Since his return from brief, self-imposed exile, IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) has been routinely accusing our very own Cla68 (T-C-L-K-R-D) of "meatpuppeting" for a couple of his imaginary arch-enemies. As usual, IronDuke wades into a completely unrelated discussion to pronounce his position.

Cla68, as we know, is not one to back down from a fight, at least when he's right. We discussed this once before. The last time IronDuke went scuttling off with his tail between his legs -- we'll see what happens this time.

Way to go IronDuke! As if being an inveterate POV pusher weren't enough.

A shame Jayjg can't swoop in to rescue his assistants like in the old days, eh?

What's up with some of the "pro-Israel" editors? They're so confrontational and adversarial in their approach to editing. Sure, some of the "pro-Palestinian" editors can get a little hostile in content disputes, but, in my experience, they're nowhere near as confrontational as editors like Ironduke, Brewcrewer, and some of the others mentioned in that enforcement thread. Ironduke and several others will go into full-on attack mode on anyone they perceive as a threat to their campaign to push their POV in Israel-related articles. Do they really feel that this is an effective tactic?

Yes, because it very clearly is. IronDuke (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Brewcrewer (T-C-L-K-R-D) , the late, unlamented Brein1007 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and No More Mr Nice Guy (T-C-L-K-R-D) (the latter two almost certainly someone's socks) get to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of "being a sock puppet of a banned user" or "meatpuppeting for a banned user" or whatever, and some idiot admin or another hits the ban button. IronDuke goes around like a demi-admin, labeling accounts he thinks are socks, and no one does anything about it. Like Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) , when someone has the temerity to call him on it, and doesn't back down, IronDuke goes into hiding until the dust settles, then comes back and starts anew.

So yes, judge from the results -- it is a very effective tactic, in the absence of someone willing to stand up to them.

Shame on you, Cla68. Still meatpuppeting on WP for a couple of banned users who haven't been seen there for more than 4 years, now. And had nothing in common while they WERE there, actually, except that they both had the bad luck to come under notice of SlimVirgin and whoever her retinue happened to be, in 2006. How do you sleep with yourself at night, for such antics? Grow up.*

You know, 2006 is so long ago that I personally can't remember what I was doing then, except that I do remember that disliked SlimVirgin on WP, even then. But Herschel and Gnetworker?? Who the hell were they? Do you keep a diary or album of HerschelKrustovsky views to insert into articles, or something? Clearly IronDuke still lives in those days. Were there iPhones? Did they wear bellbottoms? It all gets messed up in my mind.

MR


*And if you can't grow up, make sure that you launch all your fueled airplanes, and don't wait to change bombs for torpedoes. Dump the aviation gas over the side, fire off your ship torpedoes, and clear the fueling lines to the deck and fill them with CO2.

--Helpfully, Yamamoto Milton (Hey, this Yamato is NICE. Not good for much, but NICE).

If IronDuke would read this essay, he might notice that it describes the very behavior he is engaging in as one of the marks of an activist editor.

The Middle East conflict is fought with many weapons; propaganda is as much a tool of war as the soldiers and jihadists are. These clowns think they are fighting the good fight right alongside their real-life counterparts; to them, the openness of a wiki is just a platform to ensure their preferred version of reality is the one that is on display for the world.

And yes, all they do is either lie low when the heat gets turned up too high, or come back as brand-new accounts when the finally get scorched for good. "Wikifan12345" for example is most certainly a returned banned user.

...who also has an account at the Review. Perhaps Wikifan would care to respond.

But seriously, folks.....that Cptnono (T-C-L-K-R-D) creature is a real freak-show. (A "new" one, anyway. If that isn't a sock, I mean. Which it probably is.)

You expect honesty from these vermin? Please... I first thought it was Zeq (T-H-L-K-D), who was banned about a month before 12345's creation, but ol Zeq's grammar was atrocious.

Here's another example (see also here) of IronDuke engaging in activist behavior by trying to bully an admin who took actions that IronDuke disapproves of. The CC activists did the same thing to Lar before several of them were topic banned. Attempting to bully or intimidate administrators is one of the signs of an editor with a POV agenda.

The shameful thing is that IronDuke didn't get topic-banned from Israel-Palestine articles when the rest of that crew, including Jayjg, did. That said, he's just as biased and hostile on other topics, so it's not clear that it would have in any way improved things.

Which is puzzling, because he seems a lot more thuggish and heavy-handed than, for example, Jayjg, who would be more apt to couch his threats and insults in Wikipedia bureaucratese in order to evade the civility police.

IronDuke's over-the-top hostile approach actually reminds me of Mantanmoreland. Saying stuff like, "Cla68 has been repeatedly warned by admins to stop the behavior yet persists" or "Cla68 has been warned to stop meatpuppeting on behalf of a banned user" are exactly the same kind of things Mantanmoreland used to say. I suspect that if IronDuke ever was actually sanctioned, he would do the same thing as Mantan...wait a few months then start a new account(s) and get right back to it.

Well.. that's what most heavily involved users do. They flame out and come back... if they left under a block it's just by another name.

That's not a reason to not sanction bad users though.

I think it is fairly certain that this has already happened. Note Cloud Connection (T-C-L-K-R-D) and others I have forgotten now. He abandons them quickly and generally gets off without repercussion when caught.

I'm not above not NOT sanctioning bad users, especially if they're into guerilla threater grade double-negatives that are not unlikely to be used just as much to cause disruption, as not.

Lookie, Lar, you know as well as I do that the most perma-banned people on WP are perma-banned for political reasons. Jimbo or some cabalist or cabalista didn't like them and their ideas, so they were banned (supposedly) entirely from WP, rather than topic-banning them (or--horrors--debating them).

Irony: none of this ever works. If a user is smart enough to be totally site banned for being a troll, they're smart enough to get back on, as an impossible-to-catch sock (and many have done so). So whatever is the point of banning them in the first place? Blocking accounts and sprotecting articles works on simple vandals who are simple vandals because they are too unsophisticated, or simply too stupid, to be real trolls or propagandists or single-issue editos or whatever. It doesn't work at all for the actual trolls and single-mad POV pushers, as I think has been demonstrated again and again. Those people must be dealt with by ignoring or reverting them on the issues, but not blocking them unless they descend to actual clear-vandalism.

I work on articles where half the edits are stuff like "faarts smell like poopp." Cluebot only catches half this stuff-- the rest takes time from the scientists and professionals trying to edit in that environment. If the article was merely sprotected at some level, and (if necessary) the vandal-only schoolkid accounts were blocked automatically for rapidly increasing lengths of time, we'd have a lot more eyes for the bigger more difficult (adult) issues. I sometimes suspect that keeping people busy reverting junior high jokes, is an actual WP policy aimed at keeping people from thinking harder about the core issues on WP. But now I repeat myself, since I'm been saying this on WR for years, and so have others. I'm just annoyed because you're repeating YOURSELF.

IronDuke was frothing the other day that Cla68 might be putting up thoughts from two users permabanned 4 years ago. How many GRAWPs and other vandals have come and gone, since HerschelKrustovsky and Gnetworker and WordBomb had the temerity to mock SlimVirgin? And yet, here we are. It's not about the quality of the encyclopedia. Very clearly, it's not about the encyclopedia! So, stop pretending that it is.

May I suggest an answer to that question? The point is so that the admin that is OWNing a given group of articles can enforce the house POV there, by asserting that any new editor who contravenes said POV is a sock- or meatpuppet of a banned user (see The Duck Test.) Lar, you were falsely accused of misusing admin powerz in a content dispute. You must know that there are many admins who could be justifiably accused of doing the same, but are not.

Well, ya.

Miltie, we all repeat ourselves here. It's what we do.

He just got hit with a topic ban. "No more mister nice guy" was arguing loudly in his defense.

Meh. Three-month topic ban. Epeefleche (T-C-L-K-R-D) is curerntly -- and no doubt temporarily -- indef'd over canvassing on Judaica AFDs. IronDuck also weighed in on that one.

Yeah, what banned user?

Editors who claim they are victim to a pro-Israel conspiracy tend file and complain the most at AN/I, AE, BLP, and all the other enforcement board.

Many users put more time and effort trying to remove editors they don't like than actually contributing content to Wikipedia.

I dunno, we'd have to think of what wiki-warriors haven't been seen in the last year or so, those that may not be necessarily banned but didn't want the baggage of their old accounts. 6SJ7, Yahel Guhan (formerly the illustrious Sefringle), and Humus Sapiens come to mind.

Look how suavely Jayjg comports himself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians, which is otherwise comedy gold.

So... not a banned user then? Interesting change of tack there, Tac.

Do you have a life outside of wikipedia? First you say I'm a banned user and then say I'm an alias of those accounts above?

Good luck finding a shred of evidence to support the accusations.

I very much doubt that WF is any of these editors. I would not be surprised if this were his first account, though Im not sure if his claimed age is accurate. If it is I think he would be wise to find something else to do with his free time. Girls, weed, all of the above, just not this.

The lack of an actual denial is quite telling.

I guess baseless accusations work well in noticeboards if you cry loud enough but you'll never find evidence suggesting I am an alias of a former account.

You know why? Because this is my only account. I'm not afraid of what editors think of me unlike some people here who use alias to hide their true identity. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there some admins in this forum.

This is true. And it's an unfortunate thing about noticeboards. Many baseless accusations are lodged here and many people get targeted...

...but

... the latter part seems a bit... off to me. My identity here and on WP are clearly linked. Further, my real name is Larry Pieniazek and I can prove it. What's your real name?... if you don't answer, you're using an alias to hide your true identity (and thus, talking out your @$$). That's OK if you don't answer, it's how things are structured at WP and here, but don't go on and on about aliases, please.

My personal favorite is AN/I.

I mean using an alias to game wikipedia. If I were to disclose my real name it wouldn't make my presence on wikipedia more legitimate.

I was referring to the issue where warriors hunt and stalk other editors on wikipedia mainspace, baiting users and sending them to enforcement boards when the time is right, and then offline they show their true feelings under a false name.

And he's filthy rich...and Google can prove it!

Filthy? Maybe. Rich? Hardly! Do you know how much horses actually cost to keep? And Roxie's still in the hospital almost a week on.

Old joke:

Q: How to make a small fortune in the horse business?

A: Start with a large one.


But you can prove ANYTHING with Google.



Certainly it would. You'd have a real life reputation at stake instead of just your warrior cred. I repeat, you seem to be talking out your...

Why is this thread outside of The Annex?

The topic needs to be split and cleaned, but I'm too busy right now to take it on.

Done. Now my hands smell like caviar.

My favorite stuff!

Blows my load!


Milton Roe

OK, now Lar (T-C-L-K-R-D) gets the smackdown from IronDuke. He posts, apropos of IronDuke's accusation of Cla's "meatpuppetry":

ID summarily deletes the post, with the edit summary:

Question: Is this POV-pushing troll really being defended by ArbCom, or is this just bluster? Neitehr answer would be surprising, but it's always amusing to see how low Arbcom will sink.

We'll see.

Okay, I'll bite. I'd be curious as to what "ArbCom" would say about this rather incredible charge. I mean, what the hell have either of these two users have to say after 4 years of banniation, that Cla68 would still be repeating? Lyndon Larouche views, maybe?

Inquiring minds want to know. I'll bet it's the idea that SlimVirgin is evil, which Cla68 has actually sort of implied, over the years. But one doesn't have to know either HK or Gnet to figure that out for oneself. Trust me.

As long as Lar feels the need to make ID's talkpage smell pretty....
what about this?

Lar, do you realize that this "cleanup" will just make ID crazier?

I am certain that you are incorrect. My faith in human nature remains unbowed.

ID is, I am sure, a reasonable and sane editor who will do the right thing as we all endeavor to keep WP a civil and friendly environment. Ball is in ArbCom's court. If they answer in the affirmative I will be delighted to restore the material, with an apology. If they answer in the negative, or if they don't answer at all, it needs to stay out...

As for other items on his page, not my primary concern. This is the particular one that caught my eye.

Or we could ask for an ArbCom clarification, under the justification that IronDuke says that it is currently under ArbCom juristicdiction, and let IronDuke try to explain exactly why he's invoking arbcom's name as a reason for putting a personal attack on his talk page. I'm sure the new arbitrators would enjoy having a test case to start enjoying what it feels like being an uber-admin.

It looks as though IronDuke has gone to ground again, after Lar pulled on his beard. How long will he disappear for this time?

Any response from Arbcom, Lar?

No. I even checked my spam folder and everything.

Lar, you've been rather frisky lately, facing down both IronDuck and Will Beback in the span of one week.

Frisky, is he? Maybe he's been dosing himself on the stuff he gives his horses before they compete.