Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177

Anyone who's not keeping an eye on the Derek Smart arbcom case, I'd like an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the personal attacks and especially the legal threats by User:Supreme Cmdr on that case. I understand there is an arbitration currently pending, but that does NOT allow them to be able to make personal attacks and threats against other users. Only a handful of diffs needed, the rest are perfectly clear from a browse down the Workshop page: Note: h e's been blocked EIGHT TIMES for (i believe 41 days) personal attacks....legal threat, legal threat, insinuates another editor is stalking and is committing crimes, personal attack "Liar",incivility, incivility, personal attacks, libel claims, incivility, incivility, disingenuous editing while claiming "weazel words" and "pov pushing" to protect his own POV, incivility, refusal to assume good faith amongst ALL other editors on wikipedia, more personal attacks and incivility against another person this time, uncivil edit summary usage etc....and even trolling for help on other user's talk with incivility such as "consensus by dolts" in effort to "game" the arbcom ruling.

This is sickening, and it's frustrating, and as I've mentioned before, it's stressing me to the point that I'm seriously considering leaving the project because absolutely nothing has been done about this.

He's been blocked EIGHT FREAKING TIMES, community banned from the article, which was never enforced other than a single block, and he's STILL around causing trouble. Why is this being allowed to continue, seriously?

Hi, useful link:

Addhoc

20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the pending case above, but a pending Arbcom case does not excuse an editor from following the most basic policies of wikipedia, such as

^{On Belay!}

20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When a user like this is clearly out to disrupt, it become a huge time sink for people who volunteer to keep this encyclopedia running. For that reason alone he should be blocked. We cannot afford to lose good users by assuming good faith to malcontents.

• In my view, he should be blocked until the arbitration committee makes finalizes its decision. Bucketsofg 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another remedy at the workshop, regarding this little outburst of harassment and legal threats.

T · C

 ] 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated Daniel.Bryant, Addhoc, and Bucketsofg, and David D. Thanks for the eyes.

^{On Belay!}

00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If this situation ever comes up again, you also have the option of proposing a motion for a temporary injunction on the Workshop of the arbitration case. I don't recommend doing so in this instance as it could wind up just distracting the arbitrators from getting to the final decision in the case which is what is really needed here, but still, you should be aware of the option.

Please don't leave the project over any one user, however troublesome you may find him, especially when the situation is actively in the process of being addressed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As the edits were originally being done by an unregesited user I requested and was granted semi-protection for the articles. I did this in the hope that it would cause the offender to register and prompt a civil discussion. This stopped the annymous editing and the User_Talk:Vwollan to surafce and perform the same edits. However civilised discussion remained impossible. The User:Vwollan had already recived a 1 week ban for adding excessive links.

The article AVR Butterfly went to mediation over the same matter in September 06 (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-10_AVR_Butterfly). An unregistered user has recently modified the archive of the mediation.

As attempts at civilised discussion have lead nowhere (and both parties (myself included)are getting close to the thre-revert-rule) I am unsure what to do next. I don't really want to request full protection, and I fear another mediation case would lead nowhere. I would like to bring this to the attention of an Admin/Sysop as attempts at resolvoinng the matter appear to have failed. -- User_Talk:Rehnn83 --Rehnn83 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Update the issue appears to be resolved - Admin Robdurbar has blocked the offending user --Rehnn83 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I had never had any contact with this editor.

He began by making this edit to a WP:AN/I archive [1] , and then followed by posting this [2] at no time approaching me.

After tried to send me a private email through a third party (which I felt was inappropriate and most peculiar, because my email is enabled and his email is on his user page openly.) I expressed my concerns on his talk page, here [3].

To which he responded as follows [4].

It seems to me to be no more than one long personal attack, with little or no basis in any facts known to me. I have asked him for diffs and he refuses to provide them, instead, continuing his personal attacks.

It seems to me that he shouldn't be doing that. It also seems to me that I shouldn't just let it go on without bringing it here. --Zeraeph 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy Fabartus has chosen to resolve the matter satisfactorily. --Zeraeph 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The last Linda Christas related AN/I issue was here, a new AfD brings to my attention the following edits ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and more here) which I have a hard time believing (for reasons explained here) without verifyable sources. Pete.Hurd 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the same piffle paragraph was spammed into John McCain [12] & Ted Kennedy [13] (and Talk:George W. Bush...) by similar IPs Pete.Hurd 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just indef-blocked Georgewstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); his contributions consisted entirely of spamming the same unverifiable paragraph into multiple articles or tweaking it post-anon-insertion, plus the creation of four articles (Shirley J. Neeley, William J. Moloney, Dr. Patti Harrington, Linda McCulloch) which were blatant cut-and-paste copyvios of their official biographies - again, with the IASC paragraph snuck into the middle. —Cryptic 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly approve these actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of likely socks of banned user

• Huckleberry Hugo (talk · contribs)
• R.T. Merck (talk · contribs)

Thank you. TheQuandry 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza is on deletion review. Specifically, one editor wants all the histories back. FYI. >Radiant< 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV is for reviewing controversial decisions. And I think that deleting histories of the subpages against consensus to remove said histories is controversial. DRV is fair in this case imo, the statement "Specifically, one editor... FYI" seems to give it a "We want this dead and buried already, and this guy's kicking this back up to the surface" feel. – Chacor 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the admin closing statement it specifically says not to delete the page histories, so I don't see why this should be controversial at all. "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages". How much less controversial and clearcut can you get? --

talk

16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If only the deleting admins realised it. – Chacor 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not at all saying it's wrong or unfair to take it to DRV, in fact I fully agree it belongs there. It's just that, given the length of the MFD debate, I figured more people needed to know about it than just the DRV regulars. >Radiant< 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The note on the
  talk
  16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's a closed discussion—many people will not still have it on their watchlist or notice a change oti, and I don't see any note there about a deletion review being brought anyway. —Centrx→talk • 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's on the talk page. Or at least I assume that's what the thing on my watchlist from that page with the summary "DRV" is. Maybe some of you are better at pruning your watchlists than I am. --
  talk
  16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone could look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatanatyam&action=history where there are 11 new user accounts all being used to reinstate the same external links which have been taken out by a series of proper editors. The 11 accounts all look like sock puppets for someone, have a handful of edits each all on the same three articles and are all new but I don't think I can report it as such without being able to identify a puppet master. If they are all at the same IP address could we just block them all or something? --BozMo talk 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants an update on the Gundam mess, we're working things out moderately peacefully and consensually at

This Ip has been vandalising rapidly, I've used the WHOIS tool on the talk page, and it says that it is registered to a university, making it a shared Ip, this needs to be sorted out.--Rasillon 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They've got a hard block, and based on the history of contribs I don't think that we need to change that - open to review of course (and might be worth someone checking that this isn't the subject of a bio blanking it - I suspect not, though I don't have enough subject knowledge). Thanks,

inp23

17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just blanked this user page, and indefinitely blocked the account. As background, I had some experience with this user before I was an admin. As a newbie, he attempted some very radical changes without understanding some basic things about how Wikipedia works, and then left the project. I've archived some of this at

An added irony, the legal threat was made by an anon. The anon is upset because the user page accused him of being a sockpuppet using IPs that are very close to the IP of the anon. It is probably a dynamic IP. --

Nobody has an opinion? --

Anyone there? --

If you're sure the IPs were him, it's probably not an issue. Maybe you could leave a message on his talk page saying, "if this block was unfairly applied, because none of this was you, feel free to request unblock." Mostly, however, he hasn't edited for 1.5 years, so it probably won't be a problem. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are there are a lot of vandalism reports from school ips lately? I just handed out about 5-6 1 month+ blocks; I encourage others to handle similar situations similarly. Kids are just getting back to school after winter break, let's nip this vandalize-Wikipedia-at-school thing in the bud now, and hopefully these goofballs will find other ways to be destructive. Mangojuice^talk 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're dishing out long blocks, you might want to be sure that they're anonymous-only to reduce collateral damage. It's probably a more important consideration with highschools and post-secondary schools. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer hard blocks on disruptive high schools. We see a lot of logged-in disruption and it's hard to sort out good accounts from bad. I'd rather they edit from home; it's easier to figure out who's who (at least from a checkuser perspective). Besides, they should be paying attention to the instructor, not Wikipedia! Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can get them to pull up thier pants and cut thier hair! They need to stop smoking pot and join

WRE

) 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and noticed a bunch of chronic ones in the ones I blocked today so I had to deal out a few 6-months in there as well. Which, essentially, is a 7+ month block when you consider the 6 month block expires in July and most schools don't start back up until sometime later in August. Metros232 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what's going on. When it's a weekday and school is in session in North America, we have the maximum amount of silly vandalism. Anyone who has time to RC-patrol during this time, please do, and pay particular attention to articles which are likely to be subject of assignments (i.e. history, English, social studies, arithmetic ...) I've noticed this pattern for a couple of years now at least. Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And any article that has the word school in it. Metros232 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I have seen some persistant vandalism from Australian and UK schools, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. What I meant is that it's time-specific. Right now, morning in California, there's tons of vandalism from schools on my continent. When it's late afternoon-evening in the U.S., you get tons of silly vandalism from 203. addresses, and when overnight in the U.S., from 80.-89. Antandrus (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the "vandalism is out of session for the year" block until September 2007 (start of next academic year in USA). I'd agree with Mackenson, but I often get complaints after a hard block, so I've been avoiding them recently. alphachimp 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, [[[User:216.11.222.21]] is a cluster

r

19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See

I have no problem with him getting a hearing, although I do believe this is the first time that MascotGuy has ever written to a Talk page, which makes me wonder if he really is who he claims to be. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that it might be a hoax/impersonator account, but I'm not sure. --

talk

18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I extremely doubt that this is MascotGuy based on the fact that he was the first to claim he was MascotGuy. Metros232 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ejército Rojo 1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editor makes contentious edits at Joseph Stalin and continues to delete sourced, NPOV facts from that page with edit summaries like this one [14]. Editor has been asked by me to discuss major edits like these on the talk page, and in response he blanked the request from his talk page [15]. I gave him a test3 warning for this, which he then also blanked [16]. This editor's actions are much like those of indef blocked users LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs) and Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who both edit the same articles and make the same kinds of contentious edits (and are both well-established puppetmasters). TheQuandry 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

_{I moved this from AIV. alphachimp 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

Well, if it isn't our old friend Jacob, it's someone very similar. Recommend checkuser - is that appropriate here?

Deletion!

19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed for this guy against Jacob Peters. I think it's unlikely it's the other one: this new one's pattern is very close to that of Jacob. The other one seems obsessive about one article: both this guy and Jacob are more general.

Deletion!

20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An anon which I just blocked has been posting what they claim is Chowbok's home address, phone number and email address in edit summaries (the edits themselves were valid minor edits). I have requested that the people at

One on AN now. Syrthiss 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked

WRE

) 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you request that OVERSIGHT remove the summaries? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else do it please, I'm off to lunch. ---

WRE

) 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it appears that the anon got this by following the link off of User:Chowbok to his homepage, where he pretty clearly posts his contact info... so it isn't like they did any kind of super sleuthing. FWIW, it should still probably be removed though.--Isotope23 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See this edit ... personal info in edit summary: [17] --BigDT 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy ... it's all of User:88.198.5.138's contribs --BigDT 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See also

this thread supra... Joe

19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardblocked for 48 hours. Let me know on my talkpage if it happens again under a new IP. ---

WRE

) 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, note it here. I'm off to lunch. 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See here too. Yikes. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have merged these two conversations ... sorry that I didn't see the one above when I posted. Can an admin delete these revisions? --BigDT 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a big deal, at least as far as I'm concerned. As Isotope23 pointed out, I make that info available on my homepage; I'm not a secretive person. More petty harrassment because of my image tagging. Thanks to all for watching out for this. —Chowbok ☠ 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I contacted OVERSIGHT and they took care of the second one, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

for whatever reason - a user is constantly inserting hoax material into an articlewo (6 times in the last two hours). He takes no notice of other editors - can someone have a word in his ear? --

The user in question has been blocked for thirty hours. -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Wikipedia:Esperanza due to edits which look like edit warring to me in the recent history. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], The talk page is also protected so it'll likely end up somewhere else. I suggest User:Hiding/Esperanza as neutral territory. Hiding Talk 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oof... didn't intend to start an(other) edit war, but the paragraph doesn't belong there. DRV is running its course. —bbatsell ¿? 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not taking sides. If I could knock your heads together, make you all say sorry and shake hands and be friends again, I would, but I can't so I protected the page. I'd rather do that than start issuing blocks. Like I say, anyone who wants to discuss the issue is welcome to use User:Hiding/Esperanza. Hiding Talk 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Blocked, anon only, for 48 hours for repeated vandalism. Posted to the notifications sub page of the communications committee over at wikimedia as well. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the history of DXRAW (talk · contribs) I am sure that he is not JB196. He doesn't have any of the other signs of JB (spelling wise), plus JB/his socks arealways focused on wrestling articles only. Besides, JB's last two socks were ongoing, last I checked Machodawg (talk · contribs) and GaryGoingggg (talk · contribs) I have to request a CU on those two soon (plus I noticed there's a GaryGoinggg (talk · contribs) (one less G) with no edits. Probably registered around the same time. SirFozzie 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Like before, Sirfozzie, you are wrong, I'm not a sockpuppet and your continued harassment will be reported if it continues. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by GaryGoingggg (talk • contribs

) 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

And Like Before, "Gary" you have all the signs of a JBsock, just like the 8 or so others that have been blocked after JB's accounts got banned. SirFozzie 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Twice on the board in one week, I'm going good been accused of being sockpuppets for two different people. Who's sockpuppet am i going to be next week? DXRAW 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

T · C

 ] 11:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth is THAT "getting lucky" ?

68.39.174.238

14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke, hence the smiley...

T · C

 ] 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"I choose you, MfD! Delete-spam attack. It's super effective! WP:PROBOT fainted!" --Deskana (request backup) 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been terminated. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nick's CSD used Extremespeed!" --Deskana (request backup) 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• snicker* -
  M^ask
  00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you can do an ip block for whatever other accounts he has before he takes it upon himself to do some damage somewhere it matters, or can you only do it on a name-by-name basis? HalfShadow 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the

Steel

01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of them, yes. Anyone who unblocks will be hung from the nearest lamp-post, By Order Of Mackensen. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I come here reluctantly with a heavy heart. I was hoping that User:Mobile 01 and I could resolve this edit dispute amblicably, but that will not be the case.

Can a third party admin please review this users behavior?

I am the opposing party in an edit war with User:Mobile 01 on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was protected by User:Robdurbar today.

Instead of discussing this page protection today, User:Mobile 01 created Firestone and Firestone 100 Years of History (both earlier versions of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company)

• Boot Boot this user for
  Firestone International which User:Mobile 01 created immediatly after Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was protected, I have contacted the admin who protected this Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
  .
• Semi-Protect Semi-protect
  Bridgestone-Firestone, LLC, Firestone, Firestone Liberian controversy
  with the version immediatly before the page was protected.
• Review my {{checkuser}}, please see my checkuser request.
• Wikipedia:Third opinion review my request there.

Sorry to bother you all with this edit war. I sincerely wish it could have been avoided. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected

Firestone International to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company , thanks/wangi

01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Wangi also was kind enough to delete Firestone 100 Years of History[23] Maybe it can be recreated as a redirect after this edit war is over. User:Mobile 01 you can Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, if you wish.

WP:TEA I won't pursue this any further tonight, except to link this section to the admin, User talk:Robdurbar/Miscellanious who page protected Firestone Tire and Rubber Company originally. I look forward to User:Mobile 01 input in the Wikipedia:Third opinion. Best wishes, Travb (talk

) 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note:   Active requests are normally cleared quickly on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Travb posted the WP:3O request to which he refers at 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (diff); it remained until 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (diff), quite a bit longer than the usual hours or even minutes.

It may be pertinent that LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006, Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing 20 November 2006. These two users, with prominent roles in the active disagreement as posted on WP:3O, may be the same person. Athænara ✉ 10:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm anticipating a problem here; there's issue over removal of Judge Constance Harm, who is supposedly a parody of Judge Judy. No less than three editors including myself don't see a clear connection, but two anonymous users (one of whom is a sockpuppet) are threatening to replace this unless there is a response to their "Request for comment" on the talk page. Just a heads up. JuJube 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please use
  Doc
  ^g 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give the heads-up on this user please. I've notice his recent contributions to the

• User talk:SirChristdom
• User talk:Flintrock
• User talk:OpalPI
• User talk:WikiTitan

All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{unblock}}", which was met with more threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages.

I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me).

For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at User:EVula#Collection of threats. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

—Cryptic 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support.

masterka

07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- Merope 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Fancy Moses.

Danny Lilithborne

07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? That is creative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I think the claim that pigeons are scavenging carnivores really needs a reliable source, seesh OR threats, double whammy. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the fun never stops, apparently. I now have the blood of seven vandals on my hands for this particular incident... is there perhaps something a bit more permanent that I can do? This is my first foray into the wonderful world of sockpuppetry (the closest I've ever come was blocking a Bobby Boulders sock), so I'm severely lost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a checkuser request for all of them, ensure that their point of origin is noted by a CU person for future reference. Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those threats were actually one of the few times I've laughed out loud on Wikipedia. They were unusually creative as well as unusually poorly spelled. 65.102.35.249 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fun never stops at Crazy Happy Sock World! Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What really gets you, of course, is when the actual sockmaster is making good edits and having the vandals attack his page. I've never quite figured that one out. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that CheckUser confirms that User:American Brit is the sockmaster. All known sockpuppets are now blocked. I'll leave it to the board here to decide what to do about this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of a similar situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

<Yoda>Behind the Separatist Sock Puppet attacks, American Brit is? Disturbing, this is. Doubt you, I do not, yet difficult to believe this is. If the Sock Master he is, why accuse himself, as he apparently did? Interesting, this is, as EVula stated. Look into this further, I must; suspected slightly I did, yet decided against it. Taken me by surprise, this has.</Yoda> ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this crazy or what? I hope it's not true. --Majorly (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the checkuser result? --Majorly (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you that guy was messed up, Majorly. Who the heck has children at the age of 12? Nishkid64 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 [24]. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's the link I was talking about yesterday. Dude, I still think that was made up. They have no clue how it happened, though. This kid says he had kids at 2 kids by the age of 16. How the hell does he afford anything? Nishkid64 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Mary Kay Letourneau. Teke ^(talk) 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked I am being accused of sock puppetry. I ASSURE I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING. I also am quite upset both of my friends on Wikipedia EVula and Haunted Angel are buying this lie. I honestly now think I should just leave Wikipedia. Also Majorly I hope you know this is all bull crap American Brit 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't lie. --Majorly (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's right. Stop trying to act innocent. We take sockpuppetry seriously at Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting innocent. I am innocent. This all junk. You cannot prove this. My IP could be shared by over 200 computers. And one man vandalized so I got the blame. Anyway I will be considered leaving this whole website. I feel so betrayed by my once close Wiki friends. All of you know deep down this is not true. I am not a vandal. American Brit 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, even CheckUsers do extend a little good faith now then. Gosh knows it's hard sometimes. But, the thing of it is, you've got a static IP address which you're sharing with a drawer full of sockpuppets, all of which attack you and disrupt the same articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I agree that the odds of me and a vandal who argues with me sharing the same IP are very slim, but I am not the puppeter. I admit I knew I was on the same account as them because I was autoblocked when they were blocked. I did not request unblock because I was afraid I would be accused of what I am being accused of now. I really dont know if I am staying here or not. American Brit 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never would have guessed it.

It does make sense to me though after further review. —The preceding

omg...No comment...--Dil 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know whether to laugh or beat my head against a wall. And don't crows or ravens normally eat hanged people, not pigeons? --

Don't try to use logic in this situation... you'll only end up hurting yourself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

• CheckUser confirms it
• changing story from American Brit ("My IP could be shared by over 200 computers" became "I admit I knew I was on the same account as them")
• some awfully damming diffs
• similar spelling structure (or lack thereof)
• quirky personal history
• similar userpage setups between socks and suspected puppetmaster (bulleted userboxes)

Yeah, sorry, far too much secondary evidence is backing up the CheckUser for me to consider it a mistake. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My story was not changed I stuck to that from the start.. The damning biffs: the first was explained, I was not trying to attack Haunted ANgel but start a discussion. The wording made it sound bad, it was accident. What do you mean by simalar setup? and quirky personal history? American Brit 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm from the same area you are from (Charleston/South Charleston). I know that us Charlestonians (HeheHe), don't often have children at 13. You also seem to live a very exciting life that would not fit the part about have 2 kids, especially at young ages. You really wouldn't have that time to travel/ etc.

-Holy hand grenadez —The preceding

Are you saying I lied about my background? I assure you every comment on my user page is true, except the names. I did not put my familys real names for security reasons. Time to travel can be explained. My Grandfather works for a company that is constantly sending to European Union nations, thus I trave along with him. My mother is a nurse and my Uncle owns a large number of shares in oil corporations. My family is not dirt poor. Anyway I left Charleston in December and I know live in Cheadle, Manchester, United Kingdom American Brit 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you've changed some info on your userpage.

Anyway, Usercheck doesn't lie. Why aren't people banned for sockpuppeting?

I have not changed any thing. I changed the names only for as I stated above security. If I wanted to make up a life story do you really think thats what I would tell? American Brit 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

American Brit, you are such a bad liar. See [25]. Took you a while to realize that there are only 30 days in April :P. Nishkid64 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...And his latest birthdate is October 8th, 1987. Anyway, what do we do now? I'm not a big fan of punitive blocks, but usually death threats get the banhammer. Quite a way to repay his "friends".

masterka

01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye! Death threats, sockpuppetry, and lying. Nishkid64 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I must concur. Death threats (or any kind of threats) cannot be tolerated on wiki. Long term threateners should be banned. -

Review Me!

) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur.

T · C

 ] 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye on my part for being a victim.--Dil 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good enough for me... I've gone ahead and done it.
  masterka
  02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, ban indeed. --Wildnox(talk) 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to me to basically be a punitive

Eli Falk

00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bans are different - they aren't on one account, but on the person; being banned means you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia, due to your actions under any account name. And this isn't punitive, it's preventative, because concensus has determined his negative impact on this site isn't worth what his contributions give, basically.

T · C

 ] 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If that account had been involved with vandalism, then preventing it from editing would prevent a negative impact on this site; Blocking an account which wasn't involved with the trouble, and which seems to be the main account, doesn't prevent it.

Eli Falk

01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A ban is not a block. Blocks are used to enfore bans. A simple block is preventative to avoid further disruption if the user is unwilling to discuss their actions. A community ban is saying that the user is not welcome here, usually as a result of their actions. So yes, it is cause and effect but it is not a "block". That's why there're two different policies. If you review the user's contributions on talk pages, they are unwilling to admit complicity despite overwhelming evidence and are unlikely to change their stance; IMO American Brit thinks this is all a game. That is not welcome, and it is preventative in that violations of a community ban can be acted upon swiftly, bereft of process hang ups. If American Brit still wants to charade, the user can appeal to the Arbitration committee. Teke ^(talk) 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as punitive. In my opinion, serious violations that warrant indefinite blocks should be applied to all of the accounts, at least in a case like this when it is checkuser confirmed. If I were to make a death threat using a sock puppet, I think that I would prove that I most likely am more damaging to the project than I am helpful and therefore banning my main account would be appropriate. --Wildnox(talk) 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)