Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barwick/Archive

Report date July 13 2009, 19:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All user have only been editing the Early Life and Career of Barack Obama are to say that he may have been born in Kenya, the exact same way. The continued even after being told that consensus disagreed with it. Users began appearing after BenSpecter was blocked for the same thing. Could aslo be meatpuppeting [][][][][] Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)

You guys are pathetic. I'm not a wikipedia geek so I may not be responding to this 'sockpuppet' (first time I've ever heard of that term) in the way you think I'm supposed to. You're saying that I logged into another account after I was blocked and continued editing the article? You're wrong. The evidence I've seen here appears extremely flimsy. So someone else who wants to spread the truth about Obama sees that I had made the edit and that the ObamaManiacs kept changing reverting it back. So this person then decides to edit the article themselves after I've been blocked. Why couldn't that have happened? We all know that Wikipedia is hugely supportive of Obama and that you'll eventually get your way on this because it's your site and you can do what you want with it. I just want to see you try to explain how I engaged in 'sockpuppetry' and explain it in a way that makes at least some sense.
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * You guys are freaking hilarious, you know that? Sockpuppetry?  What the *ahem* is that?  I swear it's like living under Stalin, "You are charged with violating some obscure public directive with a cutesey sounding name..."  It's junk like this that makes me not even want to bother with contributing to Wikipedia.  First I'm accused of not using "approved references", then when I point out that those "bad references" were referenced from a long standing Wikipedia article, then all of a sudden it's "Oh, well, the content of those references isn't relevant to this discussion..."  Damned if I do, and damned if I don't, so why bother?  Heck, I'm accused of using "biased sources", but others reference the "Fight The Smears" website, and it's NOT biased?  Give me a break, it's Obama's own webpage!!!!!  That's not biased in his favor... --Barwick (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way, I had real life things to do yesterday, hence the reason (as if I felt the need to give you guys one) I wasn't posting after yesterday afternoon... --Barwick (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Abce2 said, "The continued even after being told that consensus disagreed with it." I assume you meant 'They' as the beginning of that sentence. First of all, I was never told that a consensus disagreed with it and secondly, who cares if a consensus disagreed with it, a consensus does not make something truth. Ya know, kind of like global warming.

And, BanyanTree, I'm sorry man, I'm just not following you. I'm definitely new to Wikipedia and maybe that's why but your so-called evidence just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But, like I said, I'm sure you guys will get your way, at least for now. BenSpecter (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Edits by BenSpecter [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103810 reported by] WorldNetDaily. Seems to at least raise the possibility of meatpuppetry. - BanyanTree 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, note that each of the screenshots in the WND article is of the live revision, rather than an archived one, including one revision that appears to last less than 60 seconds. The chances of someone who is not the vandal being able to catch each vandalized revision are rather small. - BanyanTree 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

While the evidence seems strong enough to suggest some sockpuppetry is occurring, the Obama articles have drawn lots of attention over time and there is always the chance that these are just separate users who share the same viewpoint. A check would help sort this out. Icestorm815 •  Talk  20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All of the listed accounts are unrelated by IP. Meatpuppetry is still possible, of course. Dominic·t 01:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No action taken. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Jamie  S93  Only You Can Prevent Drama 01:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)