Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martintg

Martintg

Martintg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martintg/Archive.

Report date March 31 2010, 02:23 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• ISerovian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 58.165.52.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 124.180.196.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Igny

Hi, I believe that one of the topic-banned WP:EEML members used a SPA and IPs to distort the consensus at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States. Based on previous contributions to the Baltic related articles, I believe that either User:Martintg or User:Vecrumba or both tried to circumvent their topic bans to help out their fellow EEML member User:Sander Säde. I do not know how to properly submit a case to check three possible suspects (Martintg, Vecrumba, and Sander Säde), so I filed it under section for Martintg.

Just to clarify. After Sander accused me in not heeding the consensus (or lack thereof) that was like a double insult to me to use a SPA to destroy the consensus which was building at the mentioned request to move. (and no, Sander, lack of consensus to move is not a failure to move). This case was not meant to be an insult, but rather an opportunity to clear your names of a justified suspicion. (Igny (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: Vecrumba. I really do not care if you view it as a personal attack. It is not, even if you personally are not guilty of sockpuppeting. I do not care who of you used ISerovian, and I will not apologize for one of you using a SPA to keep the article's POV title. (Igny (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I would like to point out that this fishing expedition was preceded by two failed requested moves by Igny, in-between which he repeatedly attempted to unilaterally move the article to his preferred name and was subsequently warned by an administrator. Administrator closing the last RM especially pointed out that he based the decision on arguments and not votes.

I have never made any sockpuppets and never will. I have not requested anyone's help inside or outside Wikipedia - nor did I need it. I believe ISerovian is the same anon from those two IP's; however, as he/IP's did not double vote, I fail to see the violation.

As Igny did not notify anyone of this investigation, I will so do myself.

--Sander Säde 07:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Igny, apparently you haven't even realized there is a possibility that ISerovian is none of us. You have been getting so fixated in your view of "POV title", that you are pushing your preferred title at any cost. --Sander Säde 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. I'm busy with real life and have reduced my active involvement with Wikipedia as of February having commenced some post graduate study. I don't know who this IServoian is or who these IPs are. Had I been involved in this move request I would have found it a difficult choice. As the closing admin said, there were good arguments on both sides. Sander Säde had strong arguments and voted against the move, so did Jaan Pärn and he voted for the move. They are both Estonians and I respect them both, I even gave Jaan the Estonian Award of National Merit, you can see it on his user page. Termer had strong arguments against but voted weak support, while M.K voted emphatically against. Illythr voted weak support but couldn't see the how the new name is any more neutral or even different than the old one. Clearly there isn't any consensus even amongst the Baltic editors. At the end of the day, being a Tasmanian Baltophile, I don't think I would have taken a position one way or another on this because of this non-consensus amongst these Baltic editors. --Martin (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Igny opened a move debate [1], no consensus. He doesn't accept the result and moves the article unilaterally[2] and again[3]. This results in a warning[4]. Then Igny opens another move request[5], again no consensus. The guy is so convinced of the "truth" that he can't actually accept that others may have differing opinions, which he brands as "nationalist POV"[6]. Charging around, move warring, branding opinions as "nationalist POV" and believing that anyone who doesn't accept his viewpoint must be a sock is no way to build consensus. Igny should take a cold shower and re-evaluate his approach. Being combative does not assist in consensus building. --Martin (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am busy with my 98 year old mother in and out of the hospital and the nursing home who yesterday told me she wants to be left alone to die. I don't have time for this crap, which is the main reason I have not filed an appeal of my topic ban as this sort of crap (see also the feeding frenzy attacking Biophys) is all I continue to see regarding "discourse" on how to represent the Soviet legacy in the Eastern European space. And I have never engaged in sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc. though I have been routinely accused of doing so by those who do it themselves. More of bad faith attacks on editors to push POV. Nothing has improved since my topic hiatus, apparently.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I invite Igny to reconsider and retract this personal attack.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Justified suspicion" based on what? Your umbrella of "justified" suspicion allows you to attack anyone who agrees with someone else to disagree with your personal version of history.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice, not caring "who of us" used, as if only collusionists would disagree with Igny. Crap and gall with heaping helpings of self-righteousness, more of the same old, alas. I take it, Igny, this means my invitation for reconciliation is rejected. I was quite prepared to retract my statement regarding "crap" in kind.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Russavia

It should be noted that the two IPs which Igny has presented above are most certainly User:Martintg. Martintg lives in, and edits from, Launceston, Tasmania, and uses a Bigpond IP (from memory from other situations). Bigpond routes all Tasmanian traffic through Melbourne and this correlates with the location of the IPs [7][8] Note that Martintg is currently under a one year topic ban, which means that his edits [9][10] are most certainly in violation of his topic ban - an extension to two years topic ban, after a one year ban from the site does appear to be in order here. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that a certain user reported privacy violation based on use of his first name (which he had posted himself to his user page), I suggest you remove all private data from your comment - or just ask it to be oversighted. Also, one of the IP's is located in a residential suburb - almost certainly not rerouted, but a home located in that area. --Sander Säde 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice try guys (Sander and Colchicum). It is a good try, but not good enough. But I suggest that you all go and read WP:OUTING. In particular it says "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." which is as a result of Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Outing. I have not provided any information that Martintg, he himself, has not already provided. For example, if one were to do a google search for "martintg launceston wiki" one will get several WP:MIRROR results of Martintg's userpage, where he himself disclosed his location, i.e. "Resident of Launceston, Northern Tasmania, Australia. Started using Wiki in 2005". When one edits their userpage (or any Wikipedia page for that matter), they are met with a notice that reads "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

Furthermore, one also gets results such as Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne_9#Comments, where Martintg discloses of his own free will, "I'm based in Launceston, but I will happen to be in Melbourne on Saturday 2nd and Sunday 3rd of February, it would be really great if you could bring forward the Meetup to that weekend. Any time Saturday afternoon/evening or anytime Sunday, any place, would suit this Launcestonian". Just because Martintg has request his userpage to be deleted, it does not stop the fact that this information was placed on his userpage for full viewing by users (and internet search engine spiders), and one does not forget information like that. Additionally, the userpage was not removed as a result of any WP:OVERSIGHT action, but the full history is still available right there in the history for any admin to peruse and verify for themselves. There is NO outing, or posting of private information, for Martintg did so himself.

As to Sander's assertion on Bigpond. This link and this link shows that DNS settings for Tasmania are clearly in Victoria. Frankston and Hawthorn are obviously the data centres/exchange that Martintg's data for that session were being routed through. To check this, all the investigator for this case has to do is to check what IP address Martintg has been using as of late, and use the tools we have available to us, to see that what I say is correct, and everything is merely deflection by fellow WP:EEML web brigadiers from what appears as Martintg being caught violating his one year topic ban. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Colchicum

Leaving aside the merits of evidence (to my knowledge, Melbourne is home to a decent number of Internet users and Baltic expatriates), as this is the third time Russavia is trying to out a Wikipedian (previous blocks of 18:21, 15 September 2008 [11], and of 17:59, 4 December 2009 [12]), I think permaban for him is in order. This is not to be taken lightly. His battleground behavior resumed immediately after his return from a lengthy topic ban. Colchicum (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

---