81.247.176.156 (talk) |
|||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
::: FT2, you may be right that his behavior has not always been exemplary, but all the bad behavior I have seen was a human response to very shabby treatment. He came back in good faith months after his previous account was linked to his real identity, and was outed again. Then you told him he couldn't edit in the same area of Wikipedia. In my opinion he was perfectly entitled to edit in the same area provided his editing behavior was acceptable (as for everyone else). That is the heart of this matter. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
::: FT2, you may be right that his behavior has not always been exemplary, but all the bad behavior I have seen was a human response to very shabby treatment. He came back in good faith months after his previous account was linked to his real identity, and was outed again. Then you told him he couldn't edit in the same area of Wikipedia. In my opinion he was perfectly entitled to edit in the same area provided his editing behavior was acceptable (as for everyone else). That is the heart of this matter. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: Personal attack, now misrepresentation. Chill, Zero, this is incorrect as well. He has '''never''' been told he may not edit in any area, as you claim. He's actually been told he is welcome to do so - but contributing on I-P is conditional on not misleading other editors as to his past editing history, which is a Checkuser consensus from last year. [[WP:SOCK]] and [[WP:CLEANSTART]] are both very clear indeed - we don't undertake to protect anyone against being identified or discussed as a past user if they return, and if that's a problem it's down to the user to modify their editing or change editing areas to avoid recognition. They may also have to make a choice between non-disclosure and topic editing where they have significant past history or warnings. Noisetier was given that decision by Checkusers, but instead his conduct deteriorated and more concerns arose. The problem is that "acceptable" includes complying with this norm. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
:::: Personal attack, now misrepresentation. Chill, Zero, this is incorrect as well. He has '''never''' been told he may not edit in any area, as you claim. He's actually been told he is welcome to do so - but contributing on I-P is conditional on not misleading other editors as to his past editing history, which is a Checkuser consensus from last year. [[WP:SOCK]] and [[WP:CLEANSTART]] are both very clear indeed - we don't undertake to protect anyone against being identified or discussed as a past user if they return, and if that's a problem it's down to the user to modify their editing or change editing areas to avoid recognition. They may also have to make a choice between non-disclosure and topic editing where they have significant past history or warnings. Noisetier was given that decision by Checkusers, but instead his conduct deteriorated and more concerns arose. The problem is that "acceptable" includes complying with this norm. [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:FT2, in reply to your suggestion, since I recently learned that the editor has threatened off-wiki to become a ''wikiterrorist'', I don't think I would open a case in WP:ANI, for fear of my personal safety. Not sure what this means exactly but I prefer to be on the safe side - I rather not have any personal business with terrorists of any kind, thank you. Administrators on this site should think carefully whether people making such threats should be allowed to continue editing. Anyone else willing to handle this case is welcome but I'm finished. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::'''On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project.''' |
::'''On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project.''' |
Revision as of 19:59, 12 October 2011
Noisetier
- Noisetier (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 October 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Same ISP and geographic location as previously blocked IP-socks of Noisetier (e.g : 91.180.120.246, 81.247.0.0/17) – see HelloyAnnyong’s comment here: [1] Same set of articles edited by Noisetier and his numerous IP socks, repeating the same points that Noiseteir and previous IP socks were making
Noisteir : [2] “Historians refer to that period with the name "1948 Palestine War"
81.247.93.126 : [3] “historians (coming from all sides...) refer to the events from November '47 to mid-49 to the 1948 Palestine War/War for Palestine.”
Same grammatical errors indicating a non-native English speaker + an indication that this user is French speaking and editing on French Wikipedia, like Noisetier: [4], Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Marokwitz has also notes this obvious sock - see [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the claim that the sockmaster is not currently blocked, please see comments from Administrator FT2, in the previous Noisetier SP case:[6] "the IP user has been told formally and unconditionally that multiple Checkusers agree he is in breach of sock policy (in their view) and that he needs to comply with sock policy and disclose certain matters or cease editing the topic area of concern. He has consistently failed to make good and has also continued to edit the topic area knowing that Checkusers who reviewed his actions consider this a significant breach of sock policy. So action is probably reasonable now" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foo Bar Buzz Netz (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- this is a 18 month long harashment.
81.247.176.156 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Noiseter is not blocked or otherwise banned, and a user is not required to log in to edit. Why has the obvious sock here (Foo Bar Buzz Netz) not blocked? nableezy - 19:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a "claim" that Noiseter is not blocked or otherwise banned. It is a fact that anybody who checks the user's block log can see. nableezy - 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Marokwitz I agree with the nominator. See previous case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noisetier/Archive. This user apparently has at least three previous accounts (Ceejee, Alithien, Balagen). This obviously a significant and repeated breach of sock policy, and now the user is editing anonymously to evade his promise to cease editing. The IPs represent a user who has repeatedly been told there is a concern over a breach of WP:SOCK and has repeatedly "retired" only to return in breach of the exact same issue. Administrator FT2 also wrote some very disturbing facts about this user, such as "Emails from Noisetier included threats to sock and be a "wikiterrorist"" Marokwitz (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just saying something does not make it so. The user is under no obligation to "cease editing", and none of the listed past accounts is currently subject to any editing restriction. Can anybody say what restriction this user is violating by not logging in to edit? Last I checked we still allowed IPs to edit here. nableezy - 20:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- This user stated (a statement which still appears on his page) that he doesn't contribute to wp:en and is deceiving other editors by continuing to edit under anonymous addresses.
- Motion to closing admin: I request that as part of this SPI case all previous accounts, including User:Noisetier, User:Ceedjee, User:Alithien, as well as the IP addresses are blocked as obvious sockpuppets to put an end to this story once and for all. The IP user has already been told formally and unconditionally that multiple Checkusers agree he is in breach of sock policy. The user has threatened to sock and be a "wikiterrorist". We should not allow this unacceptable behavior to continue. Marokwitz (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only unacceptable thing happening here is the way an obvious sockpuppet is allowed to continue, as their only edits, harassing another user who is not blocked or banned. There is absolutely zero justification for the blocking of any of the accounts here, none of them are "sockpuppets". The user is not abusing anything, instead he is being harassed by an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user who has made as their only purpose on this project with this username hounding a user that is in good standing here. The user is not blocked or otherwise restricted from editing. Unless there is a sanction that this user is obligated to only edit while logged in the user is not violating anything. We all know who he is, so this whinging about "avoiding scrutiny" is baseless. "Avoiding scrutiny" is creating an account for the sole purpose of hounding another editor. I still cannot wrap my head around how you people are just sitting here nodding along with FBBN as he preaches from the mountain tops, enlightening us to the evils of sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny. One more time: the user is not blocked or banned. Under any account. And there is no basis for a block or ban for any account. nableezy - 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic. If you believe another editor is violating policies, file a new SPI case, this is totally irrelevant to the evidence presented here. Noisetier/Ceedjee/Alithien is using of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors. Wikipedia:Sock clearly says, "Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Having posted on his talk page that he is no longer active on the english Wikipedia, along with off-wiki email messages presented as evidence are clear proof that this user is intentionally trying to deceive. If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the policy is to block ll the sock puppet accounts indefinitely. There is consensus among multiple Checkusers that the user has violated the sock policy after receiving clear and repeated warnings. I cannot imagine a reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Marokwitz (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Uhh, it isnt being done deceptively. Who and how is the user deceiving by editing as an IP? The user's talk page no longer says the user is not active, anything else? Most people do not control whether or not they have a static IP or a dynamic one, so the reference to multiple IPs is specious. You wrote if a person is found to be using a sock puppet ... None of the accounts are "sockpuppets". That is why none of them should be blocked. If there someone wants to propose a formal restriction that this person edit only while logged in that can be done in the appropriate place. As it is, no accounts associated with the person is currently subject to any editing restriction, and the person is not currently obligated to edit while logged in. The user has not edited with multiple accounts or IPs in any way that violates the policy, and no evidence of that has ever been brought. Is there any evidence of attempting to manipulate consensus, edit-warring with multiple IPs, or anything else that is actually a breach of the policy? Because if not, this remains a banned editor continue his years long harassment of an editor in good standing who is not restricted from editing as an IP. nableezy - 22:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SCRUTINY is about 4 lines long here. Go read it and understand it's not optional. Other editors have a right to know if someone has previously edited on a topic, and if so their past editing, warning, block, or sanctions record. A user who switches between accounts, then threatens to switch to IPs or sock, lies about his past when asked directly on-wiki if he has an account, and then gives the impression by another misleading announcement to fellow editors that he is not active on wp:en (one can WP:LAWYER the account isn't but the individual is) only to return as an apparently unrelated dynamic IP, is not giving them the ability to do this. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your condescending tone does not help your argument. I am familiar with that policy, thank you very much. You have repeatedly made these claims of lying and evading scrutiny but when asked for a diff of the user actually lying you produce one where the user provides an incomplete, but honest, response. Whereas the user who you have no problem with socking has repeatedly lied about his past activities. Funny how that works out. But back to the point, a user does not determine if their ISP provides them with a static or dynamic address, so claiming that the user is return[ing] as an apparently unrelated dynamic IP is at the least an attempt at misdirection and at worst an outright attempt at deception. There is nothing WP:SCRUTINY that requires a user to not edit from an IP. Nothing. nableezy - 13:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- FT2, you seem to have missed the link in SCRUTINY, namely Wikipedia:SCRUTINY#Legitimate_uses, that under the label "privacy" explicitly permits the use of a sock in this case. Zerotalk 14:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't missed a thing. They have a different focus. WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses says that if you edit topics that are controversial or may expose you to attacks, you can use a different account than your usual one to edit those topics. It says nothing about having a right to avoid disclosure for multiple such accounts. WP:SOCK#Scrutiny says that whatever accounts or IPs you use to edit any given topic, other editors have the right to know your past on that topic (so they can identify patterns in it, know any past issues where you were discussed, etc).
- WP:SCRUTINY is about 4 lines long here. Go read it and understand it's not optional. Other editors have a right to know if someone has previously edited on a topic, and if so their past editing, warning, block, or sanctions record. A user who switches between accounts, then threatens to switch to IPs or sock, lies about his past when asked directly on-wiki if he has an account, and then gives the impression by another misleading announcement to fellow editors that he is not active on wp:en (one can WP:LAWYER the account isn't but the individual is) only to return as an apparently unrelated dynamic IP, is not giving them the ability to do this. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Uhh, it isnt being done deceptively. Who and how is the user deceiving by editing as an IP? The user's talk page no longer says the user is not active, anything else? Most people do not control whether or not they have a static IP or a dynamic one, so the reference to multiple IPs is specious. You wrote if a person is found to be using a sock puppet ... None of the accounts are "sockpuppets". That is why none of them should be blocked. If there someone wants to propose a formal restriction that this person edit only while logged in that can be done in the appropriate place. As it is, no accounts associated with the person is currently subject to any editing restriction, and the person is not currently obligated to edit while logged in. The user has not edited with multiple accounts or IPs in any way that violates the policy, and no evidence of that has ever been brought. Is there any evidence of attempting to manipulate consensus, edit-warring with multiple IPs, or anything else that is actually a breach of the policy? Because if not, this remains a banned editor continue his years long harassment of an editor in good standing who is not restricted from editing as an IP. nableezy - 22:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic. If you believe another editor is violating policies, file a new SPI case, this is totally irrelevant to the evidence presented here. Noisetier/Ceedjee/Alithien is using of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors. Wikipedia:Sock clearly says, "Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Having posted on his talk page that he is no longer active on the english Wikipedia, along with off-wiki email messages presented as evidence are clear proof that this user is intentionally trying to deceive. If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the policy is to block ll the sock puppet accounts indefinitely. There is consensus among multiple Checkusers that the user has violated the sock policy after receiving clear and repeated warnings. I cannot imagine a reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Marokwitz (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only unacceptable thing happening here is the way an obvious sockpuppet is allowed to continue, as their only edits, harassing another user who is not blocked or banned. There is absolutely zero justification for the blocking of any of the accounts here, none of them are "sockpuppets". The user is not abusing anything, instead he is being harassed by an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user who has made as their only purpose on this project with this username hounding a user that is in good standing here. The user is not blocked or otherwise restricted from editing. Unless there is a sanction that this user is obligated to only edit while logged in the user is not violating anything. We all know who he is, so this whinging about "avoiding scrutiny" is baseless. "Avoiding scrutiny" is creating an account for the sole purpose of hounding another editor. I still cannot wrap my head around how you people are just sitting here nodding along with FBBN as he preaches from the mountain tops, enlightening us to the evils of sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny. One more time: the user is not blocked or banned. Under any account. And there is no basis for a block or ban for any account. nableezy - 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:Clean start (policy) adds that nobody is forcing any user to edit any topic or page and users with that concern are warned repeatedly their privacy may not be protected. But if he does insist on editing it, despite the privacy issue, then Checkuser and policy consensus both say he must provide appropriate disclosure so fellow editors are not misled, and that failure to do so may be seen as deceptive or negatively; if unwilling and very concerned for safety, he should not edit the topic.
- In summary, if privacy matters then don't edit the topic (nobody's forcing him). If editing matters more than privacy then accept past accounts will be identified by users based on his style and also disclose past activity. If he wants both then find a way to disclose and act properly that does not involve concealing or misleading, and get consensus from uninvolved users that it is acceptable and won't mislead new I-P editors who may not know he had previous accounts/IPs. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment/suggested resolution: I would suggest at this point that the matter is becoming disruptive and should be settled, as it should have been months ago, and that Marokwitz should take this case to the administrators' incidents noticeboard to ask for a decision on handling. The points that should be noted at ANI are:
- The past history, including notes on the SPI archive page, showing Noisetier has threatened to sock, has lied about his past history in the I-P area both on-wiki to other editors (IPs only, and for a year only) and in email to a Checkuser (only edited mandate, didn't contribute to I-P topic area), has told other editors he was leaving editing I-P and claimed prominently "this account" is "inactive" only to secretly return using a dynamic IP shortly after.
- The use of dynamic IPs (not for the first time) as threatened in 2010, and history of switching accounts/IPs with refusal to follow Checkuser consensus regarding WP:SOCK/WP:SCRUTINY
- Noisetier and ally nableezy's raising of FBBN as a reason why no action is needed - this is a smokescreen since 1/ it doesn't impact what Noisetier should do, 2/ the account is relatively benign, being used only to note Noisetier's breach of WP:SOCK when Noisetier does so, and going idle otherwise. (Concerns over FBBN should be separately addressed and not conflated).
- Policy requirements to not use multiple accounts, or accounts and IPs, to mislead or deceive other editors + key cites.
- Consensus is requested that Noisetier should be told to edit through one account only, and not through multiple accounts or dynamic IPs, and that he should disclose on his user page that he has had a previous account and IP history in the I-P area, including blocks (and what those blocks were for), for other I-P editors, per WP:SCRUTINY. This does not breach any privacy he may be concerned about.
To my mind this will resolve the dispute by ensuring it is clear what Noisetier should do. Noisetier and friends will also have a fair opportunity in that venue, to put their case. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am not raising FBBN as a reason why no action is needed, please do not do that. I am saying that regardless of whether or not the person is using an account or an IP, it is unbelievable to me that a banned editor is allowed to continue socking with sole aim of hounding another user. Now I dont know if FBBN is NoCal or not, but it is obvious that the user is a sock whose only contribution has been to hound Noisetier. I still dont understand how you can just look at a sock made to avoid scrutiny say that so and so is a sock account avoiding scrutiny as if you were in some sort of hypnotic trance. I am not aware of a diff of the user saying he had only edited as an IP and only for a year and that diff does not appear in the archives. If that diff can be produced that may change my mind, but right now the only thing that should happen is that FBBN be blocked an obvious sock hounding another person out of spite. nableezy - 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your diff. Q: "Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia?" Noisetier: I contributed with IP's during 1 year. Hope this helps." (Sept 2010) This was Noisetier's 18th edit under that account, 8 days after it was created.
- FT2 (Talk | email) 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was true at the time. It did not answer the question, but was accurate. That diff is not what you quoted. Is there a diff where the user actually denies using an account? (And, just as an aside, look who is asking that question in the provided diff, one of many NoCal socks) nableezy - 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was untrue - a lie - as you obviously know and he knew. Let's not try to wikilawyer it, Nableezy. "It was true at the time" is nonsense. When asked if you have an account and you say "well I used an IP", that's deceiving other users. He was asked if he had a past account and he posted a reply intended to mislead all other users that he had not had one, and had only edited for a year. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, it was not a lie. I cant say I remember the exact time line, but IIRC the user had in fact only been editing as an IP for a year. The user did not say he did not have any prior accounts, he said he had been editing as an IP for a year. Is there a diff where the user actually denies having prior accounts? Sort of like this? Because that would be a lie. Made by a liar. Who is again socking. nableezy - 12:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was untrue - a lie - as you obviously know and he knew. Let's not try to wikilawyer it, Nableezy. "It was true at the time" is nonsense. When asked if you have an account and you say "well I used an IP", that's deceiving other users. He was asked if he had a past account and he posted a reply intended to mislead all other users that he had not had one, and had only edited for a year. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was true at the time. It did not answer the question, but was accurate. That diff is not what you quoted. Is there a diff where the user actually denies using an account? (And, just as an aside, look who is asking that question in the provided diff, one of many NoCal socks) nableezy - 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Noisetier is not a banned user. In fact he would like to be a normal contributor with a normal account that is not connectable to his real identity. He has a very legitimate reason for being sensitive about outing. His wish to be a normal anonymous editor is repeatedly thwarted by the disruptive psychopath called FBBN and by a certain unsympathetic admin. Why is FBBN still here? Zerotalk 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Zero, if he were not playing games, and had met inquiries with evidence rather than clear dishonesty, then he would find me more sympathetic. He has had numerous chances - and indeed has been asked - to sort this out appropriately (which would have been quite easy to make good faith or non-privacy-breaching attempts) and refused. You'll notice it is other users who opened and reopened the SPI case, my sole involvement in these SPI pages has been to provide evidence of what I know of the case to the discussion, and those facts have also been passed in full to Checkusers (I don't see anyone saying it's incorrect). While he had full sympathy at the start, his response was to threaten (twice) to become a "wikiterrorist" or to sock, and to lie about his behavior to Checkusers examining his editing history, and to breach a fairly universal policy on disclosure which the Checkuser team as a whole agreed should apply. Bottom line is that "I don't wanna" is not a good reason to play games and his fears of past account linking can be taken account of, but he refused from the start to work with those willing to try and help him, preferring threats instead. He probably needs to comply. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- FT2, you may be right that his behavior has not always been exemplary, but all the bad behavior I have seen was a human response to very shabby treatment. He came back in good faith months after his previous account was linked to his real identity, and was outed again. Then you told him he couldn't edit in the same area of Wikipedia. In my opinion he was perfectly entitled to edit in the same area provided his editing behavior was acceptable (as for everyone else). That is the heart of this matter. Zerotalk 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Personal attack, now misrepresentation. Chill, Zero, this is incorrect as well. He has never been told he may not edit in any area, as you claim. He's actually been told he is welcome to do so - but contributing on I-P is conditional on not misleading other editors as to his past editing history, which is a Checkuser consensus from last year. WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART are both very clear indeed - we don't undertake to protect anyone against being identified or discussed as a past user if they return, and if that's a problem it's down to the user to modify their editing or change editing areas to avoid recognition. They may also have to make a choice between non-disclosure and topic editing where they have significant past history or warnings. Noisetier was given that decision by Checkusers, but instead his conduct deteriorated and more concerns arose. The problem is that "acceptable" includes complying with this norm. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- FT2, you may be right that his behavior has not always been exemplary, but all the bad behavior I have seen was a human response to very shabby treatment. He came back in good faith months after his previous account was linked to his real identity, and was outed again. Then you told him he couldn't edit in the same area of Wikipedia. In my opinion he was perfectly entitled to edit in the same area provided his editing behavior was acceptable (as for everyone else). That is the heart of this matter. Zerotalk 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- FT2, in reply to your suggestion, since I recently learned that the editor has threatened off-wiki to become a wikiterrorist, I don't think I would open a case in WP:ANI, for fear of my personal safety. Not sure what this means exactly but I prefer to be on the safe side - I rather not have any personal business with terrorists of any kind, thank you. Administrators on this site should think carefully whether people making such threats should be allowed to continue editing. Anyone else willing to handle this case is welcome but I'm finished. Marokwitz (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP, whereabouts, or other information sufficient to identify them, unless they have already revealed this information themselves on the project.
- (...). Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible.
- Generally, do not reveal IPs. Only give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it himself. - If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed. - If you're in any doubt, give no detail.
- 91.180.207.119 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Smokescreen again - in bold this time. Long quote from policy is pointless. None of this applies since we aren't discussing revealing your IPs, your whereabouts or any other personally identifying information here. In fact the only person "revealing IPs" is you. Since you have used them publicly others can and will discuss them just like in any other SPI case (normal and policy-based). A disclosure of key features of your past editing history sufficient for fellow editors and a requirement to edit through just one account, do not need to involve any privacy policy issues and would resolve the issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- These CU would be in violation with the privacy policy even more that none of the accounts that are discussed here above is blocked. There is no rule forbidding editing through IP and the requester didn't provide any abuse of the IP against which he requets as CU. The conclusion of a CU requests is obvious...
- 91.180.207.119 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)