Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle

User:Davenbelle

 * Sockpuppeteer


 * Confirmed sockpuppets


 * Suspected sockpuppet


 * Report submission by

This case was filed at the request of Arbitrator Sam Blacketer. It will be brought in front of Arbcom if it results in "divisive administrative action". -- Cat chi? 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant cases are (a select list for practical purposes)
 * Evidence
 * Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek
 * Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle (2 requests, both deemed denied/inconclusive by Kelly Martin)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Moby Dick (2 requests, both deemed denied/inconclusive by Essjay)
 * Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir
 * WT:RFAR/Moby Dick#Request for clarification and indefinite block of Moby Dick, April-May 2007 (arbcom clarification)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle ruled "Likely side of possible"

Thats 1 RFC, 5 Checkuser cases, and 2 rfars. I feel I have exhausted all forms of dispute resolution and would prefer not to get indulged in it any more for this user. I promised myself not to file another one but I am here given the community apathy.

Now in all fairness Davenbelle and Moby Dick were never confirmed to be sockpuppets because the checkuser logs expired before a check was run on Moby Dick. But both Davenbelle, Moby Dick edit from the same geographic region, Bali, Indonesia. Arbcom treated Moby Dick and Davenbelle like the same person on the Moby Dick RfAr. Diyarbakir also "coincidentally" edited from Bali, Indonesia as well as the same computer as Moby Dick. Moby Dick and his confirmed sockpuppet Diyarbakir had been banned indefinitely for "an impressive amount of stalking".

The conduct of Moby Dick can be summarized as: I've made the most recent block indefinite. Moby Dick really has no useful contributions outside of an impressive amount of stalking, and there is no reason not to consider him banned. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect User:Jack Merridew, who is confirmed to edit from Bali, Indonesia, may be a sockpuppet of Davenbelle based on the evidence I presented in the following case: WP:RFAR/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat#Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick
 * This latest edit was over my recent attempted move of the gallery at Depiction of Jesus to commons on 11:02, 10 March 2008. There was one image (Image:Divine_Mercy_%28Adolf_Hyla_painting%292007-08-16.jpg) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on 10:58, 10 March 2008. Now Jack Merridew reported my edits to User:Johnbod on 11:32, 10 March 2008. That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article.


 * User seems to be aware of any talk page I edit. Likewise even here too.
 * His pursuit want beyond that:
 * Bear in mind the time stamps of my edits and his responses. -- Cat chi? 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it graphically:


 * Comments

Jack Merridew is a notorious wikistalker who has driven me to make IP based contributions (It has got to the point that I hardly edit anymore) as any contribution I make will automatically be tagged with some kind of template regardless of how well referenced the article may be. The editor in question lacks creativity and has no interest in building an encycopedia, but merely reverting content which has yet to de completed or adding templates. Actually improving the articles is of course not his responsibility, something he has claimed in many of his talkspace edits. This kind of behaviour, the wikistalking and constant tagging of articles is pure trolling and adds no value to the encylopedia and causes conflict. The editor will continually revert any edit/ removal of template without discussion and enflame a situation further. Its a no brainer that Jack Merridew is a SP of the above mentioned accounts. The stalking of White Cat, along with similar edit summaries and editing style is proof enough. There is more evidence in this case than in any of the hundreds of accounts and editors who he has tagged as socks of Grawp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.117.232 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have previously reviewed and denied all this. White Cat has posted this all over the place; the TV E&C 2 case where he sought an indef block on me, most of the arbitrator talk pages, the current RFAR page, and now here. This is empty. I will be glad to discuss specifics with reasonable editors. White Cat won't even talk to me.

The anon comment above, by 121.216.117.232 is likely Grawp; see all of the edits from the following over the last three days.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case filed against Grawp. -- Cat chi? 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Jack is allowed to defend himself. Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This still isn't a case filed against Grawp. -- Cat chi? 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I'm more focused on Grawp. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems that the list of users mentioned above have an uncanny interest in Jack Merridew, and all seem to be throwaways. However, there is a lot of evidence in this case, so it may take a while to review. At the moment, the graphical chart is of most interest to me, as it is when other accounts were blocked that the Jack Merridew account started editing; also, the very quick response time to White Cat's talk page edits seems a bit stalkish to me. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a considerable volume of evidence to be considered in this case, and I have taken care to review as much of it as possible. To that end I can, with confidence, say that evidence exists both for and against the sock puppetry allegations. Of particular interest in my review, was the graphical depictions of the editing timings of the accounts in question, located in the tables sculpted by White Cat, above.
 * Conclusions

Due to the ambiguous nature of several pieces of evidence (for example, the editing habit evidence is not fully conclusive, and arguments regarding convenience exist counter-sock puppetry) presented, I am not confident issuing a firm decision either way in this matter. In the absence of further editorial evidence and checkuser conclusions, I am closing this case without action, and without prejudice to a review in light of further evidence. Anthøny 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)