Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taivo/Archive

31 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User Luxure was a suspiciously active compared to his/her/its DOB (end of July 2014) and assisted user Taivo in a recent vandalising editwar in the article of Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom) that aimed to change its stable version and push PPOV. Luxure also assisted Taivo on his argument in the talk page. Stevepeterson (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * example of diff files:

Luxure: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=623269011&oldid=623170707 Taivo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=623337411&oldid=623276026

Also in the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#Greek_Peninsula page they give the impression that they represent different users: 121.129.70.178 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Could an admin please close this SPI per WP:SNOW? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr.K This is not only a biased statement but also cold greek humour Stevepeterson (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you don't have to take my advice. Hell, you may not even like it. But I will give it to you anyway. This SPI is not going anywhere. It will be closed without action. Taivo is a longterm editor in good standing who is next to impossible to be suspected of sockpuppetry by anyone, let alone by SPI experts, admins or clerks. Now, with a little AGF on your part, you could have reached a similar conclusion. But whatever the case, mark my words: This SPI is DOA. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you and appreciate your contribution. I understand that in your eyes user Taivo has a good record. But what we, editors of Ancient Macedonia article have experienced recently, is an emotional, pro-Macedonia (referring to the Republic of Macedonia), editwarior who is pushing Pan-Slavism nationalistic POV. While at the same time, we have opened a discussion forum to resolve the issue in a civilised manner. He insists on wanting to change the article from its stable (2 years) he changes his argument every time the argument is rejected (so far 3 different reasons), but at the same time, he continues the edit war without waiting for the result of the discussion. Suspected sockpuppet appeared as the only assistant in this war (even edited my own comment on the talk page) and is a very experienced user for his recent date of birth, just few weeks ago. Taivo keeps deleting 2 years old text text with valid references, with the excuse of "undoing proGreece antimacedonia vandalism".  And please dont use so many slang/abbreviations/acronym terms with editors that you are not familiar with. please respect that other edits might be older or not familiar with them, or accepting the use slang terms, which makes communication extremely difficult.  Stevepeterson (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But you are also using acronyms (POV, DOB? (what does that have to do with anything?)). In any case, I don't use "slang" terms, just acronyms, let's not get confused about that. FYI, "DOA" means "Dead on arrival", "SPI" means "Sockpuppet investigation" and AGF means WP:AGF which if you click it, is one of the basic behavioural tenets of Wikipedia. As far as the rest of your comments, notwithstanding the reversions of the other parties, the amount of edit-warring you have performed on the page is liable to get you into editing privilege restrictions in the long term. I would avoid continuing along these lines in the future. But again, you don't have to follow my advice. In any case, the SPI has no future. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you consider my behaviour an edit-war, but Taivo's (a respectful editor in your eyes) double or triple volume or reversions not an edit war, you prove that you are biased towards Taivo and, I am sorry to say, that you should not be eligible to comment in this inspection case. Stevepeterson (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But I am not only commenting. I am also advising you as well as forecasting the future events. One of the future events I am forecasting, is the closing of this SPI without any action. You may not like this forecast, but unfortunately it will come to pass. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comment and advice although biased towards your good standing old friends. I dont mind if Luxure remains an active unidentified sockpuppet as long as it doesnt continue this vandalism that reaches the depths of refactoring my talks (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luxure&diff=623279901&oldid=623277015) Stevepeterson (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I had some difficult times with Luxure myself and I fully agree with you that refactoring other editors' comments is never ok. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should make a formal appearance here although I'd prefer to just ignore it. It's going nowhere and if someone actually wastes time with a check user run it will show that. The suspected sock, User:Luxure doesn't even appear to be interested in Macedonia (ancient kingdom) anymore since s/he hasn't responded to the Request for Comment on the content issue at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). S/he has moved on to other interests that I don't share. When this "investigation" is completed and denied, as it most assuredly will be, I would like to request that the closing admin delete it as an attack page. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to ignore this, but I will voice my concerns. Had User:stevepeterson even bothered to check my contributions against User:Taivo he would have seen my editing of predominately Australian articles, no interest in what User:Taivo edits. stevepeterson seems to be acting like a child with his fellow kindergarten detectives. Luxure (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I respect the outcome of the investigation and thank everyone for your time Stevepeterson (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I could respect you, but your childish behaviour prevents it Luxure (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The evidence presented is much too weak to consider any action here. In addition, the two editors tend to edit at opposite timeframes so unless it's one person who doesn't get much sleep, Occam's razor suggests it's two different individuals. The content that was added here does not meet the criteria of an attack page and won't be deleted. Mike V  •  Talk  17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the original submitter believes Taivo is engaging in edit-warring, that issue should be brought up in another, more appropriate forum (not here at SPI). Even without evidence of malice or frivolity, I believe it could be appropriate to delete this groundless SPI without archiving it; however, since this idea is in dispute, I'd like to see what other clerks think.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally I support deletion of groundless SPI reports, but in this case I think it might be helpful to keep due to the behaviour exhibited. That is in case it needs to be referred to in the future. But no objections to deletion as it can always be accessed by admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)