User talk:Absidy

Ron, what is with all the accounts? You control this account, User:Ron Duvall, and User:Sarsaparilla, right? The user pages and user talk pages need to be linked with redirects to make it absolutely clear, for instance, where people should leave messages for you. (I'm leaving this message for all three accounts, because it's not clear to me.) Mangojuice^talk 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm going to redirect the other two accounts to this one, so it's clear that you are all the same from both ends. If you want to access your old user or user talk pages, they'll be in the history. Second, if you have any future desire to change your username, I'd strongly recommend that you (1) hold off for at least a month, as you have used three names in the past two weeks already, and (2) change your name through the Wikipedia:Changing username system: that way, your contributions can be kept under your new username. (Unfortunately, only the contributions from the most recent account, but still, that's better than nothing. Mangojuice^talk 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly do you have three accounts? They appear to violate Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support. Superm401 - Talk 15:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a possible interpretation, though not a clear one. Below, Absidy claims to not have been aware of this possible problem. He didn't use the accounts in a way to conceal their connection. When Sarsaparilla became Ron Duvall, there was a small gap, and he edited IP to add comment to my RfA and to another, but, as I recall, in a way that made it clear who he was. He didn't participate in AfDs or Deletion Reviews or other process in a way to make support appear broader, though, yes, someone who didn't look at History might have come away with an impression of one more supporter. When he changed to Absidy, he explicitly stated it on the user page and in the page creation summary. I've talked with him about this, and the incident in my RfA had embarrassed him, though it was truly minor (I reprimanded him, but he wasn't formally warned as a result, it wasn't contrary to policy, really just a social gaffe.) He doesn't appear to have a mean bone in his body. He does not deserve the outpouring of ABF that descended here. He was provocative with the proxy "canvassing." (As I read them, he wasn't actually soliciting proxies; detail about what he actually did may come out later.) And then he, being totally disappointed by the vehement response of those participating in the rejection of the proposal that he'd been working on intensively for quite few days, with a lot of hope, committed wikisuicide by admin. I see that you have read the essay below, and extracted from it only some negative inference. I'm sorry to see that, it truly makes me sad.--Abd (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proxy

Re this - you're kidding, right? You just registered your account today! ;P Mangojuice^talk 06:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Delegable proxy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Delegable proxy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegable proxy. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Your repeated requests on user talk pages that people support delegable proxy are inappropriate. The "elected officials", as you put it, have a job to do, and that job is not to push forth your policy agenda. Superm401 - Talk 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP

Stop canvassing immediately or else I will block you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't ever call other users "crazy". Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This is in regard to your "gesture" at User talk:Jehochman. Mangojuice^talk 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

This account has been blocked for canvassing, trolling [1] and disruption. The block is indefinite (not infinite) due to the egregious nature of the disruption and my uncertainty with how long a block is necessary to protect the project. If you can convince an administrator to unblock, you may be able to edit again. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to administrators: Do not unblock this account without discussing with me, or the community at WP:AN. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, I have blocked Absidy's self-confirmed other accounts, User:Sarsaparilla and User:Ron Duvall. This is not a judgment of my own on the situation, just a reflection that if this account is blocked, those should also be blocked. Mangojuice^talk 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. I am generally not as opposed to reasonable "canvassing" as some people, but the overall pattern of contributions, particularly the last few, reflect intentionally trollish and disruptive behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is an experienced administrator and a member of ArbComm, but I caution him against doing what he did above. For a member of ArbComm to "endorse" future actions could actually be quite appropriate, though the grounds should be solid; i.e., if you need to do something unusual, outside of normal policy, having some ArbComm approval in advance could be protective, i.e., in any later review, where policy isn't clear, having been approved in advance would be a very good defense. However, for a member of ArbComm to post-facto "endorse" a possibly controversial action is entirely contrary to the spirit of ArbComm. It is, as it were, a judgment in advance of the presentation of issues and evidence and arguments, and should definitely result in recusal and even in, possibly, the arbitrator becoming a party to an arbitration. ArbComm is a formal body, it has (or should have) much stricter rules than normal. And if the action isn't possibly controversial, what was the need for comment?--Abd (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse; I was going to block all of these myself for abusive sockpuppetry. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, two members of ArbComm have now essentially forced recusal of themselves if this does make it to arbitration. Will wonders never cease? Was this endorsement necessary? Did it change anything? I can see only one motive that makes any sense to me, which is to attempt to discourage me from following {WP:DR]] because the decision is predetermined. This could proceed from a desire to stop me from wasting my time, or from a desire to prevent the waste of community time (DR can be exhausting in the higher stages), or from something darker, an attempt to intimidate me. Let me say that I'm not easily intimidated. I was a moderator of the usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam (still am, technically) and the worst possible threats here are truly tame stuff in comparison. But, of course, this is probably moot, and the desire to save everyone's time is most likely. So ... please don't try to save my time. I am the manager of it, and I spend it where I think most appropriate, and my understanding of that is better than that of anyone else here. Or, if not, at least I must consider it so.--Abd (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. Absidy is smarter than I thought --Abd (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what! If he was trolling (I've talked to him and while he is embarrassed by his behavior, and he knows I don't approve (of all those Talk page droppings and of the raised finger, in particular), his boldness has apparently catalyzed two administrators to violate policy, indef blocking him essentially without warning for some quite unclear offenses. There was no sock puppetry at all, because there was no mixed usage of accounts. Canvassing was not in clear violation of policy on it (canvassing for what?), trolling is debatable; Jehochman was certainly within proper behavior to warn him about these, as he did. But not to block him, without any continued violation and given that the user declared that nothing more was going to be done like that. Jehochman elsewhere provides (in the checkuser report) strong evidence that the block was due to a perceived insult rather than to the stated reason above. I'm sure you are aware of the implications. Then Mangojuice indef blocks the other accounts, on his own initiative, even though he is clearly involved in a dispute with this user. SSP reports were filed without abusive editing (i.e., there was no overlap on the accounts, nothing was done blockworthy based on the use of multiple accounts, which were clearly not used to evade responsibility or to present an appearance of multiple editor support. I've talked with him about this, too, he had no intention of making it appear that many editors supported his ideas, and any examination of the edit history of the involved articles would confirm this. And then there is a checkuser request, filed as, essentially, a fishing expedition in a place where a few minutes examination of edit histories would have confirmed the obvious (serial account usage by one user -- he told me, in fact, that he can't access the old accounts because he shut off email for them and munged the password) -- and then, of course, me, included in the checkuser request because ... boy, I'd have to be one clever and persistent puppet master, to spend years preparing for this moment of glory. I've seen plenty of socks, they stick to me like dryer cling, but I've never seen one that looked anything like this. Couple all this with simultaneous AfD and MfD and the block of User:The Community, there is enough wikidrama for one or two days, enough to fill pages with report and comment and diffs. However, this incident is pretty dense, compared to what I've seen, you might see much less than my usual voluminous comment. Here, of course, you asked! Because there are some very important principles involved, if it is not averted somehow (unblocking him?), I'm now exercised to pursue WP:DR, step by step. Of course, please don't unblock him unless it's the right thing to do. Think it over. No emergency here: User:The Community won't be needed, if ever, for quite some time, the world can do without the article Delegable proxy for a while, though I worry about the precedent of deleting WP:PRX, it looks really, really bad. I'm in no hurry. But apparently some were. A real tearing hurry. Stop this now, before the infection spreads, they must be thinking. You know. Those Ideas Whose Name Shall Not Be Said. This was not Esperanza or AMA, but the analogy has been made from the first appearance of a Rejected tag on WP:PRX, which was immediate, before any real development of the idea. I think the connection is clear. It is not that this is Esperanza or AMA, -- it isn't -- but that some fear that any development of any kind of structure allowing the community to coherently express itself will destabilize the defacto power enjoyed by what some call the "cabal." I don't call it that, it's not that organized. It is, however, a very old phenomenon. And the fear is obviously very, very strong, nothing else would explain the vehemence which has been expressed (with Esperanza and AMA and now this). I'll say one more thing, since I think you are mature enough to understand it: The future is watching. Be careful. Good luck.--Abd (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Absidy et al is a long-time Wikipedia user, apparently going back to 2004, my guess is roughly 10,000 edits. He hasn't requested unblock because he's concluding, it seems, that Wikipedia isn't worth it. He was shocked by the intensity of the response, he was not expecting to be blocked. Warned, maybe, it's in his nature to test limits, but not actually to harm. Something has gotten really, really ugly. I've seen the community bend over backward to give obviously abusive users chance after chance, even when they are actually driving newbies away. Was anyone driven away by Absidy's pranks? Who was harmed? Was he contentiously editing? If so, I've missed it. He put some strangely sourced material in an article. Blockable? Nobody had complained about it till the AfD. I see users *frequently* edit warring, insulting other editors, driving away experts by disparaging -- with no basis -- their expertise, and nothing happens even when it's clear that an administrator is watching. What's important here? The project? How? --Abd (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he didn't keep switching accounts and kept to one single account, it might have been recognizable that he's here other than for this shocking display of WP:POINT. He in fact was abusing sockpuppets, for one thing, when he supported this fringe proposal under three different usernames within two weeks, without making clear (for instance) that Sarsaparilla was the same user. Frankly, when he started the canvassing, I thought, Abd and I were both fooled - this guy is supporting Delegable proxy because he wants power on Wikipedia just to see if he can get it, and he's gone nuts now. When he asked ME to make him my proxy, I laughed it off as a joke. But surely he intended to piss people off. Maybe his GOAL was to irritate people in order to make them aware of the proposal, but that is still clearly disruptive. Mangojuice^talk 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it is categorically false that, as Abd claimed, "There was no sock puppetry at all, because there was no mixed usage of accounts." He has frequently made edits to the same page using more than one account. In at least one instance, he made consecutive edits using different accounts. This edit was by User:Ron Duvall while the very next edit to the page, only a few hours later, was by User:Absidy. It is still unexplained why he kept replacing his accounts. And a block is completely justified, for the middle finger alone. Superm401 - Talk 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here, and they get mixed. While it's possible for mixed issues to be relevant, i.e., this user does A and B and C, each one of which is a minor offense, and all these together is a major offense. However, there is only one offense here which received a warning, and that was "canvassing," and that is, as well, a speculative one. It will come out in the wash, as the community considers each issue in turn. It's going to take time. Sock puppetry was alleged, but all that was found was sequential account use, no block evasion, 3RR avoidance, not even contentious editing or low-level but continued reversion, nothing that even justified, according to guidelines, a checkuser request, and further evidence of this is that he was not warned about it. To give a glimpse at how this editor thinks about process here, I took the Rejected tag out of WP:PRX twice, I think. This user told me, no, I shouldn't have done that. I think my action was correct and certainly that it is defensible as good faith editing, even if incorrect, but my point here is that he's not a contentious editor, he does not disrupt the project, and does not recommend disruption. He does however do things which are socially provocative. Not mean-spirited, even, and it doesn't meet any existing definition at WP:TROLL. He has been, indeed, making a point, but it doesn't match [[WP:POINT. He causes people to think. Sometimes people don't like that. So, why was he blocked? There is the stated reason, the obvious reason, and then possibly darker reasons. WP:AGF requires me to stick with the first two. The stated reason doesn't match the history, that will be clear when this is examined in a deliberative environment, should it come to that, i.e., if the preceding stages of WP:DR aren't successful in resolving the many policy issues which have arisen.

So if he wasn't blocked for canvassing and trolling, what was he blocked for? Everyone here knows. He was blocked because he made a rude response to Jehochman on his talk page, as Superm401 clearly recognized, and which was previously acknowledged by Jehochman in the Checkuser request. Okay, policy issue: if an editor who has been warned by an administrator is rude in response, but also expresses clear intention not to continue the behavior about which he was warned, may that administrator block him? I don't think there is any doubt about the answer, none. No. It is possible that another administrator could, though even that would be risky. "The finger" is not exactly a personal attack, it does not accuse, it merely expresses some kind of anger or frustration, and that is, in fact, what was behind the image, if we believe this user's comment below. It is what might be called "pure" rudeness, rudeness without an actual attack. Is this problematic behavior? I'd say, yes. In itself, it can deserve a civility warning. However, incivil behavior at this level is common on Wikipedia, and ordinarily, unless repeated after warning, doesn't result in any kind of block at all. I would urge review of Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Phsychim62, ArbComm precedent is very, very clear here, as are the underlying principles. This kind of error was repeated by Mangojuice, who, clearly involved in disputes with Absidy, blocked the related accounts, even though they were not being used (and, in fact, couldn't be used, if the user has been honest with me. He munged the passwords so he wouldn't accidentally use an old account). I will be, over the next days or weeks, addressing each issue and each administrative action, step by step, rigorously following WP:DR; my RfA brought out that I had no experience beyond the first levels of that process (because it had never been needed). One of the things I can speculate about here is that Absidy wants me to gain this experience. Note that if this is true, I don't approve of triggering it with trolling for an inappropriate block. But Absidy does not ask me before acting. If there was ever a ludicrous sock puppet accusation, it was the charge (still being made, by the way, in general comments such as "this project was started by a ring of sock puppets) that he is my sock. I *wish* I had socks as smart as he is. And then there are meat puppetry charges being raised. Every aspect of our cooperative actions here, his and mine, was discussed openly between him and I in my Talk page or his, until he was blocked. We now have been talking off-wiki; we had some phone conversations before his block, but they were redundant to what was discussed openly. As any experienced Wikipedian can see by investigating the long-term connected accounts, the user predates my account setup. Because he has asked that his previous accounts not be publicly connected, and he has that right unless some kind of abuse is shown in the abandonment of the old account and the beginning of the new one, User:Sarsaparilla, and I request (and would consider it policy) that this be honored. However, for convenience, if any member of ArbComm wants the information I have, I'll email it. Others watching this already know it, though. Look at the deleted SSP report.--Abd (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Superm: see my talk page. Absidy gave an explanation there about the multiple accounts. It's a pretty odd explanation, but then, he did openly reveal in some posts that the accounts were connected. And given his disruption later, I have to doubt the explanation somewhat. Mangojuice^talk 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but I think "Well, for awhile there I kept thinking to myself, "Ah, I totally messed up now, I better start over under another account," [etc.]" is hardly a satisfactory explanation. Superm401 - Talk 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it, the user admitted that he deliberately edited and "granted proxies" from three different accounts, for the purpose of testing whether anyone would notice. (My attempt to express concern at the time that this was classic WP:POINT edit-conflicted with MangoJuice.) The policy proposal, though potential viable in many other contexts, made so little sense in the context of Wikipedia as to raise many, many eyebrows. Though I am not a fan of overenforcement of WP:CANVASS to prevent disseminating knowledge of pending discussions to the editors most knowledgeable and interested, the "proxy solicitations" that took place here were over the top. Cumulatively, the effect was to exhaust WP:AGF and create the definite and firm impression that the editor was being intentionally disruptive. However, if he were to post an unblock request, I am sure it would receive due consideration from uninvolved administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. I wasn't aware of those proxies, I'll look for them. Abisdy several times dropped an account and moved to a new one. There was experimentation with a proxy table, and it's conceivable that somehow more than one proxy was assigned, but that certainly was not the intention, and, if this is true, it would have been quickly discovered and fixed. I certainly knew that Absidy and Ron Duvall and Sarsaparilla were the same user (and, in fact, I know the real-world identity) but I only accepted one proxy from him. Except that there is a proposed file format in my userspace (or was, has it been deleted?) of a test file called ProxyTest that was entirely edited by me. I'll look over the contributions of this user and see if I can figure out what NewYorkBrad is talking about. Now, is there any policy about assigning proxies from multiple accounts? Are there conditions under which this would be allowed or not allowed? It depends on the use to which proxies are put, doesn't it? And there is no proxy policy at all. None of that, really, had become even a fixed proposal, so playing with it would hardly be disruptive in any way. Trying to see if people would notice it? This is like testing software in advance of release, by feeding it with bad data to see what happens. If we had continued to set up the proxy table and to invite participation, at this stage, I'd have taken such "disruption" as quite helpful, as long as it wasn't repeated senselessly. Honestly, I think Newyorkbrad and others should read Absidy's parting comments on this page, below, which he had to violate the letter of block policy -- but not the spirt of it -- in order to post for us. Was this disruptive? I certainly don't think so.--Abd (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Below the user has posted a deeper explanation of what happened. At this point, it seems, he does not want to be unblocked, and, in fact, until the issues raised by all this are addressed, I think he would be wasting his time to do so. I think I asked him to make an unblock request, however. But I don't think he will. Given the nature of the block message itself, though, the stringency of it, the request to consult first (i.e., effectively, don't unblock based on an independent investigation, there is more to this than meets the eye, etc.), it might be one more invitation for an administrator to make a bad decision. There has been enough smoke generated. Let's let it clear, and see what we see, and undo what might have been harmful. Step by step. As with Physchim62, the real problem wasn't that he made a mistake and blocked, but that he was (and remained) incapable of recognizing the error even when almost the entire community pointed it out to him. Mistakes get made on Wikipedia, and especially they get made when an admin considers a situation an emergency and acts in haste, when, in fact, there was no danger to the project from, say, waiting a day, cooling off, letting an uninvolved admin look at it, etc. I.e., following all the good advice that has accumulated here about dispute resolution and conflict. --Abd (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If Absidy is unrelated, why is Abd taking such an interest? This looks a lot like recruiting a friend to create a false consensus. Before anyone considers an unblock, see this rudeness. Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course any admin would look at that before unblocking. (Any admin that would not wouldn't be worthy of the bit.) However, WP:ABF speculation about my relationship with Absidy is just that. An assumption of bad faith. And it is shocking that we have administrators here apparently willing to jump in that pit. Why am I taking an interest? Because (1) Absidy took the time to understand the proposals that have been sitting on my Talk page for months, and he actually has begun (just begun) to understand them. (2) Apparently motivated by that, he did a huge amount of research on the history of the ideas, putting it into Delegable proxy. I was wincing as he was doing that, for all the reasons that have come out in the AfD, but, there, I'm a COI editor, and contrary to a lot of nonsense put up in that AfD, I created the article as a stub under the name "Liquid democracy," which wasn't my name or my invention, in 2005, before I had a clue about Wikipedia policies, it was one of my first edits. And I made no edits after that, having come to understand WP:COI, and I did not !vote in the AfD, though, as an expert and involved person, I've commented. (3) Enthusiastic about the ideas -- this happens with people who actually take the time to study the concept and get beyond the hosts of preconceptions that interfere with understanding it -- he then jumped headfirst into trying to implement it here. This washis initiative, but, obviously, I wanted to help, and did, and will continue to do so. And his effort was, essentially, crushed. This reveals something about this community and how it functions, and I think it very important to bring all this out, it is part of the problem that DP might fix. He's right, below. The actual functioning core of Wikipedia has become rigid and highly controlling, not in accordance with policy, but with unstated and implied agreements and motivations, and this will, in fact, destroy the project if not addressed. From history -- there is nothing new under the sun -- it may take years, but it is almost inevitable. There is a way out of this that does not involve disruption or destruction. It's a door the community could decide to open and investigate. Or not. It's not my choice, not as an individual. I simply see what I see, and talk about it, and, within the explicit rules, I act. As to implicit rules, well, there is a reason why I understand Absidy. We are the same. Not the same person, but the same class of person. I've been there, done that, years ago, I'm more than twice his age. From here, I'll just talk about myself. I have Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. One of the well-known characteristics of this is an inability, under most circumstances, to notice and follow the implicit social rules of communities. We tend to be literalists with rules. If the rules don't prohibit it, it's permitted. (This is actually a basic principle of Islamic law.) Remember, this is a disorder, highly heritable, much higher incidence among identical twins than among fraternal twins, and not considered curable. It is also highly associated with genius and what might be called "change artists," captains of industry, scientists who create whole new fields, etc. And we often offend people. All it takes is for us to open our mouths and ask what are, to us, interesting questions. Why does the emperor have no clothes? Now, are you glad you raised the issue?--Abd (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman above acknowledges, by implication, the obvious reason for the block. The finger. That wasn't in the block explanation.--Abd (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I warned the user to stop canvassing. Their response convinced me that their purpose was disruption. A normal user does not respond that way. In light of the multiple accounts and very odd editing history, the weight of evidence suggested that the account need to be blocked. Two arbitrators, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Jpgordon have already endorsed the block. Your campaign to get your wikifriend unblocked ought to start with them promising to stop all disruption, pledge to use only one account, and demonstrate that they are capable of maintaining decorum. Since their block they have been using sock puppets for block evasion, so the odds of them being unblocked are not too good in the near future. If you continue your campaign beyond reasonable limits, you may end up joining them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that User:Absidy is also identical to User:71.63.91.68, User:129.174.91.119, and User:129.174.91.116. And it seems that User:Absidy is still using at least one of those addresses (User:129.174.91.116) to edit Wikipedia articles. Yellowbeard (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yellowbeard is pretty good at finding these, he is to be congratulated for his dedicated and extensive efforts. I'm seeing that it is going to be necessary to look at each collection of edits. I'll set up a section for that. (In order to catch all this myself, I'd have to go and watchlist the articles of interest.) (The work involved in looking at each of the edits is important, for me, to future examination of this incident, to my personal assessment of Absidy -- also very important personally --, and nobody should feel obligated to respond to it. If anyone thinks this is a waste of time, let me suggest that they not waste time with it. Pay attention to Talk page notices and formal process, that's all that is in any way obligatory (and even that isn't, but.... it can save a lot of wikifuss).--Abd (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only deal with so much at a time. Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard is an SPA, shows major signs of being a sock (see my SSP report on him, plus the checkuser -- which only exonerated him (provisionally) from being another James Salsman account, to an expert in the voting systems field, he's blatantly visible as pursuing a POV agenda, which has become almost entirely an effort to disrupt my work here, see his intervention in my RfA which resulted in a 24-hour block.) Apparently, Absidy occasionally fails to log in before editing, or, in one case, apparently IP edited, a few times, after shutting down one account and opening the next. I have not confirmed the above IP addresses, but I do know that there are some, one was listed in the deleted SSP report on User:Ron Duvall. When he dropped Sarsaparilla, there were several IP edits. Now, isn't Yellowbeard helpful? He wants to make sure we don't miss anything important. And none of this is relevant to the issue of the block. Absidy was not blocked for sock puppetry, nor for contentious editing. There are thousands of edits to review, and I certainly haven't looked at anything like all of them, but I haven't seen anything offensive. --Abd (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To the community

Since some people were idly speculating, let me just state my reason for leaving here. This is an uncharacteristically long post that most people won't read, but whatever. It feels good to get it off my chest.

When you said delegable proxy was a lousy idea for Wikipedia and shouldn't be adopted as policy, I didn't mind. Obviously, the burden of proof is on the proponents to make a strong case, address counterarguments, and present evidence that a proposal is a good idea. And there were some legitimate concerns raised. That's not what bothered me.

When individual editors said that they would not participate in the experiment, I didn't mind that either. After all, what right do I have to force you to invest time in something you think has little prospect of usefulness? Indeed, if the experiment had died simply from people viewing it as a bad idea, and not signing up for it, I would have accepted that and moved on.

What bothered me was that you went to the extent of actually vetoing the experiment. The nature of the experiment was such that it was should have been fairly innocuous to non-participants. Proxies were to be non-binding, and the information generated was to be used primarily to help prove or disprove our hypothesis that this system could work well in practice on Wikipedia. In addition to the objections raised against the original policy proposal, some of the arguments against the experiment itself were that it was against policy; that the outcome was a forgone conclusion; that even testing this proposal would be harmful; and that the proponents had a conflict of interest and were not acting with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind.

I am quite familiar with this type of scenario and the mindset behind it, having run into it when I was a cannabis activist. The subject is different, but the basic pattern is the same. An exchange between cannabis reformers and the government will go like this:

Reformer: We propose removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, so that doctors will be allowed to prescribe it. We don't have much scientific evidence yet about medical uses of cannabis, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that it would be beneficial in some cases.

Government: I'm sorry, that's against the law. The statute requires that a drug remain in Schedule I if it has high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in the United States. And for good reason - loosening the restrictions would be disastrous.

Reformer: The reason it has no currently accepted medical use is that it's been prohibited for the past 70 years. But I can see we're going to get nowhere without any hard proof that it works. Can we at least conduct an experiment to find out whether it has legitimate medical uses? You don't have to get involved or fund it. However, you do control the cannabis crop at the University of Mississippi, which because of regulations you enacted, is the only legal supply of cannabis in the United States. We'll pay you more than it's worth if you'll supply it to us.

Government: I'm sorry, no. It would be unethical to test cannabis on human subjects. Cannabis poses known health risks, and we already know that smoked cannabis is of dubious usefulness in medicine. There's no point in performing the experiment.

Reformer: But the participants will be volunteers who have been informed about the health risks. Why are you so concerned? We're not asking YOU to participate. And besides, there are vaporizers and other means of reducing the harmful effects.

Government: No, no. Medical cannabis isn't needed, because there are other medicines available that work fine. And allowing medical cannabis would send the wrong message to young people. The cultural effects would be harmful.

Reformer: But some people can't use those other medicines. Some AIDS patients, for instance, have nausea that makes them throw up medications taken orally. And besides, we allow medical use of Ritalin, steroids and oxycontin, without worrying too much about what the children will think. Why not cannabis?

Government: Look, we know your real agenda. You don't really care about the patients. You just want to use this as a wedge issue to open the door for complete legalization, so that YOU can smoke it. Legalization would have terrible consequences for society, so we're going to nip this in the bud right now. We will not authorize this experiment, and you will be prosecuted if you try to circumvent the prohibition.

One of the systemic weaknesses I've noticed on Wikipedia is an eagerness to restrict free assembly and experimentation. As a private organization, Wikipedia is not required to offers its users these freedoms. But it would be useful to do so. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, but experiments in democracy could be useful to Wikipedia. If you don't think an experiment would be helpful, why not state your concerns and leave it at that? Why go out of your way to actually kill the experiment in embryo? Do you think that's going to be without consequences?

Many people have written about how Wikipedia's ill-treatment of productive editors is self-defeating. You unnecessarily delete stuff from userpages and kill "fun" projects because they are not directly encyclopedia-related. You lose some editors as a result.

Perhaps even worse, you stifle the experimental process by taking an overly timid approach to permitting tests of new ideas. The delegable proxy experiment, *in and of itself*, would not have been necessarily harmful. Most Wikipedians are probably capable of taking the results with a grain of salt. And if certain people try to misuse data gleaned from the proxy tables, then they can be dealt with individually. Information gathered from such tests is no more *inherently* harmful than information about cannabis' medical uses. It's the conclusions people draw from it, and the misuse they make of it, that poses the potential problems. But should that be an excuse to veto the experiment? I think not.

All these issues were thrashed out in detail, and you still didn't want to allow the experiment. And in my opinion, that says a lot about your overall philosophy. It's one thing to be conservative about changing policies, or about getting involved, as individuals, in something that doesn't look promising. It's another to actually restrict users' freedom to give something a try that doesn't even involve you. And it's not good policy. Economists will tell you that risk taking pays off in the long run. Those countries that try to protect their citizens by restraining risk-taking and requiring community approval of experimental ventures tend to have poorer economies. And I think that Wikipedia's philosophy of restraining these type of experiments are likely to slow beneficial innovation and harm its ability to solve problems and adjust to change. I think eventually it's come back to bite you.

It seems stupid and shortsighted for the encyclopedia to repay volunteer labor with an arbitrary denial of free assembly and experimentation. But, I have to live by the rules and decisions of the encyclopedia if I'm going to remain here. And ultimately, I decided I was not willing to stay under those conditions. As a police officer once told me in reference to cannabis regulations, "If you don't like the laws of this country, then leave!"

So, I'm exercising my right to leave. And since I was leaving anyway, and not likely to run into any of you in real life, I figured I had nothing to lose and might as well go out with a bang. I'm not the first to commit suicide by admin. Abd may as well stop sticking up for me - I purposefully went past the point of no return, as soon as the community's intention to veto the experiment became evident. There's just no need for me to try to work within an organization dominated by people who have the same mindset and techniques as the DEA and HHS bureaucrats I used to fight against. When they realize they have the power to get their way, they forcibly stonewall anything that could lead to an change in the status quo. Most people who are of the same mind as myself eventually realize we can more productively devote my time and energy elsewhere, and we leave; those who remain are those who favor the current system, and thus it perpetuates itself.

I'm well aware, it won't make or break the encyclopedia to lose one person. But, you did make a tradeoff. The cost of crushing the experiment was to lose a contributor. You've been making similar tradeoffs for a long time, and the consequences are evident. Policy change moves at a glacial pace; debates drag on forever because no one is allowed to settle it by conducting a simple test; and the project is, in general, slow to adapt to increasing scale. As an organization, you've decided it's worth it. I think at the rate things are going, a time will come when, like Nupedia, Wikipedia's flawed policies lead to stagnation and replacement by something better. Time will tell if I'm right. Absidy 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the "speculation", that you disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, was completely accurate. Superm401 - Talk 10:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're talking about that one edit, that was a little bit of verbal irony. As mentioned, the main reason for the jumping around from one account to the next was a desire to start over to some extent. I knew that participation in deletion debates and such with multiple accounts was verboten; if I had read Wikipedia:SOCK#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support, I would known that the same applied to talk pages. But, not having read that, I didn't think it mattered, since by that time, we had already moved away from trying to propose a policy to simply conducting an experiment. I always scrambled passwords when I left an account, but sometimes the computer still had it cached or whatever so I ended up making a few edits under old accounts.

Anyhoo, the speculation about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point using sockpuppets wasn't voiced until after the experiment was already vetoed, so I'm not sure how or whether that played into that decision... I don't think the accusations of bad faith began in earnest until, subsequent to debate which made it obvious that the experiment wasn't going to be allowed to proceed, I began the canvassing and other intentionally blockable stuff. (At that point, it didn't matter anymore as far as WP:PRX was concerned; debate had run its course and the decision was made to prevent the experiment from taking place.)

The speculation I was talking about above was speculation that how the experiment would turn out, or the harm that would be caused by it. That was the main rationale people used to justify killing the experiment, if I understand correctly. Absidy 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Absidy, did you scramble the password to this account also? You have created a couple of new accounts for the purposes of commenting here. You may not be aware, but if you log in as Absidy, you will still be able to edit your own talk page. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's scrambled. User:Absidy 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The experiment was vetoed, in my understanding, because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy and informed consensus is more important than votes. That is certainly why I don't support it. But, as you know, you were blocked not for the experiment, nor "verbal irony", but for canvassing and a serious personal attack. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• the proposal was not about votes and was simply to create a mechanism that, in theory, helps with the development of informed consensus. That's what delegable proxy was designed for, and my own work has been with application in Free Associations where consensus is a fundamental operating principle.
• Absidy was not blocked for canvassing. He was warned for canvassing. He was, in fact, however, blocked for what appeared to the blocking administrator as a "serious personal attack," specifically the posting of an image of a raised finger. I find it questionable that this was an attack at all; it is a classic challenge to authority, or presumption of authority, and I have seen it used that way, and it is almost never used as an attack. Worth telling a story: a friend was stopped by a police officer for speeding. After issuing the citation, the officer returned to his car and looked back at him. He raised his hand in that classic salute. The officer turned red and came back to the window of my friend's car, and huffed and puffed a little, then drove off. Now, what if the officer had arrested my friend for a "personal attack"? What would have happened? My friend could tell you. He's an ex-cop and a lawyer, and, while I don't think he intended to get arrested, he also wasn't afraid of it. He really would have been able to get back at the officer then. There is plenty of precedent here: an administrator does not block a user based on a perceived insult to that administrator. Administrators do not block when they are personally involved. At least they are not supposed to! And what is astonishing to me here is that, although many administrators said exactly this in the Physchim62 arbitration, and so did ArbComm confirm, not one administrator has here acknowledged this. As part of this whole process, and before anything is involved that might make it appear as canvassing, I should really ask some who participated in that arbitration. But I think some who have commented here did comment there. Does it depend on whose ox is being gored? The blocked user in that case was an administrator, Absidy was considered a troublemaker, proposing something dangerous. Similar actions by other users, under most situations, would have resulted, first offense, in a 24-hour block. So why the indef block and the specific request not to unblock? I can only conclude that Absidy is right. It was because of the proposed experiment, and Absidy, being young and impulsive (hyperactive is the actual term), provided cover (which does not imply any kind of deliberate deception, I'm fairly sure that Jehochman was acting in the belief that the block was correct. Then again, Physchim62 believed he was correct, also, and apparently still believes it, at least as of the last time I looked.)--Abd (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman

Jehochman, please forgive me for giving you the finger and being rude earlier. That was uncalled-for and I really regret it. Even if I was planning on leaving the project, there's no excuse for acting that way. User:Absidy 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right on. Now, you email the unblock list to request unblocking instead of continuing to post from IPs and alternate accounts. If you wrecked your access, then you need to get permission to start a new account, and avoid returning to the same disruptive sort of editing or else you will be swiftly reblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jehochman. I was about to start listing the "block evasion edits" here, because I found it totally fascinating what he was doing. In those edits, he wasn't disruptive at all, they were (all that I've seen) like the IP edit above, conciliatory, apologetic, seeking the very opposite of disruption, even though they were described in the references as disruptive and trolling, something that is itself disturbing. Because it will be important for him -- and all of us --- to know exactly what was disruptive about his BOLD actions, and what was within what is permitted, and indeed encouraged, I plan to continue with review of this incident, consistent with all applicable policy -- in the letter and in the spirit of it.--Abd (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is sincere (and really by User:Absidy), I would support an unblock (and a new account if necessary). Superm401 - Talk —Preceding comment was added at 06:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==User:Absidy block evasion and trolling?==

This is long and detailed and is a precompilation for anyone interested in the details of this user's history, with special attention to edits after the block, which have been called "further trolling." Were they? If any reader is interested, this section organizes the history for easy access, with comments. Please correct any errors, if you notice them and it is convenient for you.

Given the edit here by Yellowbeard, and being surprised that Absidy would evade a block (he knows not to do that), I looked at the IP contributions. What I found is, again, at least initially, pure Absidy, more may come out below. He is a true WP:IAR editor, who actually understands why WP:IAR is Rule Number One. He's following the spirit of the law, as he sees necessary, with the benefit of the project and the community as his goals and operating principle, and has not been disruptive with any "block evasion" I have found here. He is obeying (at least usually and substantially, the spirit of a block, but not the letter. It's worth reviewing what he has done, and if any new "escapades" appear, I'd think this would be a good place to report them. I'm really glad that Yellowbeard reported this, it serves the community, or, at least, my understanding of the situation, even as it tells us much more about the reporter, about which enough said. There is an edit to Yellowbeard's talk page, after block, worth looking at, referenced below.

There is no overlap of named accounts. The only overlap is due to IP editing, relatively rare, with no indication of deception intended.

Contributions/129.174.54.17

   * 15:44, 26 February 2008 (hist) [2] Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)‎ (→Please forgive me:  new section)

About this edit, Jehochman wrote: "He's continuing to troll via various IP addresses."[3] However, this edit contains a promise at the end, in hidden text visible in the diff, "Note: Any further remarks from me will take place on my talk page."

Contributions/129.174.91.117

   * 15:17, 26 February 2008 (hist) [4] User talk:Yellowbeard‎ (hello)
   * 15:05, 26 February 2008 (hist) [5] User talk:Absidy‎ (jehochman)

The post to Yellowbeard's Talk is, again, pure Absidy. (I really wish I could use his real name, he deserves to be known.) He means it. This is how he talks to me on the phone. He'd like us all to get along and work for a better world. And how does Yellowbeard respond? "User:Absidy admitted that he is identical to the listed anonymous users and to User:129.174.91.117 (diff). Yellowbeard (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)" at [6]. Helpful. The post to his talk page would be an allowed edit.

Contributions/ReplyToSM February 26. Account created and used only once to post to this Talk page, signed Absidy. This account was blocked with a standard "abuse of sock puppets" message, but the Absidy block did not prohibit editing this page, so, in spite of the block justification, this account did not commit sock abuse.

Contributions/129.174.91.116. February 25.

   * 19:31, 25 February 2008 (hist) [7] Talk:Delegable proxy‎ (→Why two articles?:  concern already addressed)
   * 19:30, 25 February 2008 (hist) [8] Talk:Delegable proxy‎ (delegated voting)

the above edits asked a question, then reverted it out.

   * 17:41, 25 February 2008 (hist) [9] User talk:Arrowned‎ (revert)

this is about a reversion of the edit below, to Metroid, by Arrowned. Not provocative.

   * 17:38, 25 February 2008 (hist) [10] Template:Experimental‎ (top)

bolded text.

   * 17:16, 25 February 2008 (hist) [11] Talk:Metroid‎ (elapsed time with justin bailey password)

asked question about game.

   * 16:55, 25 February 2008 (hist) [12] Wikipedia:Experiment‎ (→Avoiding disruption) (top)

This is the only substantial edit, essentially of an essay authored by this user (though it's a project page). It's well worth reading. I read it as a very sophisticated view of what went wrong with WP:PRX, his very controversial creation. It is warning users not to do what he did. All I can say is "Wow!" It's the very opposite of disruptive.

What I see here is an editor who may forget where he is and what he is doing. He reads something, sees some small improvement or question, and, from four years of habit editing Wikipedia, he just edits. Above, I speculate on a diagnosis of his condition, and lapses like this would be expected, they are probably not intentional. But also, characteristic of his condition would be that, if you ask him, he will tell you. Did he intend to evade the block? I'll ask! It doesn't look like that to me, with the possible exception of the first edit, the essay, and, if that is indeed an exception, it would be IAR and he'd be right. This is very far below his normal edit volume, several of the edits are to articles where he would be definitely identified, i.e., he could anticipate that the edits would be discovered, as they were, quickly. And none were trolling, unless *any* edit is trolling while blocked, which is questionable. Indeed, the first edit flags the previous IP, 129.174.91.111.

I asked. He said "He just didn't think it was that important." (In a rather tired voice.) Well, was it? This user apparently intends to abandon editing Wikipedia entirely. However, obviously, he was reading it without login. Now, if the original block was legitimate, then evading it with intention would justify continued blocking. If, however, the original block turns out to be not legitimate, these edits in themselves are not offensive, being not disruptive. It is only the intense scrutiny being applied here that even brings them to our attention, and they would not be independent grounds for sanctions. They are not "trolling," quite clearly.

Contributions/129.174.91.111

   * 14:23, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Template:Experimental/doc‎  (top)
   * 14:23, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Template:Experimental‎
   * 14:20, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Template:Experimental/doc‎
   * 14:17, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Template:Experimental‎
   * 14:12, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Template talk:Experimental‎
   * 14:12, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Template talk:Experimental‎
   * 13:36, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Experiment‎ (→Considerations)
   * 13:31, 25 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Experiment‎ (→Considerations)

Edits to Template:Experimental and Wikipedia:Experiment. The Experiment edits finished up a draft of this "policy" page (it's really an essay). It's a brilliant analysis and advice proceeding from his experiences with Wikipedia:Delegable proxy, a proposed experiment. Three are then two edits to the template designed for use for experiments, one of them simply formatting, the other a reply to User:Mangojuice, civil and certainly not trolling, though evading block, if he was aware of the block at the time. (It's possible he wasn't. He probably scrambled his password after flipping off Jehochman with his last edit as Absidy. So he would not have seen "you have messages." But, more likely, he did know and simply didn't think of it as offensive.)

Above edits are after block. [13]11:27, 24 February 2008 Jehochman (Talk | contribs) blocked "Absidy (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Trolling)

Contributions/Absidy February 23-24 First edit:

   * 17:09, 23 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Absidy‎ (←Created page with 'This account is a continuation of User:Ron Duvall') (top)

Contrary to what has been claimed elsewhere by many users, Absidy did not conceal the connection of this account with Ron Duvall, it was visible from the beginning, to anyone who looked at his Contribs. Last edit:

Contributions/71.63.91.68 February 22-23.

Contributions/Ron Duvall February 14-23.

Contributions/71.63.91.68 February 12-14.

Special:Contributions/Sarsaparilla 16:55, 21 November 2007 - 15:56, 12 February 2008 last edit was strikeout and apology of sorts (for a prank, and still a bit tongue-in-cheek, it seems to me.)

--Abd (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

updated --Abd (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us that User:Absidy is also identical to User:129.174.91.111. I only knew that he is identical to User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, User:ReplyToSM, User:71.63.91.68, User:129.174.54.17, User:129.174.91.116, User:129.174.91.117, and User:129.174.91.119. Do you have additional names for User:Absidy? Is User:Absidy identical to User:71.161.192.19? Yellowbeard (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have an additional user name for Absidy, but it is old and prior to Sarsaparilla, with a substantial gap when he was apparently not editing. The last edit was in October, 2007. You've seen the account name, but I'm not repeating it here, though he might not mind. A user has the right to disappear. I'll say this, and anyone with access to the name, and several involved here have it, I've found no problem edits in that History, and the only block was a block in error, removed quickly by the blocking admin. That account goes back to late 2005, and my understanding is that this user began editing in 2004. So he did change his account before, once.

As to User:71.161.192.19, why do you want to know? I could ask him, but I really don't see a reason to bother him with the question. It's possible, though I don't recognize the style. He's an IRV activist, so he'd have an interest in that article and the knowledge that this editor has, but ... hey, so do you. It's moot. Was that IP being used to do anything disruptive? I see, Yellowbeard, by Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard that you don't make mainspace edits, except, in the distant past, to place AfD tags or to merge articles, within a special range of articles on topics relating to voting methods. A pure deletionist that never actually contributes content, but only has deleted or attempted to delete it. Beyond that, you have pretty much confined yourself -- and totally within recent months -- to attempting to damage my reputation and function here. You canvassed for negative votes in my AfD, being blocked for that. Then you voted and attempted to raise trouble about Sarsaparilla's (Absidy's) participation in that, about his prank with another RfA, a harmless thing in itself, the other admin was snowing for approval, he chose a very safe place to make his joke. You then tried to have my RfA ruled a snow failure. And when Absidy gets in trouble, you work hard to find every possible fact that might make him look bad. All this is visible simply by looking at your contributions, it's amazing to me you haven't been blocked yet. I haven't asked for it. Ever. Absidy tried to hold out an olive branch to you, with a "block-evading" edit, and your response was to come here and say "Look, he admits to being (address)." Shame on you. Absidy is gone. Effort to block every IP in sight to prevent him from editing is wasted effort, purely formal, to pursue what may turn out to be a totally unnecessary block, he was leaving anyway. None of the "evading" edits have been disruptive, and, indeed, nearly all have been, essentially, goodbyes, sorry I offended you, my mistake. Yes, shame on you. --Abd (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Absidy

User:Abd admitted that there is at least one other account of User:Absidy that was blocked (diff). So we still don't know the whole story. I recommend that, before we even discuss whether User:Absidy should be unblocked, we should insist that User:Absidy gives a complete record of all the user accounts that he has used in the past. Yellowbeard (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)