Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mets501 2

Discussion on NOBS' comment

 * User has 8 edits, all today. Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should this be struck as a bad faith vote, or should it just be left? — Mets 501 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "user" has over 7,000 edits and there's no required number of edits to vote on RFAs. "user" was here long before you ever were. So, instead of trying to suppress criticism and the 1/32 votes that was in oppose, step back, realize you were wrong, and don't speak. NOBS 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I don't really see those 7,000 edits but perhaps I'm missing something. Back to your comment: what exactly do you mean by "Why should he be given blocking powers when it's unclear whether he will help those in need?" Those two concepts appear quite unrelated. And what exactly is my weakness in the answer to question 3?  I would appreciate answers in a civil manner with no personal attacks.  Thank you. — Mets 501  (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mets501, I respectfully submit that it's infra dig to ask if a 'vote should be stricken on your own RfA, especially when it's (deservedly) otherwise unanimous. Check NOBS' user page for links to his prior usernames which reflect his other edits. FWIW, I thought your response to question 3 was excellent. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shouldn't have asked. I didn't really look into the user, just saw his 8 small edits today and his vote which appeared to be in quite bad faith. — Mets 501 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I sort of agree you shouldn't have asked too. But I think the vote will be struck out after all; I strongly suspect NOBS is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. There was nothing wrong with your answer to question 3. --Guinnog 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I acted too quickly. NOBS is a sockpuppet of several banned/blocked users from what I see on his user page. He claims to be a sockpuppet of User:KI (see that block log), which is a sockpuppet of User:Tchadienne (see that block log), and he also claims to be a sock puppet of User:Freestylefrappe (see that block log). He has tried to evade these blocks by using Sockpuppets abusively. — Mets 501  (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Guinnog 19:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also weird that one of his sockpuppets was an admin (User:Freestylefrappe). — Mets 501 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. Check out for more details. --Guinnog 19:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Should any or all of this be moved to the talk page so as not to further distract from the RfA? Newyorkbrad 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been moved now — Mets 501 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NOBS is unquestionably a sockpuppet registered to evade a block, Tchadienne is now (apprently) KI or maybe some other account, and was formerly Freestylefrappe; he is changing accounts and leaving behind significant evidence of controversy. There is no reason why Tchadienne should not vote, as long as none of his other accounts do, but it's somewhat odd given that he's recently stated that he does not intend to use that account any more.  You wouldn't necessarily know all this without looking into it as Tchadienne has a habit of whitewashing his Talk page.  So: Tchadienne's vote should probably stand but the original removal of NOBS was entirely appropriate and the removal of Tchadienne understandable enough. Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Engaging in vandalism on your own RFA? Do you really expect to become an admin? Tchadienne 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe it was not vandalism. You did try to vote earlier under a now-banned sockpuppet, so you can hardly blame him for thinking you were at it again. Your vote stands, although it will be up to the closing 'crat how much weight he/she accords it; now, can we please move on? Thanks --Guinnog 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we cant move on when you post BS. I was not voting as a sockpuppet. Sockpuppetry imples an attempt to double-vote in one case. I voted once on this RFA and was blocked without rationale by administrator who should have been banned from Wikipedia long ago. My vote does stand. So do Masssiveego's votes on other RFAs. You need to stop harassing us and fudge off. Tchadienne 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. --Guinnog 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This vote will be counted whether you like it or not. Tchadienne 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That, as I already said, will be up to the bureaucrat who closes the RfA. --Guinnog 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will affect the outcome anyway (unless you get 15 of your sockpuppets to join you), so let's just drop this. — Mets 501 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that User:Tchadienne is now blocked and may well remain so indefinitely. Make of that what you will. Just zis Guy you know? 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)