You made it rather clear that you have a secondary account. Have you notified ArbCom as to this account? I would suggest you do, as now that the knowledge is out about it, people are going to be poking about to see if you have caused problems on it that other admin have done before. You might want to head off any problems or concerns. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I never said -I- would look for it. I don't bother with such things. After all, I never knew that Geogre was Utgard Loki even though dozens of people said that it was obvious. However, I am telling you that you should probably protect yourself because once you make it clear that there is a secondary account, those like the people at WR with too much time on their hands will start searching. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
But the thing is in Geogre's case, people argued that it was not against policy and the account as used in the manner you claim you need to use one. And punishing everyone for the actions of a few happen all the time - look at protected pages. We are preventative, not punitive, so we make changes based on past actions to prevent them from the future. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The policy as of now makes it rather clear that if you have an account you must tell ArbCom at least. It is hard to take people's word, and AGF does not mean "trust people no matter what" after all. Ottava Rima ( talk)
When it was revealed that Geogre was using the sock, the wording came up and ArbCom verified it. The use in such a secret manner was inappropriate. Adminship is about trust, and it is impossible to trust someone who hides part of who they are and wont allow any scrutiny. Admin should be severely scrutinized as they can do serious damage as I can definitely testify to. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This is very interesting to me, I have been thinking about creating another account, this account is attracting vampires and users that have a grudge with me are all the time now mentioning my block record and attempting to use it against me. How many times recently could I cite you the comment, this user has been blocked before, I feel this is disrupting my enjoyment of editing and although I don't really want to totally leave this account, I would like to edit in other fields in a good way without the vampires following me where ever I go, could I use this account in the same way as you are chillum and stay within policy? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC) And without the need to notify anybody? Although I would be prepared to notify if policy dictates that. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok Durova, i'll take your advice on that, sometimes I feel in the minority in having one account and facing up to all my edits. By the way, your alt account is real cool. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks for commenting, I was looking from another angle, I was assuming two accounts going forward in a good way , that I would not be leaving my present account but that as I said this account has vampires and people with grudges against me, this fact and my well publicised block log is affecting my editing enjoyment and as I go forward with this account it is a fact that even if I go forward in a perfect manner it is compromised. I was suggesting creating another account and to use that in the specified alternative account way, in the same way that you are using another account, for annonimity, without crossover or sockpuppetry. I would be prepared to notify a checkuser as is recommended. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply
We're not fishing, we're editing wikipedia, if an editor has another account and uses it in a good way, to improve wikipedia then there is no problem, wikipedia AGF applies and it's all good, what I have worked out with sockpuppets of another user is that I don't treat them as socks, but rather as separate Users reflecting the many faceted personalities of the complex individual. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Chillum, hi, this is a followup to an earlier question, about your reverting and blocking one of the anons who was outing Law at his talkpage. I notice as I dig a bit deeper, that there was another incident, when Law granted multiple privileges to Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs), and you rapidly reverted him. [1] Perhaps this, too, should be added to your ArbCom statement? If nothing else, it shows another questionable use of admin tools by Law. I was thinking of including this information in my own statement, but it might look odd for me to point this out, when your own statement says nothing about it, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks, -- El on ka 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I was wondering, if you get a chance, to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Bot reported cases. HBC NameWatcherBot hasn't been updating over there in a while, not since I cleaned out all the cases a month or so ago. I tried reverting back to before I clearing the cases out over there, but to no avail. I'm kind of stumped here. Any help over there would be appreciated. Thank you, MuZemike 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi Chillum,
I was wondering if you could add the string "vandaI" (that's a capital "eye" instead of a lowercase "ell") to the watch list. In my reporting at UAA lately, I've noticed a lot of usernames using that string to get around the watch list for "vandal" spelled correctly. I've also noticed people using accented vowels (é, í, and Á especially) to get around the watch lists. Tckma ( talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I think we have a mutual friend. I'm not sure what it is about, but it does not feel pleasant. Perhaps a stray review er? I wouldn't know. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, Chillum. I don't think you should let yourself be driven off Wikipedia by the alternative account nonsense. Some people seem to have trouble understanding the distinction between undisclosed alternative accounts and socks ( = abusive alternative accounts). Don't take it to heart. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC). reply
You mentioned on the Talk:Virgin Killer page that this vandal Tile join ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will get tired and move on. I think you are wrong on this one. This fellow's on a Mission From God. He ain't stopping anytime soon. Auntie E. 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you for The Original Barnstar award! I still have further work to do on the Oath Keepers article. I also wish you the best in your own endeavors to improve the project. Varks Spira ( talk) 04:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Your behavior here was wildly inappropriate. You saw me talking to the closing admin. And where was the dialogue with me before you reverted me ("very least talk to the ... admin")? Completely out-of-line. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"having an edit of yours reverted is something happens sometimes on Wikipedia". I believe the proper term for that is straw man. A closing admin wouldn't take their own closure to DRV. That much is painfully obvious. If they realize the closure is in error, they should simply revert it. Why Hersfold is refusing to is simply beyond me. Your behavior, though, was beyond the pale and you should be ashamed. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, since you're active admin at this time, would you care to look into this IP vandal's trolling? 123.224.179.215 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Since today is Sunday, AIV seems slow. [2]. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, the BLP vandalism with non-existent sources by the IP troll is still ongoging.-- Caspian blue 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply
No need for this on Malleus's page. I'm here to discuss block reviews. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
How did you hear about this one?-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sure Ottava's had a week's block coming to him at some point - but really? A week for that???? But really the point is Block review is supposed to be an impartial review of another admins actions. As you are self avowed hardliner of civility enforcement, does it not strike you that reviewing civility blocks might be a tad compromising for you. Not to mention unfair for the blockee? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Clarification before response "I have been no more of a hardliner on this policy than any other" - any other policy or any other admin? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost.
You made it rather clear that you have a secondary account. Have you notified ArbCom as to this account? I would suggest you do, as now that the knowledge is out about it, people are going to be poking about to see if you have caused problems on it that other admin have done before. You might want to head off any problems or concerns. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I never said -I- would look for it. I don't bother with such things. After all, I never knew that Geogre was Utgard Loki even though dozens of people said that it was obvious. However, I am telling you that you should probably protect yourself because once you make it clear that there is a secondary account, those like the people at WR with too much time on their hands will start searching. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
But the thing is in Geogre's case, people argued that it was not against policy and the account as used in the manner you claim you need to use one. And punishing everyone for the actions of a few happen all the time - look at protected pages. We are preventative, not punitive, so we make changes based on past actions to prevent them from the future. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The policy as of now makes it rather clear that if you have an account you must tell ArbCom at least. It is hard to take people's word, and AGF does not mean "trust people no matter what" after all. Ottava Rima ( talk)
When it was revealed that Geogre was using the sock, the wording came up and ArbCom verified it. The use in such a secret manner was inappropriate. Adminship is about trust, and it is impossible to trust someone who hides part of who they are and wont allow any scrutiny. Admin should be severely scrutinized as they can do serious damage as I can definitely testify to. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This is very interesting to me, I have been thinking about creating another account, this account is attracting vampires and users that have a grudge with me are all the time now mentioning my block record and attempting to use it against me. How many times recently could I cite you the comment, this user has been blocked before, I feel this is disrupting my enjoyment of editing and although I don't really want to totally leave this account, I would like to edit in other fields in a good way without the vampires following me where ever I go, could I use this account in the same way as you are chillum and stay within policy? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC) And without the need to notify anybody? Although I would be prepared to notify if policy dictates that. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Ok Durova, i'll take your advice on that, sometimes I feel in the minority in having one account and facing up to all my edits. By the way, your alt account is real cool. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks for commenting, I was looking from another angle, I was assuming two accounts going forward in a good way , that I would not be leaving my present account but that as I said this account has vampires and people with grudges against me, this fact and my well publicised block log is affecting my editing enjoyment and as I go forward with this account it is a fact that even if I go forward in a perfect manner it is compromised. I was suggesting creating another account and to use that in the specified alternative account way, in the same way that you are using another account, for annonimity, without crossover or sockpuppetry. I would be prepared to notify a checkuser as is recommended. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply
We're not fishing, we're editing wikipedia, if an editor has another account and uses it in a good way, to improve wikipedia then there is no problem, wikipedia AGF applies and it's all good, what I have worked out with sockpuppets of another user is that I don't treat them as socks, but rather as separate Users reflecting the many faceted personalities of the complex individual. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Chillum, hi, this is a followup to an earlier question, about your reverting and blocking one of the anons who was outing Law at his talkpage. I notice as I dig a bit deeper, that there was another incident, when Law granted multiple privileges to Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs), and you rapidly reverted him. [1] Perhaps this, too, should be added to your ArbCom statement? If nothing else, it shows another questionable use of admin tools by Law. I was thinking of including this information in my own statement, but it might look odd for me to point this out, when your own statement says nothing about it, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks, -- El on ka 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I was wondering, if you get a chance, to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Bot reported cases. HBC NameWatcherBot hasn't been updating over there in a while, not since I cleaned out all the cases a month or so ago. I tried reverting back to before I clearing the cases out over there, but to no avail. I'm kind of stumped here. Any help over there would be appreciated. Thank you, MuZemike 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi Chillum,
I was wondering if you could add the string "vandaI" (that's a capital "eye" instead of a lowercase "ell") to the watch list. In my reporting at UAA lately, I've noticed a lot of usernames using that string to get around the watch list for "vandal" spelled correctly. I've also noticed people using accented vowels (é, í, and Á especially) to get around the watch lists. Tckma ( talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I think we have a mutual friend. I'm not sure what it is about, but it does not feel pleasant. Perhaps a stray review er? I wouldn't know. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, Chillum. I don't think you should let yourself be driven off Wikipedia by the alternative account nonsense. Some people seem to have trouble understanding the distinction between undisclosed alternative accounts and socks ( = abusive alternative accounts). Don't take it to heart. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC). reply
You mentioned on the Talk:Virgin Killer page that this vandal Tile join ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will get tired and move on. I think you are wrong on this one. This fellow's on a Mission From God. He ain't stopping anytime soon. Auntie E. 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you for The Original Barnstar award! I still have further work to do on the Oath Keepers article. I also wish you the best in your own endeavors to improve the project. Varks Spira ( talk) 04:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Your behavior here was wildly inappropriate. You saw me talking to the closing admin. And where was the dialogue with me before you reverted me ("very least talk to the ... admin")? Completely out-of-line. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
"having an edit of yours reverted is something happens sometimes on Wikipedia". I believe the proper term for that is straw man. A closing admin wouldn't take their own closure to DRV. That much is painfully obvious. If they realize the closure is in error, they should simply revert it. Why Hersfold is refusing to is simply beyond me. Your behavior, though, was beyond the pale and you should be ashamed. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, since you're active admin at this time, would you care to look into this IP vandal's trolling? 123.224.179.215 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Since today is Sunday, AIV seems slow. [2]. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 17:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, the BLP vandalism with non-existent sources by the IP troll is still ongoging.-- Caspian blue 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply
No need for this on Malleus's page. I'm here to discuss block reviews. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
How did you hear about this one?-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sure Ottava's had a week's block coming to him at some point - but really? A week for that???? But really the point is Block review is supposed to be an impartial review of another admins actions. As you are self avowed hardliner of civility enforcement, does it not strike you that reviewing civility blocks might be a tad compromising for you. Not to mention unfair for the blockee? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Clarification before response "I have been no more of a hardliner on this policy than any other" - any other policy or any other admin? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost.