Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Privatemusings

I have blocked. I have given a lengthy explanation on the talk page. Basically, having registered an alternate account in order to contribute to a heated and contentious debate (acceptable) he has stepped outside those bounds to edit-war over links to a blog whihc contains the usual bullshit allegation about SlimVirgin. Whether or not the blog is acceptable in the article, it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. Several people have expressed acute discomfort about Privatemusings' editing patterns, including this:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167542856&oldid=167537969
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167547955&oldid=167545420
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167724429&oldid=167701098
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167763380&oldid=167759942
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167978680&oldid=167967496

and here supporting an earlier revert by a Jon Awbrey sock:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167515431&oldid=167507361

Enough is enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that the account was no longer being used to contribute to a contentious debate, instead to edit war, and deserved to be be blocked. I note you blocked with autoblocks on.  I suggest you unblock and reblock with the autoblock disengaged.  Neil   ☎  23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe tomorrow. The main account holder could possibly use an enforced reminder about acceptable behavior.  As long as he doesn't post unblock, he won't give away who he is/was. Thatcher131 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was an oversight on my part, so yes I will fix it. I've no desire to give even the slightest appearance of being punitive here.  I think that the user got carried away and forgot himself, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Guy. Do we really have to spatter the user page with a "haha we got you" indef blocked template?  Neil   ☎  23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse block, using an "alternative account" just to edit war, sorry but no. Jbeach sup 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Using an alternative account for hot topics is explicitly allowed. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action".  No one's claiming PM's being blocked for abusing sock puppets.  --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a positive application of Jimbo's new 'take no less hassle from trolls' attitude. good block. ThuranX 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been forced to protect PM's user talk page. See the edit history there, and the reasoning will be self-evident. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to evade a ban, so suffice to say I consider the behaviour of involved editors to be questionable at best. I entreat other uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and hope this comment can remain. I won't post again until at least my talkpage is unprotected. Many Thanks, Privatemusings 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So I'm reading through this again, and while I agree with the greater substance of this block, in that PM has gone from contentious high end Arbcom/admin stuff to editing regular, contentious articles. That said, the edits in the list above reflect the core of the difficulties involved in the EL debates. Is that site being discussed in any particular location? It does certainly seem to have credibility overall for the topic, but due to that singular section, becomes objectionable. I'd like to see the discussion in action, as might others interested in both topics. Anyone got a link? ThuranX 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Where in WP:SOCK does it state that participation in discussion is legitimate, but the moment that contentious editing is involved, its illegitimate? Failing that statement in policy, I don't see how this block can stand. Does JzG wish to confirm that PM's "good hand" account is also participating in the same content dispute simultaneously? Because that is abusive, and the only justification for the block. Relata refero 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS
UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. Completely unbelievable. Private Musings has been a polite and kind contributor to the situation, and his anonymous mediation was extremely helpful in reaching the solution that was reached at WP:NPA. PM has always been upfront about being a sockpuppet, and as this block shows, he has good reason to fear that his connecting his view on BADSITES to his main account would make his wiki-life a living hell. WP:SOCK is quite clear that socks are legitimate in cases like this.

The so-called "edit warring" isn't much of a war at all-- it's a content dispute, and one that is largely resolved. Growing consensus on multiple pages has come down in support of links of this sort in general, and the article's talk page shows substantial support for this links in particular. PM's edits were supported by consensus.

And if his edits look repetitive, it's merely because he was combating seven edits worth of vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user, Throwawayarb, who was using the sockpuppet MOASPN to evade a block. Reverting vandalism by an indefblocked user is NOT edit warring, and you can't with a straight face say that this is a case of ban-worthy edit warring. The fact that the blocking user is someone who has vocally disagrees with blockee about the content dispute only makes the block look even more indefensible.

This is a travesty. We all know PM is not being blocked for "edit warring"-- his edits just don't meet the standard. at is that links of this     We all know PM isn't being blocked for being a sock--  WP:SOCK explicitly endorses PM's actions. PM is being blocked for advocating a position that the blocking admin disagrees with.

This is the sort of thing someone should be desysopped over. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a less shrill objection with more diffs would be more convincing. I support the block. - Jehochman Talk 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the shrillness, this action just sorta confirms my worst fears. All through the Attack-Site Arbcom case, shrill lunatics tried to say BADSITES was just about a clique of bullies trying to use wikipedia as a platform to bully others.  I always told those people they were crazy-- that everyone on all sides was acting in good faith and the pro-BADSITES people were just trying to protect the rights of all to contribute to Wikipedia using a pseudonym.   This block, however, demonstrates to me that in at least for one admin doesn't give a damn about the right to edit pseudonymously if you have a disagreement with him.


 * I just really didn't want this to be true of Guy, or anyone else, ya know? I wanted us all to be bigger than that. I'm pretty devastated to see him act this badly.  --Alecmconroy 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then try talking with Guy civilly. Maybe there is more information that Guy can share with you. - Jehochman  Talk 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My ears are open, and I have contacted Guy about this.  But the more important discussion now is going to be how we handle Guy's behavior. --Alecmconroy 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:SOCK policy says:
 * Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
 * The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. 
 * If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.
 * Until a week ago the policy also said: Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.
 * While I vocally opposed Privatemusings' use of a sock account to write policy, I did not seek to have the account blocked. But using the sock account in a content dispute is different. The account is now being used in disruptive dramas that don't further WP's goals. No wonder the user doesn't want his main account tarred by his activities. I've mentioned it before but I think that using a pseudonym to defend the outing of another user is hypocritical. He did so hypothetically on a policy page, but actually on a main space page. While I don't suggest outing him or identifying his main account, I do suggest that there is no good reason for him to hide behind a double veil while pulling away the veils of others. He can still edit under his main account, and comment on any issue. This isn't an editor ban, only an account block. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We should also compare the block of Privatemusings to the recent block of User:MOASPN and related accounts. The two cases appear to share similar behaviors: linking to an outing site and using a sock to make contentious proposals. I'd ask those who oppose this block if they also oppose the block of MOASPN. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The PM account has not be used in disrupting dramas.  The account has been used in valid policy and  content disputes, and in EVERY case where there's been a dispute, arbcom & community consensus has ultimately sided AGAINST GUY and WITH PM.  I work very very hard to WP:AGF, but it's very hard to see this as anything more than retribution.  That he didn't even take the time to get an uninvolved admin to do the block makes it almost impossible to see this as anything but retribution.  --Alecmconroy 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Balls. The account was being used to edit war over a (much discussed) blog link on the Robert Black (professor) article - not what the original intent was. Having a seperate unconnected sock account to discuss and contribute towards potentially contentious policy is one thing, and what the account was originally being used for. Using it to edit war over knowingly contentious content is another - as soon as that happens, you don't have the right to use a single purpose sock account to edit war.  Neil   ☎  11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SOCKS disagrees with you. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."


 * And even if it were true that PM had somehow accidentally violated WP:SOCKS, the solution is to start a discussion about whether his actions were consistent with WP:SOCKS-- a policy he has worked hard to comply with. If  it emerged that he had accidentally misread a minor detail of WP:SOCKS, I'm sure he'd apologize and refrain from such action in the future.


 * The solution is NOT to jump straight to an indefinite ban. PM, both as PM and as his true identity, is a very respected editor who's done a lot to help us find consensus over at NPA.  He's made many many valuable contributions. An indefinitely ban, if it stands, is just a transparent attempt to silence him--- or at least to silence him from speaking pseudonymously . --Alecmconroy 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pedantry first - a ban is not a block is not a ban. The account, Privatemusings, is blocked. The user behind the PM account is not banned  You block accounts, you ban the person behind the account. If you really want to wikilawyer, though, you need to read the part of WP:SOCK about "good hand, bad hand" accounts.  The PM account had become a bad hand account being used to edit war.  An edit war is, by its nature, disruptive.  The PM account was being disruptive.   Neil   ☎  11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * a "Bad hand" is an account you use to violate policy.  Do you really believe PM's four measely edits, over three days, to revert a vandal who was using a SOCK to circumvent a ban, constitute a "disruptive edit war" which merits an indefinite block, rather than a warning?  PM's edits reverted a vandal, are supported by consensus, his version is STILL the current version, and were examples of "Defending the Encyclopedia", not "disruptive edit warring".


 * It's a trumped up charge, and Guy should be ASHAMED. It's like that joke about racism in the US South, where a totally drunken white driver crashes into an african-american pedestrian, and when the cops arrive, the wounded pedestrian is sent to jail for jaywalking.  PM has been an icon of good editing behavior--- his only real "crime" is that when Guy and PM were participants in the BADSITES arbcom case, PM's side "won".   ---Alecmconroy 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account.  Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content.  That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand.  The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email.  The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account.  So, ArbCom is the place for appeals.  Oh, wait, CBD has unblocked despite not knowing PM's other account.  Way to go.  Score one for the troll enablers.  Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy - I specifically told you in very strict confidence that I would feel upset and violated at you sharing personal information with any other wiki editors. Did you in fact do just that? I trusted you. I really think it's best I stop now, lest i say something i regret. I am very glad you will escalate this. It is a new low. Privatemusings 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the really sad part about all this. Until today, I truly believed Guy just really believed in the total sanctity of users privacy.  When he objected to PM being able to edit using a pseudonym, it was very disheartening.  If it turns out to be true that Guy has started engaged in limited "outings", violating private trust, I'm totally speechless.  Not even angry, just.... sad. --Alecmconroy 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JzG-- regardless of your personal opinion, I think you know that you are not an uninvolved admin. If PM really is an inappropriate use of a sock account, there's a whole encyclopedia full of people who can make that call.  For you to use your admin tools here was a clear instance of using admin tools to gain the upperhand in a dispute.


 * Now, you say you have secret evidence the PM account is inappropriate-- all well and good. Send it to arbcom.  But if you failed to recognize something as simple as "do not indefinitely block someone you are in a dispute with",  you're clearly far too close to this issue for us to trust your judgment about more complex issues like whether PM account is inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not secret, it's just private, and it will stay that way. I have no prior dispute with this user of which I'm aware, it's nothing to do with his opinion on a particular issue and everything to do with controversial actions (rather than opinions), which places the actions of this account outside of what is permissible.  If this user had not admitted to being a sock, we'd have blocked it as a disruptive [{WP:SPA]] a long time ago. I know the main account's identity because PM told me by email.  That does not suggest that PM considers we had a prior problem.  What happened here is that a self-confessed alternate account registered for the purpose of contributing to a contentious policy debate, stepped outside of that carefully defined arena and began edit-warring over links to a blog repeating part of the same harassment as was addressed in the Attack Sites arbitration.  The way to handle such matters is to contact the blog owner and point out that there is no evidence to support the assertion, not to edit-war over links to a damaging, hurtful and false accusation.  I have shared the details of PM's main account with only a handful of individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo.  I will not be posting the name of the main account here or anywhere else.
 * There is no dispute for me to gain an upper hand in. This is 100% about the limits placed on use of alternate accounts, and stepping outside those limits to link to an ongoing and unacceptable campaign of harassment perpetuated by a number of justly banned users.
 * Nothing in the main accounts edits actually mitigates that. You have once before found that your speculations were inaccurate, and you gracefully apologised. Your speculations are again inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please consider engaging here I sincerely wish you would spend as much effort talking to me as you have about me. I remain upset, and uncomprehending as to the support you think your rationale has in policy. Privatemusings 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, IF what you say about this being about "the limits placed on use of alternate accounts" is so then why would the proper course of action NOT be to tell Privatemusings that he was exceeding those limits, get consensus agreement that this was the case, and then place a short block followed by successively longer ones if he violated those limits? Why was the proper course of action to yourself unilaterally decide that he had 'exceeded the limits' and immediately place an indefinite block. No warning. No public discussion. No possibility of the user agreeing not to exceed these limits. He must be blocked immediately and have no possibility even of discussing the matter. That's the right way to go about things? Then, after he has AGREED to not continue the action you were objecting to he STILL has to remain blocked? This is about users not exceeding the limits of alternate accounts, but he has to be blocked even after he has agreed to do so pending discussion of the limits? Seriously, in what way is this NOT a punitive block? --CBD 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage unprotected
The reasoning behind Jeffrey Gustafson being "forced" to protect PM's talkpage isn't self-evident to me. JG, have you thought through the coercive choice that you're actually forcing on the user by that protection? PM does have another account to use, yes, but he obviously can't use his main account to discuss this issue without outing that main account. It's precisely the requests to out his main account that he wants to discuss, and we have now created a situation where such discussion by him would become pointless the moment it began. Not good. Supposing he has pertinent things to say? (Full disclosure: I know who he is, and he's not a troll by any definiton of the term.) As for his "going on and on", what about it? It's not necessary for people who don't want to read his arguments to go to his talkpage in order to be offended. Full protection of the talkpage of a banned account is a very serious business, since it's a complete gag. It shouldn't be undertaken unless we're really forced to. I've unprotected the page. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't see why the talk page had to be protected. And you've halved the possible people PM could be by saying it's a "he"!  Neil   ☎  11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, that only works if half of Wikipedia users were female, which they're not. Assuming malenesss is still a very logical action here. Natalie 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My take
So, the Robert Black (professor) article had a link to his blog on it for a long time and all was well with the world. The page hadn't even been edited in over a month. Then on 10/26 the Professor made a blog post referring to allegations made on another site about one of our users here. The next day User:Privacyisall, to all appearances a sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this issue, removes the blog link from the article because it has now magically become an 'attack site'. Great contention erupts and suddenly there are all sorts of reasons why this blog link, which was perfectly acceptable and not at all controversial before, is now completely anathema to Wikipedia policies (all of them). Others disagree, edit warring ensues, Privatemusings restores the link a few times, he is indefinitely blocked.

That's the background. So far as I can see, no one warned Privatemusings that edit warring on this issue could lead to an indefinite block. Nor does anything in policy say that sockpuppets who engage in edit warring are immediately blocked for all time. Nor was the 'Privacyisall' account blocked for doing precisely the same thing in precisely the same edit war without any of Privatemusings' prior history of good contributions. The admin making the block (along with several of those supporting it) has a clear 'side' and emotional investment in the issue... and finally, Privatemusings has already stated that he would stay away from the page, thus removing any 'preventative' nature to this block.

I'm going to unblock. IF there is a consensus, rather than a thin excuse for suppression newly invented by a handful of people, that sockpuppets editing on contentious issues are not allowed to edit war at all then we can certainly see whether Privatemusings' is willing to abide by that and block him if he is not. However, there needs to actually BE such a consensus... and it'd be good to TELL the person about it... rather than blocking first and making up a reason afterwords. Only blocking the side that disagrees with you is, along with the lack of consensus or warning, also a fairly poor indicator for this having been a fully dispassionate and impartial action. --CBD 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CBDunkerson...did you discuss the matter with the blocking administrator? As it states in policy: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.--MONGO 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the unblocked, on the caveat that he doesnt use that account to eidt war. The editing was in the same vein as what the account was previously being used for (Attack sites) so still a legitimate use for that purpose, ie keep contentious issues away from the main account. Apart from one spate of edit warring, he has been very productive with that account and has been intelligently conducting himself on the policy pages. He wasn't given a chance to stop the misuse, its quite clear he isnt using the other account to hide from the rules, so I support the unblock. Viridae Talk 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus above seems to have been a block was reasonable, and an unblock would be against consensus. If we're going to unblock, I would say that if the Privatemusings account returns to its original purpose - that of working with contentious policy and suchlike - then fine.  If it reverts back to edit warring, someone can always reblock.  Neil   ☎  11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From my experiences with him, I don't think he will return to warring. Viridae Talk 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that that is the point. Nothing at WP:SOCK enjoins editors to not make contentious edits in the areas in which they have chosen to set up alternate accounts. JzG's stated rationale above "Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand" carefully does not respond to my specific question as to whether PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about. Relata refero 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PM's main account was also active in this contentious area. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not true, and a dirty trick because of course I can't defend that point. Low. Privatemusings 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CBD, this is an unacceptable reversion of a solid, consensus supported, block. Did you discuss this matter with the blocking administrator, Guy, first, per our blocking policy? Why have you unblocked against consensus? Privatemusings is a clear goodhand/badhand account (and the "goodhand" side isn't actually all that "good" if you ask me, I know who it is but won't reveal it publicly at this time) and needs to stay blocked. Please stop this troll enabling behaviour, CBD. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JzG did not make the case that Privatemusings was a "troll". He did not make the case that Privatemusings was abusing multiple accounts. Indeed, even when repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using more than one account in this matter no one said that he had been. None of that was given as any part of the reason for blocking. The block was placed for edit warring on this issue. The edit war was over. The user had agreed not to continue it. It is frequent practice to remove blocks in such circumstance. It is frequent practice to remove blocks placed by admins involved in dispute with the target. It is frequent practice to remove blocks of excessive duration - such as indefinite for a 3RR violation. Et cetera. If a case can be made for Privatemusings abusing multiple accounts and being a troll, as has been claimed subsequent to my unblock, then that case should be made. However, those aren't the things he was blocked for and the extensive discussion above included repeated requests for clarification if there WERE any such situation. There was plenty of discussion. People asked for a VALID reason to this block. None was given. An indefinite block, without discussion, without warning, for 3RR violation is NOT valid and thus I reversed it. If you have cause for the accusations which you and others have subsequently made against Privatemusings, that he is a troll and sock-abuser, you might want to make THAT case. --CBD 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to state "I'm thinking of unblocking, because of X Y and Zed" and then see what is said, instead of unilaterally unblocking in defiance of policy, which says seek consensus before the unblock, which you do not have. You seem to do this regularly and you need to stop, in my view. As for the rest, this user is an acknowledged sock, but it is a sock of a user who is making unhelpful edits in the same contentious area that this essentially SPA account is. The user should use their main account instead of obfuscating matters, because they are using this sock in a way unsupported by sock policy. Didn't we just go through this "seek consensus first" with Zscout? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not at all true that my other account is active in the same area - that's hurtful, insulting, and a lie. Privatemusings 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CBD: PS.. it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes.  That's from the original notice, the very first post to this thread. So your allegation that JzG claimed this was only a revert related block appears to be unfounded, that he did not make the case for multiple account abouse. You need to act a bit less in a way that gives the appearance of rashness going forward, I think. If you had posted "I have qualms and am thinking of unblocking" I am sure several people would have made that point for you. I've seen the edits and I am satisfied this is an abusive account. It's borderline by current lax standards but those standards are changing, for the better.
 * PM: Incorrect. I so assert. Anyone who knows the identity of both accounts can verify it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I shall email CBD, if I may, and should he have the time to take a look, I would welcome his views. Privatemusings 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CBD has used sysop tools in a controversial way with respect to this case, so he has strong incentives to justify his own actions. I don't think he can be impartial. Can you perhaps ask somebody who is uninvolved for an opinion? I think that would work better for you. - Jehochman  Talk 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to - it would be particularly good to find a highly respected admin who's around at the moment - could someone put their hand up? Sincere thanks, Privatemusings 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lar, 'good hand / bad hand' does not equate to 'using multiple accounts in a discussion'. The fact that people repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using multiple accounts in the discussion clearly shows that this was NOT established in the 'original notice' as you are claiming. The only apparent 'bad hand' action stated by JzG was the edit warring on the link. He has subsequently re-affirmed that it was this posting of the link which 'exceeded the limits allowed' for sock accounts. So no, I cannot agree with your revisionist casting of the discussion. If Guy had been making the case of multiple accounts being used in this debate from the beginning he would not have been repeatedly asked whether there was any evidence of such. He also presumably would have responded to those requests with verification of the multi-account involvement... which he didn't.
 * As you now claim that there IS such abuse... I'm curious why you have not blocked both accounts? I overturned an indefinite block for 3RR violation. I stand by that action. I took it because repeated requests for any valid support for the block were not met... all that was claimed was 3RR violation with a link to a disputed site. Clearly insufficient for indef block without warning. You have now made accusations of much more serious violations. If you stand by these then block for them. I don't have evidence one way or the other and thus would direct the matter to people with the access to look into it. --CBD 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What matters is not how many times you asked a question, what matters is whether the question had already been answered, and whether there was consensus for an overturn prior to your acting, and whether you consulted with the original admin. I decline to overturn your overturn. I think I am much less likely to undo administrative actions taken by other administrators than you are, so I personally decline to overturn your unblock at this time. That should not be construed as support for your action in contravention of our custom, practice, and policy, nor should it be construed as not standing by the fact that we have apparent "bad hand" and "worse hand" accounts active in this overall matter. The primary account, which HAS participated in discussions about specific outing users and the policy ramifications of it, is not, at this time blocked, to the best of my knowledge, so can participate if it wishes to. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And even 3rr wasn't violated. The four reverts took place over three different days, and they just reverted vandalism by a banned user.  --Alecmconroy 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Horse's Mouth
I wholly reject any notion that any edit warring I participated in was block worthy. Hey, I also reject the notion that I edit warred at all (see my talk page). I sincerely appreciate being unblocked - this has been a horrible experience. I shan't edit at all on the Prof Black article, but stick to the talk page, and will try and avoid Guy, who seems to be firmly of the same opinion. As a consistent advocate of less drama, I'd like to ask all folks to move along, so the bot can do his work in 24hrs, and this can be behind us. Privatemusings 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You weren't blocked for edit warring. You were blocked for stepping outside the bounds of what is acceptable for an alternate account. At least one arbitrator said this was unacceptable behaviour even before knowing the identity of the main account. This block was based on a review of the contributions of both your main and your alternate accounts. I am escalating this. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy-- why are you escalating?  You've had your fun-- PM got blocked, and then his talk page blocked,  and everyone got all upset, and we've had all this drama, and now finally we've accomplished what a simple discussion could have accomplished to begin with--  PM agrees not to edit the Prof Black article.  And there is a strong consensus at the Prof Black article that the link is okay, so PM doesn't even have any reason to come back there anyway.   Can't you just let it go now?  --Alecmconroy
 * Fun? Fun? What the bloody hell do you mean by that? You think I blocked Privatemusings for fun? That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and you should retract it immediately. In case you hadn't realised by now, there is a serious ongoing problem with offsite harassment and abuse of multiple accounts, and editign by proxy, to promote that harassment.  I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is anything other than deadly serious. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For that I will sincerely apologize. I'm an American, and it seems to be our national vice to assume everyone is familiar with American English idioms.  To "have fun" or "to have fun and games" does not literally mean you actually had "fun".   I apologize you thought I meant otherwise. --Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to disengage - essentially out of blind fury (see above). This can certainly wait a few hours before being discussed further. Privatemusings 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PM, if there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing then why are you using a secondary account? You said you wanted to "protect myself from any anger or hot feeling". You expected a passionate reaction to your editing and you got it. Why act shocked? The fireworks and hot feelings are are over now. Let's move on.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the attack sites lot is a very contentious subject, which gets a lot of feeling going - I can understand wanting to use an alternitive account. Viridae Talk 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so can I. But that does not give carte blanche to then use that alternate account to edit-war over links to Brandt and Bagley's pet assertion about a Wikipedia user and administrator.  It was that extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem.  Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused--- In your eyes, was PM blocked for sockpuppet abuse, for edit-warring, or for being part of a campaign of harassment?  If he had made the Prof Black edits with his main account, would you have indef blocked him still, or would that have not merited an indef block?   --Alecmconroy 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I deal with five contentious issues every day. Do I use a fresh account for each? No, not hardly. The editor has not been banned. One of his secondary acounts has been blocked. It isn't a big deal.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The big deal is the implication for everybody else. Relata refero 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Outing?
There's been a serious allegation made upwards in the thread, and I just want to get to the bottom of it, and instead of making allusions which might not be true, just address it up front with straight talk.

JzG, PM claims here that he confided in you, by email, and revealed his real name and other accounts to you. According to PM, he trusted you as an administrator of Wikipedia not to reveal his identity to others. This is a serious trust, and as an admin of the project, it's important people be able to trust you to keep their confidences.

Now, there are two cases where I feel you would be justified in breaking that confidence.
 * 1) According to the text of the email he's posted  claims here, PM told you he trusted Admin X and Admin Y, and you could tell them if you wanted.
 * 2) If you have a legitimate concern  that PM has a conflict of interest, it might be appropriate to reveal his identity to the board or the arbitration  committee.

Now, your posts on this thread suggest that you've had widespread conversations about PM's identity with a number of people, so I'm just gonna ask you point blank:

Aside from the groups listed above, have you revealed PM's identity to anyone at all?

I sincerely hope the answer is no and we can drop that part of things. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think PM and the community deserve an answer to this question.--Alecmconroy 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of outing question

 * For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes.  ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: "pages" does not mean the particular page in question that was being revert warred over, it means in the same general area, in particular the outing of editors and the drama surrounding efforts to deal with that unacceptable behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also for the record, discussing the abusive behavior pattern of multiple accounts used by the same editor on Wikipedia, as was done in this case, is not 'outing'. Outing would be when we engage in exposing the real life identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Crum375 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you prefer to call it "Deep and extreme violation of personal trust" instead of "outing", whichever. The point is, if I say to you "You're an admin of an important project, I want to confide in you", and you prove yourself to be unworthy of that trust, it's something that shouldn't happen.  If a priest violates your trust, he shouldn't be a priest.  If a psychologist breaks confidence, he shouldn't be a psychologist.  Whether it's an "outing" or a "gossipping" or a "violation"-- it's definitely wrong.


 * Mind you, I don't know that it did happen yet, but I thought I owed it to JzG to ask him straight out, rather than letting PM just make the allegations and letting them float. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there really is no point in complaining about "outing" PM to ArbCom when most of ArbCom are checkusers and the rest will be privvy to the ArbCom mailing list where such things are discussed. Thatcher131 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about "outing" to arbcom. I encourage consultation with Arbcom.  If he had a real concern, the responsible thing for Guy to do would be to ask the arbcom to rule whether or not to block PM.  What I am WORRIED about, however, is the allegation that Guy basically told any other editors/admins that he felt like telling-- i.e. that Guy is inherently untrustworthy with private information.  Again, I'm not saying this is true, that's why I'm asking straight out.  --Alecmconroy 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would consider it highly unethical and a most serious breach of trust if Guy had shared this information with anyone who didn't already have it. I trusted Guy, in a bid to facilitate a dialog which he manifestly rejected. I might add that I believe checkuser data to only remain active for 30 days. I would like to demand a straight answer to Alec's reasonable question above. Privatemusings 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The people who know are: the arbitrators, Jimbo, and a *very* small number of people I trust implicitly (wioth far more sensitive data about myself) whose opinion I sought in a completely private forum as a sanity check rather than simply relying on gut feel. The risk to privacy is negligible, I'd say. And if not, well, then I'm sorry, but a checkuser would have turned up the same and I was actually trying to avoid outing the main account. I would note that the main reason was to eliminate a number of suspicions which people have raised here and elsewhere. I will confirm that the main account is not a prolific or high profile editor, not a sysop, and almost certainly not who you think it is.  And that's all that need be said. This account is traceable at two removes to the user's RWI, and I'm certainly not going to go about publishing that kind of information. If you trust me, then you also have to trust my judgement on who I can talk to in confidence. If you don't trust me, don't send me email. Frankly the amount of drama here is out of all proportion to the mainspace contributions of all the accounts this user has used.  Or at least those he's told me about. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would a checkuser have been run in the first place? As I said before, we are only concerned if this editor was gaming consensus or disrupting wikipedia; in which case a checkuser could - and almost certainly would - have been submitted by someone who was not in possession of privileged information. Instead, a block was carried out by an involved admin on someone who was editing in support of what appears to be the consensus version of a difficult page. If the presence of privileged information indicated to you that WP was being disrupted on that page or on related pages, it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the individual who provided you with that information - as privately as you were told in the first place. Instead you have claimed that, in effect, a single editor who chooses to use two accounts to edit in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles - even if the principles themselves were not blockworthy. That is not policy as written. I would find it deeply disturbing if it were. That is why all the drama. Relata refero 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because this is an alternate account used for the single purpose of advocating contentious policy, which has stepped outside the bounds of that in order to edit-war over contentious content. I am wondering how many times I need to explain this. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand alternate accounts cannot add contentious content any more?
 * Just because it was created in order to advocate certain changes does not mean that it violates policy to make contentious edits in line with those changes, unless those edits themselves violate policy. Relata refero 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that would depend. If the alternate account is being used to add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest, as here, then it's pretty clearly an abuse of the alternate account.  Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks.  We get very suspicious of such behaviour.  Wikipedia is not a social network or a drama club, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want.  The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle and removal of such links must be resisted, the harder it gets to remove links to banned editors trying to push their POV and mad theories into Wikipedia, and the more time we all waste on sterile debate while they continue to nudge the ocntent their way through sockpuppets, meatpuppets and even the occasional long-time user acting as a proxy.  Of course, they have mutually conflicting desires: to use Wikipedia to promote their agenda, but simultaneously to wreck Wikipedia.  I'd rather they failed in both aims, myself.  The stakes are high for these kooks: they are on a holy crusade to bring The Truth&trade; to the world and correct the lies and conspiracies promoted by those pesky reliable sources we are so keen on. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "To add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest." Right, that's what I thought. In other words, account X exists, it makes a statement about a policy debate, realises that this is going to create too much drama, so it creates account Y to further engage with that policy debate, and ceases to use account X (or at least, largely ceases using X in that area). Is this what you imply is blockworthy? If so, I damn well think a bit more drama is required.
 * ("Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour." Nice going! About as subtle as a ton of bricks. Don't get distracted, please. I'm not here to waste my time talking to you, but to continue to edit. Indeed, if you stop and think for a moment, it will be stunningly obvious why your actions recklessly imperil even the most innocent successor account. Which is why I am "piling into" this debate. But still, much easier to throw around remarks about suspicions, eh?)
 * Finally: any attempt to claim that links to harassment websites are the main problem at WP is in itself problematic. The problem is not those links, which as far as I am concerned can stay or go. The problem is the behaviour of the guardians of our freedom to edit, which, as evidenced by you just now, steps over the line into chilling our ability to edit. Relata refero 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem at WP right now is not harassment websites. It is simply that there is too much drama, and our response to it is ineffective. That is caused and exacerbated, in my view, by two major factions... those that are here specifically to cause drama rather than being here to write an encyclopedia, and those well meaning but misguided folk that play into their hands by overturning sound blocks, or by defending even the worst trollish behaviour on process grounds, on "give them another chance" grounds and what have you. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the outing question, if I understand position that Privatemusings has taken in the debates over policies, it would be OK if someone outed a RL or main account identity on a blog and if we linked to that blog in the course of normal encyclopedia writing. If it's OK to link to outing then maybe outing isn't such a big deal. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In what universe will blocking people you disagree with over policy with the flimsiest of pretexts not increase drama? That universe is one in which WP will be pretty poorly written. Relata refero 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw
(uindent) Guy says: ''the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle''

Guy, you have just made a personal attack. You have called Private MUsings and Dan Tobias troll-enablers, implied they are affiliated with an external site, and suggested that they are part of a campaign to distract and deceive.

RETRACT your statement and apologize, CLARIFY that you didn't mean to say anything bad about PM or DanT, or PRESENT evidence to me that they really are involved in such a campaign. These sort of bullying tactics have gone on long enough. Either DanT and PM are good faith editors acting on principle and worthy of your respect, or they're bad faith editors just here to pull your leg. If you are going to make these wild allegations in public, I want you to at least email whatever evidence you have to suggest the PM and DanT are acting in bad faith. I'm sure PM and DanT will consent to letting me know whatever it is that you know.

After all that you've done today, that you would start namecalling, it appears you have learned absoultely nothing. If your secret evidence holds up, then I'll apologize, I'll apologize with bells on. If, however, you're full of crap, I think it's time for a user conduct RFC or another arbcom case. NPA applies to EVERYONE-- even you. --Alecmconroy 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. I will not retract it, because it's what I honestly believe.  Sincere people are being cynically manipulated by individuals whose principal interest is not aligned in any way with Wikipedia's aims.  The fact that they are sincere people does not in any way reduce the impact of what they do. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you consider Dan and PM to be the sincere people? or the cynical manipulators? --Alecmconroy 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User Guy may be perceived as Wikipedian cowboy, but he has never (in my view) exploited WP in any way. He also deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand User Alecmconroy states on his user page: "I don't care how wonderful Jimbo is, no one person deserves special authority over the will of the people" and he ends with "If we were going have an election for Jimbo the position, Jimbo the person would get my vote." Someone with beliefs like these is either a confused individual or have a problem with authority. I think he is both, and since he is not an admin and obviously too close to the subjects being discussed ( see his userpage and his "an essay on Badsites"). I think it would be best to remove or scratch from this discussion all his comments off the record. Jrod2 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jrod, have you READ WP:NPA?  Way to go--- i complain about personal attacks, and you personally attack me.  Beautiful. --Alecmconroy 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You apparently do not understand the comments. His position nor his closeness to the issue have any bearing regarding the content of the statements. Either the content is valid or it is not. Bringing it up does not assume good faith. We are all here to build a better encyclopedia. Spryde 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I fear that is not correct. Not all of us are here for that purpose. And of those that think they are here for that, (I count myself among that grouping) I am not sure that all of us are actually effective at it, so that makes at least three groupings, as I said elsewhere in this thread. If you do not recognise that, then I think that is an issue. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey user Spryde, maybe I don't understand user Alecmconroy's comments, but please don't give me the AGF shenanigan. Either you know Guy and respect and appreciate him for what he contributes to WP, or you don't. Jrod2 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support some of what Guy has done. I object to other things. Overall I say he has done wonderful things but this is not one of them. People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be. And please do not call AGF shenanigans. I could have attacked your contribution much worse than I did but I AGF'ed and hoped that you did not understand the comments. That is all. Spryde 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Spryde, should I thank you for your benign comment too? Please, get off your high horse. First, you stated that I was not assuming good faith and that my comments weren't valid to this argument and now you are being benign because "you could have attacked" me much worse? What kind of a silly game is this?. If, I go by your statement: "People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be", I would speedy close this case. Jrod2 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to have a civil and productive conversation with you about this incident. I am not playing any games nor am I on any 'high horse'. I stated the comments you made were not appropriate because of the meaning of the statements made by Alecmconroy. I sincerely hope you are not twisting my words to prove a point. My statement about perfection is clear and taking it to extremes is illogical and absurd. Good day (night), sir. Spryde 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Spryde, I am respectfully asking you to stop disrupting this discussion. I don't want to waste space on this section defending myself and my NPOV to you. Your initial comment was to me insulting and you missed my point entirely. I only thought that the statements on Alec's user page were relevant and consistent with someone who have some strong opinions about authority and the establishment itself and that should be examined. That could have explained why he chooses to have a conflict with Guy and his ways. I also asked that he stops all this. Now, that he wants Guy to apologize is to me a contradiction, there can be an element of thirst for authority if someone is trying to humble admin Guy. But again, you can accuse me of AGF violations, so I am going to refrain from making further comments. I would have stopped long ago had you not accuse me of not assuming good faith. Ultimately, I have come to terms with Alec's position and I wish him good luck. But, he has a long road (in my view) if he wants to prove that admin Guy deserves to lose his admin tools. Jrod2 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, it would be awful if Guy were to lose his admin tools. I don't want that-- I want him to stop misusing them and to stop attacking people  --Alecmconroy 07:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy you are waaay off the mark with your views on dans and PMs attack site linking. They simply reject the idea of instant censorship. And of course the drama is not being kept going by those who are trying to dicuss the policy (when they get a chance to discuss it without being labelled trolls) it is being kept going by people like yourself, who, in seeing this issue in black and white, label them trolls, claim their opinion is worthless because they are of that opinion and run around like a bull in a china shop trying to strip the links from long archived talk pages. Thats what creates drama, because you appear to have no concept of a civildiscussion - instead you blow your top, overreact and bingo, wikidrama ensues. Please try and think about that one. At no point has dan or PM said they advocate harrasment, they simply do not believe in thought crime. Viridae Talk 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Viridae, I think it's rude for you to call Guy a "bull in a china shop." Please don't engage in argumentum ad hominem.  - Jehochman  Talk 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is critiscism of his method, so its a tad hard (ie not possible) to avoid ad hominem comments - when I am crisicising his approach, then I have to make my arguments "to the man". Bull in a china shop is not an insult anyway, it is simply a comment on the unsubtle way he conducts himself, which serves to magnify drama wherever he goes. Viridae Talk 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alecmconroy, I am sorry if you perceive my remarks as a "personal attack". Guy said something which you are using now to discredit him. Is that a personal attack? If it's not, then me bringing up your views on authority and BADSITES should not be considered one either.In addition, I am not comfortable with the tone of your comments against admin Guy. Have you crossed the line with WP:AGF yourself? I am not here to judge that, but I am not going to sit idle and let a good admin be treated like scam. Is it possible that you maybe biased on this dispute? I am just asking questions and the only thing I thought would be fair to this argument, is that you distance yourself from it. Thank you. Jrod2 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm done-- and I'm sure everyone is aware that I speak as someone who opposed BADSITES, and therefore, if opposing BADSITES is grounds for blocking, as Guy seems to have indicated, obviously, I might well expect similar treatment as PM has gotten.
 * However, we have a serious NPA problem going on in this dialog. There is a campaign of harassment and defamation trying to allege that I, PM, DanT, GTBacchus, and others are allied with hate sites.   I've tried ignoring these attacks, and they continued.  I've tried pleading for it to stop, and they continued.   I'd tried mocking them, and they've continued.  I've tried using forceful language, and they've continued.   So, now, what am I left with?


 * And Guy's as good a place to start as any. Either stands by his allegations or he does not.   If he stands by his allusions, he should prove them, and all us anti-badsites trolls should be banned.  On the other hand, if his accusations are groundless and unproven, he has spent all of today dragging the names of good editors through the mud, and I expect the community to take steps to stop him from doing this in the future.


 * Hopefully, he'll apologize, and promise not to defame editors in the future, and that will be the end of it. --Alecmconroy 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Allegation of sockpuppet abuse
(stricken, please do no rearrange my remarks, use a diff if you like) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that gets my attention. Are you telling me that PM was simultaneously editing Robert Black (professor) under two different accounts?  Cause THAT would be a major problem.  As I look over the history, I see from the page history and the talk page that, in addition to Privatemusings, the disputed link's inclusion in the article has been endorsed by myself (Alecmconroy), Altacc, Phase4, SchmuckyTheCat, Sfacets, Shojo(luke), and Hyperbole.   Now, without naming names-- is Private Musing one of those people?   If he is, then that would definitely be a problem.  --Alecmconroy 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone's busy and who knows how long it's reasonable to wait for a reply-- but as the time questions like these go unanswered, my opinion tends to approach the conclusion that "No, PM hasn't actually simultaneously edited the same page at the same time under two different accounts" --Alecmconroy 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I rather think that question has actually been answered. In response to my question whether "PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about", JzG said the main account was "also active in this contentious area." In other words, not that specific article, but the harassment discussion in general. So, no, the second account did not disrupt wikipedia, but both accounts were simultaneously active in a broad sphere of policy. That is the only thing consistent with everything that's been said. Relata refero 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is crazyness. Privatemusings created this account and then was hounded by various Privatemusings-sounding like accounts (I blocked a few), culminating with User:MOASPN (who did edit that page). Now, edit warring is bad, whether through one's main account or any other. I do not, however, see the same accounts editing anywhere near the same time. I've yet to look into the whole block, I gather it was for edit warring? El_C 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My summary above: a user editing in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles. I judge this to be the case from JzG's statement above: "extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem." Relata refero 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That made me more confused, not less. El_C 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly.
 * PM's main account contributed to the discussion. PM created his secondary account for the ArbCom case: JzG thinks that was OK. Subsequently the second account did not go away, but was used to edit in contentious areas. JzG thinks that wasn't OK. There is no suggestion that they edited over the same specific issue, or in the same article; but both accounts edited in the same general area, though there is no suggestion that it happened at the same time. If you're confused, its because you're trying to understand. I'm a little confused by how this could happen myself. Relata refero 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the block was way inappropriate. CBD should have respected Guy's admin action, discussed his disagreement in a dialog with Guy and convinced him to undo it himself, or gained consensus on the noticeboard for unblocking. Leaving aside how the unblock was done, the original block was the right thing to do. Whatever privatemusings' motivation, his seeking out controversy to involve himself in does not advance the project. He should have been stayed blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside your needlessly insulting (and just plain wrong) comments, Tom, you really should also be open about the fact that you are also a party to the content dispute at Robert Black (professor) - and I would really encourage editors to take a look at the edits you have made, because as far as I can tell you are removing information expressly against consenses, without engaging on the talk page, showing no respect to traditions of our process. That is very poor form. Privatemusings 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tom Harrison, he should be blocked, and I will block him if I have community support. Jbeach sup 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the assessment that he should be blocked. There is not enough even alleged to support that, much less evidenced.  I've in the last 24 hours encountered discussion over two blocks that so far as I can tell, come down to "blocked for holding an opinion I disagree with", that of KurtWeber and this one.  That is not a sufficient reason for blocking, in either that case or this one.  GRBerry 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't block me again - I really fail to see how that could possibly help the situation. Privatemusings 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all of this, I'm left with a current impression no different than my inital impression PM was created as a legit SOCK to avoid becomeing a victim in the contentious BADSITES fight, a tailored purpose for the SOCK. That's been established now, most of the policy is ironed out, and so on. PM then runs into regular articlespace and starts enforcing the policy as he interprets it, getting into a possible revert-war with a possible 3RR. I say 'possible', because the wording of the probably policy says that there's no 3RR on that sort of removal, or did last time I reviewed it, a few days back. JzG took this as something which PM's regular account could've done, and should've, or else PM (the person) should've sat on his hands. As a result of the contentious nature of the edits, he blocked the account, saying it had served it's purpose, and was now becoming an excuse for non-meta-policy contentions, which ought to be handled by the regular account. I support this assessment. I totally understand PM's intent in protecting himself, the 'bad sites' have some sick freaks there, who can blame him/her/them/it for wanting to remain safe I don't have any problem with it in theory, although it does make its edits less credible because of a lack of experience perception behind them. However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do. I've shuffled the pronouns to the point that my eyes hurt, hope that helps. I support this block, not the unblock. However, if PM is only used from now on for meta-policy debates where exposure is bad, I can accept that. ANythign else, though, block the account and toss the key. ThuranX 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A disagreement. You are wrong in asserting that the no personal attacks policy allows 3RR violations to remove such links.  The 3RR exception language was very explicitly killed, and we seem to have consensus on what language to use.  This particular link had vanished from discussion at WT:NPA because the talk page there felt it had found a different reason for removal and that it was generally agreed that it was better to use reasons other than NPA when removing links from articles, but that different reason is appropriately discussed at the article's talk page rather than WT:NPA so there may or may not ever have been consensus formed around that.  GRBerry 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another disagreement: "However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do." Why? Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here? Relata refero 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * GRBerry, I stated I hadn't read it in a few days, hence the 'Possible'. Releta, PM stated that the edits from that account would specifically be for the contentious policy, not for randomly running around the project, making edits the main account could do. Further, if the editor knew those mainspace edits would be contentious, then hiding behind an alternate account to do so is contravening normal consensus building policy. Again - to protect oneself during a contentious policy debate about personal privacy makes some sense; to exploit the policies to accomplish edits which the regular account could simply find consensus for, or cite the policy to support is a problem. ThuranX 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of small points - looking at the edits you'll see that there was absolutely no violation of 3RR anywhere. It's my belief that you really have to squint at the situation to see an edit war also - but then these allegations have been largely retracted, which is good.

The irony of the whole situation, is that I can really see the points in your comments about appropriate use of accounts, and would have welcomed dialog on this - or at least notification that I was behaving in a way some felt to cross a hitherto undefined line (it's certainly not in any guideline yet - perhaps that's the more appropriate venue for discussion of this type). I've tried to respond immediately and politely to every concern raised with me - but what made me so upset and angry was from out of nowhere to be slap-banned forever and my talk page protected. I further believe there to have been serious ethical lapses, but would like at the moment for the whole situation just to calm down. I'm serving tea on my talkpage, if someone can bring the biscuits then we can leave AN/I alone. Privatemusings 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You were never banned. One of your alternate accounts was blocked. You said ahead of time that you were using this account because you expected that your edits would generate "anger or hot feeling", other words for disruption. You apprently knew it would be controversial so you explained your motivation ahead of time. So, how was this response unexpected? You knew the use of a sock puppet would be controversial because questions were raised about your previous use of sock accounts. Now you've said that you are going to "edit solely using this account", rendering pointless its use in the first place. I hope that commitment includes sticking to one account in the future. Using sock puppet accounts is not an acceptable and non-disruptive method for engaging in activity likely to result in "anger or hot feeling".  If we aren't willing to take the heat that our actions may cause then perhaps we shouldn't take those actions.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be indefinitely blocked with no warning was hugely unexpected. My decision to stop editing with my other account is an attempt to calm and resolve the situation. Your proposals for WP:SOCK may well gain interest and approval, but should be implemented there. Privatemusings 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You did expect to generate "anger and hot feeling". Intentionally generating anger and hot feelings is disruptive, and some might call it "trolling". WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here. May I ask if your user page announcement is in fact a commitment to use only one account in the future? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Involved, but not breached, unless WP:SOCK has been rewritten since the block. I have made this point above. Relata refero 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow that. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Predicting that one's perspective may make people angry with you is not at all synonymous with 'trolling' which of course also requires that to be the sole purpose of your maintaining it. In fact, for the record, I have found every single instance of the use of that word, not just referring to me, but all over the wiki, to be singularly unhelpful. It's just a rubbish way of making a point. . But yes, I have made a firm commitment to only edit using this account. Privatemusings 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock policy and Good hand/bad hand accounts
(from User talk:Lar) I don't want to add to the AN/I thread because that will keep it out of the bot's hands for another 24 hours, which is not necessary, so I'm explaining here. Will Beback said: "WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here." To which I responded, that the prohibitions were involved, in that they seem to be relevant to the discussion, but as I discussed earlier in the thread, "Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their spotty record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here?" Which is why I said that PM's behaviour was not in breach of WP:SOCK. Hope that makes it clearer. Thanks! Relata refero 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the above reasoning about policy (and also with wanting to have this thread archived when discussion isn't over yet). The sock policy is intended to protect longstanding editors (admins or no) that might have good reason to avoid being associated with certain very limited edits in controversial areas, (and I believe the original intent was to protect editors working in ARTICLE space, not policy space). It is NOT intended to give relatively new editors the ability to compartmentalize edits into benign and disruptive ones, or to shield scrutiny of one account. The sock in question here is not, in my view, a valid one, in that the primary editor is not that longstanding, and edits in the same spaces, and the sock is not editing difficult things where shielding from stalkers and exposers is needed. Ironically, it seems to be arguing in favour of exposing the very kinds of accounts it is using. The policy may need to be made more explicit to cut down on ruleslawyering, but I very much doubt it intended to be used this way. In fact, it may need changing completely to disallow socks that are not registered with ArbCom and strictly monitored... ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)