Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RMHED/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | RMHED

User:RMHED

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

RMHED

Report date March 5 2009, 02:19 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 (talk)


Multiple coordinated hits over the course of several hours from nearly countless sockpuppets creating pretty much the same thing, i.e., an attack on Jimbo Wales regarding a non-existent book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

I'm aware this is closed but for the purpose of clarity, it needs stating here that I have restored RMHED's talk page due to the findings of this report. Seraphim♥ 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
All of the reported userids except Fakapedia are   Confirmed as related to each other. It is   Likely (but not quite confirmed) that the sockmaster is
RMHED (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lar: t/c 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at these as well, I concur with the results reported by Lar. --Versageek 04:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 5 2009, 16:44 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by FlyingToaster

Obvious continuation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lyger99/Archive. FlyingToaster 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
CheckUser request
Checkuser request – code letter: b (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Tiptoety talk
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

  Confirmed - Peascolor45 == the same as all the other listed socks, also the unlisted Angeredstory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And   Likely that these two are also RMHED. There is currently a 24hr range block on an /18 which is likely cutting back on the proliferation of new socks. --Versageek 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angeredstory (talk · contribs) already blocked. Tiptoety talk

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 12 2009, 01:54 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Kotra
edit

Stemming from this comment on User:RMHED's talk page, I received an email from him claiming User:Tovian as his sockpuppet. As evidence he provided me Tovian's alleged password, but I did not test it (for liability reasons). If confirmed as a sock, it would be an illegitimate sock as both accounts voted in the same RFAs and AFDs, including a couple close ones: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Flag. Tovian discontinued activity shortly before RMHED's community ban, so evasion of a ban is not at issue. In fact, I have no opinion if action is necessary here at all, due to the account's lack of recent activity, but I leave that to the judgment of more astute users. -kotra (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
CheckUser requests
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )
Current status –   Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by kotra (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •   Clerk declined; any check of the suspected sock would not turn up anything as it has not edited in 9 months and is therefore   Stale. For this SPI, we would have to rely on behavioral evidence only. NW (Talk) 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Conclusions
edit
Based on the CU logs,   Confirmed. J.delanoygabsadds 06:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
07 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

After this user was blocked for edit warring, the IP is making the same thing, and, in addition, [1] was put on my talk page by this IP. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." I don't entirely fault Jasper Deng for opening this report. Looking at the history of Vijay Bahadur Singh, it appears that Wawawaer used two IP addresses in radically different subnets:

When yet another IP posted the "you've been had" message and then reverted the edit, it stands to reason that the IP is involved. I'd be lying to say that the thought of blocking 12.187.230.130 didn't cross my mind.

However, after digging around with WHOIS, the first two IPs mentioned above resolve to the same ISP—and are both in its DSL dynamic IP pool. 12.187.230.130 belongs to a provider on a different continent. I am inclined to agree that Lar is not Wawawaer—though I agree that a checkuser other than Lar should verify that.

(Disclosure: I am the admin who blocked Wawawaer indefinitely.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Um... the 12. IP is me... Jasper Deng isn't very observant. It's not RMHED, who has self admitted that he's Wawawaer. But running Wawawaer to see what other socks there are probably is a good idea and if no other CU speaks up shortly, I'll do just that. Lar: t/c 02:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some other CU ought to double check all of the above since I'm involved. Lar: t/c 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is already sockpuppetry to use an anonymous IP to mislead, you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From your user page box collection: "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't." I think I know policy well enough to know what is and isn't permissible, or even what is or isn't appropriate. (there's a difference) You misled yourself jumping to erroneous conclusions. Lar: t/c 02:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain [3] where you said you were deliberately logged out to see how I would respond. At WP:SOCK, it is sockpuppetry to edit while logged out in order to mislead and sockpuppetry's definition include "good" and "bad hand" accounts, which this case also falls into.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You edit warred with an IP, and your edit warring was to restore libelous material to a BLP... do you realise that? You're lucky I didn't summarily block you for 3RR violation. In removing it yet again, I gave you a link in the edit summary, which you apparently still haven't followed. When I followed up with discussion on your talk, you removed it rather than responding. All in all, your response has been entirely unsatisfactory so far because you are quick to overreact and jump to conclusions that aren't warranted. Prodego gave you good advice too. You (and C Fred) need to slow down with the MMORPG vandal fighting and think a bit more carefully. This isn't a game. But I agree, some other CU ought to validate what I've reported. So far no clerk has moved this case to where it needs to go though. Lar: t/c 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred and I thought the material was sourced, and in anycase, you cannot block me on that, because you are well involved.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOW. But when I walked up to the article, prior to any edits, I wasn't. I considered blocking you but decided instead to go with a more gentle approach, hoping that you'd draw a lesson from it. Apparently I was incorrect in my assumption that an immediate block wasn't likely to be more effective in changing your behaviour. But I'm a big softie that way and I usually don't block summarily. Lar: t/c 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I self-reverted myself for the edit warring accusation. The main reason for everything in fact (of linking you to Wawawaer) was the duck test.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which only goes to show that the duck test is only as reliable as... well it's not very reliable at all. Especially when used by those who are in a hurry to score points in the MMORPG so they can be admins too, rather than who want to actually think carefully and better the encyclopedia. I hope you've learned a lesson. Lar: t/c 03:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lesson to learn, if you're not redacting the comment you made on my talk page earlier (before this thing start). I did not start this SPI with a 100% sureness of you being blocked for socking for anything else, and, you had better ways of teaching me this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective is there is always something to learn. Will I stop warning new editors who remove a chunk of text with a ref tag at the end but leave no explanation? No. Will I look an extra time at what's in the ref tag and consider whether it should've been there to begin with? Yes. Will I assume that every vaguely-sourced item is bogus? No. But it's not like I've leveled-up for having dealt with this; it's just one more experience to add to perspective in dealing with whatever comes along next. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle down and conclude the following:

  • C.Fred and I need not to act too hastily.
  • [Wikipedia Review]] should not deliberately test Wikipedia's ability to revert subtle BLP additions (such a test resulted in this)
  • Lar had better ways of teaching me and C.Fred this lesson (nothing like "it'll just make you look foolish" and IP )
  • The flaming at Wikipedia Review (in the link I provided earlier) must result in warnings and/or blocks for any Wikipedians directly involved in that.

No more arguing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a reminder, Wikipedia has no authority over what Wikipedia Review does or doesn't do. Also, the ArbCom has ruled in the past that comments made on Wikipedia Review or other off-wiki forums are generally unsanctionable. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RMHED/Archive&oldid=1138678121"