Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Natster237


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Natster237

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by Feeeshboy 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The only contributions by User Justbc were in response to my proposed merge of The leaner into Slam dunk, which was contested by the former page's creator, User:Natster237 in various ways, first by deleting the merger tags
 * Evidence -

then, after I put them back, by defending The leaner on Talk:Slam dunk. After I responded to his point, we see the first-ever contributions from User:Justbc:
 * |here] and
 * |here],


 * 
 * 

who appears just in time to back up User:Natster237's exact point that the leaner needs to have its own page because it is "unique" and too important to simply be mentioned on Slam dunk. Notice also the identical language, repeated from this earlier Natster237 comment: Neither User:Justbc nor User:Natster237 contributes to Wikipedia for a couple of days, and then they appear together again (see Special:Contributions/Natster237 and Special:Contributions/Justbc), at which point the suspected sock becomes hostile. Note this message I left on User:Natster237's talk page: in the hopes of calming him down. The suspected sock then parrots back my own words from the suspected puppeteer's talk page in a very hostile note:
 * which also uses the phrase "basketball lore" and the same reverential (POV) language to discuss Michael Jordan.
 * 

after which the suspected puppeteer conveniently tries to play his "good hand":
 * 

In all, the only contributions made by Natster237 are edits on The leaner and these discussion pages, the uploading of (copyvio) pictures for The leaner, and the disparaging remarks here, the last of which add evidence that the nonconfrontational tone taken by the suspected puppeteer on the other pages is in fact a passive-aggressive façade. Lastly, the user forgets to sign his posts (under both names), a weaker coincidence, but another coincidence, nonetheless.


 * Comments

What proof do I have to provide that my account is legitimate? I'm a real person, a college grad, a Miami native, a current Houstonian, an upstanding citizen and netizen. Further, I am a distinct individual from Natster237.

It is true that my first contribution was in discussion of the leaner. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ONLY TIME I HAVE EVER POSTED, FEESHYBOY SUMMARILY DISMISSED MY CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT EVER ADDRESSING ANY OF MY CONTENT. This has to be the worst violation of any on Wikipedia as it stifles new input and turns users off from the site. Imagine: you make your first post to the site and immediately the veracity of your identity is thrown out the window. For me, this has hastily soured my experience on the site.

What is the correct forum to lodge a complaint about an overzealous hater such as feeshy? --Justbc


 * Even if I am wrong (which I'm not), I can't feel too bad because your only contributions have been pretty antagonistic so far. Note that Natster237 also refers to me as "feeeshy", here:
 * (thanks for providing more evidence!)

and also in previously cited posts apparently can't tell the difference between "summarily dismissing contributions" and simply disagreeing with him. Feeeshboy 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's a very bad sign when someone leads off with "Even if I am wrong (which I'm not)." At that point you are forcibly taking the discussion to an impasse. Nonetheless you are indeed wrong. If you want proof, next time I'm in New York it shall be provided you.

You should feel bad however, because my first post, to which you responded antagonistically, was very much unantagonizing. With regards to misspelling your name, the concrete commonality is your name, not the imagined (by you) shared identity between me and Natster237. Your name is strange -- what's it mean anyway? -- so there is a likelihood I'll misspell it. Similarly, Natster237 might misspell such an odd name.

Last, are you insinuating that I incorrectly identified your summary dismissal of my contribution? If so, you are clearly in error. Now then, where do I lodge my complaint about that? --Justbc

Wow. I poke my head in to Wikipedia to see if anything is resolved and I'm awakened by a storm of controversy. Feeeshboy, I'm not a "sockpuppeteer", although I don't think any amount of "evidence" is going to be enough to convince you otherwise. What am I supposed to reference in a wikitrial like this? Seems to me to be more of a witchhunt than an actual trial, truthfully. Also, the note I made in Victor de Leon's entry is a valid point (not simply disparaging as you've tried to make it seem). I'm involved in the gaming industry and this individual (a famous gamer) was in fact disqualified from a competition for cheating (specifically, for modding a controller). I didn't see any discussion of this topic in his article so I brought it up in the discussion, which is where I thought I was supposed to. If I've made a mistake in that regard, please let me know where I should have brought up the topic because I'm baffled.

Also, is it standard Wikipedia protocol to nominate articles for deletion simply because you dislike the author? Somehow we went from a merge discussion between the leaner and slam dunk to simply nominating the article for deletion. Based on prior discussion, merge seems to be the most extreme action that should be taken here. Natster237 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The disparaging comment I referred to was "Hes not very good (sic)." This was NOT authored by Natster237, I now realize, a mistake I made in part because neither Natster237 nor the other poster signed their posts. I withdraw that point.
 * Please refer to the wording of the PROD warning on The leaner. I invited you to contest the prod by posting on your talk page, I DID merge the content, I did NOT nominate the deletion based on any personal feelings (I alluded to merging the page from the start), and this is not the proper forum for this discussion. Please contest the prod on the article's talk page. Feeeshboy 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems Feeshboy is now trying to intimidate me, a new user, from using this forum:
 * It is inappropriate to continue any back and forth conversation on a sock puppet report. If you have anything to say to me, please use my talk page. As for your question, I invite you to review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation, although if you read the policies, you will see that they state very clearly that such measures are intended only for cases in which all alternatives have been exhausted. That is clearly not the case here. There is a simple alternative: stop posting insults and threats. The only thing I ever did to you was to accuse you of being a sock puppet, and I have evidence to back that up. Even if I am not correct, I have taken the correct steps by filing an official report and putting this in the hands of administrators. So that leaves my only supposed "antagonism" toward you as one comment, accusing you of being a sock puppet (before I filed a formal report; it took some time to read up on proper sock puppet reporting). If that was a mistake, it was still nowhere nearly as egregious an offense as your overtly hostile and threatening comments. So here's how this gets resolved: you can stop posting insults and threats, as I have not said anything that could be regarded as hostile since initially accusing you of being a sock puppet, so there is no provocation and certainly no justification for your continued hostility. I think this is a fair request. If you accept it, then we should have no reason for further problem. If you ignore it, I will be forced to report you to administrators. In the meantime, the sock puppet case is in the hands of admins, who know what they're doing better than I do. Feeeshboy 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not be silenced thus. I don't have anything to say to you, but I have a vested interest in protecting my credibility. Threats and insults? There has been no semblance of a threat and the only insult was a 1-for-1 trade because ON MY FIRST POST EVER TO WIKIPEDIA, YOU IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED MY POST BY PROCLAIMING TO THE WORLD THAT I WAS A "SOCK PUPPET." As I have said before, this a truly sick introduction to the site. I would argue that anyone doing this is harming the site and that his credibility should be in question.

I am just a new user with a clean slate. --Justbc


 * That "forum" was your talk page. Asking for a cessation of hostilities is an attempt to intimidate you? Surely you're joking. Here's the potential threat I referred to (the language is ambiguous, so it's not necessarily an overt threat, but could be taken as one):
 * If you want proof, next time I'm in New York it shall be provided you.
 * Furthermore, you're not helping your credibility any by ranting and raving. Wikipedia editors, like all other people, make mistakes. There's your welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think I made a mistake, but that's for others to decide at this point. This is just a report of my suspicion, and if no conclusion is reached, it won't affect your further. You will have a clean slate, and that will be that. But in the meantime, you seriously need to calm down. I've had bad experiences with socks before, and your contribution seemed a bit too convenient, timely, and similarly worded to be a different person. If I jumped to conclusions too hastily, I can't take it back now. Your repeated name-calling, which, if you forgot, spills over into this page as well, is not going to accomplish anything. Feeeshboy 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's inappropriate to continue a back and forth conversation on this page then why do you keep responding? May the admins be fully aware that you're not even following your own made-up rules. You just use them conveniently to eliminate resistance to the games you like to play on this site.

Admins take note: I am a 100% real person. My contribution to the leaner discussion was earnest and legitimate. I enjoy this site and would like to contribute in the future, but users like Feeeshboy who use guerilla tactics repeatedly on new users are a liability, not an asset, to the site. For whatever reason he feels his contributions and opinions are more important to the site than mine and that is patently false. I will happily provide picture ID, or any other proof, as well as phone or in-person interviews to show you how far out of control he is.

If he chooses to respond again that will only add further proof that he wants to make rules for others but not himself. --Justbc 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw - Okay, I've had quite enough of this crap. It's become apparent that Justbc is belligerent, obnoxious, and incapable of getting over my admittedly hasty accusation, whereas Natster237 is a good-faith editor trying to make positive contributions to this site, despite a few bumps in the road. In my defense, there were a number of coincidences that corroborated my suspicions, but it's clear to me that this entire process has no possible good result. No one is monitoring the suspected sock page, and I was simply hoping for an official warning to the suspected sockpuppeteer for something that's not nearly as damaging as this conversation, the way it's headed. I am a good-faith editor with a long history of positive contributions to this site, as well as some mistakes, and I refuse to have my name dragged through the mud with these ridiculous accusations any longer. Justbc deserves a clean slate, and I deserve not to be repeatedly insulted and maligned without any provocation following my initial accusation of sockpuppetry. Admins, please close this debate and let us all move on. Feeeshboy 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Case withdrawn by accuser, closing up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)