Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacrusis/Archive

Report date February 16 2009, 06:03 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Cdogsimmons

I brought this matter here because of a recent edit made by Betacrucis at 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict. Betacrusis removed a large amount of material from the article including two pictures of Palestinian casualties. I started a discussion about the removal at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict and restored the pictures. The removal made me think that Betacrucis could be a sockpuppet because the pictures of Palestinian casualties had been previously removed repeatedly by Tundrabuggy, for which he was blocked from editing the article for a month. Betacrucis is a fairly new editor to wikipedia (his editing began shortly after the conflict in Gaza) and his edits focus almost solely on the Gaza conflict page. Both editors have been warned for disruptive edits to the page that appeared to push a Pro-Israeli point of view. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Infantile. Betacrucis (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and spurious. Betacrucis (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Darwish: Darwish, thanks for the support, but I am a relatively new editor and have not made "huge monolithic edits". I made one such edit and am now going through the proper process before further edits. You and others have made me very unwelcome; you seem to have no regard for the guideline, Please Do Not Bite The Newcomers WP:NEWBIE. Frankly I am disappointed. Betacrucis (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cerejota: I can't believe you would encourage this spurious nonsense. Very, very disappointing. Betacrucis (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to Avi:User:Tundrabuggy is under a one month edit ban for 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict as per WP:ARBPIA. Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) banned from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict until March 1, 2009, because of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) [59] 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC). --Cerejota (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I thought I'd linked to the ban page. Sorry.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think a checkuser is in order to dispel any lingering doubts, as per the talkpage of the article. As this is a WP:ARBPIA article, results should be logged. I think this is merely WP:DUCK suspicion, but the alternative to no checkuser, if not true, is that the users remain tainted by suspicion. So I say give it a go.--Cerejota (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although Betacrucis has been a source of problematic huge monolithic edits that is done without consensus, I guess the evidence provided for the puppetry accusation is not that powerful. Correlation does not imply causation. --Darwish (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

What blocks are being evaded? Neither editor is currently blocked? -- Avi (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Other than the fact that both editors are Pro-Israel, and one is newer, is there any specific pattern evidence that may indicate sock/meat puppetry? If the only issue is one of shared ideology, one can actually view that as insulting, not to mention a violation of WP:AGF. Shall we start checkusering all pro-Palestinian editors as they seem to share a point-of-view? Of course not, that would be a gross violation of privacy. Pro-Israeli editors deserve the same respect. Bring specific edits that indicate a pattern of possible sockpuppetry, and I will be more than happy to run the check. But please remember, . Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After a more detailed analysis of the edits and examples in question, I can see some justification for the check. Results are below. Please realize that a case can be made that any editor supporting another editor in that discussion can be feasibly be checked, as everyone is subject to the ArbCom restrictions, not just those to whom a sanction has been applied. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

❌ Currently available technical evidence indicates that the above two accounts are not related. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions