Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben Dawid/Archive

26 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User:Ben Dawid claims at their user page to be from Victoria (Australia). This user User:SAT85(contribs here) doesn't have a user page set up, but judging by this edit to :ResidentAnthropologis user page and some of their other edits, they operate as this IP, which also geolocates to AUSTRALIA-VICTORIA-MELBOURNE. Also, the IP made one of its few edits here, where they fixed an archiving request for Ben Dawids talkpage. Seeing as how these two were the most vocal voices at the Talk:Man dispute sock puppetry may be at work. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly they have both used the same IP, Sat85 forgot to sign in here, and the same ip modified the archive functions for Ben Dawid here. Modyifying some one archive functions is not normal beahvior for another user. That is either really silly vandalism not something another user does to another's page. There is no other real ratioanle to do it unless the IP is Ben Dawid. Thus modifying archive function clencher  for me. The final straw is  Ben Dawid claims on his talk page to be from the same area the IP geolocates to. All this is highly suggestive enough for me to request CU.  The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus immediatley after this comment to Ben Dawid SAT85 after being domant for two weeks pops up to critcize me this seems suggestive to me as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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


 * All I really see here is User:180.181.104.107 (with a strong probability of it being User:SAT85) fixing up an archive thing for User:Ben Dawid. A good faith interpretation might see it as, for example, two friends who live near each other, with one helping out another with their archive. And I certainly see nothing suggesting malicious use of socks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that User:Ben Dawid, the one with the detailed user page, only started contributing in April 2010, but User:SAT85, the one with no user page, has been around since July 2009. It would seem very strange socking tactics to keep one's first account with no user page, and then create a sock account a year later with a detailed user page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see a good reason at all for 180.181.104.107]/SAT85 to shift Ben Dawid's from automatic bot to Manual. Thats the sticker for me. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As RA says above, why would the IP do that? The majority of the IPs other edits seem to be SAT85 editing while accidentally logged out. The edits, if new posts, are immediately followed by SAT85 changing the IP sig to their sig, the other edits consist of the IP making minor wording changes to SAT85s post. See here, , , , and . The IP is clearly SAT85. Why would they then go in and make an archive change to Ben Dawids acct? Logic would suggest the user accidentally edited while logged out, implying both accts use that IP. And both accounts were active participants in the contentious RFC over at Talk:Man. Both accts went dormant on the subject several weeks ago. A few days ago Ben Dawid came back seeking to reignite the debate, when several editors pointed out it had been settled and shouldnt be restarted(I was one of them BTW), it is SAT85 who pops up at the individuals talkpages to answer criticisms, not Ben Dawid. I dont think it matters which of the 2 named accts is older, the SAT85 acct was started in the summer of 2009, made 6 edits and then went dormant, until early October of 2010, when it has since been very active in only one subject, the Talk:Man dispute. They seem to me to be some sort of bad hand acct.  He  iro 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps just playing angel's advocate here, but I could easily see a friend asking me how to change their archive to manual, and me saying "I'll do it for you". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Must've done it by email or IRL, because there are no talkpage communications between the 2.  He  iro 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is something going on here, either they are freinds IRL or they are the same person. Its hard to say. I wish now that i had included Ben Dawib in the Sockpuppet investigations/We233ws. The only reason I had not is Ben Dawid has used biblical justifications for removal of the image SAT85 has not off the top of my head. I was willing to assume good faith on Ben Dawid's part until Heironymous Rowel pointed out the Ip connection. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello guys. Boing! said Zebedee is pretty much on the mark. Ben Dawid is known to me IRL, but, take my word for it, we are not suffering from an identity crisis at this stage. Our wikipedia accounts are completely independent of each other; we have not generally contributed to the discussions simultaneously, and even though our presence has never swung the consensus over the image (even before the AN/i report, when the actual readership of Man called for deletion), I have argued from the outset that the issue should be settled on the grounds of common sense and policy (such as WP:profane and policy on taking cues from professional encyclopaedias), not by a mere vote count. Ben Dawid and I (and, to be fair, Boing! said Zebedee, Soap, and DavidOaks) have taken the time to follow the often nuanced arguments as they developed over time, and it seems unreasonable to me for all of this to be forgotten about with a new appeal to WP:NOTCENSORED and a count of the guys from AN/i. The outcome should in some way reflect (or at least take into account) the effort that both sides have put into this very sensitive topic. Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be worth considering, too, that Ben Dawid and myself were among the many ordinary readers who entered the discussion through the Man page itself, rather than in response to an invitation on a dedicated wikiforum. SAT85 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As thats surely an explanation that has been presented at SPIs many times, lets continue to wait for a checkuser to perform the check, since a clerk has already endorsed it. And after waiting all day to hear from you 2, its good to see you have both responded, and, mere minutes apart from each other.  He  iro  05:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! Though, when you think about it, someone who had done such a stellar job of looking like two separate people would surely not fail to take more care to post at different times under separate accounts... SAT85 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, just back from work, and a rather intriguing set of conversations going on here! One explanation, Heiro, could be that while you waited 'all day' in America we (and at least two other contributors to the discussions at Talk:Man) were peacefully sleeping 'all night' in Australia, lol. (Though I probably posted mine towards midday EST, come to think of it). Anyway, I'm somewhat amused that you seem to have concluded that sat85 and I are comprised of one, split personality! Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an entertaining finale to a fairly drawn-out content dispute. But still a sad reflection on the extent to which some users (and only some, thankfully!) will go to stifle constructive discussion--an attitude at odds with fundamental Wikipedia policy, I would have thought. SAT85 (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * With regards to the IP, I think it was just a case that the user had forgotten to log in; that's why they resigned when they did. I don't see any real malicious sockpuppeting. But I'm not really seeing a lot of evidence here, aside from talking on the same talk page. Can you provide more evidence? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - Per the discussion, I think we need CU to clear this up. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ben Dawid and SAT85 are very /❌ to any previous socks involved in the Talk:Man dispute (note that this is in the context of the excessive socking that went on in Talk:Man about a month ago with User:We233ws and company). I will defer to Ben Dawid's comment with regards to his interactions with SAT85 above. It looks like they know each other, and CU cannot conclude that they are the same person. –MuZemike 08:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * After a further look at the timing, Ben and SAT85 are completely ❌ to any said previous socks. –MuZemike 08:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  15:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)