User talk:Elise Watanabe

Blocked
From your userpage "I feel it necessary to segregate certain remarks from my main account in order to avoid retaliation from administrators who disagree with those remarks." Using a second account to make remarks so that your main account will not be scrutinized for those remarks is expressly prohibited by WP:SOCK. This account is now indef blocked. - auburn pilot   talk  20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point about no quarter asked or given. :-( Elise Watanabe (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you restrict yourself to one account, there will not be a problem. Beyond that, I didn't enable the autoblock so there should be no problem continuing with your main account. Take that for whatever you will, but don't abuse my generosity by creating another sock. - auburn pilot   talk  21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I wont create another sock now that the policy is clear to me. As I said in my self disclosure I have no intention to do anything that is abusive to Wikipedia or against it's policy. If you warned me earlier I  would have stopped this account and not made another sock.  But I guess you wouldn't have got nearly the sense of satisfaction from a friendly warning as jumping right to the indef block, would you? Elise Watanabe (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with personal satisfaction, but seeing how you think admins work out of retaliation, I doubt you'll ever believe that. I don't take anything I do at Wikipedia personally, and my words should be taken at face value and nothing more. Your account violated policy, and it was therefore blocked. If I were looking for some sense of personal satisfaction, I would have enabled the autoblock and caught your main account in the trap. - auburn pilot   talk  02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Elise: I saw your message to me at Tony's page. Perhaps you are right. We are all blind to our blindspots, after all. But I think not. I am well aware of the imperfection of WR and of its members. I think it's more likely that those who characterise WR and all who participate there as unremittedly bad are the ones with blind spots.

To the matter at hand, it is unfortunate that you see this as a no quarter situation. That's a distressing way to look at things... this is not a war, it is a creative project. I'd encourage you to find your voice in your main account, and speak your mind. For that is how things get changed. The sock policy expressly forbids this use of segregation of remarks for good reason, I think. Best wishes in any case, whoever you are. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never "characterised WR and all who participate there as unremittedly bad" and would rather you not drag that red herring across the trail. Some of the WR criticism of Wikipedia as a project is very much on point, so it's a shame that it comes mixed with vile attacks against individuals. The two things that bother me are (1) the Wikipedia editors who participate there and sit silently by while others on WR call fellow Wikipedians "anonymous psychopaths, social rejects and spies" (or much worse), and especially (2) the Wikipedia editors who color inside the lines while participating on-Wiki, then run over to WR to hurl invective from a safe distance. As for "this is not a war, it is a creative project" -- yes, that's the goal, but unfortunately in the past month or two the project has been moving very much in the wrong direction, and even people I have long respected are leaping enthusiastically into the drama and bad feeling. Ref: Stephen Stills, "For What It's Worth", second verse, first two lines. I have used an alternate account here because I'm not interested in becoming collateral damage in other people's battles. Elise Watanabe (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say YOU "characterised...", just that there are those who do. I think Tony in particular is blind to the "very much on point" criticism the site has... I will say I am bothered by your points 1 and 2 as well. Because they are wrong, in and of themselves, and because that this sort of stuff goes on blunts the message. Next: "There's battle lines being drawn, And nobody's right if everybody's wrong." seems spot on to me. I try to step back from the battles and worry about the behaviours. (The ID situation, for example, I'm very opposed to furthering ID as an alternative on an equal footing with science, but I am very aghast at the actions of some on "my side"... that's more worrisome to me). Finally, on the alternate account matter. I think your case highlights a flaw in the policy ... Because you, by disclosing your account, found yourself blocked right away. Kudos to you for your honesty but a block is your reward. If you had instead not disclosed it, not played by the rules, you would have been able to say quite a bit more. Heck, maybe you would never have been discovered at all. That seems wrong to me, rewarding the wrong sort of behavior. I'm more curious than ever about who you are as I think we'd get along. Best. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would, because I consider you an insufferable hypocrite. Elise Watanabe (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)