Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colonel Warden/Archive

Report date March 12 2009, 05:57 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Look at. Seems to be using this IP to edit war. However, User:Artw has also been active in this fashion. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ScienceApologist (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Whilst it is clear that the IP and the user are have a similar POV, and could indeed be one and the same, a single IP edit many hours apart from logged in edits by a user who was not approaching WP:3RR is most certainly NOT abusive sockpuppetry Mayalld (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date March 15 2009, 03:25 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions


 * Colonel Warden has been edit-warring at Orthomolecular psychiatry in opposition to consensus to retain the redirect.
 * First IP made a reversion here.
 * Second IP made the same revert here.
 * Colonel Warden has made reverts here and here.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * 1) As these IPs don't match each other, let alone me, there seems to be no case to answer.  Note that I am located in the UK, not New Jersey or California.
 * 2) Numerous editors have been involved in this matter, as can be seen from the discussions at Orthomolecular psychiatry and  the RFC.  Orangemarlin's failure to respect the result of the RFC has further been discussed at WP:ANI where we may suppose that many more editors have observed his misbehaviour.  No reason is provided to single me out from the crowd however there seems to be some personal antipathy towards me in his numerous incivilities.
 * 3) Orangemarlin has reverted this article many times including: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  The latter flurry seems to be a technical breach of WP:3RR.
 * 4) This accusation of sockpuppetry was first made by user ScienceApologist as may be seen in the archive.  Likewise, the attempt to redirect the article in question was first made by that user.  That user was banned for "disruption, gaming and wikilawyering" and we seem to have the same pattern here.  Editing on behalf of banned users exposes an editor to the same sanctions.  Shall we take this case of meatpuppetry here or start a fresh case?
 * 5) We should recall the case of Firefly322 who made an accusation of sockpuppetry against Orangemarlin.  This was found to be incorrect and Firefly322 was blocked for a month for harassment by Gwen Gale.  Imposition of a similar block upon Orangemarlin seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The first WHOIS identifies the IP as coming from New Jersey; the second, California. Skomorokh 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * WHOIS only finds the owner of the IP address. First IP is from Lynwood, CA.  Second IP address is from Los Angeles, CA.  Oooops.  Both are from the same general area of South Bay of Los Angeles.  BTW, I didn't know how WHOIS worked when I originally came here, but there are several geolocate websites for IP addresses.  In fact, in almost every IP address Wikipedia user's page, there's a link called geolocate.  I'd only use WHOIS or TRACEROUTE if I'm looking to complain about something to the ISP.  I hope this helps out.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Each IP has only one edit. ScienceApologist already came here complaining about the first one and was sent away ("a single IP edit many hours apart from logged in edits by a user who was not approaching WP:3RR is most certainly NOT abusive sockpuppetry"). Now this edit is consistent with someone realising after the first edit of an editing session that he is not logged in and realising it immediately afterwards. E.g. he could have a bookmark on that page or its history page to monitor what's going on while he is doing work unrelated to Wikipedia.

I find it hard to believe that Orangemarlin is not familiar with this (a convicted sockpuppeteer being told that "an occasional lapse may be forgiven" after abusively editing repeatedly while logged out). This complaint seems to be part of a campaign of harassment and outing. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your support of Corporal Warden's sockpuppetry is admirable, but not acceptable. One mistake sure.  Two is a pattern of avoidance, especially in a contentious article.  I think a short block of six months would reestablish how editors should deal with important articles.  However, if an admin would want to indefinitely block the Corporal, I would reluctantly agree.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 11:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. It makes perfect sense now. A California-based editor who consistently goes to bed at 4 pm of his local time every day so that he can start refreshed into a new editing session after a little midnight breakfast, and who edits more UK- than US-related topics; all this effort just so that nobody suspects the relation between himself and the anonymous user from the same region who occasionally appears and reverts someone – such a user does in fact represent a substantial threat to the project because of the enormous criminal energy involved.
 * While we are talking about out-of-proportion punishments, I would agree with a short block of six months for harassment, and not so reluctantly. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 specious allegations of sockpuppetry against 4 users in 3 days. When reading the talk page the point where OrangeMarlin, Verbal, keepcalmandcarryon etc. arrive on the scene is quite jarring. Also from the talk page:
 * OrangeMarlin, now that I've clarified that my comment above was not intended as approval of reverting to a redirect (which I continue to believe is disruptive and against the consensus Ruslik perceived), will you please state that you will stop reverting to a redirect, so that we can request page unprotection? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I mistaken or is the passage by OrangeMarlin : in opposition to consensus to retain the redirect a bald faced lie? an unfortunate misunderstanding? Unomi (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * The comments that Hans Adler and Orangemarlin are not productive. I have not yet reviewed this case but you guys threatening 6 months blocks and indef blocks is out of order. Can we restrict this to just additional evidence (if any) and allow a neutral admin to review? Thanks. ——  nix eagle email me 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unomi, if you are going to claim that, please provide evidence to back your point of view or strike it out (the whole thing) and allow a neutral admin to review (I'm sure they will see any problems). Just making claims here without evidence is not productive. ——  nix eagle email me 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on location evidence alone (the IPs geolocate to California; Colonel Warden edits from the UK), they are extremely unlikely to be him. Colonel Warden would be pretty silly to lie about his location given the handy checkuser tool that investigates this stuff, so I doubt very much they're related. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No case to answer. Mayalld (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions