Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Rbaish

I have moved this material to the talk page because it isn't directly relevant to the sock puppet case. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The anonymous IP didn't vandalize Cool (aesthetic), in fact they added great info to it giving it a worldwide view.--Urthogie 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit links you've helpfully added here show that he has been violating NPOV (giving undue weight to racist/white supremacist positions). But it also seems like he's been reverted when he's broken the rules significantly.  So what's the big problem?--Urthogie 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That you even ask the question is absurd. The "big problem" is the integrity of the project.  People get weary of fighting the same old battles.  People have lives beyond Wikipedia and often tire of watching the ongoing activities of people like Rbaish and the anonymous IP editor, who repeatedly willfully and seriously undermine the integrity/credibility of the project.  In this case, if not banned entirely from editing, they should be enjoined from editing articles with black content and with content related to "race" and ethnicity.  deeceevoice 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These very same arguments have been directed at you, and the only reason they got anywhere is because of your personal attacks, and your having pissed off a bunch of people.  But just having a fringe, prejudiced POV and getting reverted a bunch isn't enough to get punished-- there has to be something extra like sock puppetry, harassment, or personal attacks involved to warrant that.  If this guy turns out to be a sockpuppet, then I'll support punishing him or whatever.--Urthogie 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC) You're right, this isn't about you and I responded more to how you phrased your comments, rather than their actual basically true points.--Urthogie 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But there's a difference. The POV charges against me are unsubstantiated/unjustified.  I often have differing perspectives, yes, from other editors.  The difference is I have a history of working with them, even working to improve text that I don't agree with.  There's absolutely no comparison between me and Rbaish or the anonymous IP editor.  And I disagree.  Constantly edit warring (wholesale deletion of properly sourced text, repeated insertion of blatantly racist viewpoints, deliberately twisting source material so that it misrepresents what the original text actually said -- all with the aim of inserting racist, fringe viewpoint into articles dealing with black matters and issues related to race -- yes, those things taken collectively are certainly sufficient to have someone barred from editing articles on such subject matter.  Their edits cannot be trusted.  They are disruptive and militate against the integrity of the project.  And, again, this isn't about me.  Rbaish and the anonymous IP editor's words speak for themselves.  deeceevoice 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right that this is not about you, but given the fact that
 * 1. IP edits are not against Wiki guidelines
 * 2. neither Rbaish nor the IP in question violated Wiki rules
 * this request is quite a waste of time whereas it would be worthwhile to have a closer look at your own behavior since you obviously think that you still have a carte blanche for personal attacks, disruptive behavior and factual incorrect edits. And since you stated that this request is allegedly important to ensure the credibility of Wiki, one should check out some of your many editwars, such as your editwar at Great Sphinx of Giza about your deliberately falsified Frank Domingo/New York Times citation, your editwar at Black supremacy about your POV that black supremacism doesn't exist, your editwar at Melanin and your incorrect assertion that melanin is a superconductor in an ridiculous attempt to give the black supremacist Melanin Theory some credibility, your edits at Dreadlocks about your incorrect POV that the Vedas are written in Tamil by an African Diaspora, your editwar at Prognathism when you falsified the Frank W. Sweet citation and insisted on the inclusion of outdated 18th century racial pseudoscience, your editwar at Cultural appropriation when you insisted that the Pan African colors are not red, yellow and green, etc. etc. etc. and the editors at Black face are still waiting for you to provide sources to evidence your fringe viewpoint that virtually every major, new genre of white popular music in the United States is somewhat connected to black face -- and all that accompanied by personal attacks and insults because you assume, even without any information about the editors ethnic backgrounds, that editors, who are trying to correct your factural incorrect edits and disagree with your conviction that your personal anecdotes you clutter the talkpages with count as relaible sources, must be either "crackers", "ignorant white folks", "miseducated knee-grows" or "zionist assholes". And now you even request that editors should be "barred from editing articles" you are interested in? Absurd. CoYep 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gross over simplification and deliberate misrepresentation -- not to mention stuff that's old as dirt and wholly, utterly irrelevant to this page. *yawn*


 * Wrong about another thing, Yep. Using an anonymous IP address to edit war and circumvent the 3RR -- if that is, indeed, what Rbaish has done, is a violation.deeceevoice 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he did edit my talk page. (See the link) And he has deleted comments I left for him. All comments were civil. One may not remove a charge of sock puppetry for 5 days, he has done this twice, and the edit war keeps going on at the "cool" article. Is that enough? futurebird 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * he can remove it if he likes, since there is no evidence here.  editing your userpage is not evidence of a sockpuppet is it?   but i kind of like this page.  i bet rbaish does too.  now we know all about deeceevoice.  futurebird i dont get your beef with me.   i have not been mean to you or whatever.   71.112.7.212 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This check user request is a bad faith request initiated by Deeceevoice, who accused not only Rbaish and IP editors of "edit warring" but also myself   eventhough one simple click on the article history and the users block logs reveals that neither Rbaish nor the IPs nor myself ever violated 3RR even if the IP and Rbaish would be one and the same. That can't be said about Deeceevoice who frequently violates 3rr and who reacts to blocks with "Like I give a sh*t" "Response: bulls***"  and "I honestly couldn't care less about your block. "

Deeceevoice has a long history of trying to solve content disputes with personal attacks and racially-related incivility ("cracker morons" "white-breads"   "white folks are simply ignorant by default".  "Harriet Tubman woulda had to shoot knee-grows like you." ) and by accusing opposing editors of racism, editwarring and sockpuppetry. In a matter of fact, Deeceevoice is still on probabtion for this kind of behavoir.

Furthermore, it's not user Rbaish but Deeceevoice who is expressing a blatantly racist agenda such as stating that advocating the genocides of whites is "black oral tradition" to which she "would have laughed and nodded in agreement" herself and who tries to push this kind of biased POV into the articles  CoYep 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * lol I was wondering how long it would take you to get here.  First off, you need to brush up on your reading -- or fix something else.  This request was initiated by User: futurebird.  (Let me pull your coat:  all black folks don't look alike, we don't all know each other, and we certainly aren't all the same person -- just using different IP addresses.) Just as any review of the instances in which I've accused you of edit warring will bear out the validity of such charges, any review of my edits will clearly show that I repeatedly bend over backwards to reason with edit warriors.  But after a while, yep, I sometimes don't give a sh*t!  But news flash (again), CoYep:  This isn't about me. :p deeceevoice 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya know? I just went back and checked out some of the garbage leveled at me over a year ago (which means, incidentally, I'm no longer on probation. Sorry to disappoint you, CoYep.).  I'm just now reading it.  That garbage about POV editing focused on my talk page comments on an article on Janis Joplin.  Last I checked, personal opinion on talk pages isn't against wiki policy. (Duh.) What utter bull!  And the allegedly POV edit I did in the article itself was of a sentence that said that Joplin "arguably" could generate the same kind of excitement as (name some black artists).  Now, please.  I'd delete such an unsourced, weasel-worded POV statement again -- any day of the week!  deeceevoice 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. And one more thing:  "Racist"? That's a flat-out lie.  Watch it, u (*@#)!@*#@(&$!*!  deeceevoice 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * what revisionism. ya know ya called people crakkkas, expressed approval at the idea that white people be exterminated, called this place enemy territory,  insult other cultures and minimize their significance,  removed photos of everyone except blacks.  seems racist to me.  thanks so much coyep for the links.   and looks like you are still on probation deeceevoice.   no one said you get to become mr hyde after a year is up. [Unsigned post, but here's who this is per the diff: 06:17, 28 February 2007 71.112.7.212 (Talk) (→User:Rbaish)]
 * You just can't help yourself, can you? Twisting the truth here, just as you do in your article edits.  But, oh, yeah.  This isn't about me -- is it?  :p  deeceevoice 07:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rbaish
I rule :) Rbaish 00:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about... .