looks like Dogger may have a project in mind...) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:37, 16 March 2006 (CST) | These votes from the scifi.com'ers (where their only edit is the vote in an RFA) would likely be loudly decried as sockpuppets at a wikipedia RFA. Fortunately their scifi.com accounts buy them some cred. I hope they stick around after their vote though. (It looks like Dogger may have a project in mind...) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:37, 16 March 2006 (CST) | ||
:Dogger usually has something interesting up his sleave.--[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 14:27, 16 March 2006 (EST) | :Dogger usually has something interesting up his sleave.--[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 14:27, 16 March 2006 (EST) | ||
::Wikipedia, [[Wikipedia: WP:RFA#About_RfA|on the subject]]: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry." | |||
::In my opinion, there's no serious reason to suspect sock-puppetry if they have credible accounts on Sci-Fi.com. However, since the choice of administrators here only directly impacts regular editors, I would still tend to take their voices with a grain of salt compared to our regulars. Also, note that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support", which Merv is currently well short of. I reiterate my personal neutrality on this vote, but I hope that Joe will take the opposing votes by our regular contributors very seriously as he considers Merv's promotion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:22, 16 March 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 02:22, 17 March 2006
I need Joe to clean this up. It's been a while since we've used this formatting. --The Merovingian 04:40, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Scifi'ers
These votes from the scifi.com'ers (where their only edit is the vote in an RFA) would likely be loudly decried as sockpuppets at a wikipedia RFA. Fortunately their scifi.com accounts buy them some cred. I hope they stick around after their vote though. (It looks like Dogger may have a project in mind...) --Steelviper 12:37, 16 March 2006 (CST)
- Dogger usually has something interesting up his sleave.--Noneofyourbusiness 14:27, 16 March 2006 (EST)
- Wikipedia, on the subject: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry."
- In my opinion, there's no serious reason to suspect sock-puppetry if they have credible accounts on Sci-Fi.com. However, since the choice of administrators here only directly impacts regular editors, I would still tend to take their voices with a grain of salt compared to our regulars. Also, note that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support", which Merv is currently well short of. I reiterate my personal neutrality on this vote, but I hope that Joe will take the opposing votes by our regular contributors very seriously as he considers Merv's promotion. --Peter Farago 20:22, 16 March 2006 (CST)