User talk:Saxifrage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saxifrage (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 15 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 from 22:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC) — mostly arguments with Sollog puppets or related discussion; some discussion regarding User:Libertas

New topics at the bottom, please. Continuing discussion can be posted in the original sections or new sections, as appropriate.

I suspect you reverted the wrong post. (I fixed it, but let me know if my assumption is wrong.)  — Saxifrage |  16:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably opened the old version in a tab but not yet hit edit until a few minutes later, and so I didn't get the edit conflict window. I'll try and keep the delay between open, edit, and save down in future. Thanks for your vigilance. --W(t) 16:12, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi SF, I've deleted the sockpuppet tag from GS's page, because it isn't a sockpuppet account. The first sentence of the policy page says: "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Gavin is editing under one name only and I've been keeping a close eye on things; if he tries to edit under any other name, he'll be blocked. Everyone knows who he is now, so there's no dishonesty. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is a problem with this argument... if you read "edits under more than one name" to have to refer to active present tense for both names instead of spread out through time, that means that SlimVirgin's labeling of Existentializer as a sockpuppet of Enviroknot is also false, as Enviroknot is blocked and can't actively edit in the present tense. I would think a large number of the identified sockpuppets wouldn't be if SlimVirgin's interpretation were followed to the letter. Sockpuppets are edits made throughout time in different identities by the same person and don't have to overlap chronologically. DreamGuy 09:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
It's a fine line. Presumably, Gavin intends that he will no longer control those other "socks", while Enviroknot would happily still be controlling his other "socks" and anything else he can. It's difficult to execute policy if one it always going to look at intent, but in this case it's easy: if Slim has mistaken Gavin the Chosen's intentions, then that will be because GS becomes active again. At that point a tonne of unsympathetic bricks will fall on him.
Which is to say, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this case. Gavin isn't malicious like Enviroknot, just inept and woefully good-sense challenged.  — Saxifrage |  18:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)