Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavalryman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 14.2.195.135 (talk) at 21:22, 9 March 2022 (→‎{{big|Comments by other users}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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;

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Cavalryman, that you for clarifying that, whatever you might or might not have said about traveling, you have not been within many miles of Adelaide within the relevant time frame. Please let me suggest that a CU settle for sure what is going on, one way or the other, and then we can all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Folks, the CUs aren't going to connect Cavalryman to the IP addresses or exonerate them based on CU evidence, for well founded privacy reasons. I'll bet an hour of working on that this case is made or broken on behavioral evidence. I hope this saves you all some time. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure it couldn't exonerate him? A conclusion that they were so far apart that there is no way that socking could have occurred would reveal no more personal information than what we already have. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What happens when CUs start routinely exonerating accounts from connection to IPs and then decline CU whenever they find a positive? No, I'm not sure, though I could point you to dozens of SPIs where there's been a clear statement that this kind of CU request is declined as a matter of policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wait with baited breath - AM has already slipped over on her a*se into the mud on this one, she just does not know it yet. Soon she will. What will she do then I wonder - apologise to CM as a gentlewoman might? Unlikely; she has allowed an intellectual debate to transform into a personal vendetta. Or perhaps make a statement commencing with "I did not think....". Clearly. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cavalryman&oldid=1076194530"