Hi all, been away from this place for awhile, but I just went on Wikipedia and saw that Burntsauce was banned for the second time as a sockpuppet of myself, this time permanently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User:Burntsauce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...tration/Alkivar
Just shows you that any well-meaning user can be banned, because I'm sure as hell not this guy...
Looch (JB196 on Wikipedia)
Full Version: Innocent user banned as sockpuppet of myself
Yeah, this is really weak:
Burntsauce disrupting per a banned user
2) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the community-banned vandal JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).
Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The key points of evidence were disagreeing with articles filled with trivial crap and enforcing BLP on wrestling articles.
Burntsauce is sock of a banned user
3) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) is very likely to be either a meat- or sock-puppet of another banned user, per evidence submitted privately to the Committee.
Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe say who???
QUOTE
Burntsauce disrupting per a banned user
2) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the community-banned vandal JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).
Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The key points of evidence were disagreeing with articles filled with trivial crap and enforcing BLP on wrestling articles.
QUOTE
Burntsauce is sock of a banned user
3) Burntsauce (talk · contribs) is very likely to be either a meat- or sock-puppet of another banned user, per evidence submitted privately to the Committee.
Passed 6-0 at 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe say who???
It was right to ban Burntsauce, but not on the basis of the allegation of sockpuppetry. There was enough in his editing history to warrant it.
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 6th May 2008, 5:38am) 
It was right to ban Burntsauce, but not on the basis of the allegation of sockpuppetry. There was enough in his editing history to warrant it.
Yes, but it's easier to ban someone based on secret evidence of sockpuppetry, because it's harder to argue against.
And does anyone remember who submitted said secret evidence? 
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 6th May 2008, 4:38am)
It was right to ban Burntsauce, but not on the basis of the allegation of sockpuppetry. There was enough in his editing history to warrant it.
What basis was there to ban Burntsauce that did not involve allegations of sockpuppetry?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.