Oh well

I do feel this is rather sad. My indef. block has been upheld, by many of the folk who have upheld it all along. I've left a bunch of assertions on my talk page - but can't help feeling that one aspect of the complexity of the situation (with thanks to those who have pointed this out via email) is how incredibly hard it seems to be to get the variety of people who are very very sure that I should be banned to explain clearly and concisely (well actually, to explain at all!) why.

Lots of the worst aspect of community discussion - you know, the 'ol - this has all been discussed, and loads of non specific allusion to badness. My take is that some of these editors are responding (completely honestly) from their instincts, but that the perspective on which they chose to base their instincts is very flawed, and hasn't been constructed with any rigour. I'm afraid that's simply not right.

I certainly feel that the 'guilty until proven innocent' line that I took to be nonsense coming from so many quarters has rather more truth to it than is comfortable for a healthy community.

At the risk of banging on once more - I thought I'd drag out a couple of good points (made by good people), and a couple of bad ones...first, ElinorD responding to 'would you support a unblock with caveats' and someone having said 'No.';

Neither would I. He gave an assurance in the past to edit only from one account, and broke it. His gossip page, his excessively polite goading of Essjay, his constant stirring up of drama, show that he is not, and never was, here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. If he wants to appeal to ArbCom, he can email them. ElinorD (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the substantive issue of 'did I make an assurance, and break it?' - Elinor is correct, and is owed an explanation. I noticed that the people at Wikipedia Review had started discussing me (just chatting about which other editors I might be really) - and I saw that someone made the connection between Privatemusings and Purples. Having read reams from sources I had no reason not to trust about the 'poison' and 'filth' that goes on at that forum, I made a fairly snap (as in not particularly thought out) decision to make, I think, 2 more posts as 'Purples' in an attempt to cast at least a little doubt on that conclusion. I accept utterly, that my decision was a poor one, for many reasons. Now Slim, responding to a proposal from NewYorkBrad to unblock (again with caveats)........

Brad, I would not support the unblocking of this user. He has caused too much controversy, used too many accounts, and continues to insist he sees nothing controversial in his edits, which suggests the same behavior will continue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Slim continues to be an editor I respect alot - her contribution list is fearsome, and I think she does outstanding work. She also continues to make sense, because this post sums up the truth of the matter, or more specifically, the truth of her perspective, very very clearly. I have used three accounts, for reasons shared with many an admin over several weeks - these may well emerge further here. And particularly recently, I have certainly caused controversy. I absolutely don't deny these key points - and most importantly, I absolutely do see that my edits are controversial. Two broad responses; Firstly I have been genuinely suprised at how my desire to discuss sourcing has been received at 'Giovanni di Stefano' - see below for an edit that was deemed to require a page deletion - and secondly, I hope I have been very clear that my assertion is strongly that we have to have to have to at least discuss some kind of framework for how an article can be maintained and developed in that climate.

Sometimes I have felt Fred in particular to prefer to play the boss with his head in the sand....

Deciding whether a particular source is a reliable source is a matter of sound editorial judgment. Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it. Or posting about it to wiken, or to policy pages. If voluntary recognition of his limitations is not forthcoming, an indefinite ban would be appropriate. He says over and over that he doesn't understand, and I agree. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


The sound editorial judgment has led to every single source mentioning a qualifications issue, or a fraud conviction, being judged utterly unreliable. That Fred refuses to see this as surprising, or unusual, or worthy of discussion is odd. That he further uses that judgment as a basis for a recommendation for an indefinite ban is chilling. And a quick analysis of Durova's contribution - this is currently the most substantive analysis (in terms of diff.s and evidence) of the block rationale;

Normally I wouldn't take it upon myself to supply diffs for another administrator's block, but Privatemusings specifically asks for my input.[8] So I'll provide something brief. I full protected the Giovanni di Stefano article yesterday because it had been a locus of BLP concerns. Although I'm no expert in any legal system, common sense tells me to treat BLP issues conservatively. And if that isn't generally the way to handle things in some editors' views, a biography of a controversial legal professional is probably not the place to experiment with the outer limits of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. This was a normal and routine protection, yet Privatemusings tried to get the protection lifted repeatedly and implied on the article talk page that I didn't know what I was doing - before asking me anything about the decision.[9][10][11] One might suppose that Privatemusings would be more circumspect, particularly in light of the caution Fred Bauder delivered at WT:RS at about the same time: Privatemusings was approaching the level of disruption that merits an indefinite block, in Fred's opinion.[12] Then, having been blocked for BLP and sourcing issues, and the block already having been declined by another member of the arbitration committee, this editor renews the problem with a post that SlimVirgin steps in to refactor. I won't post those diffs here per WP:BEANS but they're in today's user talk history. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the sole post to date with any diff.s - and does contain the clear asssertioon that I have been blocked for disruption, and here are examples of the disruption. I thought I'd respond to it clearly. I think it's fair to boil Durova's reasoning for my indefinite block to the diff.s she provided - [9][10][11] - and herein lies the problem, because even now, I really really really find it hard to figure out why Durova believes that behaviour warrants an indefinite block.

Hey ho. Sorry for the dull long post - I console myself with the fact that the only person I'm really boring is myself!

PM