Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:10, 29 July 2008

User:Nrcprm2026

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Dlabtot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I believe that this person has been maintaining the sockpuppet Dlabtot for some time. There was an earlier case that came back unlikely at checkuser, but I now believe that this person is simply editing Wikipedia under a proxy. The argument earlier was that he was actually James Lang and is living in Alberton, MT, but now I believe that to be a smokescreen: he has borrowed James Lang's identity for the purposes of continuing to disrupt Wikipedia. Like James S., this person seems peculiarly obsessed with Berkeley, left-wing politics, depleted uranium, and has followed me around incessantly just as Nrcprm2026 did. He seems to be very careful, but I'll note very first actions upon clearing the sockpuppetry and later arbcomm case was attacking me out of the blue with very veiled incessant prodding that has not let up and has risen to the point of harassment. This point has never been explained: and his familiarity with Wikipedia as well as his choice to pick a fight with me seem very peculiar. Since he had refrained from attacking me when the previous case was filed, I think we need an explanation as to whether the previous case really should have been closed the way it was. There are now four distinct pieces of evidence and since this was a prolific sockpuppeteer, there is every reason to think he may be using proxies to edit ala User:Davkal. We need to investigate this thoroughly.

Yawn. Everything I have to say about this, I already said last October, when I provided my real name and even provided a link to my picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nrcprm2026_(3rd) (actually, one thing to add, I have now sometimes edited from some other ips, e.g. 66.109.148.174) If you have any doubts just look me up in the phone book and call me. Dlabtot (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is your position that you are in no way related to James S.? You have never been in contact with him, have never used his identity and all this evidence is simply a coincidence? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no need nor desire to argue with you. I have already denied your accusations, all of which are entirely groundless. Dlabtot (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you singularly obsessed with me? What brought you to my page in the diff I provided above? I have never been active on any of the pages you were editing under the User:Dlabtot account up to that point, so how did you suddenly know to attack me if not from your James S. alterego with whom I did have very nasty encounters? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rational response to your question would probably involve simply pointing out that your premise (I am obsessed with you) is invalid, unsupported by evidence, and a violation of your ArbComm restrictions against incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. However, experience having shown me the value of rational discourse on Wikipedia, and the hour being 3am and having imbibed my fair share of alcohol, I will instead respond (apologizing in advance to those who don't get the joke), by asking, , " why do you hate America "? Dlabtot (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit further that the sockpuppeteer and the sockpuppet are both active on the same geographical locations. I believe that the evidence connecting these two accounts is striking. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diffs

As you can see the user is peculiarly OBSESSED with me. I can provide diffs of the sockpuppeteer acting with obsession, though with a bit more bluntness in his singular striving for "balance": Talk:Quasi-steady state cosmology.

Another interesting parallel is that both are staunchly opposed to pseudoscience, but see a need for "balance". Read some of the above comment on homeopathy as well and compare to this.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge the admins reviewing the case to carefully examine the diffs provided rather than take at face value the characterizations by SA. They seem to mostly be a reposting of the diffs he provided back in February in another attempt to have me sanctioned. He's wasting your time. Again. Dlabtot (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I have removed a number of privacy-breaching posts from this page, and emailed the removed mark-up to ScienceApologist so he can repost the valid evidence, if he wishes, without that material. - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, back in November I wrote to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org asking that the personally identifying information about me on [1] be removed, but I never received a response, and it was never removed. Yes, I revealed it in response to the sockpuppet case but in hindsight that wasn't necessary and probably not wise. Once this case is done, can we get my name and address removed from this current page and its history and that old one as well? Yeah, my street address isn't listed but that doesn't matter in a town as small as this. tia Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, the (very tiny) upside of this is that it has been kind of fun to google myself... a simple search on dlabtot shows my wikipedia profile first - well, there's no debate about whether WP has a high google rank... next is my photobucket page, where the most interesting photos in my opinion, are the ones of my wolf-dog Luca when she was a really cute puppy. (If you want to see more pictures of Luca, go to http://luca.soak.net - oh, and, while you're at it, you might want to check out this.) On the photobucket page there are a lot of pictures of pie, and using them a really determined sleuth could possibly figure out my username at dailykos.com. Next up is a post I made on ghosttowns.com about the not-really a ghost town near me, Lothrop. I was gonna create a Wikipedia page about Lothrop, or about Petty Creek, I have a book about the history here, but, something about the rules for creating pages, or notability, or something, made me decide it was gonna involve too much work at the time. But someday I will. After that there's not much except wikipedia stuff, oddly enough the website where I originally chose the username dlabtot barely shows up. It was also interesting to search on the other information given on this page, e.g., "james lang alberton montana". That'll reveal a post I made about a recent Iranian missile launch where I described being in the Navy and the missiles we got to test our new missile system were 2 out of 3 duds. You can see the ship at USS Savannah (AOR-4). The missile system consisted of the two controllers (they are the two elevated object towards the aft that look like of Mickey Mouse ears without heads) and the launcher which could hold 8 missiles (hard to see but just aft of the smokestack). Looks like the opinion I posted on the WSJ about Brian Schweitzer's veep prospects was also indexed by google. Googling jim lang montana will show you the myspace page of my, sorry to say, defunct band, 9x13 (ugh, I didn't know that Rob added those keyboard tracks, I don't approve), as well as the local blog 4and20blackbirds, where I post under my own name... I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. I again request that the information about myself that I revealed in response to the earlier accusation, and repeated here by SA and elaborated upon here by me, be deleted. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you add a bunch of information about yourself and then ask for it to be deleted? There's rules against posting -other- people's information because it violates -their- right to privacy. If you want to remain private, don't post your -own- information. I'm sure someone will be happy to remove the information per your request, but adding your information, requesting for it to be removed, adding more information, and then asking for that to be removed as well, is burdening admins unnecessarily. Right to privacy is a right, but removing information you yourself posted is a courtesy since that was information posted publically and voluntarily. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in October, I revealed my name and town in response to a sockpuppet accusation. In November, I wrote to oversight asking that it be removed. Yesterday, ScienceApologist reposted it on this page. In the post I made above, I took the information previously revealed about me and demonstrated a small part of what one can learn with google and that bit of information. My point being, please delete that bit of information, a point that obviously was not made effectively by my email to oversight. Dlabtot (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ps - I understand that it is a courtesy - one I ask to be extended to me. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further non-public, privacy related information has been removed from this page. Folks; please be careful and try to get your point across without revealing private information on an editor. If it's privacy-related and it needs to be stated, consider pmailing an arbitrator - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a sockpuppet accusation or an "I don't like Dlabtot" rant. All I see above are attacks on Dlabtot as an editor, innuendo and peculiarly described diffs, but nothing to connect him to the banned user. This is real life now, not physics. D-- must do better.64.86.17.112 (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (3rd) has been courtesy blanked. Checkusers have access to prior revisions if needed. Please refrain from posting personal information in the future. Kylu (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and if this page is also blanked after the resolution of this case, I would be similarly grateful. Dlabtot (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more point to note: In all these accusations, Dlabtot has yet to come out and say, once-and-for-all, that there is no connection between him and the other account. Of course, others have documented evidence that the two accounts are interested in a lot of the same things, edit in similar areas, and have similar vendettas, but his responses are merely protestations regarding his identity. The text does not explain why he chose to contact me -- OUT OF THE BLUE -- on my talk page in a confrontational manner and comments on all the administrative reports against me. Nor do they explain why he edits about places that are not related to his stated geographical location but does edit places that are related to the other account's geographical location -- though he seems singularly obsessed with pointing out the geographical facts. There are just too many coincidences here and the fact that there is no direct statement that explains these points seems to me to be indicative of fishiness. I am in no way related to the other user who made the same allegation, but I identified Dlabtot's tone and obsession as being very reminiscent of Nrcprm2026's. That two separate editors come to the same conclusions from two extremely different angles (one from the depleted uranium angle the other from the anger against my account angle) seems to me to be yet another strange and unexplained coincidence. At some point the circumstantial evidence becomes a bit much. People have been blocked as being sockpuppets for FAR less. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more point to note: In all these accusations, Dlabtot has yet to come out and say, once-and-for-all, that there is no connection between him and the other account. ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE All your accusations are totally without merit, and I again, deny them all categorically. I am me. I have absolutely nothing to do with any other Wikipedia account. Any further attempts by you to bait me will go unanswered. I look forward to the resolution of this case. Dlabtot (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The categorical denial is good, but I would still like an answer to the questions raised about location edits and picking on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After you tell me why you hate America, I will answer your similarly premised questions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate America because it is evil. So please, will you explain why you've been singling me out for complaints and comments, why you edit articles on areas that are fairly distant from you geographically? For good measure you can try to explain the other circumstantial evidence as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have stuck to my plan to not respond to your bait. Because all your accusations are totally without merit, I am me, I am not a sockpuppet and that is why there is not in reality any evidence that supports your false accusations. But I will assume good faith and believe you when you say that you hate America because it is evil. After all, you would not state that you believed something that you do not really believe - that would be lying. Dlabtot (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you aren't going to answer my questions even though you said you would answer my questions? I really do want to know the answers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to explain why you have come up with this false accusation and mischaracterized my edits? I'm sorry, but it's not within my power to provide that explanation. Please, some third party, end this torture by weighing the so called evidence and taking the appropriate action. I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Dlabtot (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More evasion. Instead I just get invectives and claims of "false accusation" and "mischaracterization". I believe I have been altogether fair in this analysis. It is a fact that Dlabtot never interacted with me before accosting me on my user talk page and lecturing me on civility. He then proceeded to hound me across the encyclopedia including at various administrator enforcement pages in a manner which looks very much like he's carrying an old vendetta. Except, I can see no evidence in his contributions that he ever interacted with me before his first interaction. Why me? What did I do to encourage him to single me out? He doesn't seem interested in other controversial accounts: just me. I submit that new users do not pick fights just for the hell of it, and when they quixotically focus on a single user to hurl their attacks at, this indicates something more is going on. Nevertheless, Dlabtot has provided ZERO explanation for his actions despite their very suspicious nature. The only conclusion is that this is a person who knew me from before our first encounter: I submit it is from his previous account. It so happens that the parallels between his account and the previous account were noticed by another but then dismissed due to geographical evidence provided by Dlabtot. Now we have mitigating evidence that seems to show that, despite his geographical location, he is connected to the geographical location of the accused connecting account. So now two separate people are accusing him of being a sockpuppet. This is new evidence on top of the old evidence and it is evidence that Dlabtot has steadfastly refused to discuss. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to discuss; all the accusations you've made are false - as in not true. All of your so-called questions are premised on falsehoods. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that I had no contact with you before you began explaining the civility policy to me on my talkpage. It is a fact that you have followed me from page-to-page on this encyclopedia and have written disparaging things about me despite there being very no evidence of you being in contact with me before December of last year. It is a fact that you edit articles about a geographical area which is much closer to the known locations of the sockpuppet's account than to the known location of your account. It is a fact that you follow similar interests, adopt nearly identical perspectives, and often use the same argumentation to try to make your points in dispute. It is a fact that another user completely independent of me thought that you might be connected with the other account. These are all facts. You have addressed none of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that you believe I'm someone other than who I am, and using that belief as a premise, everything seems to you to confirm it. But since I'm actually me it's pretty hard to take you seriously. Why don't you try looking me up in the phone book, as I suggested, and call me? Do you have a rational response to that request? Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would calling James Lang prove? If he says he edits Wikipedia as you does that resolve the situation? No. What resolves the situation is an explanation for the things I laid out. Answer the questions. Why did you contact me aggressively and arbitrarily without ever having had contact with me in the past? Why do you edit articles primarily on geographical locations that are thousands of miles from you? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of being a sockpuppet of someone called James Salsman with whom you had a prior conflict; is that the accusation? or is the problem that you don't like me?

This page is for reporting suspected sockpuppets, not for attacking editors you don't like. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely accuse you of being associated with the other account. I think the evidence is strong that you are acting as a sockpuppet of that account. I have explained my reasoning above. I have asked very straightforward questions which you have refused to answer. You are responding with capitalized yelling. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the resolution of this case by a disinterested third party who can objectively evaluate your mischaracterizations. Dlabtot (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if any third-party believes that there are any valid questions raised here, and wishes to pose them to me, I'd be happy to discuss them. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the use of caps: mea culpa - that was a poor choice on my part. However, my point stands, this SSP report seems to me to be a clear case of abuse of process. Dlabtot (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you would just come clean and answer the questions I asked. However, I'm not holding my breath. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked any questions that are founded in fact; for example what you describe as a question: "Why am I obsessed with is you?" is actually not a question at all - it is rather an ill considered accusation and an unfounded personal attack. Dlabtot (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I again re-iterate - if any third-party believes that any valid questions have been raised and wishes to pose them to me, I'd be happy to discuss them. Dlabtot (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could simply answer the question as to why your first contact with me was on my talkpage with a goading discourse chastising me for supposed incivility. Why you have followed me from article to article and on many simply reverted me (including your continued activity at Atropa belladonna). You might not think these instances are an obsession, but I have provided the diffs of you following me around and it is undeniable that you are stalking out places to revert me from my contributions. Give an explanation for that. I have never yet seen someone simply go about reverting me without having some reason for doing so. You would be a unique first case. An incredible instance, just like many of the other things that I guess we could chalk up to "coincidence" that I listed above and below. Be my guest, explain yourself. I think the explanation is simple: you are James S. You are taking out your anger on one of the people who got you blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An end?

So is a checkuser going to end this....discussion sometime in the near future? Shot info (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pray so. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that will not resolve the issue as I'm accusing this guy of carefully segregating his account logins. We need someone to evaluate the other evidence: the similarity of interest, the peculiar obsession with me, the other accusation by an unrelated account, the similarity in names, geographical location edits, stated opinions and actions on pseudoscience, similar expression of temper, similar refusal to address questions directly, etc., etc., etc.... ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to a dispassionate evaluation of your so-called evidence by a disinterested third-party. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that many days past you claimed to be taking this page off your watchlist. Seems that hasn't kept you away. Obsessed much? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 ::Unfortunately, that will not resolve the issue as I'm accusing this guy of carefully segregating his account logins. We need someone to evaluate the other evidence: the similarity of interest, the peculiar obsession with me, the other accusation by an unrelated account, the similarity in names, geographical location edits, stated opinions and actions on pseudoscience, similar expression of temper, similar refusal to address questions directly, etc., etc., etc.... [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::: I look forward to a dispassionate evaluation of your so-called evidence by a disinterested third-party. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
+::::I notice that many days past you claimed to be taking this page off your watchlist. Seems that hasn't kept you away. Obsessed much? [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 ;Conclusions