Sock puppet of banned user[edit]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Joehazelton (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This account is a block-evading sock puppet of User:Joehazelton. The scarlet letter comments are a tell-tale sign. All edits by this account should be automatically reverted. Propol 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion page[edit]

Since there are some editors that can run roughshod over newbeies, I will follow this policy - I will remove what I consider to be wiki-slander from this page and my user page if I deem it to be disruptive and lacks good faith. Show this newbee that Wikipeida is not the wild west of the internet were "MIGHT makes RIGHT" and where wikipedia is a Cyber-simulation of a William Golding novel.Willie Peter 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soros[edit]

Welcome to the electronic trenches. I appreciate your getting involved with the article, but I notice that you just registered, so don't be too surprised if you get accused of being a sockpuppet of mine or Bellowed's. Just keep a cool head, hold your ground, and here are some policies you should be aware of, if you aren't already. (Might keep you out of trouble). WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Not to say that you are violating any of these policies, I just want you to be armed with the proper knowledge when some editors start biting the newbie. Good luck, and happy editing. - Crockspot 20:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to welcome you to Wikipedia. There is an editor over on Soros's page who absolutely will not give in, no matter what the reasoning. Feel free to discuss your POV with him over on the talk pages. I'm putting together a new version of the edit that this certain editor won't be able to dispute (even though I'm sure he'll still try) and I'd definately love any discussion you could contribute to over on the talk pages. Thanks again for your edit!|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and will read and learn under the mentorship of good editors. Thanks:)Willie Peter 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try with the "don't be too surprised if you get accused of being a sockpuppet" ruse. LOL! Eleemosynary 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of these Welcome things[edit]

Some one gave me one of these just the other day:

Welcome!

Hello, Willie Peter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Discussing Wikpedia Policy on New Users.[edit]

You might want to confab with Goethean before you start accusing me or Bellowed of sockpuppetry. - Crockspot 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I love this wikilove WP:AGF and don't bite the newbee WP:BITE with this accusation of being a sock puppet.

Now the simple questions that begs is, no matter what article I choose to start to edit, those <owners>WP:OWN(in which you seem to be following that M.O.) will accuse me of being somebodies "sock puppet", Yes?

Now since I consider the Bold and capped section heading to be a personal attack and an bold face attempt to label me with this derogatory "scarlet letter" I will take it upon my self to remove it, since I have already seen it. This is per WP:CIVIL (note I read so assume that I have the basic intelligences to read and understand wiki publish policy and to apply it accordingly) as well as WP:WQT and WP:NPA Willie Peter 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. If you survive the night without getting blocked, I'll owe you a coffee. Deal? - Crockspot 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal :) Willie Peter 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should file another 3RR for this talk page. I'd do it for you, but I have to get some sleep. This shit has to stop though. - Crockspot 05:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how too. I need help please to it, I can watch.Willie Peter 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit-warring[edit]

I've blocked you both for edit-warring, first on User:Willie Peter, then on the talk page. WP:3rr#Exceptions gives you both the benefit of the doubt as far as the userpage warning went, but when you decided to continue this conflict after I protected that page, you ran afoul of 3rr.--Chaser - T 05:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he was the instigator why do i suffer for his transgression?Willie Peter 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing the ridiculous fight past the point of sanity. You're both blocked. Relax. Take 24 hours off of this nonsense and do something else.--Chaser - T 05:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It continued because no one stopped this guy and his abuse. Is this the wiki way - to chew up newbees and abuse them? I think you're very unfair.Willie Peter 05:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Get a second opinion: Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#How_to_request_to_be_unblocked.--Chaser - T 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any rate, I out of here for now.Willie Peter 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the request will be ignored. I check Category:Requests for unblock every day. I highly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter. If you are someone's sockpuppet/meatpuppet, it would be better to tell us now.--Chaser - T 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You people don't read, The point is...

Checkuser cleared you: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crockspot. Regards.--Chaser - T 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now I would like, <discredited attack removed>> Further more, I want him to absolutely stay off my user and talk pages with his pointless accusations. Please, show some some fairness here and take the bitterness of my wikihazing out of my mouth. By the way, I'm looking for that apology?Willie Peter 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on Eleemosynary's talk page about the whole event. I think that you and Eleemosynary would do well to ignore each other in the future and try to avoid the George Soros article as well.--Chaser - T 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from his reply, you have your work cut out for you. - Crockspot 03:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Both of you please ignore him. Leave a message on my talk page if he becomes disruptive.--Chaser - T 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean and I have tentatively worked out some guidelines for an acceptable compromise inclusion on Soros. Hopefully the worst has blown over. - Crockspot 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End this[edit]

[1] What part if ignore each other didn't you understand? Or do you just prefer continuing this stupid fight instead of contributing to the encyclopedia?--Chaser - T 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I the bad guy, please remove this personal attack from this guy user page, [ please and I will end it. Also, I don't want to be fighting every POV gamer, with accusations of "he's a sock".

Help me believe in good faith again.Willie Peter 06:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS NOW OVER[edit]

Stop posting on his talk page. It's not helping the situation. If you have a problem, leave me a message on my talk page in your own section. Don't make this situation worse than it already is.--Chaser - T 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, accusing him of meatpuppetry isn't helping. Both of those are long-term accounts and almost certainly not the same person. Second, arbcom is the last resort in the dispute resolution process, so I think it's unlikely they will take your case when you haven't tried other things, like an RFC or mediation first, both of which are good possibilities. Third, I will carefully review the relevant policies and evidence. I haven't reviewed statements from his talk page because I'm honestly not sure if they constitute a personal attack. That policy has to be balanced against our investigation of suspected sockpuppets, and striking that balance is sometimes difficult. I will try to come to a final conclusion as to this matter within a couple of hours and notify you when I do.--Chaser - T 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, please post your points in your own section on my talk page. I don't want you two extending this fight to my talk page.--Chaser - T 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike the above accusation of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry.--Chaser - T 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on Eleemosynary's talk page[edit]

I have moved the statement to a subpage where Eleemosynary can continue to collect and organize evidence. In the privacy of his own userspace it should have no reason to bother you. I consider this a reasonable compromise to end this conflict.--Chaser - T 06:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Willie Peter 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You know, people do actually read what you write in edit summaries. Please consider being more judicious about them.--Chaser - T 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet of banned user[edit]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Joehazelton (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This account is a block-evading sock puppet of User:Joehazelton. The scarlet letter comments are a tell-tale sign. All edits by this account should be automatically reverted. Propol 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propol, do you have any evidence to support this claim?--Chaser - T 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have evidence. Please see this edit of another blocked User:Joehazelton sock puppet. Notice, he makes reference to a scarlet letter. Besides that he exposes the identity of a Wikipedia admin and makes threats. Please watch this user closely, he has made death threats in the past and located people offline. Propol 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageousWillie Peter 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain calm while I investigate this claim. I left him an avenue for further evidence. I will protect you from harassment and incivility while this is pending.--Chaser - T 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK but consider that I read Hawthorne, as a million others as well as seen the movie, should cause this crew to label me is outrageous Willie Peter 05:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't post on his talk page either. You two are just going to get into another vicious fight and both blocked.--Chaser - T 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I want to see the evidence and face my all my accusers and the ability to answer their crazy charges. Willie Peter 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post in your own section on my talk page. The reason I don't want you two posting on each other's talk pages is because you're incapable of talking to each other without fighting. I don't want that on my talk page either.--Chaser - T 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to see the similarities. Whoever is reviewing this unblock request, please ask the blocking admin for an email with the evidence first.--Chaser - T 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is so unfair, brutal.Willie Peter 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Willie Peter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What proof you have other then the wild charges of an editor with an vendetta

Decline reason:

I've reviewed all the evidence against you. Taken together it's very damming evidence of sockpuppetry.— Chaser - T 07:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.