User talk:Speditor

Block

I have blocked this account indefinitely, as a suspected sockpuppet of WordBomb (talk · contribs), as well as outing attempts against other editors. Crum375 15:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection whatsoever with anyone named WordBomb. Speditor 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I have no connection with anyone named WordBomb. I monitor Sturgis Charter Public School for vandalism by former students and disgruntled ex-employees. Speditor 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not excuse your edits below whereby you violate our privacy policy. — Yamla 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Be that as it may, posting other users' (supposed) personal information is forbidden under WP:HAR. Before unblocking you, we need you to agree that you will not do it again. I will contect the blocking admin for a review of this request. Sandstein 20:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speditor, can you please explain this and this? Crum375 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

First of all, I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. Secondly, I did not out this person; others did that long before me, under several IP addresses. I did restore the section entitled "<redacted> is dissin' it" when someone removed it. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and was unaware of the privacy policy. You may rest assured that I will not violate it again. I still have no idea who WordBomb is, or WordBizzle, and am unsure how I became associated with them.

Decline reason:

And why would you think that that information should be anywhere in WIkipedia in the first place?— Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speditor, in this edit, you appear to be attempting to out an editor, while calling his action to protect his privacy 'vandalism'. Can you explain:

How do you know who this editor is?
Why are you trying to out him?
Why are are you supporting attacks by the other WordBomb sockpuppets by restoring them?
Why do you consider attempts by the editor under attack to remove references to his purported real life identity 'vandalism'?

Crum375 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know who this editor is? I know the editor in the flesh.

Why were you trying to out him? I did not out him. Somebody else did quite some time ago. I now realize that 'outing' editors is against WP policy. Rest assured that I will not do it again.

Why are are you supporting attacks by the other WordBomb sockpuppets by restoring them? I restored the edits of a certain WordBizzle, who was attacking the editor for his own reasons. I thought WordBizzle's edits on the talk page served to discredit further the editor. Once again,I now realize that 'outing' editors is against WP policy.

Why do you consider attempts by the editor under attack to remove references to his purported real life identity 'vandalism'? A mistake. I am sorry. I now realize that 'outing' editors is against WP policy. Speditor 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speditor, please provide diffs for your examples. You say that the editor identifies himself, yet I can't find it. If you know him 'in the flesh', as you say, and you attack him (or restore the edits of another attacker), do you really require a policy to understand that this is not acceptable?

You say you were not trying to 'out' the editor, 'someone else did it'. Be advised that outing consists of posting purported private or personal information about an editor, regardless of where or when you saw it, so your explanation does not excuse your behavior.

Also, you say you are editing Wikipedia to monitor this article. May I ask what your relationship is with the school?

I have to tell you that based on your contribution history so far, it doesn't seem you are here to make constructive or civil contributions to this project. Crum375 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINS:

I really have to insist that Speditors comments on this page be taken down... His remarks are full of defamatory remarks and, after consulting with a lawyer, I would consider filing a lawsuit if these comments are not removed -- The statement that I provided a link to my own website is a complete lie, as is the idea that I "dropped out because I couldn't meet the academic requirements".

Please e-mail me at TeenMoney@gmail.com to discuss this further. These comments absolutely must be taken down right now. Zac

This still hasn't happened. I am deleting his comments that I consider defamatory and an administrator needs to delete them permanently from the record. Again, these comments are completely libelous.

From Zac

Let me try this again, without the "color":

Editors,

Speditor, who says he/she knows me but I have no idea who he/she is (don't care at all either) was mistakenly identified as a sock puppet of WordBomb.

However I would humbly request that you not grant this person access as, even in this discussion, they continue to spread falsehoods about me which may be harmful to my reputation/career. His suggestion that "He has vandalized the article consistently since he dropped out of highschool, including substitution of links to his own website here" is simply not true. The page he is referring to is located here: http://www.capecog.com/capecog/2007/05/is_newsweek_mag.html . I have no affiliation with Cape Citizen For Open Government.

In addition, the assertion that I "dropped out of Sturgis Charter School because he could not meet the rigorous academic requirements" is completely false. In reality, I left because I had a career that Sturgis' administration was actively seeking to undermine, and my first choice college agreed. The said "Drop out, get a GED, and come be in our Honors college in the fall". The fact that this person is continuing to make defamatory remarks about me even in this discussion indicates that they should not be allowed to edit.

In addition his reference to "numerous falsehoods" is false and misleading. Everything I posted was 100% accurate.

As the victim of his attempted outings, I would ask that this person not be given access to Wikipedia, unless he or she apologizes/explains. After that, I would have no problem with him/her being allowed to edit again. I feel that this is reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.130.143 (talk • contribs) 02:56, August 8, 2007 (UTC)

This is now listed on the incident noticeboard, and I've deleted the diffs in question over at Talk:Sturgis Charter Public School. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI thread is archived here. Avb 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the edits made by the IP editor who identifies as Zac <teenmoney@gmail.com> here. I agree with Speditor's opinion, if only because the editor clearly outed himself at the time. Although the oversights may have been appropriate per WP:BLP, Zac's reason for requesting them (outing) was not appropriate. See for example this Wikiproject Spam Linkreport listing a string of (not oversighted) edits Zac linkspamming his own name, linking a WP article to OR Cape Cod Times web postings by a certain Zac Bissonnette, almost exactly as reported by Speditor — or Google teenmoney@gmail.com. Or take a look at these diffs: [1], [2]. I'm sure Speditor did Zac a favor by reverting these edits. The only thing Wordbizzle and Speditor have in common is their dislike of Zac's writings, Speditor here at Wikipedia, Wordbizzle regarding Zac's blog (almost half of the latter chastises overstock and Byrne, and Zac seems to see Gary Weiss as his hero). I also note that Zac seems much more WP-savvy than Speditor regarding (alleged) outing and asking an admin (via user talk) to help remove edits. Avb 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]