Bald Eeagle (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Grandscribe (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The first and second cases resulted in blocks to three accounts; this is block evasion to continue fighting the same argument. Grandscribe's account was created eight days after the last indef sockblock, and immediately jumped into the same dispute, editing exclusively within the context of the current Linux-GNU/Linux naming debate. Grandscribe's idiosyncratic writing style has gradually gotten closer to that of the previous SPAs, most evidently on Talk:Linux, with a spat on Talk:gNewSense. Particular red flags are the latching onto WP:JIMBOSAID as official policy (Grandscribe: [1] [2]; blocked sock Lightedbulb: [3] [4]) and the bizarre conspiracy theory that opposing editors are working on behalf of the Linux Mark Institute (Grandscribe: [5] [6]; blocked sock Midnightcrow: [7] [8])
Left this for a good long time before reporting because Grandscribe appeared less interested in edit warring or in flagrant personal attacks than the previous personas. However, they've converged, and the conspiracy theories have started being trotted out again.
User Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) has been constantly provoking me WP:BITE, a new user because I do not agree with his point of view. It is all documented in the archives of the discussions. I have not broken any of wikipedia rules. On the other hand it can be shown that user Chris Cunningham has been aggressively provoking me with threats of suck puppetry. He is engaged in a heated discussion on the linux talk page where arguments from all sides are expressed. Both give comments that may heated at times. Chris Cunningham targets me because I have been on the other side of the dispute over the naming of the OS that uses the GNU system and the linux kernel. There is no reason or justification for blocking me from access to the site. Again I have not done anything that merits that.I have respected all wikipedia policies. I ask all serious and honest administrators to watch this and rather to take actions against this user Thumperward for his obvious self serving attacks against users that do not share his Point Of View.-- Grandscribe ( talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I can show the evidence that Ttiotsw did not ask me kindly anything. He simply did come to my page with to provoke. All administrators can see he is doing that even on this page. WP:BITEI did not start any edit war.-- Grandscribe ( talk) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
What is Grandscribe accused of? I don't know if one person controls both accounts. I've never really considered it, but putting that possibility aside for a minute, since Bald Eagle hasn't edited since Feb 15th, what would it matter if the guy who controlled Bald Eagle back in February is the guy who now controls Grandscribe? Gronky ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
User Tiotsw shows again that he is here only to provoke
WP:BITE and to try to link me to a banned user. I am NOT a sock puppet. And I have NEVER done ANYTHING to be banned. The only reason for these false accusations is that Tiotsw is trying to silence an editor who does not agree with the unjustified massive removal of the GNU and GNU/linux from wikipedia. Something he clearly supports. There are editors who defend those removals who have even used VERY offensive and coarse language. Tiotsw or Thumperward never complained against those editors simply because they share the same Point of view.--
Grandscribe (
talk)
12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have no idea whether anyone is or is not a sock puppet. Grandscribe has, on occasion at Talk:Linux, been intemperate but he is hardly alone. Grandscribe has not yet done anything to deserve a ban. I suggest we WP:AGF for the time being and back off. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm just leaving a note to say I've read the discussion above. I'll need to review some diffs and logs before I decide whether to request a checkuser. It looks like some people want to AGF and leave well enough alone, and I'll sleep on that. Yechiel ( Shalom) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The checkuser case returned Stale on 26 June. (There is no remaining data on Bald Eeagle to compare to, which is logical since this is the first time a CU was requested, and Bald Eeagle has been indef blocked since February). I hope anyone who is watching this report who thinks further action is needed will jump in here. If anyone thinks that an open-and-shut case for Grandscribe=Bald Eeagle can be made using behavioral data, this is the moment. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Bald Eeagle (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Grandscribe (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
The first and second cases resulted in blocks to three accounts; this is block evasion to continue fighting the same argument. Grandscribe's account was created eight days after the last indef sockblock, and immediately jumped into the same dispute, editing exclusively within the context of the current Linux-GNU/Linux naming debate. Grandscribe's idiosyncratic writing style has gradually gotten closer to that of the previous SPAs, most evidently on Talk:Linux, with a spat on Talk:gNewSense. Particular red flags are the latching onto WP:JIMBOSAID as official policy (Grandscribe: [1] [2]; blocked sock Lightedbulb: [3] [4]) and the bizarre conspiracy theory that opposing editors are working on behalf of the Linux Mark Institute (Grandscribe: [5] [6]; blocked sock Midnightcrow: [7] [8])
Left this for a good long time before reporting because Grandscribe appeared less interested in edit warring or in flagrant personal attacks than the previous personas. However, they've converged, and the conspiracy theories have started being trotted out again.
User Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) has been constantly provoking me WP:BITE, a new user because I do not agree with his point of view. It is all documented in the archives of the discussions. I have not broken any of wikipedia rules. On the other hand it can be shown that user Chris Cunningham has been aggressively provoking me with threats of suck puppetry. He is engaged in a heated discussion on the linux talk page where arguments from all sides are expressed. Both give comments that may heated at times. Chris Cunningham targets me because I have been on the other side of the dispute over the naming of the OS that uses the GNU system and the linux kernel. There is no reason or justification for blocking me from access to the site. Again I have not done anything that merits that.I have respected all wikipedia policies. I ask all serious and honest administrators to watch this and rather to take actions against this user Thumperward for his obvious self serving attacks against users that do not share his Point Of View.-- Grandscribe ( talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I can show the evidence that Ttiotsw did not ask me kindly anything. He simply did come to my page with to provoke. All administrators can see he is doing that even on this page. WP:BITEI did not start any edit war.-- Grandscribe ( talk) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
What is Grandscribe accused of? I don't know if one person controls both accounts. I've never really considered it, but putting that possibility aside for a minute, since Bald Eagle hasn't edited since Feb 15th, what would it matter if the guy who controlled Bald Eagle back in February is the guy who now controls Grandscribe? Gronky ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
User Tiotsw shows again that he is here only to provoke
WP:BITE and to try to link me to a banned user. I am NOT a sock puppet. And I have NEVER done ANYTHING to be banned. The only reason for these false accusations is that Tiotsw is trying to silence an editor who does not agree with the unjustified massive removal of the GNU and GNU/linux from wikipedia. Something he clearly supports. There are editors who defend those removals who have even used VERY offensive and coarse language. Tiotsw or Thumperward never complained against those editors simply because they share the same Point of view.--
Grandscribe (
talk)
12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have no idea whether anyone is or is not a sock puppet. Grandscribe has, on occasion at Talk:Linux, been intemperate but he is hardly alone. Grandscribe has not yet done anything to deserve a ban. I suggest we WP:AGF for the time being and back off. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm just leaving a note to say I've read the discussion above. I'll need to review some diffs and logs before I decide whether to request a checkuser. It looks like some people want to AGF and leave well enough alone, and I'll sleep on that. Yechiel ( Shalom) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The checkuser case returned Stale on 26 June. (There is no remaining data on Bald Eeagle to compare to, which is logical since this is the first time a CU was requested, and Bald Eeagle has been indef blocked since February). I hope anyone who is watching this report who thinks further action is needed will jump in here. If anyone thinks that an open-and-shut case for Grandscribe=Bald Eeagle can be made using behavioral data, this is the moment. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply