I'm trying hard to keep an open mind, but based on the information I currently have in front of me, it seems like I'm looking at the an extreme instance of admin abuse. As many know, PrivateMusings is a sock account created in good faith by a reputable, good-faith user (of 2+ years editing). The PrivateMusings account was created in order to deal with the BADSITES subject-- fearing that people who disagreed with his stance might try to seek some sort of retribution. This use of socks is totally appropriate-- our socks policy explicitly describes socks of this sort as legitimate: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." Private Musings was always completely open about his being a sock-- he revealed his identity several trusted admins, and he has always been a polite, thoughtful, and helpful contributor. No one has alleged that he has ever used this account to appear as if multiple people are making edits. During the Arbcom case, and in multiple discussions one several pages, Private Musing was instrumental in helping the community work out some of the post-BADSITES issues. Private Musings is a good guy, and a better man than I am. ----- There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances. Regretably, some of the individuals who demanded a total ban on any and all links to BADSITES have opposed this growing consensus, and at least one of them has decided he's willing to play dirty to try to get his way. One of the most vocal proponents of Badsites was JzG/Guy. As we all know, he's a strong proponent of a total ban on 'badsites'. When the Arbcom case failed to enact BADSITES as policy, Guy posted a 2300 word "request for clarification', basically insisting that they make it policy. Guy has been a central fixture of the BADSITES dispute, and has supported it at every turn-- both at [[WP:BADSITES]], [[WP:NPA]], the Arbcom Case, the request for clarification, and many other cases. He has written thousands upon thousands of words on the subject, purged dozens if not hundreds of links. He is definitely a party to the BADSITES debate. Now, there's nothing wrong with having been pro-BADSITES, it's a fine opinion which was shared by many. My only point in mentioning Guy's extreme involvement in the BADSITES debate is to point out that Guy is most certainly NOT an "uninvolved admin"-- not by any stretch of the imagination. But nevertheless, Guy has taken it upon himself to indefinitely ban his primary opponent in the Badsites debate, Private Musings. The precise reason for the block has been hard to gauge. The initial text used during the block log was simply "This has gone on long enough", suggesting the longstanding disagreement between Guy and PM was the source of the block. Another explanation was that PM's comments had been "inflaming a dispute", again suggesting the disagreement between Guy and Pm over BADSITES was the source of the block. In a third comment at aNI, Guy justified characterized the block as being "for edit warring". Finally, Guy argued that PM had reinserted links to "blogs which contain bad information"-- suggesting the block may have been for violating the rejected BADSITES policy. These changing justifications do not inspire confidence. ---------------------- Let's first consider whether PM deserves an indefinite ban: * His use of a sock puppet account is 100% appropriate and "by the book". He's an icon of the apropriate and responsible use of a sock puppet. * The evidence for his alleged "edit warring" is extremely slim. A total of four edits, made over the course of three days. The edits were supported by consensus on the talk page. The edits were reverting vandalism-- deletion of a reliable source by a indef-banned vandal who was using an sockpuppet to evade the ban, who had chosen a username specifically designed to harass PM. * BADSITES is not policy, and we do not indefinitely ban people for inserting EL to an article merely because those EL have a personal dispute with one of our editors. No matter how you slice it-- this is NOT a a case for an indefinte ban. The ban should be lifted. Even if people really feel PM drifted into 'edit warring'-- he deserves nothing more than a warning from a neutral admin, something he would surely comply with. An indefinitely ban is unwarranted. ------------------- Now let's consider Guy's case: * He has indefinitely blocked someone he had been in a heated on-going policy dispute with. * He has used his admin tools to block a user he was involved in a content dispute with. * His claim that the indef block is based on sock puppet abuse is invalid and shows either poor judgement or insincerity. * His claim that the indef block is based on edit warring is highly unwarrented, and shows poor judgement or insincerity. * His claim that PM's basically violate BADSITES suggests a contempt for the decisions of Arbcom and the community. --------------- I work hard to AGF-- but it's hard to see Guy's actions as anything but a disruptive bit of drama, banning an editor who was in dispute with him. Perhaps a good explaination will emerge, but barring that event, I strongly feel Guy needs to be desysopped. Granted, I'm biased. I disagree with him over badsites too-- so if he's taking to banning his opponents, I'm probably next in line. Alec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

There is now an ever-growing consensus that BADSITES is rejected, and that linking to "badsites' for encyclopedic purposes is permissible in some circumstances.