Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knowledgekid87/Archive

Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken
With this edit I criticized the editor User:Knowledgekid87 for the image layout in the article Sing Sing, which the editor apparently has ownership issues with (when I editied it, there were hidden comments throughout the page directing editors not to make certain chaanges, even though the editor last worked on it in August). Shortly thereafter, a brand new editor named User:I hate whitespace edited the article, reverting some of my revisions, and then proceeded to go on a tear, deleting blank lines and other content, some of them in articles I have edited just before, with no explanation or edit summary. Some of the deleted lines had been inserted to provide some visual separation before elements in the article, while others were necessary to avoid text flowing around tables etc. In any case, the deletions were not thoughtful and well-considered, but just wham-bam edits apparently made in a fit of pique. A polite note on the user's talk page got a snippy response. This is clearly payback from an editor pissed over not being able to control "their" article. I think behaviorial evidence is strong, but one anger-induced sock may indicate that others have been made as well, so I suggest a CheckUser to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:I hate whitespace has been blocked by User:Mike Rosoft as a disruption-only account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * is actually ❌ to - they're geographically quite dissimilar. Note that I was emailed about the block of IHW which is how I discovered this case here &, frankly, cannot see any real justification for the above block not this SPI request, for that matter. They were good-faith edits, IMO, and --->  -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Alison: I accept, of course, the checkuser results, and I have extended my sincere apologies to Knowledgekid for having incorrectly associated him with I hate whitespace, but I take exception to the rest of your statement. I hate whitespace is clearly and obviously a sockpuppet of some user -- the fact that I picked the wrong user does not negate that. I hate whitespace's edits were clearly disruptive, as they were blind reversions without consideration for the results, and were, in some respect, pointedly aimed at me.  And if "Checkuser is not fishing" then Why did you run the checkuser scan? It was certainly within your rights to reject dong so.  That fact that I was wrong, does not mean that I did not have reasonable grounds to believe I was right, and you obviously must have agreed with that, considering your actions.  If you didn't, you shouldn't have run a check. I have not have very many dealings with you in the past, but I have nonetheless always considered you to be an exemplary Wikipedian by reputation.  Still, I think you have been away from the frontlines for a considerable period of time, and perhaps you have forgotten what it's like to try and maintain the encyclopedia in the face of the everyday indignities and machinations of editors who have something other than the best of the project in mind.  My report was made in good faith, and accorded with the information I had available.  That I was wrong, I regret, and I am pleased that you were able to correct me, but your second-guessing of the report is, I think, inappropriate in this situation. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW You were e-mailed by whom, and for what reason? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the editor in question is not socking at all, tho' I welcome a second opinion. The case, as I see it, was a borderline fishing expedition but, given that the editor was already blocked - hastily, I might add - this precipitated checking. It's not uncommon for CU checks to be done in the event of unblock requests - check with Josh - and this one already had a SPI request filed. Had he not been already blocked, I'd have likely declined. Given the number of edits he'd made, that he was in dialog while you and Mike were reverting (what was this for??) and that he'd stated his rationale, I'm really not seeing a clear reason for either blocking, or this case, to be honest. What happened to WP:AGF? As to who emailed me, it was a third party who'd seen the reverting and the subsequent block; a long-term editor in good standing who was concerned as to what had transpired here -  A l is o n  ❤ 10:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit you question was not mine. I reverted most of IHW's edits, but I wasn't doing so blindly: I checked each edit, what they were doing, and left the ones that were useful, reverting only those which seemed capricious or unhelpful. As for the editor being a sock, it was (and is) painfully clear that this is the case. From what you're saying, I assume your checkuser scan only disproved the connection to Knowledgekid, and did not (or perhaps cannot -- I am not privy to the workings of the system) show any connection to a different other user? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The checkuser scan showed no other connection to any other user. There is one - maybe two other editors on that IP range, but with very different useragents and interests and given it's a mobile ISP, that's not at all unusual. Seriously - not a sock, at least not on any technical evidence here - A l is o n  ❤ 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since socking has not occurred between the two, I guess this can be closed? --Bsadowski1 10:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm. It's a mobile ISP, which means, if I remember correctly, that geographical data doesn't really mean all that much, since a mobile account can be from a totally different area from the landline -- right? For instance, I have friends here in NYC who have cell-phones out of Cleveland, and Los Angeles, because that's where they got them and they simply brought them with thme when they moved. In that case, a landline and a mobile ISP showing different geographical areas wouldn't mean much, right? I'm remembering when I was under attack from a puppetmaster, who edited from both a landline ISP and a mobile ISP, which didn't correspond, but it was the same guy, without doubt (he used his mobile phone account whenever he wanted to attack). Is this the same situation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I bet I can make a pretty good guess about who the third-party long-time editor who contacted you is. I could send it to you by e-mail, and if I'm right, you can buy me a Popsicle.  If I'm wrong, I'll buy you the ice cream novelty of your choice.  Unless I miss my guess, it's an editor who spends considerably more time butting into other people's business then he does actually working to improve the encycylopedia. A "wannabe" who never will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

&larr; Oh good grief already. I'm not about to divulge any geolocating evidence regarding either of these editors here other than to say you're off by a few thousand miles. Not only that but the mobile ISP has tied the whitespace guy down to a narrow /24 range which, in this ISP's case, clearly locates them to a very well-defined region indeed. The other guy is using a fixed-location ISP with clear geolocation. While this is not the case for all mobile ISPs, it is for this one. I've no idea as to why you're hell-bent on keeping this guy blocked here. You made an error and apologized to one of the editors, but just can't seem to move on. So can you please give up already with the bad-faith footwork? It's nearly 3am here - I'm done for the night - A l is o n  ❤ 10:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Alison: I'm sorry you see it that way, since it's not an accurate representation of my POV. Perhaps in the light of day, things might seem different. (No dead horse here, that I can see -- or smell.) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Alison's comment, there is no more to discuss. Bsadowski1 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)