Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul Barlow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing, this person really has a vengeance: by try and error I also found another Rokus10 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)[1]. Still, Schonken (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) is obviously not a main account. I figured Paul Barlow was behind all of this, basically for having made the impression to have assumed the role of Schonken once without knowing he was still logged on as Paul Barlow (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser). In particular I refer, like already exposed in the ANI, to the following succession of edits:

  1. Schonken: [2]
  2. Me: [3], a revert explained thus: "Violation of WP:AGF reverted. The article is sufficiently sourced and can be verified."
  3. Paul Barlow: [4], reinstating the edit of Schonken (note he answers here my words to Schonken saying "AFG has nothing to do with it")
  4. Paul Barlow: [5]: here retracting again his revert without comment. Since Paul Barlow never admitted a misconception before concerning any of my edits, I can't give any other explanation but his panic after discovering he was still logged on as Paul Barlow.

Other arguments: Paul Barlow's repeated distortion of my edits, words and acts (for instance here [6]"promoting the Netherlands as the Cradle of Civilization and then edit warred over it", where he repeat the criticism expressed through Schonken and accuse me of edit warring over this issue, while I didn't: I reinserted my only edit here only once), his otherwise unwarranted claims of my "ultra-Netherlandishness" [7]. He even referred to these RokusXX edits to sustain his point: "One anonymous individual parodied him in the following edits". He was the only user putting a comment at the talk of one of these phony accounts: [8]. His admin friend Dbachmann, otherwise very conscious of abuses when opponents are involved, expressed his amusement (I never detected any sense of humor at any other occasion from his part) several times about it (like in the impersonation ANI [9], were he surprised me with a comment I did not ask for: "I have no idea who is behind these RokusXX edits, but I must say they are doing a rather funny impression of the general gist of the original Rokus :) ") and probably gave a clue when he mentioned Rokus02 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) at a probably intentional confusion of usernames in response to Paul Barlow's support to his case [10]: "The diffs that back up my characterization of Rokus02 are to be found here".

I respect what you say about "justification whatsoever provided for violating his privacy". However, this answer puzzles me as well. I gave you diffs to sustain my suspicions. A justification to violate privacy wrongly implies some kind of verdict. It might be that defiling people by impersonations and personal attacks are not considered serious enough in legal terms. Still the pattern suffice to justify action because of conditions A "Request to identify and block the IP addresses responsible for blatant vandalism and attack accounts" and C: "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents". My further interpretation concerning this behaviour can be found at the ANIs, and I don't feel inclined to repeat this here. Moreover, my checkuser questions about a possible sock puppet is not related to an open arbitration case and this requirement posed by checkuser for having requests accepted should not be turned around. Whatever his (or their) motif(s), or whatever I am accused of and might be taken for a "justified violation of WP politics", I just mention so far none of the possible adversaries involved showed themselves very willing to come up with diffs to actually support their accusations: [11].

What do you suggest? Rokus01 (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no suggestions. Since a checkuser of the various Schonken/fake Rokuses didn't show anything other than Schonken and the fake Rokuses (Roki?), there's nothing else for us to do here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my question. You only indicated the request was declined. If the request would have been completed, a negative result would have been indicated by indicator unrelated. You don't actually say that there is no relation found between Schonken and Paul Barlow. You just say here you see no justification to do the check. Could you please give me a straight answer, and explain what you think would be a proper justification? Rokus01 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: if I understand well, the fake Rokuses and Schonken are Confirmed , and Paul Barlow has not been checked but does not appear in the CU results of the others. -- lucasbfr talk 10:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser will only give the IP locations of the accounts asked for, is my understanding of the tool. IP's that result identical or indicate geographic proximity would indicate high a possibility of abuse. Unless Checkuser produces a list of all users that come geographically close to a certain IP number (though this would be "fishing"), I don't think such CU results would be helpful. It is not my intention to cast doubt on the integrity of checkusers. Transparency is the single issue of concern, for that is how integrity works in a democracy. The checkuser's "discretion on the opportunity to invade a user's privacy by performing a check" should not be cast on the requester (who will be just interested in the results, not in anything else related to privacy). Transparency of the checkuser integrity will be served by clear answers that can't be understood in several ways and won't raise further questions. Rokus01 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You should probably direct your questions directly to jpgordon on his talk page, I'm not sure he is still watching this one. -- lucasbfr talk 16:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was a fool to say anything at all other than "Declined" for Barlow and "confirmed" for the rest. I've no obligation to do so, and will not discuss the matter further. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You just managed to obfuscate things and indeed this was not necessary to make your point. All the rest, I understand your concept is final and not open for discussion. That's why I ask for a (second or) third opinion. Rokus01 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)