Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PoolGuy (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 4 June 2006 (Beans?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Multiple Accounts

Based upon the evidence the creation of many multiple accounts cited in the case was the result of Administrative blocking, not an effort for disruption. The multiple accounts, as presented, were only established to get a response to the basis of Administrative action against GoldToeMarionette. Had the response ever been delivered, further inquiries would not have been needed. It appears that the non-response, and incessant Administrative action created the perceived disruption. I don't think multiple accounts in and of themselves should be viewed as disruptive, there is a tremendous amount of context caused by other parties. PoolGuy 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with remedy

I disagree with the proposed remedy. Suggesting that PoolGuy be limited to one account implies that something inappropriate happened with the use of multiple accounts. Absent policy violations, multiple accounts are just that, and need not be remedied. Suggesting that PoolGuy is to receive additional Administrative action just for creating another account in the future (absent any policy violation) is unfair. GoldToeMarionette was blocked simply for being a multiple account. This proposed remedy simply reinforces the initial improper administrative action of punishing a user for having another account, absent policy violations.

The remedy contradicts WP:SOCK which allows multiple accounts provided they don't violate policy. A remedy approved by ArbCom to permit blocking a user simply for having another account will give free reign to Admins to block users even if there is no policy violation. Android79 submitting GoldToeMarionette for a checkuser without policy violation, Jayjg completing the checkuser without policy violation, and Hall Monitor blocking GoldToeMarionette without a policy violation was bad enough. If ArbCom approves this remedy, then WP:SOCK will become a policy that no one follows. If the Administrators of Misplaced Pages do not have to follow established Misplaced Pages Policy, then hypocrisy will dominate and users will lose faith in the project. PoolGuy 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Beans

Those of you that have been going through this probably have realized that I actually read policies and other associated pages to understand what is going on, including the numerous baseless accusations of policy violations. I have also read and reread WP:BEANS. What on earth does this have to do with anything?

I understand the point of the story is: not to suggest an action for fear that someone may actually do it, even if they had not thought of it before. What I do not see is the relevance. This appears to be reference to action that Administrators take, based upon its frequent usage .

My assumption is that Nlu, and other Admins associated with this fiasco, have been telling people 'not to stuff beans up their noses'. Since, again, I actually read this stuff, this seems the best interpretation. Now even though Nlu said "You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least." I did not go out and start personally attacking users, or violate 3rr, or work to demonstrate a point.

It appears that this 'Proposed principle' therefore relates to the Admins associated with this RfA. I then ask, where is the 'Proposed remedy' to correct those who are running around Misplaced Pages yelling 'Beans!'?