User talk:123.2.168.215

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This IP address resolved to 123-2-168-215.static.dsl.dodo.com.au as of 24 July 2007, 17:17 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Zordrac.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Contents

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Crystal Palace (chat site), was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Shinhan < talk > 14:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Just for the record, this was actually not vandalism, and was in fact merging an article in to talker, as part of the merge that about 10 other articles ended up being a part of, but this one for some reason was incorrectly un-merged.

However, I've since discovered that someone has redone the talker article such that it is much shorter, and does not include any of the material that was merged over, hence I have now unmerged everything, including this one.

I just wanted to point this out, as it looks like I was mistakingly thought to be engaging in vandalism. 123.2.168.215 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forking from Citizendium

Hey, there! I noticed an edit summary you just used implied you were "forking" some content from Citizendium. I haven't looked into this, too closely, but the last I'd heard, Citizendium hasn't specified the terms of their licensing, which would make it very difficult for us to be sure if their licensing is GFDL-compatible or otherwise suited to use on Wikipedia. Perhaps you have more recent or otherwise better news than I do. If the article on CZ was originally forked from Wikipedia, then presumably it would still be under GFDL, but it may be best if we wait a bit and see what license(s) they settle on. Just my two cents. This isn't a warning or anything at all of that nature, I just happened to notice since RC patrollers tend to spot large removals or additions of text. ;) In any case, cheers, and thanks for the effort! – Luna Santin (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy blanking

Please do not edit Arbitration case pages after the case has closed. The Committee or Jimbo handles these requests. Take care, FloNight 16:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded to this on your talk page. I'm not sure what the protocol is. In this page or on your talk page. It seems to me its better in your talk page, but who knows.

As I said, I was fulfilling Jimbo's requests. However, I will leave it up to you to restore the courtesy blankings, as I don't want to get in to one of those revert wars I hear about. 123.2.168.215 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at all your comment on Jimbo's talk page before I reverted your edits. I did not see Jimbo asking you to do it. Jimbo discussed the courtesy blanking with the Arbitration Committee. At this time I do not see the need to expand the blanking to other pages without further discussion. Please do not edit arbitration case pages after cases are closed. FloNight 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User pages of banned users

There is no need for any content on the user page of a banned user other than the notice that they are banned from editing, and other administrative notices such as that they have engaged in sockpuppetry. Why are you doing that? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really intended to be nasty. It is, however, intended for it to stand out to anyone visiting that page that the user is banned, which is most clear if the page consists only of the ban notice and any other necessary administrative material. Since banned users are not meant to be active editors, the normal purpose of a userpage (to assist in collaboration) would not apply. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not really up to me, but they're welcome to email the ArbCom if they want that done. And actually, the replacement of the user page with the ban notice is specifically sanctioned, see Wikipedia:Banning policy#User pages. In many cases, however, banned users attempt to return using sockpuppets, so it is often helpful to have a record of their previous behavior patterns. (And if someone had discussed the matter extensively elsewhere, what would be the purpose of having everything here memory-holed anyway?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they're socks of any other banned user, or even necessarily "Rachel Brown" (I wasn't even involved with that one). And really, does it matter if we say X is a sock of Y or Y is a sock of X? The idea here is "These two accounts were operated by the same person." I investigated the Runcorn case myself pretty extensively, and I found every indication that the accounts are indeed operated by the same person. It doesn't matter if they're anyone else, all the accounts were used to votestack and revert war, and you can't do that. (And if you think I always agree with Kelly Martin, well, I'm afraid that's not so!) The investigation done recently had nothing to do with KM's checkuser, so what you've got there is old news and not relevant to the current case. (As to Wikiabuse, well...riiiiiiight, given some of the stuff I've seen on there, I'm about as inclined to believe them as I am the cover story of the Weekly World News.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohmynnews in Wikipedia Scanner

I'm sorry, but ohmynews is not commonly regarded as a reliable source. Its story on SlimVirgin, for instance, has not been confirmed or even discussed in any independent, reliable news media. I see that you have changed your own story, from saying that WP Scanner was funded by Wikipedia to now asserting that it was funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. The two entities are not the same. What reliable sources do you have to indicate that one and not the other (or either) funded WP Scanner?

Also, I don't have to provide sources that WP Scanner was not funded by either Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation or both, because I'm making no assertions about who funded it. You are the editor who has made two different assertions about its funding and backed neither with reliable sources. Please provide those sources. We have to be extra-careful about reliable sourcing in this high-profile article. Thank you. Casey Abell 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether the author of the ohnymews article on Wikipedia Scanner has any expertise on the Lockerbie bombing is totally irrelevant to WP Scanner. I also haven't seen any pickup of the supposed "SlimVirgin scandal" by any reliable sources. But the key issue on Wikipedia Scanner is simple: have any independent, reliable sources reported that either of your speculations (WP Scanner funded by Wikipedia, or WP Scanner funded by the Wikimedia Foundation) are correct? If not, both speculations should be removed from the article. Casey Abell 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this comment of yours on my talk page: "Someone from the Wikimedia foundation made the correction that it was WMF, not Wikipedia, which of course would be accurate, since WMF is the funding body. I didn't make these assertions." appears to be false. This diff shows that the change from "Wikipedia" to the "Wikimedia Foundation" was made from your IP address. Casey Abell 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be very good at spreading Disinformation, Casey. Such comments as this remark you left on my talk page are not helpful. I don't want to get into a dispute with you or any other Wikipedia editor. We just have to be careful about reliable sourcing, especially on high-profile articles like Wikipedia Scanner. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. Casey Abell 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I demonstrated, it is a reliable source, and removing a particular source just because you don't like the content is wrong. You know perfectly well its not the source itself, as it is reputable. A week ago it was convenient for Wikipedia to claim that Slashdot was an attack site, not because it actually was, but because it had printed verifiable information about a Wikipedia editor. Now you are trying to hide the fact that Wikipedia created the Wikipedia Scanner to divert attention away from its wrongdoing. Information such as this is very relevant, and it doesn't help Wikipedia to continually cover up such things. 123.2.168.215 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from User:Jehochman

Welcome!

Hello, 123.2.168.215, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Jehochman Talk 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful of POV Pushing and COI

Hi, please don't add extraordinary claims to Wikipedia unless you have a qualified source. A community generated news site from Korea isn't a good source for American technology and Internet news. - Jehochman Talk 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your tendentiousness in pushing this source leads me to feel that the following message may be applicable in your case:

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will be careful of POV pushing. Such things as removing verifiable sources from articles purely on the basis that you don't like what they say is very much POV pushing. I was trying to avoid that. Thanks for pointing that out. 123.2.168.215 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I noticed this edit

Sorry there, I didn't check what page it was, just the IP address, because 99% of the time there's no user page. And I'm not an administrator, but there's plenty out there. The only other "excuse" I have is that I wanted you to keep it instead of removing it, so then you could put it in it's place. Lastly, the previous users who wrote text above led me into thinking that was the talk page. Again, sorry. --Hasek is the best 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

User:Sarah thought up a good way to get the whole "Wikipedia is censoring things" avenue out of Wikipedia. She blocked me! Found for herself someone to accuse me of being a sock puppet of, and ran with that. I'm sure that it has absolutely *nothing* to do with the sourced statements I was adding, or your fear that it may reach major media attention. Censorship on top of censorship on top of censorship on top of censorship, with a few lies thrown in here and there to try to pretend that it's not really censorship.

And you wonder why everyone thinks that Wikipedia is controlled by the CIA? 123.2.168.215 17:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What rubbish. I tried to engage you in conversation regarding this IP but you refused. Twice. Sarah 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Typical CIA disinformation talk. You saw me adding in the information that the Virgil Griffith was hired by Wikimedia foundation to create the Wikipedia scanner, and you saw the amount of media attention that this was getting, especially when Wikimedia employee User:Vishal-WMF censored it, which is currently Wired's number 1 censorship story: http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame/ and you went in to damage control mode. Or, wait, this is merely one enormous coincidence! Perhaps you are one of the 297 CIA members who edited Wikipedia in the past year? 123.2.168.215 17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's not correct. I saw a report about you on WP:COIN and I reviewed it. I noticed some edits in your history that made me think you might be Blissyu2, so I came here and asked you straight up and you dodged the question. So I asked you again and you declined to answer. That's it. There isn't a CIA or ASIO conspiracy behind every single person or every single action, you know. Sarah 18:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you put in an unblock template? I'll put one in if I figure it out. You haven't given any evidence of your suspicions at all. Just that you like to cover things up. Besides which, User:Internodeuser isn't banned, so why would I be banned as a sock puppet if the other account isn't banned? That seems rather, shall you say, odd? 123.2.168.215 18:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, User:Jehochman thinks that I am Ludwig de Braeckeleer, who can't speak English. Interesting theory there Jehochman. Pretty incredible conspiracy theory really. 123.2.168.215 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently at 71-14, still number 1 story. So 71-14 people think that this was censorship. Is that enough to warrant an unblock? They don't seem to think that there is any merit to the claims that it is an unreliable source. Sorry, 14 people do. Let me think. That'd be Sarah, Jehochman, the WMF employee, and a few others on Wikipedia who are keen on censoring the article. Everyone else agrees with me, it seems.

Heck, at least I only got a 1 week block, eh? People who dared to ask SlimVirgin why she was being spread all over the mass media got indef blocks. Phew, I sure am lucky!

Where's that censorship button? On the left or the right hand side of your screen? Do I get one if I create an account? 123.2.168.215 18:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that they are saying on Wikipedia's IRC channel that they should "sink" the wired article? Just to justify my block? Well, Sarah, you'll get great credit for this block! Well done! Good effort in censoring this one! 123.2.168.215 18:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

116-35 now. Still number 1 story. Gosh. I wonder what they all must be thinking, at banning for 1 week the person that tried to add it. Must be thinking how they are going to such pains to censor things that they are censoring someone who tried to expose the censorship! http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame/ 123.2.168.215 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to add the block link here, in case someone might stumble upon this page, from you know, Wired, or any of the millions of major media sources running stories on this that might stumble upon that. You know, like BBC and stuff. Those pesky rascals! Anyway, here's my block log, BBC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:123.2.168.215 Just in case you want to run a story on how Wikipedia likes to censor people who have tried to expose their censorship! 123.2.168.215 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So much paranoia, conspiracy theory and downright false claims. I think you might be underestimating the BBC and overestimating their interest in this IP block. Anyway, I tried to treat you decently and came here and straight up asked you if you were the community banned user Blissyu2/Zordrac/Internodeuser rather that instantly blocking your IP without discussion for 12 months or something, and you dodged the questions. I asked again and you declined to answer. The funny thing is, I am familiar with this case and have read a huge amount of material, both on and off-WP, and while Blissyu2 may sometimes be seriously misguided and mistaken, I never found him to be deliberately dishonest. And if you had simply answered my question and either denied or confirmed my suspicion, I would have believed you. As for what people were talking about in IRC, that has nothing to do with me. I don't use and never have used IRC and I disagree with many things that have emanated out of IRC discussions. If you could control your conspiracy theory ideology and unfair accusations, you might find that you'd reach a meeting of the minds with more people here. Sarah 02:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wired News has now published a lie, so that story will fail now. Congratulations Sarah. 123.2.168.215 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So let me get this straight

You allege, based on nothing, that I am really User:Internodeuser, a user who was banned, but it expired over a year ago, and the account is no longer actively used. Even if I was that user, you haven't described why that warrants any kind of a ban, as according to WP:SOCK its okay to have 2 accounts so long as they aren't used at the same time. And you based your belief that I was User:Internodeuser because you felt that User:Jehochman's assertion that I was really Ludwig de Braeckeleer, an investigative journalist for Ohmynews, was ridiculous, given that Ludwig is from Belgium and doesn't speak English.

So I haven't done anything against any of Wikipedia's rules, you know that the claims that I was breaching the WP:COI policy is bogus, but you block me because you decided to make unfounded accusations and I decided to wipe them from my page.

Is that correct?

As opposed to what seems like the rather more obvious reason, which you insist is a *coincidence*, which is that Wikipedia doesn't want the story that they hired Virgil Griffith to create Wikipedia Scanner to be in Wikipedia, and you wanted the whole thing to be neatly covered up.

So you're insisting, absolutely, and everyone else agrees, that your banning me for a week has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with censorship. Yeah, because censorship doesn't happen on Wikipedia, right? That's why the current biggest news article on Wikipedia is all about proof of Wikipedia's censorship and bias. 123.2.168.215 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I got it wrong, sorry

I have noticed that Ludwig de Braeckeleer has now retracted his statement that Virgil Griffith was paid by the Wikimedia foundation to create the Wikipedia scanner, here:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=428814

"On July 26, OhmyNews alleged that Wikipedia may have been infiltrated by Intelligence Agencies. The story attracted more than 50,000 readers in just three days, was highly debated on the Web, and translated in several languages.(*)"

and

"(*) This article has been revised."

I am very disappointed at this. If Ludwig and/or Ohmynews was manipulated and forced in to making a retraction, he shouldn't have done it. He shouldn't have backed down.

If he made a mistake, he should have had some kind of an explanation as to why. It really led to a lot of people being taken for a ride.

I feel very upset with this, that I believed it, and thought that the whole thing was serious. Whilst User:Sarah claims that the ban was for someone else, its obvious that I got a ban because of getting conned by Ludwig. This has the effect of sweeping things under the carpet even more. It is very upsetting.

Ludwig has lost any kind of integrity he had developed with his coverage of the SlimVirgin scandal, or the Lockerbie bombing or anything else, and it puts his entire journalistic integrity in to question.

So incredibly irresponsible.

I also note that Virgil Griffith says that he wasn't paid by WMF, and that WMF has (unofficially) said so too, and that Wired (magazine) says that it was a fake statement.

Now I look like a fool because I believed someone who it seems has no integrity.

Anyway I guess that's all that I have to say.

I am sorry for falling for this.

123.2.168.215 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "No good reason given for block, no evidence that I was the alias of any other user. User:Internodeuser is not a banned user, and is also an inactive user, hence is not a violation of WP:SOCK even if it was true. WP:HARASS states that people are not required to answer all questions of them, and it can never be grounds for a block. Suggested "real" reason for block, that of including information from Ohmynews article that had suggested that the creator of the Wikipedia Scanner, Virgil Griffith, was paid by Wikipedia, has been proven false and I have acknowledged that it is false. I had thought that it was true, and did not deliberately add in false evidence. Allegations of WP:COI, that I was ever Ludwig de Braeckeleer, has also been proven to be false. There are many accusations that have been made against me on Wikipedia which are not true, that I would like to be able to respond to. I didn't do anything against any of Wikipedia's rules, please unblock me 123.2.168.215 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The general impression generated by the discussion below is that of a user trying to evade their ban or block. — Sandstein 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

P.S. Sorry if I messed up how you do this. It took me a while to find an unblock template somewhere and to copy it. I've never used the template before. I hope its okay. 123.2.168.215 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you Internodeuser (talk · contribs), or not? If not, what is the name of your user account? You are clearly an experienced user, so you must have an account. Sandstein 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think I am experienced? Because I couldn't figure out how to use the unblock template? Or because I'd commented on Wikipedia issues that are in the mass media? 123.2.168.215 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
<after ec>If you are simply interested in Wikipedia and the mass media, why did you vandalise the the arbcom pages on Internodeuser, [1] [2] and then months later come back and blank them with the edit summary "user request" [3] [4] [5] [6] and why did you add information to Blissyu2's userpage [7]? You also complained to Fred Bauder about his website's coverage of Wikipedia Review [8] which is something Blissyu2/Zordrac was complaining about and threatening legal action over (here for example), and pointed him to a Wikipedia Review blog post you'd (Blissyu2/Zordrac) made about it. You also edited the Port Arthur massacre and Martin Bryant articles,[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] the very articles that led to Blissyu2's arbitration, editing in comments such as your claims that Martin Bryant was "allegedly" guilty (despite him pleading guilty and being convicted) and that he was "told" to confess. As seen in the history of the Martin Bryant and Port Arthur massacre articles and talk pages, the ArbCom case and Blissyu2's edits on other sites (and for admins Port Arthur massacre theories) and this AfD where he nominated his own conspiracy for AfD as an "article for keeping", he is convinced there is a Port Arthur massacre conspiracy, that he had information on the "real" murderer but was dismissed by the police when he tried to pass on information, and that Martin Bryant was set up. Here you point to this 18 month old ANI discussion which Blissyu2's confessed sockpuppet Zordrac was a significant contributor to. Also, you edited the article "Meredith" [17] as well as the article on Louisa Anne Meredith, an English/Australian writer who lived in Tasmania, where you used the edit summary "i removed a bit that didn't make sense. btw there's a heap of stuff about her, and our whole family in paper archives that isn't on the internet anywhere" [18]. Now, do you want me to state your real surname and where your family is from or are you done trolling us? Sarah 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh boy, you are suggesting saying someone's real name, and trying to hurt them in real life? Doesn't Wikipedia ban people for this? That's just absurd. I can't believe that they let people like you become administrators. 123.2.168.215 01:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't use Internode, ergo I am not User:Internodeuser. Its a different IP range. Different end of the country. I could be User:Dodouser I guess. But no, I don't have an account at the moment. I am just curious about Wikipedia and it being in the mass media. You can see all of my contributions have been related to issues that have been mentioned in the mass media. 123.2.168.215 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
<after ec> Before blocking, I asked twice here if he was Blissyu2/Internodeuser/Zordrac and he declined to answer and then repeatedly deleted the question. It is true that two years ago he used the Internode ISP but I've read that he's changed ISP since then. The fact is you (IP) were asked up front and had the opportunity to confirm or deny and you refused to do so. That you no longer use Internode does not mean you aren't Blissyu2/Internodeuser/Zordrac. If you want to appeal to return to Wikipedia, as you suggest here, then there is a way to do that and we can help you with it but evading the blocks on your account is not the way to do it. Sarah 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this harassment. The user is not even banned, so what's the hassle? I don't know why you're doing this, just to bother someone you've never even met before. It's really an ugly thing to do. 123.2.168.215 01:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What harassment? You've complained repeatedly that I have not presented evidence supporting my allegation that you are Internodeuser/Blissyu2/Zordrac, so I'm giving you that evidence. You can't have it both ways. You are community banned because you are indefinitely blocked (your block logs say "for obvious reasons" - presumably for running an attack site) and it was discussed extensively on ANI and no admin saw fit to unblock you. A lot has happened since the original Arb Com ban. Sarah 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll wait out the week then. Hrm. It just seemed to me like harassment from User:Sarah when I hadn't done anything wrong and she is suddenly shoving sock puppet allegations at me that has nothing to do with anything, as it isn't even a banned user or a breach of WP:SOCK anyway. It just seemed like she was fishing for an excuse to ban me so that the whole Wiki Scanner thing could be spun in a different way. I felt very much harassed at that. A lot of people feel that being accused of sock puppetry is akin to the old witchcraft accusations, and is just used as a tool to get rid of an opponent. That the accusation was totally nonsensical and based on nothing, but still let to a block is beyond ridiculous. I feel very much like it was used to try to get an excuse for a block, just because people didn't like what I was trying to add. There was no rule about adding in sourced material, and so they fished. Was I breaching conflict of interest because I was secretly working for Ohmynews? No. Darn it, can't use that excuse. Was it unsourced? No. Darn it, can't use that excuse. Was it perhaps an unreliable source? No. Darn it, can we find some excuse to get rid of this? Oh I know, let's pretend they are a sock puppet! There, that'll get rid of the problem. Is that the way that things generally work around here? You want to write things in a certain way, so if you disagree with someone, then you try to fish for an excuse to stop them? 123.2.168.215 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, User:Zordrac was a 2nd account used by User:Internodeuser, and by definition was not a sock puppet account (see WP:SOCK) as they weren't used at the same time, so calling it a "confessed sock puppet account" is very much a false statement. There was no overlap in edits. The account Internodeuser is not banned, but the account Zordrac was made in to an indef ban by User:SlimVirgin against community consensus, after admin noticeboard cleared him of any wrongdoing, an odd decision to say the least. The account User:Blissyu2 does not appear to be related to either of them, and appears to be a doppleganger account that was created by someone to impersonate him, as it was an account used on Wikipedia Review forums.

Abusive threats to "out" people, when you are not even talking about a banned user in the first place, and you can't say a single thing that is against any of Wikipedia's rules is just simply abhorrent and a severe abuse of power. I don't know what rules Wikipedia might have to cover such things, but I'm quite certain that its not acceptable behaviour, and grounds for User:Sarah to get banned. So please retract it, and don't force these nasty statements to remain here.

Why don't you unban all of these obviously unfairly banned accounts and then start from there? And then find that your accusations of sock puppetry have zero basis. 123.2.168.215 01:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Zordrac" is a sockpuppet because it is an account which was used to edit while Internodeuser was under an ArbCom ban. I won't retract anything. I have stated the truth and supported it with diffs. Sarah 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Zordrac was used to evade a ban at all. The ban wasn't even in effect while he was editing. He's said many times on Wikipedia Review that he got permission to edit using Zordrac after an apology from User:Longhair, who got him banned after an edit dispute that they had. They both edited happily together on Peter Falconio disappearance so what makes you think that it was used to evade anything at all? User:SlimVirgin made a decision completely against community consensus, then protected the page to prevent any kind of discussion. If you look at User:Zordrac/Poetlister, you'll see that it wasn't an attack page at all, but was an effort to try to clear User:Poetlister from unfounded accusations of sock puppetry. And that page did result in the affected users being cleared, although later, when the page was deleted, they were banned again. Now if you think that all of this admin abuse by User:SlimVirgin somehow justifies a block which seems absurd in every possible way, then I don't know what on earth you are doing. If you then think that it justifies harassment, and threats to out someone, then you are wrong, quite simply. It doesn't. If you are trying to threaten me and scare me away from ever having anything to do with Wikipedia, then I think you're a horrible, horrible person. You should be welcoming people to Wikipedia, not threatening them. 123.2.168.215 01:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And if you're trying to say CONFESS! CONFESS THAT YOU ARE THIS SOCK! AND THEN I WILL UNBLOCK YOU! then fine, okay here you go I'll say whatever you want me to say if you'll let me edit Wikipedia and clear my name of all of these phony claims that people are making over at Wikipedia Scanner and Virgil Griffith, and indeed over at WP:COIN about me. It all reminds me of the Salem Witch trials a fair bit though. But hey, if you promise to actually free me, I'll say whatever you like. Will you do that though? Or will you use the false confession to make an indef ban? 123.2.168.215 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to respond to that fully or look up the diffs except to say that Zordrac was a sock of Internodeuser and Longhair was not aware of this when they were editing together. When Zordrac was first accused of being and Internodeuser sock on ANI, Longhair was disbelieving and said he didn't know unconvinced but had previously had suspicions. Notably, Longhair was the one who indefintely blocked Blissyu2 as a "Sockpuppet of banned user User:Internodeuser" [[19]]. As for my "threat" to "out" you, my question, "do you want me to state your real surname and where your family is from or are you done trolling us?," was obviously intended as a rhetorical question. Sarah 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop deleting this section. You are trying to trick an innocent admin into unblocking you by removing all the evidence I've cited. If you do that again, I will protect this page until another admin comes to review the unblock request to ensure all this evidence is available to them. Sarah 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Also you state in the unblock request, "Allegations of WP:COI, that I was ever Ludwig de Braeckeleer, has also been proven to be false." I never accused you of having a COI or of being Ludwig de Braeckeleer. User:Jehochman did raise this possibility on COIN but I told him immediately that I was fairly certain that this was not the case and that you were in fact Blissyu2/Internodeuser/Zordrac. [20]I feel you are being very misleading. You also wrote, "There are many accusations that have been made against me on Wikipedia which are not true". I am not aware of any other accusations and I personally have accused you of one thing and one thing only and that is that you are the person who operated the Blissyu2/Internodeuser/Zordrac accounts. Sarah 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I said above that "When Zordrac was first accused of being and Internodeuser sock on ANI, Longhair was disbelieving and said he didn't know." This is not correct. Longhair wrote on ANI: "...Initially I thought editing patterns between Zordrac and Internodeuser were similar, however I've had no reason to take anything further. I'm not convinced without supporting evidence that Internodeuser and Zordrac are one and the same..." but then more evidence was provided and in another message the following day, Longhair wrote "I'm now convinced also." [21] Sorry about that error. Sarah 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to this any further. My knowledge is that User:Longhair was very much aware and had given permission, but it seems that this evidence was never on-wiki. Regardless, you have not presented any rationale to block me as a sock, even if it was true. Do you say to someone "Oh, I see this account that hasn't been used for 2 years and isn't banned - I think that might be you (with no evidence) - so I'll ban you because I want you to return back to that account"? Its even more absurd to do it to an IP address that is used by a number of people. I've only had this account for a few days anyway, so I don't know who used it before that. I can just switch off this computer and have another Dodo address. Or use a different computer. This isn't even my computer! My computer doesn't even have internet attached yet. It will in a few days though. So will you ban that one too? Or ban anyone who uses this? It just seems like it is going from absurd to ridiculous. There are only 2 valid reasons for banning someone if you think that they are a 2nd account - 1) If you think that they are manipulating voting or 2) If you think that they are evading a ban. Neither of these is relevant in this case.

Your whole case relates to your harassing me, which is not on. I am not going to write any more on this, I'll sit out the 7 day block, and then hopefully you'll leave me alone after that. 123.2.168.215 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internodeuser

Please note that as per unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, this IP address is confirmed to belong to Internodeuser. --Yamla 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an extension to the above note, User:Internodeuser is AKA User:Blissyu2 AKA User:Zordrac who was indefinitely banned for running an attack site. See note made on User talk:Zordrac by the administrator who implemented the ban on 1 March 2007. Sarah 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your email

I received your email:

From: "Zordrac"
To: "Sarah"
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:06 AM
Subject: False accusations by you

Thank you, but I am really not interested in your blogs/essays/posts/whatever. If you have something you wish to say to me that will give me "an idea of what is really going on," then please feel free to tell me, however, you will have to tell me either here on Wikipedia or via email, as I have no intention of going to WR to read essays and such. If, what you say is correct, and I have made "false accusations," then please point them out and I will happily retract and apologise. Sarah 02:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)