Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Natster237

User:Natster237

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Natster237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Justbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Feeeshboy 14

55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence -

The only contributions by User Justbc were in response to my proposed merge of The leaner into Slam dunk, which was contested by the former page's creator, User:Natster237 in various ways, first by deleting the merger tags

• [1]] and
• [2]],

then, after I put them back, by defending The leaner on Talk:Slam dunk. After I responded to his point, we see the first-ever contributions from User:Justbc:

• [3]
• [4]

who appears just in time to back up User:Natster237's exact point that the leaner needs to have its own page because it is "unique" and too important to simply be mentioned on Slam dunk. Notice also the identical language, repeated from this earlier Natster237 comment:

• [5] which also uses the phrase "basketball lore" and the same reverential (POV) language to discuss Michael Jordan.
  

Neither User:Justbc nor User:Natster237 contributes to Wikipedia for a couple of days, and then they appear together again (see Special:Contributions/Natster237 and Special:Contributions/Justbc), at which point the suspected sock becomes hostile. Note this message I left on User:Natster237's talk page: [6] in the hopes of calming him down. The suspected sock then parrots back my own words from the suspected puppeteer's talk page in a very hostile note:

• [7]

after which the suspected puppeteer conveniently tries to play his "good hand":

• [8]

In all, the only contributions made by Natster237 are edits on The leaner and these discussion pages, the uploading of (copyvio) pictures for The leaner, and the disparaging remarks here, the last of which add evidence that the nonconfrontational tone taken by the suspected puppeteer on the other pages is in fact a passive-aggressive façade. Lastly, the user forgets to sign his posts (under both names), a weaker coincidence, but another coincidence, nonetheless.

Comments

What proof do I have to provide that my account is legitimate? I'm a real person, a college grad, a Miami native, a current Houstonian, an upstanding citizen and netizen. Further, I am a distinct individual from Natster237.

It is true that my first contribution was in discussion of the leaner. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ONLY TIME I HAVE EVER POSTED, FEESHYBOY SUMMARILY DISMISSED MY CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT EVER ADDRESSING ANY OF MY CONTENT. This has to be the worst violation of any on Wikipedia as it stifles new input and turns users off from the site. Imagine: you make your first post to the site and immediately the veracity of your identity is thrown out the window. For me, this has hastily soured my experience on the site.

What is the correct forum to lodge a complaint about an overzealous hater such as feeshy? --Justbc

Even if I am wrong (which I'm not), I can't feel too bad because your only contributions have been pretty antagonistic so far. Note that Natster237 also refers to me as "feeeshy", here:

• [9] (thanks for providing more evidence!)

and also in previously cited posts apparently can't tell the difference between "summarily dismissing contributions" and simply disagreeing with him. Feeeshboy 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's a very bad sign when someone leads off with "Even if I am wrong (which I'm not)." At that point you are forcibly taking the discussion to an impasse. Nonetheless you are indeed wrong. If you want proof, next time I'm in New York it shall be provided you.

You should feel bad however, because my first post, to which you responded antagonistically, was very much unantagonizing. With regards to misspelling your name, the concrete commonality is your name, not the imagined (by you) shared identity between me and Natster237. Your name is strange -- what's it mean anyway? -- so there is a likelihood I'll misspell it. Similarly, Natster237 might misspell such an odd name.

Last, are you insinuating that I incorrectly identified your summary dismissal of my contribution? If so, you are clearly in error. Now then, where do I lodge my complaint about that? --Justbc

Wow. I poke my head in to Wikipedia to see if anything is resolved and I'm awakened by a storm of controversy. Feeeshboy, I'm not a "sockpuppeteer", although I don't think any amount of "evidence" is going to be enough to convince you otherwise. What am I supposed to reference in a wikitrial like this? Seems to me to be more of a witchhunt than an actual trial, truthfully. Also, the note I made in Victor de Leon's entry is a valid point (not simply disparaging as you've tried to make it seem). I'm involved in the gaming industry and this individual (a famous gamer) was in fact disqualified from a competition for cheating (specifically, for modding a controller). I didn't see any discussion of this topic in his article so I brought it up in the discussion, which is where I thought I was supposed to. If I've made a mistake in that regard, please let me know where I should have brought up the topic because I'm baffled.

Also, is it standard Wikipedia protocol to nominate articles for deletion simply because you dislike the author? Somehow we went from a merge discussion between the leaner and slam dunk to simply nominating the article for deletion. Based on prior discussion, merge seems to be the most extreme action that should be taken here. Natster237 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

---