Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

First Submission
Beyond noting that I stand by my contributions, I only really feel it's possible to respond to the diff.s Guy has submitted - it just feels a bit hard to respond sensibly to vague assertions, and thoughts, such as that editing Michele Ferrari, Max Mosley and Jonathan King might somehow indicate bad faith. Of course it doesn't.

I suppose I can just briefly assert that editing the Jonathan King article, and the Giovanni di Stefano article is not a strong enough connection to indicate any sort of 'sock' abuse, let alone warrant an indefinite block.

First Diff provided by Guy

 * This edit -- I removed all material from my previous draft (submitted to the Arb.s via email) that had been present which was related to fraud - it is that material that I was referring to as the controversial material removed. There was also material (not added by me) already in the article relating to what might be called 'qualifications issues' - which I attempted to tighten up into a shorter section. I hoped to be able to produce a better article. To make an unrelated point regarding different concepts of what constitutes good article material, note the advice explicitly given here re : judge's comments. Without drawing undue comparisons, what was made clear to me in that exchange was that often a Judge's comments are not the best material for article space. It really seems unduly harsh to me to characterise this edit as 'problematic' especially when accompanied by continued attempts to enter into discussion here.

Second Diff provided by Guy

 * - fix broken ref. "Note the title field in the cite" - Guy. The ref i think I had broken previously, and was trying to fix it - the title field is the title of the article linked to, which is not an area I believe editors usually have discretion in, or responsibility for. Again, I'm afraid I maintain that this edit should be considered acceptable according to wikipedia standards.

Third Diff Provided by Guy

 * - this YouTube clip is self published (see my discussion on the talk page) - and I really do think that it is just some fairly light hearted, interesting, wholly uncontroversial material, exactly the kind of material which abounds in wikipedia. I would further assert that to imply that I somehow believe YouTube to be a reliable source, or to misrepresent my position as somehow being not of sound judgment because of this link is utterly dishonest.

Thanks to all, Privatemusings (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Second Submission
You'll see below that Guy has now submitted lots and lots of evidence. I'm afraid it's hard for me to distill the point he is making with the machine code subpages, but what I can say is that I have tried to state my motivations for using different accounts very very clearly to both you (the Arb.s), and Guy. To respond to each diff. with a calm, reasonable interpretation is I hope unnecessary, and I'm frustrated that I would have to.

To submit diff.s 5 months apart, as Guy has below, and to allege that this represents a violation of the 'sock' policy is at best spin, and really speaks more to the character of the person preparing this 'evidence'. That is only one small example.

Flo in particular will recall my editing at Jonathan King, for which she was kind enough to reward me with a wonderful flower.

You couldn't make this process up, you know - but I thank you for your perseverance, and would finally just note that I am more than happy to answer any questions about any aspect of this case in any forum.

I've been told in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is taking up way too much of my time and energy, at far too great a cost, at the moment. I keep responding that it's worth having faith, and that you can see where Fred and others are coming from, even though I disagree with them. I can't see where Guy is coming from except to drive me away because he can. Privatemusings (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

ps. Guy now also asserts that my current block is unrelated to 'sock puppets'. Confused? I am. Privatemusings (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The existence of a Private Mailing List where blocks are discussed and prepared
It now seems depressingly likely that a Private Mailing list exists where my (and others') cases have been discussed - see here which refers to this post and where Durova states "They don't know this list exists". I'm afraid I further believe that it is likely that admin.s who have acted in my case are also recipients of this list. They have not disclosed this at any time to date.

The Arb. Com has made it quite clear, in my opinion, that discussion / preparation of blocks and bans through undisclosed off wiki communication is seriously not on. I would expect any such editors to receive very firm and immediate sanction. Privatemusings (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also support my motion for disclosure. Privatemusings (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Evidence concerning Jonathan King
Guy has submitted heaps of diff.s below, and it's been suggested that I respond. I've begun work on a more detailed examination, but please please please just take any one of them - absolutely any one - and examine it for a moment. I strongly assert that you will not find either a problematic edit, or pattern of abuse. I am not saying that I haven't made mistakes - I'm certain they are there - but they were part of a healthy process, with a good result.

It's horrible to receive a big pile of 'this proves you're useless' diff.s that are so weakly substantiated. Here's one;


 * removes ref that doies (sic) actually support a statement that Purples clearly wants out.

Where I remove an 'imdb' ref stating that it wasn't a source claiming JK is a TV personality, but just an unreliable list of appearances by King - I found this to be an unreliable source for the claim, and still do.

This example is of course put forward by the same person who elsewhere accuses me of including material irresponsibly, and not recognising a reliable source.

I feel more and more that Guy is on an aggressive mission to discredit, undermine, and ban me, and that's just simply wrong. Privatemusings (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Black
I believe my edits to be useful and necessary. Like many other editors, I also corresponded with Mr Black via email, and received a very kind message indicating that he appreciated my efforts there. I have read of Charles' ideas concerning diplomacy on and off wiki, and would add that on this article, I can be proud to have both tried to do some good, and succeeded in a small way. I feel that for having edited passionately, but calmly and clearly, and having built a sensible consensus via. normal wiki means (like RfC) - which stands to this day, I am rewarded on this page with insinuations, and malicious spin. I hate it. Privatemusings (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys assessment that my standing block is not due to 'sock' issues
My most recent conversation with the blocking admin (from the Workshop page);


 * ps - while your attention may be here - are you aware that Guy is saying that your block had nothing to do with sock issues? Is this accurate? Privatemusings (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The block message on your talk, and the note I logged in the software is clear I think. Not to insult anyone.  M er cury    22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear, thanks. Privatemusings (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

illegitimate use of alternate accounts
PM blocked on 17 NOV blocklog here.

Revision of WP:SOCK at the time here

PM appears to hold interest in controversial articles such as this edit history to this sensitive article here. It appears to be self evident the editor is using the alternate account as a bad hand account via contributions history Special:Contributions/Privatemusings.

Prior good edits at previous main account, and when abandoned, bad controversial edits from the PM account violates the Good Hand, Bad Hand provisions of SOCK. Abandonment of the prior account does not legitimize the new account. Compartmentalizing edits for this purpose have never been acceptable and is not a right.

M er cury 's non receipt of off wiki information
I am not in receipt of any privileged or private information off wiki that contributed to my on wiki actions concerning PM.

That is to say, I am not in receipt of any private information regarding PM. M er cury   22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings' other accounts
was registered as a self-declared alternate account in order to engage in debate in respect of contentious policy areas. When concern was expressed over the nature of this editing Privatemusings voluntarily revealed two of his previous accounts to me.

When Privatemusings' editing continued to be problematic, that is, the editor was engaging almost exclusively in heated debates and the account was represented on its userpage thus: "I wish to retain my enjoyment in editing articles, so aim to protect myself from any anger or hot feeling, and I wish any points to stand or fall on their merits.", I formed the view, based on contributions of the other accounts, that this was not a legitimate use of an alternate account. Before I could bring this to Privatemusings' attention he piled into I considered that the use of the alternate account was unacceptable and blocked it. I said that any autoblock would be quietly lifted, and (when I was reminded by someone less deficient in Clue) reblocked with autoblock disabled. I had discussed the matter privately with a very small number of admins I trust, and I mailed the arbitration committee about the block on Thu, 01 Nov 2007 at 12:25:29 UTC.

At this point, had Privatemusings chosen to return to his second account, which is not traceable to real world identity, I believe we would not have seen half the drama we did. Let's be absolutely clear here: while this was represented as a unilateral ban in some quarters, it was explicitly not a ban and not unilateral either as I had discussed it in some detail beforehand. Nor was there any continuing need to maintain a separate account for debate about external links, as that is all over bar the shouting (of which there is, admittedly, still more than there should be by now).

The list of alternate accounts includes the original main account, which is traceable to RWI and has not been discussed openly by me. I don't believe I openly discussed the other accounts either until it became pretty much public knowledge.

In addition to the original account traceable to RWI, which ArbCom knows, the following accounts have been established to be the same individual:
 * , first used August 24 2005, not really active until 2007
 * , registered March 11 2007
 * , registered October 8 2007
 * , registered October 8 2007
 * , registered November 1 2007
 * , registered November 14 2007

The original account, identifiable to RWI, was in active use up to May 2007 significant activity up to July 2007; from January to July the editor appears to have been using that account and Purples more or less interchangeably. I am looking in more detail here, but it looks very much as if Purples was originally registered for exactly the same reason as Privatemusings, to keep controversy away from the original account. The registering of yet an other sockpuppet on November 14 is also a concern.

David Gerard added nos. 2-5 and asserts that there are others:

An extensive review of contributions, especially to the article, leads me to the conclusion that this individual is deriving enjoyment from deliberately sailing as close as he can to the wind. Editing interests such as, , }  suggest that the reason for moving away from an account traceable to RWI was precisely to engage in editing of controversial content. To then extend that to registering another alternate account for even more contentious editing was, in my view, unacceptable.

History
Account #1 ("RWI") Image:		5 Mainspace	588 Portal talk:	1 Talk:		201 User talk:	86 User:		17 Wikipedia talk:	2 Wikipedia:	63 avg per page	2.43 earliest	06:56, 20 June 2005 unique pages	396 total		963

Purples: Image:		1 Mainspace	368 Talk:		172 Template talk:	13 Template:	9 User talk:	113 User:		11 Wikipedia talk:	62 Wikipedia:	56 avg per page	4.94 earliest	12:26, 24 August 2005 unique pages	163 total		805

Privatemusings: Registered 23:52, September 23, 2007 Image:		1 Mainspace	50 Talk:		85 User talk:	213 User:		37 Wikipedia talk:	284 Wikipedia:	227 avg per page	11.96 earliest	00:05, 24 September 2007 unique pages	75 total		897

Why Oh Why Not?  Registered 10:40, March 11, 2007 Mainspace	15 Talk:		3 User talk:	8 Wikipedia:	2 avg per page	1.47 earliest	10:41, 11 March 2007 unique pages	19 total		28

Nowthennowthenurrgeurrgeurrg (n.b.: refers to Jimmy Saville's much-imitated catchphrase) Registered 02:57, October 8, 2007 no edits

Littlevixensharpears: Registered: 20:55, October 8, 2007 Mainspace	5 User talk:	1 avg per page	2.00 earliest	21:14, 8 October 2007 unique pages	3 total		6

Thepmaccount: Registered: 04:39, November 1, 2007 (while blocked) none

BigOleBarry: Registered: 03:07, November 14, 2007 User talk:	1 User:		1 Wikipedia talk:	1 avg per page	1.00 earliest	03:09, 14 November 2007 unique pages	3 total		3

separation

 * Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence/edits by date
 * Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence/edits by subject includes talk and article edits together for each subject or project page.

These could be used to infer RWI; it's a poorly kept secret but arbitrators please feel free to delete after reading.


 * Why did this require an alternate account?
 * Why did this require an alternate account?
 * Why did this require an alternate account?
 * Why did this require an alternate account?


 * Why was this not controversial enough for the alternate account?
 * Why was this not controversial enough for the alternate account?
 * Why was this not controversial enough for the alternate account?

RWI and Purples both interested in: John Cleese, Jonathan King, List of Heroes episodes, Max Mosley, Michele Ferrari

Two (and more) accounts, one agenda
See WP:NPA/WT:NPA: edits were made by both Purples and Privatemusings before the link was made known. , as Purples and,  as PM shows the Purples account prepared to engage in exactly the same controversy for which the Privatemusings account was supposedly registered.

Robert Black's blog
The link in the Black article is significant. It contains the allegation made against User:SlimVirgin by Brandt and others, and was apparently "planted" in the blog through comments by a Wikipedia Review participant. It was removed by Wikipedia Review strawman sockpuppet and reinserted by, aka banned User:Jon Awbrey. It's pretty c;lear that that entire dispute was a deliberate attempt by Wikipedia Review to cause drama (this is evident in contemporaneous threads on WR).

Privatemusings is not one of the WR group. They speculated long and hard on his identity, assuming him to be a sockpuppet of a long-standing admin based on his original user page statement, which gave the misleading impression of having a significant reputation to protect.

Privatemusings reinserted the link with the summary: Hadn't spotted that the text still referenced the blog - reinserting reference. The text which required this reference was: "A week later, Professor Black started his own Lockerbie blog". This appears to me to be circular reasoning.

There are issues around Robert Black. He appears to be a favourite of Lockerbie conspiracy theorists (n.b: there are a load of conspiracy theories, the CIA made the mistake of picking the least plausible and making it The TruthTM). I found many instances where he was referred to as "Professor Black" rather than the more usual and less formal Robert Black, and Black's conspiracy theory blog was cited as a source in a few articles on related subjects. This is tangential, I guess.

Knowing that this article was being actively disrupted by sockpuppets, and seeing Privatemusings as a self-admitted sockpuppet continuing in that disruption, was a key part of my rationale for blocking. This was complicated by the fact that the sockpuppet reinserting the link was identified as a banned user almost immediately, whereas the sockpuppet removing the blog was identified and blocked only on November 5.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Flawed_And_Irresponsible_Research_Tool
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Privacyisall

Giovanni di Stefano: problematic edits, problematic edit summaries

 * - A rework of my previous draft, with controversial sections removed. Not hardly.
 * - fix broken ref. Note the title field in the cite.
 * - sourced from YouTube.

Jonathan King


Purples' and Privatemusings' edits to Jonathan King display a marked tendency towards sensationalism, particularly with repsect to the obsessive reinsertion of the word "disgraced" into the lead. Appearance of WP:OWNing the article. Purples' editing of this subject might be summarised as "accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive"

The history of that article shows sustained edit-warring by Purples to keep the tone negative overall.

This behaviour raises the question: why did Purples feel comfortable making these controversial edits with the main account, but not arguing for policy changes?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=133620652&oldid=123306019
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=133975145&oldid=133674197
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=143281253&oldid=143245583
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=143398301&oldid=143309447
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=143449232&oldid=143445291
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=143609635&oldid=143538884
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=143883098&oldid=143650457 - "very small reword" including adding "now disgraced after conviction, in 2001, of sexual offenses" to lead
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=144084683&oldid=144033837, edit-warring over "disgraced" in lead
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=144113304&oldid=144112772
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=next&oldid=144114421
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=144399661&oldid=144390988
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=144407308&oldid=144401056
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=146657776&oldid=146280707
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=144691686
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=146951332&oldid=146797421
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=147153098&oldid=147058638 removes from the lead "writer, TV personality" (the latter undoubtedly true) and reinserts - you guessed it! - "disgraced".
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=147181033
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=147444059 out goes "controversial", back comes "disgraced".
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=149047983 removes ref that doies actually support a statement that Purples clearly wants out.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=149524392&oldid=149317063 Editorialising the conviction
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=149529543&oldid=149528005 "And serial abuser of young boys" in the lead. Nice!
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=149647478&oldid=149568060 Edit warring over above, tell the world that the boys are "scarred for life", sundry other tabloidish content.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=149714465
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=149715930&oldid=149714956
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=149733705&oldid=149730348
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=149916907&oldid=149752224
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=150086388&oldid=149989415
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=150170310&oldid=150163960
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=150269992&oldid=150194286
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=150295317&oldid=150272041
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=150350811&oldid=150340029
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=150387062
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=150387540&oldid=150387240
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=151121204&oldid=150679099 [one intervening minor edit from robot depopulating deleted category, this was not Purples, the rest was]
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=152127461
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=154078401&oldid=154040731
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=167966065

As Privatemusings:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=171826133&oldid=170923790

Sock puppetry policy
There is an ongoing issue with. Per it is apparent that the policy had diverged significantly from what I would view as the community consensus position on use of alternate accounts, to the point where it could be justly argued that the policy actively encouraged the use of alternate accounts for contentious issues.

Segregation and security, keeping heated issues in one area and other sections gave the impression that using an alternate account to keep drama out of the history of the main account was acceptable or even encouraged. This was ardently pursued as an excuse for Privatemusings' behaviour in a manner suggestive of Wikilawyering; the majority opinion as far as I can tell, particularly from arbitrators who commented on the matter publicly, was that this was not an acceptable use of an alternate account.

I do not believe this to be in line with the intent of the policy or with most editors' understanding of acceptable behaviour. The policy now commences:

This is, I feel, much less equivocal, as is the section as of now on legitimate uses. Although there is some dispute it does look to me as if this, at least, has been a positive outcome from this

Blocks
Noticeboard discussions re Privatemusings:


 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive320
 * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Privatemusings
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive326
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive110

There's a lot more debate, most comments shedding more heat than light.

The final block was not for sockpuppetry, although the disruptive use of alternate accounts did play a part. The major problem was the poorly sourced and problematic edits to Giovanni di Stefano.

Privatemusings' first indef block
was registered as a self-declared alternate account, permitted under WP:SOCK, in order help develop the WP:PROBLEMLINKS policy to determine under what circumstances external links containing possible private information about editors, or calling for the harassment of editors, would be permitted as part of our goal of building an encyclopedia. The development of such a policy was requested by the Arbitration committee. This activity naturally involved monitoring goings on at a related policy, WP:NPA.

On 28 October, started a thread at WT:NPA regarding an external link to the personal blog of Robert Black (professor). The professor's blog reveals the alleged real life name of one of our editors. Privacyisall was against the inclusion of the link. Privacyisall was banned as a sock on 5 November.

Subsequent to the mention of this issue at WT:NPA, Privatemusings started a thread at Talk:Robert Black (professor) on whether or not the inclusion of the link to the article subject's personal blog was appropriate, as the sole reason given for its exclusion was that it had originally been added by a blocked editor. PM subsequently reinserted the link to the blog.

Privatemusings continued to engage on that article talk page, and readded the link when it was removed, asking others to abide by WP:1RR.

The discussion and reversions involving a number of editors, including sockpuppets of other users, continued. By 23:01, 28 October, Privatemusing believed consensus had emerged to readd the external link. PM added the link, yet again, on 29 October, explaining how its inclusion was permitted by a variety of our policies and guidelines: WP:V, WP:EL and WP:RS. He used similar rationale on 30 October. and filed a WP:RFC on the issue. He subsequently continued to engage on the article talk page over the next few days.

On 31 October, Privatemusings was indef blocked by User:Jzg (a.k.a. Guy) with the comment This has gone on long enough. Guy explained at User talk:Privatemusings that he felt the use of a WP:SOCK account was no longer justified because the ArbCom case regarding WP:BADSITES had closed (on 17 October); Guy characterized PM's behavior at Robert Black (professor) as "edit-warring." Guy also stated his belief that the use of the alternate account in a content dispute was forbidden: If you want to contribute to content debates, do it with your main account.

A debate over the legitimacy of the block ensued at WP:AN.

On 1 November, PM was unblocked by User:CBDunkerson with the comment: ''Excessive block for edit warring against the views of the blocking admin. User has agreed not to edit war on the issue.''

Privatemusings contributions show no further edits to Robert Black (professor) after the block was lifted, although he continued to contribute on the article talk page. As of today, 21 November, the link to the blog has been present in the article continuously for three weeks.

Privatemusings used as editor's main account after first indef block
Privatemusings began using this account in the manner of main account on 2 November, editing articles unrelated to WP:PROBLEMLINKS such as Socrates and Plato.

None of the other accounts identified by Guy's evidence have any edits after 4 November:


 * 1)  (no edits since 4 November)
 * 2)  (no edits since 17 May)
 * 3)  (no edits at all)
 * 4)  (no edits since 8 October, only 6 edits)
 * 5)  (no edits)

Edits to Talk:Giovanni di Stefano brought to the attention of the community
Although I'm unable to view deleted edits, on 3 November Privatemusings noted a discussion at User Talk:Jimbo Wales and moved it to Talk:Giovanni di Stefano with a reply, stating "hope that's ok, please revert if offensive."

User:JzG (Guy) brought this, and perhaps other now deleted edits, to the attention of WP:AN on 7 November. No consensus to block formed based upon Privatemusings edits on this article's talk page.

Privatemusings second indef block
On 15 November, Privatemusings was blocked by User:David Gerard as a confirmed sockpuppet of.

The block was discussed at WP:AN/I.

During this discussion, it was revealed the editor had an account called . Petesmiles had made only two minor housekeeping edits since 29 July. Petesmiles declared that he felt betrayed by this revelation of information given in confidence.

Privatemusings agreed to edit only from one account, all his other accounts were to have been blocked, and he was unblocked on 16 November by User:East718.

Privatemusings third (current) indef block
On 15 November, Giovanni di Stefano and its talk page were deleted by Fred Bauder, apparently after Privatemusing added reliably sourced information to the article. Privatemusings then asked for User:Fred Bauder to provide some sort of clarifcation as to what sources could be used there. PM subsequently asked for permission to even discuss the sources on the article talk page. Fred did not reply to these requests on the talk page, however Fred did threaten to indef block him if he "kept on."  User:Alecmconroy reminded Fred that he had laid out no guidelines  for Privatemusings and others to follow. Fred then gave the following explanation.

On 17 November, Privatemusings attempted to add material to Giovanni di Stefano. Part of this edit was sourced to a video on YouTube was removed as not reliably sourced. Privatemusings later inquired at WT:RS as to whether The Guardian could be used as a WP:Reliable source for the biography of Giovanni di Stefano.  He informed Fred at User talk:Fred Bauder that he was seeking additional opinions about the reliably of information published by The Guardian. Privatemusings last edit prior to his current block was discussing YouTube as a reliable source at Talk:Giovanni di Stefano‎.

User:Mercury indef blocked Privatemusing on 18 November with the statement Unable to WP:RS, illegitiment use of alternate accounts.

Matter previously resolved 16 November
User:Privatemusings was blocked by User:David Gerard on 15 November 2007. Following the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, as detailed here, the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the community. User:Mercury again applied an indefinite block to Privatemusings account some 5 minutes short of 51 hours since the previous block was lifted, again citing "illegitiment (sic) use of alternate accounts" as well as "Unable to WP:RS". There was no prior warning regarding the specific WP:RS, and both blocker and block reviewer seemed unfamiliar with the previous conclusion at WP:ANI. There is no indication on why the concerns of WP:RS by itself deserved an indef block.

Comment by Guy regarding Third Block
That the last block is not about misuse of socks is not apparent either by User:Mercury's comments above, nor the edit summary for the block.

Claims of incivilty involving JzG
This thread at the admins noticeboard has been marked by Chick Bowen as resolved, with an instruction by the editor so marking to bring the concerns here. Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * Splash, an admin, has told me to remove this, so please ignore it, or do whatever you feel is appropriate. I wish to apologise for getting involved, clearly I am not welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
JzG says above that WP:SOCK at the time that PM introduced his second account "gave the impression that using an alternate account to keep drama out of the history of the main account was acceptable or even encouraged." Two points:
 * 1) If this was the case, than PM should have been sanctioned only after the policy was changed per due process. As it was, PM was blocked on 1 November, and the first edit to change WP:SOCK was not made until after the long AN/I thread that followed, where several people pointed out that WP:SOCK provided no justification for the block.
 * 2) The policy as written in no way implied any such thing. What was clearly permitted was the attempt to insulate individual's total WP experience from the anger caused by participation in heated areas o the encyclopaedia. What was clearly not permitted was using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of an editor's total on-WP behaviour. Any further implications than this are JzG's own, and not supported by either the wording or by consensus.

He further quotes the "policy in a nutshell" part - which is part of which is being discussed on the policy talkpage. The version he quotes is not a consensus. It is far from being one. I in any case believe changing policy retrospectively to justify past behaviour is inappropriate. JzG says that "it is apparent that the policy had diverged significantly from what I would view as the community consensus position on use of alternate accounts." Policy in fact had been relatively stable on the subject for months. It is clear, also, from the discussion on the talkpage at WP:SOCK, that JzG can hardly claim that his views represent consensus. (In fact, as I have pointed out on the talkpage, it is even less likely that views on a policy talkpage represent the consensus of most editors on the subject of multiple accounts when such talkpages are generally edited by those with long-term, established accounts. Note also that as far as I can tell the behaviour that JzG seems to think was blockworthy would also recklessly endanger or severely limit many hundreds of legitimate successor accounts.) I think that the explanation provided is, frankly, disingenous. If policy is to mean something, people should attempt to be bound by it. If X is blocked by Y because of violating Y's belief of what policy Z should say rather than it does say, that is plainly unacceptable, unless it receives broad community support, which it did not - and would not, as JzG knew - in this case.

Finally, it seems obvious that if PM was editing mainly from a single account at the time of JzG's block, and JzG knew that, the question of the fact that the user had other accounts does not even arise! At no point was the user gaining any benefit from the fact that he had alternate accounts; he was not attempting to win content disputes or editing privileges on his "main account" in a manner insulated from problematic edits elsewhere; he was not using either account to game consensus; he was not causing trouble through his use of alternate accounts. The whole WP:SOCK thing is an enormous, giant, red herring of a distraction. If PM was using mainly a single account for major editing, what mattered as a justification for a block is whether he was disruptive on that account. The fact that he had 150 bog-standard edits to Gothic chess at the same time, but under a different account, is a pretty odd justification for a block. And the fact that the second blocking admin still does not appear to know that PM had given an undertaking, of his own free will, to not use any other accounts over a fortnight before his second block - for using his sole remaining account as a bad hand! - is even odder. Relata refero (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.