Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macutty/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Macutty


Macutty

27 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Using IP-207.216.253.134: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election,_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=425906582&oldid=425906010 Using IP-208.38.59.163: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election,_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=425924053&oldid=425922498 Using account Macutty: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election,_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=425929338&oldid=425928860 IPs 207.216.253.134, 208.38.59.163 were used to blatantly in Edit Warring by the same user. When the page was semi-protected, the account Macutty became active to continue the edit warring. Owned up to sock puppetry here after showed him policies WP:DUCK and WP:SOCK: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_federal_election,_2011&diff=next&oldid=428633528 This strategy is particularly troubling, because it was used to avoid scrutiny: WP:SCRUTINY. If you see 208.38.59.163's talk page, he was blocked numerous times, previously. If you see 207.216.253.134's talk page, you will see that he removed sourced materials from other articles too. Good Hand account = Macutty. Bad hand = 207.216.253.134 and 208.38.59.163. Then https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election,_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=426035625&oldid=426014950 here removed statements made by opposition parties: "The crime bills however were not costed fully, and the opposition parties countered that this would create a US style system of prisons. The Conservatives have not released the costs for expanding the prison system. The other parties state that more focus should be given on crime prevention, so that it doesn't happen in the first place. <!-- Source: English language leaders debate --> &..."to patrol the streets, will help in preventing crime from occurring in the first place." also removed "The NDP have pledged to abolish the Senate, stating it is a waste of tax payer dollars, and a form of [[patronage]].<!-- Source: English language leaders debate -->" 33rogers (talk) 21:20, 27 April 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


29 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Comments by other users
edit

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

  • Requesting a sleeper check please.
  • Thanks.
--33rogers (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rrius & Mies, the same individual? I strongly doubt that, big time. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--33rogers (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mies and I have disagreed at least as much as we've agreed over the years, I actually laughed out loud when I read that we are supposed to be the same person. The problem here is that people think 33rogers' edits are politically biased and not always well written, but he seem to think he is perfect, so if multiple users come forward with even remotely similar criticisms of his work, they must in fact be one deluded editor out to orchestrate a manufactured attempt to oppose his obviously faultless efforts. An additional problem is that 33rogers is having ownership issues, which is apparent from his comments on the talk page and in the editing, as well as on his userpage where he brags that he is the number one contributor there and he is going to bring the article up to FA. Finally, I should like to point out that 33rogers didn't even bother notifying me of this SPI (and doubtless also failed to notify the other editors involved). I don't know if he was trying to get away with something or simply didn't want to waste our time with his specious allegations, but it certainly reflects poorly on his motivation for coming here. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so this is a scattershot investigation of anyone you think might be connected to anyone else based on three edits that weren't actually the "same removal of content" as you suggest, and the reasons stated aren't the same. This is childish and pathetic. Instead of making ridiculous accusations, you should study WP:NPOV and learn how to write. -Rrius (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I would say this request has crossed squarely into bad faith. The only thing these users have in common is that they have all opposed various aspects of 33rogers' edits to the Canadian federal election, 2011 article. I supposed the only reason why I'm not included is that I have been challenging him on the talk page rather than the article space. Resolute 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it also be noted the similarity in the Edit Summaries are unmistakable, as mentioned above, for example: no reason why their criticism of the two parties should be published but not the other parties' response which is similar to Macutty Edit Summaries: provide a counter position for all or none --33rogers (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious. Why didn't ya notify the accounts & Ips in question? GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. --33rogers (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth could leaving a notice at the article talk page be considered an attempt to "stop the the investigation in its tracks" or to "lead to further disruption"? Saying "further disruption" implies there has already been disruption, but the only disruption to this point has been your edit warring at the article. As to the edit summaries, I note that you didn't include mine in your list. For the others, they weren't even deleting identical tracts of text, and the pronouns in the relevant edit summaries did not refer to precisely the same thing. Rather, they both referred to a problem the entire issues section you added was rife with, namely, that your additions were largely one-sided, with a left-wing, especially NDP bent. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I should have said two disruptions, the other being this spurious SPI. -Rrius (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rrius attempt at character assassination is evident for all to see, when he posted on the Article's talk page that I opened an SPI. Destroy a persons reputation, with intent of winning future consensus on that article. Or get more similar point of view editors here, from that article, to object the investigation. --33rogers (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laughable. You are, by beginning this SPI with no actual evidence, the one engaged in character assassination. I have not called you a liar, which is, in essence, what you are calling everyone you have dragged into this charade. First you begin this nonsense, then you accuse me of character assassination. You should be ashamed of yourself. -Rrius (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you know what the worst part is? You sit there and say I'm assassinating your character for some sort of gain at the article when what you're doing here is to take everyone who disagrees with you at the article and subject them to an SPI investigation with nothing for evidence by your own bullheaded refusal to heed WP:NPOV. It is you who is acting for gain at an article, and your hypocrisy is stunning, but I doubt you'll have the good grace to be any more ashamed by that than you are by your hypocritical allegations of character assassination in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we wait. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved for too long, but it seems to me like a simple content dispute on the 2011 Canadian federal election article.Educatedseacucumber (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who this Sleetman character is, but his account was created just a month ago. GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the two IP's and Macutty. I have no connection to any of the other accounts. I have stated clearly, and repeatedly that I am responsible for the IP edits and since it has been brought up as an issue I have only edited articles as macutty (I have once or twice forgot to login to post on the discussion pages, but have always held myself out as one editor). If 33rogers would just engage in dsicussion on talk pages it would be easy for him to see that all the other accounts are unique editors. Macutty (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Trying to read through 12k of text doesn't make this easy to figure out. Is there a very brief summation? A skim through above material seems to indicate a content dispute that has spilled over into accusations of sockpuppetry. TNXMan 03:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am allowed to post in this section, but the briefest summary was made by HelloAnnyong last time (see archive): The master more or less admitted to it, so I've warned them about logging in. Relist if it doesn't stop. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--33rogers (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's thoroughly unhelpful. 33rogers made a raft of sock accusations in this SPI, and this Annyong warning (apparently to Macutty), to which he doesn't bother to link, had nothing to do with me, so it is unclear exactly how many of his accusations it is supposed to apply to.
The comments in other users section is basically me expressing outrage at being accused of being a sock or running a sock or whatever it 33rogers thinks I've done, and him trying to say that I'm somehow assassinating his character by being upset with him and by making the notifications he couldn't be bothered to make. The only truly salient point is that what little "evidence" 33rogers attempts to bring to bear in the first bullet point is absurd.
It boils down to this: three different editors removed content that 33rogers insisted on having in the article. None of the them was even an identical removal, but the fact that the two others beside me both pointed to the POV nature of his edits was enough to make him think that I, a logged-in user I've never heard of, and an IP editor must all be the same person.
33rogers also insists that Miesianiacal is a Sleeper. I'll admit I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but Mies has been an active participant at the project for years, including time under a different username before the current one. So if it is supposed to mean this is an account that is just kept around to be a sock when needed, that is simply false. This appears to be yet another instance of 33rogers taking innocent behaviour, in this case not editing at an article for nine days, and trying to blow it up into a conspiracy against him. The fact is, it was 33rogers who made a series of POV and poorly written edits that spurred several editors who had the page watchlisted to act. He's now trying to take the fact that multiple editors objected to his substandard edits at roughly the same time (i.e., when they were made) as proof of sockpuppetry. -Rrius (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the evidence and diffs presented above, I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry that would require checkuser and/or administrative action. As I said above, this appears to be a content dispute where several editors disagreed with 33rogers. However, disagreement doesn't always mean they're the same person. I would encourage all involved parties to follow the dispute resolution guidelines in order to get this worked out. TNXMan 14:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Clerk note: concur with Tnxman307. The fact that Macutty admits to editing as the IP addresses changes nothing: even if he did, it was an accident which he hasn't tried to hide, and he has been asked to be careful about it in the future. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Macutty/Archive&oldid=1043692473"