WebHamster

WebHamster (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

User WebHamster blocked/indefed/last edit - Nov 6, 2009 - User The pink oboe's first edit Nov 6, 2009 - add they have combined edits to multiple obscure articles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here Oboe removes the wp:prod from an article that WebH created called Burnin' Vermin - about the first live video recording of the Hamsters, rock band. Here Oboe tweaks up the description of a picture of John-Jennison that WebHamster uploaded. - combined edits to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Hamsterland&action=history Electric Hamsterland - created by webHamster and edited by an account created on the day of WebHamster's last edit here. If you look through the contributions its just clearly the same person. I didn't request checkuser because unless there are recent sockpuppets the data will be stale on WebHamster @Kiefer - its not retaliatory anything - its the sock of a blocked user. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the oyster at Commons on the 31 oct 2011 - Over the last couple of months I've had a series of "mini-strokes" which has had the effect of me losing fine motor control, my ability to type and spell is impaired

The Pink Oboe - at en wiki earlier today - - dexterity with words is less than ideal, especially as a series of mini-strokes just recently have affected my ability to spell correctly, not to mention the difficulty in remembering words

User:Fred the Oyster - is a confirmed sock of User:WebHamster

Looking through the cat at commons Category:Images created by Fred the Oyster -there are multiple connects to WebHamster - like this one - (called f**kfest) - uploaded by WebHamster and added to the cat Images created by Fred the Oyster - by Fred the Oyster. All three users, Fred, Oboe and Hamster, are the same person. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

causa sui (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Courcelles 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Similarity in prose and contentious editing style. Also, WebHamster's statement [[5]] that they do not consider themselves bound by Wikipedia practices. Gerardw (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

You may be right, but where is the link to me? 138.253.48.190 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words of support. I appoint you as my attorney. Pls continue your investigation, and let me know more. I know you will find that there is no link whatsoever, because there isn't one.

Without further evidance this needs to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors may be belligerent WP:DICKs, however if we're creating sockpuppet cases based on those qualities, half of Wikipedia's non-registered users' IP addresses could be added to this case. These two accounts are otherwise clearly unrelated. --Yankees76 Talk 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that assessment. If wasting other's time was a blockable offense, this user should've been blocked long ago, but unfortunately that one isn't on the books. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Words in my Defence

I swear by Almighty God, on a stack of bibles ten miles high that I've no idea who "WebHamster" is; may the Lord strike me down with a great thunderbolt from Heaven if I tell one word of a lie. And may I rot for eternity in Hell if there is even a grain of truth in this slander. But I have no fear - there is not one shred of evidence to support this foul and malicious accusation. It is complete hearsay, cooked up by some gang who are out to get me, for reasons of a lying tongue and a black a heart that devises wicked plots. They are deceitful witnesses that tell lies and soweth discord among editors! Banish the lot of them! Or tell me the names of my accusers, so that I may confront each and every one of them in turn and give each a thorough tongue lashing to be going on with.

On second thoughts, maybe I should lie and pretend to be that moron, WebHamster. At least that would bring things to a swift conclusion without all this BS. Just hurry up about it, will ya?

You can, they are named and you can contact them on thier talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I settle that when I am free from this case. So far, the evidence is "Similarity in prose and contentious editing style"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My trial reminds me of those old medieval ducking stools. A ducking was seen as a foolproof way to establish whether a suspect was a witch.The victim's right thumb was bound to left toe. A rope was attached to her waist and the "witch" was thrown into a river or deep pond. If the "witch" floated it was deemed that she was in league with the devil, rejecting the "baptismal water". If the "witch" drowned she was deemed innocent. Am I to be sat in a ducking stool on the scant evidence of one man?138.253.48.190 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


PPS: I'll make one more submission, then I'll accept my fate. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_%27Em_High and read the story. That's the situation (only, unlike CLint, I won't kill any of accusers once I get out of prison). My fate is in your hands - don't let me down. 138.253.48.190 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melodramatic much? --Conti|✉ 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just giving you your money's worth. Have you watched 12 Angry Men? 138.253.48.190 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always wanted to but never got around to it. It's high on my to-watch list, though. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_duck_test is what the user is refering too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that meant to be some substitute for evidence? Sounds desperate to me. Have you heard of the "Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel Test"? Basically, if your accusers are scraping the bottom of the barrel, they are sad timewasters. 138.253.48.190 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It's ironic that both the wikipedia “Duck Test” and the witches' “Ducking Stool Test” are both based on superstition, both are completely arbitrary and both share similar names! Who in their right mind would refer to such random methods in a trial?138.253.48.190 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


That's because they have no evidence, your majesty. I stand before you as an innocent man - a victim of a foul and cruel conspiracy to besmirch me.

So far I have not attacked you, but I wuld susgest you stop the supercilioous tone.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yer hanner.
More