User talk:Perswapish

October 2014

 * Support unblock This user us a legitimate use of multiple accounts and has not been shown to have violated WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you're a legitimate alternative account of a long term user? Could you log in to that account, and request an unblock there? PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm a long term (but sporadic) user of legitimate alternative accounts, and in fact the majority of my edits have probably been made without even logging into any account at all (gasp!), from whatever IP I happened to be on at the time while traveling. All this is perfectly permissible.  I'm not presently using any account other than Perswapish from this IP.  This is the account (and IP) against which the block was issued, but it's been shown that the allegation of sock abuse was completely false.  I've already requested an unblock... four times.  I don't know what purpose would be served by requesting an unblock for a fifth time, nor by typing that request into the Talk page of some other (currently unused) account, since the block is on the common IP, and all the relevant discussion of the block is here. (I tried logging in to another account to post an unblock request there, but there was no block notice, so I don't know what charge I'm responding to.)


 * I think it would be very helpful if you could state what I'm accused of. It's difficult for me to explain why I'm not guilty of something, when I don't even know what the something is.  The original charge was being "obviously" a sock puppet of INic for purposes of abusively editing the Two Envelope Paradox article.  That was disproved.  Then the charged morphed into being "obviously" a meat puppet for INic in editing that article.  That charge too has been discredited.  Then the charge evolved into a vague "abuse of alternative accounts", having nothing to do with that article, based simply on the fact that I have used multiple accounts, which is perfectly permissible according to Wikipedia policy.  But no one has cited any actual abusive use of alternative accounts, and I've explained the legitimate usage of those accounts for privacy purposes, consistent with explicit Wikipedia policy.  So, I honestly don't know what infraction I'm accused of.  Can you please tell me?Perswapish (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In what way is this question relevant at all, given the reason for the block was the false allegation that me and Perswapish was the same person? This is now shown by you to be untrue why both of us should be unblocked. If you suspect that Perswapish has conducted some other crime you should create a new case for that and clearly state what you think he did wrong. Otherwise I have to agree with Perswapish that the way you treat him is very Kafkaesque. iNic (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * PhilKnight, as you know, Wikipedia policy says a legitimate use of alternative accounts (as distinct from sock puppetry) is "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." I'm sure you're also aware of the strict Wikipedia policy against "outing" and violating the privacy of editors, so I hope you can understand why I've been uneasy about the posting of my IP address and the continuing questions (in public space) about alternative accounts whose sole and legitimate purpose is (or, at this point, was) privacy.  Everyone now agrees that the allegation against me, that led to a lifetime block of my IP address, was completely false, and there was in fact no abuse of legitimate alternative accounts by me, so I think it would be appropriate to lift the lifetime block.Perswapish (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased my question. Otherwise, I don't consider posting checkuser results on a sock puppet investigations page to be outing. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Could I ask if there is someone to whom I can complain about your outing of my personal identity and violation of my privacy? (The fact that you don't consider outing my personal identity to be 'outing' is interesting, but doesn't mitigate the violation.)  Wikipedia policy requires that violations of this kind be expunged immediately.Perswapish (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Ombudsman commission handle complaints related to the Privacy policy. PhilKnight (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I'm starting to lose interest in the Wikipedia project altogether now. A user like Caramella is allowed to behave in the disruptive manner he does while a totally honest and sane user like Perswapish is being outed and blocked indefinitely for absolutely no reasons at all. This is deeply disturbing. Just admit that you made an incorrect decision and once again got fooled by Caramella. How hard can that be? Please don't try to partially justify your actions afterwards by inventing new reasons for a block of one of us that isn't reasons for a block. iNic (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A few comments here. First, a checkuser cannot be run without a legitimate concern being raised: CU's won't do fishing trips.  The fact that INic and Perswapish appeared to be the same person was sufficient enough to go forward with a CU.  Yes, this means that possibly valid alternate accounts are brought forward.  On the other hand, these were also quite possibly "sleeper" accounts.  Nobody can tell either way, can they?  There is no violation of privacy: the names are not identifiable to the person.  The unfortunate side of this is: "if you don't want people to know your other account(s), don't act in such a way that someone will go digging".  Now, I am concerned however about there being "MULTIPLE" "alternate secret accounts" - that in and of itself is extremely damning.  If you want an account to edit "normally", but want a single alternative account to edit "traceable thus harmful" edits, then you only need one.  When you create that account, it's done with the proviso that it may someday become linked to your primary account.  "Abuse of multiple accounts" occurs when a) there are multiple "secret" accounts, b) the accounts have ANY form of intersect (i.e start editing similar subject matter) or c) have obvious intersect (!votes in AFD's, etc).  As INic says, this entire situation is distracting from other possible issues with other editors here on Wikipedia.  If you want that resolved, someone needs to stop with with wikilawyering and agree to move forward.  Agree to single account for a period of a year or something helpful.  the panda ₯’  11:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I read the sockpuppet page and they list 14 inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. I couldn't squeeze your explanation above into any of these categories. Can you please help me find the official support for your decision to eternally block Perswapish? I can't see that the reason you give above is a valid reason for a block. However, among the 11 valid reasons for having multiple accounts "Privacy" is mentioned, exactly the reason Perswapish has explained is his reason for having multiple accounts. But I guess that isn't a valid reason anymore as you have outed all his accounts and refuse to remove that information from Wikipedia. That's not so helpful. I'm however following your helpful advice now and warn every editor that can be seen to be on "my side" in any discussion, because you and other admins are apparently easily influenced by Caramella and his conspiracy theories, so all editors on my side now know that they can be suspected to be different incarnations of me ("The fact that INic and Perswapish appeared to be the same person was sufficient enough to go forward with a CU"). iNic (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. It's helpful to have someone actually explain their reasoning, so I can respond.  You say there is no privacy violation because "the names are not identifiable to the person", but that is unfortunately not true.  If we could communicate in private, I would be happy to explain, and I believe you would agree.


 * You speak ominously about "secret accounts", but of course the whole legitimate purpose for alternative accounts under the Privacy provisions of Wikipedia policy is to avoid having the accounts linked, to maintain privacy. All privacy entails some degree of secrecy.


 * You express a concern about MULTIPLE accounts, and you think that privacy concerns could justify having only ONE alternative account, but again I could easily explain in private why that's untrue. Also, note that the Wikipedia policy specifically says "multiple accounts are allowed".  Admittedly, they didn't put the word "multiple" in CAPS like you did, but I think the meaning of the word is the same.


 * I don't know what a "sleeper account" is, so I can't really comment on that. (Is that what I am accused of?) You say "nobody can tell either way, can they?"  Hmmm... are you saying that I must be presumed to be guilty of something because you don't know for sure that I'm not? That isn't a very good argument, and in any case, the evidence shows that I have not committed any infractions.


 * You note that, in order for the use of alternative accounts to be abusive, they must not only exit (which by itself is allowed by Wikipedia policy, e.g., for privacy purposes, which is inherently secretive), but they must have "(b) ANY form of intersect (i.e start editing similar subject matter) or c) have obvious intersect (!votes in AFD's, etc). My edits don't intersect, and of course I have never voted twice in an AFD, nor participated in a discussion as more than person, etc.  In fact, if I could discuss my edits with you in private, I feel confident you would agree that they are not in any way abusive of the different account names.  I'd also point out that unregistered editors can (and do) edit from any number of different IP addresses, so the important point is that editors must not edit abusively by voting twice in discussions, using other accounts or IPs to support themselves in a discussion, making it appear that their ideas have more support than they do, etc.  Well, I have done NOTHING of the sort.


 * You suggest that I brought this permanent block on myself by allowing myself to be falsely accused of abusive editing, i.e., of participating in the Two Envelope editing as both INic and Perswapish, which would indeed have been abusive if it had been true. But I don't it's very valid to say that I should have avoided being falsely accused, because anyone can be falsely accused.  In fact, if you were to lift the block on me, I wouldn't be surprised if the same editor would accuse YOU of being a meat puppet for INic.  He seems to have a history of such accusations.  According to your advice, no editors would ever dare to disagree with such a person, for fear of being subject to the nightmare that has befallen me, leading to me being permanently blocked AND having my private identity outed.  This isn't good for Wikipedia.


 * Lastly, you accuse me of wikilawyering! Jesus Christ almighty.  I'm subjected to a permanent lifetime block for having committed not the slightest infraction, after everyone has long since agreed that the allegation of abusive socking was completely false, and after going through endless rounds of Kafkaesque interrogation, investigation, and insinuation, without ever even having a clear charge brought against me (other than the original falsified one). Then when I cite the Wikipedia policys that completely justify my actions, and prove that I've committed no infraction, I'm told that my crime is...  wait for it.... wikilawyering!  Excuse me for saying so, but this has become totally insane and disgraceful (and, I must admit, somewhat comical).


 * I request that the block be lifted and the privacy violations be expunged. (Feel free to contact me privately if you need more clarification of the latter.)Perswapish (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am rather surprised at the way Perswapish has been indefinitely blocked for reasons ultimately not related to editing of the TEP article. As far as I can see Perswapish has not used more than one account to edit this article and the original claim that he is a SP of iNic has been dismissed.  I am not an expert on sock-puppetry and I am sure that some people get up to all sorts of trick to increase their influence on WP but there is no evidence of this. On the other had I do find it hard to see why all these accounts are needed if not for some nefarious purpose.


 * I therefore fully support DangerousPanda's suggestion that Perswapish should be allowed to edit again on the basis that he/she has only one registered account. Should we make this suggestion on the SPI page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure there are strong evidences that Perswapish's account was controlled by INic, as experienced editor Drmies suggested when he checked the investigation case. With his own words: "same edits, same writing style as well, pretty obviously a duck here". There are evidences based on common sense and not only check user results. The accounts may appear unconnected but still one being controlled by the other. Caramella1 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me make a fair proposition: Perswapish account was created a few days ago. I suggest to block this account indefinitely and suggest to the person who created this account to use his master account to make his edits. Alternative accounts that make suspicious edits create problems. Caramella1 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting proposition. You're suggesting that the Perswapish account should remain blocked because of "suspicious edits", even though everyone agrees that the suspicions were untrue. We're supposed to assume good faith, so I'm always reluctant to talk about "suspicious edits", but since you mention it as a reason for blocking this account (and the admins seem to be agreeing with you), surely the most "suspicious edits" in the Two Envelopes article are yours.  Your account has no history other than advocating the featuring of one particular paper (Tsikogiannopoulos, 2014) in that article.  Since I always assume good faith, I take you at your word when you say that you have no conflict of interest, and are in no way associated with that paper or its author.  It just so happens that getting that paper into that article is the only thing you care about in Wikipedia.  Fair enough.  But surely you would agree that it is suspicious, i.e., you can understand how a reasonable person might think you actually do have some COI.  Mind you, I'm not saying such suspicions are justified (I personally think it's contemptible to block someone for "suspiciousness", especially when the suspicions have been disproved), I'm just saying that if Perswapish should be permanently blocked because he fell under (unjustified) suspicion of being a meat puppet for INic, then wouldn't it be appropriate to block Caramella1 on suspicion (justified or not) of being a meat puppet for Tsikogiannopoulos?  A complete block probably isn't needed, so I propose that Caramella1 simply be banned from advocating the inclusion of the paper by Tsikogiannopoulos in Wikipedia.  Agreed?Perswapish (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perswapish, you are not doing yourself any favours by retaliating against Caramella1. As I understand things now there is an unblocked account which you can access to edit articles. Best to get on with constructive editing using that account (if it is not one of your accounts the just say so). Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin, I don't think you understand the situation. As long as Perswapish is under a permanent lifetime block, and is openly linked to any other account I might use (because the admins will not take down the privacy-violating information, despite repeated requests), I am branded as an illegitimate abusive editor, no matter what account I use.  This is utterly unjustified.  The block should have been lifted immediately as soon as the false allegation was disproven, and as soon as it was established that I have committed not the slightest infraction of any Wikipedia rules.  But as you know, that isn't what has happened.  On the recommendation of the editor who filed the false allegation in the first place(!), this account remains permanently blocked, as if I've committed some infraction, and therefore I'm effectively still under a permanent lifetime block, despite having committed not the slightest infraction.  Also, as long as I am under a lifetime block as an abusive user, it's impossible for me to appeal the privacy case.  The privacy-violating information needs to be taken down (that's the most important thing), and since the admins won't do that, I need the Perswapish block (which never had a basis to begin with) to be lifted so that I can appeal the privacy violation (which should never have occurred in the first place).  If you have a constructive suggestions for how to remedy this situation, I'd welcome your ideas.Perswapish (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Caramella1, as a single purpose account yourself I do not think you should be throwing accusations at Perswapish. The fact is that he/she has not actually done anything wrong at all and suggestions the he/she is a sock of iNic have been dismissed.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the suggestion by Caramella1 is a good place to start, and I've removed the auto-block, but left this account blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess that it is much the same thing, assuming that Perswapish does, in fact, have access to the alleged master account. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The main thing that needs to be done now is to expunge the "outing" and privacy violation on the sock puppet investigation page. How do I go about doing that?Perswapish (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of archiving the page, it can be blanked and marked as courtesy blanked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be great. Can you tell me how to make that happen?  Do I need to file a special request?Perswapish (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've courtesy blanked the SPI page. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh oh... I just read the "courtesy blank" page, and see that it doesn't really remove any content, it is still visible in the page history - and hence still shows up in google searches, etc., so it really isn't removed. I think there must be some way to actually expunge content in cases like this, for privacy, copyright, or whatever, where the content needs to be gone.  Can anyone tell me how to make that happen?Perswapish (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, have a look at Requests for oversight. PhilKnight (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OK great but how do you think Perswapish can request for anything at Wikipedia while he's still blocked? iNic (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oversight requests are done by email. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All right, I think I've found an email address where I can send the request. Is it okay for me to state that you concur with deleting the list of accounts from that page?Perswapish (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'd prefer if you left my name out of your request. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I can keep your name out of the request. I'm required to provide them with the diff where the material was posted.  You're the admin who posted the list of accounts, so they will probably want to know if you concur with deleting it.  If you don't concur, there's probably no point in even filing the request.  Are you saying you don't concur?  If so, why?Perswapish (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should include a diff, but otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't suggest I want the page deleted. From my perspective, after this all resolved, courtesy blanking the page should be sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The privacy problem (revealing my real-world identity) isn't eliminated by just blanking the current page.  The information remains in the history pages.  Deleting the info is just a more effective version of blanking it.  Even if you think blanking is sufficient, that isn't a reason to <I>oppose</I> the actual deletion.  Do you actually <I>oppose</I> deletion of the information, even knowing the privacy issue?  If so, why?Perswapish (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What you are requesting is oversight and not deletion, and oversight is only carried out in accordance with a policy that precisely defines where it can be used. For the third, and hopefully, last time, I'd prefer if you left my name out of your request. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, an oversight was performed by admin Daniel Case (talk) on incorrect grounds very quickly for me. I hadn't outed any private information at all and still this admin deleted what I had written including the edit history. So this thingy being "carried out in accordance with a policy that is precisely defined" for sure doesn't apply in all cases. I asked the admin afterwards in what way I had outed anything but never got an answer. And now we have this case with Perswapish who really has a need for this feature, but suddenly no admin seem to be able to help him in a speedy manner. I find the way you treat Perswapish disgraceful. iNic (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

, I'm sorry I didn't follow up to your response ... I generally don't watchlist the talk pages of people I leave messages to, especially when I wasn't trying to open a discussion, and evidently you didn't think a reply from me to that was important enough to you to ask me on my talk page for one. Since fully replying to your query would require discussing the oversighted edit in more detail, I am willing to email you privately about this if you're still interested. However, I am a little annoyed that I had to find out through Echo that you were badmouthing me here, especially since there's no direct relevance I can see to this situation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No I'm not badmouthing you at all. On the contrary I'm using you as an good example that oversight of private information can be done in a very speedy manner. So speedy that I was never informed what I had done wrong or given any intelligible explanation of any sort. By this experience I know for a fact that oversight can be performed very quickly. So we would really need your speedy services here right now. User Perswapish have been outed with all his alternative accounts why his private identity can be revealed. Don't ask too many questions and do as you did last time and simply delete all information about his alternative accounts. Thank you very much in advance! iNic (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * PhilKnight, maybe I've been using the wrong terminology: when I say deletion I mean suppression. The oversight link you provided says We usually suppress an edit or other information if it contains: 1. Non-public personal information about a real individual... This includes... the name of a workplace or school, other online and offline identities... accidentally disclosed IP addresses, and (subject to oversighter judgment) other information of an identifying nature. It then gives instructions for requesting that such material be suppressed.  That's what I'm preparing to do.  As I mentioned before, I can't entirely "keep your name out of it", since I'm required to provide the diff where the information was posted. I thought it might also be helpful to include your position on the matter, but I understand that you prefer not to share that, so I'll proceed without it.  Thanks.Perswapish (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: It's been 5 days (and counting) since this account was permanently blocked, with no advance warning of any kind, and no explanation, even after the alleged infraction was disproved. Despite repeated requests, I have not (yet) been able to find out why the unjustified block has not been lifted. More importantly, during the investigation of the false accusation, private information about me was gratuitously "outed", and my efforts to have the information suppressed have so far been unsuccessful. It's been 24 hours since I followed the instructions on the "Oversight" page and emailed the oversight folks, requesting the suppression of the privacy-violating information. So far there's been no response of any kind.Perswapish (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked another admin and all outing should be deleted now. iNic (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Unfortunately, they didn't <I>quite</I> get all of the pages.  Of the 11 history pages that contained the outing info, only 10 were suppressed.  One still remains with all the info.  This sure is difficult!  Your help is very much appreciated, and I will try to contact them to finish up the oversight of that last remaining page.Perswapish (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw that too so I sent an additional request yesterday to fix the things that remain. I'm no less a victim of this absurd and unfair situation than you are. iNic (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is definitely a ridiculous situation. It would make a good case study of the disfunction that sometimes afflicts Wikipedia.  But at least it appears that the Wikipedia Oversight Team has succeeded now in suppressing all the pages with the privacy violations.  Thanks again for your help with that.  I'm less optimistic about ever getting my account unblocked, or even of ever getting anyone to tell me why it is blocked.  As of now, my last official unblock request remains unanswered, so it's in a state of perpetual limbo.  Apparently there's no such thing as habeas corpus in Wikipedia!  I'll just have to keep working at it, and hopefully some day will get the block lifted (or at least get an explanation for why it is not lifted).Perswapish (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've lost interest in contributing to Wikipedia now. It is extremely disturbing that admins can block you eternally for no valid reason at all. I've asked other admins to have a look at your case but no one seem to care. It's not precisely rocket science to see that you have been blocked for no valid reason. So I'm out of here. iNic (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry that the admins have allowed someone to succeed in his campaign to drive TWO editors who disagreed with him out of Wikipedia. Just for fun, I reviewed all of my edits in that discussion of the Two Envelopes Problem, and they still strike me as models of civil and sensible comments.  It occurs to me that the explanation for the behavior of the admin here may be related to a comment made by Martin Hogbin awhile back, which at the time I thought was so outrageous that I shouldn't even dignify it with a reply.  After acknowledging that there is no evidence that I've committed any infraction (!), Martin added "On the other hand, I do find it hard to see why all these accounts are needed if not for some nefarious purpose".  It would be difficult to overstate the inappropriateness of that statement, on several levels, especially after the Wikipedia policy describing the legitimate (non-nefarious) uses of alternate accounts for privacy purposes had been posted. Still, maybe I should have seized it as a teachable moment to help Martin and others understand.  Here's an actual example:


 * I recently noticed that there's a Wikipedia page on a relative of mine, and the page still says he is alive, whereas he is actually deceased (as of over a year ago). I considered making an edit to the page, to note that he is deceased, perhaps with a link to one of the obituaries. However, people reading that page, including my relatives, might someday note the editor who added that information, and be curious enough to check that editor's other edits, at which point some of them would have no trouble identifying me, and thereafter my editing on Wikipedia (under that account name) would no longer be anonymous.  The creation of a new account for the specific purpose of making such an edit while maintaining anonymity is perfectly understandable and consistent with Wikipedia policy.


 * Other situations of a similar nature arise from time to time for editors seeking to maintain their anonymity. It would obviously make no sense to use the same alternate account, over and over, so one simply creates a new one for each purpose. Note that, of the seven other accounts associated with me, five of them made only a SINGLE edit (one or two diffs each), to completely unrelated articles, all uncontested (and the other two, with a larger number of diffs, were also completely separate editorial activities).  This is the very definition of a legitimate use of an alternate account as described in the Wikipedia privacy policy.  I honestly don't know why anyone would find it difficult to imagine such uses (especially after reading the Wikipedia policy page that explicitly describes them), but I'm beginning to think it is precisely the inability to imagine or comprehend any legitimate uses of alternate accounts that explains why the block on my account was not immediately lifted as soon as it became clear that I have committed no infraction.Perswapish (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Perswapish, can I ask you a direct question. Would you be happy to have just one account on WP or do you insist that you are entitled to have multiple accounts and that those accounts should never be publicly linked. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy says "multiple accounts are allowed", and describes several legitimate uses of alternate accounts, one of which is to maintain privacy and anonymity, and of course this requires that the accounts not be publically linked. I edit Wikipedia only on the condition of anonymity.  If Wikipedia rules didn't allow this, I wouldn't edit here.  But they do.  So the question is:  Why is this account blocked?Perswapish (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perswapish, where does it say that a legitimate use of a multiple account is is to maintain privacy and anonymity? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had been assuming you were already familiar with the Wikipedia policy, especially since it was already quoted previously on this very talk page. For your convenience, here (again) are some relevant quotes from the Wikipedia policy pages:
 * "Multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not."
 * "Legitimate uses:
 * Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which <I>they do not want their real name to be associated</I> [anonymity]... These accounts are not sockpuppets...."
 * "Valid reasons [for the use of alternative accounts] include:
 * 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."


 * Of course, in addition to this explicit policy, there is also the obvious fact that it is perfectly permissible to edit Wikipedia without registering any account name at all, and from any number of different IP addresses. (Some IP services assign a new address to customers every time they log on.) One of the advertised benefits of registering a user name is for anonymity and privacy, to prevent your IP address from being displayed. We all know that Wikipedia has our IP addresses, but we rely on them to not betray our trust by some day revealing those addresses and linking them to our account names or other identifying information that they have gathered.  Many people would cease participation immediately if they thought Wikipedia couldn't be trusted to keep private the information that can identify people.  This, I believe, is why Wikipedia is as responsive as it is about suppressing privacy violations.Perswapish (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not challenging what you said just asking where it is stated in WP. I have found it now.  I just wanted to check my facts before supporting you.  It would seem to me that you have been blocked for no valid reason, which is very worrying.  I have added my support for your unblocking request.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. It looks like the block has been lifted.Perswapish (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)