Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson

Related to Grunt's comments

 * Accept to determine current policy on accounts of this nature. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:04, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Public accounts? Present convention appears to be to lock them, c.f. any account listed on BugMeNot (these are locked on sight; I've yet to hear a word against doing so) and what happened when CheeseDreams gave her password away (the account was promptly locked). The rest appears to be plain sockpuppet abuse. I'm not sure there's a need for us to endorse policy to be written on that score. I've just added something like this to Blocking policy, describing current practice and the reasons for it as best I could - David Gerard 21:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It would still be a good idea to confirm that this is present practice, then, and get it written in Arbitration policy/Precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:52, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * You got a point there - David Gerard 12:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry David, but I reverted your attempt to create a blocking policy for public accounts. Policies are created by community rough consensus, not by you. Aeropus I of Macedon 14:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Related to David Gerard's comments

 * Accept to ratify current consensus behaviour toward public accounts. I'm not sure we can actually stop someone from setting them up, of course ... - David Gerard 12:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * .... unless he is honest enough to exchange public accounts in front of our eyes. In that case honesty should be punished, and only the persons who exchange their public accounts secretly are allowed to continue their job. Aeropus I of Macedon 13:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm...let me object to what you just said. IMHPO, public accounts should be tolerated, but public accounts' advertisement should be prohibited. And this is what you are doing right now. Aeropus I of Macedon 13:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
There is one on the proposed decision page, but nobody has apparently copied it here. Thryduulf 19:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(CC to RfArb Requests for Clarification) Does this injunction also apply to User:Faethon and his sockpuppets? Faethon is still claiming to be a separate entity from Iasson. User:Aeropus II of Macedon (A Faethon sockpuppet) made an anonymous vote on Votes for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible, and is apparently using, as his defense, the fact that he is not User:Iasson to get around the injunction. history

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. Although I contend that Faethon et al display similar behaviour to Iasson, I would like to ask for arbitrator clarification to see if the injunction also applies to the Faethon accounts, and to the Acestorides & the List of Greeks accounts.--Deathphoenix 20:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Lakis2 is almost certainly Iasson/Faethon. He has only one edit. -- Scott ei&#960;  07:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that Iasson admits he and Faethon are "both" using the same proxy, along with all the other behaviour, it's hard to see any reason to consider them different users. Raven42 22:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that response is pretty much a "we're the same user, but I'd better try to cover my ass and pretend we're two different people, even though people know I'm lying and that I look like a complete idiot doing this, but I'll do it anyway" kind of response, and he put that out for all the arbitrators to see. --Deathphoenix 00:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we know that his IP is a proxy? Because if it isn't that would pretty much remove all doubt.  -- Scott  ei&#960;  01:42, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... since he's not logged in anonymously, there's no way of knowing without asking a developer. So unless we have a case where Iasson accidentally made an edit while not logged in, we have no way of knowing. --Deathphoenix 01:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Iasson has logged in anonymously. My research (which is somewhat speculative as I wasn't really sure what I was doing) traces it to a Greek ISP. It does not appear to be a proxy server.  -- Scott  ei&#960;  02:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are also these:     from 146.124.141.250, also from a  Greek ISP. Raven42 02:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it was worth a shot. --Deathphoenix 03:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Iasson claims to share a proxy server with Faethon, and then it turns out he isn't using a proxy server? I'd say that's one more point against him, even if it's not conclusive evidence.  -- Scott  ei&#960;  03:44, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 146.124.141.250 does appear to be a proxy. The other IPs Iasson has edited from (62.38.*, 213.16.*, and probably 193.92.*) seem to be dialup addresses from Greek ISPs. Raven42 05:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So much for that theory. Carry on, then.  -- Scott  ei&#960;  05:54, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * A proxy, but not an open proxy. Oh well, we can't get him blocked based on that. --Deathphoenix 15:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * At least there's only one in that series. User:Lakis and User:Lakis3 don't exist.humblefool&reg; 23:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Lakis2 is quite obviously no longer a public account now. --Deathphoenix 05:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)