Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Evidence

message: I have no reason to support Ril, quite the contrary. But the suggestion that User:Melissadolbeer and her various socks are controlled by Ril is patently absurd. --Doc ask? 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Why would anyone seriously say you're a sockpuppet of -Ril-? Why did she stop editing in July, and start editing again when -Ril- got indefinitely blocked in august? Furthermore, if she was a real user, why were *all* of her edits during that period about -Ril-? --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and i forgot to comment...apparently you are a sockpuppet of -Ril-, so we can't believe you. ;) *giggle*. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops. Dmcdevit, who told me about this, let me think that he was telling me that she was Ril. But *now* he tells me she was just stalking him. *shrug*. Still sounds sockpuppety to me. Perhaps an arbitrator could do a checkuser..Dwho and SallyGold are definitely melissadolbeer sockpuppets. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 22:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Melissadolbeer had a whole network of abusive socks, which warred with Ril over the Authentic Matthew fiasco. After Ril left in September 2005, Authentic Matthew was sorted and Melissa went quiet. But there is some evidence that this user may be back to the old tricks again (although the primary account is dormant). She seems to reappear anytime Ril becomes active. But that is probably due to lurking with a vendetta, she is not Ril's sockpuppet unless he is quite insane (and I see no evidence of that). --Doc ask? 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she seems to have made several socks recently,  and . I suppose i was wrong earlier.--Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In no particular order, the socks that I am aware of are SallyGold, Dwho, 202.176.97.230, 203.144.210.225, 164.164.127.55, 202.176.184.118, 202.176.97.116, Ghpbermuda, Jlchan, FarSd, Mikefar, Poorman, Goodboy, Teenangel, -Teenangel-, Angel77, -Angel77-, Watcher1, -Watcher1-, -Johnny-, Kendea, Mathman, Paulya. Of these, Poorman and Mikefar made the most attempt to pretend not to be socks. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think Ril's thesis here is plausible, although it is also possible that that sockpupperteer simply lurks for months on end. If anyone so enabled is willing, some checkusering about User:Melissadolbeer User:Poorman User:Mikefar and the nexus of blocked socks might yield some results. This is a badly-behaved, highly disruptive and abusive tinfoilhat pov-pusher who has got away with it because the community has focused on the related behaviour of Ril and ignored this.--Doc ask? 15:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is Bacchiad's edit pattern over time. It matches Melissadolbeer's rather well (when you take into account the editing of her other sockpuppets). I've asked David Gerard for a checkuser. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 17:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I have a different theory.  Melissadolbeer only shows up to quarrel with -Ril-.  Either she has some agenda against -Ril-, and is herself a sockpuppet of a troll who has an agenda against -Ril-, or she is an alter ego of -Ril-.  My hypothesis for the latter is that -Ril- is the ventriloquist, and Melissadolbeer is the ventriloquist's dummy, a puppet who insults the puppetmaster and engages in personal attacks against the puppetmaster as a performance.  In any case, Melissadolbeer and all related puppets should be banned.  The ArbCom does not need to decide whether Melissadolbeer is or is not -Ril-.  Robert McClenon 16:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, there are real issues in this RfAr, this spurious unevidenced fingerpointing isn't making anyone look very intelligent. Melissadolbeer is certainly not Ril, Bacchiad may be worth a check. But unless someone has some real evidence, let's leave it at that. --Doc ask? 17:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Half this case seems to be accusations of sockpuppetry, so I think it best to make sure that the most likely possibilities are covered. Robert McClenon's edit history suggested the possibility to me - the aggression with which he approaches this RFAR suggests to me a strong vendetta against me beyond the clerks issue, he has an edit history in flaky christian subjects (e.g. Hitler's Pope, Bible and reincarnation, and a noticable dislike of User:CheeseDreams. These facets are shared with Melissadolbeer, and are essentially her prime make-up. In addition he and Melissadolbeer both "discovered" the KJV RFAR involving me at approximately the same time. It strikes me as reasonable to suspect a connection between the two. I may be wrong, but it is the most tangible possibility for a sockpuppeteer of Melissadolbeer, and I am keen to ensure it is investigated fully. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have defended you against silly allegations, but now I'm equally going to call this crap too. --Doc ask? 18:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well.  That allegation is as stupid as the allegation that I was a sockpuppet of JamesMLane.  I don't have a dislike of CheeseDreams, only a knowledge that she is a banned user.  I haven't edited at the same time as she has in the same articles.  I have a dislike of editors whom I know are disruptive, including -Ril-, and of Internet abusers and Internet trolls.  Following the Hitler's Pope case, I also have a dislike of paranoid editors.  I discover any RfAr in the old-fashioned way:  I watch-list it.  Also, -Ril-'s claim that Melissadolbeer and I discovered the KJAR at about the same time itself relies on assumptions.  There is no evidence that Melissadolbeer has discovered the KJV RFAR at all.  She has not posted since September 2005.  A self-identified sockpuppet, Sally Gold, has discovered it, but we only that she is a sockpuppet, and not who her puppetmistress is.  Well, well.  Robert McClenon 20:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I recognize that my opinion, that -Ril- is engaged in ventriloquism, is a minority opinion.  It is clear that there are a lot of sockpuppets involved here.  It is also clear to most of us that certain editors are not sockpuppets.  Any allegation that Phroziac, or Doc glasgow, or Robert McClenon is a sockpuppet is just absurd.  Robert McClenon 20:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I've been trying to say. Except Authentic Matthew wasn't 'biblecruft' (whatever that means) it was just plain spurious original research. --Doc ask? 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biblecruft means that -Ril- feels it's useless information related to the bible. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, -Ril- is only making wild accusations of sockpuppetry because he's being accused of sockpuppetry and feels the need to retaliate.  I don't think he normally does that. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Alternative Hypothesis:  "Ventriloquism" 

message: After reviewing the edit history of Authentic Matthew in more detail, I agree with Doc glasgow that there are two unrelated disruptive editors.  Melissadolbeer does appear to have written an article that was "biblecruft", which was then nominated for deletion.  It appears that Melissadolbeer and -Ril- do have a few common aspects, such as an inclination to make wild allegations of sockpuppetry.  I agree that these are two distinct disruptive editors, both of whom engage in similar behavior, and who appear to have a vendetta against each other.  I will not say that Melissadolbeer is a sockpuppet, because she may be a puppetmistress.  It is clear that she does change her online identity from time to time.  Bad behavior by Melissadolbeer does not warrant bad behavior by -Ril-, and bad behavior by -Ril- does not warrant bad behavior by Melissadolbeer.  Also, -Ril-'s original nomination of Authentic Matthew was made in good faith, and it was "biblecruft".  Robert McClenon 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been trying to say. Except Authentic Matthew wasn't 'biblecruft' (whatever that means) it was just plain spurious original research. --Doc ask? 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biblecruft means that -Ril- feels it's useless information related to the bible. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, -Ril- is only making wild accusations of sockpuppetry because he's being accused of sockpuppetry and feels the need to retaliate.  I don't think he normally does that. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconsideration