Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
CrazyAces489 (talk | contribs)
4,046 edits
Line 56: Line 56:
:::I don't know, but I did a check on myself, Astudent0, and Jakejr and found there were only 9 articles that all three of us had edited. That's not much evidence of sockpuppeting.[[User:Mdtemp|Mdtemp]] ([[User talk:Mdtemp|talk]]) 15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't know, but I did a check on myself, Astudent0, and Jakejr and found there were only 9 articles that all three of us had edited. That's not much evidence of sockpuppeting.[[User:Mdtemp|Mdtemp]] ([[User talk:Mdtemp|talk]]) 15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:But very strong of meatpuppeting for the others[[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:But very strong of meatpuppeting for the others[[User:CrazyAces489|CrazyAces489]] ([[User talk:CrazyAces489|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
::Stick you head in the and if you want, but did you read what was said "If you do not provide some stronger evidence, the case will be closed soon" if that's your idea of "very strong" then so be it. To answer your question about adding more users when you do that editorinteraction, on the front screen it gives three users initially, but in the top left hand corner of the box is an "Add users" link, this will cause another box to be added for another user, press that a few times to get as many as you want.--[[Special:Contributions/86.2.216.5|86.2.216.5]] ([[User talk:86.2.216.5|talk]]) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 19:28, 17 March 2015

PRehse

PRehse (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse/Archive.
11 March 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

As per tools, there is significant edits that overlap. [1] They all seem to vote on the same articles and vote the same way. Previous sockpuppet investigations have shown that the behaviors are questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa/Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mdtemp/Archive
CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consistent meatpuppetry between the stated accounts. They vote with each other 95% of the time. MDTEMP listed 7 highly referenced articles, 6 of which are of African American Athletes all at once. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (Judo), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cofield, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest R. Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odell Terry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Evans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robey Reed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Geis (judo). The only one to survive the AFD so far are Karl Geis (judo) (who happens to be white) and James Thompson (Judo) who was a national champion and member of the US National Team.CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per WP:MEATSIGNS "Always there when needed: This is one of the more suspicious signs of all. If there are two accounts that frequently are seen commenting in occasional common discussions, but rarely are involved in discussions otherwise, this could be a sign that one person is actually there to support the other. If the evidence shows these accounts are not operated by the very same person, it is more likely to be meat puppetry."CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment additionally, there collusion between these three clearly seem to violate WP:OWN via there consistent adding and deletion of articles they seem to fit their own criteria of WP:MMANOTE and WP:MANOTECrazyAces489 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

This is hard not to take personally considering the time and effort that have gone into making the avalanche of barely literate articles produced by the accuser more palatable including very polite advice via talk pages. I am certainly not the only one of the editors named (and there are others also) to have done so. My contributions to wikipedia includes making sure newly created martial arts articles are integrated into the whole and also any of those articles put up for deletion so that they are picked up by interested editors. I also have a habit of checking user contributions so yes when someone like User:Mdtemp puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article. There certainly is no collusion although User:Mdtemp may accuse me of stalking if he wishes.

What we have are a number of editors interested in maintaining martial arts articles being brought together by poorly written articles, full of factual errors, and of questionable notability. I wont even get into the number of times those articles have demonstrated an almost perverse misunderstanding of the subject area. Similar voting is not due to a conspiracy of knitted goods but rather a shared interest and obvious choices.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPRehse, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. This isn't the first investigation that has been made against Mdtemp and Papaursa. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Those other discussions stemmed from the bitter MMA disputes of a few years ago. Note that no misbehavior was found in those earlier accusations. The fact that we're voting to delete poorly sourced, non-notable articles does not make us the bad guys. If you wrote better articles with good sources, as you have been frequently advised to do, your articles wouldn't keep winding up at AfD. As far as I can tell from his posts, PRehse and I aren't even on the same continent. Seems like CrazyAces is just upset about us trying to maintain some standards. Apparently I'm also being accused of bigotry by the editor accusing others of violating WP:NPA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must object I've noticed the lister here added me today onto the list of IPs here. (1) without notifying me or (2) providing any evidence to suggest there is any link with anyone else listed here. Given he's previously accused me of WP:HOUND for tidying up references on articles userfied in his space, complaining several months after I did that and in retaliation for pointing out his ignoring of the consensus reached at a DRV, also then listed at AN/I here where the result was to find nothing wrong in my actions and a suggestion he learn to take criticism better. Today I have been on the opposite side to a [at DRV] with him where he has again repeated those false allegations and now listed me here (as above, no evidence, no notification), I have frankly had enough, he is clearly trying to silence any critics by raising these false allegations. I would request sanctions against him for raising such frivolous claims. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 86.2.216.5 This is nothing personal to you outside of your comments to me. I am asking for some clarification to ensure that there is no collusion going on. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's personal, my comments to you are disagreeing with you and sometimes quite bluntly, the fact you cannot imagine that multiple people may disagree with you and may get frustrated about your apparent inability to listen or read policies is I guess to be expected. Thanks for being honest here that this is nothing more than a fishing trip. Presumably this clarification is just like the clarification on your other claims you made at AN/I, that went no where yet still you are making those claims, and now these disgusting claims of racism. I guess when this closes resulting in no action or finding against me, you'll continue to repeat these claims everywhere. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've also commented on several of the deletion reviews which the nominator has created for articles mentioned above, but I seem to have escaped the allegation of sockpuppetry. I suppose that may be because I don't hang around martial arts articles, but I think it's pretty easy to see here that this is simply a matter of overlapping interests. The list of articles that the named accounts have edited in common is so long that when I clicked on the user compare report it barely got to "M" before it broke, and I note that several of the accounts have been through SPIs before with no action taken, and have been shown to be technically unrelated. I strongly suggest to CrazyAces489 to strike the allegation of racism you posted above, and consider withdrawing this altogether. Ivanvector (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like CrazyAces489 listed everyone who ever disagreed with him as a sockpuppet. This looks like a fishing expedition meant to gain revenge and curb dissent. It's true that PRehse, Papaursa, and I vote at almost every martial arts AfD but that means we're interested in martial arts, not sockpuppets. I don't want to waste much time on this except to say that I looked up the other two named users and Astudent0 hasn't posted in 2015 and Jakejr hasn't posted since January 3. Don't see how they're responsible for the deletion of poorly sourced articles on non-notable martial artists.Mdtemp (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MdTemp, you were actually listed on another sockpuppet report last year [1] as well as 2012.[2] The final conclusion was ... "Singular focus, the time of day that edits are made line up without conflict, and the number of "coincidences" are too much to ignore, added to the fact that all three edit from the exact same geolocation, even if on different IPs. If I were to be a sockpuppet with the goal of getting away with it, this is a textbook example of how to do it right. But in this case, there is just enough ancillary evidence to show reasonable doubt, so I can't take action at this time. My educated guess is that there is a high likelihood of coordination between the users, perhaps off-wiki, which is a bit beyond the scope of this WP:SPI, but doesn't bar further action by any administrator should they decide to block these users." CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks/admins reviewing this: note that Boogiecabc is a new account created today just to comment on this SPI, and happens to forget to insert a space in between their bold text and their subsequent comment, just like another commenter here. Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our accuser has shown the same wanton disregard for supporting evidence in this as he has in so many of his articles. It appears he even lists one IP twice. The gist of his argument appears to be that all users who disagree with him must be sockpuppets, although he presents no evidence except for bringing up previous accusations (which resulted in no penalties). Since his focus appears to be on past, let me help him out--perhaps he'll want to add more users to his list. I've been mentioned in sockpuppet investigations on 4 other occasions. I think it's worth noting that two of those were brought by editors later found to be sockpuppets themselves and the other two were brought by the same user. Besides those mentioned here, other named editors I've been accused of being a sockpuppet with are Scottywong, Beeblebrox, Hasteur, Snottywong, Mtking, and Jfgslo. A further discussion of the claims I'm a sockpuppet or sockpuppet master can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 16#Sockpuppet investigations (again). It may seem silly for me to advertise what seems like damaging information, but I don't mind because I know I haven't done anything wrong. I have never edited Wikipedia from anything but my home computer, so I'm not worried what a Checkuser will show. Since no one should be so obtuse as to think accusing innocent parties is an acceptable MO, I hope that false accusations merit their own penalties. The unsupported claims of bigotry are so ludicrous that I can't believe they haven't been removed already. Frankly, this kind of drama is why I feel the need to take occasional breaks from WP. Papaursa (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: I read all the discussion, and removed some comments totally irrelevant to the sockpuppet investigation. CrazyAces489, the evidence you provided is very weak. You point out to the Editor Interaction in which you only compared three out of five accounts. They do have a huge overlap, but taking in mind that those are experienced editors with thousands of edits, that is not so strange. Voting the same way is also not a very strong evidence, as those might well be several users with similar interest. And, pointing to the previous investigations is not very helpful as those did not show anything conclusive. I don't say that I'm sure that there is no sockpuppetry, I just say that the evidence presented is not enough, and we cannot do anything without evidence. If you do not provide some stronger evidence, the case will be closed soon. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you compare all 5 accounts? CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I did a check on myself, Astudent0, and Jakejr and found there were only 9 articles that all three of us had edited. That's not much evidence of sockpuppeting.Mdtemp (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But very strong of meatpuppeting for the othersCrazyAces489 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stick you head in the and if you want, but did you read what was said "If you do not provide some stronger evidence, the case will be closed soon" if that's your idea of "very strong" then so be it. To answer your question about adding more users when you do that editorinteraction, on the front screen it gives three users initially, but in the top left hand corner of the box is an "Add users" link, this will cause another box to be added for another user, press that a few times to get as many as you want.--86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mdtemp/Archive
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa/Archive
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PRehse&oldid=651820520"