Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavalryman
Cavalryman
- Cavalryman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 March 2022
– This SPI case is open.
Suspected sockpuppets
All 3 IPs Geolocate to the same area. Their interest is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier debate. Cavalryman has been relentless in wanting to include a fringe theory as a statement of fact in Wikivoice. He has failed to get consensus for his proposed merge which was proposed last year, he failed to gain consensus for his NPOV tag, he tried forum-shopping and failed, and then came Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#GA Reassessment for all the wrong reasons. One of the IPs is supporting a 3rd Opinion. Never in my years as an editor have I seen such TE behavior, and refusal to let it go. And it's all about him wanting to include a flat-earth theory in Wikivoice, despite the theories already being included. It makes no sense. He has been beating this dead horse since 2019, which is what motivated this SPI. Aside from his PAs against me, I'm concerned as to what lengths he will go to get his way - like making it appear he has more support than what he does - and will it escalate? I asked Cavalryman if he forgot to log in to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he didn't reply. Even so, he should have made it known instead of leaving the impression that more editors support his position. The pushy, repetitive it's time to close this discussion approach while typically supporting his position as the obvious consensus. The comments made by the IPs sound exactly like Cavalryman;
- demanding an answer
- summarizing the RSN discussion that was posted right after Cavalryman posted
- again moving for the close.
- demands that either the RS is resolved or the GA needs review.
They're all the same - the inline tagging of articles, the demands/POV pushing - and they IPs all geolocate to the exact same area. Cavalryman is Australian, and served in the Australian Army according to his UP. He did mention in a comment that he was traveling this past week, I think. Atsme 💬 📧 04:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comment, I request a CU put this matter to bed, 700 km (430 mi) separates me from these IPs. Cavalryman (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC).
- Cavalryman, Atsme says that you posted recently that you had been traveling, something that might make the CU data inconclusive (or that would need to be confirmed by CU data showing travel of the registered account address). Is it true that you posted that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- He is not travelling now, is he? Check our locations both again. This IP supported a WP:THIRDOPINION after it was proposed by a Wikipedia Administrator, and has always sought the implementation of WP:POL to resolve differences - is that a bad thing? 14.2.195.135 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cavalryman, Atsme says that you posted recently that you had been traveling, something that might make the CU data inconclusive (or that would need to be confirmed by CU data showing travel of the registered account address). Is it true that you posted that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The perfect incriminating response, as if our top notch SPI admins/CUs haven't heard that excuse before. It's just too close and too regimented, like a military exercise. Atsme 💬 📧 21:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Replying to the IP, I'm in favor of CU checking, as long as there is reason to expect that it is meaningful. And if he is done traveling, that will potentially provide an answer. But I cannot help being curious how the IP found this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- What excuse are you referring to above, Atsme, because none was offered. TF - Atsme's edit history. If I need to check how this bull terrier Wiki-disaster is unfolding, that is the place I go. Additionally, BOTH warring parties appear to be avoiding a third party assessment. CU check away, you will confirm that this IP is not Cavalryman, which is the scope of this exercise. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Either Atsme's or Cavalryman's histories would have worked. The scope includes the other two IPs as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- What excuse are you referring to above, Atsme, because none was offered. TF - Atsme's edit history. If I need to check how this bull terrier Wiki-disaster is unfolding, that is the place I go. Additionally, BOTH warring parties appear to be avoiding a third party assessment. CU check away, you will confirm that this IP is not Cavalryman, which is the scope of this exercise. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I cannot believe I am being asked to confirm anything from this utterly ridiculous SPI which cites as evidence my being an Australian and "regimented" language from the IP. I have not left the state of Victoria for over 10 months, the closest I have been to Adelaide in that time is Ballarat, some 550 km (340 mi) away.
To the IP, I am not sure a third opinion would be productive, when a truely neutral administrator attempted to interview they were utterly dismissed [1]. Cavalryman (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC).
- Three out of the four key WP:FAC reviewers are Aussies, so by the same logic perhaps these may be the 3 mystery IPs? FYI CM, at this stage in the festivities I am keeping an eye on your edit history as well; you know the old Aussie saying: the only good thing to come out of Victoria is a New South Welshman on his way to South Australia! What were you thinking taking your engagement with AM to ANI - did you believe that the denizens of the "blood-sports page" would agree with you? Did you believe that each of them would be willing to invest several hours of their lives - hours that they would never get back - just to read through a tedious diatribe of "he said, she said"? WP:THIRD is an informal WP process, but its informal outcome is on display to all interested editors and this could have then been a basis for approaching ANI. That should have been your next step. Compare and contrast this approach with the genteel admin who - valiantly but ineffectively - tried to mediate the mayhem that you and AM have helped to manufacture regarding this poor beast. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)