Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama/Archive

Report date March 9 2009, 03:48 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is lamecherry who was falsely accused. My first entry into Wikipedia was on tomatoes to which I was scolded for not using links, which I later corrected. I have created other pages of interest to others, and, it is ridiculous to be red flagged by "seicer" when my post concerning Barack Obama was entirely about Mr. Obama completing a political road started by the first black American President in Joseph Jenkins Roberts who was president of Liberia. To have this entry deleted smacks of racism from Wikipedia in deleting the accomplishments of African American for the past almost 300 years in America and Africa. This is exactly what Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking of in the broad brush of racism painting everyone. The accuser at Wikipedia never even bothered to check anything, but simply lumped all ISP's. This is irresponsible and for Wikipedia to delete factual references which are on Wiki's own site is racism when the subject is African Americans accomplishments being deleted. Thank you for your time.

Perhaps Lucasfbr who actually bothered to research a little of the subject who posted below as a clerk will rectify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamecherry (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Tlwitness; I have one and only one account and I had the temerity to question Wiki policy concerning the Obama page. I have never used more than one account and I quoted Wiki policies in defending my stance. To think that just because I questioned the page I was a sockpuppet is ridiculous. I am an individual in no way associated with WND and I only represent myself.talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * After an article on WND was linked from the Drudge Report, numerous inactive accounts began editing the Barrack Obama page. The accounts, some of which have not been active for a year, began editing in unison with a similar message. A related case can be found at WP:ANI and WP:ANI. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not yet used to the new SPI interface, and so this case, as reported, is about user:Barack Obama.... when it involves four users with no identifiable sockpuppeter. I should have filed a RFCU, but that redirected to SPI. I'll get it right one day :) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the new RFCU. :-) Tiptoety  talk 04:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added several names and IP's to the list, basically anyone who has been attacking the talk page tonight. I have no illusions that they are all sockpuppets of each other, but some of them most likely are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of the 24.187.xxx.xxx IPs I just added 132.126 admits to being a block-evading sock of 112.15 and was blocked accordingly. 128.136 followed the same pattern on the Drudge report, then trolled the Obama talk page in a similar tone as some of the others. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * }} Requested by seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs
 * - Tiptoety  talk 04:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a fishing expedition to me. If there's a story in the news about Wikipedia not covering controversial information in Barack Obama's article it's reasonable to expect people to show up trying to fix the situation.  Treating them with hostility, disdain and suspicion is inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. I trust any editor that turns out to be a legitimate new user and not a sock puppet will be apologized to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I put my name in the list asking for an apology. Is this the way Wikipedia reacts when something is in question for Conservatives?  I somehow doubt it, especially with the personal attacks (only leveled at those questioning the Barack page, I might add) of "idiot", et al.  Tlwitness  —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I removed the IP addresses and new user accounts, and stuck with what I had originally intended (sans the additions made overnight): accounts that were formerly inactive that had activity post-WND. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Glancing over the (unregistered users') IPs, I see some Canadians, some Australians, some people near NY, ... I'm not sure CheckUser would bring much light here. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Lucasbfr here, there's little point in doing this now, with all kinds of folks crawling out of the woodwork to add their pov due to the press coverage. If the issues with these editors continue after the ruckus has died down, we can revisit. -- Versa geek  02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Best to hold off on this unless the situation warrants it with something more specific.  Aar on Sc hulz  05:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) -- Kanonkas : Talk  07:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions