SlimVirgin, Zeq, and Zero, Split from 'Tactics of the Master Baiters' Options

[The Adversary]

Apparently ms Hell cannot get into her head that one reason why she is so disliked is because she for many years protected some of the worst editors/harassers on WP. After IronDukes nasty baiting of Gnetwerker, she still tries to pass him off as a "popular and respected member of the community"

Another one WP-disaster/harasser she protected was User:Zeq; she unblocked him after he had published personal information on one of his opponents

Thank you very much. What does Zeq do next? Create articles (now both deleted) on two of his WP-adversaries; first, and second

So; here we have one nasty editor, who, with the help of ms. SV, is outing/harassing no less than 3 of his opponents on Wikipedia, but this is not enough to get him banned/blocked (Zeq was finally indef´d after the C.A.M.E.R.A. affair.)

[Hell Freezes Over]

Another one WP-disaster/harasser she protected was User:Zeq; she unblocked him after he had published personal information on one of his opponents

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was. Zero knew he should not have indefblocked someone for that, and especially not Zeq, given he was in constant conflict with him.

But you knew that already, didn't you, Adversary? I thought you didn't approve of admins who use their tools against opponents.

[Kelly Martin]

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was. Zero knew he should not have indefblocked someone for that, and especially not Zeq, given he was in constant conflict with him.

I believe you've answered the wrong question here, dear. What you've given us above is the pretext for your unblock; you have yet to tell us why you actually unblocked him. I'm sure there is someone here who can produce countless examples of you failing to unblock people blocked by admins who themselves were in conflict with the person they blocked.

I have never seen any Wikipedian admin unblock another user for the sole reason that the user unblocked had been blocked by an admin who was in conflict with the blocked user. There has always been an underlying ulterior motive by the unblocking admin, that being either political alliance with the blocked user or political opposition to the blocking admin.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was. Zero knew he should not have indefblocked someone for that, and especially not Zeq, given he was in constant conflict with him.

I believe you've answered the wrong question here, dear. What you've given us above is the pretext for your unblock; you have yet to tell us why you actually unblocked him. I'm sure there is someone here who can produce countless examples of you failing to unblock people blocked by admins who themselves were in conflict with the person they blocked.

I unblocked Zeq first and foremost because he asked me to.

My feelings about it were twofold: first, I felt sorry for Zeq when he first arrived at WP. He was trying to put across an Israeli perspective, which was badly needed, and was struggling to do it with very poor English. Zero was very aggressive toward him, reverted almost all his edits, whether good or bad, and used the tools against him, blocking him twice. It went to ArbCom in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/Zeq-Zero0000

Zero had a habit of using the tools in content disputes -- though in fairness to him, this was because he was "old school" and wasn't really an active admin, so he didn't quite get the need to separate the editor/admin functions.

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

This happened in May 2006. Why are you mentioning it now, almost three years later?

[written by he who wrote it]

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

You're leaving something out. In the instigating edit (admins only), Zeq speaks as if he knows exactly where Zero went, and therefore knows his real-life identity.

Now, I believe that anonymity and administration of a top ten website are incompatible; this is why I rarely edit and never administrate any more. I'm aware that this view is not widespread; Wikipedia policy is to come down like a collapsing mountain on anyone who even hints at outing another editor. (Witness WordBomb.) Since you are one of the architects and enforcers of that policy, it's disingenuous to claim that Zeq was blocked simply for using the word 'holiday', especially because he did not use that word; his post, under the heading "Welcome Back", was "How was [the place that he believed Zero had been]?".