Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Frei Hans#Oppose

Please note that I blocked {{user|Free Hans}} as a sockpuppet of {{user|Frei Hans}} earlier this evening. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Noted that Frei Hans' block has been reset and extended to 31 hours by Gwen Gale for block evasion. MuZemike 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out the unblock statements on his user page. I don't think he learned anything from this.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:I've reduced the block to about the original 24 hours. I intend to raise an SPI request - if he did evade the block, then he should simply be blocked indefinitely. My connection is as slow as molasses and I have a couple of other things to do, so if anyone else wishes to raise this feel free. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I certanily can't. (How do I get myself in these messes?)Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::Raised at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Frei_Hans]by MuZemike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This was definitely not a sock of Frei Hans but apparently an attempt to get him into even deeper trouble than he already is. (Or a convoluted attempt to make us feel sorry for him, but that seems less likely). We are trying to improve Wikipedia, and even if an editor is causing problems for others is no excuse for this sort of idiocy. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

: God knows, but I'm sure Frei Hans will have plenty to say about the matter. Papa November (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::The most productive thing to do about Free Hans is probably forget the whole episode. It was an attempt to discredit Frei Hans, according to checkuser, it didn't work, and we may never know who it was. The conduct of one editor doesn't excuse bad conduct in another - and that goes both ways. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:::It did give Frei Hans the opportunity to disregard the reason he was blocked in the first place. He still believes he is the only one showing good faith while simultaneously calling Peter Symonds a sock suspect, and continuing to promote the idea that Verbal and Papa November et al. are socks. This does not bode well... Auntie E (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:::: Indeed, it could be someone wanting to make fun, someone who is hounding any one of the people Frei accused, or someone who wanted to get Frei in trouble, or just a troll. For example, it could have easily been Marcromonkey - except I'm not sure he'd be able to fool a CU. It's a shame the CU didn't show who it was. WP:RBI. Verbal chat 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::@Auntie E - the Peter Symonds thing could indeed be confusion because the user page for Free Hans was created by Peter (as Frei Hans says - somewhere … ). Frei Hans may not realise that userpages are just red-linked placeholders until someone posts on them.  pablo_hablo. 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is getting strange. Another user I know has reproted that other's are making sockpuppets to block him. No, not established editors, but random users just being created. Is there a chance that there may be a troll lurking around, intent on harrasing users who have been here a little but got blocked, as both incedents were after the user was blocked. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Nice as it would be to know which genius decided this would have been a good idea, their action (which is reprehensible) is relevant, their motive not so much. Abce2 - if you have a candidate maybe you could start a SPI?  pablo_hablo. 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:: I recently had a Davkal IP address on my talk page (who I don't think I know). MartinPhi has also been known to sock, and doesn't like a few of us - would hope it isn't him. Lots of pro fringe editors dislike me :) At the moment it could be almost anybody, or no one we know at all. Verbal chat 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::: I recently had a similar type of attack as Frei Hans has just experienced. User:Macromonkey created a sock named User:Bullrangifer (small "r") which vandalized some of my subpages. Note the spelling is only one capital letter different (the "R" in the real User:BullRangifer).

::: I think that this type of situation does justify a fishing expedition of among all those who have been involved in this case, even myself. Creating such a sockpuppet in this type of situation is a very serious matter, and justice must be done. They must be found and suffer the consequences. Start fishing, and do it fast. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no ideas, but this has been popping up alot recently.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What's fishing?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 00:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

: I tweaked my comment. See my talk. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Larry did not run other checks^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=300783644]}: No grounds for further checks presented, and I adjudge it unlikely anyway. There are plenty of such trolls about and this is the sort of shite they get up to. Someone needs to get Frei Hans to mellow-out or the curtain will fall on his butt on his way out the door. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

By one of the outside veiws I see it as, "We are supposed to apologize to Frei Hans and make the admins involved in this ex-admins." Am I interpreting this right, because it makes no sense at all to me.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:The author of that post has a previous history of interacting with myself. Don't worry about it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whew! I was afraid of this ending up with us as ex-admin "big ole' meanies" Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Well, since I am not, never have been, and never intend to be an admin, I guess I get off scott-free. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I think I made my point.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::Hard to see how Law Lord's "conclusions" could be drawn from Frei Hans' "last 100 edits"  pablo_hablo. 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll be surprised if there are any endorsements of that summary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Same. I'm thinking that the user who put that didn't look through what happened completly, just a Frei hans contributions.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, if you do as User:SheffieldSteel and start [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALaw_Lord&diff=300838278&oldid=300706148 attacking] people like me, who actually disagrees with you, I can guarantee you that very quickly, nobody will disagree with you. If somebody feels the urge to put a lot of warning templates on my talk page, it should not be SheffieldSteel, who so obviously holds a grudge from this (back in December 2008). Since I am of the opinion that SheffieldSteel is completely unfit for being an administrator (not a personal attack but a personal opinion), I have stayed well clear of his talk page, and now I am [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheffieldSteel&diff=prev&oldid=300861375 asking him] to show me the same courtesy. Surely, if I am such a problem – as he appearently thinks – some of the other 1,600 administrators can deal with this? --Law Lord (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::::I find it rather amusing that Law Lord should believe I bear a grudge about a situation in which he created a great deal of unnecessary drama that I defused. The link provided is nowhere near the root cause of the reason Law Lord saw fit to post at this RfC. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

::::LL, take your problems elsewhere, this thread is not a venue to continue them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to say that till my power went out.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Best ignored. See comments at "Oppose" down here↓  pablo_hablo. 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it customary to "oppose" on these things? I'm not very familiar with the conventions, and it does say Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse at the top of the page.  pablo_hablo. 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:It's not customary. Usually such opposition is posted to the talk page. lifebaka++ 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

::Ha! That's what I figured.  pablo_hablo. 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:::If someone wants to remove my oppose, I will have no problems with anyone doing so. From reading above I see it is written to make a WP:POINT. But feel free to delete or move here. I wasn't sure about this myself so thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

::::No, and I don't think it's a good idea to do so, as this is only serving to give recognition. MuZemike 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}}My understanding of RfCs is that they're deliberately set up to be as constructive as possible, or at least to avoid argumentative discussion on the main page, and that's why there's no provision for "opposes". Instead, when formulating a view, the author has an incentive to try to maximise the number of other people who will support it. That's a great way of encouraging people to work towards consensus... and that's why, in Hrafn's terms, I was "lowballing" my comments about Frei Hans: I wanted to provide an opinion that everyone could accept, or at least take on board. In summary, I think it'd be best to simply not comment on any view you disagree with, and if the two of you were to revert your own opposes, I would appreciate it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::Concur with Sheffield Steel. More specifically, I think it would be a good idea for those posting "oppose"s to self-revert. pablo_hablo. 21:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know where this is even coming from but it doesn't seem to address anything about this RFC.
2. Oppose: this view does not appear to be an accurate characterisation of administrators' role in this dispute. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose See section "Wait, so what?" on the talk page. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose As noted on the section on the talk page, the above user appears to be using this thread to get back at an admin who he feels has wronged him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The above was moved from the main page to keep with RFC format further discussion should continue hereBirgitteSB 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. Oh look, I'm a sock because of a short attention span(That's not even completly true) and for having barnstars. If the latter was true, then most Wikipedias would be socks of each other! How great! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VerbalAbce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 12:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

:I feel like putting a sock tag on my page, as a joke, re: This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Everybody. I mean, seriously, the user is incapable of seeing what he did wrong. Sigh.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to keep this going anymore? And if not, how does it get (officially) closed? lifebaka++ 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

:I think just leave it alone, as I understand it a non-involved admin closes it at some point. Bear in mind that, although unable to edit, Frei Hans may be in e-mail communication with users; he may also be unblocked to comment here. Everyone go home now. note that I am not asserting we all live in the same house pablo_hablo. 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

::Given that he thinks everyone here is a sockpuppet, I don't think he'll email anyone, especially after several users asked, and got no answer back, about a user he trusts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should now close this RFC as moot poste haste. Let's move on to other ventures on the encyclopedia. MuZemike 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)