User talk:Carpet9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent Carpet9 (talk • contribs • block log)} from introducing vandalism to it, posting abuse and nonsense or using the {{unblock}} template after the denial of a previous request . If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. (protection log).

Yes, I am out of here starting now.

checkuser

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trebor Rowntree. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question you posed on the checkuser page, as the person who posted the request, my main concern was to resolve the allegation that had been made concerning Trebor Rowntree which was becoming the focus of his request for adminship. I had no view one way or the other as far as you were concerned and you came up only as a link to the prior accounts which were shown to be distinct from Trebor's. I would not have requested the check if your account had been the only issue, and in fact, prior to yesterday do not believe I had crossed paths with either you or ForestH2. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I was already sure that you were ForestH2. Were it not for suspicions about Trebor Rowntree (which apparently were false, though some evidence did point to the contrary), I would not have requested a checkuser. I did not mean to compare ForestH2 and yourself; however, the checkuser in question chose to mention that. In response to your other question, the problem is that there are quite legitimate uses for multiple accounts- I myself have at least four (my main account, a bot, a testing account, and a Signpost account). Not to mention the issues with dynamic IPs. Checkusers are requested when disruption has occurred- that's why I didn't bother checking you until I thought that you might be related to Trebor Rowntree (again, my apologies on that). Ral315 » 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See reply to your post on my talkpage. No reason you have to leave. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet of ForestH2

I was happy to allow you to continue to edit in good faith, even though checkusers have confirmed that you're a sockpuppet of ForestH2. However, your continued trolling, and denial that you're related makes it clear that you're not editing in good faith. You've been indefinitely blocked. Ral315 » 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See? You refuse to take responsibility for your behavior. Carpet9 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin reviewer: Link: [1]

As to you, Newyorkbrad (paste on his talkpage, if I may), they were not obvious sockpuppets, just people randomly editing SpongeBob SquarePants articles. It's like you block anybody who's involved with SpongeBob SquarePants. Carpet9 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You accuse him of blocking for no good reason? He has plenty. The similarities between you and ForestH2 are notable. Also, please give examples of him abusing blocking powers. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He knows I am ForestH2, but he has no right to be blocking people who I listed here. And blocking me with that one edit after he said he wouldn't? This is clearly abusing powers, and discussion or an arbitration case is needed. Carpet9 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An arbtration case is unnecessary, but a checkuser request might be in order. Diez2 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Check that, there HAS been a checkuser query, and at least 7 socks have been confirmed. Um, first, WHY? Second, the blocking of sockpuppets should only take place if they are vandal socks and/or they are trying to avoid a block. I am leaning toward having this user remain as blocked, but its only a weak position. (I'm not an admin anyway) Diez2 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The aribtration case would be against Ral for misusing his sysop powers. There has been a checkuser query but not on the specific users I mentioned. Carpet9 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that if this is a confirmed sock of ForestH2 (which, as you say is true), then this account should be blocked. However, I do disagree with the blocks of the unconfirmed socks by Ral. You should contest the blocks of those users. Diez2 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Diez, if I ever get unblocked (I hope I do), then I do plan to contest the blocks of Ral by adding a notice to WP:ANI or if nobody refuses to hear this out, the Mediation Commitee, and then Arbitration Commitee. Thank you for your understanding and it would be appreactive if you actully posted to WP:ANI before I get unblocked. Carpet9 04:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that ForestH2 has a habit of tagging his own sockpuppets, and later denying that they're his. I didn't block them because he listed them, I blocked them because he brought my attention to them, and I agreed that they fit his pattern. SpongeBobBoy and MacintoshApple immediately created a bot account (something that Forest's socks had discussed, and that would not be a normal task for a new user). Reeler and Shipready "retired" from Wikipedia within a minute of each other, just a few days after creating their accounts, another thing that ForestH2's socks have done. MacintoshApple and Iswatch19 also "retired" on another day, within a minute of each other. I do not consider CheckUser necessary for something like that. Ral315 » 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But don't you care he has misused his sysop tools? Carpet9 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)