| Revision as of 17:23, 7 January 2007 editJesup (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,116 edits →[]: Marshal's comment shows this is a spurious accusation← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:30, 7 January 2007 edit undoRevRagnarok (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,035 edits outsider's viewNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| I should also note that ] started re-inserting this text exactly 4 days after the previous inserter (]) was reported, and 4 days is the minimum age of a newuser before they can edit sprotected pages. Note also the deceptive summary for Jesup's last re-insertion before this case was opened: "m (sourced, looks better)" - marked as a minor edit. ] 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | I should also note that ] started re-inserting this text exactly 4 days after the previous inserter (]) was reported, and 4 days is the minimum age of a newuser before they can edit sprotected pages. Note also the deceptive summary for Jesup's last re-insertion before this case was opened: "m (sourced, looks better)" - marked as a minor edit. ] 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * I only stumbled here because I had a message on {{user3|Jesup}}'s talk page. Anyway, when reverting vandalism, many people tag the edit as minor. If Jesup was a sock puppet, then {{user3|Fwdixon}} would've likely gotten involved in the revert wars of {{article|Universal Image Format}} and its talk page as well. Also note, Jesup's earliest contribution is August of 2005, so very doubtful that he (sorry if wrongly assumed) was waiting out a 4 day minimum to vandalize an article when his 5th edit was a . — <span style="text-decoration: none;">] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That comment pretty much proves this is a spurious retribution: Marshal2.0's comment is a copy of my comment in ] with the names swapped. Thanks! — ] 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | That comment pretty much proves this is a spurious retribution: Marshal2.0's comment is a copy of my comment in ] with the names swapped. Thanks! — ] 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:30, 7 January 2007
User:Jesup
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Fwdixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Jesup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Marshal2.0 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence Repeated identical edits (now with misleading summaries, including "minor edit" to hide it from some) on Katana, and Stratemeyer Syndicate related pages. by User:Fwdixon and many, many other identical edits by him (and before page was semi-protected by anon-IP's identified as sockpuppets of him). Furthermore Jesup has been acused of Sockpupetry in the past.Marshal2.0 01
- 49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
User:Marshal2.0 is apparently engaging in retribution for my reporting User:Marshalbannana (the self-admitted previous user-id of this user) here as a possible sockpuppet of User:Jacknicholson, and probably because when Marshalbannana tried to acquit himself on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson(2nd) I undid his self-acquital. The Katana article had to be fully protected to deal with the repeated editwarring from anon-IP's and later Jacknicholson/Marshalbannana once it was semi-protected.
Even a cursory examination of my edits will show I'm not a sockpuppet. The "evidence" above isn't supported by my contribution logs or the logs of the various pages, which is probably why no edit links were included.
If you examine the previous case referenced about Fwdixon you'll see it was a totally bogus case where a user accused everyone who disagreed with him of puppetry (and I had only added a short comment on the talk page at that time), and the admin dismissed it almost immediately.
Since this is obviously retribution, I request that someone rule on this quickly and consider if any action against the accuser is appropriate. Thanks. — jesup 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that User:Jesup started re-inserting this text exactly 4 days after the previous inserter (User:Fwdixon) was reported, and 4 days is the minimum age of a newuser before they can edit sprotected pages. Note also the deceptive summary for Jesup's last re-insertion before this case was opened: "m (sourced, looks better)" - marked as a minor edit. Marshal2.0 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I only stumbled here because I had a message on Jesup (talk · contribs · logs)'s talk page. Anyway, when reverting vandalism, many people tag the edit as minor. If Jesup was a sock puppet, then Fwdixon (talk · contribs · logs) would've likely gotten involved in the revert wars of Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page as well. Also note, Jesup's earliest contribution is August of 2005, so very doubtful that he (sorry if wrongly assumed) was waiting out a 4 day minimum to vandalize an article when his 5th edit was a vandalism revert. — RevRagnarok 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That comment pretty much proves this is a spurious retribution: Marshal2.0's comment is a copy of my comment here in Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson(2nd) with the names swapped. Thanks! — jesup 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions