Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex
Korvex
- Korvex (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Populated account categories: suspected
07 March 2017
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Korvex (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Siefert (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
Both users either claimed to have expert knowledge or have displayed signs of "insider knowledge" ([1], [2], [3], [4]), both are involved in articles pertaining to the history of Ancient Israel, both users push a maximalist (read: either fundamentalist or conservative evangelical) standpoint, both users have claimed to redress obvious WP:NPOV problems existing in Wikipedia articles ([5], [6], [7], [8]) both use <ref name=":0"> style of references ([9], [10]), both users have been warned about disruptive editing, although not blocked for doing it ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]). More diffs can be provided if needed, but the arguments are unlikely to change. Just to avoid misunderstandings: I do not profess to know that they are sockpuppets, but this is a question that needs an answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments by other users
This is very disconcerting. So this person accuses me of using multiple accounts (i am not, please do whatever is necessary to prove this) because I have claimed that some articles are not showing NPOV and am a Christian. ANd believes this is the case because he believes another person has the same attributes. Is it possible that those claims made by myself and whoever this other person is because they are indeed weaknesses in the articles for showing a biased view? This person who is making this claim is prejudice. He should not be allowed to edit articles where he is trying to find a way to not let people who he has designated as having an agenda, when it appears it is he who has an agenda.Siefert (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here are additional similarities between the two users. Despite the fact that both users are relatively new, both users have singled out material by the archaeologist William Dever and argued that it should be deleted: [19] [20], which is awfully specific. In the case of both editors, they spend most of their time on Wikipedia not directly making edits, but having long talk-page disagreements about their edits with other users [21] [22]. Alephb (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Involved so won't take any action. However unlikely this may be, I do see some similarities in approach that might warrant a CU to clear it up. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I agree. Please can someone clear this up? How soon does a CU act on this? Siefert (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Alephb's comments: Please read that entire thread about Devers. I was making a point. The editor had written that just because I had written a summary of an article and cited it, it should not be assumed that I had correctly summarized, admitting that he/she had not read the article to make that accusation. My point was that by your comments/logic, if you haven't read the one about Dever it should be taken out because it was indeed summarized incorrectly because I HAD read the article. And to the point that their are long discussions.. the necessity to constantly having to defend my good faith work on wikipedia because editors don't seem to be actually trying to improve the quality of the article, but putting multiple roadblocks without taking a serious look at what is being stated... mystifying to me, why this is happening. Siefert (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
One other question. Is it wikipedia's policy for their editors to identify people by their religion (or race, gender etc) as a reason to suspect them of some sort of suspicious/malicious activity? Siefert (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)