User talk:SirIsaacBrock/Archive 5

Polar Bear-baiting

This article was recently deleted. It should not have been deleted, as it was factually correct including citations. Is there a way to recover the deleted article ? I did not save it to my hard drive. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can recover it, but it was brought to a vote and the vote was to delete the article, so I won't restore it. See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Bear-baiting--MONGO 14:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a read through of Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and determine if you can demostrate that the article is notable enough to be restored...you may have to come up with plenty of external links to reference that it is notable, and if so, send it through Wikipedia:Deletion review.--MONGO 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--MONGO 15:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread

Administrator's noticeboard is not a discussion forum -- Drini 05:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Porky Pig is indefinitely blocked editor User:SirIsaacBrock

Update: List of marijuana slang terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was a sockpuppet used in edit warring as well. Please see the bottom of this section. (→Netscott) 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper usage of the term "spammer":

Improper utilization of WP:AIV:

Utilization of identical vernacular relatvie to discussions about Category:Anti-Semitic people:

Pattern of edits to relatively obscure articles

As folks may be aware WP:RFCU says that, "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser." Would someone kindly indefinitetly block SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s sockpuppet Porky Pig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my response to this from Netscott's talk page, to seek further comment from other admins...

I'm pretty well convinced. One key factor though, that differentiates this from other cases is that in this case, he was only blocked for this long because he asked for his account to be closed. He was blocked for a week, threw a fit over it, and asked for his account to be closed. And it effectively was closed by being blocked off. But unlike others like Zephram Stark, he's not really a "banned" user. Unless he had other currently unknown socks, he was away from the project for a bit over a month, well over the original one week block. So in general, it's hard for me to justify blocking off the PPig account, given that the only block he's "evading" is one that was effectively leveled at his own request. - TexasAndroid 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Porky Pig account was not used in accord with Wikipedia's sock policy and should be blocked accordingly. (→Netscott) 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An additional User:SirIsaacBrock sockpuppet that has been used in edit warring and negative sockpuppetry: List of marijuana slang terms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (→Netscott) 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Porky Pig is denying being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. (→Netscott) 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not this editor. User:Netscott is debating me at Category:Anti-Semitic people and he is upset that he is losing the debate so he is using alternative methods. I would appreciate you deleting these posts as they are obviously a vicious attack on my person. Thank you Porky Pig 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sockpuppets have a history of being used to prosecute an edit war and should be indefinitely blocked. (update User:List of marijuana slang terms has already been indefinitely name blocked.) (→Netscott) 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I find the evidence pretty much convincing. My problem with this all remains that SirIsaacBrock is not a banned user. He is only blocked because of his own request. Finding the middle sock fills in a lot of holes. It appears her was only off the project for two weeks at the most. Less if there is another sock that was used between June 2 and June 17. Personally, I would prefer that he return to the original SirIsaacBrock account. I don't like people running away from their past here. He has a history, and he should live with that history. But if he is denying that he is SirIsaacBrock, then that makes it difficult to get him to return.

I would really like to hear from some other admins about their thoughts on this mess. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has repeatedly proven themselves disruptive... and short of returning to the User:SirIsaacBrock account he should just be banned. User:SirIsaacBrock created the sockpuppet User:List of marijuana slang terms to be able to get around WP:CSD general criteria #4 by having his user page be a defacto article that was deleted. Does Wikipedia really want to keep such an editor around? (→Netscott) 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of users' histories, I see some strong similarities, but I am not convinced. Recommend WP:RFCU. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, another distinct similarity, both User:SirIsaacBrock [11] and User:Porky Pig [12] are making mention of a barnstar awarded to editors who contribute beneficially to articles having to do with Islam. As well he's now vandalizing User:Karl Meier's user page. (→Netscott) 19:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on his talk page saying not to edit others' user pages, and he complained about the sockpuppet tags being placed on his. I told him to calmly explain the situation (if he wasn't SirIsaacBrock) and stop edit warring and making accusations. He replied by telling me not to post on his talk page anymore. [13] Something is definitely fishy. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's WP:AGF for a moment: I, too, would be angry if I was not someone's sockpuppet and someone kept putting on my page that I was. I doubt that I would return the favor, but I'm not this editor. WP:RFCU remains my recommendation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - The telling users they cannot post on their talk page was a habit of SirIsaacBrock. Syrthiss 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean like this and this? Let's put this report in perspective and refer back to this original SirIsaacBrock report. (→Netscott) 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadioKirk has a point; maybe we should stop with the sockpuppet tagging until definitive evidence comes up, i.e. RCU. Though I have to admit, the evidence presented here is very compelling. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is likely this is the return of Brock. However, Brock was not permanently banned, and if he wants to come back as PorkyPig instead of SirIsaacBrock there is no policy that says he can't. If he's not editing from multiple accounts at the same time, a sockpuppet tag seems like an unneeded provocation. I recommend treating PorkyPig like any other editor--warn then block for disruption, vandalism, etc. but let him edit if he can stay within the rules. If you want to permaban all incarnations of the human behind these accounts you probably need to go to Arbcom. Thatcher131 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, your point is well taken but User:Porky Pig is denying being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. If indeed they are one and the same (as is overwhelmingly clear imho) then User:Porky Pig needs to admit as much... which he's not doing. In the interest of the spirit of "ignore all rules" should this example of sockpuppetry in disaccord with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry be allowed? (→Netscott) 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he doesn't have to admit it, per the privacy policy and m:Right to Vanish, among other things I think. Also note the recent Arb against PoolGuy, who was allowed to open a new account and not disclose it, so long as he stuck to one account only. Before Brock asked for the account to be permanently blocked, he was originally blocked for a week on June 3, even if the marijuana account was also Brock, it wasn't socking to avoid that block since its first edit was June 17. Brock, marijuana and PorkyPig never overlapped either, so I don't see a policy violation.Thatcher131 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what I know is that this editor was bad news before. He actually got another editor Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked on false pretenses and was going around calling other editors anti-Semites, referring to User:Tom harrison as an incompetent admin. If this editor intends to return to editing in the same ways and on the same topics he was previously then it's ludicrous that he should be able to hide from this past. (→Netscott) 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this editor should be unwelcome in any form then I think you have to go to Arbcom. There does not seem to be any policy basis to force him to admit to being someone else or to block him because he won't. Thatcher131 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what he's being accused of here. If he is this blocked user, it's my understanding that the user was blocked voluntarily after he became upset on being blocked for a week. If that's the case he's welcome to edit here under any username as long as he doesn't do so abusively. So let's stop agonizing over whether he's this blocked user and welcome him in good faith, but with our eyes open.

The user was not only blocked, he had a history of making extremely vicious personal attacks against other users; anyone who disagreed with SirIsaacBrock was labelled an "anti-semite" and attacked. So what if he requested his block? (which he did by saying, and I quote him, "FUCKOFF YOU ANTI-SEMITIC PRICKS!!") He would have wound up blocked in short order if he hadn't. There is such a thing as AGF. There is also such a thing as an old dog not learning new tricks. Those of us who previously had to deal with SIB's (SirIsaacBrock's) disruption and personal attacks have no interest in, or tolerance for, the idea of putting up with him under a new name. I for one will not treat a confirmed SIB sockpuppet as if he's a "new" user just because we have the AGF policy. There is no need to "assume" good faith when you have knowledge of bad faith. If SIB wants to wipe the slate clean, his best course of action is to apologize for his previous behavior. Kasreyn 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just (I hope) defused a little squabble over user pages initiated by the placing of a disputed sock notice. I hope all sides will observe the warnings that I've issues, because I intend to carry them out if necessary. Please do make abuse reports if they should become necessary, but don't try it on. I'll not be happy if I see a load of spurious reports. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the above and decided to block porky pig. Most socks deny being the master account of a sock, and the above evidence is pretty clear. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much for defusing the situation. I'm sorry, but this struck me as a case of all bite and no bark... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo User:Kasreyn's above comments we can see the disruptive patterns of User:SirIsaacBrock in User:Porky Pig. This comment implying that my opinion has been distorted by "hate" in response to a logical question about including a disclaimer in Category:Anti-Semitic people (as is locked into displaying now). And while we're talking about assuming good faith this comment is surely far from that spirit. To further illustrate that User:Porky Pig is bad news: As SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User:NSLE blocked him for disruption on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but as this new sock he shows no sign of having gotten that message as we see here, here, and here. He actually has had to be warned about that not once but twice as this sockpuppet. As User:SirIsaacBrock he successfully had Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked under false pretenses (User:Thebainer had to lift the block) and as User:Porky Pig he seems to be continuing in that spirit. (→Netscott) 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that one's convincing. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was busy doing some RC Patrol and I noticed this. Interesting ... -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given he was only blocked this long at his own request, and appears to have served at least the one week of actual admin block, I have unblocked him. While I don't hold very high hopes for this user in the long term, he has not gotten himself banned, so now that he has asked to return, I see little reason for him to remain indef blocked. - TexasAndroid 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You unblocked Brock. Did you mean to unblock Porky Pig? If not, I'm definitely confused now. In any case, hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Thatcher131 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had been expressing way above that my preference in this was for him to return to his original account, and get relinked up with his history, for better or worse. The link given by Moeron just above had an anon, signing as Brock, aking to be unblocked. Not the Pig account, but the Brock account. And since this is where I wanted him to go back to anyway, that's what I unblocked. - TexasAndroid 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this makes sense. Given this user's apparent history of hopping from one sockpuppet to another to avoid his negative history following him it is fair that he keeps to one so that if his disruptions continue he can be indefinitely blocked once and for all (which I suspect will very soon be the case now that his history is remaining with him). I have found evidence that this user indeed edited during his original week long block and if this evidence is confirmed then he should be reblocked and have his original block extended. (→Netscott) 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is he or isn't he? Porky Pig posted on MONGO's talk page "I am not this user (SirIsaacBrock)"... Porky Pig is indefblocked as a sock, and suddenly SirIsaacBrock who left the project with quite the display of anger just happens to return? I'm trying to find a good faith explanation why Porky Pig was lying about being SirIsaacBrock, unless SIB has a supernatural ability to know when someone is talking about him somewhere. Syrthiss 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think given this user's apparent LONG HISTORY of utilizing sockuppets towards disruptive ends that it's safe to assume that User:SirIsaacBrock was lying when denying that he was in fact User:Porky Pig particularly in light of User:SirIsaacBrock returning to editing after this turn of events. (→Netscott) 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirIsaacBrock edited during original week block and should be reblocked

We can safely assume that since the IP address 65.94.114.43 was used to request unblocking the User:SirIsaacBrock account and subsequently another IP (67.70.71.194) was used to respond to GTBacchus' unprotecting of SirIsaacBrock's talk page then User:SirIsaacBrock's ISP corresponds to those IPs. These IPs belong to Bell Canada. This is particularly clear now with him having just returned to editing again under this username.

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of editing articles related to animal baiting even going so far as to create a {{Baiting}} template so it's logical that if he were to be blocked under his username but wanted to continue to edit on such topics he'd likely take measures to circumvent his block to do so.

During his week block User:SirIsaacBrock used at least one Bell Canada IP address to circumvent his week long block. This IP address was 70.51.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

The sequence of events surrounding User:SirIsaacBrock's block and his circumvention of that block corresponding to User:SirIsaacBrock's patterns of editing:

User:SirIsaacBrock Blocked for a week starting: 00:36 3 June 2006 by User:Tom harrison

First known IP edit: 19:43, 3 June 2006 on Monkey-baiting an article edited by User:SirIsaacBrock just 5 edits before.

Improper usage of WP:AIV to report User:Hipocrite "vandalizing" Monkey-baiting article:

17:36, 4 June 2006

Improper usage of the term "spammer":

"revert spammer":

User Hipocrite knew who he was:

"rv banned user"

In light of this evidence SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s original block should be reinstated and extended. (→Netscott) 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exhausted the Community's patience Ban of User:SirIsaacBrock

The follow text is copied verbatim from User:Tony Sidaway's talk page:

Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.

The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One sockpuppet User:Porky Pig (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. (→Netscott) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has returned to inserting crufty descriptions of not notable fights between dogs and what not into various article that were questionable when he first wrote them without sources. Shouldn't users on the return from long blocks be expected to have reformed somewhat? Is this a case for ArbComm? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given his behavior, I think a nice long block would be in order here. Certainly his harassment of editors (for having been given particular barnstars, no less!) has to stop; whether he'd prefer to do so of his own volition is up to him. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given his already demonstrated behavior and the associated behavior mentioned in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp with the corresponding block logs of the sockpuppets mentioned there below it is not unreasonable to enforce a community ban on this editor:

WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LaLa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LaLa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Endurance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Willy_O'Brien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Elf-Masher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) note indefinitely blocked as an attack username against User:Elf mentioned on the RfC.
Battlefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PigShit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BionicBoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(→Netscott) 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking of Editors

I find it rather interesting how much time you have to stalk an editor across the Wiki. Might I suggest you focus your energies on writing meaningful articles, that is a contribution worth making. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to throw around accusations like "stalking", "vandalism", and "spamming" inappropriately, then I for one will advocate you're blocked for incivility and disruption, in addition to a re-block for block evasion that I would judge to be already meritted. I concur with several other editors that an indefinite block isn't justified at this point. Alai 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SirIsaacBrock Fan Club Members

Did anyone notice that most of the individuals involved in this discussion are people I have debated at the Category:Anti-Semitic people talk page and might have the image on their User Page ? It seems many of them have sour grapes that they keep losing the votes to close and rename the group and are hitting back at me "By any means necessary" -:) SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipocrite alias sockpuppet User:Hpuppet

Does this call for a life time ban too ? Would it be be hippo-critical to accuse someone of something they have done themself ? -:) Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have nothing to do with Wikiproject Islam and do not have an Islamic Barnstar. I merely oppose your edits and support blocking you because I have seen few editors more disruptive than you in my time at Wikipedia. (I'd say Thewolfstar is the only one who tops you.) Your belief that anyone who opposes you on cat:Anti-Semitic people and related articles must be an "anti-semite" is an example of your demonstrated routine failure to assume good faith, and your neverending personal attacks, such as (incorrectly) calling netscott a "spammer" when the section heading he wrote was factually accurate at the time he wrote it, are the principle reasons why I support the idea of such a block. Your attempt to escape your past as User:Porky Pig failed, and so now you blame the poor reception your personal attacks has earned you on a past vote. I'd like to point out that none of the other editors who sided with you on the delete vote have been blocked that I know of, and many of them still participate collegially with those of us who voted to delete the category. The odd one out in this equation is you. I suggest ceasing the personal attacks, ceasing to assume bad faith, and working with us. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, another editor has come to almost exactly the same conclusion about SIB's editing style. Funny how two separate editors who've never met before could come to the same conclusions independantly, eh SIB? Don't worry, I'm sure it's all just a massive anti-semitic conspiracy against you. ¬_¬ Kasreyn 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the above evidence, short of an Exhausted the community's patience ban, this editor should abide by his own previous statement, "CLOSE MY FUCKING ACCOUNT NOW !!! I QUIT THIS SHIT-HOLE !!" and return to the "I QUIT" state. (→Netscott) 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely say "Not here to help build the encyclopedia". "Abusive sock farm" fits well, too. An indefinte block seems just right to me. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Brock has also used the administrator WP:AIV page to have me blocked when I was editing his high school article (I was adding an infobox to the school article). There are a few cases mentionned above of improper use of AIV, but my name was not one of the ones listed. I have in the past gone through a large section of Brock's contributions, and there are easily-detected patterns of:

improper edit summaries, with comments about reverting "spammer" or "vandal" if SIB doesn't like the previous edit
if SIB doesn't like a talk comment, he typically posts on that user's page telling them to "stop spamming" him, or tells users to keep "McOpinions" to themselves
abusive comments are typically signed "Cordially"
small bound of interest; does not edit all over Wikipedia, but typically acts like he WP:OWNS articles about dogs, baiting, some army/warfare, and an obvious fascination with the anti-semitic category

I would support a ban or action taken against this user from my previous experience with this user. In the 4 or 5 months in which our paths crossed several times, all incidents were negative experiences. My talk archive contains the details of my run-ins with this user. FWIW, I'd also look at User:Battlefield -- through this account is currently dormant, I suspect it is also another account for this same user (for example, [14]). --Stephane Charette 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough. I support the blocking of this user as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --InShaneee 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]