Uh no. I read the discussion and found the site useful AND that it passed most (if not all) of the applicable points in the external links page. What the hell is up with you people? I've just spent the last 20 minutes following a trail of arguments that amount to nothing? This is an encyclopedia, not a war zone.El redactor

And this coming from the guy that others have serious reservations about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/John254. Please do not cast stones at those who are just hear following along. El redactor

Wait, I'm sorry--someone thinks that Tecmo is using a sock puppet and chose the name "El redactor" when he was busy chopping ELs? Sorry, but the irony there is dreadful.
Also, I just can't swallow this one--while El redactor doesn't have a lot of comments, they sound nothing like Tecmo's. The language style and everything is completely different, his edits appear to be of the gnomish variety, and he sounds new.
This is a copy of a comment El redactor made at WP:ANI:

"WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor"

these are two of his edit summaries:
00:57, 12 June 2007 edit to Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)
00:58, 12 June 2007 edit to Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)
Baseball Bugs is following me around in edit summaries? You guys are the sockpuppets? Maybe you should have that removed (like being an admin is a failed organ)? He sounds like a newbie through and through and he probably wouldn't even be getting to pages like ANI or here etc (because btw, no one notified him about this checkuser--this checkuser has been completely inappropriately done) is because Irishguy and Baseball Bugs and Epeefleche are all commenting on each others talk pages and ANI on the wikiproject page providing each other with diffs on anything that pops into their heads. half a dozen diffs are exchanged every time someone sneezed, and because El redactor's first edit was on Shoeless Joe, he's been dragged into this whole thing.
If this is going to be gone ahead with, do it properly. Not notifying involved users is NOT ok, and this page is formatted incorrectly as well. But not only do I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, I see everything pointing to the conclusion that they are completely different editors. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:58, June 12 2007 (UTC)
El redactor's behavior looked suspicious because (1) he only appears when Tecmobowl is blocked; (2) in his very first appearance he went straight to the Shoeless Joe Jackson page to restore his personal spamlink. From the Shoeless Joe page I took a look at what he was editing, which is not against any rule I'm aware of. He reverted a perfectly legitimate reference on the Will Ferrell page, just because he disagreed with it, which fits Tecmobowl's approach. He also asked a fair question on another page, about where to store quotations, for which I gave a fair answer. That's the extent of my "following him around". He and Tecmo both spell the word "Spanish" as "spanish", oddly enough. Baseball Bugs 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there was something familiar-looking about El redactor's take on the Will Ferrell reference. He said "Why source a birthday?" [1] I don't know, but maybe there's a reason to, and I put the reference back. On the Ty Cobb page, Tecmo reverted a reference to Cobb's nickname and said it was "not needed". [2] The same approach as with the Will Farrell birthday. Since when is a reference "not needed"? Another pattern is the concern both of them have had for passive voice in articles about rock bands... Tecmobowl's [3] [4] and El redactor's [5]. Not that there's anything wrong with fixing passive voice. They also tend to spell "I" as "i" from time to time, although that's not so unusual in the hurry-up-and-type internet age. Baseball Bugs 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the Will Ferrell birthday citation [6] is there in response to a citation request. Apparently there is some question whether it's 1967 or 1968. Baseball Bugs 12:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the Cobb nickname reference was posted [7] in response to a general request for citations in the article. The point being that a similar attitude is displayed by both Tecmobowl and El redactor. Baseball Bugs 12:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El redactor (which term is actually from Latin, not Spanish) just re-posted his personal spamlink again on Shoeless Joe Jackson. Due to the 3-revert limit, I'm done with that one for the day. Baseball Bugs 12:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How old are you baseball bugs? El redactor

El redactor also reverted the Will Farrell citation again, ignoring the explanation. As with the history of Tecmobowl going back to last summer, El redactor is a contentious user from the beginning. Baseball Bugs 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I did, because you have bad information. Here is a copy of your last communication and my response on that page.

Why does someone keep citing a birthdate for ferrell? El redactor

Boy you have a way of skewing the situation. The birthdate was simply done by a vandil (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Ferrell&diff=85707936&oldid=85324007) and it wasn't caught. Go look at the history from that editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.106.53.53). Do a better job and stop being argumentative. El redactor

There was no dispute on the age, a vandal snuck the information in there. It's getting reverted again and I am no longer going to talk with you. I'm new here and even I can figure out simple things like this.El redactor

You could have said that in the first place. To interested readers, the comment "I'm no longer going to talk to you" is also standard operating procedure for Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the user who added that citation, to respond on that article's talk page, as to why he felt the citation was needed. Baseball Bugs 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? BITE?

[edit]

Our policies don't say assume good faith unless you think the person might be a sockpuppet or don't be the newbies unless the person could be a sockpuppet.

Far too often completely innocent editors get caught up in sockpuppet reports because they happen to create accounts and start editing in an area where trouble is happening. And while a lot of their behavior may point to them NOT being a sockpuppet, people go out of their way to analyze anything they do--getting defensive when attacked, anything and compare it to the thousands of edits that the other editor has. And similarities can probably always be found. Especially if you go out of the way to find them--a birthday not needing to be sourced in an article on an actor and a nickname not needing to be sourced in an article on a baseball player is a sign of similarity? Are you kidding me?

As soon as a new editor makes the mistake of agreeing with someone who's blocked--they aren't necessarily that person, and I imagine that any editor who started editing here and got dragged into this would be defensive etc. You're treating El redactor as though El redactor is Tecmo--you're talking to Tecmo. Of course El redactor sees no point in talking to you--you've already tried and convicted him--what's the use? I don't understand why editors continually blame other editors who say this--sometimes it is all on the shoulders of the editor who says "there's no point in talking to you", but often it's on the shoulders of the editor who has made there no point in talking. You've already made up your mind Baseball bugs--you're attacking, demanding, instead of conversing. When you get an explanation, it isn't good enough and you blame more. Tell me, what is El redactor supposed to get out of talking to you? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:27, June 13 2007 (UTC)

"Far too often...?" Name one. No, this alleged "newbie" betrayed himself very quickly, along several classic sockpuppetry points. He went straight to Shoeless Joe to re-install his personal website (which appears to be Tecmobowl's number one agenda item above all else) and made a point of emphasizing that he was "new". But tigers can't easily change their stripes, and his puppetmaster's style showed through in a short time. Baseball Bugs 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late addendum

[edit]

I re-ran this checkuser, and my analysis is that it is  Likely that these two are the same human being. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More