WP:MANDY

[Bezdomni]

For what it's worth, thank you. Right now I am inclined to listen to what iii has to say though I don't know what their wikipedia name is to look into anything that would led me to believe or disbelieve further. I have only seen one thing from Midsized Jake and nothing from Bezdomni and I would have to look them up further as well.

Yes, the advice is good. Particularly the bit about being prepared to have people come after you with verbal piques of various size and shape that you must be careful not to dodge, lest you appear battlegroundy or grudging.

Some in the MMORPG like to put on clarivoyant robes and will offer you free psycho-analysis to which you can reply, or not, at your leisure, while strapped to the ballast of your talk page.

Rather than expecting an apology you should expect that if your "universal wiki-right" to be an anyone is restored, it will be with an unexpurgated rap sheet which your enemies will wrap any potential future discussions in should anything come up about your fitness to disagree with them.

You never know though, I don't know what kind of mileage your encycle will get.

[Ryuichi]

You're probably right, to some degree at least, but in that case you'd block the person for a couple of days, then escalate to a week, then a month, and then indefinitely. Maybe threaten a topic ban somewhere in there too, just because you can. In other words, you'd treat them like you should treat anybody else on Wikipedia who was doing the whole "tendentious editing" thing and ignoring warnings to stop (without that person necessarily operating one or more new accounts to evade a previous block, or what-have-you).

Blocked:

14:01, 29 October 2020 Valereee talk contribs blocked IHateAccounts talk contribs with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment) Tag: Twinkle

Warned:

November 2020
Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Special:Diff/991223849 This has gone on long enough. You have been warned often enough. The next time I see a personal attack from you, I will block you for a week. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As for the other editor <IHA>, who is accused by some of being a bit of a hothead and jumping to conclusions and expressing them in an all-too personal way, this admin has noticed that as well, but right now, and after the final comments, there is no consensus for a block or ban. Editors who consider their behavior beyond the pale should probably take it to AE. On to the next dispute. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That last brought on the MJL mentorship. While I'm no a fan of MJL's work at Scots Wikipedia, I've no doubt that they're more than well intentioned; and would have made a fair and honest attempt at mentoring. If that failed, it's not on them.

If MJL (as mentor), GW, JzG, et al decided to drop their support, then perhaps there's a message for us external viewers.

The above is not an exhaustive look. There are more warnings. And far too much of the editor at noticeboards about other editors. If one reports someone else, then they should expect to be sanctioned when they show the same problematic behaviour. If one spends their time shoving people under the AN/I;AE bus, then they shouldn't be surprised to be hoist by the same petard.

That, and the fact that too many people out there seem to think that getting pissed off at right-wingers during the past 4-5 years is somehow unusual.

Getting pissed off at right-wingers is entirely usual, and more than fine. But there are forums to express that ire.

Carrying on about it like an absolute roaster in forums designed for writing encyclopaedia is not fine (cf. Just zis Guy).

As regards editors of any persuasion (political, personal or elsewise): if more edits to WP/T: than :, then probably WP:NOTHERE; if more reports to AN/I/3RR than new articles, then probably WP:NOTHERE.

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipe ... teAccounts
is more than a bit like the MjoPants... but without the "charm"... or the shit essays.

Is Guerillero's decision correct? Possibly not.

Is the "bum's rush" narrative accurate? Certainly not.

[iii]

I'll wait along with you to see if Beebs says there's a hidden real reason he thinks you're blocked.

The only thing that Beeblebrox has offered is a willingness to share correspondence that IhateAccounts sent to the committee. Occam's Razor says it isn't any "hidden real reason". Everything else is overanalyzing at this point. Waiting around for Beeblebrox to comment is really only hyping the drama for no reason.

The block is straightforward: IhateAccounts is blocked for being a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous. That's as far as this goes. As far as I know, IhateAccounts has not interacted with WP for almost six months. It's simple for IhateAccounts to say they will not edit WP with other accounts. That's as far as this has to go.

Now, in the process of proposing this, interlocutors may say, "let's convert this into some other sort of fishing expedition for other reasons to disfellowship IhateAccounts", but that's on them and given that we cannot know what sort of argument will be constructed in that context, there is no reason to speculate on that beyond what has already been said in this thread. If someone complains, "IhA should promise to avoid the personal attacks and harassment that got SA blocked indefinitely," then that can be dealt with at the time, but that's not the rationale noted for the current block so there is no reason to preemptively bring it up.

[Ryuichi]

If someone complains, "IhA should promise to avoid the personal attacks and harassment that got SA blocked indefinitely," then that can be dealt with at the time, but that's not the rationale noted for the current block so there is no reason to preemptively bring it up.

うん...

I think we've passed "IHA should promise to avoid the personal attacks and harassment that got IHA blocked indefinitely", and are more at, "IHA should articulate a plan for how they will collaboratively contribute to the encyclopaedia". (topics, articles, etc).

වඩා හොඳ වෙන්න

[iii]

I think we've passed "IHA should promise to avoid the personal attacks and harassment that got IHA blocked indefinitely", and are more at, "IHA should articulate a plan for how they will collaboratively contribute to the encyclopaedia". (topics, articles, etc).

Personal attacks and harassment are not what got IHA blocked indefinitely. Possibly, the communitah might ask for this assurance in some dramahboard tribunal, but such a request will need to be articulated first.

[Ryuichi]

Personal attacks and harassment are not what got IHA blocked indefinitely.

ふーーん。

It is different...

Personal attacks and harassment are what got IHA blocked.

[iii]

Personal attacks and harassment are what got IHA blocked.

Don't quite get your meaning here. Are you reading between the lines? IHA is blocked because of

21:19, 26 January 2021 Guerillero talk contribs blocked IHateAccounts talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous)

and

22:27, 8 March 2021 Bradv talk contribs changed block settings for IHateAccounts talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)

which prevents IHA from editing their own user talkpage, presumably because their last unblock request and response was more of a diatribe, but the indef rationale itself is still Guerillero's.

[Without Comfort]

I'll wait along with you to see if Beebs says there's a hidden real reason he thinks you're blocked.

The only thing that Beeblebrox has offered is a willingness to share correspondence that IhateAccounts sent to the committee. Occam's Razor says it isn't any "hidden real reason". Everything else is overanalyzing at this point. Waiting around for Beeblebrox to comment is really only hyping the drama for no reason.

The block is straightforward: IhateAccounts is blocked for being a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous. That's as far as this goes. As far as I know, IhateAccounts has not interacted with WP for almost six months. It's simple for IhateAccounts to say they will not edit WP with other accounts. That's as far as this has to go.

Now, in the process of proposing this, interlocutors may say, "let's convert this into some other sort of fishing expedition for other reasons to disfellowship IhateAccounts", but that's on them and given that we cannot know what sort of argument will be constructed in that context, there is no reason to speculate on that beyond what has already been said in this thread. If someone complains, "IhA should promise to avoid the personal attacks and harassment that got SA blocked indefinitely," then that can be dealt with at the time, but that's not the rationale noted for the current block so there is no reason to preemptively bring it up.

This is true, but it's not to hype drama. There is far too little empathizing with people in IhA's shoes (explicitly discluding you). Meeting people at the emotional place where they are can go a long way to calming the person.

IhA, if you do ask for an unblock, try to have a plan for slowing your typed responses on Wikipedia. It's a truly vile place. You'll be treated badly. If you respond in line with your natural feelings, you likely won't get unblocked.

[Bezdomni]

Is Guerillero's decision correct? Possibly not.

Is the "bum's rush" narrative accurate? Certainly not.

I've read through that long SPI and IHA's talk page + xtools/ec/ now, and clicked on enough links to remember that I don't want to be anywhere near that toxic pit where people treat each other so badly.

Also, anyone who gives Comcast money is a bit suspect in my book.

(sorry, comcasters)

[Ryuichi]

Personal attacks and harassment are what got IHA blocked.

Don't quite get your meaning here. Are you reading between the lines?

The point of behavioural commonality between IHA & SA is, in part, "personal attacks and harassment".

[Eberone]

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

MJL has my email address, but I don't have MJL's. MJL chose to stop talking to me. MJL could change that at any time. And yes, I do think I was set up. I think MJL as my "mentor" knew it was happening, knew Guerillero was going to fast-rush the block, and advised me badly on purpose.

Ah, okay.

Edited to add: Do you mind explaining how MJL has your email address, but you don't have MJL's? How did that work out, especially since MJL was your tutor (or "tutor" to you)?

MJL insisted on using Discord. I no longer use Discord and can't contact MJL there. I gave MJL a contact email address but was never given one.

You could have someone contact MJL for you and deliver a message here. Maybe after talking with them, or seeing what they have to say, it will clear everything up on their end.

[Eberone]

Seeing the types of comments watis has made through this thread, I have experience with this pattern before. I had to go through therapy due to an ex who engaged in domestic abuser behavior. He would regularly try to provoke me and then insist that the exact emotions and reaction he was creating were false, inappropriate, or made me the one to blame and absolved him of any blame. And that's why I have placed watis on ignore, because I refuse to be trolled in such a fashion. Watis will not get the angry reaction they are seeking from me.

It's precisely this that I think deserves consideration when it comes to any unblock request. Wikipedia is set-up to encourage this kind of provocation and, as you can see, there are definitely people out there who will want to do this to you. While you can put people on your ignore list at WPO, WP doesn't have that functionality.

The question then becomes, is it worth it? If you can ignore this sort of needling and deal with the low- to high-level trolling you'll probably end up receiving, then it might be worth proceeding. But I would consider carefully whether this might be intolerably disconfirming. If so, it's probably best to invest your energies elsewhere.

Vig is right. The environment is akin to Lord of the Flies.

Wikipedia has some type of ignore function, but I haven't tested it out myself.

[IhateAccounts]

I don't "know" anyone here. I'm half tempted to post the email full just out of pique with Giraffe but that would also either mean either revealing the email address or probably being accused of altering it if I redact the email address.

I would expect you to redact your own email address. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

X-Pm-Origin: internal
X-Pm-Content-Encryption: end-to-end
Subject: Fag banned from Wikipedia for life by ArbCom
From: IHAFAG <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:30 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
To: [REDACTED]
Message-Id: <qHbPmEt8R9ODSruevzVcd54-Gqni4y3OSgl-jtAnOD2onxHKqYbCOKeCIKqvJ9cUp64LKH_CAmTapHLwIAxGSg7uiyhd9EtgLzy1AtwG9YA=@protonmail.com>
X-Pm-Spamscore: 0
Received: from mail.protonmail.ch by mail.protonmail.ch; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:37 +0000
X-Original-To: [REDACTED]
Return-Path: <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Delivered-To: [REDACTED]

[IhateAccounts]

Is Guerillero's decision correct? Possibly not.

Is the "bum's rush" narrative accurate? Certainly not.

I've read through that long SPI and IHA's talk page + xtools/ec/ now, and clicked on enough links to remember that I don't want to be anywhere near that toxic pit where people treat each other so badly.

Also, anyone who gives Comcast money is a bit suspect in my book.

(sorry, comcasters)

In my apartment complex it's either that or dialup.

[IhateAccounts]

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

MJL has my email address, but I don't have MJL's. MJL chose to stop talking to me. MJL could change that at any time. And yes, I do think I was set up. I think MJL as my "mentor" knew it was happening, knew Guerillero was going to fast-rush the block, and advised me badly on purpose.

Ah, okay.

Edited to add: Do you mind explaining how MJL has your email address, but you don't have MJL's? How did that work out, especially since MJL was your tutor (or "tutor" to you)?

MJL insisted on using Discord. I no longer use Discord and can't contact MJL there. I gave MJL a contact email address but was never given one.

You could have someone contact MJL for you and deliver a message here. Maybe after talking with them, or seeing what they have to say, it will clear everything up on their end.

Feel free.

[Eberone]

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

MJL has my email address, but I don't have MJL's. MJL chose to stop talking to me. MJL could change that at any time. And yes, I do think I was set up. I think MJL as my "mentor" knew it was happening, knew Guerillero was going to fast-rush the block, and advised me badly on purpose.

Ah, okay.

Edited to add: Do you mind explaining how MJL has your email address, but you don't have MJL's? How did that work out, especially since MJL was your tutor (or "tutor" to you)?

MJL insisted on using Discord. I no longer use Discord and can't contact MJL there. I gave MJL a contact email address but was never given one.

You could have someone contact MJL for you and deliver a message here. Maybe after talking with them, or seeing what they have to say, it will clear everything up on their end.

Feel free.

No promises. I can ask someone if they'd be willing to contact MJL for their say.

[Giraffe Stapler]

X-Pm-Origin: internal
X-Pm-Content-Encryption: end-to-end
Subject: Fag banned from Wikipedia for life by ArbCom
From: IHAFAG <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:30 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
To: [REDACTED]
Message-Id: <qHbPmEt8R9ODSruevzVcd54-Gqni4y3OSgl-jtAnOD2onxHKqYbCOKeCIKqvJ9cUp64LKH_CAmTapHLwIAxGSg7uiyhd9EtgLzy1AtwG9YA=@protonmail.com>
X-Pm-Spamscore: 0
Received: from mail.protonmail.ch by mail.protonmail.ch; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:37 +0000
X-Original-To: [REDACTED]
Return-Path: <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Delivered-To: [REDACTED]

That's a dead end, unfortunately.

[Eberone]

You sound very upset with MJL. Have you talked to MJL since? I'm not trying to make you feel worse, but your post seems to position MJL as someone who set you up. You think they went to bat for you like that to ensure you failed?

MJL has my email address, but I don't have MJL's. MJL chose to stop talking to me. MJL could change that at any time. And yes, I do think I was set up. I think MJL as my "mentor" knew it was happening, knew Guerillero was going to fast-rush the block, and advised me badly on purpose.

Ah, okay.

Edited to add: Do you mind explaining how MJL has your email address, but you don't have MJL's? How did that work out, especially since MJL was your tutor (or "tutor" to you)?

MJL insisted on using Discord. I no longer use Discord and can't contact MJL there. I gave MJL a contact email address but was never given one.

You could have someone contact MJL for you and deliver a message here. Maybe after talking with them, or seeing what they have to say, it will clear everything up on their end.

Feel free.

No promises. I can ask someone if they'd be willing to contact MJL for their say.

The person I contacted said they're not interested in getting involved in any capacity and they think MJL has already seen your posts.

[IhateAccounts]

X-Pm-Origin: internal
X-Pm-Content-Encryption: end-to-end
Subject: Fag banned from Wikipedia for life by ArbCom
From: IHAFAG <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:30 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
To: [REDACTED]
Message-Id: <qHbPmEt8R9ODSruevzVcd54-Gqni4y3OSgl-jtAnOD2onxHKqYbCOKeCIKqvJ9cUp64LKH_CAmTapHLwIAxGSg7uiyhd9EtgLzy1AtwG9YA=@protonmail.com>
X-Pm-Spamscore: 0
Received: from mail.protonmail.ch by mail.protonmail.ch; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:37 +0000
X-Original-To: [REDACTED]
Return-Path: <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Delivered-To: [REDACTED]

That's a dead end, unfortunately.

You asked (in what felt a very confrontational way at first until you clarified) for the headers. I copied them directly from the "View Headers" option and redacted my email address.

[Without Comfort]

X-Pm-Origin: internal
X-Pm-Content-Encryption: end-to-end
Subject: Fag banned from Wikipedia for life by ArbCom
From: IHAFAG <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:30 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
To: [REDACTED]
Message-Id: <qHbPmEt8R9ODSruevzVcd54-Gqni4y3OSgl-jtAnOD2onxHKqYbCOKeCIKqvJ9cUp64LKH_CAmTapHLwIAxGSg7uiyhd9EtgLzy1AtwG9YA=@protonmail.com>
X-Pm-Spamscore: 0
Received: from mail.protonmail.ch by mail.protonmail.ch; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 19:46:37 +0000
X-Original-To: [REDACTED]
Return-Path: <IHAFAG@protonmail.com>
Delivered-To: [REDACTED]

That's a dead end, unfortunately.

You asked (in what felt a very confrontational way at first until you clarified) for the headers. I copied them directly from the "View Headers" option and redacted my email address.

Absolutely, and I'm sure many of us are glad you did. I know I wasn't the only person hoping that the trail would lead back to a culprit. Unfortunately, this trail is a dead end. On the other hand, if a pattern of similar behavior later emerges, then it can be posited to perhaps be the same culprit, which is something.

I hope you're starting to feel better now that you know so many people think Wikipedia doesn't deserve your volunteer services.

[Giraffe Stapler]

That's a dead end, unfortunately.

You asked (in what felt a very confrontational way at first until you clarified) for the headers. I copied them directly from the "View Headers" option and redacted my email address.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you find a lot of things "very confrontational" even when they're not.

Whoever sent that email used a service that hides the sender's IP address. So we're dealing with someone who is at least slightly knowledgeable about such things, but it doesn't give us any clues as to who sent the email. You said that only a specific group of people had access to that email account:

At this time there were only three options for who had that email address.
- Those with access to wikipedia's "trust and safety" email account.
- Members of the arbitration committee.
- MJL.

Are you sure that no one else knew the email address? Had you sent emails to anyone else via the Wikipedia "email this user" interface? That reveals your email to the person receiving it. The reason I'm asking is that if someone from Trust & Safety did this, they should be fired. If someone from Wikipedia did this (ArbCom or MJL), they should be banned. I think this needs to be followed up.

You said you received harassing "emails" (plural). Can you share the others?

[Without Comfort]

Yes, this is really disturbing. Victims of harassment like this may find any direct questioning very unsettling. It's a common reaction.

I am also hoping you're willing to share the content of any other disturbing emails, IhateAccounts. At the very least people who edit in your areas of interest can know this sort of thing has happened, in case they receive similar emails. There have been other email harassers who attempted to control areas of Wikipedia editing.

[Ryuichi]

At the bottom of the Protonmail website is hyperlinked text "Report Abuse", which, when clicked, opens an email to: abuse@protonmail.com

Send the headers there.

[IhateAccounts]

Are you sure that no one else knew the email address?

Yes

Had you sent emails to anyone else via the Wikipedia "email this user" interface? That reveals your email to the person receiving it.

No.

The reason I'm asking is that if someone from Trust & Safety did this, they should be fired. If someone from Wikipedia did this (ArbCom or MJL), they should be banned. I think this needs to be followed up.

I agree with this. The Trust & Safety never responded to my email.

You said you received harassing "emails" (plural). Can you share the others?

They were from the same sender so based on the earlier analysis I don't see it helping. Other harassing messages I received on discord, presumably because of my membership in one wikipedia-related group, and it increased in volume shortly after MJL invited me to the main english wikipedia discord in the midst of what was happening to me. I should have just declined that invitation but at the time I thought MJL was doing it to try to help. Early on I was made aware of attempts on two Reddit forums to get external people to try to doxx me or attack me as well, and I had posted links to those in discussions at wikipedia.

[IhateAccounts]

I'll wait along with you to see if Beebs says there's a hidden real reason he thinks you're blocked.

The only thing that Beeblebrox has offered is a willingness to share correspondence that IhateAccounts sent to the committee. Occam's Razor says it isn't any "hidden real reason". Everything else is overanalyzing at this point. Waiting around for Beeblebrox to comment is really only hyping the drama for no reason.

The block is straightforward: IhateAccounts is blocked for being a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous. That's as far as this goes. As far as I know, IhateAccounts has not interacted with WP for almost six months. It's simple for IhateAccounts to say they will not edit WP with other accounts. That's as far as this has to go.

Now, in the process of proposing this, interlocutors may say, "let's convert this into some other sort of fishing expedition for other reasons to disfellowship IhateAccounts", but that's on them and given that we cannot know what sort of argument will be constructed in that context, there is no reason to speculate on that beyond what has already been said in this thread. If someone complains, "IhA should promise to avoid the personal attacks and harassment that got SA blocked indefinitely," then that can be dealt with at the time, but that's not the rationale noted for the current block so there is no reason to preemptively bring it up.

This is true, but it's not to hype drama. There is far too little empathizing with people in IhA's shoes (explicitly discluding you). Meeting people at the emotional place where they are can go a long way to calming the person.

IhA, if you do ask for an unblock, try to have a plan for slowing your typed responses on Wikipedia. It's a truly vile place. You'll be treated badly. If you respond in line with your natural feelings, you likely won't get unblocked.

For what it's worth, I am already trying to practice that here.

[Midsize Jake]

Blocked:

14:01, 29 October 2020 Valereee talk contribs blocked IHateAccounts talk contribs with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment) Tag: Twinkle

<snip>
Is the "bum's rush" narrative accurate? Certainly not.

I did notice that block (I've been doing this stuff for quite a while, as you know), but then I checked out this talk page archive in which User:The Anome (T-C-L) helpfully explains that they was blocked because the username "IHateAccounts" was "framed in terms of hating something or someone." After which, User:Valereee (T-C-L), who had actually performed the block, had to admit that it "isn't a problematic account name." Incredibly, User:IHateAccounts was then asked (by User:Bus stop (T-C-L)) to explain why he hates accounts, but somehow manages to restrain themself from asking why User:Bus stop hates moving buses, which I think showed admirable restraint on their part. Finally, The Anome ends up having to apologize for the whole affair and unblocks them.

So I kind of dismissed it in terms of their "behavioral trajectory," and I think I still do...? (If anything, I thought I was doing WP a bit of a favor there by not pointing it out earlier.) Still, I guess I'd be willing to consider the possibility that this incident affected their behavioral trajectory in such a way as to make their eventual fate at least somewhat inevitable.

[Ryuichi]

I did notice that block (I've been doing this stuff for quite a while, as you know), but then I checked out this talk page archive in which User:The Anome (T-C-L) helpfully explains that they was blocked because the username "IHateAccounts" was "framed in terms of hating something or someone." After which, User:Valereee (T-C-L), who had actually performed the block, had to admit that it "isn't a problematic account name." Incredibly, User:IHateAccounts was then asked (by User:Bus stop (T-C-L)) to explain why he hates accounts, but somehow manages to restrain themself from asking why User:Bus stop hates moving buses, which I think showed admirable restraint on their part. Finally, The Anome ends up having to apologize for the whole affair and unblocks them.

So I kind of dismissed it in terms of their "behavioral trajectory," and I think I still do...? (If anything, I thought I was doing WP a bit of a favor there by not pointing it out earlier.) Still, I guess I'd be willing to consider the possibility that this incident affected their behavioral trajectory in such a way as to make their eventual fate at least somewhat inevitable.

I am sorry. I see two separate blocks.

The first is as described above; I also dismissed it for the reasons you explain. (It's more than a little silly, and you do indeed do WP a favour.)
16:37, 22 October 2020 The Anome talk contribs unblocked IHateAccounts talk contribs (my error; see user's talkpage)
10:55, 22 October 2020 The Anome talk contribs blocked IHateAccounts talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) ({{uw-ublock}})

The second, the block I mentioned, is a week later and unrelated to the "username issue", but is related to personal attacks. Additional details are lower in the talk page archive.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

They were from the same sender...

Just a thought here... It is often possible for people to guess at your email address, especially if it's based on a name you use in public. If, for example, your email address was ihateaccounts@... something, they can just try ihateaccounts@outlook.com, ihateaccounts@gmail.com, etc, and see if one of them hits. And it's not at all labour intensive - it's easy to write a small program that sends to a whole list of email domains in one go.

So if you have a guessable email address, that could be one route. But it would be unlikely to explain the multiple emails from the same sender - unless you ever replied to any, for example the first one?

Anyway, I don't know if this helps, but I've been in this kind of business for a long time and I've seen many cases of email addresses being discovered this way.

[Ryuichi]

Personal attacks and harassment are what got IHA blocked.

Don't quite get your meaning here. Are you reading between the lines?

I re-read over what I'd written and, on reflection, it was neither very clear nor very helpful; for which I make a sincere apology.

I do still feel that, when reading the SPI discussion, the behavioural commonality includes personal attacks against other editors, and that, on that basis it would be fair to say that the block is (at least in part) for that. But I also agree that this is not reflected in the block log. It would be better if it were.

It might be interesting to see the extent to which this is reflective of sock blocks more generally. Are the majority of "successful" SPI reports based on problematic behaviours? To what extent does the community care about socks that do not make waves? (Not including CU fishing expeditions, of course.)

And yes, I agree that the whole "blocked as a sock" isn't very helpful to editors who want to be able to address whatever it is that got them blocked.

[Ryuichi]

But it would be unlikely to explain the multiple emails from the same sender.

The absence of a "failed delivery" might be enough.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

But it would be unlikely to explain the multiple emails from the same sender.

The absence of a "failed delivery" might be enough.

Possibly - but I don't think you always get "failed delivery" these days, for that very reason. I've just done a test, and I'll see what happens - no immediate rejection, but there might be a timeout thing.
Nope, wrong about that. I sent emails to nonexistent addresses at a bunch of providers, and every one was quickly rejected as undelivered. So yes, a simple multiple spam followed by eliminating the ones bounced as undelivered seems like it would do the trick.

[Without Comfort]

Are you sure that no one else knew the email address?

Yes

Had you sent emails to anyone else via the Wikipedia "email this user" interface? That reveals your email to the person receiving it.

No.

The reason I'm asking is that if someone from Trust & Safety did this, they should be fired. If someone from Wikipedia did this (ArbCom or MJL), they should be banned. I think this needs to be followed up.

I agree with this. The Trust & Safety never responded to my email.

You said you received harassing "emails" (plural). Can you share the others?

They were from the same sender so based on the earlier analysis I don't see it helping. Other harassing messages I received on discord, presumably because of my membership in one wikipedia-related group, and it increased in volume shortly after MJL invited me to the main english wikipedia discord in the midst of what was happening to me. I should have just declined that invitation but at the time I thought MJL was doing it to try to help. Early on I was made aware of attempts on two Reddit forums to get external people to try to doxx me or attack me as well, and I had posted links to those in discussions at wikipedia.

You're doing well keeping your cool here. I anticipate you'll be asked more questions here based on what you've explained. It may feel as though you're being interrogated. For my part, I have no reason to interrogate you. I am interested in all the details you feel you can comfortably provide.

I would assume Discord links IPs to users so problem users can be blocked.

If it feels like an option, perhaps you would be willing to share which Wikipedia-related group you were initially part of on Discord.

It sounds as though you feel you were somehow roped in to joining the main Wikipedia Discord. Do you have a sense for that?

[IhateAccounts]

You're doing well keeping your cool here. I anticipate you'll be asked more questions here based on what you've explained. It may feel as though you're being interrogated. For my part, I have no reason to interrogate you. I am interested in all the details you feel you can comfortably provide.

I would assume Discord links IPs to users so problem users can be blocked.

I gave up on Discord and I think it deleted my account once I signed out for good since I never linked it to an email.

If it feels like an option, perhaps you would be willing to share which Wikipedia-related group you were initially part of on Discord.

I do not remember the exact name, it was one that MJL invited me to that was (supposedly) specifically for LGBT wikipedia users.

It sounds as though you feel you were somehow roped in to joining the main Wikipedia Discord. Do you have a sense for that?

I think that's a fair assessment of how I feel. MJL made the invitation to the main Wikipedia Discord only after genericusername and Guerillero were on their warpath and had blocked me under the false pretenses. When I came in, the response was pretty summarily unhelpful and antagonistic, and it was followed very shortly by incoming private messages that were similar in nature to the email. Once I set the setting to not allow messages unless friended, I got friend requests from accounts that looked like they were made specifically to antagonize me based on their displayed names being insults directed at me.

[IhateAccounts]

They were from the same sender...

Just a thought here... It is often possible for people to guess at your email address, especially if it's based on a name you use in public. If, for example, your email address was ihateaccounts@... something, they can just try ihateaccounts@outlook.com, ihateaccounts@gmail.com, etc, and see if one of them hits. And it's not at all labour intensive - it's easy to write a small program that sends to a whole list of email domains in one go.

So if you have a guessable email address, that could be one route. But it would be unlikely to explain the multiple emails from the same sender - unless you ever replied to any, for example the first one?

Anyway, I don't know if this helps, but I've been in this kind of business for a long time and I've seen many cases of email addresses being discovered this way.

The email address was created on a service suggested by CaptainEek (or the person who represented themselves as same) on Discord since I am, very rightly, protective of my day-to-day personal email address.

[Without Comfort]

I wish I could say I see any strong direction to look for leads. I appreciate that the details you are providing can be used if similar things are reported in the future by another person.

Please feel free to disagree with me, and I may very well be wrong here, but I'm going to guess that T & S were not involved. That said, Kalliope at T & S has allegedly worked to cover up sexual assault that was connected to another online platform for couch surfing. This is covered in one or more threads here.

I'm also going to stick my neck out to say I think ArbCom is likely uninvolved. I believe I know of outright lies one or two current (I think) and former ArbCom members made about something related to possible email harassment in years past. Since I've not heard of a spate of such behavior on the topic of email harassment, I'm inclined to pass judgement that it was a one-off. I've been at a loss to understand that incident.

I know nothing of MJL, but Wikipedians, even actual Administrators, are free to engage in discussion with blocked and banned people. This happens on Wikipedia online locations such as Meta. Socializing also happens in offline events. It is not that big of a deal to be blocked or even banned from one WMF project. Could you go back over the sequence of events that led to you believing MJL said they said they cannot interact with you? Of course, "cannot" could stand in for "strongly don't wish to."

I take it that you don't feel like it's an option to post the email contents of what you sent to ArbCom.

[GorillaWarfare]

GorillaWarfare is just as much a former Arb as Guerillero. At the time she thought the block was hasty and the evidence was weak.

I saw that I was mentioned, so I feel like I should clarify that I have not looked at the checkuser evidence. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED with respect to IHateAccounts, and in any case I'm not particularly useful with more complex checks or identifying LTAs. But I did feel (and still do) that IHA should have been granted the benefit of the doubt on what I took to effectively be a {{likely}} checkuser result. There is no way to argue the negative in that case, as I mentioned on-wiki: "Assume for a moment that IHA is not a sockpuppet of SA. What would they say in the unblock request to convince someone of that? If they indeed are not a sockpuppet, they likely barely even know who SA was." Perhaps IHA would have eventually been blocked for other reasons, but that is no reason to checkuserblock a person who otherwise might have been given the benefit of the doubt. (Though to be clear, I'm not sure if that factored into the decision or not.)

I was going to leave the comment at that, but I am dismayed to see that IHA is now here suggesting that this was anti-LGBT persecution from Guerillero or that MJL was involved in some shady dealings relating to adminship. I don't think either of those things is remotely likely. I am bringing up the following to add a bit of context to these accusations:

I had some conversations with IHA around the time of the SPI, as well as afterwards, as IHA has mentioned. They also informed me of the harassing emails that they were receiving, and that they believed it was a result of their decision to email the Arbitration Committee. I told them I did not think it was likely that either the ArbCom divulged their email address to a third party, or that one of the ArbCom members was sending the harassing emails. I am aware of the email address to which these emails were sent, and I have no intentions of divulging it since IHA has chosen not to, but in my view it was almost certainly a case of someone guessing the address, which would have been easy to do. IHA did not seem willing to believe what is, in my view, the Occam's Razor explanation.

I don't know for certain why MJL stopped communicating with IHA, but I suspect it is for the same reason I did. IHA and I had had quite pleasant interactions on Wikipedia prior to the SPI, and I believe we each considered each other to be in somewhat of a mentor/mentee relationship. I tried to help lend an ear and advice where I could while the SPI was underway, and as Without Comfort has noticed I stuck up for them how I could at the SPI without getting involved on a checkuser level. After the block, IHA was extremely upset (understandably). However, after they began to send me abusive messages, repeatedly, after I asked them to stop, I ended up blocking communications with them. I said at the time that I hoped they were not also sending such messages to MJL, but I suspect they were.

[Without Comfort]

GorillaWarfare is just as much a former Arb as Guerillero. At the time she thought the block was hasty and the evidence was weak.

I saw that I was mentioned, so I feel like I should clarify that I have not looked at the checkuser evidence. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED with respect to IHateAccounts, and in any case I'm not particularly useful with more complex checks or identifying LTAs. But I did feel (and still do) that IHA should have been granted the benefit of the doubt on what I took to effectively be a {{likely}} checkuser result. There is no way to argue the negative in that case, as I mentioned on-wiki: "Assume for a moment that IHA is not a sockpuppet of SA. What would they say in the unblock request to convince someone of that? If they indeed are not a sockpuppet, they likely barely even know who SA was." Perhaps IHA would have eventually been blocked for other reasons, but that is no reason to checkuserblock a person who otherwise might have been given the benefit of the doubt. (Though to be clear, I'm not sure if that factored into the decision or not.)

I had some conversations with IHA around the time of the SPI, as well as afterwards, as IHA has mentioned. They also informed me of the harassing emails that they were receiving, and that they believed it was a result of their decision to email the Arbitration Committee. I told them I did not think it was likely that either the ArbCom divulged their email address to a third party, or that one of the ArbCom members was sending the harassing emails. I am aware of the email address to which these emails were sent, and I have no intentions of divulging it since IHA has chosen not to, but in my view it was almost certainly a case of someone guessing the address, which would have been easy to do.

I don't know for certain why MJL stopped communicating with IHA, but I suspect it is for the same reason I did. IHA and I had had quite pleasant interactions on Wikipedia prior to the SPI, and I believe we each considered each other to be in somewhat of a mentor/mentee relationship. I tried to help lend an ear and advice where I could while the SPI was underway, and as Without Comfort has noticed I stuck up for them how I could at the SPI without getting involved on a checkuser level. After the block, IHA was extremely upset (understandably). However, after they began to send me abusive messages, repeatedly, after I asked them to stop, I ended up blocking communications with them. I said at the time that I hoped they were not also sending such messages to MJL, but I suspect they were.

Maybe IHA feels sorry now for freaking out and lashing out. Sounds like it was a confusing time for them.

[GorillaWarfare]

Maybe IHA feels sorry now for freaking out and lashing out. Sounds like it was a confusing time for them.

Perhaps, though I'm not here trying to get an apology or anything like that. They'd had a really awful time on Wikipedia and then received harassing emails to pile on top of things, so while of course I didn't appreciate the messages I don't really hold them against IHA. But I am unhappy to see that even with the incident a little less fresh, they are making pretty serious (and in my view, quite unlikely) accusations against some other editors. I don't expect someone who has been treated unfairly (or certainly at least feels that way) to be on perfect behavior, but these conspiracy theories are a bit extreme.

[IhateAccounts]

Please feel free to disagree with me, and I may very well be wrong here, but I'm going to guess that T & S were not involved. That said, Kalliope at T & S has allegedly worked to cover up sexual assault that was connected to another online platform for couch surfing. This is covered in one or more threads here.

Trust & Safety were definitely involved and were included on emails.

[IhateAccounts]

I know nothing of MJL, but Wikipedians, even actual Administrators, are free to engage in discussion with blocked and banned people. This happens on Wikipedia online locations such as Meta. Socializing also happens in offline events. It is not that big of a deal to be blocked or even banned from one WMF project. Could you go back over the sequence of events that led to you believing MJL said they said they cannot interact with you? Of course, "cannot" could stand in for "strongly don't wish to."

I do not have access to my previous discord records. Here are the salient points I remember.

• MJL desires to run for admin.
• MJL stated on multiple occasions that having me as a mentee was bad enough beyond being trans or nonbinary and that my existence would be used to attack any application for membership by MJL.
• MJL stated on multiple occasions that running for admin would be easier if I left wikipedia.
• MJL after I was blocked, received the particularly terrible emails, and then was denied by arbitration committee in a form email, repeated these points and then the last thing I heard was a comment to the effect that MJL was not allowed to talk to me any more. I take this to mean that behind the scenes, MJL was informed that continuing to communicate with me would be used as a disqualifier for their applying for adminship.

I take it that you don't feel like it's an option to post the email contents of what you sent to ArbCom.

Given that Beeblebrox has not answered basic questions posted here that do not require divulging, I do not really see the point. I made a promise to keep an open mind and talk with Beeblebrox and I remain open to that.

[IhateAccounts]

I am aware of the email address to which these emails were sent, and I have no intentions of divulging it since IHA has chosen not to, but in my view it was almost certainly a case of someone guessing the address, which would have been easy to do. IHA did not seem willing to believe what is, in my view, the Occam's Razor explanation.

I cannot see it as the Occam's Razor reason because of three important logical points.

• 1. I had not made a public comment to my talk page about bringing the block to the arbitration committee.
• 2. Outside of the small number of people (enough to count on one hand) that I spoke with on Discord, plus of course the arbitration committee themselves, nobody should have known I had sent it to the arbitration committee.
• 3. The harassing email specifically mentioned the arbitration committee in its subject line before telling me to kill myself.

[IhateAccounts]

I don't expect someone who has been treated unfairly (or certainly at least feels that way) to be on perfect behavior, but these conspiracy theories are a bit extreme.

For the things I said which you feel crossed the line, I do apologize. At the same time, I do not now feel well treated by your portraying my legitimate observations and honest reactions as "conspiracy theories."

At least you aren't accusing me of faking the emails, as Guerillero has done.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I don't expect someone who has been treated unfairly (or certainly at least feels that way) to be on perfect behavior, but these conspiracy theories are a bit extreme.

For the things I said which you feel crossed the line, I do apologize. At the same time, I do not now feel well treated by your portraying my legitimate observations and honest reactions as "conspiracy theories."

"... behind the scenes, MJL was informed that continuing to communicate with me would be used as a disqualifier for their applying for adminship" What is that, if not a conspiracy theory?

At least you aren't accusing me of faking the emails, as Guerillero has done.

People do things like that all the time on the internet especially if they feel it benefits them to be seen as the victim in some way. I'm not saying you faked the emails, but those of us who've seen this kind of thing before will know that it is a possibility.

[Without Comfort]

I don't expect someone who has been treated unfairly (or certainly at least feels that way) to be on perfect behavior, but these conspiracy theories are a bit extreme.

For the things I said which you feel crossed the line, I do apologize. At the same time, I do not now feel well treated by your portraying my legitimate observations and honest reactions as "conspiracy theories."

"... behind the scenes, MJL was informed that continuing to communicate with me would be used as a disqualifier for their applying for adminship" What is that, if not a conspiracy theory?

At least you aren't accusing me of faking the emails, as Guerillero has done.

People do things like that all the time on the internet especially if they feel it benefits them to be seen as the victim in some way. I'm not saying you faked the emails, but those of us who've seen this kind of thing before will know that it is a possibility.

I acknowledge that logic dictates the faking is a possibility. Putting myself in the shoes of a person who literally experienced what's been explained, especially if I were a younger person with less online experience, I'd feel so hurt and quite possibly outraged to be turned against over and over while being accused of being a liar.

[Without Comfort]

I don't expect someone who has been treated unfairly (or certainly at least feels that way) to be on perfect behavior, but these conspiracy theories are a bit extreme.

For the things I said which you feel crossed the line, I do apologize. At the same time, I do not now feel well treated by your portraying my legitimate observations and honest reactions as "conspiracy theories."

At least you aren't accusing me of faking the emails, as Guerillero has done.

What if words were chosen more carefully to help you not feel attacked? What if you felt supported instead?

I may sound very harsh, but I'm not trying to. What if instead of "conspiracy theories," which are naturally hurtful words, the words were "theories that appear to, in my view, leap to conclusions that don't necessarily logically follow?" Would those words help you feel more supported even though they would necessarily challenge what you have surmised happened behind the scenes?

[Without Comfort]

I am aware of the email address to which these emails were sent, and I have no intentions of divulging it since IHA has chosen not to, but in my view it was almost certainly a case of someone guessing the address, which would have been easy to do. IHA did not seem willing to believe what is, in my view, the Occam's Razor explanation.

I cannot see it as the Occam's Razor reason because of three important logical points.

• 1. I had not made a public comment to my talk page about bringing the block to the arbitration committee.
• 2. Outside of the small number of people (enough to count on one hand) that I spoke with on Discord, plus of course the arbitration committee themselves, nobody should have known I had sent it to the arbitration committee.
• 3. The harassing email specifically mentioned the arbitration committee in its subject line before telling me to kill myself.

I really am appreciating the timeline of events. From your perspective as someone who experienced this harassment, I imagine it's hard laying out exactly every last thing that happened. From the perspective of someone who's just hearing about these events, it helps when you give details.

I can certainly see why you reached the conclusions you did. There are, unfortunately, some other possibilities.

[Without Comfort]

Please feel free to disagree with me, and I may very well be wrong here, but I'm going to guess that T & S were not involved. That said, Kalliope at T & S has allegedly worked to cover up sexual assault that was connected to another online platform for couch surfing. This is covered in one or more threads here.

Trust & Safety were definitely involved and were included on emails.

Help me here. Do you mean involved in that they received and ignored emails from you?

[Without Comfort]

Given that Beeblebrox has not answered basic questions posted here that do not require divulging, I do not really see the point. I made a promise to keep an open mind and talk with Beeblebrox and I remain open to that.

Is it possible that you think Beebs should answer to you for the behavior of ArbCom? Do you think ArbCom should look into what happened to you? Do you think this is a job of theirs?

Just so you know, neither Beebs nor GW had anything to do with the prior ArbCom-related incident I described. They are both well-liked even among Wikipedia critics, though not everybody agrees, and nobody is perfect.

[Vigilant]

I’m ready to join Socrates after reading this thread.

[Ryuichi]

I’m ready to join Socrates after reading this thread.

I was thinking Diogenes.