Well, at least as soon as that can be arranged. Don't worry, it won't be long.

Noroton, you and I have edited cordially together in the past - although its been some time. Even so, it may be presuming too much to offer my opinion, but... Just in case, here it is. I think that you may have misread the general thrust of the arbitrators conclusion on the Sandstein/CoM/Law incident. The connection between the statements made by non-arbitrators on the requests page and the comments from arbitrators is usually quite tenuous, if there is any at all. In this case, I think the core issue they've been addressing has been the propriety of unblocking someone who had been blocked pursuant to an arbitration remedy -- particularly without prior discussion. We can debate the merits of Sandstein's block, and I think there are some real questions about what the best course of action there might have been, but the situation is far more clear (to me, and to most) when it comes to Law's unblock. I hope frustration from this incident, and the atmosphere on political articles in general, doesn't push you away from Wikipedia for good. Nathan ^T 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that clear. There was plenty of support for the unblock, even on the AC page. Most? Not even. It's so taboo to undo another user's block that you'd rather see a user stay blocked until it can be sorted out. Fail. Law _{type! snype?} 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with your opinion on the subject, not least because you actually performed the unblock. I'm not sure I see leaving someone blocked long enough to have a discussion as the sort of injustice you apparently believe it to be. The ensuing drama and comments from others should at least suggest to you that perhaps your decision may not have been flawless. Nathan ^T 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Nathan. Sorry it took so long to reply. My point at the ArbCom page is that Sandstein's block looks worse when you look at the overall situation on that page. That's worth ArbCom's attention, and it's a more important problem than whether one admin should be reverting another admin (I don't know or really care about the niceties of that, although I like Law's point about see a user stay blocked until it can be sorted out.). The solution is for admins and ArbCom to monitor both sides of ongoing POV conflicts. No one was doing that. Hypocritical enforcement resulted. Epic fail. You're focusing too narrowly, and it's part of the problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've argued that they (in this case) are both focusing too narrowly on the wheel war problem and supporting the uneven enforcement of policy. In this situation, I think those positions are mutually exclusive - they aren't dealing with the substantive enforcement issue at all, because a discussion of the merits of the block was basically preempted by Law's unilateral decision. Nathan ^T 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how what I'm saying is mutually exclusive. They can refocus the scope of a case at will. Everybody on that page can recognize the massive failure I'm pointing out, and you should acknowledge it, too. -- Noroton (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom page is not the best place to post "bitching". In fact Wikipedia is really not a good place to post bitching. Productive commentary is always welcome but a 2 page rant about how much you think people are hypocrites is not really productive. Chillum 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. If they repost that rant again, I will block them for edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More hypocrites engaging in more hypocracy. You can't defend the fact that you and the rest of the admins completely ignored clear violations from one side as admins came down full force on the other. Your answer is typical Wikipedia censorship. Neither of you have lifted a finger to enforce blatant policy violations occurring right under your nose -- so long as it involves one side in the conflict.

These are facts. They're not contestable. Your own absence of conduct indicts you when you then act only against one side.

And you have no answer for it other than to remove the comment.

I'll return the facts to the page.

Because you need to be confronted with your collective hypocrisy and your utter failure to even look like you're being fair. You really need to be called out on that on Wikipedia's pages.

You are the problem here.

-- Noroton (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to look into any complaints you have, but I can't do that until you start using civil discourse to express your concerns. Take stock, gather your thoughts, and then give me a precise, cool, and concise explanation on my talk page. Please include a few diffs to highlight your concerns. I will check them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review my censored ArbCom comments, which contain diffs. I'm reworking them and restoring my important points to the page. Let the clerks clerk the page. And why don't you ask yourself where you were when my complaints grew old at AN/I and 3RR/N. You can interfere now, but you couldn't do it then? Funny how admins get busy at the oddest moments. -- Noroton (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By calling me a hypocrite you have confirmed to me that your accusations are fairly random. I have absolutely no involvement in whatever the dispute is about I was just commenting on your style of communication. By lumping me into the conspiracy you are imagining you have confirmed to me that your impressions are not based on evidence. Chillum 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could see I was mad, but you persist. So let me refine my criticism of you. You aren't a hypocrite. Any fair-minded admin who waded in on this by commenting in any way would look through the four diffs I provided to see whether there's some outrage that caused me to make my comments. Well? Or are you content merely to leave comments on my page to goad me? -- Noroton (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your post prevented me from getting far in reading it. If you wish people to listen to you then you may wish to make your style more pleasant to read. Chillum 05:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want calm discussion? See [1] But when I make my style more pleasant to read it gets ignored. Which is what I'm complaining about in the first place. Follow the links in my ArbCom post. I was ignored at 3RR and no one at AN/I could either show me how my complaint was not a simple, obvious violation of edit warring according to the language of WP:3RR or why that obvious violation should not be addressed in any way. So I have experience in being polite and being ignored. -- Noroton (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, practical advice. In looking, it does appear that Noroton may be in conflict with another editor who has been owning the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. My concern is that we may have two (or more) editors playing tug of war with an article where none of them are really aiming for NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 09:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

may be in conflict with another editor While true, you're looking past the real problem, which I assume you find an incredibly uncomfortable truth (more on that later). This conflict is surely the lowest level conflict on Wikipedia, since I have hardly any contact with LuLu. At some points in the past, we've gotten along well enough. Nor is LuLu much more active on that page than several other editors. It's an entire group. This is hardly the worst example of an edit-warred article, although what's going on there is classic POV edit warring on a (again, classic) mass scale. As the recent Acorn scandal unfolded, LuLu and his allies have had to slowly retreat as more and more sources and more and more editors have continually reinforced the facts, to the point that the article, while still obviously biased, isn't biased all that much. Just about all the important facts about the scandal are there and while comments from Acorn are overemphasized and quotes criticizing Acorn are underemphasized, that's really not terribly harmful. It's pretty clear, however, who's been winning the edit war overall. LuLu and the others aren't doing anything more than hasn't been done for years by others elsewhere (and by LuLu elsewhere). I'm more concerned that IP editors coming to Wikipedia casually and who contribute good-faith, non-POV edits that actually would improve the article are not only reverted completely, they are treated rudely with nasty edit summaries that are clearly unfair. The reverting without discussion and the lack of civility (we could add WP:BITE) are hurting Wikipedia by shooing away potentially good editors. It's pretty obvious to me that we lack editors on the right (although I can't prove it). If we had a better balance of editors interested in politics, it would be harder to WP:OWN political articles and bias them. To this day, the treatment of the word "terrorist" at the Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Weather Underground articles is horrendous, despite my getting 2/3 RfC consensus to have the articles reflect the way that word has been applied to the organization and those people by dozens of the best sources over decades, which I listed at the RfC. There's a reason for that, and it isn't just the editors identifiable as POV pushers. That gets us to the real problem.

The real problem is that admins at AN/I won't enforce behavioral policy in these kinds of disputes, making the problems fester and even move to other articles. None of the four links I provided at ArbCom go to the Acorn article or talk page. They all go to my complaints before admins, and each time admins failed (the civility complaint to Gamaliel actually may not have failed, I haven't checked, but it was certainly treated with kid gloves by an admin whose politics seem to make him very friendly with LuLu). What do you do when no admin will enforce a very simple request for a very clear violation of behavioral policy? Well, you take it to ArbCom. But the 3RR violations go stale quickly, and by the time I was done giving AN/I and 3RR a chance to deal with the problem, it was too late to go to ArbCom. It's true I could have waited for the next violations and then immediately taken them to ArbCom with links to the previous lack of action. And then ArbCom would do what it's done in the past: give kid-glove treatment to the perpetrators. I only have so much patience, and I think I spent a reasonable amount of time on this. I made my statement at the ArbCom page when I happened to see the Child of Midnight complaint because the alacrity in bashing CoM compared with the lack of response with LuLu on the same page, at almost the same time was stunningly offensive. You have avoided focusing on this, but in fact, this is the heart of it: Wikipedia's enforcement in large-scale political edit wars completely broke down. It was inadequate. The enforcement itself looks biased. I don't blame you for averting your eyes: It's ugly, it's big and there's no easy way to solve it. I can't do a damn thing about it as an editor, you can't do much at all as an admin (and what you could do with any effectiveness would take a lot of work and get you a lot of grief), and it isn't even easy for ArbCom. It's a failure of the system which doesn't have adequate policy to deal with it.

The most important thing anyone can do about it at this point is simply to recognize it and not be silent about it. You should acknowledge it, ArbCom should, other editors and admins should, Jimbo particularly should. Until we have a widespread acknowledgment of the problem, it will never be considered seriously by the vast majority of editors who don't deal with controversial articles. Can it be changed? You know that consensus for big policy changes is almost impossible at this point. I don't even have a clear idea of what policy might do a good job of dealing with it. I don't even have a clear idea of why admins shy away from dealing with these clear violations of the policies we do have. Is it me -- do admins just not want to deal with me? Is it political bias on the part of admins (it's a reasonable assumption, but I refactored that one out of my ArbCom statement)? Is it a reluctance to get involved in this kind of a situation? I do not know, and if you have some ideas on that, I'd like to know them. I do know that the result is to have bad-acting editors running rampant. LuLu's block log seems to show a long history of blocks for edit warring and I've seen his incivility before. But the real problem is bigger than LuLu, and a whack-a-mole response, editor by editor, isn't ultimately effective. Meanwhile, if an admin is quickly responding to complaints from one side of a political controversy, not to respond to complaints from the other side introduces biased enforcement, which only makes a particular POV war worse. THAT needs to be acknowledged, not (in effect) swept under the rug by smug, self-satisfied admins. I could give you diffs on that. -- Noroton (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful. --Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as a former clerk, I would not be surprised if they found your comments still overlong and of an unacceptable tone.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I don't know how that happens. I edited, I hit the button and didn't get an edit-conflict page. Oh well. Thanks for fixing it. Noroton (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments at the ArbCom requests page:

Revised bitching from Noroton

My original comment was censored, not by clerks but first by someone involved as a commenter in this case, Protonk, some of whose points I was criticizing. (I thought that clerks were the only ones authorized to police these pages, and the comment was up long enough for clerks to note it.) But that doesn't remove the fact that administrators on this site have still created a complete mess, and you all need to be confronted with the facts.

We have admins quite happy to pounce on editors on one side of this (Child of Midnight) while strangely unable to act when repeated complaints are made at 3RR/N and AN/I. You all need to be confronted with that.

We have a policy, NPOV, that arbitrators commonly throw up their hands and say they can't possibly enforce because it's a content policy and they only deal with behavior. At AN/I, admins regularly say the same thing. Fair enough. But then when complaints are made on one side in a dispute and are ignored when, shortly afterward, complaints from the other side result in quick blocks, we have admins -- in effect -- conducting POV pushing by proxy. Do they mean to do this? Intention is nearly impossible to prove, but in other cases we do have cases of admins with quite pronounced points of view blocking editors with opposing views, and doing so at the behest of POV pushing edit warriors. On this matter we have LuLu of the Lotus Eaters and Xenophrenic both edit warring at Acorn, both going over the 3RR limit in a days-long (now weeks-long? I haven't bothered to check) POV fight. And we have a complete, total breakdown in admin enforcement at both AN/I and 3RR/N. Not only did my second 3RR/N complaint get absolutely no action, but it sat there as every other single fucking complaint on that page was dealt with. So now we don't just have admins unable to enfroce NPOV, but they can't even enforce clear, black and white, obvious, cut and dried repeated violations of behavioral policy -- but only if those complaints are made against one side. There is no possible way that LuLu's violation of WP:3RR can be interpreted as not a violation, although that was done. I guess no admin dared to even comment on the second violation at 3RR/N because the embarassing hypocrisy of not acting was too much to handle. And when I brought it to AN/I, not one of these editors or admins commenting here had the decency to comment when the shoe was on the other foot. You need to be confronted with that.

Stomp in (commenting or acting) when it's one side getting the complaints and then ignore the blatant violations on the other side. What sterling behavior we have on the part of our admin corps here. You need to be confronted with that.

But when you do it, don't expect not to be called hypocrites. You are all, each one of you, hypocrites. Got it? Hypocrites. You make yourselves look like you're enforcing various behavioral policies, but when you enforce them only selectively against one side, what you're enforcing is something entirely different.

And you need to be confronted with that.

And here's the proof showing that you are Hypocrites. [2] Hypocrites. [3] Hypocrites. [4] Hypocrites. [5] There's just never enough time to address the crap that one side pushes out, but always the time to suit up for the S.W.A.T team when the other side is spitting on the sidewalk. What possible explanation can there be for this other than that you are complete and utter hypocrites.

And that's true whether or not you meant to POV push by hobbling one side and coddling the other. The fact is, you did it, no matter what you meant to do, and selective enforcement is still selective enforcement whenever you dip a toe in as an admin either by commenting or blocking one side and then walk away. Because you can be expected to know what will happen.

Look at the discussions the diffs point to and you can't come to any other conclusion: You all failed. Massively. If you have any integrity at all, any of you, editors, admins, arbs, you'll recognize that. Whether you have the guts to actually admit this is fucked up is not something that I even hope for. Therefore the resignation. -- Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Hope you can come out of retirement for this. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorwalkCTEaNorwalkRRsta11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNorwalkRRsta11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaTwoSmallPlatforms11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaTwoSmallPlatforms11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaHouseFromPlatform11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaHouseFromPlatform11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaEaSidePlatform11112007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaEaSidePlatform11112007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaMainEntrance11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaMainEntrance11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BranchvilleRailroadStationCtca1900.jpg is now available as Commons:File:BranchvilleRailroadStationCtca1900.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you read this, Noroton. Wish you'd come back. We have much to talk about. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Checkuser evidence, I have blocked this account for 1 week for abusive sockpuppetry.. --Versageek 06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to do anything other than operate alternate accounts within policy. I'd taken a look at WP:SOCK a while back and thought I was within policy to start alternate accounts -- none of which was used for a bad purpose. Looking back at the history, I didn't see any time when I used other accounts when this one was blocked. Although Wikidemon has said that I did. I don't recall doing that. If I did, a year ago, they would have been innocuous edits. Can anyone else point to me using these accounts when I was blocked? I experimented with different accounts and decided to use others for some work I was doing that was noncontroversial (Reconsideration for year-in-poetry pages; CountryDoctor eventually for art pages; JohnWBarber for Connecticut pages). Then I drifted into discussing AfDs with both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts after I resigned this account. At first I'd meant to use only the JohnWBarber account for AfDs, then I wasn't sure, then I decided I'd stick with the Barber account for anything like that. Was that nefarious?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I recall it, I left this account -- put the "resignation" banner at the top of the talk page and stopped editing here entirely by October 5. Only after that did the Barber account comment in anything more controversial than an AfD.

I never used an account to vote twice, create the impression that there was more support for something than one editor's support, harass or avoid legitimate scrutiny -- there was never any reason, based on the actions of any of these accounts, to scrutinize me. I did use the Reconsideration account in a contentious article and commented on the talk page there. What I did was make suggestions and rewrite sections that were contentious. It was the article on Obama getting the Nobel prize. I edited in a way that all sides seemed to find acceptable and -- to my amazement -- seemed to calm down most of the disputing and edit warring going on. I found I had no problem interacting briefly with an editor I'd had a conflict with in the past, and that editor didn't dispute anything I said on the talk page or did on the article page. It was a solid contribution to the encyclopedia. I think I did once vote in an RfAdmin election (for Orlady?) with the Reconsideration account. It was a mistake (I thought I was logged in as Noroton), but it was harmless.

Why did I create the alternate accounts? First, I was curious and created the CountryDoctor account to see what it might be like to edit under another name. I found it liberating -- I found I felt differently (less annoyed) when I was editing with that account. But I got bored with it and stopped. After I was blocked, User:Bali ultimate made a comment on some page where I think I commented previously. I'd had some conflict with that user on a page related to a political, controversial article, and we didn't get along. Bali ultimate made some comment on a page that had nothing to do with politics or our dispute, and that comment by Bali ultimate convinced me that no matter what I did in the future, I'd find opposition from an editor like that. I expected to comment on things like RfArb cases, ANI and the like, occasionally, and I would continue to use the Noroton account for that over the next 12 months, until Oct. 5 when I finally stopped editing with it. I decided to use other accounts for noncontroversial editing in certain areas (I also used the Noroton account for various content edits, and created Hotel toilet-paper folding with it.) I thought that if I split my interests into different accounts, the new accounts would be harder to find for editors who wanted to get at me.

At no time did I engage in disruption with any of these accounts. I didn't think that commenting on AfDs was wrong, but now that I look at WP:SOCK, that seems to be allowed with only one account. My bad. It wasn't mentioned in the version of WP:SOCK that I looked at when I originally started the Reconsideration or JohnWBarber accounts. [6] That version of SOCK didn't mention not commenting in policy discussions, AfDs, etc. (I did also use Reconsideration to comment on some style guideline policy months ago, because it had something to do with the edits I was making on year-in-poetry pages.) Go right ahead and blame me for not continuing to look at WP:SOCK and periodically scrutinize it for any policy changes. Then tell me why this is worth any kind of block. I did what I thought was allowable and for good reason, for no bad purpose and without doing any harm to anyone or anything. What is the purpose of the block?

Recently, I started and participated in the Shankbone DVR. Shankbone is someone I've had conflicts with in the past, and at ANI, Shankbone has posted my last edit referring to him (he replied to it at the time). In this DVR, I might be seen as somehow taking Shankbone's side because I defended keeping the article. Nothing nefarious was involved with my advocacy there (I was originally in favor of deletion, then in favor of keeping -- both times because I wanted to follow policy, and I changed my position when new information came forward). I certainly gave a good knuckle-rapping to Jake Wartenberg on his talk page, but I don't see how any edit I made there or elsewhere engaged in disruption, avoided proper scrutiny or violated any policy at all.

You know, all anybody ever had to do was post an objection on the talk page of any of my active accounts. If I was told I was specifically violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and stopped. That this is the way an admin acted instead is, well, pretty typical for this place. I think I have about a 50 percent chance of getting an nutso reply to this.

I just saw a post from Bigtimepeace at ANI. Partly it states and who, I'm forced to assume, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing those supporting deletion were worrying about—agenda based editing in a barely notable BLP of a Wikipedian which we as a community could probably not do enough to protect. I would again suggest to David that he simply ask for the article to stay deleted, both for his own good, and also to put an end to the endless discussion about this, but of course that's up to him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) How incredibly stupid. I never had any intention of editing the article. As I said in my last comment to Shankbone on this page, the one he linked to at ANI, I had no intention of hurting or hounding him. Bigtime, reread the damn diff Shankbone linked to. I wasn't trying to help or hurt Shankbone, and my attitude toward him is adequately represented in both that diff and in my first !vote comment on the AfD -- I don't think the article is something he's going to like, and I think admins will have some extra work with it. Again, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept -- Bigtime, did I or did I not apologize to Shankbone for what I'd said about him? Did I or did I not then ignore him? When did I ever use any of these accounts to cause disruption or even get into some harsh fight with someone? Perhaps the harshest thing I said under any of these names was in the diff Wikidemon points to [7] -- where I specifically state that I'll accept another editor's bonafides for Wartenberg while still condemning the appearance of Wartenberg's actions. Use your brain, Bigtimepeace. You know, even when I've been mad at someone in the past, I've been known to ignore that when I think there's a principle at stake or even a reason to support that person. Look at LHVU's RfAdmin re-election. I'd gotten into quite a dispute with LHVU at some point before that (its in the Wikipedia Review website's "tar pit" section somewhere, someone who's a member there can get it for you). When I'm involved in an issue like the Shankbone AfD, I try to make up my mind based on principles, not personalities. That's what I did in that AfD and DRV. That's why I changed my mind in the AfD. One good, unintended consequence of me participating under the JohnWBarber name was that I and everybody else could ignore my past conflict with Shankbone, because it was irrelevant.

You know, if I were going to do something actually nefarious, wouldn't I have done it in the past 12 months? At what point does the actual lack of any harm to anyone or anything start to register with you people?

If there's a checkuser out there who wouldn't mind dealing with this, I'd like to email one about a related privacy concern. If so, please email me and I'll email back through Wikipedia. I was going to make this an unblock request. Maybe I will, maybe not. Not sure I care anymore.

If there's something I haven't covered, tell me. If unblocked, I'll drop all of these accounts and maybe start a new one or maybe not start a new one. I certainly don't feel like editing Wikipedia now. I assume people have been looking over my edit histories to see what abuses I must have committed. I hope you all look very long and very hard for those abuses. Because you all richly deserve the waste of time. I think it's somewhere north of 50K edits.Noroton (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation from the blocking admin needs to be given why this was socking and not a reasonable attempt to use an alternative account. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being naive. This is Wikipedia. I think the Reconsideration account posting in a few AfDs and in an RfC on the guideline matter is the technical violation. The idea that posting information at ANI had anything to do with a bona fide concern is laughable. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I looked into this independently when I noticed the blocks earlier today, and I had a brief exchange with Versageek about it in the IRC channel for SPI). My understanding is that the basis for this block was the part of the policy governing using alternate accounts in project-space discussions to avoid scrutiny for controversial statements or actions. I think this is a conclusion that an administrator can come to reasonably, particularly as the tenor of the AfD and DRVs declined, and I can understand Versageek's decision here. As mitigating factors: editing had ceased with the Noroton account, and it had been marked "retired." Glancing through the contributions of the various accounts, it did seem like they were well segregated and generally not controversial. I can't guarantee that no violations of the SOCK policy occurred, but it did seem like a good faith attempt to stay within the lines. Noroton's conduct in the last two months has not been perfect; at the top of the page you'll see some mild criticism from me. Still, the contributions of these other accounts are mostly to his credit. I could see reducing the block on the Noroton account, and perhaps reblocking the other accounts with a log message of "Alternate account, abandoned and blocked as a precaution" (since I imagine he won't wish to resume editing with them). Nathan ^T 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, to avoid scrutiny for controversial statements or actions. The relevant part of WP:SOCK: Using alternate accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Nothing was hidden that would have provided anyone with any help in scrutinizing me. My dropping the Noroton account and then continuing to edit on JohnWBarber was not a SOCK violation any way you read it. And the only thing anyone would want to scrutinize was Noroton. No one would have gained a bit of insight by linking Reconsideration with JohnWBarber with CountryDoc. And if I were going to vote multiple times in the same discussion, I'd have done so by now. I never did and wouldn't. I find that behavior disgusting. Frankly, how dare you imply that I tried to confuse or deceive anyone. No editor had a legitimate reason to look into my past contributions. As mitigating factors: editing had ceased with the Noroton account -- that's not a mitigating factor. That's an exonerating factor. I guess maybe I should have used the Reconsideration account for policy-page/AfD-type edits because that is the one with the most edits and therefore the "main" account now. But 99.9 percent of its edits were to year-in-poetry pages. No harm was done. the contributions of these other accounts are mostly to his credit -- you mean to say, "I've found nothing discretable to him in the edits from these accounts". Otherwise it's like saying, He doesn't usually beat his wife. Thanks for your help, anyway. Noroton (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe Noroton's accounting here. Before I posted at ANI I e-mailed a seasoned Wikipedian I trust that I thought it was odd that Noroton was JohnWBarber (since critics seem to think I want the article kept), this Wikipedian replied that it could be a reflection of Noroton's inclusionism. At ANI I made no accusation about intent as that made sense to me; he's well known for that. I think Noroton needs to figure out which account he wants to use, it should be unblocked for the explanation he gave, and the others should then be disabled with the appropriate templates. If warnings are appropriate, they should be given as well. -->David Shankbone 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]