Noloop ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

21 February 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mindbunny ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Behavioural simililarities. While Noloop ( talk · contribs) was not blocked or banned, the account was under extensive scrutiny at the time is was discontinued. See this revision of Noloop's talk page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noloop, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence. Mindbunny ( talk · contribs) refuses to indicate that this account is linked to Noloop. While the accounts have not been used simultaneously, the creation of the new account appears to be intended to avoid scrutiny, in violation of WP:CLEANSTART.    Cs32en  Talk to me  18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Waste of time. Noloop hasn't edited in 3 months, wasn't under sanction anyway, 2/3 links given above date from 2009, and the the point of the third link is obscure. My only blocks were barely legitimate (or just plain wrong); both were undone on the initiative of the blocking admin. I decline further comment. Mindbunny ( talk) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm counting four blocks, one of which was lifted for participation at RFAR.   Cs32en  Talk to me  03:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello? Those aren't my blocks. Note, when I look at the blocks again, I see that none of Noloop's problems are with articles or even broad topics that I've ever edited. You are fishing because you (and Decausa) disagree with me on content matters. Mindbunny ( talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I second the above comments. I've been watching Mindbunny's talk page after an edit warring incident which I inadvertently got involved with while doing RCP. The basic premise of the various RfC and Arbcom drama involving the previous accounts was tendentious editing. Since returning the user has shown a complete inability to drop the stick and back away from the horse caracass in a vein similar to that of the previous user. Both accounts were heavily involved in the Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, which is more evidence that they are the same user. This user has violated WP:CLEANSTART as they have failed to find new areas to work in or improve the behaviour which was previously subject to scrutiny. FYI, I think the accounts are still good for a checkuser, but there's enough behavioural evidence that it's probably not necessary. Sailsbystars ( talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

So what administrative remedy is required? My thoughts on this are indef blocking of the noloop account (as its password is likely scrambled anyway) and requiring Mindbunny to disclose the former account on his or her user page. I think a block of Mindbunny would be unhelpful at this time. Sailsbystars ( talk) 15:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree - but could it also be linked to some sort of final warning regarding repeating the Noloop behavioral issues? DeCausa ( talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, is this recent incivility a blockable offense in view of the tendentious editing? He shouldn't be warning users at all from what I've seen.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 17:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

If you think inserting "anal" into a description of a sexual assault in a BLP is anything but shitheaded, you should banned. Mindbunny ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

How we deal with editors is what is being addressed. If it was run-of-the-mill vandalism, then revert and use standard templates. Do not try to exacerbate the drama...we try to bore the stuffings out of the vandals & trolls so they will go away. Do not feed the trolls. With your warning, you brought a gas can to the fire.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

(re:DeCausa) Blocking for the socking is unproductive. If he or she wants to earn a block for other reasons however, I see no reason to deny them the opportunity.. Sailsbystars ( talk) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree also. I was involved in the Women's rights in Saudi Arabia article (and made the edit-warring report which Mindbunny refers to in his/her comment above). Mindbunny picked up and pretty much only edited this article begining on 1 Dec., within a short time of Noloop retiring - No loop's last edit on this article was 11 Nov. (see here: it's not an article where many editors heavily participate - Noloop and Mindbunny were two of the most heavily involved in last 8 months), immediately getting into edit wars and pov-pushing (first instances within days of opening the new account: here, here, and here), ignoring warnings including labeling warnings as vandalism, refusing to discuss, all of which was Noloop's MO. No sign of turning over a new leaf with the Mindbunny account. DeCausa ( talk) 19:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

As well as both editing Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, the Noloop and Mindbunny accounts have edited articles on Oregon cities ( here and here) but no other cities. DeCausa ( talk) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

So what do you guys expect to achieve here? It seems likely that Noloop = Mindbunny, but so what? I don't see violations of WP:ILLEGIT. (S)he would not be the 1st editor to return after ditching an account. Not by a long shot. Even in the same topic area. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop#Final decision (no sanctions). We don't know if Mindbunny talked to ArbCom about anything including her accounts, since they would not tell us. The only reasonable thing to do is to file a RfC/U or ask ArbCom to reopen the case as instructed in that decision. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize this was still open. Why is it still open?

• There can't be sockpuppetry because we didn't edit at the same time and Noloop isn't blocked.
• There can't be a "clearnstart" violation because we only have one page in common, and Noloop wasn't under sanction or scrutiny for it.

These editors, and others, and have sent an endless parade of demands for blocks and whatever against me, due to content disputes. It is getting abusive. Mindbunny ( talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Recommend closing case with no action Having thought about this for a while, there's really no action that this case needs from an administrator. The proper action I think is eventually an RFC or WQA both of which do not require administrative intervention and where the previous account can be brought up if necessary when discussing desired behavioural improvements. Sailsbystars ( talk) 20:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I know you didn't request an actual checkuser, but just so you know, Noloop is stale for checkuser purposes. TN X Man 19:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Closing this as not action required. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply