From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:142)
Jump to: navigation, search

In the interests of wikipedia:accountability; see also [1]

User:EntmootsOfTrolls claims to be "142". - Arin whois output User:, User:, User:, User:

142 is a wikipedia user or users, whom some have claimed is the infamous User:24~enwiki. Some have attempted to associate these IP addresses and identify them with a single person, a person who was banned from wikipedia; and recently named on the wikipedia mailing list. EntmootsOfTrolls is also probably the same person.

That named person has disclaimed involvement in all but a small subset of edits; in fact there is no credible way to conclude the following contributions from the above addresses were written by a single person:


moved from pump

On Wikipedia talk:What it thinks it is I find myself inadvertantly talking to hard banned user 142.177.etc. Surprisingly, mav condones my breach of Wikipedia protocol.
I'm happy to bow to the consensus of the Wikipedia community here, whatever it may be. Should I:

  1. Continue to engage 142.177.etc in discussion
  2. Move all of 142.177.etc's edits to user talk:142.177.etc
  3. Revert all of 142.177.etc's edits
  4. Essentially ignore 142.177.etc.
  5. As one of the above, but additionally apply IP blocks.

You may confer... Martin 23:32 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just view this as one last chance to reform this person. As soon as I see that 142.177 is up to his old tricks then I'll reinstate the hard ban. Call this an experiment. --mav 01:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Congratulations, mav, you got over this habit of reading "death threat" into the merely ominous - something User:RK and User:RickK have yet to do. Wales has fallen off the deep end, apparently, or is just bored of governing this place properly - you may have a real job of work to do to keep RK from running rampant now that he's proven to himself that he can get what he wants by constant whining, carping, lying and libel. Given his agenda I suspect it's a matter of days before it's obvious - you may want to gang up on him NOW before he gets his own gang together (fairly obvious from who backs him). - 142

moved from pump

Wish I knew where to ask this question[edit]

Are all 142.177.?.? IPs hard-banned? I believe the user has returned....none of his actions so far have been detrimental that I can tell, but if I am supposed to block him I will do so. Can someone who knows more about the history of this let me know? Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the individual you are talking about ( is different from the 142.177.etc that is hard banned. It is seems is while EoT (such as is . I seem to remember that Tim blocked the entire range of sympatico halifax IPs that EoT was posting from, although I could be mistaken. -

Maximus Rex 23:29, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The currently blocked range is to, which should be roughly the same as the Halifax section of Sympatico. I determined this range by trial-and-error, repeatedly calling the unix "host" command to find the edges. There are lots of innocent people using 142.177 IP addresses, please don't vilify them unnecessarily. -- Tim Starling 12:41, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks much for the information! It would be nice if this was easily available, though. When I saw the IP, it reminded me of the banned user....when I tried to find info about him, the only thing I discovered was his "user page", User:142.177.etc. That name, as you can see, vilifies anyone in the 142.177 range unecessarily....if I'm being chastised at all by Tim (and I can't tell if I am), all I can say is that Wikipedia needs to have a much easier way of describing for us who is banned and what the terms of their ban are. :) Based on that user page, all I could conclude was that anyone in that IP range should be considered a suspect. The last time I tried to talk to an anon in the 142.177 range, I was immediately chastised by other Wikipedians for trying to talk to a user who'd been hard-banned. I really don't intend to make anyone upset, so it would be nice if everyone agreed what I can and cannot do about 142.177 IPs, and about banned users in general. Thanks. :) Jwrosenzweig 17:18, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Range-blocking an entire city is clearly against several policies. the current WP:Banning policy states that "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor." That certainly would seem to include range blocking entire cities or harassing suspects for otherwise innocuous edits. This discussion is marginally policy violating in itself and should likely be archived. Looking briefly into the situation, the original claim that User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu made [2] that a particular person "on his web site takes credit for one of 142.177.etc's trademark articles" has no link, no quote, no verification, and web searches at and currently do not yield any such claim. The author of an attempted article on this person got various other simple facts clearly wrong. Thus the entire chain of events leading from this allegation could be libellous and dangerous to the Foundation. It also appears, again contrary to policy, that there is unusual bias against this particular person, as a draft deleted article somehow is considered so authoritative that they demand proof that it's wrong [3] rather than demanding valid sources as usual for WP:BLP:
"Where's the proof of it not being correct? How was this page discredited? you didn't provide proof..." - from User:RickyRab
It appears Jimmy Wales relied on this allegation as fact, and that what Wales actually did (banning this account permanently) has been falsely construed as an excuse for a vendetta against a named person who has never actually been named in any official Wikimedia Foundation ban, and whom Jimmy Wales apparently did not actually ban by name, only stating that he based a ban on suspicion that someone was involved, who was only a suspect until this dubious allegation above. [4] shows a dispute about whether the allegation of a "threat" against a named account was false or racist in origin. WP:LEGAL would seem to advise against attempted police reports as a form of harassment. That talk page also shows
"RK already called a ban on me. I am mostly tired. And no one seem to really care. I am very upset of disparity of treatments. But then... so what?"- User:Anthere
User:Anthere is Florence Devouard, later chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, and probably a far more respected editor than anyone else. Finally it was this EoT account, never a 142 address apparently, that made a claim that it "was" all the many heavily contributing 142.177 range accounts. No 142.177 range account ever seems to have claimed this, nor were those users asked on their talk pages if they "were" any of the various "troll" named accounts that were all supposedly this one person (seems ridiculous).
Leaving these non-proven allegations and claims of a "threat" in plain sight is dangerous for the Wikimedia Foundation and project. User:Jimmy Wales basically looks like a fool for being manipulated by User:RK and User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu and User:mav and others into what today would be considered a grossly out of process witchhunt.
"He is anti-social and has (as 24) threatened Larry and (as 142.177) has threatened me, Jimbo and the rest of the "cabal". In fact Jimbo was so shaken up by it that he forbids his wife from opening packages they were not expecting. " - User:mav
These claims are bizarre. They speak more to an atmosphere of paranoia and racial hatred against Muslims after 9/11 that helped to justify the Iraq invasion. It seems 24 and Larry got terse with each other, 142 and Jimbo got terse with each other, EoT and RK got terse with each other, and magically that all means that it's one person with unpopular views. Was there ever a police report regarding any of this? If not, then, is this a pile of lies? Seems you cannot leave this kind of criminal allegation on the record without either reporting to police or notifying the persons you are accusing or both. As a view into the times both at Wikipedia and in the US generally, it's bizarre, but as a legal position, it's a mess. User:mav should provide some more detailed account of this or should withdraw those comments.