Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki alf/Archive

Report date September 30 2009, 16:28 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Keepcalmandcarryon

User:Wiki alf is using IP addresses for edit warring purposes at Russell Blaylock. [Russell_Blaylock&diff=317058596&oldid=317045709],,. Both IPs attempted to influence the deletion discussion Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Burgermeister, which was deluged with a group of SPAs following off-wiki recruiting, possibly by this puppetmaster. Relatedness of IPs is further established by similar editing patterns (Charlie Sheen, Oxford-related pages, Motorhead etc.) and similar language in summaries (e.g., "rem spare ."; use of A-B-C logical constructs). Editor has used IP puppets to make personal attacks against me, such as implying I am an agent of the "New World Order" and asking who is paying me for my Wikipedia edits. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I prefer to now edit without signing in, from wherever I am. Which regulations does this breach? I only signed in today to cast a logged in comment at an AfD, again something that does not breach any regulation. Reporting editor appears not to be able to disguinish humour (if I were a conspiracy theorist...) when making a point about editors who misrepresent citations, remove critical material from one set of articles and consitently re-enter negative comments on another set of articles.Alf melmac 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the below posting by EdJohnston at 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC). I am usually at a different place in the daytime than in the nighttime (excepting when I have 'days off'), hence the two different ip addresses used when I edit, you can probably work out why that should be. I was not purposefully switching between these accounts during the "revert war" and have not logged into my account for over a month until I wished to !vote. I am in no way personally involved in the deletion of Blaylock's article, but I believe my comments about the editor's edits to be valid: while improving an article, all mention of the controversy (which still has it's section in the article) is removed from the lead. This edit removes a source to allow a change to "several" rather than "numerous" and adds "conservative website" and "right-wing" epithets this edit removes membership of a body we have an article on as well as radio appearances and station we have article on (not a minor one) removing radio mention from lead (his notability as a frequent guest might satisfies WP:PROF 7) looks like blackening the subject to me. I asked him a question based on his edits, which has obviously pissed him off. If I were asked if I were editing for money, I would say, no I have to go out and earn a living and I would not be pissed off either like the complainant seems to have been, but we are obviously very different people. I disagree with your assessment of the edit warring. The editor wishes to keep the appearances on over fifty syndicated radio shows out of the article, I wished to keep them in - WP:PROF 7 shows notability for well known academics outside the academic environment, I think he's likely above the bar on that. I put it back in three times, whilst the editor has not provided any other rationale other than 'it's probably not notable'.


 * The only edits I made today were on the talk page of the David Horrobin article, regarding his (repeated) insertion of "unethical" (our article says the obit portrayed him this way, the obits actual says that his enemies called him this) and the problem with "snake-oil salesman" usage. This is misusing cites, it does blacken the name. I have no intention of continuing to edit war, following the three reverts putting the radio guest info back in, I made one edit to change a word that was not involved in any former issue. I changed "believes" to "stated" because neither source said that was his belief, first one used "states" second one used "argues". That is not edit warring, it's just doing a needed correction.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Alternating between your regular account and a series of IPs during a revert war is not a benign activity. See WP:SOCK. According to his statement in the SPI case above, he chooses to use IPs in this way. "I prefer to now edit without signing in, from wherever I am". User:Wiki alf is an administrator (promoted in 2005 2006) and should be upholding Wikipedia policy. I hope he is aware of our current standards for admin conduct. I take note that he seems to be somewhat personally invested in the defence of this article, which is now at AfD: "Your editorial habits of misusing citations and blackening names is also very much noted". A complaint about his editing has been filed in an open case at AN3, which does not (in my opinion) show him violating 3RR but does indeed seem to be an example of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Report was good at the time, but is now stale. Wiki alf, please take this as a notice to edit an article from either one location OR one account, and to never overlap two articles with two locations or accounts. NW ( Talk ) 04:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)