On Tuesday 04 March 2003 09:45 pm, Toby Bartels wrote:

Is 142 (that is, the person that's been posting from several 142.177.xxx.xxx addresses lately) banned? If so, from which wikis?

The ideas that make me ask:

• 142 is suspected (strongly) of being 24. But 24 was unbanned.

Also, is the evidence of their identity conclusive (say to Jimbo)?

• When Lir was banned from [[en:]], Jimbo explicitly said

that she wasn't banned from [[m:]] (and thus might play chess there).

I'm asking for facts, not for a discussion about 142 (although I'm sure that other people will take the opportunity). What I very specifically want to know is whether 142 is banned from [[m:]].

-- Toby

I'm copying my response to the above on [[meta:Talk:Main_Page]]:

:Yes - I was the one who unbanned 24. Ironic huh? IMO 24 and 142 are one and the same (at least the majority of 142s - esp the ones that edit meta). The topics 142 writes on, the use of meta (esp. telling is that 142 links to many pages that 24 wrote or substantially contriubted to on meta), and also the implied threats and severe dislike of Larry, Jimbo and other 'cabal' members all are very similar to 24. There is also the fact that 142s isp is in the same part of Canada that 24 is from. But being 24 shouldn't be reason to extend any ban since 24 was unbanned. What matters the most is what 142 has been doing and we do know that one person using one of the 142 IPs made an implied threat to me (specifically a death threat via a [[en:straw man|straw man]]). IMO, making such a threat is enough to be banned from the entire project for a long time (permanently if 142 and 24 are the same person). IIRC 24's threat on Larry (which was for 'great bodily injury' and not death IIRC) was on meta but that was enough to also get him banned from en.wiki. This is perhaps a better question for the mailing list. --[[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]]

To which 142 responds:

::There are several false claims in the above, but, not my problem to sort them out. The response to Maveric149's assertion that he's been personally threatened is already on his talk page - saying people deserve things isn't the same as saying you're going to do it to them - we are not all judges or thugs or paranoids or Americans (same thing). As to agreeing with 24, considering the alternatives, what choice is there? I suppose everyone that thinks this project needs better [[governance]] is some kind of criminal or traitor to the regime. The real answer is to ban Maveric149 and other abusive sysops on a rotating basis, so they don't get such a sense of their own invicibility. Go ahead and ban, loser, it makes up for your lack of potency in person, I'm sure.

And me again:

:::Ah name calling - it only reflects negatively on you and tends to discredit your arguments. Your continued insistence on being anonymous (therefore making it difficult for other contributors to contact you and for our system of checks and balances to work), throwing insults around, and making implied threats only tends to discredit you and your ideas. If you were serious about actually changing Wikipedia for the better you would work with the community and not against it. You would also be nice and respectful to other users by not constantly provoking them into flame wars. When you anger somebody it doesn't really matter how correct your arguments are because the person you have angered will protest your ideas because you made them. --[[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]]

WikiKarma The usual at [[March 2]]