User:EddieSegoura

Hello, My name is Eddie. I come from Brooklyn, New York. You can contact Me on My talk page or by email.
 * My YouTube videos

Action from NYC Wikimeetup
These photos were from a Sunday meeting between Wikipedia editors at Barnard College in Manhattan on March 22, 2015. It was supported by Wikimedia New York City and fellow Free Culture Alliance NYC partners.



Thank You for Your support
First, I would like to thank all the editors who support release the ban off My username. I thought about this long before I actually sent the appeal, despite the fact I had no problem editing. I always regretted the warring I did nine years ago, since back then I was new to the wiki stuff and felt more loose. As I write this, it will be 10 years this fall since I actually started editing Wikipedia.

Second, I understand a few editors might not be happy with the outcome of the appeal. These editors are always free to voice their concern by Emailing Me or leaving a message on My talkpage.

Thank You very much.

--Eddie __NOINDEX__

Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura
I'm bringing this here for consideration following an email request to the Ban Appeal SubCommittee.

Background: This dates from 2006. The user created a new word, exicornt, and created an article for it. He supported the subsequent AFD with socks. His last ban appeal was at ANI in 2009, which failed.

I'll step back from this now,   Roger Davies  talk 05:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support unban - Things have changed.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unban - this user has been gone since 2009; I have no doubt that 6 years is plenty of time for a person to change, so there's been long enough to give the user a second chance. The user has also addressed the original issue behind the ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unban, unless more recent disruption is discovered. Promoting a neologism and sockpuppetry is unacceptable, but not inexcusable, and this user had many, many, many years to grow up. If anything, a second chance is justified. Of course, I expect him to "stick to his word" and forget about the neologism completely. I propose the obvious condition: the unban comes with a TBAN from "exicornt" and a one-account restriction. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to articulate that I especially oppose unbanning with the added context that there have been recent (2014) constructive edits from the user under another account but he has now decided to formally request an unban instead of "theoretically socking" quietly and constructively, which I commend him for. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support the topic ban unban condition to be for all railroad switches instead of strictly "exicornt". Some have proposed "all article creations", which seems unecessary to me, and wouldn't (for example) prevent editing existing articles about railroad switched in a way that isn't appropriate. So I prefer a TBAN from "railroad switches" to "article creations". I've no problem with the one-account being indef and the TBAN being definite (6 months, a year, whatever, as long as there is some period where the editors shows they can improve other stuff), or even better, "indefinite but appealable after X time" so it doesn't automatically expire but allows an easy way for community review. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support unban I never expected to see the return of Eddie. The TBAN should cover all railroad switches. And yes I am still here and still willing to give you another chance. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unban. I'm open to users returning if they have changed (and I note I am open to revisiting my position if there is evidence of that), but the rationale specified for this ban appeal does not address the concern arising in the previous ban appeal. That is, I'm not sure about whether the users above understand why the last appeal was declined; it was specifically due to continued chronic and disruptive sockpuppetry (there were 43 socks I counted in 2009). A one-account restriction is all well and good in theory, but it means nothing unless the user restricted respects the restriction; he really should be open to voluntarily disclosing when he last engaged in sockpuppetry. I would have thought that would be the first issue to be pointed out in a ban appeal, and the first undertaking he would have made without prompting - yet, it wasn't. On another point, I think all users who participated in the previous ban appeal should be notified as I find that most of them are in fact active users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and notified them (or at least the accounts who appear to have edited in the last year). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Based on his response which resolves my concern, I've struck my opposition and would endorse the unban per Salvidrim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC) I have struck my oppose (as it goes towards resolving my concern), but would not be prepared to endorse any unban without the restrictions proposed by Salvidrim being imposed involuntarily for an indefinite duration. If an exception is sought within 12 months, it would need to be considered in the form of some other appeal or he would need to justify it so we have enough time to consider it and make a decision before this appeal is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unban. Six years is quite enough time to allow for an editor to have changed their habits. He specifically discounts an intent to reintroduce the neologism that started the problem. bd2412  T 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unban. Seems like time to offer the user another chance. What User:Salvidrim! says makes sense. I'd like to see a statement from Eddie saying he's read the current policy on sockpuppetry and a pledge to adhere to it. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Um. It's hard to see why someone would want to re-commence editing using that account, given the history - most people would have simply registered another account and gone about their business years ago. However, I'm not opposed to the standard offer. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm supporting unban because the editor is willing to edit under the old name, knowing the extra scrutiny would be applied. Lots of editors might have used a new account, and in so doing made the same mistake made before. By coming clean and admitting mistakes, the editor would impress upon me how willing they are to act differently. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last sentence, but I'm not comfortable unbanning via just assumption after the issue was so serious; there are many possible reasons why he might have chosen this route. I'm happy to withdraw my opposition if his response discloses the last time he socked and provides an undertaking to edit with a single account hereafter - it would come down to his actual word and us trusting he will abide by it in that case. I left him this message, so it may be helpful if others can transclude that section if needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would usually automatically support any appeal after a such a long time, provided the user seemed to comprehend the problem. Not sure I see that here, they promise not to post that specifc article again, but this is a pretty bad ban appeal. However, as others have pointed out they would be coming back knowing they would be under extra scrutiny when they could be socking instead. Indeed after so long I doubt anyone would have noticed if they had quietly returned at some point so long as they didn't start doing the same things that led to the initial block. So I guess I'm gonna go for somewhat reluctant/cautious support. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unban (with respect to Beeblebrox above) per WP:ROPE.  Mini  apolis  21:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Holding . It was a long time ago, but I have to say I'm unimpressed by the wording of Eddie's appeal. It doesn't seem to show great awareness of the issues (the socking, the harassment, the broken promises). And is he actually suggesting there was something improper about Bunchofgrapes' block ? I'll wait to see if Bunch has an opinion, before I fully form mine, but at the present moment I'm inclined to oppose. (Bunchofgrapes is long gone, :-( but I think he probably still watches his talkpage, and I've alerted him.) Bishonen &#124; talk 10:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Update: Neutral . I can't quite make myself support, but since Bunchofgrapes, below, doesn't oppose, I won't either. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Chopping and changing — oppose after all. Eddie said on his page today that he "would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban". My italics. I'm sorry, but I think it's deeply worrying that he talks — today, not nine years ago — like using several accounts is the normal thing and he'd be willing to stop doing it for six months as a concession. And a temporary ban from what topic — railway switches, also for six months? Sorry for the chopping and changing, but I have to oppose an unban after all. (And Eddie, I know you're reading this: if you want any of your comments ported to this ANI thread, please say so clearly and specifically.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
 * There are some permissible reasons to have multiple accounts; for example, having a backup account in case your main account is compromised, or having accounts used to edit from public computers. bd2412  T 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A banned user who appreciates there are concerns about that user's history of sockpuppetry would usually not focus on the length of time for which they would be limited to editing with one account upon being unbanned. If they did focus on the length of time, they would be particularly considerate about the concerns expressed + would frankly disclose why they would want an alternate account or alternate accounts, and the necessity in the near future. If it's just merely "because I might need one later", it could just as easily be requested to the community or through the committee at the point at which the alternate account is actually needed or desired for use. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose see following comment with the explanations currently on their User Talk.  Their explanations are "I won't try to use the word I made up" and "Those who were around before probably aren't here any more."  If this were an unblock request it'd be denied, because there's nothing that shows they understand what the specific problem were that led to the ban in the first place, and that they understand their behavior was wrong.  They also offer up a short list of socks, oh here maybe there's one more...  This unban appeal sounds like "I think I can get away with it" rather than "I know what I did was wrong and won't do it again."  I wouldn't support an unban without accepting a restriction to one account only and a TBAN on railroad switches, like Cambridge mentions.  I wasn't around when this user was active but this unban request is deeply unimpressive so far.   15:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support, with conditions ... Changing my !vote. Here's a fact:  Whether anyone likes it or not, Eddie has been editing and will continue to edit.  So what is the best option for Wikipedia given that fact?  We can leave him banned and he'll continue to edit using other socks and IP addresses, but he doesn't seem to have that much personal investment in those, and so there's not much consequence if he misuses them.  But he does seem to have personal investment in his Eddie account, enough that he's willing to ask for its use after several years.  Allowing him to return to using that account I think would give us the best chance for minimum disruption, because of his personal attachment/investment to that account.  Eddie has posted on his User Talk what I think is an acceptable understanding of previous wrongdoing and a commitment not to return to it.  I also like the fact that he has made personal connections to well-respected Wikipedians, which I think would make him want to keep their respect.  Given all this I support the unban, but with the conditions that he is indefinitely limited to one account, is under an indefinite topic-ban of his made-up word and railroad switches, and if he violates either of those conditions he's back to being CBANned again.   04:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Vague Support. I'm long retired, and you shouldn't care what my opinion is, but I've been encouraged to weigh in here as a very old hand in dealing with Eddie. I guess my comments from the 2009 appeal (which I did not actually oppose) still stand. I'm willing to believe there's a decent chance he won't be malicious, and if the community wants to put up with what a pain-in-the-ass he can be is even when he's being good, there's little reason not to give him another shot. A quick look at his edits as WikiBaseballFan actually have me wondering if he hasn't grown up some in the last six years, even. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Eddie did a lot of damage on en.wikt and caused a great deal of trouble for some of the editors there by impersonating them on other wikis, vandalizing those wikis and trying to frame en.wikt editors. Eddie has never made any attempt to apologize to the people he targeted there. When I mentioned this to him a few years ago, he made excuses instead of taking responsibility, and tried to claim the fact that en.wikt had not blocked his main account as evidence that en.wikt was not troubled by his actions. The reason that we did not block his main account nine years ago was because he was using sockpuppets to carry out the vandalism, and we wanted to be able to talk to him on his main account. As far as I am concerned, Eddie should be banned for life. —Stephen (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per Zad68. I find the lack of awareness in the appeal alarming. Eddie wasn't in trouble for making a word up; he was in trouble for incessant, obsessive socking and harassment. The lack of awareness of this in his appeal gives me no hope that he will behave any differently in a dispute with other users. Sorry, Eddie, but I agree with Stephen, and I see no good coming from an unban. I hope if this is successful you will prove me wrong. Sarah 13:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that Eddie's last disclosed account is User:WikiBaseballFan, an account with a brief but entirely productive and non-controversial edit history. bd2412  T 15:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * True. Unfortunately, I am very jaded by personal experience with Eddie. Last time he appealed, he had a very good looking account similar to WikiBaseballFan, but it turned out he was simply segregating his edits and concurrently running bad actor accounts from public wifi. Part of me wants to support because he has been banned for a very long time, but I just can't bring myself to do so when I still don't see any self-awareness or understanding from him and don't believe he is being open and honest. Sarah 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything that is done on Wikipedia can be undone; if Eddie is unbanned and thereafter misbehaves, it will be a lot longer than six years before he is trusted to edit again. bd2412  T 03:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eddie, I didn't take anything personally, I simply find the lack of self awareness in your appeal statement alarming. I would not support an unblock request or a ban appeal for anyone who wrote a statement that was so lacking in awareness of their behaviour. Yeah, you're right, I do believe that you are still socking. I find it incredibly hard to believe that when you were attending wikimeetups in March that you were actually respecting your ban and not editing. I don't believe that you have ever respected the ban and refrained from editing, but that's just me. Sarah 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support unban. Plenty of people have his talk page watched at this point.  A re-ban, if necessary, would be pretty straightforward.    Hi DrNick ! 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment but leaning to very weak support per Beeblebrox I wasn't around when Eddie was causing all the trouble in 2006/7 as I only started editing under various IP's in 2009 and into 2010, as such I could be considered a neutral party in all this. That being said, I've made sure to thoroughly read up the past history. My thoughts: if Eddie agreed to an indefinite restriction to editing from one account and a minimum 6 month ban from article creation as a starter as well as a thorough acknowledgement of the troubles they have caused in the past. Additionally, there should be a "one strike and you're out" sanction which automatically enables a community ban for a minimum 6 months should the appeal be successful . Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * About the reinstatement of the ban if any violations, I thought of that subconsciously but didn't confirm expressly - so would endorse that. Anyway, pinging, , , , , to confirm if they intended to agree with this or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit messy -- he was not "formally banned", he was indef-blocked and has an appeal declined by the community, which has the exact same result. I'm not sure if unban conditions can come with "rebanned if violated" conditions, but they can sure come with "re-indefblock if violated" conditions, which in the end, are pretty much the same. Such an indef-block will be considered similarly as a de facto ban, and is very unlikely to ever be approved without community consensus behind it. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just had it pointed out to me that WP:CBAN explicitle mentions "indefblock appeals declined by the community" as being actual community bans, so part of my above comment doesn't stand -- there is an actual "formal" ban. I'm still not sure if policy is flexible enough to allow a "reban if violated" to the unban conditions but I'd certainly support that. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Prior to it being deleted, I distinctly remember Eddie being listed in the old list of banned users. Appeals against Cbans should come with a parole period as it were. Blackmane (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that the last part of my !vote was not written well. I'll re-articulate it as Additionally, there should be a "one strike and you're out" restriction which automatically re-enables the indefinite community ban should any violation occur.  I've struck out the original text and this text should replace it. Others may wish to reconsider their comments after this change. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bish raises issues above that she has with comments Eddie made during this appeal regarding topic bans and account restrictions and the manner that his appeal glossed over and ignored the real reasons for his ban. In addition, in comments to me on his talk page today Eddie concedes that during the course of his ban he has always continued editing using multiple accounts and IPs because he does not accept the legitimacy of the community-based ban. When I told him that I believed that he is still editing even now, he replied that he is with IP addresses. Nine years is a long time to be under a ban, but it truly amazes me that people are prepared to unban someone who admits that even now they are not abiding by the ban and that they do not respect it because it was a community sanction not handed down by ArbCom. I am not sure how the community can trust him to abide by any community restrictions imposed as a result of this appeal given that he has spent nine years showing, and now even openly admits, that he doesn't respect, or accept as legitimate, sanctions that don't come from ArbCom. I really hope that people who are supporting his appeal have actually read what he is writing and are not simply supporting based on its duration. Sarah 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to be clear. In this case the community decides the topic ban and the number of accounts not ArbCom. If he cant agree to that then Eddie should not be allowed back. Also I meant that I supported the one account and a permanent ban on railroad switches. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses from Eddie

 * Eddie's request wasn't 100% clear to me, but I think he has asked me to post these responses of his, which I've copypasted below. Several are undated, but they're all recent. (Please post any further supports/opposes above, not in this section — I think it would be convenient to reserve it for Eddie's responses.) Bishonen &#124; talk 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

Reading the appeals and your support on WP:AN, I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban (though I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last). The work I intend to do would be along the lines of User:WikiBaseballFan's contributions. The purpose of this appeal is not so I can edit but to put an end to a 9-year ordeal. I was blocked back in May 2006 and it's almost 9 years to the day. Eddie, Tuesday May 19 2015 at 5:00 am

I fully understand I'll be re-banned if I engage in the behaviour that lead Me to this mess back in 2006. That is: making more sockpuppets harassing other users again.

I stated in My letter to BASC above that I was banned for bothering people on wiktionary. If I didn't apologise to them then, I apologise to them now (though it's prolly too late for that now and the users won't accept any apologies, if you can email a list of names to those who have the battle scars, I'd appreciate it). I also stated I haven't editing in Wiktionary over the past 6 years and no intent on editing wiktionary, just Wikipedia. --Eddie

I'm not surprised in the least by Sarah opposing (the proven sock stuff was from 2005-2009, and Sarah obviously took it very personally). I really want to have nothing further to do with Sarah and I'm sorry for the trouble I caused her. I have a feeling that She probably suspects a current undisclosed user behaving like Me and that I'm still filling the site with disruptive sockpuppets. -- Eddie

, I said I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban, but this is suggestive. I also said I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last. They have the final descision on my topic bans and restrictions and how long I would stick to just one account. Eddie 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving towards closure
This has been open for a few days so I'm looking clarify a few things before closing it.
 * First one, has BASC handed it completely over to the community (i.e. do we have full authority to close with community editing restrictions - ? Eddie seems to believe that BASC is closing this.) I've written the below anyway.
 * I'm seeing a consensus to grant the unban but with conditions. However there isn't really a clear indication of what those conditions should be so I'm listing what has been proposed for comment. Please comment on what you feel is appropriate (these are from suggestions above) so I'll default to indefinite unless there is agreement to a set timeframe - remembering that they can be appealed in the future once there is evidence of constructive editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's entirely the community's responsibility to resolve in whatever way it thinks fit,  Roger Davies  talk 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list further (with the exception of BusterD's confirmation which was already done but may not have been obvious for others). I think everyone else who wanted to clarify or confirm has done so. Maybe give it just a few more hours to be sure but I don't really see it changing much more or being much clearer than that without further prompting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One account restriction
 * Salvidrim!
 * Ncmvocalist
 * BusterD
 * Zad68
 * Blackmane
 * CambridgeBayWeather


 * Topic ban from "exicornt"
 * Salvidrim!
 * Ncmvocalist
 * BusterD
 * Zad68


 * Topic ban from railroad switches
 * CambridgeBayWeather
 * Zad68
 * Ncmvocalist
 * Salvidrim!
 * BusterD


 * Ban from article creation
 * Blackmane


 * Any violations result in a reinstatement of the community ban
 * Blackmane
 * Ncmvocalist
 * Salvidrim!
 * Zad68
 * (HiDrNick?)
 * BusterD


 * I've made sure to clarify under my initial comment (and under Blackmane's) my stance on the proposed unban conditions. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment pretty much stands following Salvidrim's clarification; I endorse all of these restrictions except for the article creation ban and the exicornt topic ban (as I prefer the broader measure proposed). I also agree with him that the terminology to be used on the last restriction be amended: that violations would result in a reinstatement of an indefinite block, but I'd add the intended effect that such a block may only be appealed to the community or basc/arbcom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is covered by the second dot point at WP:CBAN an indef block appeal declined by the community becomes a community ban so it would be reinstating it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee, now I look like the fool. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I amended my point above under Blackmane's; I still think it'd be best to "re-ban if violated" but I'm not 100% sure current policy endorses that (as opposed to re-blocking). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that although there is presently an active community ban, it's being enforced through an indefinite block at present. Rather than restoring an active community ban immediately, I'd rather an indefinite block be reimposed if there is a violation - and let him appeal again to determine whether the block should be lifted or whether the community ban should be formally reinstated. If he doesn't appeal, the effect of a formal community ban would be the same anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) ArbCom use suspended bans (granted they're only TBANs, that I can think of) so there is a little precedent. I'd have no issues with incorporating it if there is consensus for it. I see it as the community saying 'our (continuing) offer of unban only extends to you as long as you abide by our conditions, if you don't the offer no longer stands'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case I'll go where the consensus goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, on reflection, my preference is equal to the suspended ban proposal. It's equally valid that we shouldn't need to unnecessarily spend any time having to review things again if there continue to be problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a change to my !vote above. My original proposal was quite muddled, so I've clarified it in a following statement. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)