| Revision as of 00:21, 27 December 2018 editGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits →Suspected sockpuppets← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:39, 27 December 2018 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,866 edits →27 December 2018: cu declinedNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| ===27 December 2018=== | ===27 December 2018=== | ||
| {{SPI case status| |
{{SPI case status|CUdeclined}} | ||
| ====Suspected sockpuppets==== | ====Suspected sockpuppets==== | ||
Revision as of 13:39, 27 December 2018
Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b
Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b (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/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/Archive.
Please note that a case was originally opened under CommotioCerebri (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b. Future cases should be placed under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b.
24 December 2018
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
Suspected sockpuppets
- 24.53.119.203 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
The two previous harrassing edits , , are stale, and reported in previous incidents. But this one is recent. Following their indefinite block, this individual has become skilled at drafting expressions of concern that seem meaningful, on the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- One edit two days ago? Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
27 December 2018
– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.
Suspected sockpuppets
- 2605:8D80:522:3240:223B:6F67:22C7:443C (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
I am requesting a checkuser because I suspect this individual has other targets. I suspect they do not return here once a week or so to harass me, and then go away. I suspect they were using sockpuppetry to harass other individuals, and may be using multiple IDs now. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
The wikistalker here has mastered leaving edit summaries that give the surface appearance of legitimacy, so long as the reader doesn't actually examine them too closely.
- BLP issues are not resolved as per the link provided
- Please re read the BLP thread which has numerous admins warning against this edit
- BLP Warning
Another anonymous IP 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 had excised most of the article, offering only a vague BLP claim in an edit summary. After I opened a thread in BLPN, and no one offered a meaningful defence of their huge excision, I started to restore passages, one at a time.
The passage I re-inserted into the article The text that my vile wikistalker has reverted said: "Golsteyn graduated from the US Army's officer college, West Point Military Academy, in 2006, and was discharged, following an inquiry, in 2015.<ref name=Wapo2015-05-19/>" There is no legitimate BLP concern here.
The vile wikistalker's first edit summary falsely implies that there was an active debate over some kind of BLP violation, at WP:BLPN#Mathew L. Goysteyn. While some contributors voiced a BLP1E concern, no one offered any kind of meaningful defense that the excised material was a genuine lapse from BLP. On December 22, five days after I started the thread, I wrote a comment that ended with My inclination is to go ahead and carefully restore the excised material, if no-one offers a further defense of the excision, in the next day or so. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: