Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Forty.4: 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 06:25, 19 July 2015 editDissidentAggressor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,014 edits →18 July 2015: Arthur goes shopping← Previous edit Revision as of 16:06, 19 July 2015 edit undoForty.4 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,513 edits →18 July 2015Next edit →
Line 20: Line 20:
====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== ====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small>
:Zzzzzzz...
# Even if that was me, since the content is not controversial, there would be no need for me to log out to edit it. I've continued to make edits along the same lines after those IP edits were made, and I was about to make those exact edits before the IP editor did so.
# Even if I had made those edits while logged out, ], and it's ] - if those were my edits I would tell you, because I stand behind that content and ''will re-add it myself'' if you delete it again without engaging in the discussion, ignoring ] and ], as you did before.
# If you were confident that the content should be removed, and that you could support this by appeal to policy and/or precedent, then you would be able to respond to the points myself and this alleged 'sockpuppet' have made, but you're not, so you haven't. And this spurious allegation is your substitute for not getting your way in the dispute. I would suggest you ].
# The IP editor is located in Japan, I am in Ireland. In all likelihood it's the same person from Japan who frequently edits these leftfield underground hip hop articles.
# The IP editor went to the trouble of , most of which I . Why would I do that when I had that no such sources were necessary? The IP editor also addressed me by name, as you've noted. Your allegation here is therefore based on the fact that it ''doesn't'' look like the IP is a sockpuppet. Your evidence is nothing but the evidence to the contrary. By which standard ''any'' logged out editor or new account who took my side in that dispute would appear to you to be a sock. In reality, when you go around making capricious and destructive edits to articles about fairly well-known musicians (underground or not), offering no justification but your own feelings (no policy, no precedent, no argument), some people are going to turn up who disagree with you. Quelle surprise.
# You seem to be (oops!). It seems to be your ''first'' resort, in fact. Maybe breathe and think before launching petty litigations like this in the future.
:Thanks for wasting my time. - ] (]) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)




Revision as of 16:06, 19 July 2015

Forty.4

Forty.4 (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/Forty.4/Archive.


18 July 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Forty.4 is involved in a dispute on Talk:Ceschi with Arthur goes shopping and me. It seems transparent that the IP who has made no other edits showed up in that dispute agreeing with 44 is in fact 44, having made his/her first edit restoring the material 44 wanted in the article 29 minutes after 44's last comment on the talk page.

It's clear that this wasn't a case of accidentally editing while logged out because the IP referred to 44 in his/her comments.

The Dissident Aggressor 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Zzzzzzz...
  1. Even if that was me, since the content is not controversial, there would be no need for me to log out to edit it. I've continued to make edits along the same lines after those IP edits were made, and I was about to make those exact edits before the IP editor did so.
  2. Even if I had made those edits while logged out, making logged out edits is allowed, and it's no reason to assume sockpuppetry - if those were my edits I would tell you, because I stand behind that content and will re-add it myself if you delete it again without engaging in the discussion, ignoring WP:BRD and WP:CON, as you did before.
  3. If you were confident that the content should be removed, and that you could support this by appeal to policy and/or precedent, then you would be able to respond to the points myself and this alleged 'sockpuppet' have made, but you're not, so you haven't. And this spurious allegation is your substitute for not getting your way in the dispute. I would suggest you assume good faith.
  4. The IP editor is located in Japan, I am in Ireland. In all likelihood it's the same person from Japan who frequently edits these leftfield underground hip hop articles.
  5. The IP editor went to the trouble of sourcing links for all of the guest appearances, most of which I then removed. Why would I do that when I had already argued that no such sources were necessary? The IP editor also addressed me by name, as you've noted. Your allegation here is therefore based on the fact that it doesn't look like the IP is a sockpuppet. Your evidence is nothing but the evidence to the contrary. By which standard any logged out editor or new account who took my side in that dispute would appear to you to be a sock. In reality, when you go around making capricious and destructive edits to articles about fairly well-known musicians (underground or not), offering no justification but your own feelings (no policy, no precedent, no argument), some people are going to turn up who disagree with you. Quelle surprise.
  6. You seem to be very quick to fly off the handle and make unfounded accusations (oops!). It seems to be your first resort, in fact. Maybe breathe and think before launching petty litigations like this in the future.
Thanks for wasting my time. - Forty.4 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Forty.4: Difference between revisions Add topic