4.) Then came the revelation. I discovered his previous trolling activity under the name Tumbleman and Bubblefish, as noted above by others. At this point I was absolutely convinced this was a prank by someone that “employed a personality” that was “a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks.”. I informed him that I figured it out, conceding that it took me longer than it should have. I expected him to say something like “lol gotcha”. However he maintained that, contrary to his past and present behavior on the Internet, he was not just shaking things up for fun. – vzaak
There was no ‘revelation’. There was only hounding. Unless Vzaak is citing activity I did in 2003, which was a form of online protest against going to war in Iraq, there is also no evidence of me ‘trolling’ in any links provided. The only way for Vzaak to find this information is if Vzaak was searching past history dating back to 2006. Using past history against an editor is one of the examples of Personal Attacks in Wikipedia guidelines. That a personal attack could be used against me in an AE hearing seems simply unacceptable and not what any editor should expect. Yet not one admin noted this.
In one of my first signatures to a comment I made in talk, for some reason which I still do not understand, my name was signed as ‘Rome Viharo’ instead of the Tumbleman. I immediately corrected this problem, as in no way would I want my identity to be revealed. And Vzaak also knew this because I made it clear and it was already in the archives, not something that anyone would naturally find or see, unless they were looking for it.
Additionally, Wikipedia’s guideline of WP:HUSH says specifically; “Posting another editor’s personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information.”
That I, or anyone, would mistakenly post private information, and then immediately redact it – would never qualify. Regardless this is not how Vzaak discovered these links. To discover these links, she would have to go deep into the archives from 2006, not an easy task and that in and of itself is evidence of Vzaak not showing good faith and of course trying to find some evidence with which she could hound me by.
The discussions and links provided here (Vzaak had to actually use internet archive because they have not been up since 2004 or 2005) are referencing an online project I engaged in more than 7 years ago. And it was already clear I did not want my name posted, as that signature too was already in the archives and not something someone could find, or even attach, to Tumbleman unless they were looking for it.
Vzaak created a new section in Rupert Sheldrakes talk page called “ We’ve been had! Bubblefish, Tumbleman, Rome Viharo’. Please see WP: HUSH for how Wikipedia views this sort of behavior from an editor. This is outing, harassment, plain and simple.
Vzaak then came to my talk page, and in addition to posting this on Sheldrake’s page, posted it on my own TALK page as well. I cannot tell you how upsetting this was to have my personal name posted on both pages, a clear violation of WP policy, in addition to previous work, completely unrelated to Wikipedia.
So by day 3 in my participation in TALK, I was threatened with banning and then outed with Vzaak being the guilty party.
I immediately removed the section with the note “Please do not disrupt talk page with this” – went to my TALK page, removed it as well, and immediately took this case to WP Noticeboard as it is a clear violation. Why would Vzaak assume that a clearly ‘theatrical’ online project I did in 2003 – 2004 would imply I was doing this in 2013 on Wikipedia? Where was the evidence for this? That I split people’s comments mistakenly? That I may have mis framed my argument regarding the TEDx controversy?
After this was brought to WP admin, found here, the admin said (and properly so) that I filed my complaint in the wrong section (another noob move I guess) but the admin himself did not seem bothered that I was outed, but rather focused on the fact that I was splitting comments and assumed I was the guilty party regarding behavior.