Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:45, 6 October 2013 editMilesMoney (talk | contribs)3,474 edits →Comments by other users← Previous edit Revision as of 00:50, 6 October 2013 edit undoMilesMoney (talk | contribs)3,474 edits →05 October 2013Next edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
* {{checkuser|1=BookishOwl}} * {{checkuser|1=BookishOwl}}
* {{checkuser|1=JonyRijo}} * {{checkuser|1=JonyRijo}}
* {{checkuser|1=Orlady}}
* {{checkip|1=68.103.1.191}} * {{checkip|1=68.103.1.191}}
* {{checkip|1=74.46.239.232}} * {{checkip|1=74.46.239.232}}
Line 43: Line 44:


I've added him to the list of editors who come out of nowhere, remove this sentence, and go back to nowhere. They're very obviously socks. ] (]) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC) I've added him to the list of editors who come out of nowhere, remove this sentence, and go back to nowhere. They're very obviously socks. ] (]) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And on:
*

I've added her to the list of suspects, since she's actively supporting these socks while defending them here against an SPI. As one of the accused, she obviously cannot continue to attempt to participate here as if she were an independent administrator. ] (]) 00:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>======

Revision as of 00:50, 6 October 2013

QuebecSierra

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

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra/Archive.


05 October 2013

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

After Ludwig von Mises Institute had its protection removed, Minds Eye 427, QuebecSierra, 68.103.1.191, 24.237.87.23 and 74.46.239.232 worked together to remove a sentence that reported what critics said about the Institute. QuebecSierra is the "good hand" account, the rest are "bad hand". They use similar style, such as marking the edits as Minor. I include Srich32977 in the mix because of similarity in views and account name style, but especially because of an encouraging comment he left on Minds Eye427's talk page.

Here are the recent edits, in chronological order:

MilesMoney (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Digging deeper:

I added them both, and there may well be more. MilesMoney (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The "new" users keep on coming:

I've added him to the list of editors who come out of nowhere, remove this sentence, and go back to nowhere. They're very obviously socks. MilesMoney (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And on:

I've added her to the list of suspects, since she's actively supporting these socks while defending them here against an SPI. As one of the accused, she obviously cannot continue to attempt to participate here as if she were an independent administrator. MilesMoney (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I do not see a sound basis for this allegation. It appears to me that these are several different users editing the same article, with similar concerns about perceived problems (mostly problems of non-neutral POV) different ideas on how to handle the problems. I don't doubt that most or all of these users are fans of (or possibly affiliated with) the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Murray Rothbard, and that they may have communicated about the article off-wiki (e.g., in an online forum somewhere), but that's not sockpuppetry or even meatpuppetry. This allegation may be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247, where the filing party (User:MilesMoney) is accused of being a sockpuppet. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

All of these "independent" editors coincidentally have exactly the same idea, which is to flag and remove the criticism, despite the citations. They have no history of editing, instead showing up all at once. Oh, and none of them are participants in the SPI that involves me, so there can be no claim of retaliation. So, really, I'm just scratching my head at your response. MilesMoney (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This pattern is only getting stronger as more red-linked users show up and pile on. MilesMoney (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, please comment on the matter at hand and do not disparage or question the good faith of other users. Your comment about MilesMOney's motivation is out of line and I am asking you to redact it. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
@MilesMoney: You state that none of the other users were involved in the StillStanding SPI case. That's not true -- I discovered that SPI case when I reviewed the contributions history of the users named in this case. I noted that you were accused there and that Srich32977 commented about that other case. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC) As for SPECIFICO's assertion that I was commenting on MilesMoney's motivation, please note that I merely said that this allegation "may be related"; I did not suggest what the relation might be. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually I moved it because it says the space below is for Admins. Then when I went to leave you a personal talkpage note I saw that you're an Admin, so if my move was improper please undo it. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, that's pretty much what I figured. Orlady did not identify as an admin or particularly act like one. They came across as a commentator.
Orlady, I have to tell you that you are factually mistaken about Srich32977. If you actually look at his edits as opposed to just the history, you'll see that all he did was neutrally move comments into their correct locations, just as SPECIFICO tried to here. Srich32977 didn't take sides at all; he was just being helpful. He does this quite a bit.
The most reasonable interpretation of your comment is that you saw this as retaliation. In fact, he's included because he interacted supportively with this cluster of editors. As this cluster keeps growing suspiciously, I believe the case for an investigation is growing stronger as well. In the meantime, I'd prefer that you WP:AGF with regard to this investigation. Unlike Adjwilley, I don't have a track record of falsely accusing editors of being socks of banned users. MilesMoney (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
@MilesMoney: Sorry that you didn't think I was acting as an administrator when I offered my analysis of the situation in this case. Administrators are supposed to evaluate the evidence in SPI cases. (What did you think administrators were supposed to do here?) In this case, I reviewed the edit histories and interaction histories of the users and the articles named here (including the user filing the report), looked at the whois information for the IPs, then provided my analysis. There may be a problem here, but I did not see evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I expected that an SPI clerk would do further review, but I see no need for action against any of the accused. I didn't delve into the details of Srich32977's involvement on that other SPI page; I merely noted that you were named there and he had participated. I identified that case as possibly related (for the benefit of SPI clerks, you know). --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
An administrator must first and foremost be neutral and follow the same rules they enforce. You have not lived up to this fundamental requirement. With this pair of edits, you've locked down the article to fulfill your view of what is correct, which happens to contradict both the cited source and his book, "The New Hate". This is also in violation of WP:PREFER and makes you a participant in the edit war, only with a bigger stick. Worst of all, it undermines this SPI by stanching the flow of new socks, such as JonyRijo. On the whole, your actions have made you an ally of this group of sock puppets, as you defend them from the SPI while abusing your sysop bit to keep their preferred version on top.
I could say more, but I think I've said enough. It's time for you to recognize your serious errors and walk away from this. I don't want to see you on this page again, so don't reply, just go. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra: Difference between revisions Add topic