Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse: 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 13:22, 11 March 2015 editCrazyAces489 (talk | contribs)4,046 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 14:01, 11 March 2015 edit undoPRehse (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers161,098 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 31: Line 31:
<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>


This is hard not to take personally considering the time and effort that have gone into making the avalanche of barely literate articles produced by the accuser more palatable including very polite advice via talk pages. I am certainly not the only one of the editors named (and there are others also) to have done so. My contributions to wikipedia includes making sure newly created martial arts articles are integrated into the whole and also any of those articles put up for deletion so that they are picked up by interested editors. I also have a habit of checking user contributions so yes when someone like ] puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article. There certainly is no collusion although ] may accuse me of stalking if he wishes.

What we have are a number of editors interested in maintaining martial arts articles being brought together by poorly written articles, full of factual errors, and of questionable notability. I wont even get into the number of times those articles have demonstrated an almost perverse misunderstanding of the subject area. Similar voting is not due to a conspiracy of knitted goods but rather a shared interest and obvious choices.] (]) 13:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 14:01, 11 March 2015

PRehse

PRehse (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/PRehse/Archive.


11 March 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

As per tools, there is significant edits that overlap. They all seem to vote on the same articles and vote the same way. Previous sockpuppet investigations have shown that the behaviors are questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa/Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mdtemp/Archive
CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be consistent meatpuppetry between the stated accounts. They vote with each other 95% of the time. MDTEMP listed 7 highly referenced articles, 6 of which are of African American Athletes all at once. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Thompson (Judo), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George Cofield, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ernest R. Smith, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Odell Terry, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chester Evans, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robey Reed and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Karl Geis (judo). The only one to survive the AFD so far are Karl Geis (judo) (who happens to be white) and James Thompson (Judo) who was a national champion and member of the US National Team.CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This is hard not to take personally considering the time and effort that have gone into making the avalanche of barely literate articles produced by the accuser more palatable including very polite advice via talk pages. I am certainly not the only one of the editors named (and there are others also) to have done so. My contributions to wikipedia includes making sure newly created martial arts articles are integrated into the whole and also any of those articles put up for deletion so that they are picked up by interested editors. I also have a habit of checking user contributions so yes when someone like User:Mdtemp puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article. There certainly is no collusion although User:Mdtemp may accuse me of stalking if he wishes.

What we have are a number of editors interested in maintaining martial arts articles being brought together by poorly written articles, full of factual errors, and of questionable notability. I wont even get into the number of times those articles have demonstrated an almost perverse misunderstanding of the subject area. Similar voting is not due to a conspiracy of knitted goods but rather a shared interest and obvious choices.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: