Did I lose my First Amendment rights when I joined WP?

[In the Gulag]

Hi all,

I was just unblocked after being investigated as a sockpuppet, which I'm not, of some poor fellow who's going through the ringer at WP.

The ridiculous saga goes on and on.

I've never made an edit to WP. I signed up at my wife's urging while I was being vetted by Citizendium or within days of that. Then I was accepted to CZ and never thought about WP again until my wife explained I was now accused of being a sockpuppet. She had to explain the word to me.

The poor guy who we were accused of being sockpuppets of has been cleared of those charges. Part of the basis of the charges was that we all live on the same continent. I'm only surprised no one noticed that we all log-in from Earth and so must be guilty. Only people on the International Space Station should be ruled out as socks.

My wife is still blocked though the sockpuppet investigation revealed she freely admitted "editing logged out by accident - the fact that he goes back and confirms it is him means there is no problem with the identification."

This started when my wife showed compassion for a guy getting kicked while he was down. To replace the disproven accusation that we are sockpuppets someone has a new theory that we are meatpuppets of the poor guy. Meatpuppets is another new word I learned today. The guy has offered to show the e-mails he exchanged with my wife which indicate their lack of a relationship prior to perhaps three days ago.

My wife has been proven innocent of being a "sockmaster" and the guy she was sticking up for has been proven innocent of being a "puppetmaster" at his second not-guilty sock verdict this month. I think he's been on trial three more times in various places in possibly less than three weeks.

Lavrentii Beria would have been proud of the way innocent people are guilty on WP.

This all seem to stem from getting on the bad side of Dennis who portrays himself as being cursed by being an overly tolerant admininstrator.

The guy my wife showed compassion for apparently likes Mixed Martial Arts. My wife can't watch it and privately believes it should be banned in the U.S. I'd never heard of it. We both just learned from WP that MMA fighting is done in cages. That sounds more civilized than the WP fighting.

While my wife advocated leniency for the MMA fan, some jerk associated Stockholm Syndrome with another person calling for leniency. Ironically, the MMA fan had associated some other people with OCD and that was one of the current charges against him. My wife was the director of our local NAMI, taught college-level psychology, and is an anti-bigotry activist. She had already encouraged the MMA fan to apologize for his OCD remark. The man who was associated with Stockholm Syndrome objected. My wife backed him up and the circus went into high gear.

The administrator, Dennis, told her it's no violation of policy to associate people with mental illnesses with people who don't agree with someone on WP. My wife called and discussed this with our friend who is currently the executive director of NAMI locally. My wife was then told this was a violation of WP. Mind you she was clear that nobody wanted to join WP to discuss the topic (no meatpuppeting). Then she was told she could not suggest that WP change the policy anywhere on WP because that's canvassing.

She contacted DGG, the friend of the pro-stigmatizing mentally ill people administrator. That's when things went dodgy. DGG deleted all but one or two sentences of her questions from his talk page. Then he e-mailed her writing, "Please email me, though I will not see it until tonight." She e-mailed him and heard nothing back. She told the pro-stigmatizing administrator, Dennis, that NAMI here is interested in pursuing the problem and that she imagines it will start with an educational letter writing campaign. Then she was informed that if anyone writes letters to anyone else that she'll be punished for violating WP policy. Accusations started being hurled at her and she contacted another administrator.

DGG reappeared with no explanation for his day late and a dollar short reply. He asked for proof Dennis endorses using mental illnesses for name calling when people are fighting on WP. He led her to think she'd get a response about mental illness bigotry policy at WP. That's not what happened. Instead she received an e-mail from a now dead e-mail address which threatened to contact her employer with lies about her. She changed the e-mail account she had linked to WP so she can figure out which people at WP could know the account which received the sickening e-mail. Only two people involved in the argument over punishing the MMA fan knew her e-mail address: the man being picked on himself and DGG, the friend of the pro-bigotry administrator Dennis. She stated on WP that she suspects the e-mail came from Dennis.

Then some joker decided to ramp up harassing her on WP by being a petty tyrant. She got sick of it and decided to delete her account since she'd rather work in real life to oppose WP policy that stigmatizes mentally ill people than volunteer for an organization that's perpetrating it. It turned out she can't delete the account. She got so sick of the name-calling and constant petty attempts to annoy her that she insisted she be investigated. When Dennis complained about her to someone at ArbCom she went to the woman's page and confessed to "canvassing, forum shopping, meatpuppetry of hundreds of users, writing comments as an IP with clear knowledge I was doing so, and sockpuppeteering over fifty accounts."

Turns out the woman my wife confessed to has said to someone she didn't agree with, "you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum." Our adult son has autism.

So my question is: At what point did my wife and I lose our First Amendment right to write letters and encourage others to write letters opposing WP policy allowing using mental illness terms to strike out at opponents? That's rhetorical, of course.

Now that I'm unblocked I'm out of the gulag. Or am I in it again?

[The Garbage Scow]

Hi all,
I've never made an edit to WP. I signed up at my wife's urging while I was being vetted by Citizendium or within days of that. Then I was accepted to CZ and never thought about WP again until my wife explained I was now accused of being a sockpuppet. She had to explain the word to me.

People still edit Citizendium?

[In the Gulag]

Well, we're clinging to it. It's a friendly bunch.

I'll admit to creating short articles since the future is... uncertain.

I'd rather that than WP any day. There is no tyranny. Must volume relate to tyranny?

[Midsize Jake]

As a general rule, Wikipedians have never been interested in freedom of speech, artistic expression, or any other form of "freedom" other than the freedom to insult and berate others, win petty arguments, and show everybody how much they can get away with, the more abusive, corrupt and outrageous the better.

If you took away their ability to use mental-health terminology to insult others, most of them wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Then again, so many of them are narcissists, few would ever even admit they aren't qualified to use such terms intelligently. (I will at least admit it, if pressed.)

I should, at least, say that the point that using the term "first amendment" in most internet-related contexts is, indeed, "US-centric."

[In the Gulag]

I should, at least, say that the point that using the term "first amendment" in most internet-related contexts is, indeed, "US-centric."

Yes, but we live in the U.S. and happily exercise our rights to free speech and free assembly despite having WP accounts.

[EricBarbour]

No, you just got screwed in the typical Wiki-fashion.

I don't know who "Dennis" is, you didn't post any links to the arguments you had with him. But DGG (David Goodman) is well-known to the
denizens of this forum. He is a highly-educated man, yet on Wikipedia he acts like a 12-year-old bully routinely. David despises corporate and
paid editing of all kinds, no matter how good or accurate the resulting articles are. And because he is a high-ranking administrator, he attracts
other bullies to disputes.

Look at his recent contributions. They are full of arguments he had with paid editors and anyone he thinks is writing a "puff piece" about a
person or corporation. I'm going to guess you're involved with one of the firms or people mentioned there. Mr. Goodman is imposing his personal biases
onto Wikipedia, and no one has ever successfully fought him off that I can think of or find.

[Randy from Boise]

A very long post with very few specifics. Wikipedia is as good as you make it or as bad as you want to see it to be.

CZ is dead. Long live the bumblebee. I hope you move over to WP with an open mind. There are certainly errors, obnoxious people, and systemic issues, but it remains a valuable internet resource.

tim

[In the Gulag]

I don't know who "Dennis" is, you didn't post any links to the arguments you had with him. But DGG (David Goodman) is well-known to the denizens of this forum. He is a highly-educated man, yet on Wikipedia he acts like a 12-year-old bully routinely... I'm going to guess you're involved with one of the firms or people mentioned there. Mr. Goodman is imposing his personal biases onto Wikipedia, and no one has ever successfully fought him off that I can think of or find.

I'll ask my wife to find some links. I've never posted on WP myself so I've never had the joy of the arguing with anyone.

I wonder how I got the idea David was a retired dean of the library from a research university on the East coast?

I don't live a glamorous corporate life. I work at a university. I just finished my first manuscript; it's on the history of engineering.

[EricBarbour]

I wonder how I got the idea David was a retired dean of the library from a research university on the East coast?

He is. He's also an arrogant, elderly crank. For the first time in his life, he has some control over a large "academic-ish" project, and can
impose himself onto various aspects of it. The fact that his "academic project" has a bizarre obsession with comic books, video games,
football statistics, and Doctor Who is of no importance. The fact that many of his fellow administrators are idiotic teenaged boys with
attention-span disorders is of no importance. He is a career academic drone, with blinders permanently installed.

I understand he still lives in northern New Jersey, somewhere near Rutgers. You could track him down and talk to him, but I doubt he
will listen to you, or to anyone else.

I don't live a glamorous corporate life. I work at a university. I just finished my first manuscript; it's on the history of engineering.

Get it printed on dead trees. And be prepared to see your original research stolen without attribution. Happens all the time, Wikipedia or not.
http://hnn.us/articles/someone-used-my- ... wledgement

[In the Gulag]

Get it printed on dead trees. And be prepared to see your original research stolen without attribution. Happens all the time, Wikipedia or not.

The university owns the copyright so I think there's a fair chance my work will get stolen before it's printed, if it ever is. Since it's an institutional history it's not going to be something many people will want to plagiarize.

[Zoloft]

I believe this is part of the Wikipedia buzzsaw that you refer to. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Permalink to Agent00f (T-C-L) RFC.



I weep for humanity.

Edit: Info for NewtonGeek (T-C-L).

[Willbeheard]

If you took away their ability to use mental-health terminology to insult others, most of them wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Then again, so many of them are narcissists

Spot the irony.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f (permalink)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f&diff=493737415&oldid=493717400:

*NewtonGeek has appealed against their blocking on UTRS. They have an academic email address and say that the wikipedia editor is their wife. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this outing? Secretlondon publicly exposed Factseducado as being NewtonGeek's wife hours before this thread was created. Why are the contents of a private message being discussed publicly? Is the "academic email address" comment even relevant? Secretlondon is basically giving people a good idea of what NewtonGeek's profession or status might be. Actually, NewtonGeek's userpage already provides that information. Despite protesting SOPA, these people are clumsy when it comes to other people's privacy. Professionals, not volunteers, should be handling sensitive information and investigations.

[Zoloft]

Particularly poignant is this exchange between me and Factseducado (T-C-L) on my talk page just a fortnight ago:

Code: Select all

Nothing important

I'm just glad you're here. Some people here are nice. Some people here do things that aren't nice. Some people here pretend to be nice while in fact meaning to be not nice. I'm too scared to post off WP but I read. Factseducado (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

    May your day be filled with nice people; but never be afraid to say what's on your mind, wherever you want to say it.→StaniStaniWPO  08:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

        I'm having a pleasant day on the 'pedia. I wish all days were so nice. It's odd because I have nothing novel or invective-like to say but I'm actually afraid of a backlash. I feel like I'm in the books/movies Fahrenheit 451 or 1984. Surreal. It's surreal. Factseducado (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

            Things get overblown here at times. Remember, for all its fame and global reach—it's just another website.→StaniStaniWPO  14:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[In the Gulag]

*NewtonGeek has appealed against their blocking on UTRS. They have an academic email address and say that the wikipedia editor is their wife. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this outing? Secretlondon publicly exposed Factseducado as being NewtonGeek's wife hours before this thread was created. Why are the contents of a private message being discussed publicly? Is the "academic email address" comment even relevant? Actually, NewtonGeek's userpage already provides that information. Despite protesting SOPA, these people are clumsy when it comes to other people's privacy. Professionals, not volunteers, should be handling sensitive information and investigations.

Thanks for reminding me what I put on my page. I had never imagined such goings on when I wrote that.

I requested an unblock because Dennis was referring to me as a sleeper account and sock to people my wife had pleasant dealings with. In my request I stated I'd prefer my account be deleted which my wife told me can't be done. I indicated we'd be willing to provide affidavits from people in real life who know who we are. I also offered to talk to someone at Wikipedia on the phone. I provided publicly available verification that I am who I say I am.

In response to my request Mr. Martijn Hoekstra, English Wikipedia Administrator, wrote to me without responding to my request. After misspelling my name he indicated he wanted more from me. Specifically he asked my permission to reveal the contents of my unblock request publicly on Wikipedia. Mr. Hoekstra's rationale was that he wanted Wikipedia discussion to be in in one spot. He asked "if would mind if [he] added part or all of you [sic] message to us to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s/Agent00f. " Mr. Hoekstra stated he felt it was relevant to the case and my wife confirmed it was possibly relevant to the accused man's trial. I wrote to Mr. Hoekstra and stated he should simply tell people on Wikipedia he has relevant exculpatory evidence. I categorically declined his request to "reproduce anything from [my e-mail] message" and gave my reason as wanting to keep my personal details private.

How my academic e-mail address was relevant in Mr. Hoekstra's mind I'll never know. His revelation of that has not eased my mind or my wife's mind. Also my wife went out of her way to never reveal her gender on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. All people there had previously assumed she was a man.

[lilburne]

Please NOTE that wikipedia is not some official thing at all, it is a private website so 1st ammedment rights do not apply. Also it is best described as a bunch of uppity teenagers, no matter what their actual age is. Keep that in mind when discussing the antics on the stupid site.

[In the Gulag]

I'm wondering if Wikipedia believes I have abrogated by First Amendment rights. Since there is no way off of Wikipedia that would be for life.

Clearly the United States allows people to call people, write to people, and ask others to do the same. Wikipedia doesn't have to like it.

[Hersch]

Now that I'm unblocked I'm out of the gulag. Or am I in it again?

I used to collect amusing stories from the early years of Wikipedia when they were first developing their unique brand of crazy. In an exchange reminiscent of the famous Abbott and Costello Who's on First? routine, an admin misunderstands a hapless user who has been blocked for the offense of removing material that was in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons Policy. Needless to say, the user ("Hullabaloo Wolfowitz") was puzzled and chagrined by the block, insisting in his unblock request that "This is Kafkaesque." An Admin with the moniker "Sandahl," apparently not the brightest crayon in the box, replies: "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

[thekohser]

An Admin with the moniker "Sandahl," apparently not the brightest crayon in the box, replies: "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

I should get a "Best supporting actor" award for that one, given that it was my (misspelled) name being attacked on Calton's page that prompted Hullaballoo to remove it.

Interesting to also note that Jimbo Wales came to my defense in that situation, but AuburnPilot rather dismissed the God King of Wikipedia. Brash bullying and misuse of admin tools always trumps respect for the co-founder of Wikipedia. Funny how AuburnPilot would deny that a BLP violation was taking place against me, but he easily recognized one when exacted against Jimmy Wales.

[In the Gulag]

An Admin with the moniker "Sandahl," apparently not the brightest crayon in the box, replies: "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

I should get a "Best supporting actor" award for that one, given that it was my (misspelled) name being attacked on Calton's page that prompted Hullaballoo to remove it.

The behavior reported here is increasingly bizarre and unpleasant.

Sandahl's reaction reminds me of a reversal of Moe from the Simpsons taking Bart's crank calls seriously. This Moe took a serious call as a crank.

[thekohser]

The behavior reported here is increasingly bizarre and unpleasant.

Sandahl's reaction reminds me of a reversal of Moe from the Simpsons taking Bart's crank calls seriously. This Moe took a serious call as a crank.

Here, have a laugh... Go to this edit, then click on "Next edit -->", and repeat a couple of dozen times. You will see how defamation is institutionalized as a "group" project on Wikipedia.

Don't even get me started on what used to appear on this page!

[EricBarbour]

Perhaps these kinds of stupid incidents should be collected? They would make a great book, all by themselves.

[The Wife]

Perhaps these kinds of stupid incidents should be collected? They would make a great book, all by themselves.

It's well past time to collect these sickening stories.

In the last day or two I have both cried and laughed so hard the water I was drinking almost came out of my nose.

[EricBarbour]

One problem: there are literally too many stories to collect......
go thru old Wikipedia Review threads, literally hundreds available.

Hell, you could make a bizarre book out of Sceptre's activities.

[The Wife]

One problem: there are literally too many stories to collect......
go thru old Wikipedia Review threads, literally hundreds available.

Hell, you could make a bizarre book out of Sceptre's activities.

Like any anthology it would need to be selective. I vote "If it cries, it flies. If it bleeds, it leads," with the additional caveat that if I spew liquid out of my nose laughing that has to be included.

I will find my evening's entertainment becoming familiar with Sceptre. I only wish the name were Spectre to sound more villainous.

[Zoloft]

Sceptre on Wikipedia Review...link
On Wikipedia...Sceptre (T-C-L)

[EricBarbour]

I would tell you that his cats have their own Facebooks, but you won't believe me......

but you might believe the list of Sceptre's sockpuppets.

[The Wife]

I would tell you that his cats have their own Facebooks, but you won't believe me......

but you might believe the list of Sceptre's sockpuppets.

I was about to write Sceptre appeared to have grown into an adult. Then you brought up the cats.

As a Dr. Who and Star Trek fan myself, I was surprised to find comprehensive coverage of them on WP. IRL my hubby rubbed shoulders with the world authority on Dr. Who. I would never had thought to look for such detailed coverage on WP. That coverage is in large part what allowed me to state with a straight face, "Let's keep more MMA coverage." The MMA trend may surprise many of us with future notability. In any event cult coverage of Dr. Who which I love seems no different than fan coverage of MMA which I strongly dislike.

Having said that I think there's a better place on the internet for all of those things to be described in detail.

As far as the encyclopedia aspect of WP goes, the issues with sourcing content boggled my mind. I would compare it to shouting into the wind but I'd already realized what consensus meant so I whimpered into the wind.

[The Garbage Scow]

Here, have a laugh... Go to this edit, then click on "Next edit -->", and repeat a couple of dozen times. You will see how defamation is institutionalized as a "group" project on Wikipedia.

I got about 15 clicks in before I stopped... how many months did that go on for?

Just goes to show you what you can get away with when you're part of the secret good-ol-boys club. Reminds me of that Dead Kennedy's song where they borrowed the music to "I Fought The Law" and rewrote the lyrics about Dan White and Harvey Milk.

[Volunteer Marek]

Now that I'm unblocked I'm out of the gulag. Or am I in it again?

I used to collect amusing stories from the early years of Wikipedia when they were first developing their unique brand of crazy. In an exchange reminiscent of the famous Abbott and Costello Who's on First? routine, an admin misunderstands a hapless user who has been blocked for the offense of removing material that was in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons Policy. Needless to say, the user ("Hullabaloo Wolfowitz") was puzzled and chagrined by the block, insisting in his unblock request that "This is Kafkaesque." An Admin with the moniker "Sandahl," apparently not the brightest crayon in the box, replies: "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Oy, I remember that - that was a very telling moment in the history of Wikipedia administration.

[The Wife]

Here, have a laugh... Go to this edit, then click on "Next edit -->", and repeat a couple of dozen times. You will see how defamation is institutionalized as a "group" project on Wikipedia.

I got about 15 clicks in before I stopped... how many months did that go on for?

I finished it. As I recollect it was less than a year, say eight to ten months.

[HRIP7]

Needless to say, the user ("Hullabaloo Wolfowitz") was puzzled and chagrined by the block, insisting in his unblock request that "This is Kafkaesque." An Admin with the moniker "Sandahl," apparently not the brightest crayon in the box, replies: "You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name."

Brilliant.

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, there is a way (at least for some users) to have your account name and user page deleted if you never intend to edit WP again.

For details see WP:RTV. Good luck.

[The Wife]

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, there is a way (at least for some users) to have your account name and user page deleted if you never intend to edit WP again.

For details see WP:RTV. Good luck.

Thank you. I'll tell In the Gulag (aka my husband) when he wakes up.

I roped encouraged him to start this as a couple's project. He ended up at Citizendium, I at WP. He doesn't have free time these days.

[HRIP7]

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, there is a way (at least for some users) to have your account name and user page deleted if you never intend to edit WP again.

For details see WP:RTV. Good luck.

Thank you. I'll tell In the Gulag (aka my husband) when he wakes up.

I roped encouraged him to start this as a couple's project. He ended up at Citizendium, I at WP. He doesn't have free time these days.

You're welcome, and nice to meet you. You realise ... if you are a married woman and mother, that makes you part of a demographic that makes up around 2% of Wikipedia's contributor base.

(You may be interested in the Gendergap mailing list (link 1, link 2).

[The Wife]

You realise ... if you are a married woman and mother, that makes you part of a demographic that makes up around 2% of Wikipedia's contributor base.

I knew about the gender gap and the age gap. I hadn't put it together. Young women are breaking into the boys club of online technology and WP is accessible to novices. Young women with free time don't have a child. Older women can be technophobic so women with grown children will be underrepresented.

Now I can see the other women I passed like ships in the night were generally not mothers which clarifies a number of things.

No wonder the people assuming I was a man younger than myself could not fathom my reactions. I assumed the young man I empathized with was about my son's age.

I would like to know so much more about the women who are involved. I did notice what I'm going to call a women's ghetto on typical women's issues.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm wondering if Wikipedia believes I have abrogated by First Amendment rights. Since there is no way off of Wikipedia that would be for life.

Clearly the United States allows people to call people, write to people, and ask others to do the same. Wikipedia doesn't have to like it.

Claiming that Wikipedia (an entirely private entity) has somehow abrogated your First Amendment rights makes you come across like a crank. While I'm sympathetic to your position, please avoid expressing it in this way. Wikipedia obviously doesn't have the power to silence your speech; all they can do is deny you the use of their megaphone.

[The Wife]

Wikipedia obviously doesn't have the power to silence your speech...

I didn't claim they abrogated my rights and neither did my husband. That was a rhetorical device that other readers easily understood.

Your statement above would have been the correct way for them to see it.

What I was in fact told is that it's against WP policy for me to talk to other people about the shocking insistence on using mental illnesses as a way to put down opponents. I was also told that if I explained what was going on to anyone in my own life and that person decided to write letters opposing the stigmatization of people with mental illness then I would be punished on WP. So in fact I was told exactly that I could not talk to humans such as my long-time friend on my own phone or I would be punished on WP. I made it so clear that I did not intend and no other human intended to actually use WP that your statement about using it as a megaphone is ridiculous. So get your facts straight.

If you don't like my husband's writing, move along. I don't think I'll even mention your ill-conceived, snark fest to him.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia obviously doesn't have the power to silence your speech...

I didn't claim they abrogated my rights and neither did my husband. That was a rhetorical device that other readers easily understood.

It is a rhetorical device that makes you look like a crank. Please don't use it.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f&diff=493743625&oldid=493737415:

''Re to UTRS unblock request'': I would suggest denying the appeal on grounds of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review]] coupled with the [[WP:BROTHER]] argument. That the new account registered after the first one started the self destruct sequence and now getting this request seems significantly suspicious. <small>''I may be completely jaded by the entire article space so my suggestion should be evaluated against the mirror of good Wiki policy''</small>[[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is a household (or village) not allowed to have more than one Wikipedia contributor?

Later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f&diff=493985683&oldid=493965367

Hasteur strikes out a comment without saying, "Thank you, Agent00f, for pointing out my mistake." Instead, Hasteur continues on with the offensive.

[The Wife]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f&diff=493743625&oldid=493737415:

''Re to UTRS unblock request'': I would suggest denying the appeal on grounds of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review]] coupled with the [[WP:BROTHER]] argument. That the new account registered after the first one started the self destruct sequence and now getting this request seems significantly suspicious. <small>''I may be completely jaded by the entire article space so my suggestion should be evaluated against the mirror of good Wiki policy''</small>[[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is a household (or village) not allowed to have more than one Wikipedia contributor?

Later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f&diff=493985683&oldid=493965367

Hasteur strikes out a comment without saying, "Thank you, Agent00f, for pointing out my mistake." Instead, Hasteur continues on with the offensive.

Michael, you are a person who makes this fun. It's like getting the Sunday funnies. Thanks

[Hersch]

Perhaps these kinds of stupid incidents should be collected? They would make a great book, all by themselves.

It's well past time to collect these sickening stories.

In the last day or two I have both cried and laughed so hard the water I was drinking almost came out of my nose.

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article, and I will incorporate some anecdotes from this thread.

[The Wife]

Perhaps these kinds of stupid incidents should be collected? They would make a great book, all by themselves.

It's well past time to collect these sickening stories.

In the last day or two I have both cried and laughed so hard the water I was drinking almost came out of my nose.

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article, and I will incorporate some anecdotes from this thread.

I'd love to read the "Duck Test" article you've written.

If it would be useful I could collect the disparate WP conversations about my now disproven sockpuppetry.

My accuser's formulation of the charges at the SPI reminded me of a show trial. In the Gulag compared it to the trial of Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevskii who was accused on transparently trumped up charges. Naturally, after all charges had been proven untrue someone raised the new idea that I was Agent00f's meatpuppet. Clearly I cannot simply be innocent.

No person would advocate leniency for someone with whom they had no relationship. That's too far-fetched.

[SB_Johnny]

Perhaps these kinds of stupid incidents should be collected? They would make a great book, all by themselves.

It's well past time to collect these sickening stories.

In the last day or two I have both cried and laughed so hard the water I was drinking almost came out of my nose.

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article, and I will incorporate some anecdotes from this thread.

Fun one just in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joppenheim

[The Wife]

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article, and I will incorporate some anecdotes from this thread.

Fun one just in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joppenheim

"Wait, now you're saying that you have more than one son? --MuZemike 02:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
And a daughter, a wife and a dog. What difference does that make? I haven't abused Wikipedia."

Worthy of stand-up comedy.

[EricBarbour]

Fun one just in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joppenheim

There is no verbal expression to cover that. Smilies don't work either.

[The Garbage Scow]

Fun one just in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joppenheim

Oh noes! Quick, someone drop the banhammer, there is SELF-PROMOTION afoot!

[Hersch]

I'd love to read the "Duck Test" article you've written.

The old version is here. The new version will be broader in scope.

[Willbeheard]

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article

To be fair to people (not that they're fair in return!), the Duck Test is human nature and by no means peculiar to WP. I'm sure you can see it on lots of Internet forums. Maybe one or two people here have even fallen into the trap themselves of using it. What is bad, of course, is when it's abused to silence someone you don't like or to win an argument.

[dogbiscuit]

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article

To be fair to people (not that they're fair in return!), the Duck Test is human nature and by no means peculiar to WP. I'm sure you can see it on lots of Internet forums. Maybe one or two people here have even fallen into the trap themselves of using it. What is bad, of course, is when it's abused to silence someone you don't like or to win an argument.

Only Wikipedia would turn "smelling a rat' into a plausible sounding policy though.

It is one of the subtleties of why Wikipedia's bizarre approach to issues gets under the radar, they do apparently sensible sounding things while totally abusing the application of them.

[The Wife]

I'm preparing an updated version of my "Duck Test" blog article

To be fair to people (not that they're fair in return!), the Duck Test is human nature and by no means peculiar to WP. I'm sure you can see it on lots of Internet forums. Maybe one or two people here have even fallen into the trap themselves of using it. What is bad, of course, is when it's abused to silence someone you don't like or to win an argument.

It is one of the subtleties of why Wikipedia's bizarre approach to issues gets under the radar, they do apparently sensible sounding things while totally abusing the application of them.

Bingo.

There are sane ways to handle suspicion. For instance, in our situation I had repeatedly written sentences like, "I don't know how I got logged out. IP [whatever it is] is me. That comment was from me." So that issue was not especially suspicious which is what someone eventually concluded.

The second suspicious aspect was two accounts at one IP. That does demand an explanation. A sane approach would be to write to both accounts asking, "Why are there two accounts with the same IP?" In so doing WP people could have saved themselves a scene that would play well in a farce.

In the Gulag and I would have replied something like, "Hi, we're married. We both decided to sign up for accounts because one of us thought it would be a neat couple's activity. We can see it looks odd and are happy to satisfy you that we are two people. We are able to confirm the identity of one of us using public information. To confirm there is a second person we are willing to give you our phone number. You can block yours using * something. We are also willing to produce affidavits from anyone you wish in real life. Do you have any other suggestions?"