Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd)

User:Bsharvy

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * - indef blocked
 * - indef blocked

Igor Berger (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * I suspect User:Life.temp to be a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy This is Bsharvy website I got the url from his first edit here. He tried to insert it in an abortion article, it is an anti-abortion activism esay that he wrote. Both users edit abortion articles and are pro life. Both users edit anti-Americanism. If you check the time of the edits on both accounts, they are being done around the same time. Finishes editing about 24:00 every day like a clock. Starts editing about from 6:00 and finishes around 10:00. Please look at the edit summaries, very neat and concise on both accounts. If User:Life.temp were a new user to Wikipedia how would he know wikitalk for the edit summaries? User:Life.temp a resent account straight to mostly editing anti-Americanismand abortion articles. In conclusion User:Life.temp and User:Bsharvy is the same user.

This person has been harrassing me non-stop since I started editing the article on anti-Americanism. He insists on putting personal opinions and factual misinformation in the article (e.g. articles that aren't peer-reviewed in a section called "peer-reviewed articles"). Then he edit wars with me about it. This seems to be the latest battle in his war. For the record, I'm not pro-life, but I don't see how that's anyone's business. I can't make head or tails of the rest of Igor's comment. Life.temp (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * I'd say from Life.temp's edits on abortion-related articles it is pretty obvious that s/he is pro-life (not to mention the username and userpage photo), but that's neither here nor there, because there isn't enough evidence to go on here, just a suspicion by someone this person edit-warred with. And regarding that edit-warring, it takes two to do it, and both engaged in it equally (user:Igorberger and user:Life.temp). Even if this is a sock puppet, the only thing he's guilty of so far has been edit warring, and he has since stopped (for now), so I really don't care. I think if there is an ownership issue, it can be attributed more to Igor than Life.temp. I think they should both be issued a stern warning about edit warring and this case closed for now.  Equazcion •✗/C • 04:41, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * When you do the same edits as user:Life.temp on anti-Americanism I respect your edits and do not revert them. Why? Because you explain your edits on the talk page, not just do them as this user without explanation or consensus. Also this is about sockpuppetry, which is a violation of policy. If you check Bsharvy sockpuppet case 1 he has 3 sockpuppets. I have no ownership of the article. I edit many articles, please check my contributions, not just 2 abortion and anti-Americanism. Also it is a he not a she, from the picture on his website. Igor Berger (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First case Suspected_sock_puppets/Bsharvy Igor Berger (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I am pro-life? Just curious. I chose my username to comment on the brevity of life, not to say anything about abortion. The extension ".temp" is common in the computer world (I work with computers professionally) for temporary files. Life.temp (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah so do I. Don't see .temp spelled out often, it's usually .tmp. Anyway, . Again it doesn;t matter though so I'm not going to spend time arguing about this.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:26, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * The image on your user page is about new born. Image:Babymouse.jpg. Bsharvy also works with computers or he use to before becoming an English teacher in Korea. Please read his website. Igor Berger (talk)

Igor, can you document some of what you're saying with diffs? I can't find any edit bsharvy made to an abortion article other than the one you mention, in January 2007. Life.temp (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Life.temp, perhaps it would be most effective to address Igor's more valid concern, that you seemed to know the ins and outs of this place right from your first edit. If you had another account or if you edited from an IP previously, disclosing it/them would put an end to this right now.  Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Bsharvy This is Bsharvy pro-abortion website esay I got the url from his first edit the url comes from his first edit which was on abortion, where he tried to insert this website ulr. Igor Berger (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, I've been using Wikipedia as a reference since 2003. If I want to research editing, I do a search from Help:Contents. It is fairly easy to learn the basics, and the basic standards like citations and NPOV are prominent even to non-editing users, from the frequent tagging. I definitely do not know the ins and outs, I know the basics, because I'm the sort who reads the manual first. Life.temp (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it really hard to believe that you have been referencing Wikipedia since 2003 but you never edited it till a few weeks ago, and you knew right a way the "ins and outs" of what to do. When I warned you about article ownership your reply was pretty much knowledgeable, not of a newbie "Please stop frivolous (and dishonest) use of warnings" A new editor would leave the template and say something of PA or remove it completly with a revert. But you knew exactly what you were saying. Igor Berger (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there, it's pretty unlikely that you got all of this from help pages. You seemed pretty comfortable with the lingo etc. right from the start. Fact tags, COI noticeboard, POV, weasel words, talking about consensus etc, these aren't things anyone knows straight off. I'd bet money you've edited previously from another account.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:22, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, it's only worth trying to convince people up to a point. I didn't learn most of anything from the help pages. I learned most, like fact tags, simply from reading the encyclopedia. Fact tags are everywhere. Everybody who reads Wikipedia knows about them. I learned about the COI board because I saw someone with a conflict of interest, and did a search on what to do. I'm not going to bother further explaining what seems "pretty unlikely" to someone. A better focus would be whether I've edited in a disruptive way. Life.temp (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:disruptive that is for newbies? You really can tell when an editor is new because they make tons of mistakes. I dealt with a new editor just yesterday. I was reverting the edits, and the editor just reverted them back. I was dealing with a policy problem, but I also made some mistakes and at the end I apologized to the editor, eventhough I was not totally wrong. But we need to WP:AGF. I have become more conserned with you after reading Bsharvy anti-abortion essay, which is a total COI to abortion articles. If you are Bsharvy which I suspect you are, as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot AGF for you to edit abortion articles. Igor Berger (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Igor, just because someone writes an essay outside Wikipedia about the same topic he edits on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean there's any conflict of interest. COI is for the proprietor of a company editing the article on that company, or a person editing an article on himself, or the author of an off-wiki article using that article as a source. There's no COI even if this were Bsharvy, and the concern that there might be a COI issue is not a reason to bring a sockpuppet case. There needs to be some evidence. Aside from them both being pro-life and editing the anti-Americanism article, I see no proof at all. Although I do think it's likely, based on my suspicion that this user has edited Wikipedia before but is unwilling to admit it, I don't see any real evidence here. Life.temp's editing history is too short to draw any reliable conclusions.  Equazcion •✗/C • 06:51, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the essay? It said there that women who commit any kind of abortion are murderers and and criminals. What is The Final Solution. I do not know. The tendentiousnes of this editor really has me worried. What would you propose? Igor Berger (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to have opinions and express them in other venues, Igor. Someone saying something POV off-wiki is not any reason for concern.  Equazcion •✗/C • 07:04, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * If the editor was not WP:SPA and a sockpuppet, even if it just "suspected sock", but the evidence is pretty strong for it, I would agree with you. What one does off-wiki is not really Wikipedia consern. But this editor has not showed the community that the community can trust him, based on relevent behavior and history. So how can this editor eliviate the consern and win the community's trust?
 * He doesn't need to win our trust. He's already got it. Right now all we know is that he edit warred. But so did you. So if you don't need to earn our trust, then neither does he.  Equazcion •✗/C • 07:25, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is a violation of policy and SPA is lack of trust, per guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no evidence that this is an SPA. And stop saying this is sockpuppetry, because we don't know that. Focus on presenting evidence to prove it is sockpuppetry before you ask what should be done about it.  Equazcion •✗/C • 07:36, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * anti-Americanism and abortion is SPA. Sockpuppetry is suspected. I put a suspected sockpuppet template on his user page, and he removed it. It needs to be put back, but I am not going to edit war with him. So please put it back on his user page. Igor Berger (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The user's edit history is too short to draw a conclusion like that. If I created an account and my first 20 edits were to the same group of articles, there would be nothing suspicious about that. You need to wait and see what this user does on a longer-term basis. I'm not going to continue this here. I do hope another party weighs in on this soon, cause so far it's just us three involved editors.  Equazcion •✗/C • 08:23, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm also not going to continue this for now, and let other editors comment on this. But I would like User:Life.temp to put back the suspected sockpuppet template on his user page to show the community that he respects the raised consern of another editor. Igor Berger (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is still open, but please see the subsection Igor the Troll here before wasting more time with this editor. Life.temp (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating a subsection on a Talk page to personally abuse another wikipedia editor is a flagrant abuse of wikipedia procedures and exactly the sort of thing Bsharvy used to do. Are you editing from the same small district in Seoul, Korea where Bsharvy is located I wonder? Colin4C (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't create a subsection on a random "Talk" page. I didn't abuse anyone. I gave links to the individual's Web sites that brag about his trolling on wikipedia and elsewhere, on the page dedicated to reporting incidents to administrators. Have you actually read the case?
 * Is there going to be a case made for adding Gohdeilocks? A single diff? Life.temp (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor maintains a hitlist of Wikipedia editors, which includes User_talk:Gohdeilocks as "dogmeat" http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger#BuzzKill I am wondering if this is abandoned. I am adding this information because Igor (the Troll) added User_talk:Gohdeilocks to the case. Life.temp (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Life.temp - are you editing from the same place in Seoul, Korea as Bsharvy did? Colin4C (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user
Can some clerk please remove the garbage from this page? This isn't for arguing. Jtrainor (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No further action is required here with regard to the accusation of sock puppetry. If anyone wants to make a case of disruptive editing against any of the parties, this is the wrong venue to discuss that. There is insufficient evidence for a sock puppetry block at this time. Jehochman Talk 04:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions