Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SINPariah/Archive

Report date April 5 2009, 09:35 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All users listed above edits solely on articles related to the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme. They have also opposed to the deletion of an op-ed attack piece written by SINPariah. Edit patterns are too similar for it to be a coincidence. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 09:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

First, I'd like to request a Check User as Arbiteroftruth has been discourteous in review comments (eg, "damned lies") and displayed a presumption of guilt (eg, that I have "twisted the law").

Second, I've refuted the claim of sockpuppetry in My Talk page. But Spinningspark alerted me that I have to do it in this page. So I'm repeating it here. The other party who has refuted Arbiteroftruth has also done it in My talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SINPariah#Sockpuppetry_case

Third, is there some way Wiki could review the suitability of Arbiteroftruth to be a reviewer? Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. It requires a fair degree of technie expertise. I appreciate the level of review rigour but it is unnecessary to make it harder when newbie contributors are making a valiant attempt. All the more so, when the topic involves the law which has created a social ruckus for the past two years as per all the press articles that I managed to hyperlink into my article before it got deleted. (SINPariah (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, as claimed; just because I have never used Wiki before, never edited anything on Wiki does not mean I am not who I say I am. I am not a sockpuppet for SinPariah but an individual who has first hand experience of the matter in question. I do not know how this can be verified, other than direting you to google Tampines Court enbloc/antienbloc and that is me. Thousands of people in Singapore search for en bloc information on the web and as there is a paucity of information I welcome SinPariah's attempt at putting the facts out there. No doubt a certain amount of editing of tone has to be done but the facts themselves are true. This issue is one of the bigger issues in Singapore and deserves a mention on Wiki. SinPariah is known to me and I came in purely to lend support to her page, alas I cannot do much verifying of her facts as I am totally lost as to the mechanics of it all (I had to be directed even to this page). I do not know the other person who has contributed. Itshometome (talk)itshometomeItshometome (talk) 06 April 2009
 * So, what you are saying is that you are not SINPariah, but that SINPariah enlisted your support to retain this information in Wikipedia? Mayalld (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction; I was alerted to the page in order to 'corroborate' the facts, there is a serious distinction to be made between that and 'retaining information on the page'. I would have no wish to retain anything if it were not true. I merely followed the format and wording that was already on the page, ie "Detete this page " and "Do not delete this page". I tried one small edit on the page body itself (linking something to a website) but after that I decided I would probably do more damage with my clumsy efforts. I am a 50yr old housewife, not some 20 something computer whiz. If Wiki is for trivial information only, then en bloc will not reach it's portals and will remain in the various blogs of active citizens (SinPariah)and non-citizens (like myself). Itshometome (talk)itshometomeItshometome (talk) 07 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Comments by other users

It is clear from what has gone before that SINPariah has contacted two people known to him via other forums, and encouraged them to register accounts in order to back him up as to the importance of this subject. I am going to assume good faith here, and accept that SINPariah as a new user himself was not aware of a number of Wikipedia policies. In his short time here, he has fallen foul of policy in respect of non-free content, and in respect of canvassing support. Essentially this boils down to a soapboxing problem. This user feels very strongly that he has a story to tell of injustice, and is working valiantly to do so. Whilst one can admire his efforts, the content created was not appropriate for Wikipedia. I see no purpose in blocking anybody here, as this was not a case of a malicious attempt to subvert process. All 3 users have been warned appropriately. Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * we don't run Checkuser at the request of the accused party to prove innocence. Mayalld (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have struck the third point above, partly because it reflects a lack of understanding of the Wikipedia editing process (we don't, in general have reviewers, just editors who all reviewe each others work, and partly because it is a personal attack Mayalld (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions