User talk:FraisierB

Talk to me.

Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality sprotect

Why did you add the {{sprotect}} tag to this article when it's not sprotected?

Crazynas ^t 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mr. Wolfer

Looks like User:Rlevse blocked him for 48 hours. I would've done the same thing. As Rlevse was indicating, reverting one user because of stopping "libel" is ok. Reverting 3 is quite something else. At that point, you are just refusing to follow consensus. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. FraisierB 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is your concern, the best thing for you to do is file detailed reports at the appropriate noticeboard. No particular admin will be online all the time. Be sure to include article names, user names, details, links, diffs, etc as admins are all volunteers and don't have to rundown things as vague as "they're trying to control all articles related to xyz". Abusive edits, user page vandalism, incivility, etc generally gets swift action. Things like edit and content disputes take longer. From what I can see, I'd suspect this will eventually get to mediation, arbitration, etc as the two camps have fundamentally different views on what the content of this article community should be. I watch AIV a lot, but again am not there all the time. Let me know if you have more questions.Rlevse 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and I am not interested in becoming one just so I can post on Wikipedia, so I am not going to spend any more time building up a case. It is my understanding that Wikipedia administrators have an active interest in enforcing the rules and not depend on self-appointed legal deputies to do their work for them.

There's positive evidence that I am not the same person as these two, so I see no reason why I should pretend to have the burden of proof in this matter. Based on this, I feel sufficient cause for the removal of all claims of sock-puppetry. If they try to edit war with me, I will revert as often as needed, since this is a matter of libel and vandalism. FraisierB 01:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lancombz (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm done now. Unless and until they prove by a preponderance of evidence that their sock puppet charges are true, I will remove all such defamations and undo any changes that use this libelous excuse. FraisierB 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I undid your cleansing of the sockpuppet investigation. Attempting to edit it out will not help resolve the investigation sooner.Ethan a dawe 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no investigation: the evidence is conclusive so the investigation is resolved. All that remains is your witch hunt, which I will continue to remove as libel. Thank you for notifying me, though, so I can more easily undo the harm you have caused. FraisierB 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"This user has been blocked indefinitely" uncivil remark removed by Otheus 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Endlessmike 888 02:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

While appearances can be deceiving, these are the only tools Wikipedia has at its disposal to prevent sockpuppetry abuse. While sock puppets are allowed, the problem is abuse. When multiple users from the same IP engage in edit wars over the same range of articles, and it is indistinguishable from abuse, it is, in fact, abuse. My remedy was to propose a ban, not a block, from Objectivist related articles. If you, lancombz, and FreddyTris agree to submit to a topic ban, then I will personally appeal the block. Also, see my follow up to the SSP case here. Otheus 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)