Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin


2005

2005 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

02 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


TheTakeover showed up during a dispute about two articles in January 2010 (Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger and has been used primarily to contest edits to those two articles. The only other users who has shown a passionate interest in defending those two articles is user:2005 - and they have nearly identical confrontational ways of editing. They revert without discussion, use ad hominem attacks often and give short condescending replies to attempts to start discussion to avoid an edit war. I'm extremely confident this is the same person. I request both accounts be permanently blocked. DegenFarang (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. User:DegenFarang has been blocked eight or so times for his tendatious editing. he was most recently blocked "indefinitely" less than a week ago. He has stated repeatedly he will ignore all Wikipedia guidelines and rules except IAR. He was unblocked and told to not engage in this behavoir, but as always, after he has been blocked for a day or two, he returns to his exact same tendatious behavoir, which is ouitlined ad nauseum with in this ANI thread. An additional warning was issued here. He needs to be permanently banned and his IP permanently blocked. These one day bannings accomplish nothing. 2005 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical ad hominem attack, ignoring everything I said. You should try not to do this on your fake accounts too, it wouldn't be so obvious they are yours. DegenFarang (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I'm sorry, but I don't see enough evidence that there is any alternate account abuse going on here. Do you have any specific evidence (diffs would help) that illustrates this link? TNXMan 13:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Additional information needed - Changing template for Tnxman307. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm marking this for close. If there is more substantial evidence, please refile. TNXMan 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing and archiving this: No new specific evidence has been brought forward, the two new editors are not alternate accounts of 2005. General conduct issues should be discussed at ANI, content issues at WT:POKER or the respective article talk pages. Amalthea 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These two accounts were created within a day of each other during an edit war on Shirley Rosario and Steve Badger. They have remained almost entirely inactive and the few contributions they do have are practically identical in nature (random updates to poker player statistics). User 2005 is the only editor on Wikipedia who cares about the two articles in question and vigorously defends against any edits or changes made to them.

It is blatantly obvious these two users are controlled by user 2005. Both accounts are checking those two articles on a daily basis when their activity before shows six months or more with no activity. This cannot be a random coincidence. User 2005 is attempting to give the impression of a consensus when there isn't one.

Please investigate this and permanently block all associated accounts, even if the IP address is not the same. There is easy ways around that. Common sense says these are all the same user. DegenFarang (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Based on technical evidence, the two accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other and to User:2005. A similarity in the noted edits is not surprising and not evidence of anything if they are all undoing the same change! DegenFarang's statement that the two alleged sock accounts were created within one day of each other is incorrect.
    Best I can tell, these three accounts are not the same person, and not controlled by the same person. They obviously have the same interest. It certainly may be that they are talking to point each other towards the articles, possibly to support each other's edits. Coupled with a battleground mentality I see here and quite notably in the filer of this case, this is a severe problem, one that needs to be addressed. But turning that into a sock-block requires more than undos on four pages without any prior notifications or warnings about our editing standards.
    Amalthea 18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please see multiple paragraphs of evidence I posted on the current ANI. If these aren't sockpuppets there is no question they are meat puppets and all accounts should be banned. Review the latest post by guyzero who hasn't made a single edit in 18 months yet claims he constantly checks his watchlist to see if I made any changes to Shirley Rosario or Steve Badger yet prior to today has never reverted an edit I've made to those articles once even though me and user2005 and the two sock/meat puppets that were just banned have been going back and forth on that article for a very long period of time (move than 18 months). All of a sudden after the sock/meat puppetry of the other accounts is called into question, User2005 is warned not to revert edits on those articles without getting consensus first, ignores that warning and I report it to the ANI - then and only then, (and within a couple of hours!!) this user comes out of nowhere to make a huge post trashing me on the ANI in an identical style to what 2005 always does (just scroll up on the ANI to see how truly unique the posting style is). This is just one piece of evidence - there is tons more here and on the ANI and in the edit summaries of all four accounts.

  • FIVE DIFFERENT administrators already agreed this was an obvious case of sock or meat puppetry. 2005 was banned for three days but somehow got it overturned and instead of laying low is doing the exact same thing! I think a block much longer than three days is in order.............. DegenFarang (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC) DegenFarang (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Rray for a check. This user also has very infrequent editing but shows up every single time there is discussion about me or these articles or any time user2005 is disagreeing with me about something - and he always takes 2005's side of the argument. And he's been reverting a lot of my edits on these articles lately as well. I'm not as confident about this user as the others but it smells a lot like a meatpuppet as well. DegenFarang (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Infrequent editing doesn't equate to being a meatpuppet. I do NOT show up "every time" there is a discussion about you or your articles; that's factually incorrect. (I don't know WHO would have the time to get involved in every one of your edit wars.) Another factually incorrect statement: "he's been reverting a lot of my edits on these articles lately as well." The truth: I've added TWO external links that you'd removed, along with opening a discussion on both talk pages. Are you going to accuse everyone who edits "infrequently" and disagrees with you of being a meatpuppet? If this behavior isn't disruptive, then I don't know what is. This accusation has been made in bad faith to distract admins from DegenFarang's relentless insistence that only his edits represent consensus. Rray (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Rray (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would you know if you don't show up every time? I think you think I edit a lot more than I actually do if you believe what you said. I go for very long periods of time without editing at all. Indeed, each and every time 2005 is in a topic doing his ad hominem change the subject by bashing me routine you jump in and help him out. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. DegenFarang (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because I'm aware of your editing disputes with other editors doesn't mean that I'm involved in all of those disputes. You were the one who pointed out that I only edit here infrequently, but now you're saying that I edit more often than you do, and that I edit constantly whenever you have a dispute with User:2005. You've obviously accused me of being a meat puppet in bad faith, and anyone who's interested can look at your long list of disputes with other editors and see that I've only been involved in some of them. The bottom line is that you're trying to intimidate other editors from disagreeing with you by accusing them of meat puppetry. But disagreeing with you and being a meat puppet are two entirely different things. Rray (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

I wasn't notified about this. I understand and agree that my reappearance is "curious", but I'll restate plainly that I'm not in any way connected to any editor, the article subjects, the poker industry, etc., and have not received notifications about this dispute from anyone, but have merely been watching this mess unfold on my watchlists (my preferred means for reading wikipedia) for the past weeks and decided last night to provide links to an editor's ongoing/years long battleground mentality that creating this disruption. Please AGF - I would have stated just as plainly if I was "alerted" or some such. I would appreciate it if admins would please review my post on ANI, I felt strongly enough about this situation to delurk and to spend quite a bit of time last night writing that post. thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Not everyone who disagrees with you on Poker-related articles is a sockpuppet. The reappearance of guyzero is certainly curious. Rray was always active, regularly edited WT:WikiProject Poker, regularly edited Poker-related articles, there are many plausible ways how he was informed of the dispute.
    As I said elsewhere, yes, I suspect that Paige Barbeau and TheTakeover were alerted to the dispute. That does not mean that blocking or topic-banning them is the most constructive way forward. This whole knot will be disentangled once there is explicit consensus about whether the disputed sites are appropriate as external links or references. And I will now be very strict if I see anyone involved continue to edit war over this. Amalthea 14:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've marked this case as open, but.. should it be closed? I don't even know.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it should be closed. I'm obviously not a meat puppet, and I doubt that the other editors are either. Rray (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2005/Archive

Leave a Reply