JB/Looch: "A couple things" Options

[the fieryangel]

You don't have to answer in detail. Just show you're for real and I'll initiate your unban discussion today. SirFozzie and Alison would probably endorse it.

Yes, but would JzG/Guy? If what happened on Wikiabuse is any indication, I would think that Hell would probably freeze over before JzG would support the unbanning of Mr. Looch here.

Some of you do get the idea of redemption and second chances. Others persue their revenge to the end of time. There are both types of people on WP and they both have their power bases.

Until a clear policy which clearly states how a ban can be overturned (including so-called "community bans" which are usually just whoever is on ANI any given day...), then you're going to have these sorts of conflicts which cannot be resolved.

I reported you for making a ridiculous accusation against me. This has nothing to do with JB (and neither does the FBI stuff that you had absolutely no problem answering TFA's questions about, so again what the hell?)

Actually, the FBI stuff was sort of related, because Looch has been called a "stalker" on and off WP by JzG, even though it was clear to those of us that participated on WikiAbuse that there was at least as much stalking going on by JzG as there was by Looch...if not more (read: almost certainly much more....)

The point of bringing up the FBI business is that WP editors often bring up this "we're all being stalked" business in their public statements, but it's infrequent that you hear about people getting stalked by Wikipedia editors...even though most folks here know of at least one situation in which this has taken place.

If Looch called the authorities everytime that JzG called him a stalker, there would be an awfully large file somewhere....although I don't think that any of it would be actionable, as far as I can tell (of course, not being a lawyer...)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Quite the way to help get a WR member unbanned: start a new thread to trash the person who makes the offer and then report them. That will really motivate Wikipedians to help banned editors return.

I reported you for making a ridiculous accusation against me.

For future reference, there is no WR:NPA. The only policy we have that is applicable is WR:BORING, which applies to flame wars that drag on and lose their entertainment value, at which point they are consigned to the Tar Pits forum.

[Alison]

You don't have to answer in detail. Just show you're for real and I'll initiate your unban discussion today. SirFozzie and Alison would probably endorse it.

Yep.

Actually, the FBI stuff was sort of related, because Looch has been called a "stalker" on and off WP by JzG, even though it was clear to those of us that participated on WikiAbuse that there was at least as much stalking going on by JzG as there was by Looch...if not more (read: almost certainly much more....)

The point of bringing up the FBI business is that WP editors often bring up this "we're all being stalked" business in their public statements, but it's infrequent that you hear about people getting stalked by Wikipedia editors...even though most folks here know of at least one situation in which this has taken place.

FWIW, I had to go around repeatedly, removing JB196's RL name from various WP pages, where it had been put largely to have it associated with his WP shenanigans, and drive it up the Google pageranks. What's fair for one should be fair for all.

[Looch]

Actually, the FBI stuff was sort of related, because Looch has been called a "stalker" on and off WP by JzG, even though it was clear to those of us that participated on WikiAbuse that there was at least as much stalking going on by JzG as there was by Looch...if not more (read: almost certainly much more....)

If Looch called the authorities everytime that JzG called him a stalker, there would be an awfully large file somewhere....although I don't think that any of it would be actionable, as far as I can tell (of course, not being a lawyer...)

Could anybody link me to places that JzG has called me a "stalker?"

Wiki Witch of the West - I was very confused what you were talking about. Then I figured out that you are Durova, and it made more sense. Also, sorry I misquoted you in my initial post in this thread. It was Ryulong who said the quote in my sig, not you. I mixed it up.

You asked me something about Eyrian. That name is not ringing a bell. Did I have interactions with Eyrian on Wikipedia? I'm not saying I didn't...I just don't remember.

How do you feel about the other editors? Let's start with Curse of Fenric, who quit the site and never returned while you refused to come clean about the BooyakaDell account being you.

I just glanced through every last one of Curse of Fenric's edits. The issue was that I was prodding the Australian professional wrestler articles which he argued did not deserve to be prodded and were prodded in bad faith. I do not see a single - not even ONE - Australian professional wrestler article which CoF edited which remains on Wikipedia as of today. That tells me that I was right all along that the wrestlers that he said were notable were really not notable. If they were notable, their profiles would still remain on Wikipedia. Every single one of those wrestler articles have been deleted, and so have many of the promotion articles he worked on, including Wrestle Zone Wrestling and Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia). I disagreed with the articles that he thought were notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, and it appears that the rest of the community did as well.

Hey SirFozzie, good to hear from you. In response to what you said about Burntsauce - it says at List of Banned Users under the name Burntsauce, "Banned as a meatpuppet of community-banned user JB196." Whether the official reason reads "meatpuppet" or reads "sockpuppet," in my opinion, it is clear that many (most?) people involved thought Burntsauce was me (and Burntsauce wasn't me). It also says basically the same thing here.

This is all going back very far, but as I recall, one of my gripes was always that the standard protocol for banning somebody was not followed in my initial ban (of the account JB196). With Burntsauce, Alkivar, etc. there was at least a formal protocol, but with me, as far as I can remember/tell, there was no such standard protocol. Anybody can still see the whole thing (with Deskana changing the 48 hour block to indef) for themself on my JB196 talk page. If the standard protocol had been followed for my JB196 account, there never would've been any reason for me to sockpuppet. What I was doing was far far far from blatant vandalism; therefore, there should have been some sort of process initiated before I was banned. As far as I can recall, there were never any instances of me sockpuppetting while I had my JB196 account, right? Heck, even TJ Spyke was sockpuppetting while his TJ Spyke account was (and in fact, it still is) intact.

Furthermore, the discussion which the WP:List of Banned Users page says was what led to my community ban, actually happened months after my JB196 account was banned. There never was a community ban until the sockpuppeting began. What there was was a ban by Deskana which spiraled into disaster. What I'm saying is...I was already banned long before that discussion ("Probable_socks_of_banned_user:_seeking_community_agreement_to_ban") was initiated!

BREAKING NEWS: Another user banned as a sockpuppet whose not me! I just found this now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ReverseStabber

I have no idea who ReverseStabber is, but it says they're a sockpuppet of me! How many more accounts are there who've been banned as me and aren't me that I don't know about??????????????

FURTHER EDIT: And another person who was wrongly banned as a sockpuppet of me that I just found: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=167565544, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...er:JohnEMcClure

And look who made the ban: Durova! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3AJohnEMcClure I would appreciate if you could address this, Durova. I do not understand how JohnEMcClure resembled me at all. He did not make a single wrestling article edit that still exists, as far as I can tell. Also, I do not agree with what you said here in regards to Burntsauce ruining articles. I think Burntsauce helped many articles.

Scandalous, I tell you!

Imagine what I'd find out if I actually spent more than two minutes looking for this stuff...

This post has been edited by Looch: Tue 8th December 2009, 7:21am

[Trick cyclist]

There are currently 379 sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 suspected ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki...uppets_of_JB196

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Susp...uppets_of_JB196

So presumably the 379 are "confirmed".

[Looch]

There are currently 379 sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 suspected ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki...uppets_of_JB196

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Susp...uppets_of_JB196

So presumably the 379 are "confirmed".

Not all of those are me. I never used blatant spam names (i.e. WIKIPEDIABONGAUTHORITY). Also, here are some new people who were wrongly banned as myself:

Xtreme Championship Wrestling, xrootsx (who was banned for making a perfectly legitimate edit,

Wiki Witch of the West, do you have any comment on what I said above?

[CharlotteWebb]

You asked me something about Eyrian. That name is not ringing a bell. Did I have interactions with Eyrian on Wikipedia? I'm not saying I didn't...I just don't remember.

My understanding is that arbcom desysopped and banned User:Eyrian after Eyrian claimed ownership of the account User:JohnEMcClure. This presented a continuity problem as you-know-who had already banned Mr. McClure as a suspected sockpuppet of JB196.

I believe the purpose of this exercise was to prove a point about the fallibility of sockpuppet investigations in the smoke-filled Durovaverse. To that end it was a huge success.

[Text]

There are currently 379 sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 suspected ones.

"Confirmed" and "suspected" by who?

There were over 1500 "certified" accounts belonging to Willy on Wheels.

All those categories are a waste of space of the hard drives bought with the money of volunteers.

[Trick cyclist]

There are currently 379 sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 suspected ones.

"Confirmed" and "suspected" by who?

Whoever put the templates on the user pages. Buggered if I'm going to check 500 page histories to find out!

[Looch]

There are currently 379 sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 suspected ones.

"Confirmed" and "suspected" by who?

There were over 1500 "certified" accounts belonging to Willy on Wheels.

All those categories are a waste of space of the hard drives bought with the money of volunteers.

Trick cyclist,

There really is no difference between "confirmed" and "suspected" sockpuppets on Wikipedia, in many cases. Frequently, they are one and the same. For instance, writing "{{sockpuppet|JB196}} will create a template that reads:

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of JB196.
Please refer to editing habits, contributions and/or any sockpuppetry investigations for evidence.
This policy subsection may also be helpful. This is saying only that it's suspected.

while writing "{{sockblock|JB196}}" will create a template that reads:

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of JB196 (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.
Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. This is saying that it is confirmed.

There is only a six letter difference, and it is entirely possible, and undoubtedly happens frequently, that a user means to type "{{sockpuppet|Username}}" when they really mean "{{sockblock|Username}}," or vice versa, and gives the wrong impression to people such as yourself.

And realistically, shouldn't it be the other way around? If somebody is blocked as a "sockpuppet," shouldn't that create the definitive (confirmed) template while if the person is simply blocked as a sock ("sockblock"), shouldn't that create the suspected template?

This post has been edited by Looch: Sun 10th January 2010, 5:09pm

[Trick cyclist]

Trick cyclist,

There really is no difference between "confirmed" and "suspected" sockpuppets on Wikipedia, in many cases.

Looch

Interesting, thanks. Presumably the question is whether they are then blocked. That must in turn depend on who puts the template. If an admin puts "confirmed sockpuppet" presumably he will block.

I suppose anyone can add a template and if nobody notices (say if it's an account of someone who hasnt edited for ages) it will stay even though its an affront to both that account and the possibly innocent account accused of sockpuppetation.

[the fieryangel]

Actually, the FBI stuff was sort of related, because Looch has been called a "stalker" on and off WP by JzG, even though it was clear to those of us that participated on WikiAbuse that there was at least as much stalking going on by JzG as there was by Looch...if not more (read: almost certainly much more....)

If Looch called the authorities everytime that JzG called him a stalker, there would be an awfully large file somewhere....although I don't think that any of it would be actionable, as far as I can tell (of course, not being a lawyer...)

Could anybody link me to places that JzG has called me a "stalker?"

You might start here.

He used to have a whole page on his site reportedly about you, which I found in the wayback machine.