Marbehraglaim
- Marbehraglaim ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 2 2009, 04:52 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Pantherskin ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by Ratel
The abovementioned suspected socks all chimed in on a RfC at Talk:Roald Dahl and at a related debate at WP:CCN almost simultaneously and in sequence, all with the same arguments, and they have no substantial history outside this issue other than the puppet master, Marbehraglaim. ► RATEL ◄ 04:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
Yes, please investigate this bad faith accusations. I am only wondering what the point of an RFC is, if Ratel is then willing to smear all those previously uninvolved editor coming to the discussion via the RFC. Regarding the ip address, that is obviously me as I registered a few days ago. But that is not sockpuppetry, but I guess these facts dont matter in smear campaigns. Pantherskin ( talk) 05:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
This is the second time I've been accused of sockpuppetry by people. Is this a standard ploy when people are unhappy with my views? I never heard back about the other case, but I assume it was resolved. This is patent nonsense and I am starting to get annoyed with having to respond to such paranoid accusations. I would appreciate being notified of the result this time. It would also be nice if the accusations on my talk page were amended accordingly. Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 07:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That would make a lot of sense. The anonymous IP started commenting in the midst of a dispute in the anti-Americanism article, at the exact same time that Blippy started commenting. Blippy was solicited as a neutral Third Opinion, but spent most of his time arguing about content. He is blatantly non-neutral, and often exhibits (feigned?) incomprehension, so I've often wondered if he was trolling. At one point, the IP exhibited trollish behavior by stalking me to an unrelated article, Animal liberation movement, and reverting my edits and arguing with me there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is an ANI discussion about Noloop, who has a track record of removing sourced content from article. And if he wonders why uninvolved editors are coming to the articles he is editing, well, it might be related to him making lots of noise on various noticeboards. Pantherskin ( talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice job changing the subject. For the record, there is an ANI about WebHamster, in which one editor said I have a track record of removing large "chunks" (and then gave a single example that was actually over 3 sentences long). Interesting you are aware of all this, since I don't believe I've ever encountered you (as "Pantherskin") in any article.
- Anyway, what is the point of an "investigation"? Can't an admin just look at the IP's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is the point, you are attacking other editors as sockpuppets and rant about other editors being non-neutral, feigning incomprehension and stalking, and do not realize that that is a direct consequence of your behavior and noise-making on various noticeboards. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- According to user xx.xx.xx.xx contributions page he had never editied Roald Dahl, and has carried out no editd since the 30th of July. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I registered on July 31. But I guess that is not the point, the strategy here is clear. Deadlock at an article, open an RFC, if you like the outcome good, if not nothing is lost because you can just smear all opposing editors as sockpuppets because after all, by the purpose of an RFC they "have no substantial history outside this issue". Pantherskin ( talk) 21:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pantherskin has now violated 3RR in editing Talk:Anti-Americanism&action=history, removing my heads up about this case from the Talk page. It seems to me this approach is similar to the approach behind making sock-puppets: both are oriented toward personality conflicts. Oh, the anon IP did edit Roald Dahl (on July 25th). Noloop ( talk) 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- You conveniently forget to mention that in the same edit you also attacked an editor as a troll and as a sockpuppet. Pantherskin ( talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And the reason for this report is that the edits were made "almost simultaneously and in sequence" the Ips edits were made 7 days or so before Pant and Blip, not what I would call almost simultaneously. I did not notice the 25th edits by the IP for that reason. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- So the only reason to me, it looks like, that this was filed, was because all four edited the same thing in a week or so, even with completely different edits besides those. Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems that Ratel is now attacking other editors as "religious activist editors", as if the sockpuppet accusations are not enough. What a constructive editing environment this editor generates. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Pantherskin has again violalted 3RR, [1], again deleting my comment in a discussion. It would be nice to swat this gnat. Why doesn't an admin just look at the IP. I suppose there is a policy--this a strangely rule-bound place in some ways, and strangely not in others.... Noloop ( talk) 05:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Both Noloop and Ratel have been reported to ANI for their harassment and their continuing incivility. Pantherskin ( talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was Blippy removed? I'm not familiar with the Dahl article. However, on Anti-Americanism Blippy and the IP/Pantherskin showed up at roughly the same time, arguing for the same views. The fact that they both did so on the unrelated Dahl article, coupled with the definite trollish behavior of the IP/Pantherskin and possible trollish behavior of Blippy, makes a decent case. Noloop ( talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
- Marbehraglaim, Blippy and Pantherskin are all
Unrelated. I have removed references to the IP, per the privacy policy. If an editor
takes our advice and registers an account to hide their IP, we can't prevent people from drawing obvious conclusions, but we also don't need to leave a public record and throw it back in their face. As for alleged behavior problems by any of these accounts, that is not a sockpuppet matter and should be addressed by other means.
Thatcher 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Marbehraglaim
- Marbehraglaim ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 2 2009, 04:52 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Pantherskin ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by Ratel
The abovementioned suspected socks all chimed in on a RfC at Talk:Roald Dahl and at a related debate at WP:CCN almost simultaneously and in sequence, all with the same arguments, and they have no substantial history outside this issue other than the puppet master, Marbehraglaim. ► RATEL ◄ 04:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
Yes, please investigate this bad faith accusations. I am only wondering what the point of an RFC is, if Ratel is then willing to smear all those previously uninvolved editor coming to the discussion via the RFC. Regarding the ip address, that is obviously me as I registered a few days ago. But that is not sockpuppetry, but I guess these facts dont matter in smear campaigns. Pantherskin ( talk) 05:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
This is the second time I've been accused of sockpuppetry by people. Is this a standard ploy when people are unhappy with my views? I never heard back about the other case, but I assume it was resolved. This is patent nonsense and I am starting to get annoyed with having to respond to such paranoid accusations. I would appreciate being notified of the result this time. It would also be nice if the accusations on my talk page were amended accordingly. Cheers, Blippy ( talk) 07:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
That would make a lot of sense. The anonymous IP started commenting in the midst of a dispute in the anti-Americanism article, at the exact same time that Blippy started commenting. Blippy was solicited as a neutral Third Opinion, but spent most of his time arguing about content. He is blatantly non-neutral, and often exhibits (feigned?) incomprehension, so I've often wondered if he was trolling. At one point, the IP exhibited trollish behavior by stalking me to an unrelated article, Animal liberation movement, and reverting my edits and arguing with me there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is an ANI discussion about Noloop, who has a track record of removing sourced content from article. And if he wonders why uninvolved editors are coming to the articles he is editing, well, it might be related to him making lots of noise on various noticeboards. Pantherskin ( talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice job changing the subject. For the record, there is an ANI about WebHamster, in which one editor said I have a track record of removing large "chunks" (and then gave a single example that was actually over 3 sentences long). Interesting you are aware of all this, since I don't believe I've ever encountered you (as "Pantherskin") in any article.
- Anyway, what is the point of an "investigation"? Can't an admin just look at the IP's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is the point, you are attacking other editors as sockpuppets and rant about other editors being non-neutral, feigning incomprehension and stalking, and do not realize that that is a direct consequence of your behavior and noise-making on various noticeboards. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- According to user xx.xx.xx.xx contributions page he had never editied Roald Dahl, and has carried out no editd since the 30th of July. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I registered on July 31. But I guess that is not the point, the strategy here is clear. Deadlock at an article, open an RFC, if you like the outcome good, if not nothing is lost because you can just smear all opposing editors as sockpuppets because after all, by the purpose of an RFC they "have no substantial history outside this issue". Pantherskin ( talk) 21:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pantherskin has now violated 3RR in editing Talk:Anti-Americanism&action=history, removing my heads up about this case from the Talk page. It seems to me this approach is similar to the approach behind making sock-puppets: both are oriented toward personality conflicts. Oh, the anon IP did edit Roald Dahl (on July 25th). Noloop ( talk) 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- You conveniently forget to mention that in the same edit you also attacked an editor as a troll and as a sockpuppet. Pantherskin ( talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And the reason for this report is that the edits were made "almost simultaneously and in sequence" the Ips edits were made 7 days or so before Pant and Blip, not what I would call almost simultaneously. I did not notice the 25th edits by the IP for that reason. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- So the only reason to me, it looks like, that this was filed, was because all four edited the same thing in a week or so, even with completely different edits besides those. Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems that Ratel is now attacking other editors as "religious activist editors", as if the sockpuppet accusations are not enough. What a constructive editing environment this editor generates. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Pantherskin has again violalted 3RR, [1], again deleting my comment in a discussion. It would be nice to swat this gnat. Why doesn't an admin just look at the IP. I suppose there is a policy--this a strangely rule-bound place in some ways, and strangely not in others.... Noloop ( talk) 05:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Both Noloop and Ratel have been reported to ANI for their harassment and their continuing incivility. Pantherskin ( talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was Blippy removed? I'm not familiar with the Dahl article. However, on Anti-Americanism Blippy and the IP/Pantherskin showed up at roughly the same time, arguing for the same views. The fact that they both did so on the unrelated Dahl article, coupled with the definite trollish behavior of the IP/Pantherskin and possible trollish behavior of Blippy, makes a decent case. Noloop ( talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Conclusions
- Marbehraglaim, Blippy and Pantherskin are all
Unrelated. I have removed references to the IP, per the privacy policy. If an editor
takes our advice and registers an account to hide their IP, we can't prevent people from drawing obvious conclusions, but we also don't need to leave a public record and throw it back in their face. As for alleged behavior problems by any of these accounts, that is not a sockpuppet matter and should be addressed by other means.
Thatcher 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |