User talk:GreenPeasAndPotatoes

Hi all. Please wp:agf, applying wp:IPHUMAN even to me. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheGreenPenOfHope

The smart thing and good-faith-affirming way to do would have been to acknowledge a mistake and to request a rename: instead you tried to justify your pointy choice of name and intention to confront TRPoD. You can't un-say what you said elsewhere about confronting other users by creating a new username.This isn't the way to act in good faith. Given that you were trying to justify the other account at the same time as this one was active (without acknowledging this one), this account is blocked too Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake! I did mentioned the RfC, so it's not as if I was ever trying to hide anything. It just hadn't occurred to me to seek a rename - instead it seemed simplest to forget TheGreenPenOfHope and move on with a new name myself.

I would ask that anyone reading this doesn't take Acroterion's account of what has happened as being at all accurate, and instead reads the sources at user_talk:TheGreenPenOfHope and Talk:Streisand_effect.

So sad. If Acroterion and TheRedPenOfDoom are typical of the administrators who are left, then I can only see wp declining to stasis. Ironic that the contentious topic was about censorship. If stating uncomfortable truths = being a troll, then I am guilty as charged. So sad.

GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD is not an administrator. You may not move on to a new account if you're blocked: you are blocked, no matter how many accounts you maintain. You were blatantly abusing multiple accounts, this time to circumvent a block, which had been appealed and endorsed by another administrator. The only uncomfortable truth in this case is that you singled out another user for attacks. Acroterion (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. I agree that it is unacceptable to create an account to "attack" another user, and I accept that doing so was a (very minor) reason for my creation of TGPoH. In my defence:

The major and sufficient reason for creating a new account was to effect necessary anonymity - please see the RfC for details, or re-read my other stuff. afaik this is completely in accord with wp policy, and is not remotely sock puppetry, given zero overlap with other topics and the relevant editors. I do not think I should be required to abandon the use of accounts used for entirely separate purposes. (I have had the grand total of 4 wp accounts in my life. I forgot the password of the 1st one years ago. I haven't used the 2nd one for several months, and am even less likely to do so after this fiasco.)
My choice of name wasn't so much to "attack" (I promise you, I am never interested attacking people, only their actions), as to fly the green libertine flag of looser source rules when recording internet phenomena, against TRPoD's red flag of strict application of the rules (which if consistently applied would result in the entire article being deleted).
I didn't intend to "single out" a user, although I entirely concede that it must have looked that way, and TRPoD's actions were high on my agenda. I am concerned when any user has more reds than greens in their contribution history.

My main error was trying to save time :-/ by achieving several objectives in one go. My objectives were:

get Hebdo added to the Streisand Effect,
dissuade editors from intimidating good faith contributors,
raise the issue of intimidating user names & formatting,
get users to consider whether their actions are turning others off wp.

I agree that conflating these objectives was poor practice. Doing so might have saved time if the article had not been protected, but... Regardless, conflating them was poor practice, and I do apologise. [lol:] Given that conflating them has had entirely the opposite effect re time, surely I have already been adequately punished.

Meanwhile, could you unblock me or suggest another way forward? Talk:Streisand_effect#RfC:_Is_the_Streisand_Effect_defined_by_usage.3F_Should_wp_include_Charlie_Hebdo.3F is on an important topic, and productive discussion has already started on it (prior to TheRedPenOfDoom hiding it). I am not remotely interested in re-opening TGPoH, and looking forward to being done with this account too.

GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you have plainly stated that you created the account to make a point about another user, with whom you apparently have a history of dispute. Use your main account if you want to complain about someone: you're evading scrutiny about your past dealings with TRPoD. You may not create sockpuppets for that purpose. Taking potshots at other users from a sockpuppet account has always been a widely-accepted reason to block and ignore those accounts. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion, half way through writing this I realised I had made a major mistake. Please excuse the abrasive tone of the first couple of points, but I am running out of time.

From WP:SOCK#LEGIT:

Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

As I explained at my disclaimer at the RfC, as a publisher I have a vested interest in documenting the expansion of the Streisand Effect to the Charlie_Hebdo_shooting. As I indicated above and elsewhere, I have valid reasons for needing a special-purpose account for doing this. Is it too hard for you to imagine those reasons??? By now, that is no longer a rhetorical question. I.e. y/n?

As I have repeated a few times now, I have had zero prior dealings with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, and have never even noticed him or her before. Is is too hard to imagine that it only takes one look at TRPoD's contributions at Talk:Streisand_effect to see TRPoD as a significant problem??? If so, please examine that multi-par essay I wrote there as TGPoH.

You blocked my first special-purpose account with the explanation: "[1]abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, [2]appears to have been created to target a specific user". Re-reading what I had written, I can't fault you for [1], in fact, it was completely necessary given that I failed to adequately explain my intentions on my user page. My profound apologies - I thought I had. I had written "I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity" in my first edit at talk:SE, and expanded on this in the RfC, but it is unreasonable to have expected you to notice this, so again, my apologies. (I was soooo cross with you.) Re [2], agreed, as conceded and apologised for in my previous reply to you.

Further, I just noticed on User:GreenPeasAndPotatoes that I had only written:

Hi all, I doubt that I will use this account much. I do promise to never use it on any pages that I have edited using another account.

without adding the obvious:

except for TheGreenPenOfHope

Sorry again. I probably made that mistake because I sought to correct my error of having used TGPoH, and I was only thinking of my own account, but it is a hell of a mistake to make for a "promise".

Look, could we please try again from the start.

I do actually have a valid reason for a special-purpose account. For privacy reasons I am not prepared to reveal my 'usual' account (which I have not used for several months), but I hope I could have the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I stuffed up with my choice of name for that account, as explained earlier above.
Yes, I see now that I should have sought a re-name. I didn't seek this because I have never been involved in blocking before, let alone a freshstart, so did what I thought was the obvious thing. At the time, I thought your actions were so obviously wrong that I figured your block would be quickly over-ridden. Please note that I never tried to hide my actions (although I did fail to communicate my intentions). Also, I thought that my proposed edit is so obviously correct that this will quickly be appreciated as such. I think this is still probably the case, but I am rather less confident of anything right now. fwiw, TRPoD seems to be moving in my direction, judging by their 13:21, 20 February 2015 addition to talk:SE.

So, if you want to unblock me, that would be great - I could then continue the RfC on what is arguably a very very important issue. I hereby undertake to never again use TGPoD, and I hereby undertake to only use this current account re the Streisand Effect. I will even refrain from ever again using this account to make comments re individuals' editing style and declining numbers of wp editors, if only because a) I now could not possibly do so with any effectiveness, b) I am not quite stupid enough not to be embarrassed by this fiasco - in that sense I would be quite happy to actually do what you have so often falsely accused me of, i.e. evade scrutiny by never again referring to these two accounts. If you can't unblock me, hmmmm, guess there is nothing I can do; I'm not used to that, but I can see that you might be obliged to assume conspiracy even if it merely a cock-up. If you can't unblock me, then could you please review the contents of my RfC and see it through yourself - I think it really does server consideration.

I will finish with a copy and paste from Talk:Streisand_effect#RfC:_Is_the_Streisand_Effect_defined_by_usage.3F_Should_wp_include_Charlie_Hebdo.3F:

Disclosures: I do think it is terribly important to have a terminology that lets us succinctly illustrate how the violent attempted suppression of information can result in its far greater dissemination. But as a publisher myself, I have a vested interested in being able to publish more safely. For personal reasons I don't wish to identify myself re Hebdo, and my main wp account is not completely anonymous, hence my creation of a single-purpose wp account. I have only ever created two single-purpose accounts: TheGreenPenOfHope, and now this GreenPeasAndPotatoes (because TheGreenPenOfHope is permanently blocked, largely because of its similarity to TheRedPenOfDoom). I have never sought to evade scrutiny, nor use one account to anonymously support another account.

[btw, I hope everyone is well-behaved re WP:OUTING ]

So, sorry to have taken so much of people's time. I meant well, motivated by wp's welfare and the welfare of all peoples, and I don't mean to be a troll. I wouldn't bother persisting except that this particular topic is far from wp:lame. I am only still persisting because no-one has yet censured me without showing clear indications that they have not actually understood significant issues (which is not surprising, because by now those issues are almost drowned in a sea of words). If it is any consolation, it takes longer to write than to read, and sorting out this mess is a painful punishment.

regards & thanks, and (if kept blocked) over & out,

GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond in the next day or so when I have had a chance to properly review this. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd asked for a second opinion, bu that admin's away for a while, and after some thought I've decided to unblock you, with a some conditions.

Whatever your views on TheRedPenOfDoom, any baiting or undue focus on that particular editor (or for that matter, any other editor) as an example of what's wrong with WP will result in the reinstatement of the block. Statements like "It only takes one look at TRPoD's contributions at Talk:Streisand_effect to see TRPoD as a significant problem?" cannot be repeated.
That you, as promised, confine this account's edits to Streisand effect and its talkpage.
That you abide by consensus, both in terms of the article content and with respect to Wikipedia policy.

Beyond that, a suggestion: keep it brief and to the point. You've shown a tendency to post large quantities of text when you could make your point more economically and clearly. Other editors will thank you.

Does that suit? Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acroterion, that suits just fine. Sorry to have taken so long so respond - far too busy for a while. GreenPeasAndPotatoes (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]