Login required to edit
Users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
Much ado about nothing
A consensus of editors appears to be behind User:Dijxtra's proposal to make a clean distinction between types of alternate accounts. We are moving ahead with it now and could use your help. As per the talk page discussion, I am placing the following table on the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry page. Please help edit it and the rest of the page to match.
|Types of alternate accounts|
|Official term||Wikipedia policy||Criteria|
|Declared alternate account||Legal, but frowned upon||An editor in good standing publicly declares the name and purpose of an alternate account.|
|Undeclared alternate account||Legal, but frowned upon||An editor in good standing uses an alternate account without declaring it or using it for sockpuppetry.|
|Evasion alternate account||Illegal (indefinite block after CheckUser confirmation)||A banned or blocked editor uses an alternate account to circumvent the ruling.|
|Sockpuppet||Illegal (vote does not count, opinion is disregarded, a declaration of the sockpuppet may be placed on the user's page by an administrator)||An editor uses more than one account in the same vote or discussion without declaring it.|
- Thanks, Dragon's Blood 04:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. As JRM doesn't seem to edit all that often (not once since February), I'll try to help. "This" is the fact that WP as a whole is not particularly respectful of contributions. Let me reword the rest of the sentence: This makes either praise or criticism of edits all the more pronounced when it does occur -- "it" now means "either praise or criticism of edits". I don't think that praise needs to be mentioned here. Rather, the point might be: Editors aren't usually thanked for their work, and so many editors feel underappreciated even before their edits are criticized. If their edits aren't merely ignored but are also criticized, they may be very aggrieved.
Of course, I'm not JRM, who may disagree with all that I've said. -- 白髪 07:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, 白髪さん. Can you happen to read and write in Japanese language? If you can and you could help translating even a paragraph of the Japanese version, Japanese members including me will be very glad of it. Well, I wish the original sentence or section would be reworded and/or rewritten by you since your rewording and interpretation above is much easier for me to understand and as well translate.--ComSpex 09:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)