Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Philscirel (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Philscirel

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 71.72.81.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Mastercasper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) confirmed to match 71.72.81.230

Report submission by

Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After being permanently blocked for evasion of the same, phiscirel is back under an anonymous IP to vandalize his favorite article, Fethullah Gülen. (I had reverted it to the last version before he came.)

It's pretty obvious that we are dealing with a sock because this purportedly new editor is already citing site policy on 3RR and vandalization--after only a dozen edits. Plus (s)he uses philscirel's common refrain that "this issue is discussed already in the discussion page". Never mind the fact that the consensus (now archived) is that the article is a steaming pile of trash, thanks to his "efforts".

Comments

I have nothing to do with other users.. Fethullah Gulen discussion page is full of evidence that Adoniscik is misusing his experience to alienate new users and other contributors so that he can push his version of the article. His edits are evident that he would like to

Delete external links relevant to the page [1].

I recommend he cite them, as appropriate. I moved the linkcruft to the talk page, as is my practice. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not recommend. You ruled and insisted on deleting the external links from the article. You deleted the list many times. Do you need evidence from the history page? Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push his version of the article without discussion [2], [3] instead of the current version built up by many editors, by consensus. Please see the old discussion pages archived by this well experienced, sneaky editor. [4]

It's not "my" version. It's the last version that was up before philscirel wrecked it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is plain wrong. Here is how the current version [5] has initiated and worked on afterwords. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By blanking the archive, he is trying to hide the fact that the article is written by many and by consensus. [6] Not surprisingly his article blanking follows immediately his discussion page blanking. [7]

That's called archiving the talk page. It's something I did as a courtesy. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you got a chance to claim that the version worked word by word was not written by consensus? Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to sell his version as the un-vandalized one, although the history page indicates otherwise. He would like to instate and make his version be dominant.[8]
He is blanking the article and huge set of relevant information. [9]

Are you talking about the whitewashing philscirel posted, or did I miss something? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing a lot. If you keep blanking the article others will miss the important information as well. Editors did not create 100s of sources, they just cited them. You are deleting about 60 links. It is called vandalism and page blanking. I am afraid the most important thing you are missing is the philosophy of Wikipedia: Producing a free source of information in a neutral tone together. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blame other contributors do not agree with him as being sockpuppet of others. It seems working a great deal, by the way. Please check the discussion page archived by him.

Please do. You will see that consensus agreed that the existing state of the article is thoroughly biased, to the point where I felt that a mere template was insufficient. After waiting several months, I reverted it to a somewhat better state.

--Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not template the page as you wish. If you do so, you should also specify and locate where the problems are. In the talk pages you hide you are asked many times but you did not specify the problems. I myself asked them too, and got only vague comments. You should learn separating your POV and Wikipedia standards, not only about the external links, in all other issues including NPOV, etc.

Claim article ownership implicitly.

As a person know the topic well, I would like to contribute to this and on other articles of my interest in Wikipedia.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare "As a person know the topic well, I would like to contribute to this and on other articles of my interest in Wikipedia." with "i am a new user, trying to contribute wikipedia about a topic i feel like i know a lot" from philscirel's previous nomination. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read most of the history and related pages including other editors you made sick of Wikipedia and left. The quote is only an indication of the consequences of your tricks you consistently use to have them leave the project. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like who? Name some names. My "tricks" have left a trail of reliably sourced articles. What have you done? Debating with you is pointless. Your edit history speaks for itself. You have not changed. You have not contributed to any other article. Why should we give you a break? You have nothing to show for yourself. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you being an experienced editor above. But unfortunately a sneaky one who are using his experience to alienate other editors he disagree with. Phil was apparently one of them. He listed already the IPs you are using to show your real face. But your tricks and your gangs dropped the case from WW:SSP page [10]. Now your new target is me. Keeping the other editors in the project who may have more valuable contributions would be much better, I think. If you really like to see my contributions, you should be nicer to a new editor. Pushing people quit the project, blaming on other new users with their contributions is not a way to go. It does not seem to be a nice trail of personal record. Mastercasper (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is also clear from the link [11] that Phicarel does not actually have sockpuppets. He sincerely explained that he just evade the block, not in purpose. He gave the IP's he is using. He is still blocked by someone indefinitely without a decision made systematically through WP:SSP?!... He is blocked for block evasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous IPsocks of Phil geolocate to Ohio. This one does as well. Highly likely. Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created an account. Please see my comments[12] about the actions of Toddst1. Mastercasper (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Mastercasper is refactoring my comments and continuing editing the article. See the edit history to see my deleted reports. Can the admins please wake up? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I did not have an account. Now, I created one. I explained it above. It is inappropriate to add my name as a sockpuppet. But I know what you are trying to do, from Phil's case. It worked fine before, right? I will definitely keep editing according to the policies and philosophy of Wikipedia, as far as I have a chance to do so. I know why that bothers you?[13] Mastercasper (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are persistently removing my comments. What bothers me is having to deal with fanatics like you. Everybody else can see the article is whitewashed. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Likely. Philscirel is indef blocked, the IP has a 3-month block on it, and Mastercasper served a short block for edit warring in late November and hasn't edited since. The article in question has been relatively quiet since then. So rather than apply a longer block to Mastercasper, which at this stage would be punitive and not clearly preventative, I'd prefer to believe that the user has taken a break and if he returns will edit in a "more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Please relist if necessary. —SMALL JIM 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]