Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msc008: Difference between revisions
Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
I have nothing to do with any of those other accounts, but it is pretty clear that if any collusion is going on here, which I strongly suspect, it much more likely concerns the partisans of keeping the article and not those of deleting it. As, indeed, one would expect, since those who wish to keep a POV article have a natural vested interest which those who wish to delete it do not have. I do not much care, it is just the first time in my life I read such an obviously biased WP article and a minimum sense of service to the community necessitated my flagging it.[[User:Fbunny|Fbunny]] ([[User talk:Fbunny|talk]]) 11:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
I have nothing to do with any of those other accounts, but it is pretty clear that if any collusion is going on here, which I strongly suspect, it much more likely concerns the partisans of keeping the article and not those of deleting it. As, indeed, one would expect, since those who wish to keep a POV article have a natural vested interest which those who wish to delete it do not have. I do not much care, it is just the first time in my life I read such an obviously biased WP article and a minimum sense of service to the community necessitated my flagging it.[[User:Fbunny|Fbunny]] ([[User talk:Fbunny|talk]]) 11:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:What evidence do you have of off-site collusion for the "keep" votes? The delete votes are the ones coming out of no where with obvious sock and/or meat puppet accounts (you cannot deny that Wiggum is a sock for one of the above IPs, Helen Keller could see that). [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 17:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
:What evidence do you have of off-site collusion for the "keep" votes? The delete votes are the ones coming out of no where with obvious sock and/or meat puppet accounts (you cannot deny that Wiggum is a sock for one of the above IPs, Helen Keller could see that). [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 17:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Perhaps I was overreacting to being included in the scope of the accusation: I think it is pretty obvious from my contribution history that I have nothing to do with it and if the accusers took no pains to establish that, they seemed to me unreliable. Nevertheless I looked into it a bit more and it seems also to me plausible that some of the "delete" accounts may be linked, that is, the same person. I discussed on the AfD page the general problem here, so I won't repeat it. I do not have evidence, only it seems to be likely, because how else would all these people have become aware of the proposal to delete the page and reacted so quickly? But I do not think these are the same people, they are just members of a group of people who share a common perspective and an interest in maintaining the page which goes beyond its encyclopedic value.[[User:Fbunny|Fbunny]] ([[User talk:Fbunny|talk]]) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
||
Revision as of 17:57, 13 February 2014
Msc008
- Msc008 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12 February 2014
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Fbunny (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Bill A Armstrong (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
User created multiple accounts to sockpuppet in an AfD and hound another user. User is already blocked by one of his IPs for hounding and privacy violations:[1] As blocks apply per user, not per account, his sock accounts should be blocked as well. He has now used multiple accounts and logged-out editing to !vote multiple times in an AfD:[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] this is clear sockpuppetry. Given the user's history of sockpuppetting on WP and other sites, it is reasonable to assume he will attempt to create and use more sock accounts, so I am submitting the above as a paper trail and starting point if an entire category needs to be created for the sockdrawer. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Given this diff:[8] it looks like 216.218.29.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should probably be added to this as well. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
ChiefClancyWiggam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems connected as well from this diff: [9]. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I've only just crossed paths with this, but it's still obvious to me that WP:DUCK season is open. CU would still be nice to catch other accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with any of those other accounts, but it is pretty clear that if any collusion is going on here, which I strongly suspect, it much more likely concerns the partisans of keeping the article and not those of deleting it. As, indeed, one would expect, since those who wish to keep a POV article have a natural vested interest which those who wish to delete it do not have. I do not much care, it is just the first time in my life I read such an obviously biased WP article and a minimum sense of service to the community necessitated my flagging it.Fbunny (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have of off-site collusion for the "keep" votes? The delete votes are the ones coming out of no where with obvious sock and/or meat puppet accounts (you cannot deny that Wiggum is a sock for one of the above IPs, Helen Keller could see that). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was overreacting to being included in the scope of the accusation: I think it is pretty obvious from my contribution history that I have nothing to do with it and if the accusers took no pains to establish that, they seemed to me unreliable. Nevertheless I looked into it a bit more and it seems also to me plausible that some of the "delete" accounts may be linked, that is, the same person. I discussed on the AfD page the general problem here, so I won't repeat it. I do not have evidence, only it seems to be likely, because how else would all these people have become aware of the proposal to delete the page and reacted so quickly? But I do not think these are the same people, they are just members of a group of people who share a common perspective and an interest in maintaining the page which goes beyond its encyclopedic value.Fbunny (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)