Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ceedjee: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Found some more Belgian hopping IPs and added them to report. All edit the same sub topic within the topic area
Line 48: Line 48:


Admins in the topic area have suggested an SPI as a means of dealing with this user so he can be responded to as the experienced editor that he is. That's all I'm requesting of the reviewing Admin here – to confirm that these IPs are the same user that's been editing Wikipedia at least going as far back as 2006. That [[User:Ceedjee]] is stale is a technicality. The circumstances in this case are exceptional enough to override that consideration.—[[User:Biosketch|Biosketch]] ([[User talk:Biosketch|talk]]) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Admins in the topic area have suggested an SPI as a means of dealing with this user so he can be responded to as the experienced editor that he is. That's all I'm requesting of the reviewing Admin here – to confirm that these IPs are the same user that's been editing Wikipedia at least going as far back as 2006. That [[User:Ceedjee]] is stale is a technicality. The circumstances in this case are exceptional enough to override that consideration.—[[User:Biosketch|Biosketch]] ([[User talk:Biosketch|talk]]) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

:Do you mean that you was edit warring ? My edit was an intervention in an edit war when in fact I made 1 single revert going back to the older version and reminding to users (among whom, you !) to go to the talk page ?
:There is nothing disruptive but in the eyes of contributors who doesn't care the content but just care their WP:Battle. Sorry for this. [[Special:Contributions/91.180.65.140|91.180.65.140]] ([[User talk:91.180.65.140|talk]]) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>======

Revision as of 14:55, 11 June 2012

– An administrator or SPI clerk requires more information to determine what action to take.

Ceedjee

Ceedjee (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/Ceedjee/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

10 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Ostensibly, User:Ceedjee retired from Wikipedia in early 2010. In reality, the user continues to edit, at times disruptively, ever hopping from one IP to another and all the while refusing to acknowledge that he's the same user as "retired" Ceedjee. The edits all concern the Arab-Israeli conflict and are in a topic area that's volatile enough without disruptive users trying to evade scrutiny by constantly changing the IPs they edit from so as to make monitoring their contributions virtually impossible.

One uninvolved Admin that enforces the topic area's remedies recently pointed out two IP ranges inviting closer inspection as possibly also related to Ceedjee: [1] and [2] and recommended opening an SPI to confirm that all these edits are coming from the same user.

Ceedjee was notified of the restrictions governing the Israeli-Arab topic area in 2008, but was not blocked the last time an AE was filed against one of his suspected IPs for violating 3RR because an SPI was considered more efficient a method than blocking a protocol address. A second uninvolved Admin in the topic area also advised the Ceedjee IPs to confirm or deny that they are Ceedjee, but the IPs have not been forthcoming in that regard - not here, not here, and most recently not here. If the IPs are repeatedly avoiding identifying themselves with the Ceedjee account when confronted about it, then it's necessary for a checkuser to do so. As things stand, Admins are hesitant to enforce arbitration rulings against the IP when his edits disrupt the topic area, but at the same time Ceedjee isn't earmarked as a sockmaster so the IP is free to continue cycling his address and never having to answer for his actions.

One last example from this morning. Here a Ceedjee IP involves himself in an edit conflict, removing a passage without consensus and without a corresponding comment on the Discussion page, with the result that a like-minded colleague (himself currently the subject of an Arbitration Enforcement case) piggybacks on his diff to try and gain an upper hand in a content dispute. —Biosketch (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2012
General comments

Right, what's led me to thinking that these IPs and this other user are Ceedjee, and not some other random person who has an opinion on the I/P conflict, is firstly the fact that the IPs never deny they're Ceedjee when confronted with that charge. Ordinarily, people deny charges they consider false; all these IPs do is ignore the charges or accuse the charger of NPA. Then there's the fact that the IPs made changes to Ceedjee's User Page declaring themselves to be Ceedjee. Thirdly, there's the thematic overlap in their edits. They don't just edit in the same topic area; they focus in particular on certain subtopics in the topic area. And lastly, there's the somewhat poorly spoken English and suggestion of French as being the user's mother tongue.

Evidence
  • This case can easily be filled with more such examples, and they can be shown to involve not just technical overlap as far as dates and IP addresses but contextual overlap as well, if necessary. But see below.
Further discussion

The problem is – and maybe this is something that SPI lacks the necessary tools to address, but no other venue seems able to deal with it – is that, as a constantly changing IP with no confirmed link to a single identity, it's impossible to enforce the topic area's remedies on this user. He hounds a user, edit wars, makes disruptive edits, but each time as someone else with no prior record. He's exploiting a loophole in the system to enjoy immunity, and that's not something that the topic area can tolerate. What other reason could he have for not editing with a registered account other than to evade scrutiny? WP:SCRUTINY, it's true, on a literal level anyway, applies strictly to registered accounts. But lower down on that page there's a section specifically about "Editing logged out in order to mislead." He had a registered account, retired it, but is continuing to edit under the false pretense of being a random editor with an interest in the topic area.

Also, what the IP says about my reasons for filing this SPI is demonstrably false. I haven't even formed an opinion yet in that AfD, so there's no basis for him saying I resent his vote there. In fact the real reason I filed this SPI yesterday is this edit at Right to exist, where the IP joined in an edit war, reverting against long-established consensus without participating in the debate on the Discussion page. Had this been a user with a documented history in the topic area, that kind of POV-pushing behavior would be grounds for Enforcement. The cycling of IPs with no confirmed Master effectively renders the IP and all his future manifestations untouchable.

Admins in the topic area have suggested an SPI as a means of dealing with this user so he can be responded to as the experienced editor that he is. That's all I'm requesting of the reviewing Admin here – to confirm that these IPs are the same user that's been editing Wikipedia at least going as far back as 2006. That User:Ceedjee is stale is a technicality. The circumstances in this case are exceptional enough to override that consideration.—Biosketch (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you was edit warring ? My edit was an intervention in an edit war when in fact I made 1 single revert going back to the older version and reminding to users (among whom, you !) to go to the talk page ?
There is nothing disruptive but in the eyes of contributors who doesn't care the content but just care their WP:Battle. Sorry for this. 91.180.65.140 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Biosketch should give complete information and not just pick what is good for his argumentation. He requires a SPI for a user who has not edited for 3 years, who is not banned and against who there is no sanction.

I know that wp:npov just concerns articles but that is not bad to comply with this.

I do confirm that I am all the IP's listed here above who edited in Mai and June 2012. I cannot say for the others. I haven't edited wp for long. It's my right to edit under IP. It's dynamic/hopping because each time my modem is switched on/off, my provider attributes another to me. Anyway, it is easy to "recognize" me. I have not a single contentious edit, haven't been blocked and didn't participate to any single editwar. There is no reason to perform a SPI per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

What motivates Biosketch seems to be that I made comments on a RfD where I do not support his mind. He is very agressive towards user:Zero0000 on that RfD and maybe he should take some distance with it [3].

81.247.97.117 (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this Belgion IP has acted disruptively elsewhere and prompted other SPI inquiries. See this case where the link between the Belgian IP's, Noisetier and Ceedjee are well documented. Further evidence of disruptive editing can be found here. Ankh.Morpork 11:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedje/Noisetier/Belgian IPs is not a disruptive editor. He has good knowledge about the topics he edits and is a valuable contributor to the project. He is not, AFAIK, breaking any rules. This SPI should be dismissed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Additional information needed - First off, Ceedjee is  Stale, so any check user cannot be done comparing the list of users to Ceedjee. This means that this would need to be decided on evidence alone, and I'm not seeing enough of it to make a decision, one way or the other. IP addresses change all the time, many ISPs have dynamic IP addresses, so they change often. The other thing to consider is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a contentious issue, and many people have feelings on the matter, one way or another. What has led you to thinking that these IPs and this other user are Ceedjee, and not some other random person who has an opinion on the I/P conflict? I need more information. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 11:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biosketch, you say that "..the IPs made changes to Ceedjee's User Page declaring themselves to be Ceedjee". Do you have a diff for this? No need, I've found it. Looking into it now. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 10:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ceedjee&oldid=497068820"