Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 28 July 2012 (→Operation Musketeer (1956): c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Apparently racist abuse isn't grounds for blocking any more.... 2 lines of K303 19:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Musketeer (1956)

I understand that the latest IP to change the article is probably the same individual as the currently blocked IP. However, please put that aside and take a look at the source he provides. That section is unsourced even for the pre-existing material. Also, don't refer to him as a "banned" user - he is not. I won't be able to monitor this situation because I'm going on a short break, so I'm hoping you can deal with it in a reasonable manner. The article is more important than any previous disputes. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BAN. Suspected socks. Confirmed socks. SPI with 21 different entries, plus at least eight more considering the existence of Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (8th) and even Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/HarveyCarter. There is no "prior dispute". He is a banned editor and prolific sockpuppeteer, and you should either be prepared to enforce the ban or give up your admin tools. I am actually being reasonable about this. I'm enforcing a ban imposed by the Misplaced Pages community. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad and edits by and on behalf of banned editors are the most relevant parts of the policy. The last thing we need when dealing with prolific sockpuppeteers is people encouraging them to edit, which is what you've been doing. First by restoring his talk page post ("The standard Misplaced Pages invitation to "edit this page" does not apply to banned editors", and so on) then by directly encouraging him to edit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You misjudge Bbb23 here Hack, on a couple of points. 1. He is a good guy. I know because I nom'ed him for RfA myself because he listens very well. 2. Like most admins, he hasn't really worked SPI much, and it isn't as obvious to others as it might be to you and I. And you probably know more than I do as well, for that matter. I haven't looked at the IP closely, but your track record on picking them out is pretty solid, but most people don't know that. On the flip side, I'm a mess with BLP and Bbb IS my go to man and I trust his opinion on policy over my own, any day. We all have strengths and weaknesses, which is why we need each other. As to the invitation to edit, he was assuming good faith and likely didn't know it was a banned user. Biting B here really wasn't cricket, and an explanation would have been sufficient.

In other words, help Bbb23 with socks, don't jump him because he wasn't sure. We're on the same team here, all 3 of us. Block are cheap, and I would rather see an admin err on the polite side and be wrong (we can fix that with a block) than to jump down the throat of an IP and be wrong (can't really fix that). If admins had to turn in their bit for not being an expert on every policy, copyright policy alone would wipe out 80% of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I kind of guessed he hadn't worked on SPI much by his apparent inability to see a quacking duck. But if that's the case, then he shouldn't be making comments like "Also, don't refer to him as a "banned" user - he is not". There's plenty of sockmasters I'm not familiar with (and I know the case will be the same with you Dennis) but I'm more than prepared to defer to the judgement of people who are familiar with them. If someone familiar with a sockmaster says they are a sock, it's bang out of order to turn round and say "Also, don't refer to him as a "banned" user - he is not". Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of HarveyCarter are rife with 92 prefixed Carphone Warehouse IPs. The IP makes the word-for-word same edit (with the exception of one being a new paragraph and the other continuing a previous paragraph) previous confirmed sock, Operation Musketeer is one of his target articles, if you look back at the 2011 history you'll see lots of HarveyCarter IPs and if you check their contribs you'll see plenty of edits to Suez Crisis related articles which are mentioned countless times in the SPI archive. In fact if you check the history of Suez Crisis itself you'll see it's been repeatedly protected (currently indefinitely) due to sockpuppetry from this editor. So you'll have to forgive me for getting a bit cheesed off when I'm told "Also, don't refer to him as a "banned" user - he is not" when talking a very, very obvious sock of an editor who has been banned. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• • What you are missing here is the fact that everyone and his uncle comes to admins and says "This guy is a sock". Seriously, if I had a nickel for each time a stranger says that. Hell, just go look at my talk page now. You have no idea how much we hear that. I've seen you around for a long time, so I have a good idea of what you know and don't. Bbb23 doesn't know you from Adam and wasn't dickish here in the least. And seriously Hack, leaving a kind word to an IP isn't the end of the world. If you want an admin to trust your judgement, this is the wrong way to go about it. It's short sighted to throw away an opportunity to create a ally, but hey, it's your call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Read the first post in this thread that I've referred to more than once - "Also, don't refer to him as a "banned" user - he is not". As I've already said that's bang out of order. He's not saying "he might be a sock", he's flat out saying he's not a sock. We can even look at this in some more detail if you want? At 15:35, 27 July 2012 the SPI including attempted (since I'm not actually Irish) racist abuse by the IP in question, and not even a denial of sockpuppetry. Yet despite this, at 16:51, 27 July 2012 we get a claim that "not banned, not even sock-blocked (unreported AFAIK), why not address contention?". That's wrong on every count. HarveyCarter is banned, an IP doesn't have to be blocked to be a sock (since the block is just a technical method used to enforce the ban), and a report had been filed which was evident by both mine and the IPs contribs. As for why I don't need to address the contention, that's glaringly obvious. He's banned, he's not welcome to edit under any circumstances, why should the valuable time of editors be wasted discussing things with him? That's a rhetorical question by the way. He doesn't have to believe he's a sock simply because I say so admittedly, but he certainly doesn't get to claim he isn't a sock either. I don't need allies, especially ones like that... Oh, and what I believe to be the "kind word to an IP" was either at or after 15:56, 27 July 2012, 21 minutes after his second attempt at racist abuse, unless there's something else you're referring to since I can't see anything else you could be referring to? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So can I call him banned *now*? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)