Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NatoBro/Archive

25 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Exactly the same pattern of cited information removal on Canadian cadet articles. Fiddle  Faddle  17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * All of the people listed on this page are other officers (not socks) who have been trying to revert the addition of biased content being added by someone with a beef against the program (original addition here). While most of the citations are fine, they are obviously being added to provide a slant against the program, and are in no way written from a neutral point of view or without an agenda. The reporting user should stop playing the countervandalism game with reverting over and over again and perhaps take a look at what the content is and why it would be removed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know the other editors are officers? And please stop with the personal attacks against the "reporting user". It's tiresome.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I'm an officer, as well as Natobro. When the slanted material was observed, we all moved at the same time, but independently.  I didn't detect any personal attacks against the reporting user.--Thebraddavidson (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you are or aren't an officer (also Natobro). All I'm saying is that we don't know that. Anyone can say just about anything, particularly in SPI reports. Verifying it is another matter. From my perspective as an administrator, although I've criticized Ajraddatz for some of their comments, I'm glad they brought the content issue to the forefront, and I approve of the material being removed from the article as it was presented.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How would one have that information verified? I think it would put is in an ideal position to help with articles such as these. I know I'm new to this business.  Thanks.  --Thebraddavidson (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are means of verifying private information on Wikipedia, but, frankly, I don't think it's needed here. For the purpose of this report, all that matters is whether there was any sock puppetry, no matter who you are. For other purposes, whether you are or aren't an officer, you still have to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which, admittedly isn't always easy for newbies), and you're fine. If you're unsure, better to ask or at least go slow.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As the editor who has reported this, I can state clearly that I play no games here. Edit summaries were at best misleading. At worst they were lies. Neither of those are congruent with responsible editors making responsible edits, nor was the lack of heeding of warnings, nor the lack of dialogue on user or article talk pages. For the record, I take th comments  The reporting user should stop playing the countervandalism game with reverting over and over again and perhaps take a look at what the content is and why it would be removed to be a minor personal attack, but I have very broad shoulders.
 * When patrolling for vandalism and when seeing cited sections blanked, and blanked systematically across a swather of articles this smacks or vandalism. When several users do the same task this passes the duck test of sock puppetry. If any of you are Cadet Officers or officials in the organisation and are not sockuppets the way you have handled this has let you down. Admins here have the power to check many things about contrinbutions and make a judgment, hence my report.
 * The actual content of the articles is a matter for consensus, not what seems still to be an orchestrated vandalism and sockpuppetry process. Fiddle   Faddle  22:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any comments which come across as a personal attack, that certainly wasn't the intent. Whenever I find myself on enwiki, I am often disgusted by some users who seem to be more concerned about their revert count than what they are doing, though I don't think that Timtrent is included in that number. I was concerned that the case was just being handled as common vandalism, and that one side of the story - why the content was being removed - wasn't being noticed. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose my first comment didn't actually clarify what is going on here instead of sockpuppetry; the fact that the content in question had been added to various cadet pages was noted in some private corner of the internet. It certainly wasn't accompanied by a "everyone stop this information from being added at all costs" message. However, since it was being linked to a whole bunch of people who are very interested/involved in the cadet program, a bunch of people acted independently at the same time. This reaction wouldn't have happened in response to the addition of any negative connotations to the cadet pages, it was because it was added by someone who has spent a good deal of time trying to discredit the program with unjustified criticism. While I am another one of the people involved in the program, I removed the content because it did not add anything of substance to the page, though I would have no issue with it being re-added if done in a different manner, as per my comment on the RCArmyC talk page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closed. These users are definitely different, although off-wiki coordination of editing is definitely occurring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

25 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar blanking in Canadian cadet articles Fiddle   Faddle  17:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * See? No idea what I'm doing.  This is my little courtroom, it would appear.  Now I get it.  Anyway, different person.--Thebraddavidson (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)