User talk:Legit Alternate Account

Hello, please read WP:SCRUTINY. Switching accounts to conceal your identity while you post on Jimbo Wales' talk page is not a legitimate use of an alt account, so I've soft-blocked this account. Please make your point from your main account. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? I'm asking questions about leaks of nude celebrity images. I don't want my main account associated with those questions because I don't want my main account associated with nude celebrity images (and my knowledge of them). That should be pretty easy to understand. I though privacy was a legit use of alternate accounts? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I just checkusered the account and was unable to find any associated account or evidence of this being any longstanding banned user or whatever. The question was a valid one, and sensitivity about connecting one's real life identity to what some might view as a "pop culture" topic strikes me as a reasonable reason for privacy.  As a courtesy, I'd love for the user to let me know who they are, but I don't really see any reason for a block.  Since my talk page is involved, and since therefore I might be viewed as being involved, I won't do the unblock but do recommend that the request be accepted unless there is a further compelling reason that I don't yet know about. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jimbo. I'm going to assume that someone less trigger-happy than HJ Mitchell will unblock me eventually. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This would be a lot easier -- just routine -- if you'd knock off with bashing the volunteer who blocked you. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm a little bit irked that I was blocked for an entirely spurious reason. I think you would be, too. If you think my feelings about HJ MItchell make this anything other than routine, you'll have to explain it to me. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Media upload protocol
84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only objection to approving image uploads is the whine that there are too many images to approve. Your scheme suggests that failing to approve (or disapprove) the image results in the final transfer to Commons after a set period of time. It doesn't really solve the problem of images not being checked and it would delay uploads in general. I would prefer a system where someone in effect says "I have checked this against our criteria" versus one where images are disputed. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This protocol gives the user (or a bot) an opportunity to oppose to possible inappropriate content. The check-all-media policy is the scenario where user B opposes to all media files, maximizing the upload delay. The concerned users should propose a reasonable delay that would allow them to check the new files. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are proposing, but in your scheme there is no difference between no one "opposing" the upload and no one looking at the upload. I could only support a scheme that requires someone to check files of unknown origins. If no one looks at a file, we have no reason to assume that it is acceptable for use. Also, having someone "approve" files means that someone is taking responsibility for that file. If it turns out that they are frequently approving files that should have been caught as copyright violations (for example), we can remove the rights to approve files. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No one opposing does not mean no one looking. No one looking may mean no one caring, thus the burden is on the concerned user. There is a good reason to assume that uploaded content is acceptable: terms of use. Uploaders are legally responsible for their contributions on Wikimedia Projects. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely backwards perspective. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes one should detach from a problem, since there may be a bigger one behind. So, is . The user has  an important fact: Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites in the world, Alexa rank 6 precisely.
 * I have a vision that I would like to share. I imagine a group of organized users gathering autoconfirmed accounts, perhaps with sysop permissions. When the time is right, every possible image will be replaced with the same inappropriate picture. Does Wikipedia accept this risk? Of course, this is only imagination; no one would dare to actually do it. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is implicitly accepting this risk by doing nothing to prevent it despite being aware of it. It is quite possible for a coordinated attack such as the one you outline to succeed to a limited degree, even without sysop permissions. It would be caught quite quickly and uploads to Commons would be shut down. The more pressing risk is that random images will be continually be replaced with inappropriate images. This is harder to spot and makes Commons and/or Wikipedia admins do unnecessary work to detect and revert such changes. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Random content continually being replaced with inappropriate content; as said in the founder's talk page, that is vandalism and should be fought the same way. Wikipedia has edit filters; instead of regular expressions, image recognition would be necessary. Solutions exist, but there are three issues to bear in mind:
 * Wikipedia is not censored and shocking content is allowed.
 * Filter writers will have to deal with this inappropriate content.
 * In order to be preventive, someone will have to keep track of these content providers and supply filter writers with new content... which is ironic. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your solution is unworkable for a number of reasons (which aren't worth going into) and would be easily circumvented. made a suggestion on Jimbo's talk page. Comparing the old and new versions of an image and flagging anything that is too different is quite doable. It does not prevent vandals from replacing images, but it would help catch them sooner. I have proposed two obvious solutions which will prevent another instance of the latest form of image vandalism (which isn't actually new). I am sure there are many more solutions possible, but there does not seem to be much interest in working on this right now. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of WP:SOCK. You have stated that you are an experienced Wikipedia editor in good standing, who created this alternate account to work on one issue, an issue you have previously stated was nude celebrity images. (Charming edit summary there, by the way.) However, there is nothing related to nude celebrity images in your contributions history. What you have actually used the account for is post on User talk:Jimbo Wales, start an ANI thread to complain about a user, and work on Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)‎. As Dennis Brown pointed out in his third and final warning here, the first two are exactly the type of activity that is barred from undisclosed alternate accounts. In response to Dennis, you have made a virtue of not just "creating a sock and pretending to be a new user", but instead being what you call "completely open". However, "using an alternate account to work on controversial topics that I don't want associated with my main account" is not being completely open, it is the very definition of avoiding scrutiny. You haven't replied to Dennis' or Worm's last posts on Dennis' talkpage. I can't tell what that means; perhaps that you have been convinced by their arguments and intend to stop using this account. If that's the case, I presume there will be no inconvenience in having it blocked.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply because I hadn't yet seen them. I don't quite know what to say to Dennis other than I created the account so that my main account wouldn't be associated with nude celebrity images and then started discussing nude celebrity images on Jimbo's page. A couple of the things I would have done on articles were addressed as the direct result of that discussion. What part of that is hard to understand? I'm not going to get into detail as to why I don't want to have that topic associated with my account, but I don't. That's my business. So far, I've been blocked (twice), checkusered (probably more than once now), accused of trolling (I'm not sure how any of the edits I have made could be considered trolling), and generally received with bad faith by the admins I've had the misfortune to interact with. Everyone else has been great (with the exception of Signedzzz who really needs to chill out). I should have called this account JohnSmith2600 and said nothing about having another account. Lesson learned. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * LAA, I came across this issue while casually browsing ANI. Yes, the primary issue is that you have two (apparently) active accounts. I ran into a similar situation years ago, when there was a spate of off-wiki harassment of users who edited controversial topics. My username at the time was one I used across the 'net, which was easily traced back to my real-life identity.
 * I created this account and, importantly, *retired the old one*. That, and avoiding topics I had previously edited, allowed me to make a clean break without violating the rules on socking or dealing with the issues of alternate accounts. I also made it clear I was willing to privately divulge the previous account to an admin when asked, so they could verify the account was abandoned.
 * That's what I suggest you do. Let this account lie fallow, retire your other account and start over. Yes, you lose the history of whatever account you'd been editing under but, if you're concerned about being called out for editing in controversial areas, your safety should outweigh those concerns. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but I want to continue to use my other account and its accumulated privileges not retire it and start over. I don't want that account associated with certain controversial topics. At the same time, I have things to say about those topics. It used to be that having an alternate account or two for that purpose was fine. I guess times have changed, but I am sure there are still many editors here with undisclosed alternate accounts. There's no point in asking to be unblocked if this account won't be treated with good faith. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If wants to contribute to controversial articles, I suggest the user to restrict the edits to talk namespace. Consensus is not achieved by vote, thus the other account should not be able to enforce Legit Alternate Account's opinions. The user should not make requests for closure. 84.127.82.127 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm restricting myself to not using this account to edit, since it is blocked and unlikely that any admin would be willing to unblock it. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Would consider to unblock this account if  restricts the edits to talk namespace as  (and if the user appeals the block)? 84.127.82.127 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Thank you for trying to help here, but I don't think talkpage editing is any less of a problem than article editing in regard to avoiding scrutiny. However, if Legit does appeal the block it won't be me that reviews it, but a previously uninvolved admin. If such an admin should put up a convincing argument for unblocking, I won't stand in the way. By convincing I mean something better than arguments from authority (=Jimbo). Bishonen &#124; talk 21:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC).
 * should realize that any other administrator would be seen as the undisclosed account; at least, I hope that Bishonen could appoint this uninvolved administrator. 's user has the right to contribute to any article in Wikipedia, which would not be possible using only the undisclosed account. If this is a good faith account, the other one will not edit the same articles, so scrutiny is not avoided. Bad faith users have easier ways to disrupt, e.g., by not telling that they have alternate accounts.
 * "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." 84.127.82.127 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Even more naked celebrities on Wikipedia?
, did you know that we've had more incidents of the kind discussed here and here? On October 25th someone replaced images of Katy Perry, Alanis Morrisette, and Freddie Mercury with other images. And on October 15th someone replaced an image of Zoe Quinn. I don't know what the uploaded images were but I think it is safe to assume it wasn't something nice. Of course the images were not protected until after the vandalism had already happened. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that this is going to keep happening until the WMF does something to stop it. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dread Pirate Roberts
, I was amused by your statement "As I've said frequently, mentioning names is not an issue (the name is in the reference, anyway). If anyone thinks it is worth adding the name to the article, feel free: I have no opinion on the subject". You edit warred over including the name, first calling it a BLP violation and then calling it "libel". You seem to have changed your tune now that and  have arrived at the discussion. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not even once suggested removal of the name. Read WP:COMPETENCE zzz (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your actions speak for themselves. You removed all material which includes the name. Many times. With three different yet equally incorrect reasons. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not sure if your trolling or you are just chronically hard of understanding - probably both, I suspect. Either way, it's clearly an abuse of your access to this page. zzz (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am being completely serious. Can you explain how anything I have said might be considered "trolling"? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * should know that this conversation is dangerous. The user should ask first to be unblocked. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Danger is my middle name. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Legit Danger Account should ask to be unblocked then. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall a where  unblocked a user that offered self-imposed restrictions.  could request an unblock to edit these personal pages only. We could comment on ways for an editor to contribute without leaving personal information on Wikipedia. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So this is my line: is it really true that DPR no longer has control over Silk Road? The criminal complaint evokes some patterns. (Whoever reads this out of context, I am not implying that Wikipedia's founder is a criminal.)
 * Well, if this user has decided to rest, I will resume other tasks. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)