WB sockpuppets suspected at ARB-COM!, Yes, you read that right! Options

[the fieryangel]

...Well, look at what categories this page is in...

Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb | Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb

Now, is there some sort of logic for this which escapes me, or have they all finally lost their marbles??

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sat 23rd February 2008, 11:23am

[guy]

No, just one editor:

Wordbomb edited as... Dozens of identified sockpuppet accounts after the first account was closed (see [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb]] and [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb]] ). He additionally created a website ( antisocialmedia.net ) which is partly dedicated to stalking and outing Wikipedia editors, and participated actively in threads on ( wikipediareview.com ) making various comments, threats, and boasts about disruption of and attacks on Wikipedians he felt had done him wrong. That the original account only lasted 18 hours is irrelevant. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]]

He evidently doesn't know how to embed the name of a category in the text.

[Moulton]

There should be a Categorical Imperative about that.

[guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=193501844

"fmt category links as per suggestion found on an attack site..."

[Piperdown]

GWH is intellectually disappointing.

As are at least two other notable GW's from america, lol.

[tarantino]

GWH is intellectually disappointing.

As are at least two other notable GW's from america, lol.

He blocked Krimpet for making a snarky comment at Dmcdevit.

A "silly exercise in declaring to be true what you have already assumed is true"... pretty much what one would expect from the project that booted Poetlister last year, right Dmcdevit?

Now that's funny.

[guy]

Unblocked after 15 minutes of course. The unblock summary is slightly cryptic.

04:07, 23 February 2008 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) unblocked Krimpet (Talk | contribs) ?ÇÄ (assume the presence of a belly button)
03:52, 23 February 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Krimpet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 hours ?ÇÄ (Attempting to harass other users: personal attacks / civility - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=193419680)

[Proabivouac]

Unblocked after 15 minutes of course. The unblock summary is slightly cryptic.

04:07, 23 February 2008 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) unblocked Krimpet (Talk | contribs) ‎ (assume the presence of a belly button)
03:52, 23 February 2008 Georgewilliamherbert (Talk | contribs) blocked "Krimpet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: personal attacks / civility - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=193419680)

Well, I can't sympathize with "Krimpet" all that much, given the history…however, she's on the right side of this affair, and that was a horrible block. Worse then the block, even, is the block summary. Was she truly "attempting to harass" Dmcdevit? This is even more ridiculous than Matt57's supposed "harassment" of Elonka by vetting sources in the Dunin family articles. If that's from a pull-down menu, someone should really toss that menu: to bear false witness, which Georgewilliamherbert has just done, is immoral and unethical. Administrators should be forced to type out their reasons and make certain they can stand behind what they write.

And someone should figure out an easy way to purge or alter block logs - imagine if "Krimpet" were using her real name, and she had that false charge associated with it forever.

[taiwopanfob]

Unblocked after 15 minutes of course. The unblock summary is slightly cryptic.

04:07, 23 February 2008 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) unblocked Krimpet (Talk | contribs) ‎ (assume the presence of a belly button)

Perhaps MZMcBride is subtly stating his position that sockpuppets do not have navels. See

http://www.freedomsring.org/belly.html

for a summary of centuries of christian "discussion" on a similar matter.

If so, perhaps we should all thank God that Wikipedia has settled their version of the question with a minimum of bloodshed.

But have they yet ironed out their equivalent of the Arian Heresy? That is, the relationship between Wales and that other guy who may can no longer be named in polite Wikicompany, who may or may not have created Wikipedia in whole or in part?

(Interestingly, the article on the nasty Christian infighting Arius' notions beget are watered down from the get-go at Wikipedia: "Arian Heresy" is a redirect to the more mild, and christian-friendly "Arian Controversy". Those uppity muslim's should take note.)