Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November: 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 18:45, 6 July 2009 editSPCUClerkbot (talk | contribs)30,768 edits Archiving Papa November's case← Previous edit Revision as of 22:39, 6 July 2009 edit undoFree Hans (talk | contribs)1 edit revertNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
{{SPIarchive notice|Papa November}} {{SPIarchive notice|Papa November}}<br />{{SPIpriorcases}}
===== <big>Report date July 6 2009, 16:26 (UTC)</big>=====

{{SPIcat}}

;Suspected sockpuppets <!-- BOTDONE_USER_NOTICE DO_NOT_MODIFY ]]]]]]]]]]] (THIS CURRENTLY IS NOT ACTIVE, this comment is for testing only) -->
* {{checkuser|1=Verbal}}
* {{checkuser|1=A Man In Black}}
* {{checkuser|1=Mangoe}}
* {{checkuser|1=Abce2}}
* {{checkuser|1=LuckyLouie}}
* {{checkuser|1=Pablomismo}}
* {{checkuser|1=Dougweller}}
* {{checkuser|1=Short Brigade Harvester Boris}}
* {{checkuser|1=Hans Adler}}
* {{checkuser|1=Lifebaka}}

<!--## Add further sockpuppets if any, below these ##-->
Users commenting at the deletion review for ]


;Evidence submitted by ]
<!--## Sign below your evidence with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" ##-->
The users ] and ] campaigned for the deletion of an article for no reason other than they did not seem to like it. They deleted up to 17 references and citation from reputable sources, and then claimed in an articles for deletion "debate" that the article was unreferenced. The article was then ] by an administrator, ], who was found afterwards in an arbitration case to be a sock puppeteer and disruptive editor.

The users Verbal and Papa November often appeared together, at the same time, to remove content. One of the users (Papa November) seemed to have more administrative capabilities than the other, and carried out the actions of the user who seemed to have fewer administrative tools (Verbal) and whose user page showed he had been warned for edit warring on other pages.

On one occasion, at the time the two users had been visiting the article ] to remove content, an anonymous IP (160.103.2.223) showed a revert of content. The revert was made only moments after Verbal, who seemed aware of 3RR (reverting content excessively), had already "used up" one his reversions. The user Verbal seemed very aware of 3RR and his user page showed a history of having been warned for making disruptive reverts before.

The users seem to be very familiar with forums and processes for carrying out disruptive discussions in the guise of forum "administrative processes" and "filing procedures". They seem more interested in removing certain types of content then in creating it. They display editorial bias, and are aggressive in their actions. They quote a lot of Misplaced Pages jargon and seem technically skilled with online tools but seem unwilling to work collaboratively to write encyclopedic content.

They seem to have all the traits of people who "game" the system, and their patterns imply multiple user accounts to bully other editors into accepting their deletions of content.

They seem to provoke and aggravate other editors by removing content and then citing Misplaced Pages "regulations" (although unable to operate themselves collaboratively within the spirit of Misplaced Pages and with good faith). They posted provocative messages on my user page. They campaign to delete articles and edit histories of articles they have "edit warred" on, neatly removing "edit war" histories that cannot by cited in evidence so long as they remain deleted.

The user Papa November has used his administrative tools inappropriately at other times as well. He moved to delete another article, showing bias in his choice of article. As a nominator he could not delete the article himself. There was no consensus for deletion so he made moves to redirect it instead. The article was redirected through another user account and Papa November returned to "patrol" the article and keep its page empty. Other users saw no problem with the original content and wanted to keep the article. When article content was restored, Papa November took up edit warring again and redirected the article again. He then used his administrative ability to stop other users from editing the article. The content he moved to delete was neutral, matter of fact and informative. ] (]) 17:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

] (]) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

;Comments by accused parties &nbsp;&nbsp; <small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See ].''</span></small>
<!-- PLEASE NOTE: CheckUsers *will not* read excessively long arguments in this section. Please consider this when starting an argument with someone -->
Frivolous report. Please see this active ] for details of previous, similar behaviour. ] (]) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely unnessecary and made up. He thinks that every user that talks to him "has" to be the same person.]|<small>]]</small> 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He forgot Jimbo! I feel like we're a family now. If a proper comment is for some reason required of me, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave this to the RFC/U. No offence, but I've never heard of three of those editors. ] <small>]</small> 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pass the popcorn. ] (]) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans is currently blocked, and will not be able to provide any further evidence on this page. The block expires in just under 24 hours. <font color="green">]</font>] 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I hope this is the end of it. I'm tried of being a sockpuppet.]|<small>]]</small> 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

;Comments by other users
Sockpuppets are accounts created by one person. If true, how could they appear at the same time?]|<small>]]</small> 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:They edited articles at about the same time. They appeared on similar articles, with a brief time lag between edits and comments - enough for a user to have switched accounts (which the reversion by the anonymous IP suggested). ] (]) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any harder evidence? All you've given so far is interpretation and unrelated information. A quick look over the user's contributions indicates nothing in the way of sockpuppetry, and you haven't even listed reasons why three of the users are listed. If you can't provide evidence, this is just disruptive, and should be quickly closed. <font color="green">]</font>] 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

;CheckUser requests
{{RFCU| B | C | Decline }} &nbsp;&nbsp; <small>Requested by ] (]) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC) </small>
<!--## Replace CODE LETTER by the appropriate code letter and Replace No2ndLetter if you need a 2nd code letter (or leave it alone if not) ##-->
<!--## Codeletters are:
A - arbcom ban/remedy evasion
B - Ongoing serious pattern vandalism
C - Vote fraud, please wait until after vote closes
D - 3RR with socks
E - Evasion of community based bans or blocks
F - Other, please explain why a check should be run -->
<!--## Make sure your evidence explains why CheckUser is appropriate ##-->
{{decline}}. As I explained on ], the evidence is far from sufficient to justify checkuser attention for any of these accounts. <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:A lot of the evidence is contained in the history of the article that was deleted. This cannot be linked to, as it has been deleted. A description of what happened, with links to relevant discussion, is the best I can do in this case. Also, I had not finished tidying up my request before it was declined. ] (]) 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

* {{Decline}} for lack of evidence. The commentary above (which lacks substantial evidence) provides a description that could match practically any long term editor or administrator, and as a result doesn't significantly connect any of the specific accounts listed. If you'd like to narrow down the scope (say, by removing one or two of the administrators listed) and provide evidence in the form of ], its possible this case could be reconsidered for CU. Note that declining the CU doesn't close the case, it remains open for the submission of additional evidence until its final review by an administrator. ]] 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
<!-- TEMPLATE:User:SPCUClerkbot/moreinfo-RFCU Do not remove this comment! -->] '''Additional information needed''': Please provide a ]. ] (]) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:Code letters added. ] (]) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


;Conclusions


----

Revision as of 22:39, 6 July 2009

Papa November

Papa November (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/Papa November/Archive.


Report date July 6 2009, 16:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

Users commenting at the deletion review for Telepathy and war


Evidence submitted by Frei Hans

The users Verbal and Papa November campaigned for the deletion of an article for no reason other than they did not seem to like it. They deleted up to 17 references and citation from reputable sources, and then claimed in an articles for deletion "debate" that the article was unreferenced. The article was then deleted by an administrator, AMiB, who was found afterwards in an arbitration case to be a sock puppeteer and disruptive editor.

The users Verbal and Papa November often appeared together, at the same time, to remove content. One of the users (Papa November) seemed to have more administrative capabilities than the other, and carried out the actions of the user who seemed to have fewer administrative tools (Verbal) and whose user page showed he had been warned for edit warring on other pages.

On one occasion, at the time the two users had been visiting the article Telepathy and war to remove content, an anonymous IP (160.103.2.223) showed a revert of content. The revert was made only moments after Verbal, who seemed aware of 3RR (reverting content excessively), had already "used up" one his reversions. The user Verbal seemed very aware of 3RR and his user page showed a history of having been warned for making disruptive reverts before.

The users seem to be very familiar with forums and processes for carrying out disruptive discussions in the guise of forum "administrative processes" and "filing procedures". They seem more interested in removing certain types of content then in creating it. They display editorial bias, and are aggressive in their actions. They quote a lot of Misplaced Pages jargon and seem technically skilled with online tools but seem unwilling to work collaboratively to write encyclopedic content.

They seem to have all the traits of people who "game" the system, and their patterns imply multiple user accounts to bully other editors into accepting their deletions of content.

They seem to provoke and aggravate other editors by removing content and then citing Misplaced Pages "regulations" (although unable to operate themselves collaboratively within the spirit of Misplaced Pages and with good faith). They posted provocative messages on my user page. They campaign to delete articles and edit histories of articles they have "edit warred" on, neatly removing "edit war" histories that cannot by cited in evidence so long as they remain deleted.

The user Papa November has used his administrative tools inappropriately at other times as well. He moved to delete another article, showing bias in his choice of article. As a nominator he could not delete the article himself. There was no consensus for deletion so he made moves to redirect it instead. The article was redirected through another user account and Papa November returned to "patrol" the article and keep its page empty. Other users saw no problem with the original content and wanted to keep the article. When article content was restored, Papa November took up edit warring again and redirected the article again. He then used his administrative ability to stop other users from editing the article. The content he moved to delete was neutral, matter of fact and informative. Frei Hans (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Frivolous report. Please see this active RFC/U for details of previous, similar behaviour. Papa November (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely unnessecary and made up. He thinks that every user that talks to him "has" to be the same person.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He forgot Jimbo! I feel like we're a family now. If a proper comment is for some reason required of me, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave this to the RFC/U. No offence, but I've never heard of three of those editors. Verbal chat 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pass the popcorn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans is currently blocked, and will not be able to provide any further evidence on this page. The block expires in just under 24 hours. lifebaka++ 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I hope this is the end of it. I'm tried of being a sockpuppet.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Sockpuppets are accounts created by one person. If true, how could they appear at the same time?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

They edited articles at about the same time. They appeared on similar articles, with a brief time lag between edits and comments - enough for a user to have switched accounts (which the reversion by the anonymous IP suggested). Frei Hans (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any harder evidence? All you've given so far is interpretation and unrelated information. A quick look over the user's contributions indicates nothing in the way of sockpuppetry, and you haven't even listed reasons why three of the users are listed. If you can't provide evidence, this is just disruptive, and should be quickly closed. lifebaka++ 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: B  + C (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and vote stacking affecting outcome)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Frei Hans (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk declined. As I explained on WT:SPI, the evidence is far from sufficient to justify checkuser attention for any of these accounts. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the evidence is contained in the history of the article that was deleted. This cannot be linked to, as it has been deleted. A description of what happened, with links to relevant discussion, is the best I can do in this case. Also, I had not finished tidying up my request before it was declined. Frei Hans (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Clerk declined for lack of evidence. The commentary above (which lacks substantial evidence) provides a description that could match practically any long term editor or administrator, and as a result doesn't significantly connect any of the specific accounts listed. If you'd like to narrow down the scope (say, by removing one or two of the administrators listed) and provide evidence in the form of diffs, its possible this case could be reconsidered for CU. Note that declining the CU doesn't close the case, it remains open for the submission of additional evidence until its final review by an administrator. Nathan 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Code letters added. Frei Hans (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Conclusions


Category: