Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BrittonLaRoche
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:BrittonLaRoche[edit]
permanently blocked [1] (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celtic_toe and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phyllis_Jackson for samples of behaviour) blocked for stated intention -on his userpage- to troll), user User:BrittonLaRoche is suspected of currently editing as User:FelsenVonEngland. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BrittonLaRoche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) troll & (suspected image copyright violator, discussion) indef. blocked
- EnglishStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock of User:BrittonLaRoche, indef. blocked
- LaPiedraInglesa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock of User:BrittonLaRoche, indef. blocked
- Evidence
User:FelsenVonEngland, contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche (eg Image:Caledfwlch gold2.jpg), or adding links to such images, eg [2] Pete.Hurd 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editing (recreating) Celtic toe article (albeit as a redirect), a contentious (see fairly nutty AfD debate) User:BrittonLaRoche article. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser confirms the usernames[3]. - Tapir Terrific 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Making posts of Britton's art work since he cannot do so on Wiki-Pedia. He uploads them and I link them. I am cautiuos not to post any offensive material, I see nothing wrong with his requests. --FelsenVonEngland 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he uploading the pictures when his other accounts are all blocked? IrishGuy talk 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britton suggested the name Felsen Von England, He said it meant "Rock of England" which I liked a lot. I can change my user name to something else. Is the name offensive? He is talking to another mutual friend named Allan also. I would expect more artwork contribution. Is that a bad thing? --FelsenVonEngland 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember now how we came to the name, I speak a little German. He asked how you would say english stone in German. I said I dont know, but von england is of england, then Felsen is rock. So I chose Felsen Von England for Rock of England.--FelsenVonEngland 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Checkuser has already confirmed that FelsenVonEngland is a sockpuppet of BrittonLaRoche. Having other people set up accounts for you to perpetrate your work in an effort to evade an indefinite block is, indeed, a bad thing. IrishGuy talk 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Is that a bad thing?" Yes, Britton it is. As has been explained to you previously elsewhere, if the images contributed are merely digital manipulations of images grabbed whilly-nilly then there is the assumption that they violate the original artist's rights. Pete.Hurd 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know anything of what he has made other than I posted for him. I am only doing a favor for him, and I can stop. But, I do not see why he is doing any thing bad, by asking me to post his work when he cannot. H easked me to creat celtic toe, but I knew little of it, and felt it waste of time, so I made a redirect to the morton's toe. I think he is only having fun. But most of his articles do not interest me, so I only link his pictures for him. --FelsenVonEngland 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I talk to Britton, he said he does all his work, and asked who had reported my account, then before I could answer he listed several names. Only two were not posting here. He said more, but it is not important. I see him do many things for games also. In my opinion all this is silly, I am losing inetrest. (on both sides)--FelsenVonEngland 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DarkAudit claims [4] to have found the original source for one of your images. If this is so, then it must be assumed that more than one are non-original Pete.Hurd 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know what you refer to, and honestly I am not interested. I spoke to Britton, said he will post his responses on EnglishStone to all: I bid you good night. I believe that I will stay out of the matter.--FelsenVonEngland 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DarkAudit claims [4] to have found the original source for one of your images. If this is so, then it must be assumed that more than one are non-original Pete.Hurd 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked per RFCU case. Iolakana|T 12:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]