User talk:KangCrt

I have blocked this account as a self-admitted sockpuppet of ThreeE. Whatever good faith I or any other administrator had in you has definitely been squandered now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You provide a great example of how your witch/sock hunting works in your treatment of User:Sucroe. I simply touched that account and now you think they are a "likely sock." You are the Inquisition! Go! Go! Just give up -- you are firing your sock-gun around willy-nilly. KangCrt (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have added Sucroe if the user creation log didn't say that it was created at about 6:30 this morning. If Sucroe is an innocent user, the CU will come back "Unrelated" for him. It won't come back "Inconclusive" because Sucroe is new. If it comes back as "Possible" or "Confirmed", however, another sock bites the dust.

I intentionally looked for an account that was created around the time this one was -- just to show how unrelated an account could be in order to get hit by your ban bat. KangCrt (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sucroe has not been blocked, ThreeE, and if the CU comes back "Unrelated" he will not be blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My point has been made already -- you think he's "likely" just because an unrelated user touched his talk page. You are a loose cannon. KangCrt (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I think he's likely because a block-evading account touched his talk page. As I told you on User talk:ThreeE before you displayed a Grandma Dottie trait (ie. blanking the page to remove all context), normal administrators cannot see the underlying IP addresses beneath an account; only CheckUsers can per the Wikimedia Foundation's priv-pol. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, you indef blocked me for nothing. I reserve the right to be a little upset. At least I've had the courtesy to not vandalize any content. I'll be socking away for a while around the ThreeE account though. KangCrt (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I merely amended the original block; I did not block you to begin with. Also, as I said, the block was made in good faith. The CU came back as possible, someone blocked based on the CU results. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And to rebut your statement, while you may feel it's a witch hunt, it's a drain on administrators who are obligated to clean up after you if we have to play whac-a-mole. As such, we ask for Checkuser findings and the like to help administrate - think of it as like a restaurant staffed by convicted felons next door to a grocery store and another restaurant. The presence of the convicted felons in the neighborhood would bring down business at all three places.

Do yourself a favor and just stop taking an us v. them mentality as regards your blocks - All it's going to end in for you is a community ban - and that's irrespective of whether or not you are Grandma Dottie, which anecdotal evidence seems to suggest you are anyway. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You already banned me as User:ThreeE without a shred of evidence. What does any of this have to do with disrupting the content here? All this because of a civil disagreement being worked out on a talk page. A single user User:BQZip01 gets all WP:OWNy over an article. You have lost perspective. Enjoy the sock punching for a while. KangCrt (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were disrupting the content. I said you were evading a block, which is disruptive. Also, you haven't been formally banned yet, but given as you're socking, no admin will try and unblock you under any account, making it a de facto ban. In short, by coming back as KangCrt rather than attempt unblock via emailing unblock-en-i or the Arbitration Committee, you've damned yourself. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break and get some perspective -- "damned." You blocked me for no reason related to the Grandma Dottie thing. I have another alternative account that has been happily editing away productively for years. The only place I've ever had a problem is with those articles that have involved User:BQZip01 -- and I'm not the only one. KangCrt (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another user's wrongdoing does not justify evading a block made in good faith. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, nothing personal -- I'm sure you are a wonderful person. Just think a little more before you act. Now block and ban away. KangCrt (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion

I normally edit as an IP. Recently I decided to create an account. I named it: Mypasswordis muscle. I edited BQ as I saw it as an "owned" page, like Obama but to a smaller degree.

Mypasswordis muscle was blocked because an Admin thought my account was compromised (because of the name). Go figure, I guess if my account was "Clock" the dumb ass would expect me to tell her how to set her watch. So she lets me change my account (or I should say add a new one) that I call Just muscle. I move on, mostly editing as an IP.

Sock alert!! BQZip01, known for his panic attacks, links me to ThreeE, because I touched the BQ article and wha-la Check user says Mypassworkis muscle and Just muscle are socks. Well, I think a 5th grader could tell you that, because my user pages and histories show that that is what I was supposed to do, according to the concerned Admin.

The result: two accounts that are openly tied together (required to name change by the admin), that touched a page that is owned by an editor prone to 'seige mentality' is blocked and ThreeE falls into the same trap.

No claims of perfection on this side of the argument, but it is quite an episode that has been created by fools rushing to judgement. Muscle I am (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Possible" CU result wasn't just to you, but to two other accounts (Grandma Dottie and Gots2bnoing). Even if we were to remove your accounts from the equation there's still two accounts that are possible socks, which was enough for PeterSymonds to block. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I was a 'confirmed sockpuppet' I'd have to recheck...Not asking for an unblock. Not saying that anyone else needs one. Just adding to the confusion. Probably not worth anyones time to see If my previous comment is true and it matters none. After getting blocked I researched the BQ page, and the editor that owns it. It was worth creating this account just to put my thoughts down. I am sure ThreeE will find some humor in knowing that there is another editor out there that has just come to the same conclusion as he has had for some time. All is good. I believe the movie "Idiocracy" has some commonality with the SPI.Muscle I am (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the CU confirmed that MPiM and JM were confirmed as being operated by the same person (you), and that ThreeE, Grandma Dottie, and Gots2benoing were possibly related to each other and you. Even if we took the results and segregated them into other SPIs the "Possible" result in re ThreeE, Dottie, and benoing would still have resulted. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here -- neither of which you seem to care about. The first is the bundle of psychopathy that is User:BQZip01 that even got us to the SPI. The second is the process known as checkuser. Any two accounts could possibly be related -- to use a "possible" result as justification for blocking, banning, or even just harsh words is ridiculous. Possible is synonymous with possibly not. It's a weasel word. KangCrt (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sucroe came back Inconclusive, but he's using what appears to be an open proxy, according to the CU. And "Possible" means exaqctly that - there is a reasonable suspicion that, based on IP address evidence, you are one and the same. You're still lawyering around it, give it up. "Possible" and "Confirmed" guarantee CU blocks for the most part. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)