On 11/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@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