User:BuickCenturyDriver/Bloopers

Here is a list of discussions that I have enjoyed reading and or participating. Comments here may be edited for links and spelling. You are free to revert them if they're your own. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New user's audit request
Well, that was interesting. Archived. El_C 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not-so-special disruption, in my very humble opinion. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a sysop but I cannot understand whar you mean, can you say what you mean in more detail?  Te ll y a ddi ct  15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That checkuser request is, in my opinion, not a lot more than vindictive, disruptive fishing on the part of the person who filed it. As such it is disruptive editing. I mean, MONGO and Chacor, socks of each other? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The user was new, let's cut him some slack. The user is probably not happy that he got kicked around at an administrative noticeboard. Somebody should point him in the right direction. PTO 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. WP:AGF, this was not meant to be disruptive. I mean, many of us have been around long enough that it sounds like a ridiculous idea, but I'm going to guess that in 4 days our new editor doesn't know that.  IMO, the checkuser was rejected and it's time to move on.--Isotope23 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think this is an alternate account of an old face, if you check the contribs. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Second edit and around 15th edit. But never mind, just saying that perhaps here AGF should expire a little earlier than usual. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wake up people...you're being trolled. He's not a newbie...look at his edits...he's probably somebody I blocked once upon a time.--MONGO 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this so many times now. I'm not a troll, I am a newbie. But when I first joined up I researched how to use the site. I only came to ANI to report a racist edit comment which I never got round to doing. I posted a comment about MONGO's accusations against Guinnog - at which point I was reverted and called a troll. MONGO has never actually spoken to me ever, let alone explain why he's so hell bent on me being a vandal. I asked for the checkuser for the simple reason that MONGO and Chacor's comments were very similar here on ANI. If I'm guilty of anything it's that I didn't read the RfCU instructions properly. Shock horror! -- I'm so special 16:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * New user? Please. It took him less than a day to find the administrators' notice board and display his fluency in Wikispeak by wading into a spat. I didn't even know there were administrators until I had been here for several months. This is someone with an agenda. Looking at his contributions, writing an encyclopedia is not a high priority. Tom Harrison Talk 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you people serious? You are going to discipline me because I have found this page and because I know what I'm doing on this website. Is there an actual policy that says "knowing how to use Wikipedia in your first week is forbidden". Because if not, I think we are done here. -- I'm so special 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you remove that utterly ridiculous signature please. I'm inclined to believe you already know our signature policy. -- Nick  t  17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but disruption when, by your own admission, you know what you're doing, really is broken. So stop, because you're walking towards an indefblock. Not a threat, just a friendly warning. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I'd just really really like to chat with MONGO, or anyone about what I've done thats actually considered to be vandalism. Any takers? -- I'm so special 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Filing a vexatious checkuser request and misrepresenting yourself as a new user will do for a start. (I know, that's not strictly vandalism, but it's in the same spirit.) Raymond Arritt 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism, disruption. Please stop it. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Genuine new users don't usually have such hideous, flashy signatures. And how many of us knew what a checkuser was (let alone how to request one) three days after joining? ElinorD (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably some ED troll...Chacor and I have been accused there of being socks of each other...kind of hard since we are half a world away from each other, but oh well.--MONGO 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is leading nowhere. Indeed, Chacor hails from Singapore i believe while MONGO does so from the U.S. As for "I'm so special", i just don't mind if they are a newbie or not -many newly created accounts came here even before they edited 10 edits. Please consider archiving this thread. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed &mdash; are there no volcanos erupting in MONGO's and Chacor's heads...? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Dereks1x proposed community ban

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose a community ban of and any socks. Dereks1x was the subject of an SSP that confirmed some of his socks last week, Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Yesterday, a checkuser request confirmed that Dereks1x used a sock (also yesterday),, with false medical credentials in a further attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute at Talk:John Edwards; see Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Durova has been administering blocks: all known socks are currently indef blocked, Dereks1x is blocked for 2 weeks. Even without our recent history in re false credentials, I think this warrants a community ban of Dereks1x and any socks. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved from WP:AN. MER-C 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I consider this particular thread premature, the method of abuse here is serious enough to merit discussion. This editor has used multiple sockpuppets in attempts to manipulate Wikipedia's biographies of leading United States Democratic Party presidential candidates.  Over the past week this editor posted a request for expert attention to medical issues at John Edwards, then two hours later started a sockpuppet who claimed to be a medical doctor.  For several days the sockpuppet edited medical-related articles before "stumbling" upon the John Edwards biography and agreeing with Dereks1x 100% (doing so while Dereks1x was blocked for wikistalking and WP:POINT and the editor's known sockpuppets were getting indef blocked, and while Dereks1x was requesting mentorship).  This editor attempted to confuse the checkuser by posting an image of a diploma with a newspaper to "prove" an M.D. degree, then pretended to "thank" the checkuser for confirming the M.D. degree


 * Reposting part of Jersyko's information from my talk page:


 * 1) Dereks1x placed "expert" tag in the John Edwards article to encourage an expert to conduct original research on Ms. Edwards' cancer (see talk, basically the crux of the dispute) at 12:19 on March 26
 * 2) New User account created, User:Doc United States at 14:30, March 26
 * 3) After a few days of editing medical articles, Doc United States adds a comment in support of Dereks1x's position at Talk:John Edwards today.


 * This sort of egregious abuse deserves to be run out on a rail. Although I normally give editors more chances to reform, this particiular set of incidents follows close on the heels of several other outrageous actions and it would send the wrong message to be patient with such deliberate manipulation of major politicians' biographies.  Durova Charge! 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for the false claiming of medical credentials to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, I would have just supported lengthening the block to 2 months or so, with a strong warning that further shenanigans=ban, but that pushes it over the top. Support the ban, and would recommend once it's done, getting the article semi-protected (if not already), to delay any further sockpuppet attacks. SirFozzie 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've semiprotected John Edwards.  Durova Charge! 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse for gaming the system. Would also recommend reporting this to his ISP--claiming false medical credentials borders on fraud.Blueboy96 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly support to the nth degree. As mentioned above, part of his attempt to establish this false medical identity here included a flurry of edits to medical articles, presumably working from the library he is believed to frequent,  which takes this well beyond disruptive behavior and  gaining an advantage in a dispute and could have real consequences if a reader were to presume that an addition to an article by a "doctor" is accurate. (He also used this false identity to contact doctors on Wikipedia to enlist their support in his - Dereks1x's - position on the John Edwards article.) I strongly support a community ban and suggest that his "Doc" edits be looked at and reversed (if they haven't been already) as they were done  by a sock in evasion of a block and are a potential danger to Wikipedia and its readers.  Tvoz | talk 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a message asking for review of his contributions at Wikiproject:Medicine. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sysop time is scarce and I haven't had a chance to go over all of this editor's contributions, nor am I qualified to evaluate them.  Any editor can revert inappropriate changes.  I agree it is disturbing that edits to serious articles such as glaucoma were implemented under guise of authority in order to mask political manipulations.  Per the comment below, I also advise the editor who made these changes to consider the potential for personal impact if a reporter discovered this abuse: all of these actions are logged in Wikipedia's user and article histories and publicly available to anyone in the world who cares to find them.  Wikipedia endured some bad press over the Essjay scandal and the Siegenthaler affair, but the individuals who perpetrated those deceptions lost their jobs and quite possibly their careers.  I strongly recommend ceasing this now and making use of the site's Right to Vanish.  Durova Charge! 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strongly support per Durova and Tvoz. Calculated deception such as this has no place here. Imagine the bad PR for Wikipedia if he pulled it off, then was discovered by a reporter. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Blocks clearly don't work because he simply evades them with socks. The use of false credentials to gain traction in an argument is disturbing to the highest degree. IrishGuy talk 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support His actions have gone far out side of finding sources. Doing anything to make sure his POV is heard, cannot be part of Wikipedia.--Dacium 03:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support only if done correctly
 * Another idea based on Durova's; just a ban and reverting the edits (there aren't that many, I'd be willing to do one day, say day 1 (3/26?) and the next volunteer do the 2nd day of edits, or I could do one day per day and finish in a few days) or we could do that vanishing thing.  The reverting might be much simpler to do because it doesn't require sysop intervention.  That would be a practical thing that can be done without due process as wikipedia is a privately owned website.  I would advise not to revert the administrative comments (that’s vandalism), just the medical articles.  It's possible that this thing about credentials will scare him/her enough to stop, especially since you mentioned essjay and siegenthaler which he/she might not know about, i.e. losing job.  I think pointing that out is better than blanket conclusion about false credentials without giving full due process.
 * I mention due process because it's particular interest of mine.
 * If we make a ban because of a finding of fact of false credentials (which has legal implications), then we must state what the credentials are and then conclusively prove that they are false. Failure to do so potentially puts the Wikipedia Foundation and us on precarious moral and legal grounds.  This is because we don't use the usual mechanisms of due process, such as a hearing, a chance for the accused to defend themselves, present evidence,  and be questioned about evidence against them.


 * These points may seem like mere technicalities, but they are not.


 * For example, is there a legal definition of "doctor"? Was there the practice of medicine?  Was the person a "Doctor of Education" or "Doctor of Divinity"?  Is the diploma fake?  On what basis do we say it is fake?  Have we examined the paper?   There are many more questions that we can't ask or hear the answer in this kind of setting (which I would like to hear). We don't have wikilawyering to speed up things but that also gets rid of some very important legal safeguards that the outside world has.


 * If there is just a community ban citing WK:SOCK (supected sock puppetry), it puts Wikipedia on much stronger legal grounds. The effect is the same (a ban). The difference is that we don't have to prove suspected sock puppetry to deny access to a privately operated website (just like a restaurant can refuse service for any reason).  Just food for thought, sorry for the length.  In the mean time, I'm doing day 1 of the medical articles.Atlas87 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * :update: Hey, this is fun, i.e. deleting! Finished deleting every thing medical (but not talk page or administrative replies and related stuff because that's potentially vandalism).  The medical stuff is just revert.  The only thing I have left is the 3/31/07 stuff.  Oh, besides Durova, can someone second my actions (you know, 2nd the motion, i.e. what I'm doing)Atlas87 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually all of the edits from Doc_United_States between 3:37 31 March 2007 and 3:37 2 April 2007 are revertible per WP:SOCK. Durova Charge! 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When the person writes something in his defense, I think reverting that is denial of due process. That's like saying "the court transcript, we'll censor and hide it".  In a free society and democracy, we don't hide that stuff.  The reverting was done just for medical reasons.  Even the talk pages, I think reverting that is vandalism. I will not commit vandalism or support those who do even if they try to justify it. Atlas87 00:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, his edits would still be there in the edit history ... if he claims that as grounds to appeal a ban (assuming it carries), it won't work. Blueboy96 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to quibble over hairs, but I am very much opposed to lynch mob activities, such as trying to rid all traces. I favor practical actions, such as reverting the medical changes and ban, but not political statements like "we determined that false credentials were used even though we didn't have a hearing or allow examination of the evidence".  Some people call that liberal, I call that due process and fairness and a reflection of who we are as humans.  We aren't dealing with al Qaeda ready to blow up people, just some edits.  I think we should wait the full 2 weeks then make a decision even though we think we know how it will turn out, not rush to lynch.  Also in time, other editors may review what was reverted and decide that a particular sentence is worthwhile.Atlas87 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court, and any attempts to make it so are generally very much frowned upon; while it does have "process", the legal concept of due process does not apply. — bbatsell   ¿?   ✍  00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To clarify about the defense, the appropriate way for a blocked editor to offer a defense in a community ban discussion is to post to his or her own user talk page. In this particular instance a better option is probably to contact Wikimedia Foundation and invoke the right to vanish. Durova Charge! 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As noted below, Atlas87 is confirmed to be yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x's, unsurprisingly to those of us who have been dealing with Dereks1x's disruptive behavior the last few weeks and then given what has been posted here. In my view we are feeding the troll at this point, and it's time to do whatever is needed to stop this abuse - we all have a lot of better things to do here. (I trust someone will block this latest sock before he does more damage.) Tvoz | talk 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlas87
I strongly suspect that Atlas87 is a Dereks1x/Doc United States sock puppet. The focus on "due process" tipped me off, compare to the last message left by Dereks1x on my talk page, in addition to a couple of Atlas87's edits before he/she began posting on the CN, such as this comment at Doc United States talk page (not long after I started the RFCU) and a this cryptic comment in the PulltoOpen RfA (not long after I commented there). Given the situation, I thought it would be wise to block Atlas87 for now. Please review my block. · j e r s y k o talk</i> · 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sides have asked for my review. A checkuser request is getting filed so if it clears things up the account can be unblocked promptly.  I agree the account history looks very much like a sockpuppet of someone.  Durova Charge! 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I started another RFCU. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the RFCU confirmed that this is yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x's. Tvoz | talk 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have struck through comments posted by the confirmed sockpuppet. Durova Charge! 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, talk about hanging yourself. This guy kinda had me fooled at first ... experienced Wikipedians usually don't know that you can't revert edits into the ether.Blueboy96 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW
Suggest closing this discussion. Durova Charge! 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily seconded. Hell, even the user himself agreed to it on a "qualified" basis. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is another case of false credentials. Unlike the Essjay case, he posted them in pages of living people. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer ) 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)