User talk:Bergerons

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bergerons (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

The articles you edit are too similar to the person you're accused of being a sock of. I'm letting Jayjg know about this so he can look further into it.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Jayjg for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Your IP address is [see page history]."

User:Jayjg (12:31, 30 July 2006) blocked me indefinitely claiming that I was a sock puppet of User:Dervish Tsaddik [1][2]. I would appreciate if I was unblocked asap as Jayjg made a (deliberate?) mistake. First of all, I was on vacation and not near my or any other computers when some of these accounts were active. Second, isn't CheckUser data "only stored for one week, so edits made prior to that will not be shown via CheckUser". Does Jayjg handle and store data in violation of CheckUser Policy? (And why wasn't I also accused of being User:Sonofzion, which seems customary in these situations?) I have never violated Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy (see this section), nor have I ever been blocked or banned for violating any other policies or guidelines. CheckUser Policy states that "One is not allowed to use the tool for political control, nor to apply pressure on editors, nor as a threat toward an editor with whom you are in disagreement.". Please correct this situation. --Bergerons 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

——ipligence—— ——alingua——

Since I made my request for unblock SlimVirgin has changed the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. [3] Since there wasn't, as of yesterday, a section called Avoiding public scrutiny I still maintain that I haven't violated policy. This is a smoking gun - evidence that suggests Jayjg completely disregards CheckUser Policy. I know that it is more likely that Grace Note will be anointed GodKing than that Jay would be held accountable. But still people. Which edits did MRosenberg (talk · contribs) and RosenbergSWE (talk · contribs) make that were "too similar" to the edits of Dervish Tsaddik? And WTFI SoCalJustice? That and disclosing my name for no good reason was just a cruel joke I presume. Now, I may or may not have been Dervish Tsaddik (I may or may not have been quite a few accounts) but if I had consecutive multiple accounts it was not to deceive but to avoid getting 'attached' to a screen name. A philosophical choice, if you will, that was allowed until today (when SlimVirgin changed (such irony) the policy). Look at the time frames, note that previous to this I have never been blocked, notice the complete lack of procedure, note that no linguistic and pattern analysis can explain the accusations. The only thing that comes to mind is abuse of Check User (that goes great together with abuse of oversight btw). Now if you would unblock me and investigate Jay's actions I would have to eat dog food (a bet with a mate), but it would be worth it. --Bergerons 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your conspiracy theory is about my editing the policy page, but if you read it, the introduction already talks about avoiding public scrutiny, and that's been there for a long time; all I did was create a section about it. The intro quotes Jimbo saying: "multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny" (my emphasis). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that you took a quote from the intro and created a new section (that contradicts the Segregation and security section btw). I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory since I can give evidence (see here) to support the 'theory'. One implication of Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. is that you are now in violation of the WP:SOCK policy, courtesy of you. Because you have edited Wikipedia under other usernames than SlimVirgin, right? And I don't see any links from your user page to those accounts.

I'm not going to get into protracted debate here, but for the record, I don't use sockpuppets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you, MPerel, or anyone else of using sockpuppets in violation of WP:SOCK. I said that you have had previous usernames. My argument was about multiple accounts and audit trails (I disagree that leaving no audit trails should constitute a violation of WP:SOCK). --Bergerons 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as of yesterday there are plenty of admins who are in violation of the "hide from public scrutiny" policy. I find all this unjust. See here, I [4] was the one who shut down the Igor nazi review board, if you look at the cached versions you'll see that his stated reason why he felt enough was enough and started banning everyone was my actions. I also had a couple of run-ins with him after that (which I'm happy to say he didn't like at all). I didn't partake in the following boards. And this is the thanks I get - being put in danger by having my name revealed (in violation of CheckUser policy) by your colleague. In your world Guy Montag and Zeq are good editors while Homey and KimvdLinde are disruptive POV pushers. In my world the opposite is true. You don't have to agree but please respect that it is possible for me to sincerely hold this opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm demented. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm out to cause trouble ™. It certainly doesn't mean that I'm anti-Israel (I just prefer Naomi Klein over Phyllis Chesler). Respectfully, --Bergerons 05:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that she clarified the intent of the policy. The edit is not contentious in my view, since avoiding scrutiny is indeed an abusive use of multiple accounts - the other sections make this quite clear. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good theory. I still don't understand how "Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail" doesn't contradict "Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on their interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity."? Also, everybody knows that quite a few admins use multiple accounts to avoid being scrutinized at times. SlimVirgin is aware of this[5] and has had at least two other accounts which she doesn't disclose for public scrutiny. Note that I don't think she is responsible for the policy being contradictory, nor do I think it's wrong that she doesn't link to previous user names from her user page. Especially due to issues of harassment, which I can appreciate since I have to deal with such issues myself (part of my life is devoted to fighting neonazi and anti-immigration parties). Jayjg's actions were not only irresponsible, he also broke every rule in the rulebook in his efforts to intimidate me. Now, will anything be done about that? --Bergerons 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of CheckUser

"In case of abusive use of the tool, the steward or the editor with the CheckUser privilege will immediately have their access removed. This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided)." --Bergerons 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

From my reading of the above, what you appear to be saying is that you are the same person, but you dispute JayJG's right to prove it, yes? Just zis Guy you know? 09:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if Bergerons was or wasn't Dervish Tsaddik six months ago. Forbidden uses of sock puppets: Voting No, Deception and impersonation No, Circumventing policy No, Administrative sock puppets No. Legitimate uses of multiple accounts: Segregation and security Yes. This shouldn't be about me, this should be about Jayjg. I do dispute Jayjg's "right to prove it", I also question his methods. --Bergerons 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, I will handle this via email instead. --Bergerons 00:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just note that..

User:Jayjg has blocked User:Bergerons as a sockpuppet of Dervish Tsaddik. User:Dervish_Tsaddik last edit on Wikipedia was on 21. January 2006, voting "Strong oppose" to Jayjg on the Arbitration Committee Elections[6]. I did not know you could establish by CheckUser that somebody is a sockpuppet of an account that has not edited in the last 6 months.

Also: Dervish Tsaddik was never blocked or banned (with the exception of one not-valid overturned block). User:Bergerons was created 28 July 2006. I cannot see that any of his/her edits were offensive. I frankly don´t understand anything of this block. (That the sockpuppet policy has been written so as to become quite ambiguous is a separate matter) Regards, Huldra 05:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]