Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SQRT5P1D2/Archive

Report date August 17 2009, 16:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

SQRT5P1D2 was topic-banned from Macedonia topics in the WP:ARBMAC2 case. Ridm appeared today, out of the blue, to plunge directly into a discussion about disambiguation technicalities at Talk:Macedonia. He is evidently quite familiar with Wikipedia and with the previous Macedonia conflict, and most definitely not a newcomer (based on his famiarity with wiki technicalities, policies and personalities, and the highly "esoteric" choice of controversy to engage in). He might in principle be a sock of somebody else too, but among those editors that were banned in the Arbcom case, SQRT is the one he most closely resembles: his debating style, his technique of assembling "evidence" in user space User:Ridm/GRMAC, User:SQRT5P1D2/LOCMAC), his use of his user pages for listing POV material (User:Ridm, User:SQRT5P1D2), his choices in turning to what he thinks might be potential allies for help (see User talk:John Carter), his eagerness of avoiding "canvassing" accusations, are all themes pointing to SQRT.
 * Evidence submitted by Future Perfect at Sunrise


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comment by Ridm - As the instructions say, I "have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy". It's only fitting to say that the accusation is unsubstantiated and senseless, seemingly initiated due to my vocal objection in the illogical POV claims in the Macedonia talk page. The short version is that I'm not a sockpuppet of any user. The long version, countering the claims, is below:

- It's what happens in Wikipedia. Users register and participate without prerequisites, randomly.
 * appeared today, out of the blue

- There are no restrictions regarding new user participation. Instead, there are rules for their treatment by older editors.
 * into a discussion about disambiguation technicalities

- I just read the rules and try my best. I'm not responsible for other newcomers' abilities or inabilities.
 * is evidently quite familiar with Wikipedia

- I familiarized myself with several Wikipedia functions, among them the use of the "history" tab. It's actually quite easy to delve into ongoing article issues, after reading linked pages and user contributions.
 * and with the previous Macedonia conflict

- Collecting and citing untouched ancient sources by theirselves, is not "POV material", by any standard.
 * user pages for listing POV material

- I believe that I'm capable enough to know what I think. According to the history pages I've seen, several users seem to be interested in historic topics. It's only natural to ask their opinion, especially if they feel comfortable with the specific topic in question. On the other hand (continuing below)...
 * turning to what he thinks might be potential allies for help

- ...the rules I've read so far, prevent mass messaging in specific circumstances. Therefore, I chose to send only one message to an experienced user familiar with the ongoing dispute, which seems active these days (many others haven't edited in a while).
 * eagerness of avoiding "canvassing" accusations

Feel free to investigate anything related to me, using whatever means necessary, for as much as you like. But in the end, an apology will be appropriate.

As I will be logging sporadically these days, if I don't respond here, please leave me a note in my user talk page. Ridm (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * NW ( Talk ) 16:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. — Jake   Wartenberg  19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)