Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TharsHammar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:09, 3 July 2009

TharsHammar

TharsHammar (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/TharsHammar/Archive.

Report date July 2 2009, 04:06 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Mark Shaw

recent history at [Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

(Added the next day, to fill out the report) StephenLaurie's contributions are overwhelmingly limited to the page referenced above, where he makes exactly the same edits/reversions as does TharsHammar, closely related in time, and uses the same aggressive and confrontational tone in edit summaries and discussion-page justifications. If this is not sockpuppetry, it is at least tag-teaming and dog-in-a-manger behavior. Mark Shaw (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is usually called "projection" and is incorrect both on facts and substance. The same argument could be made of "Mark Shaw" and a few other accounts who insist on blanking much of that article. --StephenLaurie (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

It is my understand that cases should only be brought once evidence has been fully gathered and vetted, and the accuser believes they have sufficient basis for their charges. I therefore believe that Mark Shaw has presented his full case at this time. Based on the lack of evidence and the complete lack of arguments presented this report is baseless and without merit. It is therefore justifiable in me stating I move that the case be closed with prejudice at this time. If there is any actual evidence brought at a later time I can and will respond to such charges. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 04:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not TharsHammar, and Mark Shaw appears to engaging in harassment. --StephenLaurie (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 (Added the next day, to fill out the report) [[User:StephenLaurie|StephenLaurie]]'s contributions are overwhelmingly limited to the page referenced above, where he makes exactly the same edits/reversions as does [[User:TharsHammar|TharsHammar]], closely related in time, and uses the same aggressive and confrontational tone in edit summaries and discussion-page justifications.  If this is not sockpuppetry, it is at least tag-teaming and dog-in-a-manger behavior. [[User:Mark Shaw|Mark Shaw]] ([[User talk:Mark Shaw|talk]]) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
-:Incorrect both on facts and the substance.  The same argument could be made of you and a few other accounts who insist on blanking the page.  --[[User:StephenLaurie|StephenLaurie]] ([[User talk:StephenLaurie|talk]]) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
+:The above is usually called "projection" and is incorrect both on facts and substance.  The same argument could be made of "Mark Shaw" and a few other accounts who insist on blanking much of that article.  --[[User:StephenLaurie|StephenLaurie]] ([[User talk:StephenLaurie|talk]]) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 ;Comments by accused parties  &nbsp;&nbsp; <small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</span></small>