Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Judith Merrick (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 17 March 2010 (Dabomb87 diff added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gaydenver

Gaydenver (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected


Report date March 7 2010, 22:07 (UTC)


Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by DD2K

JB5000 and John Obamo are legal accounts by the same editor, but I listed both to make sure all evidence is listed. The account for Gaydenver had his first edit on 2-28-2009, but waited until 8-24-2009 to start editing consistently. Shortly afterwards the user started editing the Barack Obama article. I will highlight this edit regarding Obama as being listed as a professor in the article, with the edit summary stating- "removing false information. Please, don't put in wrong information". Then the user went to another editors page and made this edit, warning the user to 'not put false information' in the Obama article. The user then went on to revert two(1, 2) other editors, and then made a report at ANI demanding one of the users be blocked for inserting 'false information'. Which eventually got Gaydenver blocked. I will also highlight these four edits(1, 2, 3, 4) while the user was blocked, for comparison to JB50000's behavior while blocked. Also, the user negotiates with administrators by offering deals and 'being nice'. Which is another familiar trait used by JB50000 and the other users in this SPI case. Which I will now list.

JB50000 examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Suomi Finland 2009 1 2 3

Judith Merrick creating an article titled "Barack Obama condolences" within a week of the users first edit. The article was put up for deletion and was deleted. Then the user proceed to make edits that are strangely similar as the other users in this case. 1 2 3 4

Also, both JB50000 and Judith Merrick edit(Judith Merrick created) the Samuel Zoll article and have very similar edits. Gaydenver's account was inactive from August of 2009 to March of 2010, JB50000 was blocked for 1 week on March 2 2010.

I believe there are many more sock-puppets involved here, and a CU is needed to prevent further disruption in several articles. One of the earlier edits JB50000 made was to John Carter's page concerning a RfC for Rjanag, where I believe the main 'puppetmaster' could be located. With a CU. DD2K (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't see what the logic to listing me with some of these other people. JB50000 seems very argumentative, but I am not. Soumi Finland 2009 writes about things I never heard of, such as Joaquin Lavin. I never edited anything the same as Judith Merrick. The question to the checkuser is why is this POV extremist picking on me?

The thing that binds all these users is only that DD2K doesn't like them. Some are tied because they use the word "nice"; I don't use the word nice.

If there is a checkuser done, then DD2K should have a checkuser on him since the accuser of a crime is sometimes the real criminal, at least in real life.

I am not these people and I want my name dropped because I don't edit the same articles as the others. So that's innocence two ways, not these people and not editing the same. These kind of accusations just drive people away so that DD2K can do anything he wants.

Conclusion: DD2K wants to block anyone that doesn't agree with him. If there were a poll and users voted the same way is one thing but I edit different articles than the others. Gaydenver (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per this edit [1], Gaydenver has asked to be blocked. However, I reverted this [2] premature closure of this page, as I still feel a checkuser should be run for the alternate accounts, and for a possible lengthening of JB50000's block if any evidence turns up. Dayewalker (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc accused me. A UT professor (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc accused me. 129.111.56.164 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saved the checkuser some time. Now, Tarc and DD2K, you do the same. A UT professor (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same logic as the original poster, the following has similar traits, User:Abrazame, User: Tarc (both use the word nice).User:DD2K (because the accuser is sometimes guilty). Also add me User:A UT professor just to be neutral. I have just added a review of the Barack Obama article. The problem with the article is that there is too much fighting. If people would just discuss matters. Since there are millions of supporters, opponents, and neutral people, socks are irrelevant since there are so many people in the U.S. and so many potential meatpuppets. Just come up with neutral edits and explanations. A UT professor (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc has accused me of being a sock. Therefore, I formally add my name and his name to this list. Rather than think of new ways to improve the article, he attacks me on the FAR page accusing me of being a sock. This is the typical reaction of incivility. The really constructive thing to do would just be to think of ways to improve the article. I have given my ideas. None of these ideas are extremely pro and anti-Obama. They are all for improving the article. A UT professor (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=348470561 Tarc uses the word "nice" during an argument. This is one of the reasons DD2K used to prove sockpuppetry. Tarc is therefore a sock by DD2K's logic. Tarc also has removed his name proving guilt. A UT professor (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Behavior does look pretty similar, particularly stances demonstrated in comments at the Obama talkpage, and his tone & style. JB50000 was recently blocked, partly because of edits he did to Talk:Barack Obama, so if he is continuing to edit there with some other account then his block ought to be extended quite a bit. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as above, the behavior is very similar in several ways. This editor only returned recently with the block of JB50000, so if this sock comes back positive, I agree with Rjanag that JB's block should be extended. He's been disruptive enough. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone else see any reason for this edit [3], in which Gaydenver appears to be asking for help from the same new admin that JB50000 went to? Is there a reason for the coincidence? Dayewalker (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reviewed the edit history of all those users and there is a big pink label on JB50000 that he was blocked by that administrator. Ok, you are so persistent I will tell you. I am an employee of the City and County of Denver and do not wish to be more involved because I could be fired for wasting time. Please block me for life. Gaydenver (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an attempt to get out of check user to me. If you're going to be fired for time wasting, don't edit from work, or just stop editing, there's no need to have a block... - Kingpin13 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gaydenver/JB50000 patterns seem convincing to me, from writing style and tone to editing topics to putting up superlarge photos on their user page during a block. As to SuomiFinland, I am hoping CU will exonerate him. I've had a brief conversation with this user he seemed — I hesitate to use the word "nice"! Coincidentally, Suomi had pledged not to edit for a week or two, just prior to JB50000's block, and has spoken of a sense of wanting to reduce his editing here, which recalls Gaydenver's comments above. I'm hoping I wasn't rooked by Suomi; although I don't have extensive familiarity with him, I actually wrote in that conversation that I interpreted him as a neutral poster with no axe to grind — or, I would add, wield — which I can't say about Judith Merrick and JB50000; the passive-aggressive pedantry those two have in common does raise an eyebrow. To Gaydenver's comment: applying CU isn't going to jeopardize his job, is it? Abrazame (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last question, no, it won't affect his job. The only person who would have access to the information (essentially, which IP addresses the various accounts have edited from) would be the person performing the checkuser, and that person wouldn't share the information with anyone; all he really does is say "the accounts are related" or "the accounts are not related" based on the evidence. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the talk pages of some editors editing this article and found this link. It seems that since I have not edited, I should be added to the CU list. Also Tarc used the phrase "nice" so he should be added to, using the same logic as the original poster. Some of the logic used seems very accusatory. Also add Abrazame, who used the word "nice". I just submitted a review for the article. A UT professor (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc vandalized and removed his name. He used the word nice and is a straw man/sock suspect. Really, these accusations need to stop and we need to get down to the business of article improvement. A UT professor (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fully support adding the A UT professor account above to this list. While the block on JB50000 is over, if he's found to have been trolling with an alternate account, I would also fully support a reblock. Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I helped you out. My IP is shown above. I signed my name, log off, signed by IP, then signed my name again, all within one minute. I am a professor. A UT professor (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is every need, Checkuser doesn't just check IPs. Dayewalker (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, the brand new A UT professor (talk · contribs) is almost certainly the person behind this SPI investigation. Briefly: new users do not spend their first hour in the way this user has; the user has exactly the same style of politely innocent editing that is clearly intended to provoke an over-the-top response that may cause trouble for the responder. I am unfamiliar with SPIs and will expand my opinion if requested by an established editor. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unfamiliar with what the outcome seems to indicate. Is Gaydenver unrelated to both groups, or related to both groups? If unrelated that would be surprising to me. I thought the behavior of the two accounts(JB50000/Gaydenver) to be pretty obvious. In any case, Ipromise edited Wikipedia while JB50000 was blocked. And if 'group 2' is related to 'group 1', then Suomi Finland 2009 and Qpwoeial were also active. DD2K (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely bad faith nomination of me. I am an immigrant and not involved in politics. I am returning after a silly bet (which was made BEFORE this bad faith nomination!) that Finland would win the women's hockey bronze (which they did) then may another silly bet that Finland would win the men's gold, which they didn't. This is just a fishing expedition. I admit to Kailuamodification, that was an old account that I remembered so I closed it (I was so honest that I officially closed it without anyone asking). I think I know Reagan Rommel and Qpwoeial, whom I'm never going to let use my computer again because of this accusation. Should everyone in Wikipedia be checkusered and be forced to answer questions about any other user found? I'm ready to edit and fix some articles that I started working on but, due to these accusations, I will extend my Wikibreak for 7 additional days.
Group 3 apparently is Gaydenver and is editing from the "City and County of Denver" so the original accusation is wrong. Group 4 apparently is the UT professor, at least according to the checkuser and is editing from the University of Texas. I am no Texan. My suggestion to DD2K is to just edit well instead of accusing great editors like me. I turned a lousy written stub into a 5 fold expansion DYK then to a GA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I'm confused as to which of the users on the "Suspected sockpuppets" list have been checked (and which not) and what those checks indicate. I take it that the CU of SuomiFinland has exonerated him from any reasonable possibility of being JB50000 or the others, which I said above was my expectation and my hope. ReaganRommel and the Hawaii account have had no problems and I didn't wade through the other. So if someone can corroborate my interpretation of this, would they please respond here or on Suomi's page that there is nothing in this that implicates him or those who may have used his computer to create an account in any wrongdoing? In our efforts to prevent delinquency here, let's be sure we take a moment to acquit the innocent. Abrazame (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather an administrator go through this with the CU to find out if the accounts not listed below were using proxies or universities to edit from. I find it very hard to believe that the users are not related. There is just too many instances where the users use the same styles, and the same feigned politeness designed to act as if unbiased. Between 'prose', the "I will be nice", the negotiations with administrators and the 'self imposed' breaks, it seems painfully obvious to me that the accounts are related. Of course every case has to rely on the evidence and the experience of an administrator. So whatever happens is ok with me. DD2K (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Merrick (talk · contribs) is disrupting by FAR by continuing to relist the Barack Obama FAR, closed by the FAR delegate YellowMonkey last night. I believe this is consistent with past behavior from this drawer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Merrick (talk · contribs) [4] and A UT professor (talk · contribs) [5] similarly referred to me as the head of FAR (which I'm not), in spite of them allegedly being new users. This has been typical behavior on my talk page of past Obama-FAR socks, who nominate FARs inappropriately and then sing the same song when these FARs are removed by the FAR delegate-- this is a long-standing and recurring pattern, going back about half a dozen FARs. Please run a CU so we can be done with this time-consuming disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FAR looked open so I added a comment. (DaBomb87 agrees and write here about the confusion-not a case of disruption- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADabomb87&action=historysubmit&diff=350464235&oldid=350463902) Only AFTER I added a comment was the blue closed box added. If you look at the comment, the suggestions for article improvement were very good and very productive. I even took the effort to write detailed suggestions.
As far as using the term "head of FAR", A UT Professor wrote that in the FAR which I read so I was just copying that. If that is used as a reason, then SandyGeorgia should be blocked because both she and most other sockpuppets use the word "the", thus proving a link. I am not in Texas, very far from it. Also look at my edits and see how reasonable they are, not POV pushing at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama/archive8&diff=prev&oldid=350456079 Judith Merrick (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by DD2K (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tarc and the others about the addition of his/her account. I don't suspect him/her related to the accounts at this time. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence will be necessary to determine a link between the two groups and to any other parties listed above and not listed here. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: All six accounts listed at the top of this request were checked, together with those that arose during the sweep. If any of the accounts at the top of this request are not listed above, that means that there was insufficient technical evidence to indicate a relationship with any certainty, and behavioral evidence alone must be used. Please remember, that somone editing for the first time through a proxy or university account would appear unrelated technically, and behavioral evidence would be needed. I hope this clarifies any questions. -- Avi (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gaydenver&oldid=350467636"