Response to offsite speculation..., All the information folks need... Options

[NVS]

Under the heading of "Sorry"


I've seen alot of referrer links from a hidden forum on this site visiting my site, along with a couple of PM's via this site inquiring, so I thought I'd post here. That is to be expected, folks, like me, want to know things. After this, I'll basically ask, respectfully request that no further attempts be made into the identity of any prior account I may or may not have edited under, or my personal identity.


I may post here (on WR) in the future if a topic interests me, but this is the context I'll post under...

1. I believe in Wikipedia, and Wikimedia I also agree with some of the criticisms of Wikipedia here and elsewhere. I am here to listen, learn, and add info.

2. It is possible that the naysayers are correct, but I hope not. A lot of good things have been created despite the valid concerns raised.

3. I will not act in ways other than what I believe are in Wikipedia's, and Wikimedia's best interests. This includes choosing carefully what to say, and what not to say.

4. For time and interest reasons, I may concede the last word in advance. (taken from Lar)

Warm,

Scream

[jorge]

We won't say what your identity is, but you need to correct something in your reply to Random here that is not accurate.

[NVS]

We won't say what your identity is, but you need to correct something in your reply to Random here that is not accurate.

The post of mine is accurate.

Warm,
Scream

[The Wales Hunter]

I've always wanted to have 300 degrees in Canon Law and be so hooked on Wikipedia that I secretly edit during class.

[gomi]

NVS, there are many different opinions among members of this site about revelation of easily-accessible online information about the history of Wikipedia admins: some support it, as part of a general principle that those in positions of power within Wikipedia should not be anonymous; others believe in respect for wishes for anonymity, but for those that show similar respect for others. There are many other more nuanced positions as well, and this forum does not pretend to speak with a single voice on that (or any) topic.

For my own part, I think I'm in the middle -- I see no reason to gratuitously reveal the real-life identities of ordinary Wikipedia users provided they are not abusing others. Such abuse can, and often does, take the form of BLP follies, of abusive blocking and banning, or of tag-team editing of controversial topics and the protection of those that do.

For now, since you are not an admin and don't seem guilty of such abuses, I think few here are inclined to disturb you. Some here take a "no prisoners" policy regarding Wikipedia, but the majority here thinks that there are those who seek to elevate the standard there, and that we should support them. I hope you stay in that camp.

[Moulton]

We won't say what your identity is, but you need to correct something in your reply to Random here that is not accurate.

The post of mine is accurate.

For the benefit of those of us who are unfamiliar with the details, can someone spell out the item whose accuracy is disputed?

[jorge]

For the benefit of those of us who are unfamiliar with the details, can someone spell out the item whose accuracy is disputed?

Mr NVS says he has a clean block log. This is false.

[Moulton]

Is there some stigma (presumptive or otherwise) to having been blocked?

[jorge]

Is there some stigma (presumptive or otherwise) to having been blocked?

Not really. He stated he has a clean block log though, so he's telling a fib and surely people on OTRS shouldn't tell fibs?

[dtobias]

Mr NVS says he has a clean block log. This is false.

How do you actually know this?

[Moulton]

Prolly the biggest fib of OTRS is that they exist to address problems reported to them by visitors to the site.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Is there some stigma (presumptive or otherwise) to having been blocked?

Not really. He stated he has a clean block log though, so he's telling a fib and surely people on OTRS shouldn't tell fibs?

What level of honesty are you expecting from someone who personality-shifts on wikipedia? Seems fibbing is pretty much ingrained.

[The Wales Hunter]

Mr NVS says he has a clean block log. This is false.

How do you actually know this?

Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...:NonvocalScream

* 10:14, 3 March 2008 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:NonvocalScream from (none) to rollbacker ‎
* 04:08, 1 March 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked NonvocalScream (Talk | contribs) ‎ (user can cure cancer with his tears)
* 04:05, 1 March 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "NonvocalScream (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (just testing something)
* 03:01, 19 February 2008 WordMachine (Talk | contribs) created new account User:NonvocalScream ‎ (Talk | contribs)

Though if it is who I would love it to be, their comment here would bring a chuckle to my lips:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199452352

We do not use our credentials in policy or content disputes. In the content area, we even require bona fide experts to cite sources. You can't use your credentials to give yourself more weight in this forum. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[Moulton]

NVS wrote, "The block log on the previous account is clean."

The cited block log is on his current account, and it appears to be a practice test, not a real block.

The block log on WordMachine is indeed clean.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sun 13th April 2008, 7:04pm

[jorge]

NVS wrote, "The block log on the previous account is clean."

The cited block log is on his current account, and it appears to be a practice test, not a real block.

Correct, the block on his previous account was not a test.

[Moulton]

NVS wrote, "The block log on the previous account is clean."

The cited block log is on his current account, and it appears to be a practice test, not a real block.

Correct, the block on his previous account was not a test.

What block on his previous account? I don't see any block listed on WordMachine.

[jorge]

What block on his previous account? I don't see any block listed on WordMachine.

That's just one of his previous accounts.

[msharma]

Though if it is who I would love it to be, their comment here would bring a chuckle to my lips:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199452352

We do not use our credentials in policy or content disputes. In the content area, we even require bona fide experts to cite sources. You can't use your credentials to give yourself more weight in this forum. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. Seriously? Is that who we mean?

[Moulton]

If I understand your point, Jorge, the fib wasn't that the block log on his previous account was clean, but that he neglected to expressly mention even older previous accounts?

[Proabivouac]

Under the heading of "Sorry"
…After this, I'll basically ask, respectfully request that no further attempts be made into the identity of any prior account I may or may not have edited under, or my personal identity.

I see, so you're an ArbCom-approved sockpuppet, participating in "discussions internal to the project" contra this ruling…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...gs#Sockpuppetry
…an ArbCom-approved sockpuppet who is allied with the authors of that ruling, and opposes the person who was retroactively punished and outed for violating it.