Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kasaalan/Archive

Report date June 2 2009, 09:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

POVbattler created fake reconfirmation RFA Requests_for_adminship/Ricky81682_2 where they forged the signature of to "make" him accept the RFA. They then went on to oppose strongly for two reasons: Ricky81682's AFD nomination of Jacen Tan, the only edit by and for (I quote): "continue to attack editors like User:Kasaalan by deleting everything they make without discussion". Since Kohkiatbeng is a throw-away account, there is some indication to assume that Kasaalan is the one behind both accounts as POVbattler's only edits were to conveniently create an RFA against someone they perceive as a threat and request restoration of an article that Kasaalan was working on heavily (see AN thread). Regards  So Why  09:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by SoWhy


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Can you please explain a bit better and simpler way since I am not a native English speaker. Alright I get it after I read a couple times. Though I still don't get, who said "to attack editors like User:Kasaalan by deleting everything they make without discussion" part.

I don't even know who is Kohkiatbeng or what it means at all, like I have no clue on who Jacen Tan is or what it is like the Cinema of Singapore let alone its independent film directors. That article is out of my knowledge in the first place. If he is only interested in 1 article of Singapore most possibly his ip range will be Singapore ones, or not sure maybe he is an international fan.

As far as I know, Ricky is a dedicated deletion nominator, so a lot of parties might not like him or his actions. I am inclusionist, in favor of keeping info, rather than getting it deleted for it lacks some points so we have conflicting viewpoints in the first place. I already criticized him a lot publicly on nominating but not contributing to the articles, maybe more than enough so I won't repeat that again. When taking a quick look at Jacen Tan article seems somehow a valid article at first look according to the references, so I don't know why any editor bother nominating articles here and there, yet not bothering to improve them at all. Getting not-so-famous country-wide local artists' articles deleted, claiming "notability" will not help to wikipedia in any way.

After you throw out the article link here, I may even help to rescue Jacen Tan, since it is the spirit of Wikipedia, while some users try so hard on getting articles deleted instead fixing missing parts some others try to improve any article they came up with for creating content. Article deletions just based on "google search" is against the collaborative approach and encyclopedia spirit. By the way nice to know there is a page on article rescue Article_Rescue_Squadron which may help me a lot in the future for getting help on improving articles.

I checked his contributions. POVBattler voted in AFD according to the logs. He made edits in Palestine portal, so it is possible he read my message on deletion review on artistic tributes to Rachel Corrie and acted on deletion review. Yet again he never contacted me before nominating, also the nomination was improper and too early anyway, it didn't contributed to keeping the article at all, if it is not harmful. So the alleged claims not helped the case in any way.

Other than that again he began with Jacen Tan article which I have no contribution or knowledge. And his other contributions are again to articles like Clint Catalyst that I have never came up with. If admin powers allows, try to check if I ever even read that article before the allegations, I haven't even came up with Jacen Tan article before.

When I accuse someone, I accuse him openly and publicly with my single account. I never hesitated to express how I feel against users' actions, whether they are admin or regular users. I do not need to create shadow accounts, and I never will. Also it is not cool to be accused to create fake account, then fake admin nomination against someone, that is weasel style which I cannot be in favor of let alone committing myself. Also even a middle IQ and experience user can understand that will not accomplish any success. The suspected actions you refer are totally ill mannered and ridiculously inexperienced actions, in wikipedia such action have no chance to be succeed, unless your motivation is getting yourself banned. (By the way I am assuming he actually created a shadow account, I don't know if he did that or not since I didn't read any defense of him, if there is such a page, you may provide a link here so I can further read the case)

Since admins can check IPs most possibly it will be cleared by different geographical ip ranges, though some methods on IPs can avoid that to be completely accurate. Yet they have very little chance to be in my IP range.

By the way both accounts has way lousy nicks, which I never get even if I do any shadow actions. Well I don't even know what Kohkiatbeng means, but sounds lousy anyway.

I never used multiple accounts in Wikipedia, and I won't use any in the future. Simple and easy.

Yet it is not cool to be accused of shadow actions, after year long contributions and various notable improvements, by 2 (or 1) parties' mistakes. I really cannot find any connection but POVBattler's deletion review request on artistic tributes to rachel corrie, and if it is enough to accuse valid users, even someone that doesn't like me can create an account and make 10 edits then build some suspicion on me that way. 2 (or 1) below 10 contribution users to over 2500 edit user like me is just unfair. It shouldn't be that easy. Anyone can build suspicion on anyone else like that way. Regards Kasaalan (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"2 (or 1) below 10 edit users who created fake account for taking revenge on a user (Ricky) desperately in any weasel way they (or he) can, who nominated Jacen Tan that he created, then nominating a deletion review for your deleted article that you requested comment on a public portal (project Palestine) and discussed on deletion nominators' page (Ricky), so you with over 2500 edits in various articles (including highly controversial ones) are actually the one that created the fake account with below 10 edits that creates another fake account with 1 edit as same starting article (Jacen Tan) that Ricky nominated for deletion."

If that is the hypothesis, the case fails 1 way, if he is this much against Ricky, he may even learn Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie deletion review from Ricky's discussion page whom apparently he has serious conflicts with and reportedly acted desperate bad faith measures), where we publicly discuss about the article many times. So the relation between Jacen Tan and Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie may be Ricky's (common deletion nominator) talk page in the first place, and may even not be Palestine Portal at all.

By the way I request 2 accounts' creation dates (since he edited my deletion review message on Palestine portal he has to be created somehow before that date) and IP ranges like 202.95.200.XXX (as last 3 numbers hidden) revealed so I can check their geographical location and if the 2 users are within same IP range. Kasaalan (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You may even accuse anyone on earth that can create an account on Wikipedia, with that little proof and indirect connections. The user referred is most possibly someone that got angry because he nominated director's article for deletion, so he tracked his talk page, then found my article review link so he renominated article for deletion review because his personal issues with Ricky. So the connection you looking for is not my article, but ricky's talk page possibly. Comparing some 10 edit user that creates 1 edit fake account, with me is outrageous by any standards. Try to reexamine the case. You cannot compare my quality edits, with a user that make only 10 edits in some pages, and creates a fake account and fake nominating for admin to take revenge on someone else. I criticize people publicly and openly, if any action will be measured upon what I say it is fine by me, yet claiming I committed inexperienced weasel actions like those, is a fail of logic and I cannot be blamed for what I haven't done, said or thought. I don't waste my time on such actions, instead I improve articles, as I always do.

''So I don't like to waste my time on defending myself because of other users' actions. I only replied long because the accusation is a serious one in the first place, unlike the weak "evidences" you provided. If you find any real "suspicion" on me creating any fake account, state them so I can defend myself more clearly.'' Kasaalan (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Clearly Povbattler is a sock, and equally clearly, his citing of Ricky's noms of Kasaalan's article creations give rise to a reasonable suspicion. However, that suspicion is not proof, and given the (unfortunately excessively long) statement above by the accused party, vehemently denying socking, there is also a reasonable doubt. Given the seriousness of the vandalism relating to an RfA, Cu is warranted. Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

❌ None of them are related to the subject of the SPI, nor to each other. -- Versa geek  22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

No action taken. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)