h1

Chamber Showdown: Charlie Vs. Steph

February 11, 2008

In the spirit of open discussion and debate, I’ve decided to use the Chamber to serve as neutral ground in an attempt to exhaust a dispute that arose unexpectedly between Charlie180 and Steph in a previous thread . It should be noted that both of these netizens are wordpress.com bloggers, allowing each of them to track the discussion through their respective WP.com dashboards.

Vs.

Notice:  As the impartial moderator for this discussion, I’m reserving the right to alter or delete comments that contain personal information (like IP addresses) or offensive/obscene material (like pr0n links).  Also, all Chamber emblems and Flame Warrior variants are in play here, and will be applied as I see fit, but I will not step in and use any sort of subversion other than previously described.

Advertisements

40 comments

  1. ChenZhen, whilst I appreciate your effort and agree that situations such as this are best dealt with via some form of neutral arbitration, I am not sure that, if Steph is who she claims to be, it would be wise to draw further attention to her situation.

    Besides, now that she has had time to think I am sure that she has realised that her accusations were a tad wild and unlikely.


  2. Well, like I said, I’m impartial, so I just thought I’d offer up a venue where evidence and arguments could be offered up without giving an advantage to one of the principles involved (namely, the ability to ban, edit or delete comments). So, if you want to get it out of your respective systems, here ya go. If not, well, just ignore this thread.


  3. Thanks Chen

    I don’t wnat to makes this too tedious so I have limited the evidence. I have forwarded you 18 emails over the 12 and 13 December 2007 from wordpress notifying me of comments by “Charlie” and one by Nick (same IP address and email as Charlie). I don’t want to republish them and I’m not asking you to read them all – that really would be tedious.

    But perhaps if you can confirm that “Charlie” uses a various IP addresses and emails addresses to try and post on my blog; he used the alias “Nick”; was aware that he was banned; used the phrase several times “I have oodles of times” in an email address; and posted several versions of the same message over and over again?


  4. I want to begin by establishing two facts:

    A) “Charlie” is a cyberstalker, who knowingly tries to harass me.

    B) he uses multiple identities in order to do it.

    He acknowledges trying to post on my blog, in the full knowledge that he is banned. I have supplied evidence to the moderator, that in the space of less than 24 hours, Charlie has tried to post on my blog 19 times using a variety of IP addresses and email addresses and even using an alias.

    Lots of these comments where the same, his tone was aggressive and he even used in his email address the phrase I have oodles of time – that is 19 comments over the space of about 22 hours!!! – although that nothing new. Charlie wasn’t banned in December, he was banned ages ago.

    I think most sane people would agree, that 19 comments a day isn’t trolling it is obsessive stalking, and Charlie should be considering surgical or chemical castration.


  5. Steph,

    Not that is really any of my business (I’m too busy stalking Chen, aren’t I General?) but is this what you actually believe?

    Why Rowan is right about Shariah Courts…

    If so, you’re a loon. Perhaps that explains why your site receives really strange “stalkers.”

    Sane people know Rowan not only a phony but actually dangerous to his country; that is, unless as a female you’re in a hurry to wear a burka.


  6. So by emails you meant the emails that wordpress send when someone comments? Hmm, a little misleading.

    I remember that incident, you say that I was aware that I was banned, however I wasn’t, if my recollection is correct, that was the day that you banned me. My comments weren’t appearing, obviously I knew that something was wrong but having never been banned, nor indeed banned anyone else before, I naively assumed it was either a network of browser problem, hence the repeated posts.

    First you say that there were multiple posts by the same IP address as ‘Charlie’, then you say that ‘Charlie’ posted under multiple IP addresses. Aren’t you just dumping any spam posts that day onto me? How could I post multiple times from one IP address and then from multiple IP addresses, on the same day?

    Obviously I’d like to see these emails if possible. ChenZhen could you forward them to me? The email address in my profile won’t work, could you forward them to [email addy deleted per request -CZ] (without the spaces). Also could you delete that email address from here. Thank you.


  7. My second point:

    Charlie says that he does not uses alias, I have already proved that is untrue, he also claims that he is not Ewan or Sancho but he does not dispute using the same IP addresses. His explanation is that his IP address is dynamic and “changes every day. Every 3 days at most. You may be getting a proxy server or something, my ISP is famous for that”.

    For those who aren’t already laughing, lets address the statistical probability of this. I have had 2,967 comments and 7,668 spam comments captured by askimet -10,635 in total. For two entirely independent bloggers using dynamic IP addresses to post with the same IP address on my blog once it could be a rare coincidence but not when it happens repeatedly and all by trolls with the same obsessive habit for repeatedly posting the same comment and switching their IP addresses. Even more unlikely when three have them have blogs devoted to slagging me off, take the same manic tone, and Charlie links to the other two.

    No reasonable person could possibly accept that could happen but the IP adresses don’t change every day they change seveal times a day and often by a few digits as Charlie tries to get past askimet. So Charlie, Ewan, Nick, Zachray, Sancho etc. are all the same very sick puppy, with far too much time to kill.


  8. Chen I would ask that you don’t forward these emails. I don’t want him having my IP address. You’ve seen them.


  9. Steph, we seem to have a communication problem here and we may be able to clear this up very quickly. You use emotive and misleading language, so let me make sure that I have this right.

    By harass – Do you mean post thoughts and opinions on your publicly available, publicly viewable internet site, that you have created in order to share and gauge opinions? If so then I am guilty as charged.

    Have I ever been aggressive? Attacked you personally? Threatened you? Made any kind of sexual reference either in general or towards you? If not then why use terms such as ‘sexual harassment’, ‘sane’ and ‘castration’?

    Have I not just posted thoughts and opinions on the topic that you discuss on your blog?

    You also allude to the fact that I have been ‘harassing’ you for years, whilst supplying no evidence. Just because people disagree with you, doesn’t make them all me!


  10. Good point about the emails Steph, of course Chen could just remove that part, but of course that brings me on to another problem with that ‘evidence’, you can of course change the content of forwarded emails. It would be extremely easy to pick out 18 spam comments and change the content and the name to ‘Charlie’, forward them to Chen and then say ‘see I told you!’

    Some of that day were undoubtedly mine, but how many, I will never know. Proxy servers are servers that separate the end user from the internet, I quote from Wikipedia:

    Virgin Media previously redirected web browser traffic on port 80 through transparent proxy servers with a view to saving on bandwidth costs and improving browsing performance. This did not apply to any other form of traffic. Up to 15 proxy server addresses hosted each area. The use of proxy servers (generally, not specific to Virgin Media) also caused problems for websites which use less sophisticated methods to identify IP addresses to ban and/or track users.

    As I said. If you were getting the same IP address for several people, then likely it was the proxy server, as I said. Virgin Media have closed most of them, but as far as I know several large cities are still using the last few, i.e. everyone on Virgin Media in those cities will have the same or similar IP address. This is of course different to an actual IP address of a specific customer.


  11. Please google for Stefania Harris, here I’ll save you the trouble:

    Search…

    That is how I found Ewan’s site, and also how Ignatius found my site. I have never had any contact with Ewan, but Ignatius has commented on my blog. I guess that is what happens when you share a common topic, you exchange links, but I have only been linking to them for about a week.

    Besides there are plenty more out there.


  12. Well, I’ve finally been able to check the emails. I’ve gotta say, so far this seems a bit silly.

    Charlie said:

    So by emails you meant the emails that wordpress send when someone comments? Hmm, a little misleading.

    True. WordPress auto-generates and email when a comment awaits moderation, and these are the emails that were forwarded to me. I’m not sure what moderation settings Steph had on her blog at the time the comments were posted, but it is clear that these were NOT direct emails sent from Charlie. I can see that multiple IP’s and email addys do show up, which would indicate to me that Charlie was trying to get around a filter that Steph had put in place to block those identifiers.

    The reasoning behind the banishment notwithstanding, it appears clear that Charlie made a repeated effort to post the same comment while knowing that attempts were being made to block him. But the comments themselves seemed relatively benign from where I’m standing.


  13. My final point.

    Have a look at Charlie’s website, then have a look at the his Ewan website, could you honestly say that they aren’t both devoted to and obsessed with me? That the author isn’t an aggressive, irrational, stalker, who can’t accept rejection. That he isn’t obsessed with the way I look?

    Thanks.

    Steph


  14. @ Chen

    There were 19 comments in the space of 24 hours, not including all those he denies being the author of but how many obsesives could be stalking me at one time using the same IP addresses. And as you can see, he uses the alias Nick, with the same email address and IP address as Charlie.

    He also uses “I have oodles of time” in several email address, which proves his intent to harass, not leave comments, and the volume is far from benign – it’s obsessive and constitutes harassment.


  15. Have a look at Charlie’s website, then have a look at the his Ewan website, could you honestly say that they aren’t both devoted to and obsessed with me? That the author isn’t an aggressive, irrational, stalker, who can’t accept rejection. That he isn’t obsessed with the way I look?

    Firstly, I admit I may have edged towards personal of late but I post about other things too, just take a look at my tag cloud, you are the same size as miscellaneous. Devoted and obsessed are again far too strong words.

    Secondly, ‘aggressive, irrational stalker’, just because I disagree with your opinions doesn’t make me any of the above. Aggressive implies a threat of violence, you can’t say that anything that I have written is aggressive. Irrational is subjective, but stalker is just plain silly.

    Finally:

    …who can’t accept rejection. That he isn’t obsessed with the way I look?

    ??? You make it sound as if I approached you for a date and after being rejected have become obsessed with you. You repeatedly try to add some sexual element to this, when there is none. It’s almost as if you believe I must be obsessed with you.


  16. hmmm…

    Ya know, I had something to post, but in the interests of not being misunderstood, I’ve decided that I’m going to sit down, watch my TV show and stew on it for an hour.

    Sorry, I know it’s probably bedtime in the UK, but I’m just not sure what to say at this point, other than the fact that I half regret doing this.


  17. @ Charlie

    You’ve been caught out. No one in their right mind believes you. You are Sancho and Ewan, and of course you sent the porn links – your: “must have been someone else with my IP address” defence is preposterous. You know what you are – so does everyone else – and you know it. Isn’t time for you to assume a new identity, perhaps post here and agree with yourself: “you’re so right Ewan” – “You’re so right Sancho” – “You’re so right Charlie” lol.


  18. ChenZhen,

    I appreciate the time and effort that you have devoted to this ChenZhen and thanks again for giving both myself and Steph a way of clearing the air in this dispute. I don’t think that there was ever going to be any kind of resolution to this but discussing may have helped us see the situation from each others perspective.

    Re-reading the comments it does seem to be something of a storm in a tea cup, and looking back some of my actions were a little childish and unnecessary and I suppose I can see how someone could possibly find them disquieting.

    Basically, being banned from commenting escalated due to there being no warning and no possible recourse. It is perfectly understandable why I found it annoying that, after writing my opinions for 20+ minutes, checking my facts and providing relevant links, all that effort vanished into thin air without warning, once I pressed submit. Perhaps if there had been some warning or discussion at that point, all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.


  19. OK I’m back…

    Steph-

    Have a look at Charlie’s website, then have a look at the his Ewan website, could you honestly say that they aren’t both devoted to and obsessed with me? That the author isn’t an aggressive, irrational, stalker, who can’t accept rejection. That he isn’t obsessed with the way I look?

    I know of a few bloggers who have complained about obsessive netizens posting about them, but for the vast majority, I’d say that it centers around ideology.

    If there is something sexual about this, I have yet to see hard evidence of it.


  20. Steph,

    Glad to see that you have a sense of humour Steph, but technically speaking wouldn’t I already have set up this new identity 8 months ago? Wouldn’t I needed to have had the blog running all this time on various subjects, solely for the purpose of lending credibility to my posts now?

    I have been looking over the blogs of Ignatius and Ewan, and apart from you we have nothing in common, we don’t even discuss similar topics when not talking about you.

    I would suggest to Steph that she either think carefully or warn before banning people, or perhaps set up a page to discuss or explain the reasoning for specific bans. If she is going to continue to ban people willy nilly and without warning, then she should reasonably expect that some people will find it annoying and frustrating. She has a blog that expresses opinions that are likely to conflict with others and she invites discussion; it is therefore inevitable that some people may post opinions that she will find disagreeable.


  21. Charlie-

    Basically, being banned from commenting escalated due to there being no warning and no possible recourse. It is perfectly understandable why I found it annoying that, after writing my opinions for 20+ minutes, checking my facts and providing relevant links, all that effort vanished into thin air without warning, once I pressed submit. Perhaps if there had been some warning or discussion at that point, all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.

    So let me see if I have all this straight…

    All these posts on your blog regarding Steph and the shenanigans that were sent to me in the aforementioned emails were a reaction to having your comments deleted and being banned from posting, and according to you this was done without any reason or warning? This all started, what, a month or two ago?

    I’m still confused on where the porn link fits in or when that was supposedly sent. You were banned because she recognised the IP from the porn link, or you were banned (for some reason), and then she discovered the IP connection?


  22. @ Chen

    I haven’t sent you evidence of Ewan’s comments yet.

    Charlie discusses my appearance and suggests that I’m fat and ugly – that’s ideological?

    He also suggests my profile picture and my cousins are on adult finder websites – how is that not sexual?

    He sent me 19 comments in one day, knowing that he was banned from my blog, and used a false name in one of them. That is harassment!

    If needs be, I can produce email evidence that proves: Ewan, charlie, Sancho, Zachary, Wes, Ray, Red, and Nicholas lees, use the same IP addresses and can also show this occurs not with one email address but with several. So there is no doubt he is ewan and sancho.

    He has also posted a porn link using one of his IP addresses and an alias.

    Btw through his various aliases there have been literally hundreds of comments!

    I’ve made my case, so I have nothing more to add.


  23. @ Chen

    re: email evidence.

    I have now forwarded emails proving that Ewan and Charlie use the same IP addresses to you.


  24. I’m certainly not going to claim to be an expert in tracking IP addys, but yes, those automated emails appear to show comments left by Ewan (or Mr.Rose) and Charlie with the same IP. Looking at the date on the comments, however, there was a month or more between those comments, and given the fact that some of the previous emails that were sent indicate comments made by Charlie with other IP’s in the interim, it’s hard to be sure. The fact that Ewan is on Charlie’s blogroll would discredit the assertion that this is mere coincidence arising from the use of a proxy or something. Still, the comments themselves don’t appear to be alarming.


  25. All these posts on your blog regarding Steph and the shenanigans that were sent to me in the aforementioned emails were a reaction to having your comments deleted and being banned from posting, and according to you this was done without any reason or warning? This all started, what, a month or two ago?

    That’s right. Basically, I came across and began posting on, Steph’s blog on the 23rd November. On the 12th or 13th of December I was, without warning, banned. Obviously the first I knew of it was when my comment wasn’t appearing and in frustration I repeatedly tried to post it. A bit of an overreaction perhaps, but I thought that my point was a valid one, I’d spent time writing it, and I didn’t know what else to do with the comment.

    I have no idea what she means about the porn links. At worst I tried to post comments relevant to the topic, I did sometimes have links in them, but nothing that could be described as pornographic. Having said that, she had changed some of my links in the past, or even removed them, and that was on the comments that she accepted.

    Charlie discusses my appearance and suggests that I’m fat and ugly – that’s ideological?

    He also suggests my profile picture and my cousins are on adult finder websites – how is that not sexual?

    Again that is a little misleading, I was quoting someone else’s website about the pictures, that is what they had suggested. I did however suggest that you weren’t who you said you were, and that therefore, the picture you used as your avatar wasn’t accurate. I did not suggest you were fat or ugly, I just posted a possible polar opposite avatar picture.

    Btw through his various aliases there have been literally hundreds of comments!

    Again you are suggesting that I had various IP addresses and multiple aliases, this just sounds like you are blaming me for all the problems with spam or erroneous comments on me. Surely the reason that all these comments had different IP addresses or different name is because they were from different people?


  26. I too have forwarded an email to ChenZhen to show that forwarded emails are not reliable.

    I am not disputing that I posted on your blog, nor the fact that I did so after being banned, but I am not going to take the blame for every negative or spam comment that you ever received.


  27. Perhaps I shouldn’t have linked to Ewan, but I had no one on my blog roll and we did share a common topic. Isn’t that what people do? It doesn’t make us the same person.

    To be honest my primary concern is not your accusations of what I have done, I have given up trying to reason with you on that score, but what happens next. When I return to my normal blogging, will I still get the blame for every bad comment, spam comment or just anything negative that happens to you?

    It is clear Steph that you have made up your mind and convinced yourself that I am the cause of all of your internet ills. Personally I think that you are seeing harassment where there is none, aggression and abuse where there is none and linking together everything bad into one big bogeyman, who in your mind, just happens to me.

    I am sorry for the perceived harassment, but really, if you are that sensitive to negative comments and perceived stalking, is it really wise to have a popular blog on WordPress?

    The defence rests M’lud.


  28. Charlie-

    Perhaps I shouldn’t have linked to Ewan, but I had no one on my blog roll and we did share a common topic. Isn’t that what people do? It doesn’t make us the same person.

    You also have Ignatius Sancho in your blogroll, who’s blog also has multiple posts about Steph. In fact, the only links in your blogroll are to people who share this common topic, all of whom appear to reside in the UK.

    Steph- speaking of that, is there a chance that these people have had some contact with you in your personal life?


  29. @ chen

    So lets wrap this up.

    I have proved that Charlie is Ewan and Nick, and that he has used multiple alias and IP addresses to post on my blog. So that is no longer in doubt. I can prove he used lots more but why bother – I have already proved the point – and by implication proved that he is the author of Ewan’s website too.

    I have also proved that he sent at least 19 comments in the space of 24 hours when he knew he was being blocked.

    Which all goes to prove that he uses multiple alias and IP addresses to stalk me, that he is liar and has an unhealthy obsession with me.

    As I said, I have nothing more to add, I don’t intend to produce more evidence here, I’ve proved this part of what I said is true. That is enough.

    RE: the substance of the sexual harassment – I’m not going to go into detail and you shouldn’t expect me to – this is a pubic forum. You can consider that part unproved if you like but having established that he does use multiple aliases to harass me – what is the likelihood that it is another blogger using the same IP addresses – more or less than one in a million?


  30. @ Chen

    No chance whatsoever! Thanks for your time. I hope you don’t mind but I don’t want to comment on this thread anymore.

    Steph x


  31. Fair enough.


  32. Steph said:

    Which all goes to prove that he uses multiple alias and IP addresses to stalk me, that he is liar and has an unhealthy obsession with me.

    Steph it looks to as if it was already proven in your own mind, beyond any conceivable doubt, as soon as you banned me. From that day onwards I was your scapegoat.

    RE: the substance of the sexual harassment – I’m not going to go into detail and you shouldn’t expect me to – this is a pubic forum. You can consider that part unproved if you like but having established that he does use multiple aliases to harass me – what is the likelihood that it is another blogger using the same IP addresses – more or less than one in a million?

    There is no detail, there was no sexual harassment. I have never and would never do such a thing.

    Established? You have done nothing of the sort, I have only your word for it that those comments all had the same or similar IP addresses. Finally even if it were the case, then it is conceivable that you were picking up the proxy server IP address and not my own. What are the chances? Well Virgin Media is the largest ISP in the UK, at anyone time there could be a million people using the same or similar proxy servers, giving out the same IP address to all the sites they visit.

    I know this because it happens alot, less so since Virgin Media took over NTL but it is still a common enough occurrence. Evidence? See this site for just one example or search Google for NTL (Virgin Media’s former name) IP Proxy servers: http://zed1.com/journalized/archives/2004/05/09/ip-banned/

    Part of the reason that they are getting rid of the proxy servers is things like this.


  33. Thanks again ChenZhen. At least I had the opportunity to state my case and make it clear that I am not some weird cyberstalker or sexual deviant.

    However it looks as though the effort was completely wasted as everything I said fell on deaf ears. Steph has made up her mind and won’t be swayed, regardless of how improbable her claims may be. Still, I suppose I am partly to blame for that, I should have just deleted her site from my bookmarks as soon as I was banned and forgotten about it. Lesson learned.


  34. As a bolt from the outside…

    Here’s a paragraph from Steph’s ‘Comments Policy’

    “The blog author reserves the right to edit, delete or reject comments and by posting here you accept and agree to these terms and conditions.”

    So, Charlie, I don’t know where you get the idea that Steph gave a free hand for everybody’s comments or that there was no warning.

    On the other hand she does say that she’ll be happy to post views differing from her own.

    BUT that doesn’t matter. Everyone who visits Steph’s blog can see that – there’s no reason to try to get round it, despite the obvious affront you, Charlie, feel – the thing to do is to be bigger than that and walk away without getting any deeper into this…

    ChenZhen – If you don’t feel posting this comment is appropriate then I will in no way harbour any bad will/feeling about it.


  35. It’s a good point Free to think, free to believe, and I should have checked the comments policy before posting, but I didn’t. I did however check it after my apparent ban and back then it said something along the lines of:

    I will happily publish views that differ with mine, but the comment space on this blog is reserved for comments that relate to the topic of the post. So please keep comments relevant and to the point.

    If you are reproducing content from other websites, please keep it brief and give a link.

    Comments that are abusive, insulting, libelous, repetitive, or obscurant, will be rejected.

    All the rest has been added since then.

    My first thoughts were of course that I hadn’t written anything abusive, insulting, libellous, repetitive, or obscurant, just the opposite viewpoint to the author, hence my frustration and annoyance.

    I am glad that she has updated her policy, at least now it is fairly clear that comments will be edited or deleted. In future I will certainly be reading any comments policy before I post on a blog. Having said that though I was happily posting on Steph’s blog for 3 weeks before being banned and didn’t break any rules that I was aware of.


  36. hmmmm…a comments policy? I’ve thought about it. Not many rules around here though. If I whipped one up, it would be more about how to format html and making people aware of things like the emblems than it would be about what I’d be deleting. Pretty much everything is fair game here except obvious spam.


  37. Chen,

    Pretty much everything is fair game here except obvious spam.

    Smart man! That’s why your site will grow larger with time while Steph’s blog will become one of the zillions of unknown little hasbeens.

    Moderators make or break a website.


  38. Charlie – you obviously forgot that there was only one person who decided what those words meant…

    Maybe Steph thought you were being repetitive – I have no idea…

    I do understand that once you write a comment and it’s not used it is frustrating as I’ve had comments lost in server gliches and waited for minutes, hours or days to see if a comment would be posted BUT in the end my blog is mine and your blog is yours…

    Heck – I’d love to have comments which differed from my point of view (but not spam or for the sake of them) but apparently Steph has enough comments to keep her happy…

    ChenZhen – it’s kind of you to have kept this whole link open to others to add their perspective.


  39. Free to think, free to believe…

    Looking back it was an overreaction, I should have done as you said and just left the site and forgotten all about it. Wish I had now.

    I suppose that I was frustrated more because it was kind of like my opinions didn’t matter, or that I was stupid. If I remember correctly it was something about Madeleine McCann, but rather than answer my questions or rebut my points, she deleted those comments, just leaving enough to make it look like she blew my argument out of the water.


  40. This amusing message

    P.S. Please review icons



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: