User talk:Tilskuer

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of His_excellency (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Hi. If he is the individual you claim him to be, how did he violate the terms of his probation, specifically? If depicting a single three-revert day (which is not good, but in isolation and in context of the overall edits is not such a big deal) is all you can provide in terms of such alleged misconduct, then this potential "outing" crosses the line (and otherwise, the only time such an outing would be mandated would be during prospective flag change, such as adminship request). Not to mention that it is carried through an account whose only edits (two in total) concern this issue. I am, therefore, blocking this account and you may respond on the talk page, here, but within reason. Also, can you clarify why you haven't posed that request through your normal account? It would have carried more weight, unless you're a banned user, of course. El_C 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question stands El_C, and I invite you to bring it before the wider community at AN/I.

Should an ArbCom sanctioned user be allowed to invoke the right to vanish, immediately return under a new account while still on probation and edit the same articles? And more particularly, a bold and confrontational user who is drawn to, and sometimes is in the center of, multiple controversies?

How can anyone monitor his actions for compliance, if the answer is yes? If the answer is no, more proof can be provided that User B = User A, and has tag-team edit-warred. Regarding incivility and dispuptive behavior, he has been accused of such by more than one, but that's much more subjective.Tilskuer 00:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer this way: Users under sanction should not change accounts without informing arbcom. However, action to be taken is not clear. In the case of Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf, he was found out because he was still disruptive. In the case of GuardianZ/Ebonyskye, the new account made the same edits disputing the role of a member of a minor band no one has heard of. Here, it apparently took 11 months to figure it out (if it is true). I also don't think that the complaint you made would rise to the level of initiating a page ban under the probation even if the allegation were true. So the only meat to your complaint is on principle--a user who changes accounts and becomes a (mostly) reasonable editor should be punished. I don't like unnecessary secrey but I don't like witch hunts either. Thatcher131 00:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you said, "I also don't think that the complaint you made would rise to the level of initiating a page ban under the probation even if the allegation were true." Do you wish for me to provide additional input?

In regards to the confirmed sockpuppet tag above, that is disturbing and a prime example of the faults of the checkuser tool and/or the users that wield it. Logging in from a coffee shop and then a TOR proxy confirms I am his excellency? Are you sure?.Tilskuer 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whom do you claim to be, then? El_C 13:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, Friday marked my first ever contribution to wikipedia. I suspect you would fall into the "or not" category judging from the amount of crap that goes on here. I've followed WP for quite some time. I originally intended to contribute after I had familiarized myself with the place, but in that process, I peeked behind the curtains and became both fascinated with the inner workings and dissuaded from volunteering to collaborate in such a cutthroat environment. Because I spend my time here reading instead of writing, responding or becoming involved in the daily dramas, I probably know more of what's going on than some of your admins. I also see things that are either unnoticed or ignored by others. I'm not sure what motivated me to register and file a notice in this particular occasion and not others, but it does include the monumental hypocrisy involved by the user, the admin that knew all along and others within their clique. I think you would have to admit I followed the proper procedure.

Getting back to the label on the top of the page, I've noticed it points me to RFCU for evidence, but there is no entry for the user name Tilskuer. While it does not bother me personally because it's just an anonymous ID, It does negatively reinforce my opinion of WP. As I know it to be untrue, there is only a limited number of reasons as to why it is there. The most benign of those possibilities would be checkuser was run, it gave a false positive and Dmcdevit neglected to fill out the proper forms. I'm sure you can fill out the rest of the list.Tilskuer 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking Dmcdevit on IRC about the editors in your original allegation and while investigating that he said, "by the way, Tilskuer is His_excellency using tor." There is no written request; many checks are done without written requests and written requests are not required by the policy. When I added the template I added a note, see Dmcdevit or something like that. You'll have to take it up with him if you want. Thatcher131 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]