Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop

Hello all, I have asked a couple of small questions at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence - most relevant to this page the question of copying my assertions here - if anyone could offer any advice it would be appreciated. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and sourcing issues
Both WP:BLP and WP:RS relate to the current block, as does WP:OFFICE, and perhaps even WP:TRUTH (although that seems to have become a lot more sardonic since last I looked at it), but I'm uncertain what principles needs to be proposed. I really feel like WP:OFFICE dropped the ball on properly protecting Giovanni di Stefano, and that Privatemusings added information to the article that while WP:RS'd, contained information which is not in fact WP:TRUTH, and hence ran foul of WP:OFFICE in ways that are difficult to express, and naturally, impossible to share. Still trying to get my head around these though. Any thoughts? -- Kendrick7talk 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I took a shot anyway. -- Kendrick7talk 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A chat about 'bail'
Copied from the project page, to avoid clutter, and as a better fit here; (in response to the suggestion of restricted editing privileges being restored); Privatemusings (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are currently in a blocked state. You have requested unblock and the unblock was declined.  You are asking the Arbitration Committee to overturn the block and the block review.  If this is to be done, that is to say, to negate the block, it should be after everything is scrutinized and the case is closed. If they decide to allow you back on at all.   M er cury    01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are entirely accurate about the status quo, including our understanding. I have asked for limited privileges to be restored, you have indicated that you do not support such an action. Please just give some (short) reasoning as to Why? Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That part about after everything is scrutinized. M er cury    01:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're understanding the kind of statement that I feel is appropriate. It would be something like 'I don't think PM should edit, because he'll cause disruption on any article he edits'. Or 'PM is a liability when editing, because he constantly insults all the editors around him' or 'I don't think this is a good idea because the risk PM represents to the project is too great in terms of his inability to spell'. I'm afraid that in my opinion, you are still yet to explain what harm will come to the wiki by my being allowed to edit Socrates, or do general clean up work. I think that's the least you could offer, as the blocking admin. Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of a Pearls Before Swine cartoon. Pig is on the phone and the voice on the other end says "Read a book." Pig says, "But-" but the voice interrupts, "Read a book, moron." Pig hangs up and walks over to Rat. Rat says "So what did the cable company say about the outage?" Anyway, the point is, you're just going to have to do your time in the county lock-up here, PM. Hopefully, this case won't drag on for too long. -- Kendrick7talk 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

<- well, you know I really do think some restoration of my editing is the right think to do at this stage, and the Arb.s can allow for that if they want to. I think Mercury is the cable company in your analogy - btw. i've made a post for your attention at the evidence talkpage... best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, don't get it twisted, but I intended myself to be the cable company in that analogy. WP:TIND; Socrates will still be there when you get back. -- Kendrick7talk 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

okey dokey. You're dead right about the deadline, and dear 'ol Socrates. I hope I've been clear that it's not that I have anything wonderful to contribute, that simply must be allowed into the encyclopedia immediately. It's more just that I would feel a lot better, and I think it's the right thing to do. I'll make do with hot caffeinated beverage. I'm sure patience is good for karma, also. best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Privatemusings will not acomplish anything
Blocking Privatemusings will acomplish nothing. He's already said he'll try to stick to one account, so there's absolutly no reason to block--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Synergies with other wiki events
You'll see here that I have attempted to begin a discussion about who the 'small number of trusted admin.s' that Guy discussed my original block might have been.

With the incredible events surrounding Durova playing out elsewhere, it seems very likely that these events may have some relationship. Indeed, it's possible that the 'small number of trusted admin.s' are the same users who 'reviewed' Durova's 'document'. I would like full disclosure on this immediately - for my sake, and because it's self evidently the right thing to do. Privatemusings (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am, of course, unable to post this note at the appropriate venue. Privatemusings (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be frank, right now there is not an appropiate venue, until someone raises a request for comment. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I think you're right - and to be honest, the important point I wanted to make is that the processes various editors went through in my case have just been shown to be demonstrably (and laughably) flawed. I don't think the bloating of this case to consider all aspects will be particularly useful. I have submitted what amounts to a 'motion to dismiss' because, in this specific case, that's all I really want. I would like to be unblocked. best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is completely false, I'm afraid. The reasons for your blocks are very specific: abuse of multiple accounts, which was supported by consensus despite your repeated assertions to the contrary; and then, when you had undertaken to use a single account, problematic editing behaviour.  Add to that your vigorous support of an extreme within a contentious policy debate, the revelation that you had more than the one alternate account to which you publicly admitted, and the unusually sensitive nature of the article over which you chose to edit war - and of course the fact that the other party was an arbitrator, which should have told you something - and we have a substantial disruptive presence.  That was why you were blocked.  There is nothing secret about any of this, and the only significant off-wiki discussion in relation to the blocks (of which I am aware anyway) was me asking a small number of trusted admins, including arbitrators and specifically Jimbo, whether your use of alternate accounts was acceptable.  Nobody said anything but "no".  Guy (Help!) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who did you ask? Why won't you say? Privatemusings (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask so much as share a concern, and I won't tell you because it doesn't make any difference. The email made little practical difference anyway - if they had disagreed then I'd have held back but they did not.  No different to asking for a sanity check on IRC in that respect; better than relying solely on your own judgement, but in the end it was my call and mine alone.  Guy (Help!) 19:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But it really really does make a difference - I've been very clear on the workshop page that I have a strong feeling that editors who acted in my block reviews, and subsequent blocks were also undisclosed recipients of / participants in a private email posting about my editing. If you're asserting that I'm crazy to think that, then clear it up and say 'Nope.', if it's true, surely you can see how morally, ethically and just plain wrong that is - please please please just clear this up - it's a horrible horrible feeling to think that some editors were 'out to get you' from the start. please, Privatemusings (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * and I know you likely won't take this (or anything actually) from me - but Geez, I just think I've gotta try - look around, Guy - this will come out one way or the other before too long. It's not just an annoying indef. blocked editor making these requests. To be open and honest at this stage would speak very well of you, and not to would speak clearly of you too. Please Privatemusings (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make a difference. Consider: it is perfectly normal to go to the admin noticeboard and say "I think there is a problem with this user, do you think this warrants a block?".  It's normal to ask on IRC if you think a fast-running issue is getting out of control.  It's a sanity check.  The only reason - and I do mean the only reason - I used email in your case was that I could not discuss it properly without revealing your original account.  The people I asked are long-standing admins, including CheckUsers.  Of those who replied (most of them) the response was unanimous, that your use of multiple accounts was outside of acceptable bounds.  And even then I did the minimum I thought necessary to reduce the problem, which was to block one account and tell you that autoblocks would be quietly lifted.  I did not take it to the admin noticeboard because I could not do so without revealing the other accounts, since a discussion not based on reviewing the contributions of each account would have been worthless. And I am of the very strong belief that it you had gone back to Purples and left it at that, we would not be here now.  Although that is perhaps over-optimistic, since there was no obvious reason for you to start on the di Stefano article. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be really really really clear - you did nothing wrong in circulating an email. Your reasons for using that channel were sound. What's clearly wrong is to deny that there are also very sound, good reasons for disclosure now. Aside from my reasonable request to know if admins who took subsequent actions had been part of a discussion prior to their apparently entirely independent on-wiki actions, there's the whole tradition and culture here of openness and transparency calling for just some small level honesty.
 * I know you acted, and continue to act, in the very best faith, but you have been wrong about me. I too care about this project, and simply wish to return. best, Privatemusings (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference. It was not their call, it was mine.  All I shared was the account names, and the concern that your use of an alternate account was problematic.  Nothing else.  Guy (Help!) 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why on earth refuse to disclose, when asked repeatedly, and politely? I've said very clearly that the bottom line is that it will make me feel better - and you've said very clearly that it doesn't matter - so why not just extend a wiki arm of support, to a distressed editor (even one you are in dispute with), and make him feel better? WWJD? Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it was my call, and not anyone else's. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it's your call, yes you hold all the cards, no there's nothing I can do to coerce you, you have all the control here. Please please please let the probably not that exciting information out into the open. It really would make me feel better. Please. Privatemusings (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points: Personal information was shared with a group of admins, however trusted. Some of them weren't CheckUsers, who are identified and logged with the Foundation. I can't see how that's a good thing. Second, Guy, please don't say there was consensus that PM was disruptively using socks. There wasn't. I just read the original Nov 1 thread again. Also, that you think the others on the mailing list agreed that it was disruptive socking doesn't really mean that much to me or to others these days; its possible they never read it, or misinterpreted it, or you misinterpreted their response; any of these things are the explanations being provided even as we speak for the other problematic block that was justified by mention of the mailing list. Finally, PM, I don't see how Guy can legitimately reveal the names of the other people on this list. That would be too much drama. Perhaps he can tell you off-wiki. Relata refero (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Events have somewhat overtaken this thread - but I'd like to note here that it is not so much the identities of the editors who were in discussion with Guy that overly interests me, so much as the strong suspicion that those editors subsequently acted 'on-wiki' in blocking, reviewing, and voting in the Arb case, without any disclosure of their prior involvement. I just believe that it was unethical of them not to be open - and I believe the arbs involved should have recused. I believe that the editors involved also know this, hence the damaging desire for secrecy (not privacy, they are in a bed of their own making) Privatemusings (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)