User talk:Evidence storage

Please use your main account
You state on the user page that this account is a legitimate sock used only to store diffs. However, you are now using it to participate in ArbCom elections and at WP:AN/I. Given that your original account was party to an ArbCom case, and that the case was dismissed on the understanding that you had left the project, using an alternate account for those purposes falls under the "Avoiding scrutiny" section of WP:SOCK. I'm going to ask that you restrict yourself to your main account if you wish to continue to pursue issues relating to your ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 22:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this misinterprets SOCK, because SOCK only prohibits the use of an account to mislead, and I am not pretending to be two different people, I am just using a single account to discuss arbitration-related issues. But if I discuss the issue further, I will use the main account.  Except I can't use my main account because you've blocked the IP.  -- Evidence storage (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my bad... give me one second to fix it. MastCell Talk 22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK... the autoblock should be lifted and you should be able to edit with your other account. If you're still unable to, email me or leave a note here (I'll watch the page). MastCell Talk 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that in no way do I think you're being intentionally deceptive or trying to mislead anyone, nor do I think your actions constitute trolling. However, given that your original account was party to a very recent ArbCom case, I don't think you can legitimately use a separate account to pursue ArbCom-related issues. MastCell Talk 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. I got special dispensation from the ArbCom to create a single-purpose account for the ArbCom-related issues.  It was the subject of a motion in the Arb.  Check the contribution history.  -- Evidence storage (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it was apparently agreed that it was acceptable to use a second account in the context of that particular ArbCom case. Which has since closed. I don't see a dispensation to continue using the account to question ArbCom nominees, comment on WP:AN/I, etc, which is a vrey different situation. That said, the issue is up for discussion at WP:AN/I, where I've posted this softblock and the reasoning behind it. As always, if there is a feeling that I've erred, I'll be happy to undo it. David, please stop posting on this page. It's obviously unwelcome, and as this account has been blocked it serves no constructive purpose. MastCell Talk 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose block
As a result of controversies culminating in the THF-DavidShankBone arbitration case, THF announced that he was leaving Wikipedia. He has adhered to that statement in that he has ceased contributing to the mainspace or to discussion of mainspace edits. He remains free to resume substantive editing at any time but has chosen, for reasons unnecessary to discuss here, not to do so. Instead, he has continued to participate in discussion concerning the arbitration case and closely related matters such as the current ArbCom election through this fully disclosed and acknowledged alternate account.

I believe that THF's use of the alternate account serves the reasonable, stated purpose of separating the arbitration-related edits and thereby avoiding any allegation that he is editing substantively once again. Subject to input from the blocking administrator or anyone else, at present I see no violation of the sockpuppet policy or necessity for this block.

For what it is worth, I do not agree with some of the edits made from this account, and I consider an attempt (by any editor) to unduly focus the ongoing election on any single ArbCom case to be somewhat unhelpful. However, this of course does not provide any support for a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left Wikipedia, so this is largely moot, and learned about this generous effort by Brad only because Brad emailed me. I thank Brad for his efforts, but, as controversies go, I'd rather Wikipedia not debate whether I can use this account (since I don't intend to use it even if it's unblocked, as the arbitration is closed and I am not returning to reopen it, and it was a gigantic waste of my time to expect Raul to answer any questions about the abuse of his authority), as that debate is likely to be pointlessly disruptive.  Instead, I would request that the focus be instead on Shankbone's on- and off-wiki harassment of other editors, and his abusive and trolling behavior on THF-related articles, which continues unabated to the point of 3RR and OWN violations in addition to the existing COI and POV violations.  Evidence storage (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support ES in this. Shankbone needs to stay the hell away from anything related to THF; there's no constructive purpose to reopening old wounds. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose the question, from the point of view of the block, is whether the ArbCom elections are directly related to the THF-DavidShankbone Arbitration case. Clearly there was no issue with using this account in the ArbCom case, and I'm in full agreement there. However, using this account to ask fairly pointed questions in the ArbCom elections of one specific candidate seems to me to go beyond the boundaries of a specific ArbCom case. The questions asked of Raul654 are not inappropriate, but they do reflect an existing dispute between THF and Raul654. If THF wants to ask those questions, then he certainly has that right. I don't feel, however, that he has the right to ask them using an alternate account, as it unecessarily obscures the context. If I feel I've been treated unfairly by an Arbitrator in the past, then I would certainly feel justified in questioning them sharply about the matter when they stand for re-election. However, it would seem inappropriate for me to use a role account to do the questioning. I admit to not following the THF-Shankbone case very closely - if there's a subtext here that I'm missing, then feel free to inform me of it off-wiki if appropriate. This block is also under discussion at WP:AN/I, where I posted it at the time I placed the block, and the general responses there have been in support. Bottom line, though, is that if one finds oneself on the opposite side of an issue from Newyorkbrad, it's best to carefully review said issue. I'm willing to undo this block, or allow Newyorkbrad to do so, but I'd like to hear a clear explanation of why the main account cannot be used to question Raul654 in the ArbCom elections (off-wiki is fine or even preferable, since there appear to be issues of real-life harassment involved) to feel completely comfortable with that. For what it's worth, DavidShankbone's recent behavior in regards to this account and THF has been quite poor. MastCell Talk 04:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words in your response. I appear to have missed the ANI discussion, for which I apologize. Perhaps we have slightly different perceptions of the alternate accounts policy, in that I start with a presumption that use of such an account is acceptable unless there is abuse, whereas another approach is to require specific permission or clearance for using multiple accounts. It appears from the above, however, that Evidence storage/THF does not wish to pursue the matter and instead is asking for follow-up in another direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I presume that the use of alternate accounts is acceptable - but if they're being used in a controversial, touchy, somewhat heated situation then the bar goes up a bit, and I like to see some justification. Alternate accounts, while tolerated for some uses, are generally "not encouraged" (WP:SOCK) or actively discouraged (recent ArbCom decisions), which is where I'm coming from there. In many cases, where alternate accounts are truly used appropriately, we're probably unaware that they are even socks. But once the situation is controversial enough that these sort of questions start arising, I become a bit more skeptical. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)