Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson

If anyone's interested, I think this is the same Iasson who was banned from kuro5hin. This thread may seem familiar. Rhobite 07:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

ahahahaha...I havent seen this, and although I am supposed to have left the place, I cant resist answering it. No my dear Sherlock Holmes, I am not related with this or with any other possible Iasson[[1]] you (or the rest fellows below) can find. Just to inform you if you dont know it, Iasson is a common greek name. Most of the times you can find me as anonymous, but if I am going to use a nick name I am using an ancien greek one, and I am using it ONLY once. So, it is the first and the last time I use Iasson nickname. Remember this next time you are going to google search about me. But, to honor you and the rest Sherlock Holmes here, I am going to break my ancien greek nickname rule, and my next nickname is going to be Rhobite! Search for Rhobite in google in a few months, and maybe you are going to find out what you have said and done ;-). For the apprentice Sherlock Holms, I remind you that there is a challenge and a quest for you, to find the wikipedia articles I have created as anonymous or using an ancien greek nickname, and delete them. Go on Vandals sons, there is always something more for you to vandalize! :-) Iasson 19:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There, however, he didn't get the time of day from folks in his polls. Too bad we can't have that happen here. hfool/Roast me 01:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those interested in this discussion may like to compare Iasson's contributions to the article namespace [2] with his contributions to the wikipedia namespace [3]. Thryduulf 14:38, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted Rhobite is an administrator frequently accused of misusing his authority. Ollieplatt 19:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite has not, so far as I can tell, been accused of misusing his authority by anyone except yourself, so following him around and making this sort of statement amounts to a personal attack. Stop it. —Korath (Talk) 19:25, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's just not the case. Around ten users indicated on a recent RfC that he violates blocking policy. And a review of his edit history reveals he reverts more users than any other editor, with frequent blocking and very little positive contribution of his own. Ollieplatt 19:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that he reverts more users than any other editor is unsupportable. You have no basis to be making that claim, unless you have crawled through all the edit histories of all users. Tuf-Kat 19:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I will send a *free* copy of the US Constitution with the First Amendment highlighted to anyone finding any editor who reverts more than Rhobite. He is chronic revertator. Ollieplatt 21:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderestimate him. And Wikipedia is not a US government body - David Gerard 22:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The RFC in question was deleted because it was not confirmed; as such, your claim of any number of editors indicating anything based on it is not verifiable - David Gerard 22:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ahah, David, I kept a copy. It is therefore highly verifiable. Shall I repost it somewhere? My offer of a *free* copy of the US Constitution with *highlighted* First Amendment remains open. No takers yet. Not surprising. Btw, David, I think you are very good and exactly what an admin should be. You are in stark contrast to partisans like Rhobite. Wikipedia is very much governed by the US Constitution by the way. It is hosted in the United States and as such is governed entirely by US law. Ollieplatt 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first amendment forbids Congress from making laws against free speech. Wikipedia is not Congress, and is under no legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech. Raven42 05:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Raven42 has proven he can read, for that he is congratulated. Case law has developed to protect free speech in many circumstances, building on these rights. They apply here. Not that anyone should make legal threats. Come to that Wikipedia is a celebration of free speech of which all should be proud. However, some editors, entrusted with great authority, are besmirching it. Ollieplatt 06:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is highly irrelevant to Iasson's RfC, but nobody has a constitutional right to edit Wikipedia at all. The servers are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and that foundation can set who is allowed to edit here and what they can say. The foundation allowed anyone except a few banned users to edit, and to say anything they want within policy, but this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Tuf-Kat 06:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree TUF=kat, this is a virtual graffiti wall on which I am entitled to scrawl what I want. It might not protect your right to free speech unless you are an American. Saudis cannot say what they want. Ollieplatt 07:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not correct. You are not allowed to scrawl what you want on Wikipedia. That is why we have policy. That is why there are certain things Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a graffiti wall, it is an encyclopedia. On what basis do you suppose the Supreme Court would rule that the Wikimedia Foundation, a privately-owned entity, would be required to host web pages written by anyone about anything? You can't even do that on government web sites, much less ones owned by citizens. Wikipedia is not Usenet, a chat room or e-mail, it is an encyclopedia. Tuf-Kat 07:20, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. Wikimedia Foundation has drawn money from the public and is accountable for it. My right to write is protected by the First Amendment. The courts would protect it and have protected freedom of speech on many occasions. It is indeed a virtual wall, privately owned in a narrow technical sense with a defendable public interest against censorship and repressive conduct. If a government website was established for this purpose, as Wikipedia was, which promises that anyone can edit any article, then it too would be so governed. Examine your own certainties and you might see straight through them. Ollieplatt 07:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cite precedent, Ollie. Private organizations have no obligation to tolerate speech or any other behavior they disagree with on their property. Khanartist 07:39, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to allow everybody to write anything. It was not founded for that purpose, has never strived towards that purpose and never claimed that was its purpose. It is privately owned in every sense I am aware of. The Foundation is accountable to public donors only in that the money donated has to go towards the running of the Foundation and not Bomis or Jimbo's yacht collection or something like that; if anybody donated thinking that it was a free web-host, they were mistaken, and that is regrettable. I won't discuss this any further here because it is off-topic -- if you would like to continue this discussion, I suggest we take it Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, where it will be relevant. Tuf-Kat 07:51, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Foundation is indeed accountable in the same way as the Red Cross and others. They once thought they were unaccountable too until Bill O'Reilly rubbed their nose in it after 9/11. The Foundation is not privately owned as I understand it, it's a not-for-profit. And it owns a virtual graffiti wall which on its front page *promises* anyone can edit any article. And for the most part that is true except when power-crazed editors block others with whom they disagree. This is an abuse of power which I'm sure Jimbo doesn't like. My point is that the First Amendment does apply, at least for US citizens. You can discuss it or not all you like I don't really mind. My point remains valid and unassailed. Again, I offer a copy of the US Constitution (with the *free* highlight) to anyone who can find an editor who reverts more than Rhobite. And because no one has come forward I also promise to send a packet of *free* Official George W Bush M&Ms with the Constitution, as photographed Ollieplatt 09:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Everyking. What shipping method will you use? --Carnildo 10:29, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please could I remind people this RfC is about Iasson not Rhobite. Discussion of the latter user should be moved to a more apropriate location Thryduulf 00:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Ollieplatt's summary

I don't know whether comments on summaries belong on the main page or on here, so I have opted for here. I also think that this summary should be in the response section, but as this is the first RfC I've been involved in I may be wrong about this.

Ollieplatt wrote: "Expressing a view - however unpopular - by voting cannot be said to be disruption. This RfC should be withdrawn, redrafted and if it makes even the mildest threshold of logic be resubmitted. Wikipedia ought not be a tyranny of the majority. Ollieplatt 19:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)" my comment: The point of this RfC is not that Iasson is expresing a view by voting; he is disrupting valid VfDs by decalaring arbitary requirements about the vote, including:

a requirement for a percentage of active voters (or sometimes a percentage of wikipedians) to express an opinion
a percentage of "delete" votes (e.g. 70%, 50%+2votes, 100%-1vote, 2/3rds)
the duration of the vote (up to one month)
the length of time the eventual decision is valid for (1month - 3 years).

The parameters are different for each vote, and sometimes bizarre values are used.

I know of nowhere he has formally proposed these changes to the VfD procedure (other than on individual votes for deletion), let alone his having gained support for them.

The rection on the VfDs involved seems to range from ignoring him, to discussion dominating the vote (I admit that I have been involved in such discussions).

--Thryduulf 20:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough but can't you just point out these entirely reasonable arguments on the voting pages. No one should unilaterally impose their own rules, although many administrators think they can. Rhobite is one of many examples. Ollieplatt 21:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you mean what I think you mean (i.e. Can we point out to Iasson that you can't uinilaterally impose your own rules, and that VfD pages are not the place to propose changes), then we have tried. See the links in section 1.2 (Evidence of Disputed Behaviour) of the RfC article [4] -Thryduulf 21:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes but presumably the "damage" done by his assertions is undone each time you rebut them. Hence no problem. In Rhobite's case, he blocks users who have a different POV and then coerces people from joining RfC's against him, then encourages other users to block them so he's seen as acting with propriety. Most unbecoming. Ollieplatt 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why should we rebut him every time he asserts that something is policy when it is not? We have a deletion policy, and a procedure to follow when changing it. At least Rhobite didn't go about repeatedly misrepresenting the facts -- he admitted to breaking the rules once, while Iasson regularly makes bald-faced lies about policy. Tuf-Kat 07:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that the VfD page is quite substantial already, and frequently downloaded by many users. Adding a lengthy boilerplate comment--sometimes more than once--could be considered inconsiderate to other Wikipedians (and their perhaps limited bandwidth). Might a short note ('I have concerns about the VfD process', or 'The VfD process is dangerously arbitrary, comment here') with a link to detailed arguments in Iasson's user space not suffice? Rebuttal of Iasson's comments each and every time would serve to further lengthen the VfD page, worsening the problem. --TenOfAllTrades 00:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Related to Iasson's poll

I want Iasson to stop spamming the VfD votes with comments which proport to represent voting policy, but which in fact do not, and which might mislead new voters. Vote on the VfD, and explain your reason for voting that way; don't abuse the VfD page by constantly filling it with new ideas for how votes themselves should be taken. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Splatter

Iasson's disruptive votes are starting to splatter. He's made a couple on WP:FAC -- [5], [6] -- a place where the voting procedure is much better-defined than on VfD. I don't think he's doing this to try to change policy anymore; I think he's just trying to be disruptive. --Carnildo 00:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And his behavior on this very RfC - about his behavior - is rapidly becoming more troll-like. See his actions to the statement of the dispute and comment on my 5 wikibucks joke. A threat of a friviolus RfC? I'm quaking. Please, I call on Iasson once more: stop attempting to disript valid wikipedia practices! hfool/Roast me 01:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hfool, you may want to revist your grammar on the FAC article pages listed above ;) Thryduulf
  - I have a feeling that you're the only person who noticed that. hfool/Roast me 00:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I echo Hfool's call. Iasson, I would like to see you as a valuable productive contributor to Wikipedia. Perhaps one of the voting systems articles, as voting methods seem to interest you. Thryduulf 01:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where to go from here

Where do we go from here? The RfC process doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but I don't feel like bothering the Arbitration Committee with this. What should we do? --Carnildo 06:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd be astounded if mediation worked; it doesn't seem suited to a one-to-many problem. —Korath (Talk) 09:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation seems designed for a 1:1 or possibly 1:2 dispute. Add to that the current severe backlog of mediation cases (see the section on Wikipedia:Signpost/Fvw), and I'm increasingly of the opinion that Mediation would be no help.

Something needs to be done, imho. I don't think what he is doing quite falls under vanadlism, and in my (very limited) experience, content disputes aren't treated anywhere nearly as severely in the Wikipedia: namespace as in the article namespace. Arbitration seems like a process that can cope with a 1:many dispute, but I am not certain that a case would be accepted, and I have feeling that Iasson would take a rejection to hear the case as a liscence to cause havoc. Thryduulf 10:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean we can't do anything? RickK seems about ready to ban him without recourse (see his threat on the page), but I'd rather avoid that until we've exausted all other options. Can a user be banned from editing specific pages? Like the Wikipedia namespace? hfool/Roast me 00:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noting that I am a complete outsider to this dispute and in fact had no idea it was going on: My understanding is that if you absolutely cannot get anywhere with previous steps in the dispute resolution process, you should request mediation as a prerequisite for arbitration. (I assume you would pick one person to make the request on the behalf of the group.) If that is unsuccessful (or you can't get anywhere because of the backlog), then arbitration is more likely to be accepted. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the summary I've just added. Might it be a way forward? We should also seek Iasson's views on what I might call question 5: When should this vote end?. Andrewa 21:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iasson has now added this question to the poll himself (under my name), and his answer is never. He doesn't say whether this was his intention right from the start, and it's academic. The poll is only useful if Iasson agress to abide by it, and we no longer have any pretense of this agreement. I think it was good to try, but we must now move on. Andrewa 11:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't impersonating or misrepresenting another users against the rules?

Anyway this RfC has been going on for nearly 10 days, and I don't really think we can say that we are any closer to an agreement than we were before. I think its time therefore to move on, ideally to somewhere with a binding outcome. Thryduulf 13:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we are closer, but unfortunately it's closer to using blocks and bans. There is now ample evidence (even for me) that Iasson is not acting in good faith, and that many of his edits are therefore vandalism. For example, [7] [8] [9] [10] and [11] would be more at home on BJAODN than on RfC. (Perhaps read the second-last of those first or only to get the feel, they all relate to the same response.) Andrewa 17:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my summary of this RfC, and indicated this by updating the heading line and striking through the text. That's not to say I think it's all wrong, but in the light of the evidence we now have, I don't think it's relevant to this particular RfC any more. As no other user has endorsed it, I think this is the best way to go. Andrewa 17:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One of the things I've always found most attractive about the Wikipedia community is its general level-headedness and patience. However, I find it impossible not to point out that, if this were any website in the world except for Wikipedia, Iasson would have been permanently banned long ago (with the possible exception of admitted anarchist or troll websites). Just look at the situation here: just about everybody knows that there's a problem here, but nobody knows how to stop it. Instead, we have a beaurocratic mess with comments and polls and hearings and rebuttals, and I'd be surprised if anyone involved genuinely believed that any of it was truly going to solve the problem. First, a few words of explanation: based on all available evidence, Iasson is NOT trying to change VfD procedure. He has been told how to affect VfD procedure, and has not even attempted to go through those channels. He is not simply trying to "do the right thing in the wrong way". Based on analysis of his "votes", his imagined criteria for VfD fluctuate so wildly that they cannot be anything other than totally random. Therefore, he is not merely trying to push an agenda. Furthermore, he has been consistantly rude regarding even the most reasoned criticisms of these disruptions. Even with this overwhelming mountain of odious behaviour, I believe that Iasson should be given a final chance, and explicitly told by the administration that if even ONE more instance of this behaviour is noted, that he will be banned. The Wikipedia:Banning_policy states that a ban can be imposed if "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." So let's be bold and use it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

IMO a case may now exist for a ban, on the grounds of repeated vandalism, which I suspect is exactly what Iasson wants. As you say, we have given him a more than fair hearing, in accordance with our policies and practices.

The question we need to quietly consider is: Are we confident that Iasson's contributions are not going to be helpful to our project of writing an encyclopedia? If the answer to that is yes, then we are obliged to (sadly I think) give Iasson the royal order of the boot. This site and the servers and fundraising that support it are not set up to provide a playground for the thrust and parry of cybercontests of will. Others do exist for that, but we are an encyclopedia, neither more nor less.

Iasson does have a lot to offer, and his reaction to my pointing that out before gives me some hope. Worse have reformed and become valued Wikipedians. But not all, and I don't think it will be soon. Andrewa 00:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you're saying, but you seem to imply that a ban and rehabilitation are two seperate,incompatible, and mutually-exclusive options. On the contrary, getting banned might be the best thing that ever happened to Iasson as an editor here. It would allow him to put all this nonsense behind him. If he were to come back under a different name, we'd never know the difference, and we'd welcome him with the same open arms with which we embrace any new editor (assuming, of course, that he didn't start his old tricks once again). As it is, it would be nearly impossible for him to reform with all this unpleasant baggage behind him... just imagine all the skeletons in his closet if he ever applied for admin. A ban shouldn't be thought of as a death sentence. It's an oppotortunity for a fresh start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of this. Whatever the policy, in practice they can do exactly as you describe, and I believe some have and that's good. I certainly don't think a ban and rehabilitation are exclusive, and Jimbo has often expressed the hope that even a hard ban might be a tool for reforming the user in question, so we have a strong tradition there.

And I certainly agree that we are now at the blocks and bans stage with this one. Andrewa 21:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RickK/Taxman's Proposal

Where to go is simple. I think it was Rickk who mentioned the harshly worded, but overall correct method. There is consensus that Iasson should stop the disruptive behavior. So therefore, if he continues with it, a short ban is in order for the first time (maybe even only a couple hrs), then double the length of the ban for each similar disruptive vote. Since Iasson has stopped making the disruptive votes for now, that policy seems perfectly workable. He won't be banned at all as it stands now. But problematic edits will lead to increasing bans. Seems like a perfect solution to me: no problems->no action; disruptive edits->decisive action. - Taxman 19:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) For the record I'm fine with the first ban being 24 hrs in light of recent evidence. - Taxman 13:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would a vote be approprate at this point? I support the above, as this has gotten out-of-hand, as Iasson has shon that he will not stop his disruptions, even in the face of overwhelming consensus. To satisfy the policy here, the vote is a simple support or do not support, with rough consensus in 3 day's time the goal. And Iasson, you can't vote in it; it's your punishment we're discussing here. The prisoner does not get to choose his jailer. hfool/Roast me 03:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support ...but I think Taxman's suggestion of setting the first ban at a couple hours is much too low. If somebody banned me for 2 hours, I doubt I'd even notice. 24 hours should be the minimum, to give him time to cool down at least. Also, I think the specified action should be taken for ANY disruptive activity by Iasson, not just wierd VfD votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Eh, if we're voting, then I support. As Iasson has not made any of his disruptive votes in the last few days (aside, perhaps, from this RfC), let's hope he will respect the community consensus and work towards improving the encyclopedia in other ways. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I support this proposal, and agree that the minimum block should be for 24 hours. Thryduulf 08:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Agree that a 24 hour block is a good start. This vote has little standing in a legalistic sense, but is a good way forward IMO. Wikis are like that. Andrewa 09:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Additional Note: For what it's worth, Iasson is up to his old tricks again at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Average_rule complete with odd votes and ranting about the cabal. I'm not surprised. After this horrible mess of an RfC, it's become impossible for me to think of Iasson as anything other than an increasingly-blatant troll. The idea that Iasson is instantly going to drop all of this and start writing awesome encyclopedia articles is increasingly within the realm of mere fantasy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Additional Additional Note His latest comment to the above VfD is quite telling indeed. Note the language "Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me." That's probably as close to asking for a ban as you're ever likely to see. Either he gets banned or we wait until we have photographic proof that he has "TROLL" tattooed on his forehead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. But I must also say I haven't completely given up that hope. I can't imagine that he finds what he's doing very rewarding, despite the rush that he undoubtedly gets whenever he thinks he's won a verbal point. Do you remember when Saddam Hussein's sons were killed? It struck me as incredibly sad that the overwhelming response of the Australian media was joy. How must it feel when the world rejoices at the deaths of your sons and heirs? Similarly, I think there's little doubt most of us wish Iasson would go away, and he must know this. And he's been banned from other sites and IMO expects to be banned here too. Yet he seems to value even the little bit of importance that this gives him. He spends a lot of time here. How sad is that? Maybe one night he'll pour himself a double scotch and say to himself I'd like to have something to show for my time on earth other than being noticed by people who wished I'd go away, and realise that he does have a choice. Andrewa 13:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support a ban as, at this point, he may as well have "troll" tattooed on his forehead -- a complete lack of productive edits coupled with confrontational ranting on a pet subject and bizarre, incoherent arguing... He's pretty much a textbook troll. Tuf-Kat 01:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

A point of order

For some reason, I feel that a few people are interpreting this RfC as a sort of anti-change commentary on policy, including the policies of VfD and some of the drafts of POINT.

I agree with some of Iasson's points: VfD is not well defined. It's methods, while they do work, are at times haphazard.

But this is not the point of this RfC. Far from it. The wikipedia has outlets for additions to the policies of the wikipedia, some of which can be see in action at the Vote to Expand CSD. The point of this RfC was the method that Iasson used to attempt to induce change: the casting of votes on VfD pages that attempted to define VfD policy for the individual voting period. After repeted attempts to turn this user towards the correct channels, thsi RfC was filed my myself to convince Iasson that his votes were considered unacceptable by fellow users.

Thank you for listening to a fool's rant, I do feel better now. hfool/Roast me 00:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. My summary strays into deeper issues, and I was of two or three minds whether to put it in the RfC or here, or nowhere, which is one reason it took so long. I finally decided to put it in the RfC following Iasson's attempt to interpret the overwhelming vote on his question 1 as a policy decision.

It seems to me that we are unlikely to get Iasson's cooperation without demonstrating both a willingness to change on the issues which he has justifiably raised (which doesn't mean accepting everything he proposes) and a means by which this change can be achieved.

Yes, the CSD proposals and discussions are progress. So is the rewrite of the deletion policy. Andrewa 02:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you still are interested in Iasson's cooperation. We are unlikely to get Iasson's cooperation in any case. His points about VfD, in addition to being articulated poorly, are, I am now completely convinced, made in bad faith. IMHO he just wants attention and is clever enough to behave badly enough to get it, but not so badly as to create consensus for any decisive action. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely about the bad faith, and have posted several comments to that effect since writing the one to which you are replying above. I also think consensus for action is forming. One of Iasson's alleged sockpuppets is now blocked, for example. Andrewa 21:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally was only voting not because the votes had any validity, but because I was hoping Iasson would modify his behaviour as a result of the votes. However, it is now clear that he will be as obstructionist about votes here as he is about all other votes; in hindsight, that should have been entirely predictable. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it had to be tried. And it's not as if there were any urgency about taking action. I'm not one of these people who's in a big hurry to speed up any of our deliberations. Andrewa, sorry for the critical tone, I should have examined the various timestamps more closely. I too was hoping that Iasson would accept the plain results of his own poll conducted on his own terms, and it was worth giving it a fair try. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Someone has registered the user Lasson, which based on the similarity to Iasson (initial L vs initial I - I am not the only person to have mistakenly read the latter for a lowercase l) and the contribution history [12] leads me to suspect that they are the same person. If I am correct, any action taken against Iasson should take this into account. Thryduulf 13:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obvious bad-faith sockpuppet. Ban it now. hfool/Roast me 16:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for impersonating Iasson. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Iasson contributes from the IP Address 146.124.141.250 contribs. Thryduulf 18:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting if true. Iasson has not attempted to take credit for this IP, indeed, re has admitted when questioned to have edited only 3 pages in the main space. See his talk page for a little discussion on that subject. hfool/Roast me 02:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that that IP address is registered to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. As is 62.38.170.14, 213.16.158.114, 193.92.154.205, and various others who have made edits to Average rule and Quadratic rule, both of which Iasson is invoking in his "poll". Raven42 21:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's on a mobile IP? That would make warching for disruptive edits as mentioned above tough (as well as carrying out punishment). hfool/Roast me 23:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er, scratch that, sort of. All those IPs have been distibuted to Greek ISPs by RIPE. 146.124.141.250 is a static IP. 62.38.* is a floating IP block: here's a positive link to Iasson. 193.93.* and 213.16.* are floating IP blocks belonging to a different ISP, but their edits follow a similar M.O. to Iasson. Raven42 23:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, looky, proof Iasson has been using the 213.16.* range: [13] Raven42 00:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

further examples

The following is another examples of Iasson's behaviour:

[14] A vote about the content of the Same sex marriage article, posted on the 10th December.

(comment posted by User:Thryduulf)

In addition to Kuro5hin mentioned above, he also seems to have been kicked off here. (Edits here, use the Google cache links). Anybody out there still assuming good faith? sjorford :// 18:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Average rule

This shows that Iasson has set out to troll Wikipedia. There no longer needs to be a discussion on the subject. Time to ban him. Rick K 00:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. His comments on this RfC are also degenerating quickly. Complaining of deletionist cabals and calling other user edits stupid...the best thing to come from this RfC was a lengthy bit of evidence-gathering. And some of those anon edits below looked so good too at times. hfool/Roast me 02:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Iasson says it best himself: And I am saying to you that, for now on, I am going to cast peculiar votes in all proposed for deletion articles. [...] Be prepared, my peculiar votes are going to flood your POV Vfd policy and procedure, until an administrator bans me. Iasson 12:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- Scott e^iπ 06:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- As the vote above shows, there is clear support for decisive action. I guess policy shows we should wait for 3 days to finalize the vote to institute bans. But I think it is fairly clear that everyone supports reverting any of Iasson's nonsense votes on sight as pure vandalism in the meantime. It's unfortunate, I'll nevr understand why someone would purposely want so much negative attention. - Taxman 13:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  - for some people any attention is good attention, this is particularly the case for children who don't get much attention from their parents, but by no means exclusively so. Whether this is the case with Iasson is not my place to speculate. Thryduulf 14:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - While I agree that action needs to be taken, two things should be noted. ~~First, I don't see any obvious recent Iasson votes on VfD. He has indeed threatened to "flood" VfD with them, but is he is acting on this threat? (Has he already been blocked?)~~ Second, I think it should be taken into account that Iasson's disruption (and it is disruption) is relatively mild. Speculating on others' motives is never reliable, but I don't think Iasson is trying to hurt Wikipedia. I think he sincerely believes that he has discovered the only method by which a group can make a valid decision. I think he intends to be Socratic when he says "I don't understand this consensus, please define it." He is only trolling in this sense: he feigns willingness to abide by any valid group decision, but in reality believes that only his decision procedures are valid and will not accept any other procedures as binding. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - He has been continuing with his "peculiar votes": see [15] and [16] from yesterday. His talk page shows that RickK banned him for 24 hours from about 05:20 (UTC) today. Thryduulf 16:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Not to go on and on about this, but Average rule and Quadratic rule are special cases, since they are his own articles (yes, yes, I know he denies it). What he has not done so far is to "flood" VfD with his votes—which to me would mean attempting to cast one of his vote in as many articles as possible. Nor has he been doing the usual thing that is done by people whose goal is disruption, which is to try to create new accounts faster than they can be blocked, or edit from anonymous IP addresses, etc. I repeat that I think his votes are disruptive, blocks are appropriate, and so far his positive contributions within the Wikipedia namespace appear negligible—but I'd like to keep things in proportion. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        He has today inserted comments into this VfD that are, by his own admission, irrelevant to it. Thryduulf 14:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        i think the only option is to take this to arbitration. otherwise this RfC is going to be fruitless. Xtra 01:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Timecube

Does the new section title "Tyrannical majority claims all the time belongs to them. Proposition of a time splitting decision rule." remind anyone else of Timecube? --Carnildo 21:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently gone

Iasson just posted "Good by all! I left. I may be back with another name, or as usual, with no name at all" to his user page. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 07:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good ridance. he has left a nice diatribe on his userpage though. Xtra 09:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be actively editing it. --Carnildo 10:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I rather hope he does come back, but obviously not continue this behaviour. If he came back, nobody would know, and it could be a whole fresh start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he's taken up residence on m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. He took 18 edits to sign his name and make three short policy proposals. Meanwhile, he's casting himself as a pariah on his user page. -- Scott e^iπ 23:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also, he last edited his WP user page yesterday, so I question his sincerity in leaving. -- Scott e^iπ 23:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

And now he's accusing Steveietheman of "vandalism" [17] for reverting Majoritarianism. Raven42 15:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Faethon

I'm a little suspicious of this one - just reading his posts, you get this naging feeling that you've read it all before. That, and take a peek at his editing style on his user page. (Read: might be a reincarnated Iasson). Now uses the public account User:Faethon2. humblefool ® 00:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm a bit unsure. He is and yet isn't like Iasson, who is still active on meta. In particular, he had some odd deletion behavior, but nothing like the odd polls from before. Also, his English seems to be better than Iasson's, and he doesn't make the 20 edits to make a single point. However, Faethon would seem to be another spelling of Phaëton, of Greek mythology. I guess we can wait and see how this user's edits turn out. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He did edit User:Iasson's User page, and when I asked him if he was Iasson, he didn't deny it. Rick K 10:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

No I am not Iasson, but maybe Iasson or another used my account to edit Iasson's user page. My account is a public account, so anyone can use it for any good or for bad purpose. But beware, whatever you do, your IP is always logged by administrators. So please, dont abuse my account's hospitality. Faethon2 18:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there's an official WP policy on such "public accounts", but perhaps there should be. It seems unnecessary at best (since login is not required to contribute) and an invitation to trouble at worst. In this case, you seem to be hoping to avoid scrutiny for your actions by being always able to claim that someone else did it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've got a very simple solution to "public accounts": If I find one, I change the password. We've got an unofficial policy against them. --Carnildo 23:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cute. Simple and effective. Andrewa 06:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What if someone blocks the "public account" after you change the password? Doesn't it cause you to be autoblocked for sharing IP the blocked account has used? jni 08:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Impressive! I havent thought about it, but it is very nice if this is happening. I think it will protect somehow my account for potential abusers. Faethon11 11:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Do you mean from potential abusers? (;-> Andrewa 18:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes from..it was a typo. sorry Faethon22 21:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think only if the person who changed the password tries to sign in to the public account. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 18:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The abuse is enormous! Look at my number, I reached 22! Something must be done. Were are the admins to protect my user front page and my account password from vandalism? I want them to fix my password to Faethon22 and dont let anyone to change it. (not even me, unless ask for it with a messege signed with my key) Faethon22 21:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be very suprised if protecting users' passwords from being changed is technically possible. It would (I presume) need to have been explicitly written into the software, and given that it is such a minor problem (by which I mean that it is a problem only in a such a tiny number of cases) I doubt that any developer would have spent the time doing so. Thryduulf 21:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<---SHIFT LEFT

Of course, there's also the question of why on earth the admins/devs/beauros/jimbos would waste their time and effort on protecting the password of someone who repeatedly and deliberately gives it out. That's kind of like if I were to start leaving money and valuables laying out on my front lawn and then whine that the police can't be there all the time to protect them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, there's also the question of why on earth the admins/devs/beauros/jimbos would waste their time and effort of protecting unprotected wiki pages when someone can repeatedly and deliberately edit those pages and vandalise them. Dont you think that there are strong similarities of wiki and of my case? Protect my case, and a new wiki will arise.Faethon27 06:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not really. A wiki is designed to be edited. If it's vandalized, there are safegaurds to ensure that fixing it is extremely fast and easy. The WikiMedia software probably could be rewritten to allow open accounts with protection capabilities, but that's not the point. You're misusing the software. An open account is useless, because you don't need an account to edit, and creating an account takes about 3 seconds, as has been aptly demonstrated by the assaults on your numbering scheme. Further, it invites vandalism which cannot be easily traced to any single IP. You cannot go twisting the rules like this and then expect the admins to protect you. Especially when one of your "rules" is "Whenever I want to vandalize or do an illegal action against policy, I always sign it with my key.", as if that somehow makes it ok. The results of your request on the admin board should tell you all you need to know. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 07:31, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also, what does "Protect my case, and a new wiki will arise." mean? -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 07:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

How the hell can anybody "protect" a password that is publicly displayed? And what is the point of publicly displaying a password except to provide a built-in way of avoiding responsibility for edits (and vandalism) committed under its name?

What I believe, FaethonXX, based on the odd "rules" and fractured prose on your various user pages is that you are Iasson, and this is a new game you're playing. If so, kindly stop. If not, just pick a name, keep the password and responsibility for it to yourself, and pitch in where you think you'll be the most help. Okay? --Calton 23:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice that Faethon2 is claiming his second account has now been "robbed". Except that the statement saying as much on his user page was written by... Faethon2. In other words, whoever supposedly "robbed" the account. Hmm... Raven42 23:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notice that Iasson is in the practice of using an extra pair of brackets on his greylinks, [like this]. Examples are the last paragraph of his user page and his comments on this talk page. Now take a look at Faethon's user page. Coincidence? -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 05:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Quite possibly. It's a common mistake for new users, and even for experienced users. --Carnildo 06:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you may be right. It's just that this guy is so obviously User:Iasson, but there's no hard evidence. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 07:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

We could always ask a developer to have a look at the IP addresses

It is common for users to be blocked for impersonating other users, cf User:Lasson vs User:Iasson. Would it be allowable to ask for the FaethonX accounts to be automatically blocked for impersonating User:Faethon? Thryduulf 13:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find that reasoning rather strained, but it might not even be necessary. Anyone who creates TWENTY NINE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS in the space of a couple days without a damn good reason for doing so is flirting with a ban anyway. I know WP does not expressly forbid users from creating another account if they have reason to do so, but come on, the line has to be drawn somewhere. How many Faethon accounts will it take before we stand up and say "ENOUGH"? 50? 100? 1000? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why somebody hasn't blocked them already. Hopefully it'll be his bedtime soon. I've put a nice list of Faethon account links on my sandbox, if anybody's interested. sjorford:// 14:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for going to all that effort. I added a couple (X and 0) which puts the total now at THIRTY-TWO ACCOUNTS. I can think of no reason a legitimate user would create so many accounts, with the possible exception of perhaps a developer testing the registration process, and even that's a stretch. Hopefully someone will take action soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Twenty-seven accounts have already been blocked as "stolen accounts". Notice that Faethon2 has now retracted his admission that the account was "robbed" [18]. I suspect most of the accounts were "robbed" by Faethon himself. Raven42 15:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And now Faethon31... Keeping an eye on this section of the User page list may be a good idea. Raven42 23:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the new accounts have been "stolen" by editors trying to put the brakes on ~~Iasson~~Faethon's odd little scheme. --Calton 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What sort of joke is this? What this Faethon case has to do with me? Anyway, I can see that there is a rough_consensus for Faethon to stop making his password public. My advice to Faethon (I think we can currently find him in[Faethon31] which is a contiguous Faethon account as long as [Faethon1-31] are all register accounts and [Faethon32] and [Faethon33] accounts are grey thus not registered yet) is for him to respect the rights rough_consensus majority has and define a [peculiar poll] asking wikipedia community the question: "Should Faethon post his password in public?". Then implement the [Average Rule] decision method and make his password public for as long as the average rule defines, then for the rest time change his password and keep it secret. Of course I still cannot advice what kind of average rule to use, but IMHO a nine_months average rule is appropriate for this case. Iasson 08:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, why not tell him yourself?: go into your bathroom and look for the big piece of glass on the wall -- you should see Faethon on the other side of it and you two can have a nice long chat. --Calton 10:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you crazy? put a poll and let others decide about MY password? In that case I will also put a peculiar poll asking wikipedia community the question: "Should all accounts post their password in public?" and implement also your beloved average rule. You know what this means, dont you? When time comes, all passwords from all accounts will become public. So dont you ever dare to propose such a poll again! By the way, someone robbed my [Faethon32] account, but I didnt post my password!!! Isnt this against policy?. Faethon33 21:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, who's the joker who registered User:Faethon299,792,458 and User:Faethon3.1415926535? ☺ -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 02:03, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

It sure wasn't me. But it's all taken care of. --Faethon3.1415926535 03:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. Maybe people that "block" these accounts should all sign a subpage (like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson/Faethon or something) so we know who's been blocked. --Faethon299,792,458 03:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone with a mathematical bent perhaps? 3.1415926535 is pi to ten decimal places, and 299,792,458 is the speed of light in metres/second.

Maybe. But either way, these two accounts had the same password as the username, so regardless of whether these two accounts were created by Iasson/FaethonX or not, they were created in exactly the same way that Iasson/FaethonX does it. I've changed the passwords of both accounts, effectively blocking them, though I think they've already been blocked by the admins anyways. I'll put up a notice on both user pages. --Faethon3.1415926535 22:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If "Faethon" is a variant of "Phaeton," is "Iasson" a variant of "Jason?" Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a guess either way whether Iasson and FaethonX are the same person (or whether there's a more complicated explanation). I have an opinion on it, but what is more important is, it doesn't matter. Like Iasson, FaethonX shows no interest in becoming a contributor, so our strategy needs to be to waste the minimum amount of time on him, while remaining true to the long-standing Wikipedia tradition that nobody is considered irredeemable. Andrewa 15:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another day, another dollar... Another irreplaceable chunk out of a finite and rapidly vanishing lifetime - Calvin's Dad.

I gotta run, but he's moved to meta—see [19] and m:Association of Wikipedia Public Accounts — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 18:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Iasson~~Faethon's purpose seems pretty clear to me, based on his/her Whenever I want to vandalize or do an illegal action against policy, I always sign it with my key. Not signed illegal actions are not by me: letting him/her commit vandalism while denying responsibilty ("No, it can't be me because I *sign* my vandalism.") This is the logic of Douglas Adams's Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Tral, which is "so stupid that it believes if you can't see it, then it can't see you." --Calton 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not particularly coherent or logical. When you give someone your password, you authorise them to act on your behalf and become responsible for their actions. When you use someone else's account, you implicitly claim that you are acting on their behalf. Neither of these need Wikipedia policies to clarify them as they are basic principles of the use of personal passwords.

Wikipedia doesn't have a policy explicitly forbidding this, and IMO we don't need one, as we already have policies both forbidding bad-faith edits (they are called vandalism) and impersonating banned users. As with Iasson, we have assumed good faith with Faethon and his sock puppets. This doesn't mean we believe it to be true, it just means that it doesn't serve our goal of building an encyclopedia to argue with them. If we get to the point of banning them, the ban will apply to the whole stupid mess. The editors who use these accounts can then argue among themselves as to how many of them there are, and the rest of us needn't care.

Similarly, accounts can't be deleted in Wikipedia basically because there is no need. Some day, perhaps a developer will merge all the Faethon accounts into one, but probably not.

The original Faethon account now contains a notice to the effect that it is no longer a public account. Who posted this notice and now controls the account will probably never be known for sure (it wasn't me, but probably nobody will ever prove even that), and again it doesn't really matter. Andrewa 15:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok, and now what are you going to do? Check my user page ;-) Faethon34 22:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cute, but still pointless. No action required IMO. Andrewa 00:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(The consenus missed one big point: Faethon, in any of this numerous incaranions, has (nothumblefool ® 03:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC))actually done any editing to the main namespace! It's a trolling attempt at this point, IMO. humblefool ® 22:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I presume you intended to include a negative in that sentence? I might also point out that Iasson's contributions to the article namespace are vastly inferior in number to the wikikipedia: namespace. Thryduulf 23:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. We've all provided as much entertainment and interaction as anyone could want just on VfD and later on this RfC. I suppose that our input here helps keep this nonsense limited to (mostly) this one page, but I fear we may be feeding trolls. (Who knows which Faethon is a single real person, or a sockpuppet, or someone who stole an account for fun or malice?) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree. This is certainly a danger. Call them what you will, the Iassons and Faethons of the world are going to waste a certain amount of our time, just by the nature of the project. The question as I see it is how to minimise this overhead. There are some principles I employ for this, but not always consistently or successfully! Andrewa 02:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he has made one, to Standard Model. It was quickly reverted as wrong and irrelevant. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 02:43, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Add one more user who concluded (independently) that User:Faethon et al. are aliases for Iasson. In addition to the nonsensical deletion votes, Faethon engages in other behaviors similar to Iasson:

demanding that Wikipedia policy or software be changed at once to accomodate him;
threatening revolution if his demands are not met;

I, for one, don't think his English is better or worse than Iasson's. Both of them are especially obnoxious trolls, and I think they're the same troll. Gazpacho 03:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close (for now)

User:Iasson's headed out, for the time being, and has stopped his VfD votes for now, so can we archive this, mayhaps split up the main page and this talk page to sub-pages for ease of loading? humblefool ® 03:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It's still going on, "peculiar" votes and all, on meta (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion for examples as recently as today). Also, Iasson's last edits on the English Wikipedia were just yesterday afternoon. Therefore, I see no reasonable evidence that the activity in question has stopped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think the timing of both User:Iasson and User:Faethon2 posting to that page is another strong indication that they are one and the same. Not that this is news to any of us, but I think it's just more fuel for the fire. --Death phoenix 18:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iasson has just received a 15 day ban from meta for his persistant trolling. Raven42 01:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This means we have to watch out for him here now that he doesn't have another place to have fun. --Death phoenix 02:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Faethon37 on Clueless newbies

User:Faethon37 looks to be bragging on his Clueless newbies entry (hist).

Is he blockable right now as a sockpuppet of User:Iasson? --Death phoenix 14:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He certainly should be. He's never openly admitted it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to convince any reasonable person that they're the same. Also, the 40something different Faethon accounts have never, as far as I know, made any good-faith edits, so one would assume they'd be blockable on sight as obvious trolls. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- One other note I just realized: Faethon's an über-inclusionist, just like Iasson. humblefool® 22:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Iasson's self-described extreme inclusionist views seem at odds with his proposed deletion of the m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians - which highlights his true trolldom imho. Thryduulf 22:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Iasson makes a lot of noise on AIW about school inclusionism, which is ridiculous since he never voted on a single article even vaguely school-related when he was here. Faethon37, meanwhile, has been seized. Predictably, Faethon38 has been created. Raven42 11:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Faethon37 has also opened a WikiMoney account. [20] Two days earlier, Iasson moved his account to Inactive [21] -- an account which was opened in October by his anon IP 146.124.141.250 [22]. So, did Iasson not read the instructions, or is this a tacit admission that he's responsible for the previous edits from that IP? Raven42 11:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, part 2

Iasson has a new strategy: [23] See User:Acestorides, for example. Raven42 03:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just keep an eye on usernames registered in that series. Thryduulf 09:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a long list. I'd suggest that the IP addresses he uses be blocked and be done with it. --Calton 16:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a request for arbitration. IMHO, because he doesn't contribute (much) to the main articlespace, there are no content disputes, and no need for mediation. It is his behaviour that is the problem, and hence an arbitration hearing might be necessary. I don't see any other way of shutting this guy down. --Death phoenix 19:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that needs the ArbCom to take care of. The disruptive votes have stopped, and RickK is more than willing to block Iasson if he resumes making them. Open accounts are also easy to take care of: when you find one, change the password and revert any vandalism done. The only remaining problem is Meta, and the ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction over that. --Carnildo 20:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To stop the obvious way of making a public account (i.e. make the password identical to the username) to my mind is to make the username an invald password. i.e. make it so that the password for user:FaethonN cannot be FaethonN. I assume this is technically possible, as it is a security feature of many websites. I don't know if it would require developer action or not? This wont stop the publishing of passwords on talk pages, etc, but that is far more obvious. Thryduulf 00:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is it a problem? Why bother to do anything? Why is (say) vandalism from Iassonian "public accounts" any harder to deal with than vandalism from IP addresses or multiple sockpuppet accounts? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. Besides, any such technical fix would be trivially easy to circumvent. For example, a troll could announce that the password for Nuisance_XIII is Mischief_Fourteen and that further accounts and passwords will be created according to the same pattern.... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because someone has to waste the time and energy to check if he's created yet another "public account" from a long list of possibilities, and then plug that hole? And the longer he keeps up Project Plausible Deniability the more likely he'll succeed in slipping something through when people get tired of checking all the time? --Calton 08:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok guys, please stop this joke now! I know who is Faethon, and (or) Acestorides, I know him personnaly, and he is not me! I am not a public account, I will never become one, so please stop this and create another RFC for Faethon. Iasson 07:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course he's someone else -- and I'm Queen Marie of Romania. --Calton 08:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Queen Marie of Romania??? More likely Zlog from the planet Xelon.... Xtra 08:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You told everyone! Damn you! Damn you to hellll! Zlog 12:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT Faethon. Acestorides 12:35, 1 Apr 2016 (UTC)

I am NOT Acestorides. Faethon 12:37, 1 Apr 2016 (UTC)

The two comments just above mine were placed here in one edit (despite the timestamp). Tuf-Kat 23:01, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

They're sockpuppets... OF THE FUTURE! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

ooh, spooky... Tuf-Kat

Just ban him already. This has gone on long enough. humblefool® 02:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. He should be banned in any incarnation. Tuf-Kat
  - Also agreed. User has shown no intention of stopping or even stepping down his antics. If anything, they've gotten worse, even spilling over onto meta. Enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes, quite. The open-password accounts especially are the equivalent of open proxies, and an invitation to vandalism. —Korath (Talk) 04:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

He's continued as User:Acrotatus, despite his edits being continually reverted. I changed the passwords to that account, as well as to User:Achaeus of Eretria and User:Achilles Tatius. If any adminstrator would like them, please let me know. I'm ready for a ban [for him] anytime. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You d better be ready for a ban because you stole other peoples passwords, vandalized user pages and because you are telling the truth. Also User:Humblefool must be banned too because of vandalizing my user page. Iasson 09:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The edit was truthful... OK, sorry. I apologize. It was a bad idea. Still, I'll take a temp ban if you ban Iasson as well for much larger infractions of Wikiquette and community consensus. humblefool ® 23:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again this all seems to be comming back to an Arbitration request. I don't think mediation is apropriate here. I am not around for a week now, but after that I will help with an arb case that is presented. Thryduulf 00:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would support an arbitration request. Iasson, thanks for your comment. I do not believe that that issues you cite merit a ban for me. I did not steal any passwords; you/Faethon gave them away freely (if they are "public accounts", then they are just as much mine as anyone else's). Also, I did not vandalize any user pages: I did place a notice as a courtesy; furthermore, a recent Arbitration Committee ruling (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Proposed decision#Security of accounts.) suggests that if any vandalism occurred, you/Faethon are responsible. As for telling the truth, yes, I admit to doing that. If an administrator feels I have acted improperly in any way, he or she may warn me on my talk page and I will discontinue the offending action. Bans, in general, are for those who continually cause problems despite being warned. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 05:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I, too, would assist with any arbitration request. As I've noted before, I don't think this can be solved merely with discussion. Only a ban will stop it, as Iasson himself has been kind enough to point out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree (and assist, if I can) with any arbitration request for the reasons I listed above. --Death phoenix 14:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've written up a request for arbitration in my user space. I'm reluctant to submit it myself, though, as I was not involved early on, particularly when Iasson was casting his "peculiar votes". Feel free to edit it or submit it. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 03:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

An evidence page now exists: User:Humblefool/working_evidence_page. Add on, and I'll submit the whole thing. humblefool ® 00:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Return of Grecian Footwear

More antics by the founder of Project Plausible Deniability can be seen (appropriately enough) on the Vandalism article and its Talk page. Perhaps it's time to bring out the big sticks, because talking seems to be ineffectual. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Scott Burley's already written up a nice little case for arbitration (see above) if anyone is keen on submitting it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Update: Still at it. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/About Green Field by the way, if anyone still isn't 100% convinced that the Faethon (etc.) accounts aren't Iasson sockpuppets, the wierd voting type seen today exactly matches Iasson's wierd votes on Meta (see Meta deletion page) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, as long as all of you wish to mention my case in Iasson's RFC, I will post here. I think you misunderstand my motivation. Its NOT Plausible Deniability. I am responsible for whatever it is said through my public account. My responsibility is of the sort of the responsibility Jimbo Wales has for whatever it is said to his wikipedia site (although in a much much more smaller scale). I am not willing to accept any kind of vandalism action that may happens through my public account, and I am commited to check it regularly and revert anything illegal or against rough consensus policy. And of course, although I may deny that I said something as a person, I am not denying the responsibility I have for whatever it is said through my public account. Aelius Aristides 08:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, as long as I am not always online, I am searching for responsible persons to take care of my public account and revert as fast as possible any vandalism that may happens when I am absent, and create as fast as possible the next public account in case my public password is robbed. If you know such a person willing to protect my single guest account from the vandals, please tell me, in order to nominate him as a public account administrator. Also I am planning to create a Faethon public account policy that will determine my public account's behavior and limits. Any wikipedia editor that is not a sockpuppet is welcome to vote for it, so all of you are also welcome. Aelius Aristides 08:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Hey Iasson, why don't you just create your own Wiki? You can invent whatever rules you want, and you can go against consensus however you want. Or if you're too ~~lazy~~ busy to set up your own Wiki, why not join the Anarchopedia? --Deathphoenix 14:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Faethon please. Iasson left, I asked him about it and he said to me that he is not planning to come back until his average rule method and inclusionist staff is going to be recognized e.t.c. e.t.c ( I realy dont remember exactly what he said to me, he always talk strange and makes no scence). Anyway, if I ll join this anarchopedia you said, will all of the good friends I made here come also there? Will they continue to run after my accounts, stealing and vandalising my passwords, creating arbcom issues etc? Otherwise it will be a very boring place there! Aeneas Tacticus 17:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Okay, Faethon. I doubt it. Have a read on what Anarchopedia is all about. They like people like you. If you restrict your activities to Anarchopedia only, it's unlikely people here would do the things you allege. Just keep your "public accounts" away from Wikipedia. --Death phoenix 17:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom Opened

We'll see if anything comes of it... humblefool ® 01:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that it appears as if he's going to be banned for a year, he had this to say:

Ban only for a single year, dear arbitrators? I have already gave myself a lifetime ban from your deletionist POV encyclopedia which pretends to be NPOV, so dont expect to see me around anymore. I wish you a very good luck in your beloved job of fooling people that you are NPOV or that you have true policies or principles here. The truth is that everything here is fake. There are many stupid persons that want be fooled by "smart" guys like you. I am convinced that, by using your deletionist censoship methods, you are going to make those stupid persons to believe and think what exactly you want them to believe and think. But, no, hell no, I am not among them. bye bye! Iasson 20:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iasson may be gone (for the second time), but I'm sure his "buddy" Faethon will soldier on. --Death phoenix 14:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)