On 11/13/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a
user with less than a
thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest
didn't start until January 2007.
I don't think this is a good faith editor. I
don't think this
supposed original identity is the first identity this person has taken
on Wikipedia either.
this is not a person here to contribute in
good faith; they're here for the drama.
That's quite a charge. Only sporadic edits the first few years.
Spending 4/5ths of his edits on talk and project pages. Lots of
involvement in controversial areas. Sure sounds bad. Thank goodness
only those of us who opposed BADSITES are subject to such microscopic
examination-- if such judgements were unleashed on the Wikipedia
population at large, who knows what portion of us would be found
without sin.
I can only speak from personal experience. PM was an extremely civil,
helpful mediator in a longstanding dispute. He was civil and polite.
Ultimately, I think it was his informal mediation that really made the
difference and stopped the 6 month long edit war at NPA. Based
solely on my interaction-- if he could be as successful elsewhere on
the project as he was mediating the NPA dispute, I'd say that if he's
spending 4/5 of his time using talk pages on controversial issues, I
wish we could get him to dedicate that extra 1/5 to helping resolve
disputes.
Granted, that's based on my interaction with him-- I haven't poured
through is other identity with a fine-toothed comb. But some big
names vouched for him-- I'd be shocked if he had duped them all into
thinking he was a good faith editor when he's really a drama troll.
--
As I've said before, from MY point of view, people didn't try to
indefblock PM for using an avowed sock puppet account or for edit
warring or for being john awbrey. The block surel looked motivated
by PM's side in the BADSITES dispute. If PM was making the same
edits, but arguing FOR badsites, instead of against, I have a
disturbing feeling that the block never would have been considered,
nobody would ever tried to even pour through his past to look for a
reason to block him, nobody would be badmouthing him right now, and
mere discussion about his other identity would probably be deleted for
attempting to "out" an editor.
But then, hopefully I'm wrong, and perhaps Guy would have dealt with a
Pro-BADSITES PM exactly the same way he dealt with an Anti-BADSITES
PM. It's possible I'm just having a bit of a cynical phase about the
whole issue. The Salt The Earth (BADSITES) votes, the "redirect
michaelmore to [[Clown]] proposal, the PM indefblock attempt-- not to
mention the fact that narry a day goes by without someone implying
that good faith editors who opposed badsites are somehow in league,
supporting, or friends with the perpetrators of criminal or
near-criminal harassment.
Oh well-- It'll all come out in the wash. It's just a little bit like
watching sausage being made, as the saying goes. :)
Alec