The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Grandscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10

35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

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])

Comments

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 meWP: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 had asked kindly [9] back in 20th May to consider other articles as I wanted to see if there was any hope (I *love* RMS, have actually emailed him twice on suit-level licensing issues and I have a bias towards using GNU/GPL) but...not a chance. All Grandscribe has done is chat lots, kick off 1 x revert edit war on Linux (I warned them [10]), and 1 x revert for what I think is WP:POINT here [11]. That's it - Since march around 200 edits, all to talk except 4 reverts. Grandscribe is awfully quick with the Wikilawyering but slow with tangible article space edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:40, 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]

You should also read WP:AAGF. Facts are that your first set of edits in article space (i.e. not the talk space) in the two months or so since you joined were for 3 edit/reverts within 1 day to Linux. I wasn't part of that little revert war so I felt OK in using the 3rr template on your talk page. If you do not like what it says then complain on the user template page as those words are templated. My previous note to you was to kindly look at editing other Linux related articles as you were just all talk. OTOH, what I say back to you on my own talk page is up to me and WP:BITE is for *NEW* users having problems with articles and stuff. You've been editing for a few months now. You are NOT a new user. (note to self: must see the vet about this horse as it's not moving very fast.).Ttiotsw (talk) 10:48, 7 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]

Errr, have you even read WP:SOCK? The previous accounts were blocked for contentious editing and flagrant personal attacks. You don't get to just pick a new user name and jump back in if your account gets indefinitely blocked. Both me and Ttiotsw gave Grandscribe a chance and requested that, given his history, it might be a good idea to avoid contentious editing and ludicrous personal assaults, to be treated to wikilawyering about WP:BITE and a complete failure to change tack. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Thumperward never sent me any request. From the day I gave my comments with a position contrary to his POV he started the WP:BITE in the discussion page. User Ttiotsw came to my page to provoke WP:BITE. I have not done anything wrong. On the other hand if any admin looks at the archived comments he will see that some editors who share Thumperward's POV constantly use inappropriate language. They never received a single warning or request to change their tone. --Grandscribe (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the 20th May I said [12] where I commented that you should edit some articles. I linked a few policies I said I wouldn't have bothered but I noted that on the 1st April you had said this. That to me indicated a reasonable awareness of "RFC" and "consensus" (your words) only 4 days after you posted your first talk post to Wikipedia on Linux. New users don't usually do that. New users pick some articles, do some edits, sometimes OK, sometimes not, then settle down to a pattern of edits to talk and articles according to their interests. I think my waiting 6 weeks of watching you edit one article's talk space only is enough delay for you to not be deemed a new user. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Thumperward) That doesn't answer my question. The only link here about a ban is the link showing that "Midnightcrow" has been blocked from making new accounts. So, if the person who used to use that account is the same person who now uses the Grandscribe account (we'll leave that to be determined later, if necessary), can you link to something to show that the person who owned the "Midnightcrow" account (rather than the account itself) is never allowed make accounts on Wikipedia ever again? (I'm not saying such doesn't exist, but you haven't linked to any evidence of such, and I can't find it and I would find lifetime bans very strange if they existed in Wikipedia policy.) --Gronky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I should add that I don't see any of the accounts you mentioned on the Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users. (The difference between a block and a ban is worth noting) --Gronky (talk) 18:41, 8 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 waited 6 weeks before I advised you to look at WP:SPA. I think over a month and a half is a reasonable time period. I have read WP:BITE; it really only applies to users who actually edit articles. You don't. That is the problem. Be bold!. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think that Grandscribe would be damned if he did. He's damned now he don't. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume good faith then a change in behaviour is the best possible answer. Why doesn't he just look at changes or missing ?. It's easy to find stuff to edit. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. Were Grandscribe disposed to prove his good faith he should easily be able to do so. But there is no obligation on him to do so. To the contrary, the obligation is on us to assume good faith. Now, possibly GS could post in a way that would help us a little more to do that but I don't see that he has crossed any behavioural lines in a particularly serious way. And others happily provoke him (back?): I don't understand why the testiness and intolerance and intemperance of some editors here is allowed on the basis that they do good work elsewhere on the encyclopaedia. I would prefer all just behave well (and better than me). I'm with you: I would prefer it if Grandscribe were a contributor to scores of articles, and who knows, maybe he is  :-) Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:21, 9 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 think that about sums up my position on the matter. —mako๛ 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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]

I've listed this for checkuser, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bald Eagle. Whenever there is evidence that a blocked user has returned with a new account, please request checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 23 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]

Closing as inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]