- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Yidisheryid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- IndependentConservative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- RabbiAdam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yossiea (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User seems to be a sockpuppet of YY. He follows YY around just to vote on AFD's that YY is against. IC's page was also edited by YY and this just seems to be a creation to stack votes.
To Codify Further:
- Both IndependentConservative and RabbiAdam appear to be SPA accounts, and are new users whose only contributions are to AfD's.
- AfD Debates in which IndependentConservative and RabbiAdam take the same position as Yidisheryid:
- For RabbiAdam Diff (Only contribution)
- For IndependentConservative, these diff's: [118], and [119].
- However, IndependentConservative has made these contributions to AfD's in which Yidisheryid does not appear: [120], [121].
- Just my two cents --Bfigura (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I strongly deny this accusation, i never follow nobody, and i request this user to be warned not to spread false acusations against me--יודל 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we do a checkuser to clearly and easily see if this is the case? This is a suspected case, not a certain case. I suspect you, that doesn't mean that I believe with 100% certainty. That is why we have this process. Yossiea (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that suspecting evil in others with a false unfounded accusation that i follow another user around, is indeed against the assuming good faith wiki principle and i would like u to be warned so that we can take your contributions in full perspective. Thanks--יודל 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Warn me for what? In addition, isn't odd that you post a welcome message on two users page and the only contributions from these brand new users are votes that you are following? Yossiea (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A warning not to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, and to assume good faith, and to sieze reporting for the admins as somebody who must be blocked, due to edit wars while i was not at any time involved with any user in an edit war, i do use the talk pages, and overall seize your constantly unfounded accusations on me on my talk page which i erase, i may take down unfounded warnings from my talk, if its not from an admin and with blatant unfounded accusation, It is also a lie that i welcomed 2 users, i sent 4 welcomes to suers i saw the talk red, some of those are long standing some of those are new. Yes did i recognise their red ink to a vote page, absolutely. I post welcome messages to everybody i am interested to get them invested in our project. Thanks--יודל 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem slightly odd to me. Usually new users don't jump straight into AfD's, and the fact that all of those AfD's follow Yidisheryid is odd. Not sure that it's enough to request a checkuser, but then I'm not too familiar with that process. Full disclosure: I've particpated in AfD's with Yidisheryid before (although I haven't consistently help the same opinions in said AfD's). --Bfigura (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those afd's involve was evidently heated and there is more then one user who voted there as their only edits in a very long time, this only says that we can consider allot of people sock or meat puppets, this does not in any way raise suspicions against me, i would like my name to be cleared of this by all means.--יודל 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- this user has apparently been editing the Yiddish WP since June 20, 2007 [122] DGG (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is RabbiAdam (talk · contribs) also a sockpuppet maybe? IZAK 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it would fit the pattern described above (in the sense that it was a new user who's page was only edited by Yidisheryid, and who has only participated in debates with Yidisheryid. No real proof there, but it is suggestive. --Bfigura (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again i have edited more then this 2 users pages, the reason was simple i did not like the red color their vote represented, it should not make the impression of one side against the other side, i believe a check user on my name should be done against all fellow voters not only those 2 mentioned above, and if i am found to vote 2 times block me from ever entering this project for life.--יודל 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that no immediate responses are to be expected over the Sabbath. DGG (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yossiea, it is rather ridiculous that you've lowered yourself to this lame form of action against people who support Messianic Jews. That's what this really is about. You dislike Messianic Jews and you're trying to discredit all who support them.
I am not a Messianic Jew. I am a Christian who runs the blog http://www.independentconservative.com/ see my bio at http://www.independentconservative.com/about/ . Notice my blog name matches my user ID. I am not a "sock puppet" of a Messianic Jew although I love them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. That Lord being the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. God who was on earth in flesh, born of a virgin, died for the sins of mankind and resurrected to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. All who beleive on Him shall be saved.IndependentConservative 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RabbiAdam I am me, and no one else on this board. I was previously registered on here, but I suspect the management deleted the registration when they sided against the real CTOMC (http://ctomc.info) with the people who attempted to hijack the organization and presented the management with faked legal documents to support their case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabbiAdam (talk • contribs)
Evidence to the contrary By accused user YY
Since all names involved have already proclaimed their innocence and have declared this argument of following others around as faulty and unconvincing i will try to proof why this whole accusation is happening and the motives of who reported it to show that User:Yossiea is indeed the puppet here who has opened a witch hunt against me and this report he submitted here is indeed garbage and has no merit and part of his bigger agenda to disrupt wikipedia with personal unfounded unlinked attacks on other users:
He constantly attacks me personal
- [123]
- [124]
His accusations against me has no links
- it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State.[125].
- Regardless of your attacks against myself[126]. Guess what i have never ever attacked him that's why he has no links.
- [127]
- here he starts a deletion process of an article i have writn just by saying: Not in accordance with WP:BIO [128] while i labored days and nights to create that, here u have it the last version since a gentile user deleted it on his word.[129]
And its usually plain and simple lies
- Enough already! Your continuing to claim that you address the issues does not make it so[130].without discussing it on the talk page [131]. By all means, look at the talk page. I don't really see you "heavily" using the talk page as you claim [132]. Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he does utilize the talk page. I haven't really seen that [133]. -->Guess what i have addressed every singe detail ad-homonym on that talk page.
- ruined this article with your edits, if i ruined it how come nobody has any problem with and nobody wants it changed?
- from articles that you have created yourself' guess what i never created that article all i said was that its not a speedy deletion since he is indeed notable!
He is actively involved and most of his edits is busy deleting articles i have heavily edited
- he does not even feel important to say one word just delete and finish [134]. #[135] #[136] #[137]
- doesn't even bother to say what he thinks is wrong, just piles up on other users to delete it. [138]
- [139] while i labored day and night to address all concerns here is the last verison[140].
- Doesn't even feel important to say one word just piles up and says per above[141]--יודל 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverts everything that i edit
- in silence [142]
- or just screaming reverted stupid edits [143]
- or simply calls my edits vandalism [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149].
- or edits are extremely controversial[150]
Even though other user agrees with me
calling me a vandal to get me blocked [151] or Please see the article and talk page for yidisheryid's edits and POV pushing [152]. user yidisheryid is trying to push his POV across and I've had to have the page protected twice already [153]. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel [154]. -->simply because i don't agree with him,
doesn't do anything else here lately but follow me
only reverting by his robot some minor edits.
Support messages other wikipedians have left me during this ordeal against me
My Conclusion
I don't want him blocked i believe his POV if we deal with it, (and i am ready and able to handle him) and balance it can contribute greatly to our encyclopedia, but i want him exposed for what he is, and take his accusations with a grain of salt. and perhaps a check-user on me and on him will show all his names to block them as seen fit which names he was a puppet under. --יודל 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your evidence to the contrary is not evidence to the contrary. Yossiea (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- wait a day and i will finish providing all my evidence, its hard and very long process, but i will expose u in the end.--יודל 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal of this is not to expose me but to defend yourself against the sockpuppet claim. Yossiea (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct but one of the means to achieve this goal is to see what lays behind this accusation and its background, and everything will be crystal clear, that is i will be exonerated and cleaned and u may not be blocked but definitely exposed in the end of the day, so your future accusations will be taken for what it is worth.--יודל 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suit yourself, but attacking me is not the way to defend yourself. Yossiea (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not attack u i just bring your words be my guest in deleting offensive language, i don't hate u and i do not love u i just believe your actions here has a lot to with the case at hand.--יודל 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yossiea has to be the liar in all of this. Because I am not a sock puppet, but Yossiea has falsely accused me of being one. It appears I am not the only one who has been accused and had to note the assertion is false. Yossiea is upset that YY has supporters who have come to verify his (YY's) group, because it is more significant a cause than Yossiea cares to admit. I think for his false accusations it would be appropriate to block Yossiea. Because Yossiea has obviously begun a biased effort, that even results in false accusations against new Wikipedia users and that does not promote the growth of Wikipedia. I'm all for a "check user". It will show the ISP I use and I will be happy to submit the bill from that ISP with my real name at the top, upon request from Wikipedia administrators. I've already e-mailed Wikipedia once in opposition to the false claims that I'm a sock puppet. That e-mail also shows the ISP that I use, given it was sent from my e-mail account with that ISP. I'll even submit a cheek cotton swab, to have my DNA compared with YY's to prove we are not the same person. I've got nothing to hide, but as a new Wikipedia user I feel people who make these false claims and debased efforts against innocent groups should not be tolerated and such people like Yossiea should be blocked. Given my earlier comment was made on the Sabbath, it should only further prove I'm not YY.IndependentConservative 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also ready to submit my online dsl bill for every admin who seeks to finalize this. And i also am urging and requesting a check-user be done on my name, and i would further request a check-user be done on Yosia's name although i disagree on the action, he should not be blocked if he was found to be a sock puppet, since he is an asset to our encyclopedia, and evidently is active here, but he should definitely be exposed for his vendetta against me, so like this new users will not be afraid of any shenanigans if they would see what lays behind it. Thanks beforehand.--יודל 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Clear meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Yidisheryid is blocked for 24 hours, the other accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all clear. As 2 other admins have not reached this conclusion, case closed as consensus not reached.--יודל 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
YourLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
81.145.240.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.240.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.240.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.241.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.241.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.241.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.152.188.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.157.172.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.27.103.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
edg ☺ ★ 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
All these IP addresses have edited within the past 2 weeks, except for 82.27.103.3 (last edit 2007-07-13) and 81.157.172.208 (last edit 2007-06-20). All but three have edit histories of over 8 months.
Several of these have their own tendentious edit histories, and all appear to be YourLord, a banned user evading block. YourLord acknowleges (post-ban) a history of IP editing.[155]
- 81.152.188.27
Contacts me[156] self-identifying as YourLord. Asks to have {{socksuspect}} template removed from other IP address Talk pages since he is no longer re-creating deleted pages.
While not capable (as an anon) of the behavior he was banned for, he is currently resuming old tendentious behaviour around restoring
[157] removed
[158]
(and improper) article categories (something he's been warned about [159] [160])
Implies this is a static IP.
- 81.157.172.208
Identifies[161] this as the 2nd IP address from which he currently edits. Implies this is a static IP (not sure about subsequent addresses).
- 81.145.240.57
Self-identifies in the above message while posting from this account.
YourLord edits subjects relating fictional characters with super powers. Distinquishing behavior is adding certain categories to none-too-appropriate subjects,
[162]
[163]
[164]
[165]
[166]
typically continuing to do so after others' objections.
- 82.27.103.3
This IP self-identifies as User:YourLord to defend similar categorization to the article Stewie Griffin. [167]]
- 81.151.200.60
This IP performed the edits defended above. Categories are "Fictional bisexuals", "Supervillains", "Fictional dictators"
[168]
[169]
- 81.157.172.208
Defense of above categorizations. While not self-identifying as YourLord, continues to advocate/rant for YourLord's obsessions.
[170]
Then restores same defense from IP 82.27.103.3 (see above) with odd signature [[Anon]]
[171]
- 81.145.240.65
Troll-ish remark on same Stewie Griffin argument.
[172]
Edit history is atypical, less dominated by comic book style subjects, but general resembles YourLord if avoiding such subjects.
- 81.145.241.148
Edits previous YourLord comment in Stewie Griffin [173]. Edit history, while including typical YourLord topics, branches out into British media, sport and music subjects, which are common on the two IPs with atypical edit histories (81.145.240.65 and 81.145.241.241, immediately above and below).
- 81.145.241.241
Also avoids usual comic book style subjects. Typical YourLord categorization, again with Stewie Griffin.
[174]
- 81.145.240.39
Self-identifies as YourLord, continues request to have {{socksuspect}} notices removed.
[175]
Current edit history for this IP address resembles the two "atypical" histories above.
- 81.145.241.75
Deleted purported YourLord comment from this page.[176] Similarly disruptive edit history, albeit with mostly UK topics rather than comic book topics.
- Comments
I think the report is correct. If YourLord were innocent of sockpuppetry with these IPs, he would not have edited to say "These are not me" in a very suggestive tone: he would simply have ignored it. These IPs are guilty of many instances of vandalism and trolling.
Only two IPs are sufficiently active as of this writing to warrant blocks, and since I'm not an admin, I can't block them anyway. But if they flare up again, please do block them. Shalom Hello 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Shalom darling I stated that the suspected sockpuppets were not me because I didn't want people thinking they were. Notice that only two of them were me and I actually admitted that they were. Now if I'm the dishonest scoundrel that you#re making me out to be, why would I do that? Furthermore I am not a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is a person who maintains several ccounts simultaneously. I maintain no accounts. I just per chance have two IP addresses. Believe what you will. And just to set the record straight I am not actually a comic book fan. I just have an interest in fantasy and science-fiction among other things. I don't want you thinking I'm some sort of comic book geek. In any case I'm going to stop editing now until my block is annulled if ever so this shall be my last edit. Cheerio.
User:YourLord - (just signing my name like that so you know who I am) 17:412 07/09/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.143.88 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Some self-admission, and it seems quite possible that all the IPs were used by YourLord. Since he's indef blocked, this is block evasion. However, the IPs are dynamic, and don't appear to be currently disruptive. At this point, blocking would prevent constructive users from contributing. Keep a watch on articles that have been affected, and report back if disruptive activity begins again. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Blublublub 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The following diffs show that the user Strothra and sockpuppet have been tag teaming on the Princeton University article. Strothra has engaged in an edit war, but each user name has made the exact same revert exactly 3 times in 24 hours to avoid the 3RR. Strothra has also accused me of 3RR (an accusation which has been resolved, since I have been trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page, and Strothra not) and both user names have edited my IP user page and the 3rr case page. The diffs are below.
Princeton University revert diffs by sockpuppeteer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154909224
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154930023
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155035486
Princeton University revert diffs by sock puppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154786156
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154850686
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155148330
This is clearly avoiding the 3RR.
Also, although it is only circumstantial evidence, both user names have also edited the following pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.49.28.218
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.49.28.218_reported_by_User:Strothra_.28Result:_24_hours.29
- Comments
In the interest of full disclosure I am the IP who has been constantly reverted by this user and his/her sock puppet. I created an account to have access to making this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blublublub (talk • contribs)
- This is absurd and a clear violation of WP:POINT potentially on a slippery slope to becoming harassment. User is trying to get some sort of revenge for a 3RR report made against him for which he was blocked only to be unblocked because the article was subsequently protected (per my own request). User:Dcandeto and myself are established editors on Wiki and have long contrib histories, neither of which are related in substance or topics. Further, I could hardly be the puppeteer when I was the one who stepped into the preexisting edit conflict between Dcandeto and the unregistered user. My edits came second. Note that simply because two editors agree on inclusion when you are the only dissenting opinion does not make them sockpuppets, but simply that consensus is against you. This editor, being new to Wikipedia, should realize that such accusations are offensive to established editors with positive contribution histories. The internal disciplinary processes of Wikipedia are not intended as conduits for revenge. Such use is an abuse of Wikipedia.--Strothra 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have opened up a checkuser request at [188] in order to deal with this expediently. --Strothra 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fits the suspicious behavior of sock puppeteering, it should be looked at. And two (or one?) against one is hardly a consensus, especially when one of the "consensus" admittedly goes to the school the article is on and has a clear bias. You were constantly making reverts and showed no willingness to discuss the issue. If you are not sock puppeteering you have my apologies, but you can hardly blame me for suspecting considering the evidence. 68.49.28.218 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two editors cooperating on a single article are simply in agreement - not sockpuppets particularly when their edit histories are quite different. That's where the WP:AGF policy kicks in. You might want to use your registered username to edit Wikipedia from now on. Editors are generally far more acquiesced to discuss edits with registered editors than with anons. --Strothra 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed good faith, but after six reverts with no reason or willingness to discuss the section it seems reasonable not to.68.49.28.218 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were constantly reinserting text that served no purpose but to push a particular point of view. Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is laughable. I'd like a CheckUser, but it looks like neither Strothra nor I can request one to show that we aren't the same person. Stop violating WP:POINT and other policies. This is why we can't have nice things. dcandeto 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The text served just as much purpose as any other ranking included in the article, and was relevant to the section it was in. It had been there for months (including before and after a major re-organization of the article). There is nothing POV about the text. There is something POV about removing it or editing it with false information. I was open to discussion, but instead you just reverted it constantly and added false information to the article. You may want to review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sock puppet dispute is resolved, all parties have commented, this isn't the place for the discussion you're trying to start. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - this is not resolved so much as everyone has commented. My main point was that this is not the place for a POV discussion. sirmob 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser was denied and dcandeto isn't speaking here, so I will in his defence. While I cannot assert that Strothra is not a sockpuppet of dcandeto, having never heard of the second person before, I can certainly assert that dcandeto is not a sockpuppet but a honest-to-god flesh and blood human being who I consider my friend in the real world - which you could have discovered by looking at his and my user pages! And as Strothra has thousands of edits, the good money is on him existing as well. What you describe as "sock puppet" behavior is probably the result of a habit I have seen in dcandeto of erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to fix this" when he is busy and/or when a change seems obvious. "Obvious" is admittedly subjective! I can only hope that the parties accused find this as hilarious as I do - but this is doubtful. Whoever resolves these things - this is ridiculous, resolve it please. sirmob 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Ivy leaguers have friends? Preposterous! --Strothra 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He should not be erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to revert this and add false information with no discussion" just because he is not comfortable with the facts presented in the text. That is not "fixing it." 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE DO NOT discuss the article and that dispute on this page. I wasn't excusing the behavior, I was describing to try to legitimately respond to your sockpuppeting concerns, which are what this page is about. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
There is no evidence of sockpuppetry here. Strothra and Dcandeto are long-term editors with lots of edits. Sockpuppets with such long-contribution history would be expected to have supported each other in past discussions or share characteristics like similar misspellings or phrasing particularities. No such evidence has been presented. Based on the evidence here, the only evident conclusion is that two editors are in agreement about the same article.--Chaser - T 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rushmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Renee 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
"New" user:Rushmi appears to be a sockpuppet of Shashwat pandey. Shashwat pandey was involved in many edit wars over the Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages. User:Shashwat pandey vanished after thisRFC/user was filed on him.
Several weeks later user:Rushmi appeared and presented himself as not knowing anything about Wiki. He asked to be adopted after he performed several functions that indicated a strong familiarity with Wiki. Since that time, he has used a variety of templates (e.g., two RFCs, sockpuppet), archived his page, left notices on various boards (how would new users know about these boards), and engaged in advanced forms of editing including links, font changes, and reference templates.
Here is some specific evidence.
- His very first edit was to request that the Sahaj Marg protected page template be removed[211]. How does a new user know even to do this? Wouldn't they go to a talk page first and ask what's up?
- Then, he edited an article and provided a link to a source [212] (making links usually takes new users a while to figure out).
- Then, he undid an archive[213] (how does a new user know enough to do an "undo"?).
- For these first several edits he used edit summaries, which normally new users do not use until someone points them out to them.
- After all of this (check the dates and times), he then presented himself as not knowing how to use Wiki and asked others what to do [214].
- He even went so far as to request "adoption" and then only half-heartedly engaged in "practice," yet went on to simultaneously make very advanced edits. This is a serious abuse of good faith for the editor who agreed to adopt Rushmi.
- When myself and user: Bksimonb gave advice, he at first acted very nice (in line with his super sweet emails to other editors), and then deleted our posts[215] and gave a parting salvo to me[216] more consistent with his angry Shashwat pandey personality than his innocent and sweet Rushmi identity.
- As a supposedly "new" user, Rushmi has an inexplicable anger towards me beginning with his earliest posts. The simplest explanation for this anger is that he is user Shashwat pandey and his true personality is emerging. Specifically, back in his early days he posted this on another user's page[217] saying he "noticed" that I had done two RFCs (mind you, he would have to know how to search "contribs" and go back hundreds and hundreds of posts to find these).
- Turning his attacks personal, he filed a vandalism warning against me,turned down flat
- Then he filed an ANI report here,
- Then he sanitized his archive so none of this was reflected on it, [218]
- Then, today, he filed a sockpuppet accusation [219].
- User:Rushmi's language, spelling, and "stream of consciousness" writing style are all identical to User:Shashwat pandey's writings. For example, see the identical spelling of appritiated/appritiate -- by Rushmi here and by Shashwat here. I can think of no one else in the world who spells "appreciate" in this manner.
- Finally, user:Rushmi is engaging in the same type of extreme negative POV talk as user:Shashwat pandey did (again, see Shashwat's RFC/user for diffs).
- Here he changes a category tag on the Sahaj Marg page (again, how would a new user know to do that), which his adopter points out could be seen as vandalism.
- Just yesterday, he posted an RFC and question on the "reliable sources noticeboard, asking intentionally misleading questions that have already been answered by admin Jossi. Specifically, he posted this and this, which falsely present the issue. The real questions are:
- can a newspaper article found defamatory by a trial court be used as a Wiki source?
- can a court judgment that has nothing to do with the article topic, and pertains to a procedural/jurisdictional issue, a good source.
- Admin Jossi already responded to Rushmi's question here.
Besides the intentional misleading of other editors, how would a supposed new user know (a) where to go to post all of these things, (b) know how to use the code to post all of these things, (c) be bold enough to ignore all of the opinions on the talk page (usually new users are a little tentative), and (d) have such facility and knowledge of templates, categories, and other meta-message things?
I have reason to believe other users believe Rushmi is the sock of Shashwat, see the edit tag to this recent reply to Rushmi. (User:Sethie had much experience with Shashwat on the Sahaj Marg page so is in a good place to make a judgement about this user.)
- Comments
Both of these users should be permanently banned per Wiki policy. Sanctions should be taken against new User:Rushmi for harassment, abuse of good faith of his adopter ("pretending" to be a new user), and tendentious posting of original research. 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs)
It's 99% certain Rushmi is not new to wikipedia, Renee has detailed well how that is just not the case, yet he pretended to be.
His syntax, spelling, odd moments of excitement ("Let's see what other neutral parties think!") and even quirky use of words are identical.
Like Shashwat, Rushumi has somewhat of a wiki vocabulary, yet he consistently uses the words differently from other wiki users- as if they have learned the words from watching others, use them, but don't quite understand what they mean. Sethie 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This is solid evidence that the two editors are the same person. Evidently, Shashwat moved to the Rushmi account to avoid scrutiny from the User RFC. Checkuser data may be stale by now, but I don't think it's necessary. I've blocked the Shashwat account indefinitely and Rushmi for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 07:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
As Tidies She (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Single-purpose sockpuppet focusing on the article ESADE, apparently using socks to evade blocks. First edits were as an anon IP 83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs), with this last edit. After reversion by Dreadstar (talk · contribs), the suspected sock created Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs), & restored the revert, & then again, a third time, a fourth time.
Given a 3RR warning by Dreadstar, Nelorippalenga then apparently created new account Deedstar (talk · contribs) in apparent parody of Dreadstar's username, & commenced readding the same problematic edits, the first time even parodying Dreadstar's edit summaries. Here's another reversion. After that was reverted again, Deedstar switched tactics and added different material. As it came from a self-published source, Dreadstar removed it; but Deedstar reverted all except the citation itself; then reverted a third time. At this point, Navou (talk · contribs) protected the article. On Nauvou's talk page, Dreadstar explained Deedstar's activities.
Deedstar's next activity was to post an oppose vote on Dreadstar's RfA. Subsequent questions about Deedstar's activities led Jaranda (talk · contribs) to block Deedstar, apparently for the disruptive parodying of Dreadstar's username.
Meanwhile, back at the ESADE article, protection had expired. Following the block of Deedstar, a new user As Tidies She (talk · contribs) reverted to the last version by Deedstar (here's the actual difference between Deedstar's last & As Tidies She's version; nonidentical parts are due to intermediate edits by an uninvolved editor). After that version was reverted by WarthogDemon (talk · contribs), new user ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs) restored it, with a somewhat mocking edit summary apparently aimed at WarthogDemon. I myself reverted, stating in the edit summary my suspicion of single-purpose sockpuppetry.
All involved accounts have edited only on the ESADE article or the account's own talk page, with the exception of Deedstar, 3 of whose 11 edits were to Dreadstar's RfA, in an apparent attempt to quash Dreadstar's candidacy. The first three user accounts also received warnings about policy violations from Dreadstar. Some of these accounts would say "see [article] talk page" in edit summary, but none of these accounts actually said anything at Talk:ESADE.
Given this user's history, it seems likely s/he will continue to create new accounts for the purpose of disruptively editing ESADE, and possibly for continued harassment of Dreadstar.
- Comments
Looks good. All clear socks. The initial edits were disruptive, and where there were sources, they didn't well support many of the contentions (for example, I can't find a source indicating that ESADE spearheaded the forum, though they were involved). The initial disruptive editing strikes me as too little for an indef block of an established editor, but if someone is starting like that, I don't see much problem with a hardblock. I left a note on Jaranda's talk page saying as much. I'm off to try to fix some of the POV problems in this article.--Chaser - T 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Duck test. Navou banter 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
WOverstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
161.253.37.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The IP and the account WOverstreet have been editing the University of Florida article with substantially identical content. The accounts have been used to "back-up" each other's edits:
[261]
[262] (IP reverting to and supporting edit of WOverstreet)
[263]
[264]
[265]
[266]
[267] (WOverstreet reverting to and supporting an edit by the IP)
First suspected when after warning the WOverstreet account for ignoring Manual of Style guidelines, the IP started to make the same edits:
[268]
[269]
[270] (WOverstreet style edits)
[271] (My warning to WOverstreet about the MoS)
[272]
[273]
[274]
[275] (IP reverts after the warning)
Furthermore, both WOverstreet and the IP have replaced the User talk:WOverstreet page with identical nonsensical text:
[276] (IP)
[277] (WOverstreet)
- Comments
Full disclosure: I have warned the WOverstreet account for perceived violations of WP guidelines, and have been involved in content disputes with both accounts. Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by outside non-admin: Very obvious sock. Edits to same obscure biographical articles, and very similar, very odd disruptive behavior on User talk:Cmprince and User talk:WOverstreet today; seems they're no longer trying to hide anything. I've stuck my nose in and left what I consider a "final warning" on WOverstreet's talk page, about this sockpuppetry, but also personal attacks and impersonating other users. Further misbehavior is, I'm quite confident, going to result in a block. However, an admin may come along and review this and issue a block anyway, for the sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Yes, the IP is clearly the same user. The IP was already blocked for 24 hours by another admin. Given the wide range of misbehavior exhibited by User:WOverstreet, I've blocked the named account for 24 hours as well. If there are ongoing issues with the IP, the block there could be extended. MastCell Talk 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
I went 2 harvard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Adawootharvard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dawootsafi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.75.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.189.171.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.11.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.95.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.189.165.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
orlady 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There are similarities in the names of the 3 named users in this group ("harvard" and "woot"). Most of these users contributed to Southside A, a fictional creation that had no other contributors except for my PROD nomination and related edits. They have edited in no articles other than Southside A (edit history), Antioch, Tennessee (edit history), and Nashville, Tennessee (only one of these edited in Nashville, and only once). Most edit summaries by 68.189.95.185 and 68.189.70.20, as well as some by Adawootharvard, start with "I" ("I added," "I deleted," "I just added," etc.).
- Comments
The alleged puppetmaster I went 2 harvard was blocked.
All members of this collection of users have been active in revising Antioch, Tennessee to create an alternative reality for this community. Antioch is a suburban area of Nashville that is part of the consolidated municipality of Nashville-Davidson County, but these users have invented census data for Antioch, have identified it as the center of a metropolitan area, have altered data in the article, and have added statements about alleged issues of immigration (sometimes kurdish, sometimes hispanic, sometimes other groups), crime, etc. Additionally, most have recently contributed to the creation and editing of the spurious article "Southside A", which seems to be their made-up nickname for Antioch.
Another vandal with an interest in Antioch, TN, is 68.52.35.118
User:Dawootsafi removed the PROD template from Southside A (see diff), which had not been edited by Dawootsafi but had been edited by the other users in this collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts are blocked and the affected articles are semi-protected. The prod tag has been replaced on Southside A. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Dino Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
81.159.121.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.135.133.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.149.36.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Big D Productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dino Antonio Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FFB Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fieldrecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forest fields park (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forest fields Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forestfields (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascals Mob Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Simone Wentworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
T-Rex Entourage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Renzo Family (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.152.10.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
-- Jreferee (Talk) 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This is a two month on-going, recurring problem of one or more editors dodging deletions and blocks by using user pages to host a website in Wikipedia about the fictional gangster gangs "The Rascal Mob" and " T-Rex Entourage" as a way of expanding the website Dino Renzo and Co. Note how Dino Renzo and Co includes a link to Wikipedia. This same person/group also appears to be involved in posting articles on non existent or nonnotable musical label/group efforts.
The article Dean "Big D" Woodward was speedy deleted between May 17, 2007 and May 22, 2007.[288]. The article FFB Recordings was deleted five times between May 17, 2007 and June 21, 2007.[289] The article Nott's City Stand Up was speedy deleted may 18, 2007.[290] The article Dean Harry Woodward was speedy deleted four times on May 22, 2007.[291] The article Big Dean was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[292] The article Forest Fields Boy was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[293] The article Return of the Don was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[294] The article Forest Fieldz Boyz was speedy deleted June 2, 2007.[295] The article Dino Renzo was speedy deleted June 8, 2007 and June 14, 2007.[296]. Per Special:Undelete, Rascals and 81.159.121.52 were involved in this article. The article Rascal Mob Recordings was speedy deleted June 14, 2007 and June 15, 2007.[297] The article Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward was speedy deleted June 15, 2007.[298] The article Rascal Mob was deleted June 20, 2007.[299] Per Special:Undelete, Rascals, 81.159.121.52, and Rascals Mob Recordings were involved in this article.
On June 24, 2007, it was noted at AN that similar pages were being created as user pages.[300] On August 28, 2007, it was noted at UAA that similar pages were being created as user pages.[301] The above noted users are listed at UAA as being involved in this fictional gang effort. In addition to attempting to avoid detection by using user space rather than article space, these editors are branching out to name variations to avoid watches over deleted pages. For example, the user page User: Dino Antonio Renzo was created after several deletes of User:Dino Renzo. Here is a list of pages that may be created in furtherance of this effort by Dino Renzo: Alberto Renzo, Damon Dales, David Chapman, Deanna Jones, Denzil Smith, Dino Renzo, Franklin Coles, Fredo Caan, Jacob Street, James Thornton, Lee Quoins, Leon Atkins, Mark Alexander, Roberto Renzo, Ryan Buzz, Simone Wentworth, The Rascal Mob, T-Rex Entourage, User:Alberto Renzo, User:Damon Dales, User:David Chapman, User:Deanna Jones, User:Denzil Smith, User:Dino Renzo, User:Franklin Coles, User:Fredo Caan, User:Jacob Street, User:James Thornton, User:Lee Quoins, User:Leon Atkins, User:Mark Alexander, User:Roberto Renzo, User:Ryan Buzz, User:Simone Wentworth, User:The Rascal Mob, User:T-Rex Entourage. Rather than continue to delete the created user pages and temporarily block Dino Renzo, I propose that each page be tagged as being operated by a puppetmaster to prevent recreation of these user pages. A checkuser may be warranted as well. Also, salt where needed.
- Comments
I've added User:Renzo Family and User:86.152.10.22 above. --- RockMFR 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts are indef blocked, except for User:Rascalpatrol, which seems unrelated (and hasn't edited since Jan 2007 anyway). The IPs are portable, so it's not worth blocking at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Eidah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
IZAK 16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Unfortunately Daniel575 (talk · contribs) has had a long history of abusive editing leading to multiple blocks and bans, subsequent use of sockpuppets, bans and blocks, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 for at least six prior proven sockpuppets that have been blocked.
Many editors familiar with Judaic topics on Wikipedia know that User:Daniel575 has returned as Eidah (talk · contribs) but have been afraid to confront him (pathetically, one admin has taken it upon himself to even "protect" him), see comment by User:Yossiea in this regard: "We all know he is (Daniel575), but he has an admin friend, Y (talk · contribs). When I pointed out one of Daniel's sockpuppets, I got yelled at for going on a witch hunt. We know he's Daniel, he's Dutch, check out his edits. It's getting to the point that nobody wants to edit Jewish or Israeli articles anymore because they are not in the mood of getting involved with Daniel and his tactics. If you look at his talk page, Y gives tacit approval of the knowledge that he is indeed Daniel." [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] So much for that.
The main issue revolves around Eidah (talk · contribs)'s abusive language and violation of Wikipedia's rules on a gross scale that mirror exactly the behavior of Daniel575 (talk · contribs). He has taken it upon himself to be the "St. George" of Haredi Judaism's "anti-Orthodox" wing slaying the "dragon" of "Zionism" in all its forms in order to save the "maiden" in this case anyone who agrees with his radical POV. User:Daniel and his sockpuppets can be recognized in many negatives ways. One is the curses he throws at those who oppose him. Thus in a recent CFD User:Eidah accused those who oppposed him as:
- "Zionist heretics who are being controlled by the Soton [309]
- "the despicable yetzer horo of supporting the impure Zionist lie" [310]
- "you have sold out to the disgusting traitors and you are working to defend the reshoim" ("reshoim" means "wicked") [311]
- "All of the groups in this category are VIRULENTLY anti-Zionist"
- "impure Zionist state and praying for it to be dissolved"[312]
- "Zionism of any type, religious or secular, is completely false"[313]
- "the transgression of the so-called 'religious Zionists' is even worse than that of the secular Zionists, because through their actions they aim to justify the acts of the Satan."[314]
- "'religious Zionists' will face their punishment for that in Gehinnom"[315]
A simple review for July and August of 2007 of User:Eidah's talk page shows his total disregard for Wikipedia's culture of simple co-operation and his willingness to be blocked for his brazen actions. He functions like a Kamikaze:
The above is but a small example of what has gone on in less than two months, and the list could go on and on as one rummages through his edits. ALL the subject areas edited by User:Eidah are exactly the same ones that User:Daniel575 and all his sock-puppets sat on. They are one and the same and should all be blocked. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daniel575 and his latest sockpuppet User:Eidah make life miserable for anyone he opposes. His primitive curses and wild non-compliance with any rules smack of cyber-terrorism. He must be blocked and banned to the fullest. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really have to do much other than to point to his edits, and point to his 6+ other sockpuppet cases. This has gone on long enough. Yossiea (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I don't have much to say about this subject. I am only responding because I was quoted. If you look at the greater context of all of my statements on this user's talk page, you will see that I was giving him (what I thought were) helpful pieces of advice, not warnings. He and YiddisherYid are equally guilty of edit-warring. With respect to Y's "support" of this user: the only evidence that has been brought is the innuendo and accusations of other users.... there isn't a single quotation from Y brought above that demonstrates his dedication to protecting Eidah.
Eidah has a lot to say, and is a wealth of information. He has not threatened any users. He has written abrasively, but all of the comments brought above are sweeping condenations of Zionism, not individual editors. I do not think that condemnation of Zionism is against Wikipedia policy.
With respect to the accusation that he is a sockpuppet (which is the only accusation that matters in this context): All that IZAK has managed to say about that one is that he is Dutch and an Anti-Zionist. IZAK has also stated (in underlined text, which I guess is supposed to add credibility) that "everyone knows" that he is Daniel575. If that is the case, then it remains to be seen what grounds "everyone" has for "knowing" such a fact, given the utter dearth of evidence. He may indeed be Daniel, after all. But there simply isn't enough evidence for anyone to eternally block this user on those grounds.--Meshulam 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be fairly simple to check. He is evading a community ban by reincarnating himself. How many followers of Dushinsky originally from Holland do you know editing Wikipedia? Yossiea (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having been to Holland lately, I can't answer this question. But this comment is no different from IZAK's "case in chief." Rhetorical questions are not evidence. I can tell you do not like this user, but there is no evidence other than that he's dutch and anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EVERYBODY KNOWS that this person is who he is. He's completely upfront about it. I remember the "community ban" discussion on ANI or whatever when he was first indefinitely blocked. Whether or not that was justified then I do not express an opinion on, but I am not willing to enforce it again. Some other admin may if he wants to, I suppose. I am not protecting him in any way - I have done nothing whatsoever to protect him and I don't understand in what way I am involved with this. -- Y not? 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that IZAK is right. I think that I personally recommended to the user to simply find another hobby rather than getting obsessive about WP. But it's one thing about being obsessed and another thing about being aggressive, something that is usually reduced over time in balanced people. Maybe facebook could be expanded with Daniel's expertise or something. --Shuki 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As somebody who has had edit wars with him this last week i find his work very valued to our enciclopedia, from correspondence i had with user Izak i can see why he wants to get rid of use Eida, but eida should not be blocked for Socpupetry he did not try to hide his identity and hasn't used 2 names to influence any consensus. Please make him talk with one name and lets make it about the issue not about the user. Izak has tried to delete his category and it failed so he goes after this user. Please lets not fool ourselves, lets be honest we don't like his view but if he is right with the facts we should not try to win our view by simply blocking him on technicalities of sockpupetry which he is not guilty in the real sense of the word.--יודל 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- יודל: Eidah's behavior goes way beyond the acceptable bounds of normal editing. When any editor says something Eidah does not like, he is liable to utter the weirdest and cruelest curses and launch into edit wars and revert articles wildly-- something that Daniel575 and all his other sockpuppets did in the exact same way, so they are all coming from the same source. That kind of behavior is dangerous and not normal and does not belong in a community that is devoted to building a rational encyclopedia. I have nothing against the subject matter that so fascinates Daniel575/Eidah, and he does bring some good information when he writes. However, very sadly and unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives in this case. When he turns his attention to edits on his watchlist (as he instantly does when edits are made to "his" articles) he then goes on what can only be called rampages and tirades to swing the totality of his interests into only one direction (his "anti-Zionism" mantra.) That is what is called an obsession and it is dangeous and destructive as he lets no-one and nothing get in his way, and he thinks he is being so clever and righteous in doing so. How sad and pathetic. Daniel575/Eidah has a lot of growing up to do and when he can somehow prove that he is capable as functioning as an adult and completely avoid any sort of tantrums and especially those curses, threats and destructive edits, then he can come back sometime in the future. For now, he must be put back into his cage. IZAK 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i agree he should be blocked for calling names and behaving as a non consensus builder by reverting articles in silence. But not for his views they are very valube to an open free encyclopedia. therefore the issue here is wrongly identified as sockpupetry--יודל 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who confirms that Daniel575=Eidah also curses and condemns those who wish to expose him to trolling by revealing his previous compromised identity:
See Category talk:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism#Question for Eidah: are you blocked User:Daniel575?: "I am aware that is user is a reincarnation of Daniel. It's not exactly a shock to anyone. Everybody knows. However, I have done literally nothing to protect his user, not as a user, and certainly not with my administrative privileges!! If you would like to submit a recall petition, you may do so. It will be fun, actually. As for running around revealing what I attempted to conceal, you have my intense contempt, and you have committed a grievous aveirah bein odom lechaveiro, for which you will have to answer in two weeks. -- Y not? 20:03, 30 August 2007" [323]
- How dramatic of you, IZAK! -- Y not? 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dramatic? I have only quoted you verbatim without adding one word. Your words also affirm User:Yossiea's statement above that "We all know he is (Daniel575)...We know he's Daniel..." Al Pi Shnei Eidim O Al Pi Shlosha Yakum Davar ("two or three witnesses establish a fact")... you should know that. IZAK 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, silly rabbit, the top-line commentary -- Y not? 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Azoy, well it's a summary of the facts. IZAK 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This looks like a match, and Eidah will be blocked, but if it is necessary to create Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (8th), please do a better job of presenting the evidence next time. There's actually nothing in the evidence above that shows Eidah is Daniel575; I had to conclude that on my own by looking at their contribs. What's here is a bunch of complaining about Eidah, combined with many assertions that everyone knows who he is. Well, folks, the admins who deal with this page may not know who Daniel575 is, and don't see any obvious connection between him and the suspected sockpuppet. So make it easy for us by presenting some clear evidence. Also, next time please do not include an acrimonious, off-topic dialogue. Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Gtadoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.34.164.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fmehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)
- Evidence
Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and Gtadoc are supporting each other, e.g [327].
Allgoonames's Talk page consists entirely of complimentary exchanges between Gtadoc and himself. Allgoodnames created his account 10AUG at 20:54, and Gtadoc's first comment on his Talk page was at 21:00 (6 minutes after the account was created)[328].
203.34.164.71 forged a complimentary comment on Gtadoc's Talk page, signing it "Stephen."[329] Gtadoc then edited the signature to make it a wiki-link to the Talk page of editor Stephen [330]. Stephen later asserted the comment was not his, at which point Gtadoc deleted the entire section.
Gtadoc has a history of other fradulent activity, e.g. deleting user comments from a Talk page and then accusing the user of deleting them.Bsharvy 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that Allgoodnames and Gtadoc post on the exact same themes: medical research and complaining that nobody respects their expertise [331] (this is Allgoodnames commenting on Gtadoc's Talk page, another case of supporting each other). IP addresses should not generally be considered sockpuppets; I sometimes forget to sign in before posting. However, in this case the IP posting is represented as someone other than Gtadoc (it is supporting him), and it involves forging a signature of another editor, which strikes me as serious.Bsharvy 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than these, there are only a few other edits from this account and none since August 8 when this account gave User:Gtadoc a barnstar "For your work on several science pages, like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and for improving pages dealing with medical and graduate education".[341] Fmehdi did not edit any of the pages mentioned in the barnstar. --Mattisse 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - User:Gtadoc did accuse me of defending User:Zleitzen thereby causing the uproar that occurred on the Che Guevara page.[342]. In fact, I did make a post about Zleitzen to Fmehdi's page and to Gtadoc's not to defend Zleitzen but to explain him as the attacks on him were unnecessarily nasty, given the situation. [343][344] I made no posts about Zleitzen on the Che Guevara talk page. My first post to the Che Guevara talk page was July 29. I will add that I thought the interaction between Gtadoc and Fmehdi strange at the time as they were both new to the Che Guevara article but neither posted to other editors than Zleitzen of the article, and both seemed angry at him. Mattisse 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am adding the comparison between Gtadoc and Fmedhi on Kate's Wannabe: Gtadoc [345] and Fmedhi.[346] I believe Fmedhi was used primarily to give a false sense of support to Gtadoc on Che Guevara talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. Mattisse 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I am new to this part of Wikipedia, so I may be wrong. I think the comments made after the initial report are supposed to go here, in the "Comments" section. I will move them if there is no objection. (Moved comments)Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for vandalizing my user page. To respond, I looked at Gtadoc's talk page that bharvey mentions, the IP address is actually seems to be from where he lives, along with the one singing it. Kind of funny that he's here accusing someone else of it. I'm pretty sure Gtadoc himself left WP because it was a waste of time for him (as would be, say, me trying to teach molecular genetics to a monkey)...since I work with him/sit 10 feet from him he asked me to comment on a page relating to radiation as its my field of research. I have no idea who fmehdi is, but it seems she made mattisse angry at some point...though I find it amusing that her edits seemed to be about indain fashion...lol. I'm more than happy to prove who I am, or for that matter prove where I work and my share my CV with you, since you are trying to assert you know something about radiation sickness on the one page I commented on I would wonder if you are willing to do the same?? In any event, I'd appreciate it if you both (or whichever of you did) quit vandalizing my page (or in Bsharvey's case) quit making childish comments on talk pages to me. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right; the comment (which you didn't mention) was about bollywood; I assumed it was fashion, but its the indian movie industry...lol...'pats mattise on the back' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, to edit my above, I actually checked and the IP address 203.34.164.71 is signed elsewhere as Andrew73 and Stephen and is located at a university in Syndey Australia (according to RBL) and previously (it must be shared) to an address in Oregon...hmmm...a long way from minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, to dig deeper; this is funny, IP address 203.34.164.71 has it origonal post about plants...which upon some investigation is also a primary topic on a page linked from bsharvy's user page...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken has intensified his support of Gtadoc, and attacks on me, with a thoroughly dishonest complaint on the administrator's notice board [347]. Gtadoc/Allgodnames, you need to be careful about your accusations. I followed the Wikipedia steps for a suspected sockpuppet. One of the required steps was to put a sockpuppet notice on your User page. I wouldn't use complaince with wiki-policy as a basis for slinging around accusations of vandalism.Bsharvy 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I reported you because already having been here a whole 3 or 4 days you've been entirely disruptive on the page you've been trying to ruin and unlike others I wanted to see if you would be put to the a proverbial tree and hung by the community (who says scientists have no sense of humour?) or if editers like you are welcome here, in which case it will simply confirm the commonly held perception that wp has no standards for its editers/material. And, posting notices all over the place and trying to hide behind some policies you just read today is still vandalism, though, imho that term applies to most of the posts in your contributions page. Funny though that you feel free to accuse others of everything under the sun yet get offended when others call you on your actions. To bring a touch of logic to the conversation (don't worry, just a touch) if I was gtadoc's sockpuppet there would be no point for me to post anything here as I would just go create another account and continue posting on my merry way. BTW, I'm willing to prove who I am and what my "credentials" and "expertise" are...what about you? No worries, I already looked at the webpage you linked to your userpage and I see that you have none, yet make accusations against others as if you did...I don't think WP:CIVIL allows me to post here what I think about that...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're busted. You don't know how to spell "editor." You spelled it "editer." In an amazing coincidence, Gtadoc also does not know how to spell "editor." Even more amazingly coincidentally, he spelled it "editer." Here is one of his edit sumaries: "removing diatribe per WP:NPA also leaving warning on editer Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill talk page)"[348]. (Of further note, in that same edit, you deleted my comment from a Talk page, and later accused me of deleting it.)Bsharvy 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, you're a two year old; I don't know how to spell anything, and I can't do math in public. Though, speaking of busted...you accused Gtadoc of adding a comment to his own page, the IP address 203.34.164.71 actually maps to somewhere in SE asia...hmmm...where might you be? Seems like a case of meatpuppetry/wikistalking/strawmanpuppetry to me...did I spell all those right? Oh, by the way, I can't knowledgable either, but then, neither can George Bush...gosh, I must be him too! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, keep it Civil. Comments like you're a two year old are not helpful. --SXT4
13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't simply to retaliate / antagonize User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, then, there should be {{Socksuspect}} tags on the other involved parties, for one. For two, User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: This isn't a forum about other's conduct. There is a time and a place for that, and, this isn't it. I understand, that this is likely very frustrating, but, you need to keep your cool. When you don't, it can make it appear to some, that you're enraged at being "caught" or "outed". To me it doesen't appear that User:Fmehdi is a sock, at least, not here. It does smell an aweful lot, like User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and User:Gtadoc are, however. Same topics, on the same article, focusing over the same editor, on the same part of the article. Of course, there's also [349] User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken claiming to attend school at the Mayo Medical School, and, User:Gtadoc seems to be very familiar with that particular article, too. I suppose, it could all just as easily be some sort of massive coincidence, however. But, I digress. Even if these users are socks, are they Violating WP:SOCK? If not, I don't see the problem. If so, evidence should be compiled, and, forwarded to WP:RFCU. Anyhow, that's my opinion on the matter, and, you know what they say about opinions... --SXT4 06:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in my very first post I told everyone in the article that I work with gtadoc, he sits right accross the hall from me, we attend the same school, and he asked me to comment on a page because it was in my area of research and not his. I told him I would write something brief as I kind of view wp discussion pages as a waste of time, and I wrote something brief. As for Bsharvy he was actually the user harrassing other people in that page and he immediately started on me after my first post, and, unlike others, I have very little desire to placate childish behavior...its not as much being enraged by anything, rather amusement. As already pointed out, if I was a person who wanted to go around sockpuppeting I wouldn't have any reason to post here, I'd just make a new puppet and be on my way. In any event, there is already an admin action pg for Bsharvy, hopefully he can be dealt with there. In my admittedly limited experience with WP it seems one of its major limitations is the inability of expert users to make contributions that can't be trashed by blowhards.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His/her very first post: "I went ahead and checked per the request of one of the editors and am weighting in on Gtadoc's side, I don't know if the issue is still at hand but his edits were accurate, which I can't say for some other editors..." Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Request_for_comment. The point about "editer" is not that it is a spelling a mistake. It is a very specific spelling mistake. Out of the millions of words they could both misspell, and the thousands of ways each could misspell it, each misspelled the same word, in the exact same way.Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, it was my second post; which in relevent part said "Ignoring childish comment; and yes, we work at the same institution...what about you? "...note, the childish comments were from none other than Bsharvy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Question Even if these accounts are linked, how is WP:SOCK being violated? --SXT4 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - In the case of User:Fmehdi it is not a huge deal and it may be more of I guess what you call meatpuppet(?). User:Gtadoc may have asked someone he knew to join Wikipedia to support his position on the Che Guevara article. The result was that the article, which was a FA, has not been edited since User:Gtadoc left as the talk page became very heated and all involved editors have withdrawn. It probably will not be edited in the foreseeable future because of the turmoil. Also, a person who was a very good editor in the past, (17,000+ edits) and who has now retired, was further alienated by being repeatedly attacked in an already ugly situation. However, perhaps none of this is important enough -- I understand that. I do think that, although User:Fmehdi may not be a sock puppet, that the account was pretty much a single purpose account. But you probably know the definitions of what qualifies more than I do. --Mattisse 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment I quoted above is faked show of support: Allgoodnames "weighted" in on the side of Gtadoc in a disagreement. He later reiterated that he was siding a certain way in the disagreement (against me), and it was the same side Gtadoc had previously supported. In the same Talk page, he defended Gtadoc's comments against another editor's criticism that we were using the page for personal disagreements. All this is on the Talk page for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only entry Allgoodnames has ever edited. Both he and Gtadoc have taken sides on various issues discussed there, creating the impression that there are two "votes" for those positions instead of one. Fake support on User Talk pages is probably less serious, but it still creates a false impression of sentiment on Wikipedia re the discussed issues. He/she/they have routinely complained about the uninformed, rude (insert various insults about rectums, dicks, and whatnot, here) editors in their "mutual" experience, and since their only "mutual" experience is the one Talk page, it is pretty clear whom they "mutually" criticize (me). All of these insults are propped up by the sockpuppetry. They are a fake show of support for one editor's view. Finally, the mere creation of this report prompted Allgoodnames to open a complaint about me on the admin incidents page. The gist of that is siding with Gtadoc (his "colleague") in claims that I am distruptive, etc. Again, fake show of support, this time in a complain to admins. "It is a violation .. to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions." It's hard to prove the forged signature from the IP address was Gtadoc, but Gtadoc did edit the signature to make it a wiki-link to the User's Talk page. When the User (Stephen, an admin, I think) wrote that it wasn't his comment, Gtadoc deleted the whole thing. The fake comment from the IP address was, of course, a show of support (against me). So the basic violation is faking shows of support, deceiving other editors about editor sentiment, and outright attacks in the name of defending the "other" editor (sockpuppet). I can't comment on the Fmehdi claim, since I didn't participate in that discussion.Bsharvy 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken say they know each other in real life, and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken states in this very case that Gtadoc asked him to comment on an article. These are exactly the sorts of circumstances that point to a violation of Wikipedia policy on meatpuppets (if not sockpuppets), but I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting". Therefore, there's no reason to block either account.
- I don't see any compelling evidence that the IP or User:Fmehdi is a sock.
- If both Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken continue to edit, they should take care to abide by WP:MEAT. In particular, I strongly advise them to avoid jointly participating in controversial discussions. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Report submission by
--MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Ramdrake breached WP:3RR in the article race and intelligence undoing the actions of MoritzB and other editors and removing content five times between 12:57, 26 August 2007 and 20:17, 26 August 2007.
See:
[350]
[351]
[352]
[353]
[354]
I gave a message of this violation to Ramdrake. [355]
Ramdrake then performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article. [356]
However, 3 minutes after this edit IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to Ramdrake's version. This is suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada. (Confirmed with http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation)
Ramdrake states on his talk page that he lives in Montreal. See: [357]
The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar.
[358]
[359]
Ramdrake denied that he owns this IP address after I inquired about it. [360]
Thus, I suspect him of mala fide use of a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule.
MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [361] [362], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [363] Many more examples can be given...) Recently Jeeny retired [364]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [365]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [366]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [367]. And of course they returned from the break together: [368] [369]. KarenAER 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I would just like to point out, for the record, before anyone starts on any chase, that these four changes do not revert to the same point at all, and one isn't a revert at all, as nothing was removed, and the additions were all original, so 3RR wasn't broken to begin with.--Ramdrake 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A revert is defined as "undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content." ([WP:3RR])
- Your first two edits restored deleted content.
- MoritzB 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the "evidence" in question, but in my opinion it is circumstantial at best. I do feel obliged however, to say that the user MoritzB merely made this page as a reactionary response to charges brought against him by the user in question.[370] Whatever the case may be, Ramdrake has done nothing as far as blatant disruption since he/she was merely reverting the apparent vandalism and strongly suspected sockpuppeting going on. Also, the only reason he got the idea was through an apparent instigator who has noted edit disputes with Jeeny[371], a user who warned him on his talk page about 3rr. The bias imo is apparent as the user even tries to connect Jeeny with Ramdrake, which is totally unfounded, and MoritzB merely compartmentalized it, and is trying to make an entire case out of it.[372]Taharqa 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KarenAER wrote on my talk page that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet, too. I didn't make that claim. Could you stop your pointless accusations, please?MoritzB 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Karen and Moritz, if you do not agree with a number of editors, that does not mean they are sockpuppets. In my opinion this is a complete waste of time. Before making accusations of sockpuppetry I recommend doing adequate research on the parties involved. In fact both of you have recent accounts, hmmm??. Muntuwandi 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The request for checkuser was declined by User:Deskana with the following statement:
The privacy policy generally prohibits releasing IPs. It's obvious that the IP is him, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake
MoritzB 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ramdrake is the ip. A few days off are warranted. The situation was very tense but I do not condone what was done. I do not know everyone very well to comment on Jeeny and Ramdrake. They seem to be different people but you never know. On the 3RR, I initially thought no harm was done, but upon careful inspection, there was a violation. Brusegadi 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had dealings with both of these editors and there is absolutely no indication that one is a sockpuppet of the another. Indeed the only substantial evidence presented here is that Ramdrake may have broken the three revert rule by making a revert while not logged in to his account. This may not be acceptable behaviour for sure, but this is surely evidence that RAmdrake and Jeeny are not socks or even Meatpuppets. If Ramdrake and Jeeny were sockpuppets why would be not just revert with his sock account? Why would he use an IP address? The evidence of sockpuppetry is nonexistent. If ramdrake reverted from his IP address then give him a warn, it's what is usually done surely? Alun 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid Brusegadi is off-base. MoritzB and KarenAER have been pushing an extreme fringe POV on the article for several days with very little support, and in frustration have turned to (independent, no doubt) attacks on Ramdrake's character as well as Jeeny's very existence. The weakness of his argument is evident in that he has to combine it with a non-existent 3RR violation (the five edits concern two different matters, and the first set of edits really is rather trivial, mainly a dispute over what goes in a citation and not the actual removal of a view or content from the article) that is in any case unrelated to the charge of sock-puppetry. You know, I often agree with Jeeny and Ramdrake and often edit at the same time. I am surprised MoritzB or KarenAER have not accused me of being a "sleeper sockpuppet" - you know, four years before he set up his own account, Ramdrake created me just in case. The issue is simple: these editors are part of a tiny minority and several editors who are more familiar with the current research disagree with him. Instead of acknowledging that his in the minority, MoritzB can only imagine that everyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. This is reckless POV warrioring at its worst. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet and Ramdrake is the one who has seriously broken Wikipedia policies with his IP sockpuppet. This is a very simple case of a dishonest editor. Content disputes are irrelevant.
- MoritzB 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all very well, but it doesn't explain why you posted information purportedly showing that Ramdrake has broken the 3rr rule. This page is supposed to present evidence of sockpuppetry and not evidence of breaches of 3rr. The IP account listed has only four edits, so it is obviously not being used as a sock account. Possibly it is Ramdrake, and if it is, it certainly is a foolish thing to do, but it does not represent a persistent attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies. If Ramdrake made a mistake, even if this mistake was engaging in an edit war using an IP, then this is a different thing to having a specific sockpuppet account for nefarious purposes. Let's remember to assume good faith. Also it's worth taking into account the essay regarding wikilawyering. All the best. Alun 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of the sockpuppet was to circumvent the 3RR. It is specifically forbidden to use sockpuppets to circumvent policies.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy
- MoritzB 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read what I wrote? Alun 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. MoritzB 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified my statement and apologize to you for my error. The fact remains that Ramdrake has done nothing wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramdrake did broke the 3RR both with his account and the sockpuppet. See: [373]
- MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this SSP report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nattang 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, Ramdrake (talk) filed a SSP report against MoritzB (talk) 2 to 3 days before MoritzB (talk) filed against Ramdrake (talk). So again, this report is nothing more than a way for MoritzB (talk) to get his revenge against Ramdrake (talk). nattang 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how Ramdrake's previous (baseless) reports excuse his use of sockpuppetry to circumvent 3rr.
- MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will someone please close this case so I can get rid of the trolls harrasing me? Please do a check user on me and Ramdrake. Sheesh- Jeeny Talk 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I'm going to leave the case open, but my provisional conclusion is that Ramdrake should not be blocked. I add a couple of notes:
- Ramdrake's block log shows two blocks for 3RR long in the past, one specifically regarding "race and intelligence." That causes people like me to become suspicious.
- MoritzB is clearly making a counterattack from Ramdrake's accusation against him two days earlier. That makes me suspect a bogus accusation.
- It's possible that the IP is Ramdrake. There's no way to be certain because of insufficient evidence. It is equally possible that the IP was some other fellow patrolling recent changes, who evaluated a diff and decided "Ramdrake was right." I have made such an evaluation doing RC patrol at least once. The nature of the 3RR violation, if there was one (counting the IP edit), is also questionable. If it comes to a question of whether there were three reverts or four, and maybe one of them wasn't really a revert, and maybe one of them was from a disinterested IP, and the whole dispute goes far beyond the bounds of this accusation, etc. etc., the best course of action is not to block Ramdrake.
That being said, it would be nice for everyone involved (especially MoritzB, the plantiff) to cool down, and for Ramdrake to be extra careful to avoid even the appearance of 3RR, given the past history.
The claim that Jeeny is related to these two editors is patently ridiculous and does not merit further comment. Shalom Hello 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now certain that the IP was Ramdrake, (confirmed with RFCU).
"Having discussed with Deskana privately, I believe that the privacy policy is not intended to protect the IPs of users when it is the IP itself that is being used for abusive editing. In this case it is a clear 
Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake[reply]
- MoritzB 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This matter has already been dealt with through the checkuser case linked above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Report submission by
--Ramdrake 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
FranzV has only two edits, both of them to revert to a previous edit which MoritzB had made and which had been reverted in the meantime. One of the edits has no summary, while the other only has "MoritzB is right", so these look suspicious.--Ramdrake 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User is currently using sockpuppets to violate 3RR. Need confirmation of sockpuppet status. Edit histories are pretty clear that these are single-purpose edit-war sockpuppets. --Strothra 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Indeed..
As pointed out by Strothra, the banned sock puppet IP of user "runtshit" is connected to a sockpuppet of MoritzB, 211.72.213.93, who made the exact same edit as MoritzB and used precisely the same exact summary as 128.241.111.213! They supposedly log on and make their first edit ever merely to revert to MoritzB. [374] [375]
Observing the commotion hands on, I feel extremely confident that these are sock/meat puppets (they have to be). Also, from another article where MoritzB was restricted due to 3rr, another suspected sock/meat puppet pops up, blindly reverting to MoritzB not long after MoritzB sent a message to Ramdrake pleading to have the page reverted due to 3rr. Mind you, this is the first edit by this Ip as well, and the single purpose was to revert for MoritzB it seems. [376]
[377]
MoritzB:
[378]
Suspected sock Franz V with the same exact edit on the same page, during the same time period, of course, reverting conveniently to MoritzB.
[379]
It isn't a matter of anyone "liking his edits", since most of the editors in question despise them. It is mainly about him causing disruption and apparently using sock puppets to avoid responsibility, not to mention that he is likely Runtshit and has been banned, in which case the user shouldn't even be allowed to edit.Taharqa 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Franz is not my sockpuppet and I don't know him. Obviously some guy who appreciates my edits, though.
MoritzB 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious that my edits are popular and I cannot help if non-established users agree with me.
- MoritzB 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MoritzB
MoritzB 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that usercheck doesn't tell us anything about your case as a whole as you're strongly suspected as being Runtshit.. The admin from the checkuser conceded that it is in fact possible that you indeed are the banned user in question, but they didn't elaborate on the IPs.Taharqa 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Give me a break. Runtshit made 5 edits all of which said: "Yes, but Roland Rance is an extremely smelly piece of shit". Look at his contribution history. Any reasonable person can see that it is extremely unlikely that I am "Runtshit". LOL.
- MoritzB 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runtshit's IP is connected to one of your other sockpuppets, also from identical edit summaries on the same exact article you edited, reverting to the same exact thing around the same time period. The odds of these IPs not being you is low. Not to mention the other IPs addressed.Taharqa 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, none of those IPs are mine which was confirmed by an admin.MoritzB 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Nothing has been confirmed by an admin, that's not true at all. You were only checked for one username and it can still be a meat puppet, the same admin states that you may be connected to Runtshit and/or his ips, along with the others.Taharqa 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This attempt to connect me with Runtshit is desperate and ridiculous. Runtshit was a banned random vandal who made five edits saying: "Yes, but Roland Rance is an extremely smelly piece of shit".
- MoritzB 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I think there is strong evidence that Franz V and MoritzB are tag-teaming, even if checkuser can't prove it.
I also think that the suspected link to banned user Runtshit should be left out of the conversation. Runtshit happened seven months ago, and did not directly impact in the current dispute. It will not be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MoritzB is Runtshit: the checkusers left it as a "maybe."
KillerChihuahua blocked MoritzB for 24 hours for his role in the ongoing dispute - especially, as best I understand, for violating 3RR. The remaining question is whether to levy a block on Franz V.
I will leave this discussion open, as for Ramdrake above, but I believe that, with checkuser results already received, it is time to proceed to other steps in dispute resolution. Shalom Hello 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked Franz V as a probable sockpuppet of Hayden5650 (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Franz V is a sock of Hayden5650, and unrelated to MoritzB. Checkuser found that MoritzB and 211.72.213.93 are unrelated (211.72.213.93 is now blocked as an open proxy). 128.241.111.213 is blocked as a sock of User:Runtshit, but there's no evidence that MoritzB is connected to that account. Therefore, this report provides no evidence that MoritzB is involved in sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: Should be noted that the SSPs and the suspected sockmaster have each made edits to various other articles. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
![[195]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Doctor-0001.jpg){kind=link}
Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake