Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) |
Peter James (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::::::The added space in itself is not vandalism (and note that ''Penyulap'' was the one claiming that it was vandalism), making non-edits like that one with the sole purpose of having a trolling edit summary is disruptive though. The actual vandalism was the redirect (deleted by me as such). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
::::::The added space in itself is not vandalism (and note that ''Penyulap'' was the one claiming that it was vandalism), making non-edits like that one with the sole purpose of having a trolling edit summary is disruptive though. The actual vandalism was the redirect (deleted by me as such). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Disruptive, yes - and I agree the redirect is problematic, which is why I agree with your 24 hour block. Any more and it seems like a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'><font color='#000'>'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::Disruptive, yes - and I agree the redirect is problematic, which is why I agree with your 24 hour block. Any more and it seems like a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'><font color='#000'>'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::::It's not certain that the redirect was vandalism as it looks like the name was already in the article (unless [[Special:Contributions/97.64.175.49|97.64.175.49]] is another sockpuppet) - it may have been a mistake, but comments such as the "vandalism" edit summary would have been a reason not to assume good faith. [[User:Peter E. James|Peter E. James]] ([[User talk:Peter E. James|talk]]) 19:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
'''Reviewing admin''': Please note that Penyulap stated above that he has "socks that checkuser won't show you." As such, corrective action is needed to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
'''Reviewing admin''': Please note that Penyulap stated above that he has "socks that checkuser won't show you." As such, corrective action is needed to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 19:57, 3 July 2012
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Penyulap
- Penyulap (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Populated account categories: confirmed
03 July 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- ThomasMoore1852 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Penyulap has admitted to disrupting Wikipedia with this throwaway account, saying:
"So ? I vandalize wikipedia, I like it. I do it repeatedly, I've done it before and I'll do it again and I'm serious. Try to stop me. here is a diff, ban me. I even use sock puppets to vandalize and I'm getting bolder because nobody cares, I'm completely out of control."[1]
The diffs point to actions made by ThomasMoore1852, disrupting Wikipedia with a few throwaway tricks such as redirecting the user's own page to the article Thomas Moore, and creating a perhaps humorous image in a graphics editor for Wikimedia Commons, writing as ThomasMoore1852; the goal being a perhaps humorous "barnstar" for a user who archived it removing the image, if that gives any clue regarding its value. Most of the image was linked back to Penyulap's user page, cementing the connection between Penyulap and ThomasMoore1852.
I am asking for a checkuser because of Penyulap's claim of multiple socks. I do not think that Penyulap needs to be blocked, at least not permanently, as the disruption appears to be intentionally fun than otherwise. Please block ThomasMoore1852 and any other socks that are found. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Yep, that's me, I'm terrible, better check out my bot account as well. I'm happy to point you to the socks that checkuser won't show you, there is one spot I demonstrated in conversation on Auntie peskys page, thing is, with socking or meatpuppetry, the ability to puppet is inversly proportional to the desire to do so. Intelligent people are able to sock with ease, however they are consequently able to abide by simple social rules. Having a wide spread of friends willing 24/7 to post things for you, in good humour, goes hand in hand with social skills, that is, if I were anti-social enough to need to sock to try to get into the community, I'd hardly have as many friends as I do. Anyhow it's all moot as I'm not socking for antisocial reasons, and that image hasn't been simply archived, it is taking pride of place centre-stage on the user-page of an editor in good standing.
I welcome any checkuser investigation. I'm good. Penyulap ☏ 03:54, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- considering the earnestness and good faith of the requester, I do feel guilty for not being more guilty, I really should go and do something naughty. Penyulap ☏ 04:06, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- I've got to say, I'm not seeing the abuse. I should point out that INeverCry uses that image prominently on his userpage. The worst thing he did was create a redirect which isn't appropriate. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've had quite a reasonable length of interaction with Penyulap, and have always found him to be both highly intelligent and (importantly) good-hearted. I can't see any evil in him, and would be highly surprised to see any genuine abuse or bad-intent disruption. I will continue communicating with him, anyways (we have no trouble understanding each other). If anyone has any major concerns, it may be a good idea just to keep me in the loop, as I'm happy to act as go-between if anyone has any problems with communication. Penyulap's a high-functioning autie, like me, and on the whole is a net asset to the community. We do have the occasional odd kick in our gallops, but it's not vice-motivated. Pesky (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Penyulap's proported autism is entirely irrelevant to this inquiry, and I question wny Pesky has broached the subject, unless it is an attempt at amelioration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- If Penyulap is autistic and thus prone to outbursts of hard-to-detect hard-to-refute sneaky vandalism, more concrete action needs to be taken to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the vandalism in question? He added one space to the lead. It did not affect the meaning. I still see no abuse. WormTT(talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The added space in itself is not vandalism (and note that Penyulap was the one claiming that it was vandalism), making non-edits like that one with the sole purpose of having a trolling edit summary is disruptive though. The actual vandalism was the redirect (deleted by me as such). Fram (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disruptive, yes - and I agree the redirect is problematic, which is why I agree with your 24 hour block. Any more and it seems like a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation. WormTT(talk) 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not certain that the redirect was vandalism as it looks like the name was already in the article (unless 97.64.175.49 is another sockpuppet) - it may have been a mistake, but comments such as the "vandalism" edit summary would have been a reason not to assume good faith. Peter E. James (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disruptive, yes - and I agree the redirect is problematic, which is why I agree with your 24 hour block. Any more and it seems like a bit of a mountain out of a molehill situation. WormTT(talk) 12:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The added space in itself is not vandalism (and note that Penyulap was the one claiming that it was vandalism), making non-edits like that one with the sole purpose of having a trolling edit summary is disruptive though. The actual vandalism was the redirect (deleted by me as such). Fram (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the vandalism in question? He added one space to the lead. It did not affect the meaning. I still see no abuse. WormTT(talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've had quite a reasonable length of interaction with Penyulap, and have always found him to be both highly intelligent and (importantly) good-hearted. I can't see any evil in him, and would be highly surprised to see any genuine abuse or bad-intent disruption. I will continue communicating with him, anyways (we have no trouble understanding each other). If anyone has any major concerns, it may be a good idea just to keep me in the loop, as I'm happy to act as go-between if anyone has any problems with communication. Penyulap's a high-functioning autie, like me, and on the whole is a net asset to the community. We do have the occasional odd kick in our gallops, but it's not vice-motivated. Pesky (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've got to say, I'm not seeing the abuse. I should point out that INeverCry uses that image prominently on his userpage. The worst thing he did was create a redirect which isn't appropriate. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing admin: Please note that Penyulap stated above that he has "socks that checkuser won't show you." As such, corrective action is needed to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)