User talk:Radio Sterling

Previous account(s)?
Hi, please provide a list of the accounts you have used for editing Wikipedia in the past, or a credible explanation why not doing so is compatible with the sockpuppetry policy, especially with its restriction of "Internal discussions" participation ("WP:PROJSOCK"). Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I happily confirm that my ability to participate in Wikipedia under my real name and/or linked pseudonymous accounts would be greatly hampered if it were to become widely known that I hold the views and positions that this account does. I freely accept the risk of exposure if there is a Functionary on this local Project who deems my posts to be evidence of disruptive or harmful intent, while reserving my rights under the relevant Resolutions and their local interpretatios to have said Functionary held accountable if they are found to be acting outside of reasonable bounds of discretion and good judgement in pursuance of this apparent request to know my full and complete editing history as a condition of being allowed to make what are to my mind, some rather simple and constructive statements and other non-voting commentary pursuant to the goals of Wikipedia (specifically, good governance as it petains to the pseudonymous environment). Radio Sterling (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite block
As you have continued to edit without responding above or giving any indication that you will do so, I have blocked this account indefinitely. The reason for the block is:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. At their discretion, any administrator may lift or modify this block without consulting me beforehand. DanCherek (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just noted that you were blocked at 02:19 – six minutes before your response to user:ToBeFree was posted above at 02:25.
 * As you state that your reason for creating this alternative account was to anonymously give your opinion to the Bureaucrats as they chat about the current RfA, do you wish to further comment on that matter?
 * You state that this block is contradictory to Wikipedia's blocking policies. Please explain how you've formed that opinion. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is contrary to BLOCK for the reasons given above. I think the matter of why I wanted to post with this account is at least moot now, although like any upstanding citizen I would appreciate it if the stain of an incorrect block is removed. It says a lot regarding the supposed need to block me, that my alleged violations of PROJSOCK are not apparently seen to be such a disruption that they merit a consistent or even logical response, with some posts struck, others ignored, my alleged status as a persona non grata only noted much later, without anyone bothering to clear up the obvious issue with the block (only adding to the sense that it is and was an exercise in lazy everyday corruption, rather than a mere mistake). Others have made the same points I have there. I guess I could have some fun now and claim that this is a sock of one of those users, causing actual disruption as they try to prove their innocence. But it is not. I take the socking policy seriously, so I do not create accounts like this where their use would be an attempt to avoid scrutiny, stack votes or post where my main account would not be allowed to post. The lack of anyone explaining what is specifically disruptive about my posts, other than this obviously false idea that anyone posting in project space is required to display their full and entire editing history on pain of blocking, is telling. But I think it would be more productive to continue my commentary on these matters of everyday corruption and general isolationism over at Wikipediocracy, knowing as I do that Wikipedia Administrators these days seem to hate the very idea of having their mistakes discussed where they occurred. Which is something I hope you can assist me with - it appears my registration email has yet to be responded to. Can you have a word with them and speed things along? My name is Grant Palmer. Thanks in advance. Radio Sterling (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Radio Sterling, I'm sorry that you feel the block is unfair. Just to clarify, I applied the block yesterday because I felt at the time – as I still do now – that this was not a legitimate use of an alternate account in accordance with the sockpuppetry policy, and because there was no forthcoming response to ToBeFree that would demonstrate otherwise. This was clear in your responses above, in which you mentioned that you have a "main account" and that you don't want it to "become widely known that I hold the views and positions that this account does". Creating such an alternative account solely for inserting yourself into discussions on a 'crat chat talk page, to me, crosses the line in terms of what is or isn't allowed for a privacy alt. It's an evasion of scrutiny that affects community trust. No, you don't necessarily need to have your "full and entire editing history" on display, and that's not what was originally asked of you either – but I've also yet to see a credible explanation for why you felt that you had to make a whole new account for airing your opinions in that discussion. All that being said, your unblock request above is in the review queue – hopefully you won't have to wait too long – and when I wrote above that administrators need not consult with me prior to unblocking, that was intended as an assurance that I won't stand in the way if you are able to convince the reviewing administrator that your use of this account is in accordance with policy. DanCherek (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "please provide a list of the accounts you have used for editing Wikipedia in the past" is pretty unambiguous. This is not a privacy alt per se, given I was already well aware that PROJSOCK is effectively a green light to doxx anyone who posts in project space with evident prior knowledge of Wikipedia, but if you see no credible reason why a Wikipedia editor might not wish it to be widely known that they often try (and spectacularly fail) to turn around failing RFAs, and otherwise ensure that the lessons of car crash episodes like RxxS are avoided in the ensuing debates, I fear you do not know this community very well. Which is unsurprising, given you are an extremely novice Administrator. It is well known that Wikipedia is an incredibly toxic environment, where one off hand comment that offends certain users with strongly held opinions on matters such as those exposed in that RfA, can lead to literally years of serious harassment. One direct effect of your block was to prompt Kudpung to wipe my hopefully helpful advice from MB's talk page, an astonishingly arrogant act that he couldn't hope to have gotten away with, were I to choose to make it with my main account. Is that rational? Does that look like something that could and should be supported by Wikipedia policy? Especially given MB himself can still read it anytime he wants. Balancing risks and rewards to myself and Wikipedia, I have no compellong reason to repost it with my main account, and in that specific example, a giant Kudpung shaped reason not to. This is an example of what lies behind my choice to use an alternate account for this type of edit. All perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. I will repeat what should be obvious to you, there was no specific reason for anyone to believe the purpose of my posts was a reason that is typically behind nefarious sock-puppetry. I would ask you therefore to reflect whether, if asked the direct question, what specific breach of trust do you think has occurred here, that I should have been and indeed remain blocked, in your judgement? If you cannot do that, you are merely patrolling lines because someone told you that was the job of a Wikipedia Administrator, and you're just about competent enough to read a document that define where the lines are. I am forced to remind you, much as MB has been so forcefully reminded by his peers, that is not their role at all. They are meant to think. To be able to expand on pertinent questions such as what are the pros and cons to Wikipedia governance of forcing me to expose my entire editing history before I should be allowed to make the sort of entirely logical and completely benign comments I made in project space regarding his RfA? Similarly, what are the advantages your approach to policy that your block handed to the likes of Kudpung, in this matter? Are they healthy things, or do they look like the sort of thing that enables and indeed furthers the toxic environment and the insider/outsider culture that so many people cite as the primary reason they choose not to volunteer here. Radio Sterling (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't take complaints about a toxic environment seriously when voiced directly after a toxic statement. To prevent you from further contributing to the toxicity, I'll revoke talk page access. If you'd like to continue editing, use your main account; if you'd like to provide the disclosure that would be required for continuing to use this account here, you can do so (and appeal the sock block) from your main account as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)