WARNING Do not prejudice Wikipedia process with false and irrelevant charges Jehochman you make an unsupportable charge of bad faith at that WP PRX This proposal was created and promoted via sock puppetry See Wikipedia Requests for checkuser Case Ron Duvall The page provides a phony illusion of support by four or five users who are actually just one or two at most Jehochman Talk This violates WP AGF policy As you know there were two users openly from the beginning working on this with a little help from some others I was one of these and certainly there were efforts of which you were aware to connect me with Sarsaparilla et al However it s blatantly obvious from the record that Sarsaparilla Ron Duvall Absidy are the same user obvious from the beginning no effort was made to conceal the identities it was acknowledged clear from our Talk conversations never denied and there was no sock puppet abuse The claim of phony illusion is true Read it literally At the point that sock puppetry charges arose Absidy wasn t an issue as I recall and Absidy was explicitly an account continuation from the beginning noted in the creation summary and on the user page There is no reason to believe that Absidy intended to create a phony show of support and indeed it would have been phenomenally stupid to do it He wanted and I want real support not phony support It makes no difference if there are two people working on a proposal or three or four and the idea would not have become a bad idea if it were two as it mostly was rather than three or four nor would it have become a good idea if there were ten or twenty Do not continue to make charges of bad faith unless you are prepared to not only support them in detail but also that making those charges is necessary because assumptions of bad faith disruptive particularly when expressed In any case do please be aware that your actions and continued actions in this matter are subject to review and that refusal to acknowledge and remedy the serious administrative error COI per arbitration involved in the block of Absidy could result in the loss of your administrative status and that continued claims of bad faith could result in more serious sanctions Please lift the block of Please lift the block on Absidy It is causing continued disruption which I think likely will increase if the block which is entirely contrary to precedent is continued If Absidy was blockable it can certainly be argued though even that would have been unusual as the record actually confirms then the block should have been done by other than you Admins don t block users for a perceived or real insult to them personally it s COI and that is a firm principle If continued block is warranted then another uninvolved administrator will surely step forward and take responsibility for it You protect yourself by 1 acknowledging the block error 2 fixing it and 3 avoiding continued assumptions of bad faith quite contrary to what the record shows what I know personally to be true the proposal was sincerely advanced for the welfare of the project and what will be confirmed I m sure in any fair ensuing process was not forced to resign under a cloud because of his COI block it was because he refused to acknowledge it and continued to defend it Absidy has not to my knowledge requested that the block be lifted and that account is apparently inaccessible to him but lifting the block will allow him to create a new account without fuss He is as you know continuing to sporadically edit Wikipedia though not disruptively and what has been called trolling was certainly innocuous Trolling is about intention and it is quite proper that the term be avoided for it requires an assumption of bad faith to make the claim It is impossible to troll in good faith