Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson

User:Nrswanson

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Suspected sock puppets/Nrswanson

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Nrswanson

Report date April 6 2009, 23:51 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Kleinzach

Eudemis supported User:Nrswanson in Kathleen Battle controversy/edit war, see [1] and Talk:Kathleen Battle. English style (Nrswanson/Eudemis) is similar if not identical. (I attempted to moderate this dispute.) --Kleinzach 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if I've set up this wrongly. To clarify suspected puppet: Eudemis (also 98.26.92.151). Suspected master: Nrswanson. --Kleinzach 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: I was originally asked to moderate the Kathleen Battle dispute by User:Nrswanson (see here) and my mediation was accepted by both of the main parties (Nrswanson and Hrannar) here and here etc. Unfortunately Nrswanson has a history of using sockpuppets to win arguments. In view of the possibility of this having happened again, I asked for Eudemis to be checked as a possible puppet. --Kleinzach 03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: I originally asked for a private check on suspicious circumstances in the Kathleen Battle controversy/edit war. This wasn't possible, so I was forced to make an open request for checkuser. I would not accuse editors of malpractice without evidence. However I would look for that evidence if necessary. In this case another editor (Hrannar) had been blocked and I thought we should find out exactly what was going on. Obviously I'm disappointed that no check has been made and this problem — on Kathleen Battle and this page and the other Nrswanson investigation — has been left to fester. I don't think this helps anyone involved. --Kleinzach 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hrannar

'TIMING OF INMYSOLITUDE 'S INVOLVEMENT in Kathleen Battle conversation & account creation.'

• On March 8, 2009 : Member (Eudemis) started adding content that had been debated. Nrswanson would very likely have been aware that another editor would protest.
• Around March 16, 2009 Inmysolitude ACCOUNT CREATION.
• On March 17, 2009 Inmysolitude's account is already blocked after one or so days activity. [[2][Inmysolitude's Archive showing block]] for disruptive behavior. In his defending himself and his experienced language, sounds a lot like nrswanson. (Please see SIMILARITIES section.)
• April 1 and 2, other editor and myself become involved and edit content back, using similar criteria to what had been used during several months period of mediation.

= "Edit Warring"

• April 2 at 1:19 Eudemis re-adds debated content
• April 2 at 22:03 I revert (essentially removing a single sentence) (used undo button)
• April 2 at 22:04 Nrswanson "restores" Eudemis' edit (REVERT 1) (Essentially, this was an revert, but doesn't use the undo, since Nrswanson would be highly familiar with the edit rule, given his level of knowledge. Is this not, on some level, gaming the system? Also, notice that the edit was just one minute after mine. He had this article on watchlist. Something that Inmysolitude stated he had. Another similiarity.)
• April 2 at 22:15 I revert (essentially remove the same single sentence)
• April 2 at 22:19 Nrswanson "restores"
• April 2 at 22:23 I revert
• April 2 at 22:33 INMYSOLITUDE writes, "I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for your recent edits at the article on Kathleen Battle. I was simply going to warn you at first until I noticed that this is not a new thing for you..." Also, please note that Inmysolitude's report is APPEARS MISLEADING, INACCURATE. [[3][Inmysolitude's report]]; Please see what Inmysolitude claims to be my "1st Revert" and "2nd Revert." They were not reversions. My rationale is provided and I am not sure they were be considered reverts.

'Similarities of Behavior and Perspective' He appears to be the "softened" version of Nrswanson, but shares two key similarities: (1) highly experienced knowledge of wikipedia issues (including blocking users and edit warring) after such a small amount of time with account and seems to go easy on Nrswanson, doesn't really seem to notice the aggresiveness and personal attacks on part of Nrswanson. Just mentions what Inmysolitude calls "sarcasm" and what he calls history of hosility on both parts.

'A Very Particular Misspelling Seams to be Signature of Nrswanson' Perhaps the most compelling evidence of Nrswanson and Inmysolitude being the same is the following statement "Inmysolitude" made when I presented reasons for not being blocked. Inmysolitude stated, "I would __appriciate__ it if you would look at this. Hrannar is challenging his block and making some angry accusations." When looking another user having Nrswanson investigated for sockpuppetry, I saw Nrswanson's history and another moderator noting that this spelling seems to be a signature spelling of Nrswanson. But Nrswanson in an[[4][earlier discussion with Nrswanson]] says, "...for the record I don't think any personal attacks have been made by either myself or Hrannar which I _appriciate_. Thank you for keeping this conversation civil." / But in another socketpuppet case, I believe another arbiter noted this peculiar misspelling on Nrswanson's part.

SOME EXAMPLES

• (1) Inmysolitude stated recently on this current page, "I don't think in this conversation that either of you has stepped across the line... yet. But if things continue this way I'm sure it will lead to that." is similar to a reflective of Nrswansons statement he made in this section [[5][earlier discussion with Nrswanson]] where he says, "...for the record I don't think any personal attacks have been made by either myself or Hrannar which I appreciate. Thank you for keeping this conversation civil."
• (2) Inmysolitude, in his statement, "While you aren't doing anything that is overtly wrong.." and " I see two editors who appear to have a shared history of hostility towards one another." Both statements seem to suggest that I have been doing something possibly "covertly" wrong (a personal view probably shared by Nrswanson) and that the hostility is two sided. (nrswanson has stated that there has not been "enough good will on the part of [me]."

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this. And please forgive for formatting. I am trying to learn.

Hrannar (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I hope user Kleinzach doesn't do writing analysis for the FBI. I'm in North Carolina and user Nrswanson's comments were already a part of the discussion the first time I read the article. My own comments were in connection with the subject's well known reputation for being difficult, a topic omitted in the biography. My entries will differ from any others on the discussion page by being self dated using eastern standard time. My prior use of the "Title: Your signature with timestamp" button yielded some odd results so I began to time/date mine manually. I have never met nor am I the same person as Nrswanson. I share many of his concerns about the Battle biography being misleading.

My concerns are actually broader than Nrsawnson's. My impression is that a few contributors (Hrannar, Kleinzach) have taken ownership of the article. They block repeated attempts to improve the article by purging any mention of Ms. Battle's behavior and its role in ending her operatic career. User Kleinzach has in the scant amount of time I've been involved in the piece: 1) pronounced the article "excellent" in its very sanitized form 2) questioned why Ms. Battle's dismissal has become the focus of such "extraordinary attention" 3) deleted an anecdotal entry of Ms. Battle's odd behavior 4) sought the lifting of a ban for edit warring placed on Hrannar stating that in his opinion, Hrannar was provoked. Hrannar had been deleting a quote from a Time Magazine article concerning Ms. Battle's past behavior generating ill will. I believe any indication from user Kleinzach that he is somehow a neutral observer is no longer appropriate, particularly given his latest conspiracy theories. Eudemis 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am neither Eudemis or the anon IP. I would like to request a checkuser to prove this. Given my history here (which I am not proud of) I think some concrete evidence would be beneficial at proving my innocence in this case. While I do not doubt Kleinzach's motives, we do have a history of conflict which makes this accusation not surprising. Further, I readily admit to having a dislike for hrannar and to sharing a similar viewpoint as Eudemis in this debate. So frankly Kleinzach's suspicion is not entirely unfounded given my history (see December 2007 case). I think a check user is the only way I can adequately defend myself. Thanks for your help.Nrswanson (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.

 Clerk declined per the checkuser criteria, requests for checkuser to prove your own innocence are not accepted. Mayalld (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Since a check user was declined. I (nrswanson) am editing this not logged in to display my IP address. You will see that that the IP address is based in Oklahoma and not South Carolina like the anon IP.70.185.222.155 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the above will help. Unfortunately Eudemis is such a new user its difficult to make a case without a check user. Nrswanson (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking through Eudemis's short edit history the only defense I can build is to argue that he edits like a new user and not someone experienced at editing the encyclopedia. User:Eudemis is not formatted well. An experienced wikipedian would have known to use an * and : marks to indent and denote items under his list of Areas of interest. Further, he has forgotten to sign his comments on a number of occassions at Talk:Kathleen Battle. He also doesn't self reference wikipedia policies or procedures or wikify anything in his comments. His comments are actually pretty much devoid of wiki lingo. My arguements are almost always policy centered around BLP guidelines, WP:Not censored, and WP:NPOV. I also sound like someone who has been editing on wikipedia for a while and Eudemis, while confident, doesn't really. I personally don't think our writing style is all that similar either. There are also small things like his use of the undue function. In the more than 30,000 edits I have made I have never used the undue function. You'll notice going through my edit log that I regularly revert just using an edit summary. I also have the habit of making minor changes to my comments after posting them (fixing spelling error, etc.) That's evident looking at almost any conversation I participate in. Eudemis doesn't go back and edit his comments. In short we have different editing habits and display different levels of knowledge about wikipedia in general. Nrswanson (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrannar, no offence intended but I can't possibly see what the motive for all of this would be. Inmysolitude has never edited the Kathleen Battle article or tried to influence any content decisions made there in any way. The fact is you and I were edit waring. Nobody can make someone edit war. The worst consequence would be a minor block for a day which doesn't really seem worth the trouble to create such an elaborate conspiracy involving a month of planning. I mean we would just be going back to arguing the same points hours later. There's no real advantage in it.Nrswanson (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, Nrswanson. I do not believe you made me edit war. I suspect that you and Inmysolitude are the same person. I may be incorrect or correct. I cannot begin to speculate as to motive, save that it may be partially fueled by sentiments that you shared such as, "I readily admit to having a dislike for hrannar," so it is possible that comments coming from a person whose dislike is apparent would not bear as much weight as comments coming from someone like a Inmysolitude who, as you state, "has never edited the Kathleen Battle article or tried to influence any content decisions made there in any way." Hrannar (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Of course I deny it and I think your case is ridiculous. If anything I think inmysolitude was much harder on me than you. He (or she?) basically implied that I was doing something overtly wrong whereas you were just being anoying. I think I come out looking more like the bad guy than you do. Frankly I didn't much care for his take on the situation which I think is evident in my reply to him.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not surprise me that your perspective differs from mine. However you state, "I didn't much care for his take on the situation which I think is evident in my reply to him" but from my perspective, you seem quite receptive to his suggestions. If we are speaking of your "reply to him" that includes, "I'm willing to try and keep my comments as civil as possible in future." Which, by the way, I want to thank and encourage you to keep your comments as civil as possible in the future. Thanks. At the same time for the reasons stated above, I still believe you and he are the same. Do you not have a history of creating sockpuppets or meatpuppets to support whatever view you hold, which you have stated you are not proud of? Hrannar (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Hrannar once again you are selectively quoting me. I also said "I feel entirely justified in the comments I've made", basically not acknowledging inmysolitude's chastisement. My agreement to continue in a civil manner was merely an attempt at extending an olive branch for the sake of peace. I still have no regrets about any comments I've made. As for the history of Meat puppets from 2007, I think I've addressed that. Its there for everyone to read and see. I'm not proud of it and if anything that experience taught me to not do it again. I'd like to point out that I was a relatively new user at that point in time as well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: case moved and formatted Mayalld (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Comments by other users

Wow, Wikipedia gets more cynical with every passing day. Ceranllama chat post 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there are proven cases of sockpuppets, which detracts from the honest and collaborative nature of wikipedia. Mechanisms such as this, then, can help reduce those who engage in this behavior. Hrannar (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Conclusions

---