Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dreaded hall monitor

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreaded hall monitor (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 4 September 2017 (→‎Comments by other users: the quacking is from TheTimes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Oneshotofwhiskey

Oneshotofwhiskey (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed
Please note that a case was originally opened under Dreaded hall monitor (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey.


03 September 2017

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets


Oneshot's been on a roll with IP socking lately, but several of his IPs have been blocked and his antics have resulted in several pages being autoconfirmed protected (see, e.g., here and here), including Dinesh D'Souza, which has been the scene of the most sustained disruption. Among other things, Oneshot and his IPs have been trying to remove attributed commentary on a legal case involving D'Souza by renowned Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz for the better part of a year (here are just a few diffs involving Oneshot's named account, not the far larger list involving his IPs: [1], [2], [3]). With that history in mind, perhaps you can understand why I would be suspicious when, out of nowhere, Dreaded hall monitor reappeared to purge the content yet again, employing a rationale strikingly similar to Oneshot's: "no evidence he was 'selectively prosecuted' (NPOV,WEASEL) Dershowitz and conservo-commentators were in no way involved in this case." Oneshot previously expounded the same preposterous theory that "Since [Dershowitz] was not involved in this trial of D'Souza, his opinion is a form of WP:SYNTH. He offers his anecdotal opinion without evidence to back up his claim and it is weasel words here to include it." Note that this account actually predates Oneshot's, which is consistent with the high-level knowledge of Wikipedia policy demonstrated by Oneshot's earliest edits. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaded hall monitor is reinstating more of Oneshot's edits, with the same sources and nearly verbatim text, to Dinesh D'Souza: [4], [5] This includes egregious, gratuitous WP:BLP violations such as "[D'Souza] was required to perform a day (eight hours) of community service each week during his probation and to undergo therapy on a weekly basis." Even if you can't do a checkuser comparison with Oneshot or his previous socks because they've been inactive for the better part of a year, the WP:DUCK evidence is overwhelming—compare Dreaded hall monitor's comments here to those of previous Oneshot IP socks defending themselves at SPI, replete with the same attacks on me for supposedly WP:GAMING the system. Let's block this sock before he can do more damage to the encyclopedia!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Sro23, how is this case "stale"? Because Oneshot's been indeffed for a year? (Note that Oneshot's previous two socks, User:You'llNeverCare and User:AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am, were subject to checkuser blocks somewhat more recently, last January.) In point of fact, Dreaded hall monitor was anticipating a checkuser block as much as I was, hence the elaborate fable about how he and Oneshot are brothers that both live near each other in Colorado—a pretense he more or less dropped by bringing up my six-month topic ban from American Politics in one of his diffs below.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimes,
Please refrain from putting words into the mouths of others. I never wrote that User:Oneshotofwhiskey was "my brother." The information I volunteered to the investigation was meant to afford you the benefit of the doubt. I conceded it was within the realm of possibility I could be the victim of a prank or the scheme of a stalker. It is a small world. Anything is possible. You also confessed to being stressed out for similar reasons so anyone can make a mistake. That was your plea for empathy and, all things considered equal, I would like to believe I also deserve the same benefit of the doubt:[6]
I could understand if you were having a hard time. It would explain your overzealousness. However, your experience and history is also "consistent with the high-level knowledge of Wikipedia policy." You should know better than to twist my words like you did when you spun that deliberately misleading incriminating narrative about me; what with conflated language like "elaborate fable". That behavior alone should raise a red-flag with anyone reviewing this. My original hope was you were acting out of the greater good and were actually sincere in your concerns. A mistake I plan not to make again now that we can see the man behind the curtain. Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to this claim
-- It is not necessarily "damage to the encyclopedia" every time a user disagrees with you in a content dispute. For all we know, this account could be a false flag like some of the ones that came up when you were socking to evade your TBAN. Since there can't be a checkuser, I suggest you back away from this and treat edits on their merits rather than using "revert sockpuppet" in content disputes. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admins could easily do a checkuser on me. Are you sure that you aren't the real mastermind, given your history of collaborating with Oneshot (e.g., reinstating IP edits, fighting—unsuccessfully—against page protection) and the tendency of Oneshot's IPs to reinstate your edits verbatim ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11])? (Sarcasm.) In all seriousness, why would you fight against page protection if you actually believed that I, rather than your comrade, was using IPs? If you actually believe that Dreaded hall monitor is my sock (created back in 2011), why would you try to derail this SPI with false accusations? For the uninitiated, the only "false flags" on record are Oneshot's repeated attempts to impersonate me as part of what admin DoRD called a "joe job" earlier this year (the named accounts User:You'llNeverCare and User:AllWeKnowAreTheFacts,Ma'am were part of this smear campaign). A more plausible interpretation of the evidence is that SPECIFICO will countenance anything to advance her political POV, including IP socking and harassment—disappointing, but irrelevant to this investigation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is a lie. TheTimesAreAChanging is now deliberately lying when he is saying that I am "reinstating more of Oneshot's edits, with the same sources and nearly verbatim text, to Dinesh D'Souza."[12] Examine my history for proof. I also never authored the edit content which says "[D'Souza] was required to perform a day (eight hours) of community service each week during his probation and to undergo therapy on a weekly basis." even though TheTimes falsely asserts that I did. However, I did move the felony sentence content from the beginning of section to the end. Actually, this was done out of respect for the BLP so it would no longer stack the deck against him. This is a wonderful example of TheTimes taking things out of context and proving my point that events are never always as they appear to be:[13] You can not blame me when you are caught-redhanded gaming the alleged evidence. This is now the second time you have done this. No less than a dayAfter I pointed it out. With this page growing into an one-man wall of text that is rapidly TL:TR, I wonder out loud if being banned would put me out of my misery.(sarcasm) Don't want to ever again climb this wall of his tired emotional reasoning. Dreaded hall monitor talk 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility

OK. Hold your horses. Really?

For what it is worth (and it may be worth nothing), a facebook message from my brother triggered an interest in rectifying the filmmaker article. As I recall, my brother pointed out bad information over several Wikipedia pieces. The discussion took place outside of Wikipedia:

  • The decision to dive in and correct those errors were mine and mine alone. Did I step into it by design or his "antics"? He very well could have Wikipedia accounts of his own. Do not know. He resides in Fort Collins. I live in Loveland. But no coordination beyond that harmless exchange. Not in a Wikipedia sense to advance any pov. Unless manipulated, never was I asked to alter anything on anyone's behalf.

OK, if I can sum up what I think is known at this point:

  • "Involved" and "weasel" from a talk page exchange. Compared to my edit summary remark? A troublesome editor who possibly may or may not be pulling the strings. Combined with my ignorance.

Does intent matter? I only bothered to address the accusation because: If I have erred by unintended involvement, or violated the rules in some way, I apologize and accept the consequences regardless of ignorance. But my intentions were in good faith for what it's worth (and it may too be worth nothing). Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if you believe that, I've got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheTimes,
No need to make this personal with juvenile remarks. More likely than not, it would seem you will get your wish and block my account. You have successfully exploited my ignorance and literally made a sport out of Wikipedia, here and elsewhere, in the game you evidently want the whole world to know you are playing. Block or not, one way or another I will sit it out. Ignoring the rabble-rousers and the troublemakers for a moment, I would still like to extend an apology to the community for any problems I may have unintentionally caused.
Sincerely,Robin a.k.a. Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dreaded_hall_monitor&oldid=798953371"