Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wbd/Archive

Report date January 14 2010, 18:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All SPAs that continue trying to restore Wbd's preferred version of an article that includes a glut of unsourced content, against consensus. Seems to be using socks to conduct a slow edit war and continue to try to go against consensus. Requesting check user as the four may just be socks of one another without Wbd's involvement, and to see if its just a single blockable IP. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm not sock-puppeting, and if an administrator has some time to check, they will confirm this. Are there any special tools or permissions that they will require? Let me know so that I can give permission where necessary.

I do want to raise a couple important points, however:

1. It's not my preferred version of the article. My preferred version contains the information, but in a better-organized form, and with an eye towards establishing proper linkages to illustrate as examples, as the items in question have been produced in the multiple hundreds of thousands.

I've given up on editing wikipedia, however. What's the point if all it does is have my work deleted, me insulted, and then threatened with some investigation? I'll see what Knol is like, open a wikia, or use some of my own web-hosting instead.

2. I am having a great deal of difficulty assuming good faith on the behalf of the user above. The user, and their friends, have acted in ways that I found troublesome previously. I don't want trouble, I just want to be left alone.

Thank-you for your time and consideration. I am confident that you will clear my username of this slur.

--Wbd (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have tools and they do not need permission to use them. I specifically asked for checkuser to make sure you were not blocked based purely on behavioral evidence which would indicate there is socking going on at some level. I called it your preferred version in that it is the same list you yourself restored multiple times against consensus. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please clarify what you meant by "make sure you were not blocked based purely on behavioral evidence which would indicate there is socking going on at some level". Because that sounds to me like you are saying that I am somehow sock-puppeting even if they cannot determine a technological answer. Technology should be able to show quite clearly that I am operating from a single geographical point, with the IP varying on what location at that point I am posting from (at home or elsewhere), and it should be able to further indicate whether the other IPs were proxies or not.


 * But without technology, it would be easy to see that my writing style is different, and a review of my past edits over the time I have been present on Wikipedia will again be instructive.


 * Finally, I did not restore the item multiple times, only once.


 * --Wbd (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on behavioral evidence, if it was concluded that there was sockpuppeting going on, all accounts are generally blocked as it is considered a strong violation of policy. This is why I asked for further investigation via check user to ensure that only those actually socking are the ones to be properly blocked. As it is, the request for an investigation is not intended as a personal slight, but an expression of concern over the number of [{WP:SPA|single purpose, new accounts]] performing the same reversions to the the article while doing no other edits. When the investigation is done, if you are found not involved, then its closed and the tags removed from your talk page and of course I apologize in advance for the hassle. I'm simply following the prescribed method of dealing with these concerns. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment as a note, Wbd has removed the template from his user page indicating that there is a sock investigation going on. Its my understanding that this template should not be removed until this SPI is done, however will leave it to an administrator or other neutral party to review, as Wbd has expressed that he considers any contact from me to be a personal insult and incorrectly termed its addition as vandalism. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag from my user page because I found no policy that said it had to be there. If someone can provide a link showing it needs to be there as a hard and fast rule, rather than a guideline, then I will re-insert it.


 * I do not consider all commentary by the other user as insults. Certain comments, however, I took offense to, and if they were offered in good faith, then I was incorrect to take offense to them. I still feel annoyed, however. I am hopeful that at the end of this matter I will no longer have contact with the other user, as I feel it would not be beneficial.


 * I would like to apologize to Collectonian for my marking of the item as "rv vandalism". I was not paying attention to the autocompleted text in the Edit Summary box, which led to something that appeared to be incivil.


 * --Wbd (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a request- if I am found not part of sockpuppetry, but other users are, I request that this section be renamed in order to show that I have had no part in it. Thank-you for your time.

--Wbd (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons of the Editors using user-accessible tools

I had a thought while waiting for the policy matter to be resolved, and it led me to do some research. I have checked the contribution history of Krimpov, and I have found that they made an edit in 2008, again to a list of items for a video game console. This suggests to me that they are interested in the value of items lists, but it also shows that this user existed in 2008. Therefore, Krimpov is not a Single Purpose Account (correct me if I am wrong, Collectonian, but I believe that is what you meant in your case summary).

The second point regards the IP user. Whois data shows that they are coming from Belgium. I, on the other hand, am located in a city in the western portion of North America.

Unfortunately, I cannot find out any further information regarding the other users accused, but I know that investigation will show that they are not me.

--Wbd (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

and are definitely the same editor. As soon as the IP received a 3RR warning for edit warring, the named account was created to continue the edit war—hence why Sup D received a 3RR warning with only one revert. I also strongly suspect that all the editors are related as they've all immediately claimed that the removal of the product catalogs from Revoltech and Figma as "vandalism" along with other assumptions of bad faith. and make the exact came comparison between the product catalog and episode lists and bibliographies. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I request that the CheckUser please conduct a thorough check of my edit history actions, and any other searches the CheckUser deems neccessary, as these will help clear my name. Thank-you for your time and consideration.


 * --Wbd (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

I've semiprotected Revoltech, since a number of IPs and new accounts were warring to restore catalog information to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I think the nominator's come here with a reasonable case.  ceran  thor 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ❌ The named accounts show no technical relation with each other. -- Avi (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Marking as closed, thanks J. Nathan  T 15:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)