User talk:Netoholic/WIP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Evidence presented by {your user name}
- 1.1 First assertion
- 1.2 Second assertion
2 Arb
- 2.1 Crotalus horridus

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

[edit] Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

LevelCheck (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 63.173.114.136 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 63.173.114.137 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 63.173.114.141 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) evid

FB-LC

nickname redirects
Wacko Jacko
Salvador Allende
Islamofascism (many related)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservative catchphrases

FB-CH

all

[edit] Arb

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=41493429&oldid=41487988

[edit] Crotalus horridus

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All accounts have been notified [1], [2], [3]. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This case is to establish whether User:Crotalus horridus can be linked to other accounts. Crotalus and Firebug are already involved in two separate active Arbitration cases, and LevelCheck is banned indefinitely. The result of this case would directly impact the active cases. -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Netoholic

User:Crotalus horridus is an account run by the same person as User:Firebug, and also banned User:LevelCheck. This person, who I will refer to as "Josh", has used these accounts to perform bad-faith Sock puppetry, including AFD and RFA vote-stacking, deception, evasion of responsibility, and creating the illusion of broader support for several positions including the Userbox dilemma.

Rough timeline

December 25, 2004 - According to the deleted history of right to exist, 63.24.23.169 (talk • contribs) creates the article. This address belongs to an ISP in Pennsylvania [4].
March 29, 2005 - Anonymous 63.173.114.141 (talk • contribs) begins editing by "redacting" several talk page comments on Talk:Terri Schiavo. "63.173.114.141" is registered to an Atlanta company.
March 30, 2005 - Firebug (talk • contribs) makes his first edits, also involved heavily in Terry Schiavo and showing interest in video game hardware, especially processor chips.
Between March 30 and April 11, edits from User:Firebug are interspersed in blocks with 63.173.114.141 (talk • contribs), 63.173.114.136 (talk • contribs), and 63.173.114.137 (talk • contribs).
April 15, 2005 - User:63.173.114.137 makes several edits, including an odd RFA nomination. After it was removed, User:LevelCheck makes his first edit. Later, on April 25, LevelCheck confirms that he edits from this range.
April 25, 2005 - right to exist is (ironically) nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to exist. The decision was 24 "delete" and only 4 "keep" - two of them are LevelCheck and Firebug. The article was deleted on or after May 13, 2005.
April 30, 2005 - LevelCheck nominates WP:AUM for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates. Firebug also becomes involved on the vote and in attacking the page's status.
May 17, 2005 - LevelCheck makes his last edits after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck is opened. He is blocked indefinitely later on June 3 after it was decided that he was a "disruptive potential sockpuppet".
May 20-23, 2005 - Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) makes his first edits - largely participation in several deletion votes.
June-August, 2005 - Firebug's contributions are very light. He makes no edits from August 24-November 23, 2005.
November 30, 2005 - In his very first edit after six months of inactivity, Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) re-creates right to exist. A 2nd deletion vote (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to exist (2nd nomination)) in December closes with no consensus. Firebug and Crotalus both vote keep.
December 2, 2005 - Firebug self-nominates at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug. Crotalus votes support. The vote closes with no consensus.
December 23, 2005 - An arbitration case is opened involving Firebug at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug.
January 2, 2006 - Firebug quits, apparently over the Userbox issue.
January 20, 2006 - Crotalus horridus starts contributing to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop. In response to suggestions of sanctions for Firebug, Crotalus specifically points out three times that he has quit [5], [6], [7] and suggests sanctions are "pointless".

Other evidence of a connection

Both have said their name is Josh/Joshua - User:Firebug -- email
Crotalus has a userbox on his page that reads "This user lives in Georgia, but wishes he was in Pennsylvania." The 63.173.114.x IPs originate in Georgia and the 63.24.23.169 address used to create right to exist is registered in Pennsylvania.
All have been involved in these pages: Capitalism, Islamofascism, Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, List of Stalinists (including deletion votes 1 & 2)

I am sorry for the length. Of course, to fully lay all this evidence out would require much more space, but I hope this shows enough to open this prima facia. I'd like to open this case up separately from both Tony Sidaway's and RJIII's, but the conclusion of this case may alter how those are decided. -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by party 2

Ever since I expressed opposition to Netoholic's pet proposal, WP:AUM, he has engaged in a campaign of harassment aimed at me. This is just the latest salvo. Netoholic has a history of failing to assume good faith when dealing with disputes, this being a prime example. Netoholic strings together a number of coincidental similarities and then blandly jumps to a conclusion of sockpuppetry. I welcome a review of my contribution history, and especially a comparison of my contributions - and my behavior toward other users - with that of Netoholic. The evidence will show that it is Netoholic, not I, who has been stirring up trouble, edit warring, and doing very little actual productive editing. Interestingly, he accused both me and User:Locke Cole of "wikistalking" him because we had both reviewed his contribution history (in light of his poor judgment and personal attacks on WT:AUM) and reverted those edits that I felt were problematic, which is perfectly within the bounds of reasonable behavior - after all, this is a wiki [8]. His response is to concoct these spurious allegations. A cursory review of both of our contribution histories will show that it is his edits, not mine, that have been disruptive to the functioning of the encyclopedia. Note that when I used a role account (User:Userboxes), this was fully disclosed on the user page and elsewhere from the start. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tony Sidaway

If this is accepted I suggest that it would best be merged with the ongoing arbitration case involving me and Crotalus horridus:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further statement by Netoholic

This is a tough call because this also impacts RJII v. Firebug, where several people have commented on the futility of proposing sanctions against Firebug because he's "quit". I'd prefer if the identity question be handled separately because, if it's decided that Firebug has not left but instead assumed a new persona, then that case is impacted as well. I also would like to present lots of evidence which might be off-topic in a Userbox case. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Aaron Brenneman

This should at the very least be deferrred until the close of the first case. Adding additional material will only create more confusion in a case already inflicted with word smog. Let the boxen proceed, examine the behavior of everyone involved in isolation and then move on to the second problem. It will be impossible to examine the conduct of all the parties involved otherwise, and if the result of this case is that he's not firebug it will have been to the serious detriment of one case with to no advantage. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 23:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Locke Cole

For the record, David Gerard (talk • contribs) has already indicated that Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) cannot be linked to any other accounts (but only due to technical restrictions of checkuser). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep - the current window on en: is about a month. So this is neither a confirm or a deny. But I must note that checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust - it only confirms or denies an existing suspicion of sockpuppetry, because the original suspicion will be based on edit patterns, and IP matches can only reinforce that. I always consider edit patterns more important than IP evidence myself - David Gerard 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/1)

What is he doing that is bad (other then editing under several accounts)? Fred Bauder 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Reject as per Fred's query. James F. (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Reject. Foolish, yes. Nothing major here, even if he's acting inadvisedly. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Reject per Sam. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Reject, and note that if there is community consensus at somewhere like WP:AN that he is a banned user, he can be blocked without arbcom intervention. Dmcdevit·t 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Reject per Sam and Dmcdevite. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/t/User_talk%7ENetoholic_WIP_caea.html"