DavisWikiGnome is an account on the Davis Wiki that is meant to be used for contributions or comments that you fear may be controversial. Use it for whatever good-willed purpose that suites you, don't be a troll.

The username for DavisWikiGnome is: DavisWikiGnome The password for DavisWikiGnome is: davisdavis

You should be aware that this account is not anonymous. Your identity can still be identified via IP Address/etc. Nonetheless, this offers a little layer of anonymity for those who are interested in contributing some serious issues of social change and fear direct representation. Be sure to use a Public Internet Terminal or connect via some other shared IP Address for an even stronger level of anonymity. If you have recently edited from a machine with your real account, then log out and log back in as DavisWikiGnome it will be obvious to people who run dreid's greasemonkey script or NickSchmalenberger's modified version. Most of the time, we know who you are.

You can also track the edits made by DWG by using JabberWokky's Edit Search located here.


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

Why was removing the chatter on the Davis Psychic page controversial? Go fer it — it's part of the Wiki process.

What exactly on the Flies page was controversial?

2006-01-20 21:24:03   I'm not in favor of this account, not because of the usage, but because there is no way to know how many different people are using it. —JasonAller

2006-01-20 21:28:05   Yeah this account seems like a really really bad idea to me. If there is something you feel is too contentious for you to touch it, get someone like Phil with god-like amounts of wiki respect to smite it down, don't hide behind what is essentially a community troll. —KrisFricke

2006-01-21 15:03:28   ::abusively gives naysayers the bird:: —DavisWikiGnome

2006-02-03 19:52:04   Edits like this are not necessary, positive contributions. I don't know how many people have been using this account, but these three edits should either have been stood behind by their author or not made. —JasonAller

  • Gotta agree with you there. Those comments aren't controversial, they're just abuse. (And obviously from the same author.) I personally think they should simply be deleted. (Whether it means the account should be deleted is a different question. Any tool can be abused.) -JeffreyNonken
  • They're obviously from the same author at the same time and place, but I don't think they're abuse. They're anonymous likely to prevent retribution. That's one of the purposes of this account. To allow "whistleblowers" to share information which could get them in trouble, but is nonetheless true. They do not even sound anti-Redrum. Privacy has value, and is an endangered species in today's world. I say keep the comments, and definitely keep this account. (Personally I would have named this account "Anonymous" though) —SteveDavison

2006-03-08 12:41:32   If you feel like anonymously removing something from a page, please at least give a reason for the removal. —JessicaLuedtke

2006-03-18 16:50:36   Given that this page says "If it is abused, it will be deleted promptly." How is one to react to this edit? —JasonAller

2006-04-04 08:48:54   I like this concept - it's certainly no worse than your typical anonymous account. —DavisWikiGnome

2006-04-04 14:32:47   I must say, at first I was quite against this, but the gnome's saucy antics have been growing on me. What is this greasemonkey script Arlen mentions? —KrisFricke

2006-04-12 09:23:58   Ok, now that this account has been around for a while.... is it really a good idea? I've only once seen it used for a good purpose, and seen it repeatedly used for bad purposes. Is it time to trash the gnome? —EricKlein

  • It's my personal belief that the gnome should stay. I'd rather have one account abused by many than everyone creating individual accounts for abuse. Ability to log who used the gnome when is about the same as who used clone accounts. All the information is there you just have to know how to use it. — David "Clone Hunter" Reid

It's reasonable to assume that the account is being used by a single individual now, unless the password is changed back (and it's not too hard to guess who is using it). Of course, password-back-and-forth can be expected in a situation like this where you make such information available.

2006-05-12 21:10:44   I vote that the wiki gnome be either delted or just changed to MatthewKeys, for better identifacation purposes. Just a suggestion. —AndrewBanta

2006-05-12 21:41:16   I had a thought, how about the gnome password be secret, and users can e-mail for the password, and than use it, and the password is changed yet again. Perhaps using random number-letter combinations. —DavisWikiGnome

2006-05-12 23:21:25   i think the wiki gnome was a good idea, but now we should all just be honest and say whatever, most cases it's easy to figure out who was using the gnome account at the time of the edit anyways. i've never used or had a use for it. if you think someone was rude, tell them, they might have been misread. throw ideas around, if no one likes them, we'll find a way. remember apollo? i kinda miss the guy. his/her first edits were pretty cras (sp?) but by the time we all argued over it, the edits were pretty great. i say no use for the gnome account, esp since it's only being used by one person and creating many reverts, editing time that could have been spent elsewhere...' —MichelleAccurso