Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dar book/Archive

Evidence submitted by Shannon Rose
I have noticed a pattern of vandalism reminiscent of what occurred last year involving one or two editors who aimed to sanitize the Eli Soriano article. An attempt to stealth re-factoring (deletion and inserting unsourced information) was done earlier today using the deceptive edit summary: "reinserted NPOV statements." It can be found here. Just recently, IronBreww was lobbying with editors in favor of the same edit. Then I saw this at perma-blocked user Petersantos' talk page. Given the long history of abuse and sockpuppetry in this article, your assistance is badly needed to once again uncover the truth. – Shannon Rose Talk 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Then why won't you include Felix Natalo in the investigation? If your say their edits are "quite similar" then include all parties involved in the whitewashing. For the clerk: The evidence submitted by Shannon Rose is insufficient, first, Petersantos and Dar book has no recent edits. Second, IronBreww was only cajoled by Petersantos to "drop by" in the article, he just became too involved and tried to discuss his new rationale for the edits that he believes is neutral. Third, the "accuser" has a long history of edit wars and 3RR reverts. Shannon Rose had commented harshly against notable Filipino award giving bodies by saying that they are "propaganda machines". She then tried to defend her claim by making up every excuse she can think of. The problem with her is that she never tries to look if the "award giving body" is notable in the eyes of the Filipinos, WHO ALSO SPEAK ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE. (Racist? I'm not sure) The alleged IP socks above only tried to remove unnotable and libellous statements agaist the subject, which is Soriano. Shannon Rose, being a POV pusher and a critic to Soriano (see this talk page and also this this talk page) has tried to offensively destroy the credibility of the editors who tried to simply add more positive edits to the subject. 120.28.114.16 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I only added referenced information (positive, pro-Soriano edit backed by a reference) about the article and moved poorly-sourcred libellous claims about the subject. How come I am accused as a sock of someone who is against my Point of View of the subject? Please investigate carefully on the credibility of the accuser (check my above comment). 120.28.114.16 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I, the alleged master of the sockpuppets, has nothing to do with whitewashing the article. It is clearly seen in my edits that I have never removed the "international fugitive" part of the article unlike the edits done by those anonymous IPs. MY COUNTEREVIDENCE:I did once try to move the "international fugitive" part here but after Shannon Rose explained to me why that part must be there, I've stopped editing the article and engaged in polite discussions: Talk:Eliseo Soriano. I did get some "help e-mail" from Petersantos but I refused to help him pointing to the consequences of not following the rules. I still did a quick check on the article. Afterwards, I asked a third party user about the anon's question, in a hurry, I edited before the user replied. After he replied, I began discussing these issues to the talk page. Now I am accused as a puppetmaster even though the IP and I have different point of views regarding Soriano's fugitive status. Thanks and Good Luck! IronBreww (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Just looking at the three IP accounts, they all geo locate to different towns and regions. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Off2riorob. All three IPs are from the Philippines and under the same ISP Globe Net. Checkuser would be able to see if any of the reported editors logged on and edited from any of those IPs. Please realize that we are not limited to editing from a single IP all the time, as we do move around. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to support that the IPs are the same person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Off2riorob. That is exactly why a checkuser is being requested. Please don't preempt the investigation. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 21:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to check them at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Off2riorob. I'm sorry, but precedents like Petersantos, Felix Natalo, and Dar book clearly challenge your opinion on the matter. You seem to be getting personally-involved. Please relax, have a cup of coffee, and give those in charge the opportunity to decide for themselves. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 22:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No ones in charge here. It just seems to me that there is insufficient evidence given as to the connection, between these accounts. I don't see a good reason for why a CU should be run here, but lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, the ones who are in charge at the moment are those who took the responsibility as reviewing clerks. Obviously neither one of us. I agree with you, "let's see," and I doubt that we will be able to see anything if the request gets dropped due to some influential and somewhat anxious promptings. – Shannon Rose Talk 22:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Shannon Rose Talk 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) to check for sleepers. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the information I have on Petersantos from the last check is stale. It is a very dynamic IP range. I am not persuaded to check IronBreww or the IPs as there is no real evidence presented here, except that IronBreww is exchanging emails with others (which would seem to suggest that he is not a sockpuppet of that editor). Dominic·t 04:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Dominic. When I have more time, hopefully this weekend, I am going to submit another checkuser request for these same suspects and I will present evidences based on editing parallels and other things. To me (and it is only me), it should not matter that a user is making it appear as if s/he is communicating with a suspected sock or puppeteer by way of email or even by their own separate talk pages. We have seen all these tricks before. If we can simply trust everything they say and do in the spirit of assuming good faith, then there is no need for investigative tools such as checkuser anymore. When a suspected criminal is put on trial, everyone assumes good faith, yet it does not hinder the judge, jury, and lawyers to do their duty. If they are not guilty, it will show anyway. But if they turn out to be guilty, as is always the case with my requests, we have done Wikipedia a good thing. Nevertheless, let me thank you for at least taking notice. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)