Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive191

On April 26, 2006,

For information about the events leading up to this ban, EddieSegoura's entry on

Editing career was spent almost entirely on using Wikipedia to promote the existence of a

WP:BANNED#E

)

EddieSegoura has posted some information on his userpage detailing his intentions if he should be unbanned and restrictions he is willing to be subject to should he be unbanned. The Committee would invite users of the Community to review this ban. To facilitate discussion, a portion of EddieSegoura's talk page will be transcluded below to permit him to respond to questions and comments without being unblocked.

For the Arbitration Committee,

When was his last activity using socks? I've counted about 30 confirmed, and about 8 suspected. Has there been a reasonable amount of time since then? Also, can someone more familiar with this post information regarding this user so we may have the pertinent information before voting? Synergy 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The last edit by a confirmed sock was by User:Grounded into a double play in February 2008. Mr.Z-man 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion is premature. Why don't we wait for the user to post an unblock request on their talk page, which can then be discussed here? Jehochman ^Talk 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A single admin would probably have to seek further input before granting an unblock, so skipping that step seems efficient. Here is the "unblock request to the community", if you will. I'm always one for second chance and it's been a long while, so I'd support unblocking with reasonable conditions as determined by those that remember the run-up. –xeno ^talk 02:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he was already requesting unblock through e-mail. It was taken to arbcom for clarification, and kicked back here for community discussion. From Mr.Z-man's comment (thanks by the way), I believe his three year ban should be lifted given that his last known socking was over a year ago. So I support an unblock but I do request he be watched and if needed, be mentored. Synergy 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Never mind. Synergy 22:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with xeno and synery's comments - no point in a further unblock request. Regarding the request I support lifting of the ban with a period of probation - say 3 months - which would see an immediate blocking and return to the ban in the case of similar transgression/s during that time. Striking my previous support - now having spent a good deal of time watching new posts and observing history ... I will make a new comment of below.--VS ^talk 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(after several ecs)There's been an awful lot more than 30 socks. The reason you can only find 30 confirmed socks is that Eddie employs new socks to systematically detag his blocked sock accounts, like this for example. We're talking about a ton of socks, hundreds of them, perhaps even thousands...he was, after all, the so-called "exicornt vandal" and I don't believe he has ever stopped socking since he was banned. The community should also be aware that last year he was impersonating living people, including Power Rangers actors with accounts User:Jason Smith and User:Austin St. John. These were checkuser confirmed and self-confessed eventually by Eddie in private. At the time he pulled the Power Rangers stunt, he had been emailing me telling me he wanted to get the ES account unbanned and I had been talking to him off-site, trying to help him. He played games with me with the Power Ranger actors accounts and went so far as to contact me through OTRS pretending to be these actors wanting their accounts unblocked and asking me to call him on the phone so he could prove he was these people. He did eventually confess and apologise to me once I confronted him with my suspicion that he was behind the accounts but I was rather astounded he would waste my time with those sorts of games when I had extended him my good faith and gone out of my way to try to help him. I am very sorry to have to write about this and I know it will upset Eddie, but I feel strongly that the community should be given the full facts when being asking to extend a good faith chance to a banned user. I noticed in his userpage statement he mentions being mentored by me. I did not endorse that statement and have not agreed to mentor him. I'm simply not here enough to mentor anyone anyway and in Eddie's case, I have tried to help him many times in the past but have never been able to get him to take my advice about anything, not even my many, many attempts to get him to stop socking and attacking and harassing other users (Ryulong and BunchofGrapes are two users he has harassed in the past and blatantly refused to AGF of), and I fail to see why it would be any different this time, so I frankly see the idea of me mentoring him as a waste of both our time. That said, I'm not going to oppose or support the appeal because I'm not here enough to help deal with the consequences, but I think Eddie needs to finally be completely honest and transparent about his activities if he expects the community to give him another chance. And he needs to own up to all current socks he is operating as I don't believe for one second that he isn't currently operating accounts. It would be much better for his own case in trying to convince the community that he is now willing to abide by this project's policies and guidelines if such information was provided voluntarily by Eddie, rather than having to be revealed by other people. I feel the community is entitled to the truth and I call on Eddie to be entirely frank and honest about his activities here, particularly over the last 6-12 months. Sarah 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion/Voting

• Comment (after ec). In the past, we have often requested that users who have conducted extensive sock puppetry reveal all sock puppets for the sake of transparency (our version of truth and reconciliation, I suppose). Sometimes this has worked and sometimes it hasn't. In this case, since Eddie repeatedly denied the Voltron connection before finally admitting it, and also denied being the Exicornt vandal for a long time (bizarrely, even though he'd written the original article), I'd like to see it. Also, the
  Chick Bowen
  02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with your impression that he is good natured. I have generally found him a nice fellow to chat with, but he unfortunately gets a "bee in his bonnet" (for want of a better description) about things and people and simply refuses to let go of them and this appears to be what gets him in trouble the most - his fixation on particular users he feels have wronged him, on creating account after account, on the whole "exicornt" thing (which led to Wiktionary having to block AOL in order to stop Eddie. [6]).I guess the issue ultimately is whether he can control his eccentricities sufficiently to edit collaboratively without continuing to cause disruption. Sarah 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris, also see NewYorkDreams (talk · contribs) which was also being operated at the same time as Voltron and Grounded into a double play. Sarah 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to spend about half an hour of searching, tagging/re-tagging - I managed to find some more pages, making the total # in the socks-category jump to 43. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per RickK. Hesperian 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Err, what? RickK hasn't been active since mid-2005, well before this ban was placed. What exactly are you referring to?
  a/c
  ) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I too was confused when reading this; I assumed he typed the name wrong? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• The last think RickK said before he left was "Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do." Four years later, nothing's changed. We're still more interested in rehabilitating trolls than in creating an environment conducive to building an encyclopedia. Hesperian 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ah ok; I understand what you mean now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I find that to be a truly crappy rationale for leaving the project, and for opposing someone else's possible re-entry. We're a community of volunteers - anyone who comes here looking for a pat on the back is in for a rude awakening. However, not a day goes by when we don't work towards improving the encyclopedia-building environment, and rehabilitating trolls (where possible) is part of that. No one is forcing any admin to put an ounce of their time into rehabilitating Eddie. As a supporter of lifting this ban, I'll vouch my time to check each of his edits. If you want conditions imposed like a weekly (or random) CU, I'm sure there is someone empowered to do that who doesn't consider it a burden at all. The possible downside is that Eddie relapses and does something stupid, in which case he gets reblocked for life and someone hits the rollback button on whatever he did, end of story. The possible upside is that Eddie (given his obvious interest in the project) becomes a solid contributor and makes needed additions and improvements to thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles, for years to come. I'll roll the dice on that upside. bd2412 T 14:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't just RickK. Hundreds of good editors have left over this issue. We have too many bleeding hearts who can't bear to stand by and watch the pitiful suffering of the poor troll who went and got himself banned; but couldn't care less about the good faith editors who are sick of having their time and energe wasted by these people. The real downside here is this: if Eddie relapses, one of two things will happen: either (a) someone will wield the banhammer immediately, in which case the bleeding hearts will scream blue murder and overturn it; or (b) we'll all hold off wielding the banhammer for a while, in which case we all go through the same time-wasting crap all over again. Hesperian 14:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hesperian is entitled to his view, as you are to yours, bd2412. I don't see any problem in commenting on a view regarding someone else's reasons for opposing someone's entry in this project. But, I don't believe that it's anyone's place to be negatively commenting on a productive user's reasons for leaving - you achieve zilch for the good of this project by calling someone's reasons for departing "crappy"; instead, you create more negative feelings, and invite potentially more negative responses, and criticisms. If a productive user has left, then that is a great loss for this project - we should think why he/she was leaving, and whether we could've reasonably done something to have prevented him/her from leaving. Perhaps rather than attacking someone's stated reasons for leaving this project, you could consider being more focused and pro-active: why have you not made a proposal to ArbCom or the community that you're ready to mentor him (or something to that effect to help allow him to re-enter)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well I did volunteer in my statement above to vouch my time to check each of his edits, and I stick by that. I don't know if you'd call that mentoring so much as policing, but if he vandalizes, I'll permablock him, and if he gets into, for example, a heated discussion, I'll counsel him to keep his cool. I don't think anyone will hesitate to block him if he relapses into real vandalism, and if we establish now that any relapse means the ban is restored, and forever, I think a substantial majority of the community will support that condition and that will be the rule. I'm as sick of vandalism as anyone here - I've made numerous proposals to throttle back vandalism [7], [8], [9], including even suing vandals, all of which have been shot down in the name of the principle of maintaining an open source encyclopedia. However, it is impossible for me to work on this project without seeing it for what it is - an eight year old child that is already the largest storehouse of readily accessible information ever assembled in human history, and one that is constantly absorbing more information and improving along many dimensions. So maybe I was overly harsh for saying RickK's reason for leaving was "crappy", but I think it was thin-skinned, in light of the real progress that we are making as time goes by. bd2412 T 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not therapy. Eccentrics don't help the project, so they should not be welcome here. Friday (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  I was asked to refactor to avoid offending the eccentrics. And to be more accurate, I imagine there are any number of eccentrics who do useful things here. What I was thinking but failed to say is that eccentricity by itself is an unhelpful attribute for a contributor here. Eddie's past behavior certainly fell into the extremely unhelpful category. That said, it probably wouldn't be very harmful to give him another shot. The big challenge will be reigning in the cadre of self-appointed therapists. Don't let them interfere if he needs to be blocked again, and the risk is minimal. Let them interfere, and this has the potential to waste lots and lots of community time. Friday (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  PS - do not waste time with mentoring- has this approach been known to be useful? I can't recall a case where it was. But, I've often seen it be harmful. It frequently leads to the mentor becoming too involved, and thus subverting attempts to deal with the their protege's disruption. We can't really do anything about it if someone appoints themselves a "mentor", but we can choose not to mention anything like that in the unblock agreement (if such a thing happens.) Leave Eddie alone to either sink or swim. It's not a good use of anyone's time to babysit. Friday (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sarah's information. It is uncommon for editors to come back and be productive if they are unblocked after sockpuppetry on this scale. A good-natured editor who is a chronic and incurable sockpuppeteer is not an asset to the project and will just waste our time again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking - and I was one of the admins who had frequent run-ins with Eddie and his socks; nonetheless, it's been years and people do grow up. I say give him a chance, and keep a close eye on him. He must know that if he gets one more chance, that really means one more chance. bd2412 T 04:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per EdJohnston. In fairness, I will reconsider my vote pending his response though - what has he been doing in the last 6-12 months? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I've read his response; confirming my view as it stands. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Had to do a lot of link-finding myself when coming to my view; but now some of them have been posted below - thank you Carcharoth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - adding a comment here to add links to fill out some of the background here. Please read here for the comments by TML, JzG (Guy), and Ncmvocalist, and the arbitrator discussion. Guy's comment in particular has relevant links. For the initial request from 3rd February, see here. For the statement by Dylan620, see here. Finally, though he hasn't mentioned it yet, it is worth reading EddieSegoura's response to Guy here (if link breaks, permalink is here). I think that is everything I'm aware of. The comments and history detailed so far in this discussion should also be taken into account. I'd like to thanks Hersfold for leaving various notifications. If anyone else needs to be notified, please do so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I've supported this from the very beginning, back in mid-February, on the grounds of
  WP:AGF. Compare this to User:[email protected]. We let him back a couple months ago, and he had HUNDREDS, possible even THOUSANDS of socks. Up against that, Eddie had a lot less. I think that VirtualSteve's suggested probation is a good idea. I also stand by the unblock terms that I suggested back in February (Carcharoth links to them in his post just above). --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox}
  12:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? I think you're confused, Dylan, because that's exactly what Eddie did - he created hundreds and thousands of sockpuppets. Originally he did it to try to force us to contain material on a railway word he made up "Exicornt" and then he did it to attack and harass users he decided had wrong him, and then simply to avoid the ban and to play games (ie the impersonation of the Power Rangers actors last year). He's never actually honored the ban and not edited and he took his mass disruption to other WMF projects which were forced to shut down editing from AOL IPs simply because of Eddie. I'm not sure where you get the idea that this wasn't massive socking but it was. As I said in my post above, we're talking about hundreds, likely thousands of accounts. And I honestly don't believe it's stopped even now. Previously when Eddie has appealed, he's been concurrently socking and he is such a creature of habit that I don't believe this would be any different and his careful language below doesn't reassure me at all (ie he "addresses" his three years of socking by saying he wont need to sock in future if his account is unblocked). Last year a checkuser identified a "probable" sock tied to Eddie's sock User:New York Dreams. I never blocked the account and it's still editing today. I call on Eddie to be honest and own up to all socks he currently has. Frankly, if he doesn't start being honest about what he's been doing on this site in recent months I will be forced to strongly oppose this request myself and I really would rather not have to do so. Sarah 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sarah, you say "Previously when Eddie has appealed, he's been concurrently socking" - I am aware of at least one past appeal where alleged socking was involved, see here (from September 2007), and another appeal here (November 2007). Are you aware of other appeals? You said earlier that you feel strongly that the community should be given the full facts. I agree, especially that Eddie should make a clear statement as to when he last engaged in socking, and should "give up" at least his recent and (if any) unblocked socks, pending confirmation they really are his socks (listing all his past socks might not be possible). A few more questions: you said "Last year a checkuser identified a "probable" sock" - could you give more details there? And, earlier, you mention OTRS stuff - could you give dates for some of this? It is difficult to sort out the timelines and details here. I agree that this does need doing, but a full account (in order to make a fully informed decision) will probably only be possible if you, Eddie and others take the time to provide that. I'd be happy to co-ordinate documenting such an account, but the question then becomes how much time to spend doing that before allowing an appeal such as this one (which is now in progress). One thing I would suggest, depending on when the last appeal was actually heard (and not just ignored) is that future appeals (if this one is not successful) be strictly limited, with the limit reset after each premature appeal. But equally, if this is to be the last appeal for some time (months if not years), it needs to be done properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, sorry for the delay answering your questions...I was hoping Eddie would start being open and honest so I wouldn't need to say anything else but it seems that is not going to happen. To answer your questions in order - When I referred to Eddie's prior appeals, I was not referring to appeals to the community but rather his prior appeals to the Arbitration Committee and to individual Arbitrators. He blind carbon copied me on some emails sent to the arbitration committee and sent me some correspondence from then-arbitrators he had contacted. At the time he was appealing to the arbitration committee (such as the appeal he sent 25 Feb 2008 to the Arb Com mailing list, Newyorkbrad, Sam and Uninvited Company), pledging he would not continue socking because "there was no point", he was still socking.

I don't really want to give Eddie the exact details about the Checkuser, so I would prefer to answer your question about that via email. As I said below, the Checkuser who checked the NY Dreams account for me told me that it was unlikely it was Eddie and if it was he had learned to cover his tracks very well and so I don't really want to give him the specifics of the results of that Checkuser. I was hoping that Ed would voluntarily reveal information about his accounts himself but it seems apparent from his responses to me that he is intent on continuing to play games with the community.

Do you have access to OTRS? If so, you can check

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles and so forth . Not good faith accounts and he was doing this at the same time he was operating his 'good hand' account New York Dreams and another disruptive account, User:Grounded into a double play

. Grounded into a double play was confirmed by a Checkuser (Alison) as an Eddie sockpuppet on 20 February 2008. Five days later he was appealing to the Arbitration Committee swearing he was a different person and was done with socking.

I really don't want to be one of the people trying to stand in the way of his return but there is no way I can support this appeal unless Eddie quits playing games and starts being honest with the community and I just don't see it in his responses below. Sarah 09:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I never blocked the account and it's still editing today. — You're too modest. According to the block log you blocked NewYorkDreams on 2008-02-20, 1 year 2 months ago, and the account has (of course) not edited since. Uncle G (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course I blocked New York Dreams. I never said I didn't block New York Dreams. Please don't confuse things more than they already are. If you read the sentence you're quoting in its actual context, you'll see that what I said was, there was another account which a checkuser identified as a "probable" sock of Eddie's sock New York Dreams. However, since I wrote that post I've reread the emails again and what the CU actually said was this other account was a probable sock of another of Eddie's socks,
        talk · contribs), not NY Dreams (sorry for confusing the two socks). EddieSegoure was a sock he used to post appeal notes to User:EddieSegoura and User:EddieSegoure and to detag his Voltron (talk · contribs) sock after it was blocked. I was told by the checkuser I was discussing User:New York Dreams with that this other account (NOT New York Dreams but another account entirely) was a "probable" sock of Eddie's other sock User:EddieSegoure. As I said above, this other account was not blocked and (having just checked its contribs again a minute ago) last edited a few hours before I posted that comment. Sarah
        12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not introducing any confusion. Your "the account" has two possible antecedents in the sentence preceding it, notice. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - we spent hours trying to help eddie make constructive contributions and even with that mentoring he fell through the cracks. Apparently he then made an army of socks to waste yet more volunteer time. Such time sinks are a huge negative to the goals of the project. It's this type of user that drives away otherwise productive people who just get frustrated with the baby sitting.
  David D. (Talk)
  14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Cautious support, if we can find a mentor; I was going to bring this here myself, in fact, but RL intervened. Here's why: Eddie wanted to promote a
  Great New Thing he invented, and reacted in an immature way when he was stopped. His expressions of regret sound sincere to me, and there is no chance whatsoever that he would escape an instant reblock if he even thought "exicornt" while logged in - the risk to the project seems to be fairly low, the contrition looks genuine, and he seems to have put his hands up to it all and thrown himself on the mercy of the court. Some banned users cry crocodile tears and you know damned well that if you let them back they will just cause hell. I don't think that is the case with Eddie, because of the polite and humble way he has asked for readmission. And I don;t for a minute believe that the recent exicornt nonsense was him, I am sure that was a joe job by one of our recurring trolls. So, if we can find a mentor, why not give him a second chance? Luke 15:7 "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." I honestly think this is a repentant former vandal not a troll. So that's my $0.02. Guy (Help!
  ) 19:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comments. I can confirm at least that Eddie is basically telling the truth about his emails with me; he asked for forgiveness and I accepted. This was in early 2008. In truth, I never felt particularly harassed to begin with, though Eddie certainly did vandalize my user pages with sock after sock for a while there. I suppose since I forgave him I should support his unbanning as well, and I kind of sort of do, but I do want to mention that Eddie has more issues than just the tiresome "Exicornt" thing. If previous patterns hold, any user who agrees to monitor all his contributions will quickly find that perhaps one in 10 actually improve the encyclopedia in any way. Has he changed? I dunno. But the fact that he's still capitalizing most of his pronouns speaks volumes. If you want to see what a "good behavior" EddieSegoura sock is like, check out the history of User:Mostly Rainy. It's not all bad, but it's not a net gain to the encyclopedia either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that the issue, though? I think the point is that he's willing to try to be a good contributor, not an assurance that he will succeed in making good edits (as opposed to "good faith" edits). bd2412 T 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Question I'm happy to accept that, once unbanned, there will be no need for socking. So... what are your plans? What about Exicornt? Is it all in the past now? Apologies if this has been addressed somewere and I have missed that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Question/Comment. From the discussion above, there seems to be some concern regarding the extent of his sockpuppetry. Can someone clarify when his most recent sockpuppet was active - more specifically, was it within the past 12 months? TML (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're talking temporal extent, rather than number of sockpuppet accounts, aren't you? There's no question that there is a large number of sockpuppet accounts. I was one of the several administrators who blocked them at Wiktionary. I'm also one of the administrators that range-blocked AOL there because of this vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that's right. My point is, if his most recent sockpuppetry was more than 12 months ago, then I would probably support unblocking; if it was within the last 12 months, then I would probably wait until at least 12 months have passed. TML (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking Perhaps I am sympathetic to the notion of second chances, but in my "day job" I provide counseling for individuals who have been released from prison and who are trying to navigate their way back into society. These people need a hand -- and not across the face. Eddie is not a felon, of course, so why should he be treated like one? He has acknowledged his error, so let us move beyond that troubled period into a better day. There will be many eyes watching him, so it is unlikely that any lapse will create chaos. If Eddie is asking to return to the community, he should be welcomed.
  talk
  ) 02:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Additional comment - I'm away this weekend, so I'm posting an additional comment here to give some of the background to EddieSegoura's latest statement below (where he says he received an e-mail from me). The e-mail I sent to him was in response to one that he sent me, asking about Sarah's comments above. I replied with a combination of standard and specific advice, copying the reply to the arbitration committe mailing list and advising him to send future replies there, rather than direct to me. EddieSegoura's next e-mail was sent to the arbitration committee mailing list and is awaiting a reply (my view is that he should be talking here where the discussion is taking place, and not asking the arbs questions about what to do, and in fairness he is now doing that with his statement below). The main points of the advice I gave were as follows:

  "You need to be open and honest about what accounts you have had and still have. You need to edit from one account only and not create any more accounts [...] you have to help tidy up and draw a line under your past behaviour before you and everyone else can move on."

  There was more, but those are the key points I think underlie every unban request where sockpuppetry has been an issue. The other key point of an unban request is stating what the person asking to be unbanned intends to work on - though I believe he has answered that elsewhere. I hope this provides enough background to the references to e-mails. If anyone has questions about this before I get back, please ask one of the other arbs, as they can see the full e-mail thread. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblocking and watching closely - He is capable of good editing. I gave User:Voltron a barnstar after reviewing their contributions. Silly me. Nothing stops this user from editing via sock accounts. The fact that they wish to edit through their main account where we can keep track of them is a positive development. We should give it a test. The worst that happens is we have to reblock them. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been shown information that leads me to believe the editor has not come clean about all their socking activity. Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm currently strongly opposed to this request as it stands. I would like to see Ed given another a chance, but I think honesty is an important part of reconciliation and rehabilitation and I don't see Eddie being honest or open here. I'm not asking him to identify all his socks - there have been so many over the years that I'm sure even he doesn't know them all anymore - and I'm not asking for honesty so we can all stand around and berate him for his misdeeds on this project. However, I do expect him to come to the table with honesty and openness, to put his cards on the table and identify the unblocked socks he currently has access to. Also, I find it rather hard to believe that he is now ready and willing to follow our policies and guidelines if he is still violating policy by running socks. Unless Eddie answers my questions honestly and is open about his current activities on Wikipedia and identifies the current unblocked socks he has access to, I will remain strongly opposed to this request. Additionally, if he is to be unblocked, I think he needs to find an experienced mentor to assist him stay on the straight and narrow. Sarah 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hesperian. If Eddie wanted back to just be himself, he truly could have made a new account and evaded the ban. I would have been against that, of course. It is my opinion that 98% of the time that overturning a ban is a vindication to the banned editor, and such disruption will resume. This is evident in Eddie's socking, and in this unblock request. To be clear: this is my opinion^{[citation needed]}. Keegan^talk 08:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: From personal experience, he is not a net benefit to the project and has rarely if ever contributed positively since his initial ban. As it has been mentioned, there have been multiple users who have left the project. I can even remember an administrator who gave up his administrative tools and retired due to the "onslaught" of Eddie's editing. Good edits on sockpuppet accounts while banned by the community don't really show much of anything except disregard for the community's wishes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion below. Refusing to publicly come clean about socking, wikilawyering, blaming others for his problems - doesn't look like someone who's going to come back and be a good contributor. Mr.Z-man 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I initially supported on the basis of assuming good faith towards Eddie's request (see early in this thread) but having watched the conversation and Eddie's continuing failure to come clean publicly I find myself in the position where that failure weighs heavily against continued support. In particular I have watched and read the rational comments from Sarah and Hesperian, and I note Keegan's carefully worded comments also. In a nutshell Z-man encapsulates my opposition to allowing Eddie a return on his account.--VS ^talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - responding here to Eddie Segoura's request that the discussion not be closed early. Please do let the discussion run for at least a full five days (I think it has now, so it may indeed be time to close, unless 7 days is a better length for discussion), or give the editor requesting an unban a chance to withdraw the request (another day should do for that), or extend to allow more discussion if needed (e.g. more evidence has been presented). Please also leave the close of the discussion (or its extension) to an uninvolved administrator (i.e. not someone who participated in the discussion). ArbCom will then review the close (check there are no technical objections) and close the appeal at our end. The transcluded userpage section below should be substituted before manually archiving the appeal discussion to the AN archives. Any problems with that, please contact the filing clerk or another clerk if Hersfold is not around. Carcharoth (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Err...no, 7 days is not warranted here. The 3-4 day minimum has elapsed. Despite there being no substantive reason to extend past the minimum (excepting the expected request made by the banned user), another day has been granted to extend discussion and/or to withdraw the request. Unless there is something extraordinary we are missing or that is forthcoming, nothing's changed - and nothing is going to change. Finally, mere participation in a discussion concerning a sanction, ban or appeal by the community is not at all enough to prevent a user from closing or extending a discussion provided it is in line with the (lack of) consensus by the community. In other words, the community's view on involvement has not been so unduly narrow, and there are several notable examples to demonstrate this historical norm in play, including Obama probation prior to its enactment. The final outcome from the attempts to centralise sanction discussions would be similar to any attempts to interfere with involvement guidelines in closing this type of discussion. ArbCom are free to waste time on technical non-issues and actual technical issues, but they will have to impose their own decision to the contrary after re-hearing the case if it is on this point (note: we all know what will become of that - even if wikilawyering with regards to process wonkery has been welcomed in arbitration venues, here, it certainly will not be). The community has treated the banned user with a large amount of respect, and made its decision in fairness; unless this is thoughtfully closed before then by the body that brought it here, is withdrawn by the user who initiated it, or something changes, I am giving this just a few more hours to stay open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Leaving the wider discussion points to another time, I received another e-mail from EddieSegoura. I did tell him he should post on his talk page, but the long and the short of it is that his objection below to closing has been withdrawn, so it should close as soon as someone gets round to closing it. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Eddie? Eddie?? Oh, you're joking. Big-ass Oppose. How many promises has Eddie broken? How much time did User:Bunchofgrapes have to waste, way back when, in containing the Exicornt Man? Are we going to waste more time on extending AGF to Eddie Segoura? Bishonen | talk 08:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

• Oppose. The request for reinstatement refers to "being allowed to edit under my own name" - the implication is that he's been editing all along under other names, but he's not saying which. Come clean, or stay away. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from EddieSegoura

This section is transcluded from EddieSegoura's talk page to permit him to comment in this discussion. Please make comments or questions directed to EddieSegoura in the section above. Thank you.

First, I'd like to thank those who supported my appeal. I didn't expect many to support giving Me the clean slate I've been trying to attain. Of course, I understand Sarah's concerns. And yes, I see that I have some opposition to My return (users Friday and EdJohnston). The stuff back in 2006 I did was out of frustration. Being blocked indef in itself was hard enough, but I couldn't take the fact that it was the very same user who nominated [10] my article for deletion. Everything I did after that was out of frustration. But a couple of months after the block, I finally let it go. I felt that if the word has become so infamous and rejected their is no reason to further waist My time. That was then. I doubt that I would make any further attempts to repost anything related to the article that led to me being in this position.

That being said, I cannot go back in time and change history. All I can say is that I truly regret it. I want to come back a different person.

As for my run-ins with bunchofgrapes, I decided to email an apology to him and he accepted it (I don't know if I still have his response, but we haven't had any contacted ever since and He hasn't edited actively). So if I'm banned for harassment, then the issue itself is resolved in respect to that person.

Those issues aside, If I am allowed to come back, their would be no reason to edit with another account beside this one. That addresses the socking issue. I hope we can reach a conclusion that every agrees with. EddieSegoura 05:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have received emails from Carcharoth (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs). I would like to suggest the following in regards to Sarah's comments above:

• The user that performed the check on
  talk · contribs) do a WHOIS on the IP the account edited on, it might beling to public computer (such as a library or internet cafe) Also I need a time frame as to whether or not the "other account" logged in immediately after EddieSegoure. If there is a substantial amount of time between the edits then I probably have nothing to do with the other editor and the only connection is the IP itself. Eddie, Friday April 24 2009
  at 22:53 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could do that, or you could simply quit playing games, put your cards on the table and be honest. I am sure that you are right and the IP of your socks resolves to a public computer - you told me you didn't want to use New York Dreams to edit from your home computer and the checkuser who originally checked the NYD account told me that if it was you, you'd learned to cover your tracks very well. So I'm quite sure you've been very carefully segregating your accounts. I don't want to oppose your return to Wikipedia and I would actually like to see you given another chance but I'm going to have to oppose this request unless you put your cards on the table and identify the accounts you've been using so they can be blocked (after all, you won't need them anymore, right?). You told me that you couldn't help yourself when it came to Wikipedia, that you were addicted to the site and couldn't stop editing, so I don't believe for a second that you haven't been editing over the last year and don't have any socks at present and I'm extremely disappointed that you are trying to side-step being honest with the community. Surely after being banned for all this time and finally having a realistic opportunity to be allowed to return legitimately, it is worth being honest and transparent? Please answer these questions: have you been editing over the last 6 months? What unblocked accounts do you have access to? Thanks. Sarah 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to (I'd rather do it offsite) but we need to draw a line between the one that actually belong to Me and the one You think belong to Me. Looking at the list of accounts that were tagged there are a couple that I know don't belong to Me. Some don't even have edits. Frankly, I kinda wonder how You managed to find out about My NYD account. I would prefer we discussed by Email, because I need to know who and why You're targeting some editor and why You suspect Me of being that person. Eddie, Saturday April 25 2009 at 10:48 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I can explain it. I can tell you that I did user the IP user:38.109.64.162 to post My appeal. A WHOIS clearly states is a Library IP. Now if some other editor happens to edit from that IP in the future, You'd natually assume all future activity would belong to Me, right? That's why I need to know EddieSegoure's last IP so I can determine if it's public or not. Eddie, Saturday April 25 2009 at 20:18 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any benefit in you answering my questions off-site. These are reasonable questions which the community deserves honest answers to. It should be straightforward to answer those two questions - either you have been editing over the last six months or you haven't, either you have currently active socks or you don't. I think the community deserves an honest and straightforward answer here on this page or your request should be declined. I found the NYD account by recognising your writing style - simple as that. Sarah 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To Keegan: I've tried many times to come back with a new account as a good standing user (Voltron, NewYorkDreams, etc.). Had I been left alone, then I wouldn't have had to make this appeal. It's clear most of the oppose users are people that have known Me in the past. It's clear to Me can't change their minds but I wish they'd stop looking at Me as a gangster that who likes to drive people crazy and start looking at Me like a human being. I'll be happy to discuss any recent activity but You can't assume everything You suspect is true. If You'd ask, "Eddie does Account X belong to You" and I say "No", You'd prolly insist I'm lying and that I really own it anyway. Therefore we need to draw a line between what I actually did and what You believe I did. This is especially important because if I am unblocked and during the probation period You suspect that another account is Mine, You'll assume it actually is and I'll be back here singing the blues. I'm happy that I finally have an opportunity to try and convince the community — as a whole — that I'm not the person I used to be. I can't let it slip up because of some suspicion that I can't clear up. I know I'll have a short leash for the first few months but I want to make it clear that I am trying to come back so I can drive people crazy. I'm trying to come back so I can have something productive to do with My time. Yes, I've had a shaky past, but it doesn't mean I can't change right now.Eddie, Saturday April 25 2009 at 11:13 AM

I appreciate you taking your time to read my comments and reply to them.

Your activities have not been destructive, but they have been disruptive. For years. Your alternate accounts have not been hunted down as you imply on this page (particularly your response to Sarah), but I am a firm believer that a tiger can't change its stripes. I am not making a personal judgment upon you; I am a very understanding person. It is from this understanding that I do not believe that you can uphold your part of the bargain. Your socks were found because of evident patterns in your editing.

Let me see how diplomatically I can put this:

A community ban, while insulting in nature of its title, is not reflection of you as a person. It means that you (personally, as oppossed to a block) don't belong here. We don't get along with you, you don't get along with us. You still don't now. I can't see why you'd want to return to the site considering the nature of comments like my own. If you want to build an encyclopedia, you can/could have through actually changing your behavior. If you had done so, your socks would not have been found. Persistence in trying to overturn a community ban after have continued disruptive behavior will never be favorable to an unban.

If you had chosen to just make a new account and leave this be, it is a violation of the ban policy but I wouldn't care on a personal level, and would turn the other cheek. Your two years of socking and this and that is way too much drama, and it is drama of your own making.

You can respond to this, of course, but I think I've laid it all on the line regarding my opinion and it's not going to change. I do wish the best, Keegan^talk 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to Your own opinion. Still, knowning their haven't been any incidents since February 2008 I feel I should get that second chance. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 10:59 AM

The fact that their are people who support My return means that not everyone agree that I should never come back, there were few people I didn't get along with but most of the time there wasn't a problem. In fact, some are not around today. The few that do know Me have commented, and not all of them oppose. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 11:40 AM

"I've tried many times to come back with a new account as a good standing user...Had I been left alone, then I wouldn't have had to make this appeal." - So in other words, the problem isn't with you or your behaviour and actions but rather with the editors who identified and reported your sockpuppets and the administrators who blocked them? Sarah 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the way it was handled in the first place. I can not deny My past action was wrong and yes I understand spamming and harassment are serious. But Going back to the 2006 discussion, I feel I was blocked prematurely. I never had a chance to state My case. I was blocked only minutes after the discussion was started. What about Voltron? Were their any annoying incedents when I used that account? The blocking user (I don't want to even mention His name, because He Himself has history of questionable actions) had to admit in an ANI discussion that the account wasn't disruptive. After that I wrote to You and after You told Me You could not help Me further I created NYD. I don't know how who told You I had that name, but trying to convince You that I don't have hundreds unblocked unused accounts won't be easy.

Re, I am writing about the discussion back in 2006, the original discussion makes no initial proposal for banning, just a block. Since the policy clearely distinguishes the two, I felt the original block (and protecting of my talk page) was too extreme. The protection especially hurt because I had no way to resolve it without making more accounts. Like I said above, emails to the arbcom were not answered and I felt I was being ignored. I feel appalled that people like You could entertain thoughts of Me making plans to go back to My old self and (secretly) make hundreds of accounts. I still don't know who exactly You're trying to hang My face on and why You believe these belong to Me. I am going to contact ArbCom and have them decide whether or not it this should be handled on WP:RFAR or not. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 23:43 PM

PS I got Your emails and I will respond shortly. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009 at 10:59 AM

The account didn't need to be disruptive, however. You were editing while under a community ban and thus under the block and ban policies the account could be blocked. Whether the blocking administrator has had problems in other areas is not really relevant and I don't think it serves your case to engage in ad hominem arguments. No one told me you were using the NYD account. I simply noticed the account on my watchlist, felt something was "not right" about it, looked at their contributions and recognised your writing style. Same goes with the Power Ranger accounts. Sarah 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Also, you cite Voltron and NewYork Dreams as examples of attempts to return to Wikipedia as a user in good standing, however while using both these accounts you were concurrently socking with disruptive accounts (eg User:Grounded into a double play and the Power Ranger accounts). Can you please address this and explain why Voltron and NYD should be considered examples of good faith attempts to become a user in good standing when it appears you were simply segregating your edits and causing disruption with other accounts. Thanks. Sarah 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, You win for NYD editing simultaniously with other accounts (when GIDP was blocked it was involved in a dispute as to whether or not a certain article should be posted) but how do You explain Voltron (I know You're going to tell Me about the account that tried to appeal on My behalf but then again why wasn't user

WP:RFAR — suspected as an account of mine while that other one was?) Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009

at 11:33 AM

I think I can answer part of this question for you: the other account that tried to appeal on your behalf had no other edits aside from the appeal. I, on the other hand, have a sizable amount of edits, and my edits do not resemble your editing style in a way that would closely link my account to yours. (BTW, I stated on the original inquiry that "I have no relation to this user" - and I reaffirm that statement, as I have nothing to hide regarding this issue.) TML (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to close the discussion on WP:AN. Just because it ended up at the top of the page and the vote tally is about 50/50 (and I am including the ones before Sarahs comments) that doesn't mean it should be closed. I call on the ArbCom to make a decision as to whether I should have them deal with this by email or if this discussion should continue on

I also noticed that VirtualSteve is retracting his support and there are still people who are entertaining thoughts that I plans to create and use more account do what got Me into this to begin with. That being said, and given the fact that the ArbCom is privyy to checking IPs I am making a request to check the following:

• User:EddieSegoure's last IP (Sarah said it was checked so it should be in the log) for any recent activity. This IP belongs to a wifi hotspot.
• User:Malmindser's last IP if it was checked. This user was the first to appeal on My behalf and it was tagged as belonging to Me but I deny this given the language used.
• User:24.185.34.186's recent activity. The last IP of User:Grounded into a double play. This was blocked by Alison for 6 months and has expired in August 2008
• User:24.185.47.131's recent activity. The last IP of User:The Blue Lion. The talk page was protected but recently unprotected.
• User:38.109.64.162's recent activity. As I stated above this is a library IP (has three more anon edits after My posting).

The following accounts were recently created by Me:

• User:PrimaDoll- Unused.
• User:PuzzleSolver - Made a few edits, but after the block of NYD I felt it was much safer to edit anon since their is no point in making further accounts only to have them blocked. I obviously am going to have to check edit histories and articles but if You feel any edits from these IPs raise any red flags, feel free to ask any questions. Eddie, Sunday April 26 2009
  at 23:43 PM