User talk:Sam at Megaputer

Userpage blanking

Hi Sam. I've noticed that you've deleted some comments that were left here by Praxidicae. We allow editors great latitude in determining how they manage their own talk pages, so there's no real problem with this. However, please take a look at WP:BLANKING. Best practice for complete transparency is that you archive everything, reserving blanking of comments for items that are offensive, harassment, vandalism, or the like. Especially given the commercial aspects of your account, and the fact that you have declined to identify your other account, I think you'll find that the more transparent you are, the more other editors will be inclined to work with you. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. And I see that I also deleted my archive by accident. Thank you for being polite. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sam at Megaputer, You might also want to look at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo to set up automated archiving. It's much easier than trying to manage it manually. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your main account on Wikipedia

Hi Sam, I noticed that your userpage says that This is an alternate account that has been created for privacy reasons per WP:ALTACCN. However, WP:PAID states that If the paid editor has used or controlled more than one Wikipedia account, each account must be disclosed (see also this RfC). Could you please disclose your other Wikipedia account(s)? Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 21:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thank you for making me aware of this RFC, which I was not aware of previously. Looking at that RFC, it appears that it was only intended to apply to freelance payed editors. The RFC states 'This new requirement is intended only to apply to those who "advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services"; it does not apply to employees editing Wikipedia in the normal course of their duties, or to GLAM editors'. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not my read of it, given that it's is in a separate sentence. Either way, you'll have to disclose: you're reporting people to COIN, nominating pages for deletion and editing VPP using this account. Per WP:PROJSOCK, Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project – that applies regardless of paid or unpaid status. Blablubbs|talk 22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this is a disclosed alternative account. I just haven't linked it to my main. So I have to disagree on your interpretation of guidelines here. Since this is my work account, I would like for my right to privacy to be respected. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, this is not a disclosed alternative account; you're disclosing that you're somebody's alt, you're not saying whose, which is as good as not saying anything and still a violation of PROJSOCK. It's your right and your decision to edit projectspace with this account, but if you do, you have to disclose. WP:PUBSOCK states Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. The prohibition on editing projectspace is one of those inappropriate uses. Blablubbs|talk 22:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I did email a checkuser when I made this account, as recommended per WP:ALTACCN. Since the guidelines appear pretty complex in this case, I'm going to get a consultation from that checkuser by email. I'll avoid participating in community discussions until then. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you please consult this checkuser on-wiki for the sake of transparency since a policy clarification doesn't involve private information? Or would you at least be willing to disclose the identity of said checkuser? Blablubbs|talk 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The checkuser was DGG. My account was just called Megaputer then. I was forced to change it later for compliance with the username policy. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: I have emailed DGG. I will inform you when he responds. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at it, and, as is our practice, I will ask my colleague checkusers for assistance if I have trouble figuring it out. It will take a few days. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Got this response from DGG. He reports that this account has been disclosed to him (a checkuser), and that I have not violated the sock policy. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating WP:PROJSOCK.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Could you unblock me if I promise not to edit project space? Also, could you please define "project space"? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Project space is any page that starts with Wikipedia:. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To expand on this, WP:PROJSOCK says Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. You have edited extensively in projectspace, including at AfD - no question about that part. The question, of course, is whether this constitutes an "undisclosed alternative account." You have disclosed the fact that this is a privacy alt, yes, and have apparently disclosed its existence to a checkuser. I believe, however, that the spirit of the policy is that alternative accounts must be publicly disclosed in order to be allowed to edit in projectspace - not just acknowledging their existence, and not just emailing a checkuser/the checkuser list/the Arbitration Committee. This is a matter of accountability to the body of editors as a whole, and we cannot expect that small group of people who are aware of your identity (or the identities of other editors in the same position -- this is not specific to you) to be watching your edits to verify that you haven't edited the same discussion using multiple accounts. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(watching) Well, SPI isn't my thing and I suppose CUs and SPI clerks are looking into this? But having seen/commented on the VPT section about the spam tool some day(s) ago I do have concerns on policy interpretation. Most of the WP:ILLEGIT examples are, well, illegitimate. In the sense that it's very intuitively obvious why they're disallowed. For example: using multiple accounts to avoid passing WP:3RR, using "good hand bad hand accounts", supporting your own proposal with a second account, etc. But it's not immediately obvious what WP:PROJSOCK is looking to prohibit. Looking back to see when it was added for some context: It seems its existence is 'cited' to a 2007 ArbCom decision. Not sure how tight the wordsmithing was, but skimming over the evidence of that case suggests that an editor used multiple accounts to influence policy debates in a manner that avoided scrutiny and split their history between their more controversial edits. The before text of Special:Diff/622482650 indicates the original interpretation was to limit this to consensus discussions? Which of course makes sense. But looking over this editor's editing history, I don't think their non-consensus-discussions contribs to (eg) WP:VPT are harmful (though the AfD ones are obviously a problem). And I think the difficulty in confirming an editor using undisclosed alternate accounts isn't violating policy also applies to (supposedly) 'legitimate' uses like non-projectspace editing (on talk pages). Still, unless I'm mistaken in policy or reasoning here, I think their contributions to non-consensus discussions don't violate the spirit of the policy and for this editor the ability to discuss as they work on their tool might be helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, see here. To add to what I've said there, Sam's alt has repeatedly been the subject of rather intense community scrutiny. There's more than just the technicality of a refusal to completely disclose here. I support this block. Blablubbs|talk 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROJSOCK says discussions internal to the project. AFD is about specific content and about as internal as requested moves or other discussions on an article's talk page; it's only in project space so it doesn't get deleted if an article being discussed there is deleted. The only page with non-minor edits by both accounts since the start of 2020 is a noticeboards and there the discussions were related to the edits from that account so switching to a "main" account would have been an improper use of multiple accounts. It also looks like this is the main account. Was there any discussion about the purpose of the two accounts before blocking? Peter James (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter James, the bullet point says Editing project space, and Wikipedia:Project_namespace says Project pages or Wikipedia pages are pages in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Both Sam and his main account (as well as the IP that he fairly routinely edits from while logged out) have edited pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over asking questions at the Teahouse here, my concerns are over his presence in AfD and COIN and him pushing his company's project in projectspace. I note as an aside that we have definitely blocked people who created privacy alts to start AfDs as PROJSOCKs. Again, to me this is a matter of accountability - the problem is not that Sam and his main account have been active in the same discussions, it is that the average editor has no way of knowing whether or not they have. The only safeguard is the handful of people who "officially" know Sam's main account keeping an eye on the interactions of the two accounts, and that's not fair to anybody. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made the mistake of failing to check if I was logged in before making an edit. It is an easy mistake to make. I also went through a period about where edited from IP, rather than my regular account for reasons I have made clear on wiki. Does everybody here know the name of my main account? And honestly, do you want the people here to know where you work? Please take your concerns strait to arbcom rather than continuing this discussion on-wiki. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I did, and got rather ambiguous guidance, so I chose to act on my own accord. (and no, I don't want people here to know where I work...that's why I don't edit on topics at all related to my employer) ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't lose all of my right as soon as I declare a payed connection. I would prefer that you stop acting on your own and take your concerns to arbcom. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

So what happened to WP:AGF? It's very clear that the purpose of WP:PROJSOCK is to prevent one person appearing to be more than one person, not to prevent all editing in one namespace - the only alternative is to force editors to out their privacy alts if an article they worked on is nominated at AfD, they want to nominate another article for deletion, there is a discussion about their behaviour at a noticeboard, they are the victim of harassment or something similar. Policies absolutely must be interpreted with common sense, otherwise we will end up with some very bad results. I have not looked to see whether Sam has been (attempting to) appear as more than one person in discussions, but if they have not then I see no justification for blocking them for that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I blocked Sam according to my read of PROJSOCK, which apparently does not agree with yours - I do not see any exceptions in it, and while I am willing to give some leeway for things like "reported to a noticeboard" or "asking a question at the teahouse/VPT", Sam's activity goes beyond that. If you want to unblock Sam, then do it. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: You are using an alternate account to edit this page, which you have also edited with your main. You have made not disclosed your alternate on this page, but that is OK because you have disclosed it somewhere, and you are not attempting to trick others into thinking that you are multiple people. This is my best understanding of the guidelines, and these are the standards that I would like to have applied to me. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It says "a GN franchise" (with "GN" linking to GeneralNotability's userpage) in the signature, the talk page links to GN's and the userpage has a big "alternative account" on it. That's hardly the same thing as disclosing the connection to a single individual. Blablubbs|talk 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sam at Megaputer, the relationship between my accounts is clearly disclosed both on the userpage of the alternate account and on the "alternate accounts" subpage clearly linked from my main account's userpage. My signature includes a link to my main account and to the talk page of my main account. The username is a pun on the main account's username. It is trivial for somebody to see that we are the same person. Your alternate account is (officially) disclosed to one person, and if somebody saw both of your accounts they would have no way of knowing they're the same person. That is the difference here. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference, but guidelines do not make the line clear. I do not appreciate that you have forced your personal interpretation of guidelines on me, especially when it involves the handling of my private information. Let's avoid outing, and leave this to arbcom. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)