Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlasdairGreen27/Archive

27 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Possible case of WP:CLEANSTART as the previous user suddenly abandoned all activity some time ago after a series of cases of disruptive behavior and this new appeared recently with same intense interess into same subjects and defending the same POV. Also, Peacemaker67 unnecessarily insisted on few occasions to be a newcomer, however he is extremelly well familiarised with WP policies and editing costumes. Some possible tricks may also been used, such as taking weeks to learn to add : each time for any new comment in a discussion. He learned just in few days complicated policies, but needed weeks for learning that? With the ammount of participation on dicussion that he had, any newcommer usually learns that in quite short time. I beleave it was probably an exagerated way to further simulate himself as newcomer and as a user unfamiliarised with WP costumes. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute chief, I just read something about a 'Duck test'! Maybe you should try reading Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet?
 * I mentioned that I was a newcomer when I started editing because I am (or was in November, but maybe I'm so good now that I should be considered an experienced editor... WHAT?). Perhaps I'm just smarter than the average bear... I know a bit about HTML and am familiar with some code writing, so that might explain some of your interesting but misguided conclusions. I have a personal preference for knowing what I am doing before jumping in to anything (re: policies), and followed many of the Balkans articles (with increasing frustration at some of the unsourced rot passing for discussion) for months before getting involved as an editor. I have referred to this fact several times. However, I HAVE made several new user mistakes (such as canvassing on one occasion, which Nuujiin kindly pulled me up on without embarrassing me too much, thank you Nuujiin), which I was not familiar with, as well as your precious ":". What is THAT about? Do I point out that your English grammar is less than perfect? Not unless I can't actually understand what you are trying to say! I'm not sure what POV you think I'm pushing, except a NPOV, and given I am neither Serb, Croat, Slovene or Bosniak, am a bit browned off with being tagged with that moniker. My view is that as an editor with no personal linkages to the Balkans and no ethnic barrow to push, but having copies of most of the main sources and the benefit of years of study of the history of the Balkans in WW2, I'm adding value to the discussion. Sorry you don't feel that way, but that's life isn't it? Not everyone is going to agree with you, unfortunately. A simple traceroute would show that I post from Australia, even though I sometimes use my iPhone and I'm not even sure what traceroute shows for posts I've done on that. Exactly whose sockpuppet do you think I am? Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see now. Duh. I'm in uncharted waters here. You're suggesting I'm AlasdairGreen27. Well, my user name has a couple of the same letters and a 7 in it, but 'AIGGGH' wrong answer Tony!. It would funny if it wasn't so desperate. I will await the verdict...

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Oh this is such nonsense. The only reason User:FkpCascais is posting this silly SPI is that he's engaged in a content dispute with Peacemaker over on Talk:Yugoslav Partisans and Talk:Chetniks. He tried to get me blocked as well for opposing him, without notable success. User:AlasdairGreen27 did not edit virtually any of the articles Peacemaker edits, his English and manner of expression are completely different (Alasdair was not a particularly polite user :)), and most of all Alasdair announced he was giving up Wikipedia and was not active since December last year, and even then he was editing very rarely and sporadically . Furthermore, AlasadirGreen27 is not banned or indeffed and can use his account if he wishes to come back: he would have to be pretty stupid, which he was not, being a veritable sock-hunter himself.

Also, for the record, I disagree fundamentally with FkpCascais's entirely unsupported "assessments" above. AlasdairGreen was a valuable contributor, and FkpCascais should be just about the last person to talk about anyone else's "disruptive behavior". With regard to Peacemaker, his understanding of policy is not exceptional in any way whatsoever.

If someone were to post something like this about me, with borderline personal attacks on other users and without even a single diff(!), I would find it very offensive indeed. I think FkpCascais should certainly not be given the satisfaction of having this report taken seriously. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * HelloAnnoying, I see you have been missinformed about this issue. Where exactly is that I expressed will to "block" anyone? And where am I edit-warring? The style can be easily presented as different. Have you checked the accounts, and please answer to me? FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How cute. I suppose we are to believe you are unaware sockpuppets are automatically banned on Wikipedia (and everywhere else)? And what "accounts" are you talking about? You seem to have no conception that an SPI report does not consist of a bunch of nonsense theories and personal opinions along the lines of "yes he's talking like a different person but that's all an elaborate ploy!". There are no indications whatsoever that Peacemaker is a sock: they do not edit the same articles, they do not discuss similarly, and the other guy has been gone for years. Seriously, stop this distasteful, offensive farce. Personally I hold you should be sanctioned yourself for these sort of attacks on a new user. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why all this panic and a desperate attempt to avoid check user? FkpCascais (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What rot. And what panic? Let's face it, you didn't alert me to your little plan, the other user you suggested I was a sockpuppet of brought it to my attention. I didn't even really know what a sockpuppet was at first. I'm starting to get really browned off now. I made the point that I was happy for a traceroute or whatever WP uses to determine these things (I assume that's check user). Decision has been made, sunshine. Build a bridge. I am unfamiliar with what constitutes grounds for a complaint against a user on here, but I'm thinking it might be a good idea to do some more reading. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason then for you to be warried, and in case you pass the test (as you claim), you can shake it in front of my face, so why not doing it? If anyone would ask me for doing this, knowing that my consciense i clear, I wouldn´t warry at all, and I wouldn´t spare a single world loosing time with this. I honestly read from your and direktor´s words some fear, and an intense wish to avoid this check use. Wouldn´t you also feel much safer if you do the test, and pass it, as you claim? FkpCascais (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @HelloAnyong, all this insistence in wanting to avoid the user check actually further provides doubts, as a clear consciense would be certainly not warried if conscience clear... I really beleave you should give them a chance to demonstrate that I was wrong. Also, the user I suspect that has done this in order to clearstart is with the objective to gain credibility, as numerous blocks of the initial account got to be well known among the community, and may have had a negative effect within discussions. Their role of continuing assiatance on DIREKTOR´s edits and disputes is exactly the same. I ask you please you reconsider my request. FkpCascais (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

@Peacemaker, this report is concluded. Wasting any more time here would imo not be beneficial. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 04:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Their styles do seem rather different. Don't try to use SPI cases as a way of getting people blocked just because you're in an edit war with them. Closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: this case is closed. Let's be honest: nearly all SPI cases end in blocks, so to claim that one wants to see other action taken carries relatively little weight. The evidence provided is insufficient, and I see no reason to continue investigating at this time. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 07:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)