Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ParK Ragnor

[edit] ParK Ragnor

• ParK Ragnor (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: X (special circumstance).

There has been an ongoing dispute about the purpose and direction of Wikipedia's various Reference Desks, and about the rules of conduct (if any) which should attach to participation at those Desks. The debate has been lively – and at times rather heated &dnash; and has led to warnings, RfCs, and short blocks for several editors for lapses in civility, WP:POINT violations, and just plain WP:DICKishness. A detailed description of the full dispute is well beyond the scope of this page.

In any case, the Reference Desks were recently nominated for deletion ([1]) by a throwaway sockpuppet account created solely for the purpose of making the nomination. That the account is a throwaway sock is not in doubt; the user created a userpage explicitly stating as much: [2].

I note that Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) – an active participant in the above-mentioned Ref Desk disputes, and a recipient of a few warnings for his own behaviour – has been drafting a nomination to delete the Ref Desks in his own userspace at User:Hipocrite/RDAFD. He started on this work a few days ago, and continued making edits on that draft until today.

However, I am satisfied that Hipocrite did not make the MfD nomination for several reasons:

• The nomination posted today bears no resemblance to Hipocrite's draft;
• Hipocrite opposed the nomination;
• Hipocrite has expressed an interest in a CheckUser; and
• Hipocrite didn't get snagged in the autoblock when the sock was blocked. (ParK Ragnor has already been blocked by me (TenOfAllTrades) as a throwaway sock created to make a WP:POINT.)

I doubt that Hipocrite's nomination would succeed. I would, in fact, assign it a snowball's chance in hell. Nevertheless, a nomination offered by Hipocrite would at least be well-formed, well-reasoned, and offered in clear good faith.

I strongly suspect that the nomination presented today was created by someone who is engaged in a dispute with Hipocrite, and who maliciously created today's nomination as a strawman to embarrass and discredit Hipocrite's opinion. Hipocrite has been a target of harassment by a number of trolls on- and off-wiki.

I therefore request a CheckUser to identify the editor who is creating anonymous socks to attack and discredit Hipocrite. The Ref Desk discussions are touchy enough without editors playing silly buggers with sock puppets. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have marked my userspace page with db-author - it's unlikley to be successful, and more likley to be divisive. Checkusers, as admins, can obviously continue to read it.Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If any CheckUser is concerned that this is too much of a 'fishing expedition', I – or probably Hipocrite – can provide a list of editors by email. I'd prefer not to list them here because I'd rather not publicly tar innocent parties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined You're right, it's fishing; and I'd just as soon you didn't tar innocent parties privately or publicly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)