" 

 == 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.   "