User talk:Prima Facist

Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Prima Facist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Figuring out where to edit depends, really, on what you like to do. I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and navigating to a WikiProject about a topic you enjoy. For example, I'm a member of several WikiProjects, such as Nintendo WikiProject, National Football League WikiProject, Pokémon WikiProject, and WikiProject Disney, among others. Each of the WikiProjects have lists of articles that fall within their scope. That way you could edit articles that interest you. If you have trouble finding a suitable WikiProject, just let me know some topics that you find interesting and I'll provide the links to the correlating projects. Useight (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

There has been an ANI thread started regarding you, found here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Other account

Could you please name your other account? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not, if it's all the same to you. Prima Facist 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy on multiple accounts rather strongly deprecates having additional accounts, more so when they aren't disclosed (linked between each other). Why don't you want to disclose your other account? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Some examples that clearly violate this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies." I am not using this account decptively, merely as a legitimate alternate account. For my own reasons, I do not wish to link the accounts and that's what it comes down to. Make of that what you will. Prima Facist 15:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can both decline to link the accounts and decline to disclose the reason. The policy clearly says you should disclose your primary account: Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. Tag alternative accounts with {{Alternative account}} Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Creating a new account with the express and admitted intent of harassing and mocking another individual is pretty deceptive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, "prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users" - how would that work with a great whiacking "I'm not new" template on their user page? I expect that in the future things will be made clear wrt to the owner of this account. Martinp23 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how such an account would wind up being talked about on ANI the way this one has, but either way, the policy clearly says, tag the alternate account. There are surely lots of undisclosed, IAR, helpful sockpuppet accounts lurking about, but I'd think any kind of disruption would cause a need for disclosure (or quiet block) according to policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What Martin said. Also, Gwen, I can choose not to disclose the reasons for a seperate account if I so wish. At least I let you know it was an alternate account, instead of pretending it wasn't and trying to decieve you. Prima Facist 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the policy says, but I also think AGF can skirt a by-the-letter take on that. However, if a consensus emerges that this account has been used to make disruptive edits, I'd say there's no way to get by either disclosing the account or not using it at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been here 3 years eh?

THWACK. Creating this account was dumb. It was created solely to protect your other account, which is probably a good account, and you are probably a good editor if not an admin. I strongly recommend that you "retire" this account, go back to your other, and on your merry way like this never happened. If you want a secondary account, fine. don't tell anyone, and don't create one with the purpose of harassing another user. This was a really stupid idea, it's disruptive whether you say it is or not, and you need to understand that anything that comes from this account will not be taken seriously. If you've been here 3 years, you already know that though. Ask yourself why you created this. It was simply to avoid scrutiny/tarnishing your main account. It didn't work. It's being scrutinized. Strongly recommend you retire it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the way you're telling me why I created this account. Are you me? Should I post to AN/I to let them know that you appear to be my alternate, since you clrealy know my motives behind everything? Prima Facist 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You told everyone why you created it. All I said is that it was a stupid idea. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the diff where I said "It was created solely to protect your other account". Prima Facist 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Diff schmiff. I'm not an idiot and neither are you. At ANI you said it was created to negate Kmweber's !votes at RfA. You named the account as a play on prima facie and fascist. You've stated that you'll use the account for other things. Whatever. Can you honestly say that the purpose of starting this account wasn't so that you could vote at RfA without drawing attention to your longstanding account? As my Brit friends say, bollox. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Communism

I like what Frank Zappa once said: "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indef blocked this account from editing for straying from the policy on multiple user accounts. The more I've heard about this, the more worries it has brought to mind. Voting in RfAs with an alternate account skirts responsibility and trust. Moreover, without disclosure of your main account, there is no way to know if you have been using this one to get by any past blocks, bans, topical bans or other sanctions. If you do have a helpful reason to IAR and open another alternate account, please learn from this experience: Don't use it to vote in RfAs on editors with which your other account has been involved and don't do anything which might stir up scrutiny on ANI. I strongly suggest amnesty (and anonymity) for your main account, since you've been fairly honest about all this. You can appeal this and I will unblock if there is a shred of consensus to do so. All the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My other account has not been involved in any disputes or arguments with Kurt. nI simply don't like his personal attacks in RfAs. I am quite happy to disclose my account to you for the purpose of proving I have not used this account to "get by any past blocks, bans, topical bans or other sanctions." on the condition that you don not pass on the username to anyone else. Is this agreeable? Prima Facist 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That would help me with my individual worries, but wouldn't help anyone else (the community) with their worries. Besides, I don't think you're evading any blocks or bans (you could be, but I guess it's not too likely). The pith is, the very non-disclosure of your main account is in itself highly disruptive because this stirs up way too many unanswerable questions among too many editors as to who you are, what you're hiding and what you're up to. The policy says you must disclose your main account. If you IAR and don't, ok then, that's IAR and there are lots of these floating about, but then do whatever's needed to edit quietly and without making someone ask if you have a main account. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PF, would you agree to a rename? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering WP:Sock#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, could you identify under which category your use of this alternate account qualifies? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Out yourself and you'll show that you're acting in good faith. Don't, and it's quite likely that should someone try a stunt like this again, a checkuser (under category F on RFCU) request might be filed to find out if it's you--and that will reveal who you are.

What's so hard about identifying yourself, if you're serious in your intention not to continue this? No one's calling for your head...at least not yet. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prima Facist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe Gwen's block was premature as the discussion on AN/I was leaning more towards a rename and a temporary/permanent ban from RfAs. I still intend to do a lot of article work from this account and believe that Gwen acted out of place with her block.

Decline reason:

Without the benefit of transparency, you could be evading a block or ban for all we know. This account was clearly set up for a sole reason (even according to yourself) and if were here from 2005, you would know that SPAs are blockable on sight. If you were to be unblocked, you would be setting a disruptive precedent. Rudget (Help?) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit conflicted reply:

As I said in my unblock request, I think you were too hasty in your block, Gwen. According to the logs, you've not been an admin for very long and it would be very easy for me to cry that you were just flexing your "muscles". I'm AGFing here and assuming you've just interpreted the policy and chosen to act on it (even if I'm not sure you listened to what others were saying on the AN/I thread). I am quite prepared to sit and edit quietly from this account. I've said all along that I intend this account for article editing and I stand by this, hence why I think I should be unblocked.. Prima Facist 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole idea was rather silly, to be honest. We're not asking for much. Rudget (Help?) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c - x2)I've said multiple times, from the very start, that this account was never going to be a SPA, it just happens that the first edit was to an RfA vote. I stated elsewhere that I would do some editing when the stress of some RL stuff is gone (and that it's a lot easier to !vote than to do serious article work). I have also said that I'm quite happy to reveal myself to an admin so they can check I am not evading anything. In fact,several admins know who I am already and I'm sure at least one of them would be happy to do this. Prima Facist 18:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

E-mail me if you wish. Rudget (Help?) 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What's so hard about doing that with your regular account? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a smart-alec, but your continual refusal to identify your other account appears to be prima facie evidence of scrutiny avoidance. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen's block was perfectly valid, and had a lot of support on ANI. Don't play the "new admin abuse" card, it will wear thin. I would support an unblock with two conditions: One, a rename to something less pointy, and two, full disclosure/link to your main account. "Other editors have undisclosed accounts" is not a good enough reason, nor does it make it ok. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Prim, you opened this alternate account and straight off started voting in RfAs without disclosing who you are. I truly think you should quit while you're ahead. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll copypaste what I said earlier: I stated elsewhere that I would do some editing when the stress of some RL stuff is gone (and that it's a lot easier to !vote than to do serious article work).Prima Facist 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're all quite aware of what you said, and have been from the start. But there's less and less reason to believe it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? The account is two days old. How many other accounts that are two days old have done serious article work? I have not had a chance to do serious article work yet. The reason I created it when I did was that I was sick of your personal attacks in RfAs. Perhaps I should've waited and done some article work first but I didn't. End of, really. Prima Facist 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have spoken with an admin who knows the identity of my real account and he's prepared to scrutinise it for me to make sure I'm not evading anything. The admin in question is User:Martinp23. Is this ok? Prima Facist 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not ok with me. Full disclosure is necessary here because of your continued evasiveness. Or simply disappear, reappear with a new username, don't go to RFA or near Weber, and we'll never know. Just disappear. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The lack of transparency wouldn't help the community at all. As I said, the pith is, the very non-disclosure of your main account is in itself highly disruptive because this stirs up way too many unanswerable questions among too many editors as to who you are, what you're hiding and what you're up to. Please take the friendly hint: I've only soft blocked you. Go. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm just someone with an opinion. I';m not up to anything other than article editing and supporting RfAs that Kurt opposes. I've said this from the start. I have been very open about the purpose of this account and who my other account is surely should not matter. I have had no interaction with Kurt on my other account at all and I don't intend to. Prima Facist 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)