Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dsmith1usa/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Hiding
User:Lomcevak and User:Dsmith1usa share similar areas of editing, namely Natascha Engel and Politico-media complex. They also seem to push similar POV and edit in the same tendentious manner. User:Dsmith1usa was indef blocked several years ago for incivility and harassment. I've thrown the Tile join account in because Raul654 apparently blocked and then unblocked Lomcevak as a sock of that account. Hiding T 21:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Hiding T 21:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * . Tile join and the other one are, and Lomcevak was unblocked by a checkuser because it was proven via CU evidence that he wasn't tile join. A check here will provide nothing. GrooveDog FOREVER 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Nothing else to do here. MuZemike 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

19 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Please note, I haven't intentionally asked for a checkuser and don't believe it will reveal anything. I am not an administrator & have never stood in any election anywhere.

ILakatos links me to user:Sam Blacketer and user:Hiding "the sockpuppet crowd." They blocked Lomcevak as a sockpuppet of Dsmith1usa. He has a mocking style & refers to Politico-media_complex which Dsmith1usa edited extensively as occasionally has 94.72.252.103 All attack Sam Blacketer and Natasha Engel. User_talk:JRPG
 * Hhhhmmm ... says he in is best Jay barrister voice. The "matter of significance" my dear friend is the Leveson Inquiry. Read the Politico-media_complex, just the first paragraph ...


 * Nobody is interested in how many MPs you've met. Clearly you have made no impact. On the other hand there is there is the Wiki article on the PMC. I'm not saying that this drove the issue ... but just look at the dates and it's origin (The Sun etc. etc.). And yes I had to put up with Sam Blacketer and Hiding and all the rest of the sock-puppet crowd as they were trying to get the (New Labour) issue shut down.


 * With respect, and I have respect for you (at least you know what channels 4 and 5 [?] on a Fortran program are about).


 * So if you wish to speak to on Engel and what she has made great efforts to suppress her involvments with the Murdochs ... if you want to talk TRUTH as opposed to postmodern narrative that you appear to have sold your soul to ... please let me know ... in the mean time ... I'll leave the article alone ... for the time being ... Blacketer (oops JRPG).


 * ILakatos (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

94.72.252.103 has extensive knowledge about sockpuppet investigations and refers on talk pages to Dsmith1usa's previous talk page discussion with Blacketer. He has an incredibly verbose & mocking style. He also made an obscure reference to 'fish' -which I found buried in an old talk page discussion with Sam Blacketer

Talk:Natascha_Engel
 * Umm ... let me just dig out and set the 'rotors for the day' on my Wikispeak Enigma Encoder/Decoder - Interpreter/Translator (WEED-IT) ... there ... just a minute ...


 * ... clunk/click/tick/whirr ... clunk/click/tick/whirr ... clunk/click/tick/whirr ...


 * Oh, I see. You mean what is said should be true, relevant, verifiable, non-abusive, motherhood and apple-pie, etc. etc. Well, let me think a sec ... yes ... yes, to all that.


 * However, this should NOT be at the expense of massaging the facts which may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to the protagonist(s) through the use of, for example (and this is just ONE example), counterfactuals. Thoroughly obnoxious is when this particular form of 'weaseling' is done by contributors who, while warning others of the dire consequences for their Wiki career of 'sockpuppetry' and bringing particular political agendas to the table in the editing of articles, with cheer and exhibiting hypocrisy of the highest order, engage in said 'frowned-upon' behavior, sometimes from positions of power within Wiki organizational structures. It can be discovered, with relatively little effort, that Engel's entry has some rather serious form in this regard if one takes a bit of time to review the talk pages (archives and all).


 * A constituent, taking some matter to heart, may consult a Wiki entry, in good faith, in the act of forming an idea of the type of engagment that may be required in pursuit of some particular outcome. It may be helpful to know if, for example, that his/her 'democratic' representative is, in fact, a party political creature and likely to do their party whip's bidding, or, on the other hand, of a more independent frame of mind, perhaps not with an eye to the greasy-pole and the main chance of a front-bench seat, particularly if the possibility of being in Government looms.


 * In this case it is true that an MP's voting record may be slogged through and an assessment of the likely behavior made. But in the case of Engel, we have direct corroboration, from the woman herself, of her leanings(see final para). Labour party people may take it that to include such information directly is to introduce implicit bias (against independent thought from Engel). Yet it still remains a fact, uncomfortable (and as incovenient later) as it may be.


 * With regard to Syria, toeing the party line showed through with her voting with the Labour amendement (not ruling out military intervention of some sort) to the Government motion (for, all intents and purposes, military intervention) and then later trumpeting this, through another party (in Wiki terms, sockpuppetry) as though it were flat out opposition to involvement.


 * As I said, 'Weasel Words.'
 * 94.72.252.104 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

On my talk page ..the obscure reference to 'fish'. User_talk:JRPG


 * (As an aside). Thanks for all that ' n the fish' I'm still sending you to ArbCom to be looked at exactly why you're on Admin.


 * 94.72.252.103 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Natascha_Engel&oldid=325222038
 * Well, I was going to deal with this, today, but there were other 'fish' that were floating upside down begging to be put out of their misery, Sam. So, I'll do it tommorrow, rest assured.


 * Off over to Cif right now ... enjoy ... pass regards on to the likes of Gallowglass. You are all so much fun. In fact, 'Oooohhh, I do like you...'Dsmith1usa 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC) JRPG (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

94.72.252.104 has now started editing my page User_talk:JRPG making puerile verbose legal threats.


 * Heath issues

You have made (public: Wikipedia and that's pretty public and it's been archived) accusations that I may have public health heath issues.

(As I thought, earlier, a threat to my own personal circumstances [absolutely no business of yours: I am not a public persona] and my physical and mental well-being on which I have no choice but to defend. It's all I have. Is this not common-sense? Am I missing something ?)

I am informing you, immediately, of legal/court procedures that have been taken against you for the sake of my own protection.

All I wanted was reasoned debate to make good contributions to the benefit of the constituency of NE Derbyshire and the Wiki community. This I have tried to make manifest. Note that I have not made any reversions to your management/deletions. Just asked to talk. Yet you're the one with the aggression ! What's up with you ?

Now I seem to be the one under attack for trying to be reasonable, tell the truth and hold my (Parliamentary) representation to account as is my duty as a citizen in this purported 'democracy', however 'crazed' that idea may appear to the rest of my contemporaries.

I'm curious to know, and so is my (legal) representation, on how exactly you come to this 'informed position' on my 'public health' (with the implication of a threat to myself or others).

Do you understand the seriousness of this matter User: JRPG ?

Of course, this can be stopped, here and now, without the vast legal expense that will be incurred (let the dice roll) to the benefit of those lawyers who didn't go off the cliff in the 'bus' (sorry Stagecoach/Engel: no pun intended) with a simple 'Sorry - step (bus ride? heh ... heh) too far.'

Again: you pays your money (literally if it goes to law) and you takes your choice: your choice JRPG.

Again: note the reason JRPG.

94.72.252.104 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Both IPs already blocked for legal threats (though sockpuppetry is pretty self-evident), ILakatos blocked for obvious behavioural and stylistic similarities. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do here, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)