IBobi

Blocked

Because of your complicity in directing legal threats against multiple users here, as well as actual lawsuits brought against Wikivoyage users and administrators, you are banned from editing on Wikivoyage indefinitely, pending a definite resolution of all said legal threats. At such a time (which would require a resolution to the suit filed by the Wikimedia Foundation against your company, Internet Brands, you may petition on your talk page to have the block lifted. For more information, see Wikivoyage:No real world threats.

Legal threats have a chilling effect on public participation and are anathema to wikis. --Peter ^Talk 20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What would the legal threat be? FYI the WMF Counsel specifically refuted any notion that I made or was "complicit" (?) in any legal threats against any WM user. You can check my WP talk page for that note from them. Unblock me & we can discuss Jpatokal's unscrupulous behavior with the WV community. Or keep me blocked and wait for him to strike WV. Your decision.--IBobi (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, Peter, stating that IB employees are "not permitted to edit Wikivoyage per"... what was the reason? Seems that you are making quite the bunch of unilateral decisions and actions without consulting either the WV community or policy. If you choose not to believe me about Jpatokal, there's evidence you can't refute. As I said, you can also just ask him and see what he says (and if he just admits it, which if he were smart he would, I'll accept your apology). But I doubt the community will see it as anything but harmful for you to simply dismiss such an allegation, regardless of who it comes from, without at least looking into it.--IBobi (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul O'Brien, you are quite well aware of why you are not permitted to edit here, it's the policy Wikivoyage:No real world threats. While that alone is sufficient, you would probably be blocked in short order anyway, since there's no possibility that you or any other IB employee would be a constructive contributor (SPA, COI, constant trolling). It's for these reasons that you have been banned from Wikipedia as well.

I do want to thank you for being the precipitating cause for the start of the Wikimedia hosted Wikivoyage project. But take your personal moral and ethical corruption, legal threats, and social and economic vampirism elsewhere. We have work to do here, for free, for the benefit of the world. --Peter ^Talk 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Please make an effort to answer in some way the actual claim that was made against Jpatokal. Your COMPLETE ignorance of that claim as you attempt to persecute me personally is indefensible, Peter. Or perhaps there is some admin here brave enough to actually challenge Peter's Law?

2. Again, take a short peek at what the WMF Counsel actually ruled about my personal WP account, invalidating your "legal" trumped up reason for a block here. In no way is an employee of a company involved in a suit the same as the entity doing the suing. You're ignorant of this fact as well, but that's by choice. This is entirely personal due to the fact that I banned you on Wikitravel for abuse of your own bureaucrat privileges, so it doesn't in the least surprise me that you'd stick your neck out for another bureaucrat engaging in predatory behavior, no matter what damage he does to the community that elected you here.

3. Do you seriously believe this was just made up? If so, why not ask for the evidence? You don't have a leg to stand on.--IBobi (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your attempted role here is just mischief and drama-creation to try to distract people here from doing real work, and I'm only going to address why you are blocked. Individual projects get to make their own rules regarding blocking policies, and ours exists mainly to limit the mischief making you can be involved with here. I couldn't care less about your banning me from a project I don't contribute to, but I do care a lot about your company harassing other individual Wikivoyagers and Wikimedians with frivolous lawsuits designed to intimidate those who dare do anything your multimillion dollar company doesn't like. Troll away, but I'm done here. --Peter ^Talk 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The block settings are changed because IBobi continues to misuse his talk page and keeps posting accusations that are irrelevant to Wikivoyage. See Wikivoyage:No_real_world_threats and Wikivoyage:Using talk pages. --Alexander (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove the block on this User's Talk Page only

Don't stoop to IBobi's level.

Just give him enough rope to hang himself. -- Alice^✉ 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, can we be sure this user really is Paul O'Brien?

I personally am willing to exhibit my passport, driving licence, etc to a trusted, named individual (with a promise of confidentiality) but generally there is always some doubt about posters identity on Wiki's... -- Alice^✉ 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For one, he's editing from an IB ip. For two, your account is permanently blocked on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry, and are just a few steps away from a checkuser investigation on this site. Trying to turn this into unnecessary drama will speed that up. --Peter ^Talk 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we cannot be entirely sure that IBobi here is IBobi from WT, hence Paul O'B, but he (she?) is clearly either that or a very good impersonator and claims to be the same person.

The policy is clear "If you initiate a lawsuit against Wikivoyage or one of its contributors, regardless of whether it is done on wiki, you are required to refrain from editing here until the lawsuit is resolved. Failure to refrain from editing under those circumstances will likely result in a ban with prejudice." Paul works for IB who initiated a suit and, as far as I know, that suit has not been resolved.

I don't know what "with prejudice" means here and the policy does not seem to cover the case of employees, so maybe it needs some revision, but in the meanwhile banning him seems obviously sensible to me. Pashley (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole reason for the policy was to preclude Internet Brands from mischief making here (since we've never had problems of this nature from any other party), but I've made it explicit now. --Peter ^Talk 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, Pashley, the suit initiated by IB has been dropped because they dropped the federal Lanham Act claim, leaving no jurisdiction for the federal court. They may re-file their other claims in California state court, but I don't know if they will or not. The remaining legal action is a request by WMF for summary judgement declaring that IB has no right to interfere in the establishment of WV as a WMF project. (To Alice: If the account ISN'T actually Paul O'Brien, then it ought to be blocked for impersonation; it's hardly a defense.) LtPowers (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It now seems pretty clear to me that this was not a case of impersonation. If it was impersonation then I do agree that the account should be blocked - but never a User's Talk page - that is contrary to natural justice.

If LtPowers is correct (and he usually is) then there is no longer any basis in policy for emulating IBobi's outrageous behaviour at Wikitravel and continuing his ban. This community should be demonstrating that we are more transparent than the petty censorship exercised by IBadmins!

This is obviously an emotional case - especially for poor Jpatokal - but I do think that wide-sweeping policy changes should not be made on the hoof while feelings are running high. There needs to be a rational policy debate about employee/private status and whistle-blowers.

PeterF: Your ad hominem attack is totally uncalled for and I call on you to strike it. I am nobody's sock. It was only the Provisional IRA team at Wikipedia that got me banned as a sock because they could not win a rational content debate concerning the excision of the numbers and types of victims of bombings. That Wikipedia block is under appeal and I am perfectly happy to prove my bona fides in person and with cast iron ID! I am not blocked at any other Wikimedia Foundation project. -- Alice^✉ 22:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, and as the WMF legal counsel stated on my WP talk page, Peter's interpretation of policy on legal/real world threats does not apply here. I've made no threats, nor have I sued anyone. Peter is acting entirely out of bounds with policy. It reflects very poorly on this community if his unilateral decisions about member accounts are not challenged at all. He's got a personal vendetta. Fine. But why allow him to use this community forum to prosecute it? And allow him to protect an unscrupulous inter-wiki vandal by doing so? I don't get it.

(EC) Actually, this message illustrates precisely why. Your modus operandi appears to be to attempt to divide the former Wikitravel editing community by tattling on various members whenever they step over certain lines. (Never mind that in many cases, they're the ones who drew the lines in the first place.) You appear to be implying that WT and WV could get along if only we'd punish these horrible anti-IB zealots -- and let you continue to point out their transgressions, of course.

As has been stated multiple times, you and IB had the opportunity to make the split an amicable one, and you and IB chose to make it acrimonious instead. That's your decision, not ours, so it rather makes your fairly petty complaints look like crocodile tears.

-- LtPowers (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're ok with Jani's behavior, you could just say, "I think it's perfectly ok for a male bureaucrat of this wiki to hunt down the personal details of a female user of another wiki and post them on her otherwise anonymous user profile." That would make this a lot easier.--IBobi (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about IBAlex here, her profile is not even remotely "anonymous". She says right on her user page what her first name is and that she works for IB. It doesn't take much "hunting down" to find her profile on LinkedIn; all it takes is a very simple Google Search. There was no breach of privacy there. Anyway, Pashley has asked Jani what the deal is, so there's not much else to talk about until he gets back to us, is there? LtPowers (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will reproduce, below, what Peter has now twice deleted from the Pub (why?), which includes both what Jpatokal did at Wikitravel and another Wikivoyager's (Pashley) comment on that. Peter unilaterally deleted it and maybe he'll keep doing so, counter-policy. There STILL has been no attempt to ascertain the validity of this claim, even including asking Jpatokal if he denies it.--IBobi (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Peter's actions. IB's suit was only recently dismissed, so it seems prudent to wait a while before saying the legal threat has passed. Including employees of organizations that issue legal threats in the ban seems sensible, as well. As for the accusations, why aren't you talking to Jani if you're so sure he's responsible? To me, it just looks like you're trolling and trying to cause trouble. -Shaundd (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

How would he talk to Jani if his account is blocked? The "evidence" posted here seems... pretty damning to me. At least I would like for Jani to deny that this was him. He hasn't done that yet. —The preceding comment was added by 99.117.160.193 (talk • contribs) at about 12:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the block on this user's Talk page, I don't have a problem with blocking IBobi from editing all other pages on Wikivoyage either. However, he can't reply to you (or anyone else) here since the block includes this page, doesn't it? That does seem contrary to natural justice. Hence my suggestion that a Users Talk page always be exempted from a general ban. -- Alice^✉ 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As you can see by the fact that IBobi has edited this talk page, and indeed this very section, he is not disallowed from editing his own talk page. LtPowers (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it appears that this user is attempting to circumvent his block by posting using anon-IP addresses. Most likely any IB-related addresses will need to be rangeblocked here if this continues. K7L (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate that IBobi may be mistaken/lying for the purposes of disruption when he intimates in this edit summary that he is blocked from editing this, his own User Talk page but I would really appreciate it if a bureaucrat could clearly and explicitly state here either that

a) it will be the policy that a users talk page is always exempted from any blocks on Wikivoyage or

b) it is already currently the policy that a users talk page is always exempted from any blocks on Wikivoyage.

My position is consistent and I deprecate attempts at censorship on User Talk pages like this one at any Wiki unless they are oversighted by clear adherence to clearly established and enunciated policies (such as privacy, pillorying or harassment).

IBobi certainly does not adhere in practice to any principles of natural justice on his Wikitravel website (from which many long term and useful editors have been capriciously and outrageously blocked when they "spill the beans" - or he thinks they may start) but, as I wrote at the start of this sub-section we shouldn't stoop to IBobi's level!

There may be a general bug with Wikimedia software. I certainly can't edit my own user talk page at Wikitravel (either when logged in or as an IP) after IBobi blocked me after I made this edit: http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Wikitravel:Travellers%27_pub&diff=prev&oldid=1961789 -- Alice^✉ 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IBobi has edited this page since being blocked, so I have no idea why you're still talking about this. And it is already the case that a user's talk page is exempted from blocks. --Peter ^Talk 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that you a bureaucrat, Peter. I do think it important that our policy is explicitly clarified on a policy page. Can you point me towards that page, please? Also, what is the rationale behind disabling IBobi's access to email? (http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIBobi)? Have there been allegations IBobi has abused this facility, too? Please don't be annoyed - hard cases make difficult precedents and I would hate to think that the person that single-handedly probably did most to bugger up Wikitravel would continue to instigate bad policy precedents on this fork. We really should attempt to rise above his level. -- Alice^✉ 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the ability to edit a user talk page even when blocked is something which Wikipedia allowed as they use an {{unblock}} request template on the talk page as a means to appeal a block (or request a different username if the block is based only on username policy). Even there, most unblock requests are routinely declined and continued reposting of unblock requests usually does end in the talk page being fully protected so that the user cannot continue to abuse this facility. There's no inherent reason why a blocked user should have access to talk pages, e-mail or anything else... unless it's part of an appeal mechanism for blocks made in error on this site ({{unblock}} only exists on WP, as far as I know) and then only if it isn't already being abused. It is possible to change a setting in Mediawiki's LocalSettings.php to globally disable "edit talk page when blocked"... I'm not sure if this is the default, short of looking this up on mediawiki.org, but certainly there's no inherent right for a blocked user to keep editing... either by using the user talk page or by masquerading as a random anon-IP. K7L (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This recent edit by IBobi clearly establishes what Peter indicated rather tersely: IBobi is not blocked from editing this his talk page so I now will assume bad faith and disruption on IBobi's part. I am gratified to have it confirmed that we don't stoop to IBobi's level! -- Alice^✉ 07:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's please move this discussion to Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits. --Peter ^Talk 23:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It would indeed be a good idea to discuss any changes needed to policy there where IBobi can not wreak havoc.

But first I need to know if there is any other policy page which countermands or is at odds with the policy relevant to blocks spelt out there:

"If there is a need for a user ban, someone needs to nominate the user or IP address for banning on the Project:user ban nominations page. If the ban gets seconded by two administrators, and no objections from administrators, within 3 days, the ban goes into effect. If a nomination is not unanimously supported, then a broad consensus for the block is the only necessary requirement before the block be instated. Any administrator may also apply a user ban at their discretion at any time, if they feel that the damage done while discussing the ban for 3 days would be unsupportable. However, the administrator has to put the ban on the nominations page, also, and if the vote doesn't pass, the ban is removed. Bans made without a vote and without an understanding of the gravity of this action are considered abuse by the administrator. In other words, a user ban is a really, really big deal."

I assume this is badly worded and meant to be: ...objections from administrators, after 3 days, the ban goes into effect. -- Alice^✉ 07:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Jpatokal unscrupulous behavior on another wiki -- is this a Wikivoyage administrator?

This Wikivoyage user has recently been making anonymous IP edits to Wikitravel user talk pages (not my own). He has inserted links to the personal Facebook, twitter, and Linkedin social media accounts of at least one female Wikitraveler who he managed to connect to her Wikitravel username. This behavior is completely unscrupulous, and he's been blocked on Wikitravel.

He used the same IP address he's used for years on Wikitravel to edit his own talk page, and also left evidence of his presence on that female Wikitraveler's Linkedin page.

This is not the first interwiki vandalism he has partaken of, but it is the most predatory to date. Be aware, he may deface Wikivoyage as well, and should probably be tracked on the languages he generally prowls: English, Japanese, Chinese, and Finnish. If he also has administrator privileges at Wikivoyage, you will want to address that. I can provide electronic evidence to any disciplinary investigators as required. Thank you, --IBobi (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting claims, but considering that he has been around WT longer than IB, let alone you, and I have seen much good work from him, I'm not inclined to believe them. Checking [1], I see nothing interesting. I cannot check the female IB staffer's Linkedin page because i am not connected to her. Pashley (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, there's evidence if PeterFirzgerald cares to stop blocking both my account and IP address against policy here. Why not ask Jani if he did it, and start there? Now, can my IP be unblocked so I can address Peter's false legal claims on my Talk page? —The preceding comment was added by IBobi (talk • contribs)

It's quite clear that you are not here to write a travel guide... you're here to push an agenda or post personal attacks against other Wikivoyage users. I see no benefit to the project in leaving this page as anything but "edit=sysop, move=sysop" with any existing blocks left in place, although ultimately that's for an administrator to decide. K7L (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does not IBobi mind his own business? The Russian version of Wikitravel has been taken over by stalinist hooligans who are asserting that Ukraine, Belarus et al. "belong to Greater Russia". Several complaints have already been made concerning this but, instead of doing something about it, he thinks it's more urgent to cause disruptions here. Go mind your business, will you, IBobi? Wikitravel will appreciate if you do. 200.252.135.73 11:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Bureaucrat privileges and policy violations

Repeatedly, I have had edits to my own talk page reverted by Peter, and disparaging remarks made by others (the troll K7L) that I have removed have been placed back on my talk page. This is against wiki policy and I'd like to hear a rationale -- especially as Peter has more than once asserted that he's "done here" yet continues to troll.--IBobi (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Jani has not denied the allegation

This is a carefully-worded non-denial. Why not just say "I didn't do it?"

Probably because this evidence is irrefutable.

This evidence has repeatedly been removed from this page by Peter and K7L, counter-policy. They are trying to sweep under the rug a serious violation of trust and decorum by Jpatokal, a Bureaucrat at this wiki. Each of them should be de-sysopped.--IBobi (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for ban

At Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations#User:IBobi I have nominated you to be indefinitely banned from editing any language version of Wikivoyage.

I note that, because you have now been blocked by User: Atsirlin from editing this your User page, you are unable to legitimately advance any rationale at Wikivoyage as to why my nomination should be opposed (since your e-mail privileges were previously revoked by User:Peterfitzgerald).

I strongly deprecate this extreme approach as contrary to natural justice.

The correct approach would have been to allow you to continue to edit on this page alone (and, if necessary, then oversight any personal attacks, breaches of privacy, etc) or, if the perceived danger was so high, allocate a named user to receive e-mailed representations from you for posting here (and/or the user ban nomination page) under your name (after redaction if vitally necessary).

However, I do recognise that all of this drama does waste time that could be more usefully devoted to our goals and avoidance of further time-wasting and an agent provocateur effect by you may well have been what motivated these two Administrator's actions. -- Alice^✉ 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IBobi

Swept in from the pub

In my role as a SPI clerk and English Wikipedia admin, I have blocked four confirmed socks of IBobi on enwiki. The only one to have an account on enwikivoyage was already blocked. I don't hold sysop on any of the other affected wikis and did not block there. The stewards have been notified. --Rschen7754 11:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that this is happening after the resolution of the lawsuit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. foundation:File:WMF IB 021213 Signed Settlement Agreement.pdf was signed on the 13th. The libellous claims from anonymous user "WorldTravelller" on mywot.com falsely claiming viruses on our site were posted on the 14th [2]. No idea whether there's a connection, at least without asking the admins of that site for logged IP addresses, but it would be very unfortunate if an out-of-court settlement were misconstrued as a green light to further disruptive editing. K7L (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems IB is putting more resources into ruining us than fixing their own site. That false comment on mywot.com appeared only hours after I posted the link. I'll hopefully able to claim our site on there over the next few days and ask WOT to both retract that comment and tell us the IP of that user. JamesA ^>talk 05:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal is aware.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: the new socks were globally locked this morning by m:User:Matanya. --Rschen7754 02:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)