User talk:CygnetSaIad/Archive 1

HawkerTyphoon wants to know "Why"

I'm intrigued. Under which one of these reasons are you creating a second account? You haven't made any edits other than talking to one person is all, and it'd be nice if you declared yourself as a sock. Cheers, HawkerTyphoon 22:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, I'll try to give as complete an answer as possible.

"Keeping heated issues in one small area" seems about right. Ofttimes now here the personalities involved seem more important than the issues raised. This is intended to be a personality-free account, to try to approach issues without baggage.
It's an experiment, really. If it doesn't work, I'll happily fling aside the curtains and reveal myself.
As to having only talked to one person, well every account has to start with only a few edits, doesn't it?
I thought that the message above did declare myself as a sock? It's worth noting that (since I'm dumb) I created the CygnetSalad account (with an L) asked the question of Cyde and forgot my password without having set an e-mail address. Thus this edit is from CygneySaIad (with an I.) Probably too confusing, but this is an experiment so forgive my fumblings.

I'm open to any input you have, including how to untangle the I/L idiocy. Blocking these accounts and starting over might be a viable option.

CygnetSaIad 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Cyde-block

{{unblock}}
Oops, hit save by mistake. Will complete in a few minutes. - CygnetSaIad 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block log

03:14, 22 September 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) blocked "CygnetSaIad (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sockpuppet of banned user being using for trolling.)
03:13, 22 September 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) blocked "CygnetSalad (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Sockpuppet of banned user being using for trolling.)

Suggest the reviewing admin look over User_talk:Cyde#Robotic_deletions first. Then I'd ask exactly which blocked user Cyde claims me to be, and ask what this claim is based upon. There's also the User:CygnetSalad page to review, where my mistakes (and why there are two) are detailed.

Cheers,
CygnetSaIad 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(post-script) Thinking that a "neutral" account asking neutral questions would work was probably the biggest mistake, but *shrug* I was trying to be diplomatic.

Tony's review

That's a good one, thanks Tony. "Obvious troll." Heavy on rhetoric, light on reasons. I await, with baited breath, some serious discussion. I'd ask again how I was "trolling" in asking simple questions about use of the bit by a bot. - CygnetSaIad 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me father for I have sinned: I thougt (just for a second) about unblocking myself. - CygnetSaIad 04:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a legitimate established account to edit from you would have asked your question from there; since you don't appear to have one, you must be a sockpuppet of a banned troll. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, unless there's something I'm not seeing, this could be an alternate account of anyone. I don't see trolling here, I see an overreaction on Cyde's part. I don't see how the block is valid. Friday (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked this for now since I didn't see a good reason for the block. However I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple people watching this, so if this user does something actually blockable, I'd not be suprised to see another block applied (and certainly would not object, of course). Friday (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. - CygnetSaIad 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

Ok, clearly this approach was a disaster. I suppose since I (in the guise of my real account) take all critisicm/comments as respectfully as possible, I presumed that others might do the same. I was trying to divorce the issues from the people, based upon the presumption that I might be part of the problem in communication. Perhaps though the fault cannot be evenly portioned out like that...

Not to even start with my worse-than-neophyte mistakes of two accounts, forgetting the password, and a confusing doppleganger.

CygnetSaIad 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 152.91.9.144

Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the unblock request. At what stage should I just say "stuff it" and unblock myself? (I know, the answer is "never" but this is bloody frustrating.)

CygnetSaIad 06:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - CygnetSaIad 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some quasi-rhetorical questions

Although totally not the point, and bear-baiting (or whatever we want to call it) is pretty despicable, is it within the realm of "bad form" to bring up this block in any later discussions of Tony/Cyde/et alia?
Is this an acceptable use of alternate accounts or not?
Does it really matter whom is asking a question, presuming that they do so politely?

CygnetSaIad 06:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people automatically assume the worse of an alternate account. I think we'd be better off with a culture of assuming good faith until given a solid reason to do otherwise. Some would assert that this is already the culture we intend to foster here, but if that's the case, something is broken. To me this episode illustrates the unfortunately common dispute-escalating tendencies of Cyde. Doesn't tell us much about Tony, excep that he's willing to call someone a troll at the drop of a hat, but we already knew that. Friday (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of the experiment

The experiment sounded like a good idea although I have to wonder why you thought your "real" account might bring along baggage. Presumably you are an admin who has some sort of negative reputation or some sort of bad history with Cyde.

I do think Cyde over-reacted but you contributed to it by starting with a question that raised his suspicions. Perhaps you should have stated your case from the beginning by laying your cards out on the table and saying "It appears that you are using a bot to perform sysop functions. This is generally considered to be a bad idea." Maybe Cyde would have given you a more forthcoming explanation or maybe the very idea of a sock asking a question is unacceptable to him.

It shouldn't matter who is asking the question except if it's a sock because the motives of using a sock are inherently questionable.

I don't claim to know the perfect way to accomplish what you want but perhaps asking for an advocate would have worked. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing that advocates do but maybe they should.

--Richard 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your advice regarding my initial words is sound, and I'll pay heed to that. It's not that I've had a particular problem with Cyde per se simply that I wanted to remove any other dimension from my message. If you'd like to see an example of the kind of interactions I'm talking about, the recent exchange on Friday's talk is a great example. Here a fairly straight-forward adminstrative decision results in Friday being excoriated not for this action but for all previous perceived misdeeds. I too am guilty occasionally of knee-jerk responses and "killing the messenger" but will probably go and have a good think after this...
CygnetSaIad 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]