Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse/Archive

15 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Roger Pearse makes the edit .Tedjaniszewski, a single edit account, makes the edit. IP 66.66.101.107 makes the edit. This IP has a total of three edits. All three diffs are to edits in the same article, reverting the same material, in close succession, two are giving the exact same reason. As such, there is reason to think that they may be socks of Roger Pearse. This is why I have requested this investigation. Thanks. Civilized education talk  15:36, 15 February 2011 (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

 * - That article can probably use a sweep. T. Canens (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The two named accounts are ❌. No comment on the IP. TN X Man  17:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that the IP is a sock of Roger Pearse?- Civilized education talk  01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it means that the checkuser cannot reveal information about the IP. These edits happened awhile back, so I'm considering this stale. Based on behavior I'd say it's likely that the IP is the master account, but if one assumes a little good faith it may be because they were logged out. Relist if it becomes an issue again. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

07 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Roger is a long-standing contributor to the page Mithraic Mysteries and has expressed strong disagreement with recent substantial edits which added further information, but he has not been able to convince others he is right.

On May 6, an IP account editor 85.228.97.208 appeared on the talk page expressing total agreement with points made by Roger, and writing in a style identical to Roger's own style, and alleging that information is getting removed for no good reason.

One day later (7 May 2011), "another" IP account editor 95.147.141.10 made a series of major edits whose net effect was to delete about one third of the content of the article (from 122,820 bytes to 77,205 bytes). This IP account editor had put obvious effort into making plausible-at-first-sight explanations for each of these edits. (I am attempting to revert these edits, but having technical problems.)

My suspicion is that both these IP accounts are being used as IP socks by Roger himself -- that he is using two IP socks
 * to create an illusion of support for his own position, and
 * to play good hand - bad hand (WP:GHBH). Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs...

Several individual edits were automatically tagged on the history page for e.g. "references removed", and "section blanking". Note however the carefully worded justifications given on the history page for each individual edit. They led me to think this is not the work of some naughty kid, but of an intellectual with a serious bee in his or her bonnet. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here Roger states that "useful material has been deleted, sometimes seemingly out of spite", but does not cite any instances, nor does he say whether he reverted them..
 * Again, please note reference to "deliberately deleting factual content", though no actual instances were cited. Please note also that although this is apparently the 1st comment placed on the talk page by this account, the account holder is already using language like "lazy and/or cowardly troll".
 * Here we see factual content actually being deliberately deleted on a big scale from 122,820 bytes down to 77,205 bytes.
 * History page with above edits recorded

Further Diff...



Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Comment. Roger Pearse has edited WP for several years under his own name, or at least the same name under which he also operates an immensely valuable online resource that I've used for a decade. I was hoping that he had edited as 95.147.141.10 inadvertently by not logging in, since all the edits are to a single page and within a limited period of time. This should be an easy thing to admit. I am disappointed to learn that he can be confirmed as Bookman 2011. It would be understandable if he wished to create a WP identity other than his own name; there are of course good reasons and legitimate means for doing so. He has, however, chosen not to explain or defend his actions here, but to insult the WP community as a whole by declaring on his user page that "educated people cannot edit Wikipedia" (a comment that Roger has now more prudently removed). I have no grudge against Roger: quite the contrary, as these diffs   show. But he was certifiably aware of the policy on sockpuppetry, having brought a case himself, and thus his behavior is hard to understand. The rules pertaining to socks encourage honesty and accountability, and they apply to everybody, "educated" or not. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse has another sock account -User:Roger pearse. This should also be blocked. Moreover, it is desirable that he should have been permblocked. He has been making false accusations and claimed me to be indulging in sockpuppetry AFTER an investigation (requested by Roger Pearse) found that his accusation was completely false. He had been owning the Mithraic Mysteries article for years and is fuming because he is not allowed to own it anymore. He is extremely uncivil and is not a scholar of anything, but seems to think that all others are uneducated. He is a decietful guy and has a fraudulant nature. He should not be allowed to continue on WP. He keeps saying numerous things which have no relation with reality and has a compulsive obsession with misrepresenting others, etc., etc., etc., On the whole, he is an elephantine nuisance.- Civilized education talk  04:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * One of those IPs is in the UK, and one is in Sweden, so I don't really think they're _all_ him. Can you supply some diffs to back up your claims? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looked at the IPs. I've placed some diffs above, underneath my original report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Question. Would it be possible for the clerk to reveal which IP is from Sweden, and which from the UK? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do it yourself - WHOIS data is public. (Try clicking on WHOIS next to the IPs in the list above.) 95.147.141.10 locates to the UK; 85.228.97.208 is in Sweden. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm mostly a content shoveler and rather ignorant of these things. I wonder whether Kalidasa might care to remove 85.228.97.208 from the investigation? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cynwolfe. Thanks for your comment, however I remain concerned about the shared characteristics of 85.228.97.208, 95.147.141.10, and Roger Pearse, as demonstrated in the 3 diffs above — all exhibit a remarkable combination of highly polished writing style and an extremely negative attitude towards the current form of the page — an attitude not of constructive criticism, but something quite different. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm only suggesting that it's improbable that 85.228.97.208, the Swedish IP that edited May 6 at 22:10, is Roger Pearse. (Roger himself edited on May 6 at 19:38; I'm assuming his location can be checked by someone with access?) The IP 95.147.141.10 edited from the UK on May 7 starting at 6:40. It's possible to travel from one country to the other in that time, I suppose, but the evidence from the Swedish IP is limited to a single instance, and the sample, which is small, is unlikely to be probative in and of itself. I'd like to hear what Roger has to say before I comment on 95.147.141.10, who edited the single article several times within a limited span of time. I can see your basis, Kalidasa, for raising the question on that one, and it needs to be refuted or admitted by Roger himself. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that the (much shorter) related page Mithras Liturgy experienced several deletions on April 26 which resemble those those attempted on Mithraic Mysteries, and with similar justifications stated. Signed by User:Bookman2011 who doesn't seem to have edited any other pages. I am adding him to the list of suspected puppets above, and also adding a diff. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoever added the checkuser request, be aware that a CU won't connect an IP to an account (e.g. "User:XYZ is IP 192.168.1.100".) Does that change things? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When I added the checkuser request, I also added the name of a further suspected sockpuppet, and this one is an actual username account not an IP — User:Bookman2011. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ that = .  TN X Man  11:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 85.228.97.208 here. I'm just here to confirm what you've already figured out: I'm from freaking Sweden. I did write that post on May 6 and I stand by every word that I wrote. Also, I find the accusation of sock-puppetry to be as absurd as it is spurious. That is all. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Warn master, hit sock please. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked and tagged, master blocked 31h for puppeting. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

30 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

209.68.2.181 is a server based in the USA, while 77.86.27.161 is in UK.

But the following 2 diffs tell me that Roger Pearse, 77.86.27.161, and 209.68.2.181 are the same person.

1. Shows that Roger Pearse once edited his own user page as 77.86.27.161

2. Comment by 209.68.2.181 in which he not only continues an argument by 77.86.27.161, but also uses the word "my" in reference to the other number's comment.

The following 2 diffs show how 77.86.27.161, and 209.68.2.181 are editing…

Material about Iranian Mithraism added to article by 77.86.27.161

Same material about Iranian Mithraism added to article by 209.68.2.181

In a lengthy statement on the talk page, Talk:Mithraic_mysteries Roger (using his own name) has complained: "The article has been contaminated with irrelevant material relating to Persian Mithra."

However, wearing the hats of 77.86.27.161 and 209.68.2.181, Roger has actually added a big new section about Persian Mithra to the article.

Is this good faith editing, or is it a case of WP:GHBH – Roger Pearse attempting to add material which he himself considers irrelevant, just so that he himself can come back and fix it at a later stage? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the statement below, the user of the US account number 209.68.2.181 confirms that the UK account number 77.86.27.161 has also been used by him. Are we expected to believe it is just coincidence that the same number was used by Roger Pearse when drafting the personal statement on his user page?


 * 209.68.2.181 says my concerns are "just harrassment" and that I have "harassed everyone else off the article". I've heard this sort of thing before... when Roger P. complained of an "attempt at harrassment" back in May, in his angry response to an SPI notification. Another coincidence? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL. 209.68.2.181 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe has drawn attention to the unhelpful, baiting tone of statements here by 209.68.2.181. I would add that this tone in itself is a piece of evidence – it is exactly the tone in which Roger Pearse has often written, for instance on his User Page.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Something else I've just noticed... Past vandalism of Mithraic Mysteries page by 77.86.27.161 Massive deletion of information in May this year, which reduced the Mithraic Mysteries page from 122,820 bytes to 77,205 bytes. I suspected at the time that this was Roger's work... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Yeah, right!! FWIW, the following edits are by me:


 * 


 * 


 * 

The rest are not. Kalidasa777 is doing WP:OWN here, and the accusation is just harassment. Not very WP:CIVIL, is it? 209.68.2.181 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how IP addresses get set, but I work for an international corp so the "UK" one probably is something to do with that. Now I just looked and I find that user Roger Pearce hasn't edited wiki since June!  If sockpuppetting is one user pretending to be two in order to support each other, how can I possibly be sock-puppeting with someone who hasn't edited wiki for months!?!  There is no sock-puppeting, it's me and Kalidasa777 here, and he knows it and is trying to do an edit war this way.  It looks as if Kalidasa777 has harassed everyone else off the article.  Please put to a stop to his wikilawyering and let ordinary people edit.    209.68.2.181 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oo look, how cute, an attempt by kal to round up possible allies to game the SPI process! even while none are actually editing the article, or have done so recently!  See what I mean about WP:OWN?   209.68.2.181 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I participated in another SPI involving Roger Pearse, so I don't think it's inappropriate to bring this one to my attention or to the attention of others who had a previous involvement. I don't have anything to contribute to this investigation, but I don't find the IP's baiting tone to be helpful here. Might I suggest creating an identity as a better way to signal your willingness to be accountable yourself? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - and relation to previous socks? 209 hit with a large proxy block. Note: The two IPs and the user are ducks, but I tl;dr'd looking for any WP:SOCK vio. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maahmaah is . For the suspected anonymous GHBH accounts, I'll say simply that this is and can be closed for now.  AGK  [&bull; ] 13:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think were done here. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

28 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

1. Recent behavior...

Doc9871, Newbyguesses, and the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 have recently made numerous edits to talk pages associated with WP:Verification. The Swedish IP 85.228.97.208 and the account Roger Pearse are not currently active. But their past edits resemble what is going on now, and can help us understand what it's all about.

Newby got a 24-hour block on February 22 for persistent disruptive editing. The Czech IP got a 48-hour block on Feb 26. The Doc has been more restrained, but negative and unhelpful all the same. He consistently opposes measures taken against disruption by the others. He also complains that the overall discussion going nowhere, while making no constructive suggestions to move things forward. If (as I suspect) they are the same person, then the Doc is a sort of "good hand" while the others are more "bad hands". (See WP:GHBH)

2. Why I suspect they are RP...

The last Roger Pearse SPI showed that Roger is quite capable of using IP addresses from different parts of the world. In that instance, one IP was from the UK, one from the USA, but both IPs were recognized as Roger ducks. There was an element of WP:GHBH in how they were being used.

His puppets all have a similar styles: an educated voice that moves between pleasant and abusive, make plausible-sounding diatribes with very little substance, and tries to sound friendly but is unable to take seriously the concerns of others. E.g.

Roger's user page statement

Recent statement from 90.179.235.249

He does tries to vary the voice, for instance as Doc in the following statement he tries to sound mature and judicious, but still makes generalized attacks on WP, as well as insinuations about the GF of a particular administrator.

Recent statement by Doc9871

As Newby, he becomes rather young and cute. But in the end he gets carried away by his own eloquence, as when Newby denounces another editor as "a gang of one... bent on disruption".

Recent statement by Newbyguesses

An unfortunately apt description of RP's own current role in WP!

The clincher for me came when I read the comment from Doc, dismissing the idea that the Czech IP address might be someone's puppet:

"I mean, freaking Prague?! "

Doc's "freaking Prague" comment

Just as the Swedish IP 85.228.97.208 said in an earlier Roger Pearse SPI (please see that SPI for reasons to think 85.228.97.208 was an RP sock.)

"I'm just here to confirm what you've already figured out: I'm from freaking Sweden."

85.228.97.208 "freaking Sweden" comment

3. What difference does it make if they are RP?

I think it can help adminstrators and GF editors get a handle on what is happening and the motives. Roger's sense of grievance against WP is no secret -- he has spelled it out on his user page. As he sees it, WP is a hotbed of gaming, trolling, agenda-pushing, brinking and general nastiness. He himself has been a victim of all these horrible tactics. So why shouldn't he do the same? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

TNXMan, you have written that Roger Pearse is stale, so there is no connection to be made, and that no evidence has been presented that Doc and Newby are doing more than taking the same side in a dispute. Does "stale" mean that Roger Pearse edits are too long ago for CU to work, or does it mean that the whole issue of Roger is now irrelevant? If it means the first, I defer to your expertise. If you mean the second, well, the reason I see Roger as relevant is that even though his account is now inactive, his pattern of behavior continues.

My suspicions were not raised by the fact that Doc and Newby have argued the same side in a dispute. On all sides in the disputes around Verifiability, there have been legitimate arguments from GF participants. For instance S.Marshall and Be Confident have taking diametrically different views whether the policy page needs to change, and also about whether it should be tagged, but I don't for one moment doubt their GF. No, what raised my suspicions is the way Newby and Doc argue – an educated yet abusive style strongly reminiscent of Roger and his puppets in previous disputes. As I see it, Roger Pearse is the connection between Doc and Newby.

Specific evidence...

In the case of Doc, the similarity of wording between "freaking Prague" and the "freaking Sweden" in the diffs above look to me like a quacking duck, if not a smoking gun.

In the case of Newby, you're right, more evidence is needed than I put in before... Well, one thing that has fed my suspicions is the way he makes detrimental changes to talk pages for his own ends. Not many editors do this sort of thing, but Roger and his socks have often done it.

An example, here Newby disrupts Verifiability talk page by adding two meaningless headings: "Given the edits above" and "So French, so chic":

So French, so chic

And here is Roger deleting someone else's words off the Mithraic Mysteries talk page last year – words that draw editors attention to policies like WP:V...

Roger "amends" talk page Mithraic Mysteries

More diffs can be found if necessary, but it will take time...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another connection: As S.Marshall has mentioned, one reason the Czech IP 90... was blocked was remarks considered antisemitic. Well, Roger P. has also been criticized for writing antisemitic stuff, in an offwiki blog, which he himself linked to from a WP mainspace article.

Comment re perceived antisemitism of the blog...



This blog of Roger's, which some perceive as antisemitic is linked to from Reference Note 22 in the following former mainspace article...

Old revision of Mithraic Mysteries by Roger

I will say, though, that I'm not personally convinced that Roger opposes Jews any more than he opposes the world in general... and Wikipedia in particular! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

On February 21, I made a post to the WP:V talk page. I mentioned an example of something that might be dealt with differently if the truth/verifiability policy changed. The example I mentioned had to do with the Mithraic Mysteries page.... Very quick response came from Newby, that obviously that Mithraism page needs an expert... He even "helpfully" stuck a heading to say so right on top of my posting.



It was a rather strange response really, when other editors understood that my posting about the WP:V policy, and the Mithraism page was simply an example. Was Newby just missing the point thru childishness? Maybe... but Roger has long presented himself as the great expert on Mithraism, scandalously rejected by WP editors.



This is another reason I think Newby is either Roger Pearse himself, or a very close associate of Roger's – some fan of Roger's blog, perhaps? Who knows which, and does it really matter? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Absolutely absurd, half-baked nonsense. This user should never be allowed to use WP:DUCK as an argument... ever... after this one, because they obviously do not understand it. CU's: tie us together. This is pitiful. Doc  talk  04:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha thank you for "young and cute". No, I just have minimal technical skills, and I've never heard of Roger Pease. Also,not a victim of anything except stupidity, which makes me sad, not angry. Shutting up now, just let me know how it goes, Thank you   NewbyG  ( talk) 04:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they're socks, exactly, but it is pretty annoying how Doc jumps in to complain when people try to deal with NewbyG's disruptions. As for the ohters, I don't know about them. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean socks "exactly"? I suppose since Newbyguesses has been around longer than I have, then "I" would be a sock of them? Do you understand what you are saying, and how completely incorrect it is? How provably incorrect it is? I don't care what you find "annoying": do you actually believe that I am related to any of these other accounts? If you do, you are very sadly mistaken. And I can easily prove it, because it is simply not true. Doc   talk  04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the accounts mentioned are annoying at times, it is also possible they are separate people who happen to share common goals. Checkusers are broadly empowered to use their tools to prevent disruption.  On that basis, please check and see if the accusation can be settled one way or the other. The IP 90 was blocked by me.  I subsequently decided to look into the underlying policy dispute and weighed in.  As a result I won't be administrating with respect to these matters. Jehochman Talk 07:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's more than possible that there are different editors here. If WP:DUCK and common sense no longer have validity: run another fishing expedition. If it's "inconclusive" - seriously look at similarities between accounts. My stance against sockpuppetry is well-established, and that is unlikely to ever change. This report is an insult: not because it was launched in good faith, but because it has not already been closed as preposterously implausible. Doc   talk  07:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the Checkuser policy, you will see that the tool can be used in this instance. I don't expect any sort of positive result, but it has always been my position that once an accusation is made that has any sort of colorable evidence, it is worth checking to settle the matter.  The accounts in question do seem to operate in close cooperation.  Jehochman Talk 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Then get a CU. This is absolutely ridiculous. Doc   talk  07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Jehochman - wouldn't this be more the link we should look at? Personally I don't think a couple users who agree is valid enough to go "fishing", and I'm not convinced the comparisons equate to ... evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry; but I suppose YMMV. (the "Y" being a collective "your") — Ched :  ?  10:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Checkuser doesn't violate anybody's privacy. "Fishing" is a doubtful local rule, not an official rule of WMF.  It's not at all clear what's fishing and what isn't.  In this case it seems mighty odd that everywhere Newbyg goes, Doc soon follows. (And vice versa.) If they don't want to be accused of sock or meat puppetry, they shouldn't act that way. Look at my recent talk page history for the personal attack and the me-too. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that Newbyguesses is Doc9871 for a moment. Both users have been spitting various unpleasant accusations at me for quite a while, so in anticipation of a RFC/U against me I've had cause to examine their edits closely over the past few weeks.  I'm confident that there are separate individuals behind the keyboard.  It's true that their point of view is similar in a very large number of ways, including certain conspiracy theories, but the reason for that is cross-pollination on Dreadstar's talk page (among other places) where these users have been reinforcing one another's assumptions and beliefs.  I think they genuinely believe that they're the mainstream, and from their point of view they're "protecting" WP:V from "disruptive" editors who want to make changes "against consensus".  They need educating on this but I can't be the one to do it: my need is to somehow disengage without giving up the right to defend myself or participate in WP:V. I do think it's highly likely that IP 90.x.x.x is a logged out editor.  I can't imagine a random IP address from Prague without previous connection to the debate has popped in to make the edits to WP:V that he did, and he's used the anonymity to make other disruptive remarks, including antisemitic ones for which he was rightly blocked.  I do not believe this is the same editor as Doc9871 or Newbyguesses.— S Marshall  T/C 12:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say here @user:S Marshall, look in a mirror. No, none of from their point of view they're "protecting" WP:V from "disruptive" editors who want to make changes "against consensus". They need educating applies to myself, I am so far from having a battlefield mentality that I have the utmost difficulty in grasping where you are coming from. There is in no way any "co-ordination" between user:Doc9871 and myself, by any means, personal or electronic, nor would I indulge in such meat-puppetry for ANY reason. And yes, shall I send you a postcard, I am in Australia, I live on the East coast, within 20 k from the Pacific Ocean. Peace! Such a mis-guided individual, who means well, however I find that you have no grasp of etiquette, nor of Etiquette. Smug self-centred and blind.  NewbyG  ( talk) 13:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Newbyguesses, that's a perfect example of exactly what I meant.— S Marshall T/C 16:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been watching the Czech-IP talk page concerning another matter, which led me here. If the allegation is meat puppetry, as said below, this investigation does seem wrong headed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc9871's and Newbyguesses's editing style are so dissimilar that considering them to be socks is absurd. Nobody Ent 18:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have known Doc 9871 for some time, and can say for certain that he does not live in Australia. A little sleuthing confirms that Newbyguesses does live in Australia. My opinion: they are just two people who are on the same side in a debate and are otherwise unrelated accounts. -- Dianna (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the evidence from Kalidasa 777 "mounts", am I seriously starting to feel embarrassed for him. This is called a "wild goose chase", and it's just a waste of time. I know you mean well and are only acting in good faith, but you are just 100% off base with this. You cannot a make connection between completely unrelated accounts - it's madness. Doc   talk  23:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Before we start.....I checked the 90. IP (the Czech one), but only to establish if it was a user editing logged out to avoid being recognised - which it was not. I think before we start checking longstanding editors, someone with more technical skill than I should investigate whether there is anything hinky about this IP or the Swedish one (does not necessarily require the CU tool). If there is nothing, then either this complaint is not one that a checkuser can bring much to (anyone wizardy enough to make it look like they are editing from the Czech Republic when they are actually in Oz is clever enough to spoof other evidence) or it's baseless. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think it much more likely there is meat puppetry going on, rather than technically provable sock puppetry. Two different people coordinating their editing. I don't think either one is in Australia. Jehochman Talk 12:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say here, user:Jehochman, that *your* WP:ABF is exemplary, beyond measure. NewbyG  ( talk) 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once you make a personal attack, as you did here, you have a lot of audacity to claim an assumption of good faith. Have you ever coordinated your editing off-wiki with any other editors, or used an other accounts?  Jehochman Talk 13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Jehochman, in this matter, you exhibit zero clue. I state unequivocally that I NEVER have co-ordinated my editing off-wiki with any other editors. I find the totality and foolishness of your assumptions both offensive and revealing of an inferior approach to human relations.
 * Should you answer this question, truthfully then - HAVE you ever co-ordinated your editing off-wiki with any other editors. You have more technical skill than I, and the battlefield mentality to employ such a despicable tactic. You have insulted me on such numerous occasions, I hesitate to even survey your poisonous diffs, but I'l get around to it, if required. Bah!  NewbyG  ( talk) 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see enough concrete evidence here to run a checkuser on anyone. Roger Pearse is, so there are no connections to be made there. As far as Doc and Newbyguesses, I see two accounts that have taken the same side in a dispute. No evidence has been presented beyond that to demonstrate they are the same person. Unless there is better evidence forthcoming, I'll mark this for close shortly. TN X Man 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give me an hour or two, and I will do my best to present further evidence.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Which I have now done...(see top section) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is already offensive enough on it's own, so can you at least refrain from personal attacks and wild accusations against my person?--90.179.235.249 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "antisemitic remark" is this: . I meant articles like this where it's often unclear which parts are historical facts and which parts are merely biblical narrative. There is nothing antisemitic about that. --90.179.235.249 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems logical. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I still do not see any connections here. The evidence you've presented is tenuous, at best. The evidence you cite as a "smoking gun" ("the similarity of wording between "freaking Prague" and the "freaking Sweden"") is really not that unique. Searching all of Wikipedia's talk pages shows that "freaking" appears 18,000+ times, almost all in the same sort of construction ("freaking sweet", "freaking amazing", "how freaking huge the space available is"). I'm marking this for close with no action taken. TN X Man  14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)