User talk:Ham Maritime
I don't recognize your name, stranger, but your face is familiar
[edit]I'd say welcome to Wikipedia, except that you aren't new. In general, it is best practice to link multiple accounts together, lest others become suspcious when a brand-spanking new user shows up, starts working with esoteric processes such as MFD and takes up discussions of 4-year-old Wikipedia politics at the Help Desk. It would really set my mind at ease if you could link to your priod identity. Thanks. --Jayron32 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for your concern. I neither affirm nor deny that this is a sockpuppet account, but if it is, trust that I have my reasons for keeping them separate. I will not be linking any prior identity, whether it exists or not, because doing so would completely defeat the purpose of creating a secondary account in the first place. I apologize if your mind isn't put at ease, but understand that alternate accounts, while discouraged, are not (strictly speaking) against Wikipedia policy. --Ham Maritime (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I do want to note that some uses of alternative accounts are against Wikipedia policy; such as avoiding blocks on other accounts or avoiding scrutiny against ones actions. If you are concerned about your privacy, it is good practice to send an email to WP:ARBCOM so that they can verify that your secondary account isn't being used for nefarious purposes. They can keep such information confidential, but it also lets you off the hook lest someone start accusing you of using alternative accounts in ways that are against the rules, you have proof that you are not if ArbCom can verify your identity, even if no one else can. I should also note that a second account is specifically forbidden from commenting in deletion debates, see WP:SOCK, second item under "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". It is expected that once you have established an account, you use your established account for editing in "the project space", which is anything outside of articles. Feel free to use this account to segregate edits to articles from your main account; that can be allowable. But please refrain from further comments at policy debates, deletion discussions, or other "project" related work. --Jayron32 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. This amount of instruction creep is more than ridiculous; it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that I ignore any rules that prevent me from making positive contributions. I'll agree not to get involved in "project" related work from this account as a habit, but if I happen to run across another page such as the one I tagged for MFD (a potential BLP violation, unnoticed for nearly three years), I will most likely tag it for deletion in the exact same manner. As for any "nefarious purposes", my actions will speak for themselves. If I act disruptively, I expect that appropriate action will be taken, whether or not I'm using a secondary account. --Ham Maritime (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It's clear you understand the rules, and I see no problems with your explanations here. I just wanted to be sure you were clear on how secondary accounts are supposed to work, I see nothing wrong with how this secondary account is being used as yet, and you seem to have no ill intents. If you could just state, for the record, that you do not currently have a blocked account (I don't even need to hear you say that you even have another account, just that you are not currently opperating under any kind of sanctions or blocks or bans), I would bother you no longer. --Jayron32 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that unfortunately complicates things. See you later, friend. --Ham Maritime (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now that wasn't very nice. Also, I don't see what's so "suspicious" about the way I found the userpage. I was watching recentchanges, saw the IP make a questionable edit to the page, saw a bunch of self-righteous fuckwits adding warning templates to the IP's talk page (without even considering the fact that the page the IP was editing shouldn't have existed in the first place), considered it, posted an MFD. Userpage was speedied, end of story. Are all Wikipedia admins as stupid and gullible as you are? And I called you "friend", even... --Ham Maritime (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that unfortunately complicates things. See you later, friend. --Ham Maritime (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It's clear you understand the rules, and I see no problems with your explanations here. I just wanted to be sure you were clear on how secondary accounts are supposed to work, I see nothing wrong with how this secondary account is being used as yet, and you seem to have no ill intents. If you could just state, for the record, that you do not currently have a blocked account (I don't even need to hear you say that you even have another account, just that you are not currently opperating under any kind of sanctions or blocks or bans), I would bother you no longer. --Jayron32 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. This amount of instruction creep is more than ridiculous; it is in the best interests of Wikipedia that I ignore any rules that prevent me from making positive contributions. I'll agree not to get involved in "project" related work from this account as a habit, but if I happen to run across another page such as the one I tagged for MFD (a potential BLP violation, unnoticed for nearly three years), I will most likely tag it for deletion in the exact same manner. As for any "nefarious purposes", my actions will speak for themselves. If I act disruptively, I expect that appropriate action will be taken, whether or not I'm using a secondary account. --Ham Maritime (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I do want to note that some uses of alternative accounts are against Wikipedia policy; such as avoiding blocks on other accounts or avoiding scrutiny against ones actions. If you are concerned about your privacy, it is good practice to send an email to WP:ARBCOM so that they can verify that your secondary account isn't being used for nefarious purposes. They can keep such information confidential, but it also lets you off the hook lest someone start accusing you of using alternative accounts in ways that are against the rules, you have proof that you are not if ArbCom can verify your identity, even if no one else can. I should also note that a second account is specifically forbidden from commenting in deletion debates, see WP:SOCK, second item under "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". It is expected that once you have established an account, you use your established account for editing in "the project space", which is anything outside of articles. Feel free to use this account to segregate edits to articles from your main account; that can be allowable. But please refrain from further comments at policy debates, deletion discussions, or other "project" related work. --Jayron32 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |