Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear


 * 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. 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. The result was: Inconclusive - I have contacted both users and neither is suspected.

User:Stillstudying
User:Stillstudying has been used to add another voice to User:Oldwindybear's position in an NPOV dispute. His entire short history consists of means of supporting User:Oldwindybear or threats and intimidation towards myself. Used to support arguments of User:Oldwindybear during peer review and would serve as a means of evading any potential 3RR on the Bonnie and Clyde page.

Mytwocents 04:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Oldwindybear started User:Stillstudying's talkpage while still logged in as User:Oldwindybear.
 * Evidence

Usertalk:Stillstudying history

(diff) (hist). . N User talk:Stillstudying; 20:55. . Oldwindybear (Talk | contribs)

Regarding a request for checkuser, that would be the best way to clear this up. If a formal request from me is required, then, I request checkuser for User:Stillstudying,User:Oldwindybear. User:Oldwindybear has attached ulterior motives to everything I have done regarding the Bonnie and Clyde, Frank Hamer pages, including my edits, my desire for NPOV, my starting the peer review on the B&C page and now this sockpuppet notice. User:Oldwindybear has acted as my prosecutor, in a trial, and has cast me in the worst possible light. The use of this possible sockpuppet is just part of his past effort to drown me out, and nullify my presence as an editor on the B&C page.
 * Comments

Mytwocents 16:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ---

Evidence I am not User:Stillstudying
I formally ask for Check/User at once to resolve this, and disprove this charge, and then indefinate banning for deliberately false accusations, and language violations, among many other wikipedia violations by Mytwocents.

I do not know User:Stillstudying, but I know he is making edits during a time, and from a computer, which I do not have access to. '''A simple check of the internet address will confirm this. Period. I did leave a message on his talk page, as I have at least 200 other times in teh past six months, on various talk pages. I never made the edits, a simple check of the IP addresses will show it.'''

Further, his claims on the Bonnie and Clyde article are utterly false and born out by the talk page and edits. AndyZ compiled a list of weasal words, which I instantly removed and replaced with agreed on - by Andy, myself, and at least one more user - quotes and direct historical references. Ewelp suggested several revisions which were done at once. The facts simply do not bear out these charges, and again, a simple internet address check will prove at once I can not, and did not, create that account, don't have a clue who it is, (accept I assume a stuent, from the handle and user page) and did not make any edits in anyone else's name but my own. In point of fact, just today Ewelp suggested an edit that was incorporated at once. Everyone has worked together well on that site, and appears happy, except one person - Mytwocents.


 * AndyZ asked him to provide a list of facts he disputed - he could not name one;
 * AndyZ went through and listed weasal words that were subject to interpretation, and those were replaced at once by formal quotes from experts and historians; Mytwocents felt those were "pro Bonnie and Clyde" (EVERY expert, EVERY quote!) and asked the quotes be eliminated, and any mention of the enduring legend of the gang. AndyZ, not myself, led the argument against that, saying the quotes and lasting effects should stay;
 * a review of the talk page shows that Cherry blossom tree suggested we consolidate sections to eliminate so many, and tighten the article. All agreed - except Mytwocents of course, and that was done;
 * look at what Ewulp said today, after her revisions were written in "Thanks oldwindybear, you are correct, this is what I intended." Ewulp 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

'''The blunt fact is when you review the peer page and talk page, all achieved consensus but Mytwocents whose viciousness at not getting his way first caused him to alter the talk page, edit our postings, then call me names on an administrators page - see below - and now make another false accusation. There is no trick this user will not try to bully people into altering facts and changing history to suit him. It has to stop. '''

'''I formally ask for Check/User at once to resolve this, and disprove this charge. The edits were not made, nor the account created, by any computer I have access to, and I do not know the person, and Check/User on the edits in question will confirm this. A talk page message as proof, please, I have left hundreds! The edits and where the account was created from are the proof, please use Check/User - it is not me.''' old windy bear 11:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
'''I note for the record that Mytwocents did not ask for check/user at the onset, he merely listed his so-called, non-existant "evidence" that I made a talk page comment on someone's talk page, as I have 2-300 others. He filed the request only after learning I had asked for such a check to clear myself, and coming to my talk page and trying to talk me out of complaining about his:'''

'''Only when learning I had filed for Check/Use did he scurry back here and endorse it. Then, when it comes back that I am NOT using any sock puppet and have not a clue who this person is, he will find another slander, or another dirty trick. This user, once the check/use reveals - and remember he never asked until he saw I had, and knew the gig was up, needs to be off wikipedia with his lies, slanders, personal attacks and insults'''.old windy bear 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * constant and unending personal attacks, including calling me names on editors pages;
 * altering other people postings on talk pages;
 * filing what he knew, or would have asked then, for check/use, was a totally frivilous and malicious sock puppet fallacy.

Request for Investigation on Mytwocents for his vicious personal attacks
After being "accused" of being User:Stillstudying by Mytwocents I did put the humorous note on the talk page of User:Stillstudying - and clearly intended it to be a message from myself, not a message from the user, or I would have put it on the user page. I frequently - as anyone who knows me and knows my work = leave notes on talk pages. Further, I am not this person, all edits to the Bonnie and Clyde talk page were made from a internet provider I have no access to, and this can be easily proven.  While we are here, I would like to equally complain that this user, Mytwocents has used every means possible, and I do mean every means possible, to obtain a false consensus on POV changes, including Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats - he did all the above in lying about me. Let us be clear on that - Mytwocents called me names on an administrator's talk page - I never treated hime so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty where he called me an "ape-over-asshole nut." Slander? Calling names? Look at his talk page - look at the history of people well and regularly making similiar complaints. I simply refused to back down from him. I ask this be formally investigated. None of the edits made by User:Stillstudying were made from any computer I have access to. Period, and I can prove this. Further, a study of the language shows definite differences - I never said anything in a couple of sentences in my life. There are numermous other differences. I then request formal discipline against Mytwocents for his harassment and false accusations against a member who was just asked - myself - to participate in a peer review rewrite (check with Kirill) in the military project because I am well thought of.

'''I deeply resent this charge, which is false, which has NO evidence that I made any edits but says I left a message (humerous, after this accuser accused me of being the person) on that person's talk page. The internet addresses will prove it cannot possibly be me, and is not, who made the edits, and I demand that wikipedia discipline Mytwocents for his repeated slanders, false accusations, and threats against me'''Again, please check the ip addresses, and confirm that I did not make those edits, am not that person, and once again,Mytwocents has resorted to name calling and slanders to attempt to bulldoze his way to a POV on an article, and those who resist that, and his bullying, are mercilessly attacked personally. He must be disciplined for this.old windy bear 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments from AnnH
If the "evidence" of this sockpuppetry is that Oldwindybear "started User:Stillstudying's talkpage while still logged in as User:Oldwindybear", then I must be a sockpuppet of Mel Etitis. The evidence is here. So far, nobody has tagged me as a Mel Etitis sockpuppet. I'm afraid that if there's no better evidence than that, the tag on Stillstudying's user page will have to go. AnnH ♫ 12:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Sock Puppet Notice
After consulting with an administrator I trust completely, I removed the sock puppet notice on my user page, until the accuser agrees to Check/User on the account and edits, which will clearly prove I did not use a sock puppet, just as it was removed administratively on User:Stillstudying's user page. This was a vicious and unfounded personal attack, clearly in retaliation for daring to oppose one of our most massively POV'd and opinionated users. I have placed absolute evidence I have no sock puppets, on this appropriate page, and since he won't request check/user, which i have, and because Mytwocents has no "evidence" as somone else noted, and has not requested check/user for the account creation and edits in question, I am removing the accusation from my user page pending check/user - I do note, once check/user is done, (which will prove I neither created the account nor made the edits) I am requesting banning for an indefinate period for Mytwocents for his calling names on an adminstrator's talk page - hugely violative of wikipedia rules - and his totally unfounded accusation here, other personal attacks on me, and editing talk pages. This person does not need to be on wikipedia, which, as Jimbo says, is founded on mutual respect and consensus, not false accusations and name calling. old windy bear 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Response from Mytwocents
Once again old windy bear demagogues the issue, and seeks to cast me in the worst possible light. I don't feel I should address the attacks he has made upon me here, because this is not the proper forum. I am not aware of making any false claims, or of any wikipedia violations. I have tried to show good faith and ask for same. Anyone who looks at the talk page will see that I have been walking on eggshells with this person. Cherry blossom tree and AndyZ came to B&C page, as a result of the peer review I started. I applaud their effort.

I didn't request checkuser because it is #7 of the seven step instructions for reporting a suspected sockpuppet. After old windy bear requested checkuser, I concurred. Of course, old windy bear portrays this in the worst light.

Mytwocents 04:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ===

Response to Mytwocents
Mytwocents walked on such eggshells that he cursed me on another editors talk page just days before this false allegation - it is important to note that he never mentioned check/use until I demanded it - let us all just see what it shows, then wikipedia administrators, who have at least two formal complaints against Mytwocents for his antics: Once this false allegation is disproven, I trust the complaints will be fully investigated, and Mytwocents brought under control. old windy bear 09:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * language violations against other users;
 * making knowingly false accusations;
 * editing the talk page and other users contributions on same;
 * erasing comments on his talk page from me, (and asking I not return - which I honored) though the comments were non-abusive, and an attempt to reach consensus; and yet coming to my talk page, and repeatedly threatening and abusing me;
 * open lying about the issues - look at everyone else working together and this one user creating all the chaos he can;

Response from User:Stillstudying - I am noone's puppet

I will make this short and sweet. I am a student in the midst of the most important exam of my life, so I don't have time to argue a great deal. I am no one sock puppet, and an internet address check will confirm this. I, like most students, was aware of this site as a valuable resource. I became interested in Bonnie and Clyde, because of the movie, and edited because I felt it was a case of political correctness against history. After a copy of uncredited edits, because the primary writer was having trouble linking, I created my own account. I would simply list my real name, but I am honestly afraid of trouble with Mytwocents who appeaers to be insane, so please check the internet address. Max 12:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Stillstudying has yet to make any contribution to wikipedia except to personally attack me or seek sanction against me. His entire edit history to date is focused on myself and parroting old windy bear. On his response above, he again makes a personal attack.
 * Mytwocents 19:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

-

Personal Attacks Such As This Are One Reason People Do Not Edit
I will again make my response short and to the point. I am no one's puppet or alter ego. I entered active editing because of personal interest in the Bonnie and Clyde issue. I have not made other edits due to two reasons: first, this personal attack on me, which is totally without any basis, and secondly, frankly, I was a student in the midst of the most important examination of my life. But I have to say, the acts of Mytwocents in accusing me, with no proof, simply because I supported a stance counter to his discourages myself, and other people, from making edits, least they be subjected to similiar personal attacks. I do consider his behavior threatening, and don't want to be attacked as oldwindybear has been, or myself. People like Mytwocents make editing on wikipedia so uncomfortable it is simply not worth the personal attacks. As I noted on my talk page, this sort of attack does not make editing a personally rewarding experience for me, that I am likely to do again. Max 13:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE ON SOCKPUPPETING
In reading about sock puppets - a subject not previously high on my list - it appears that considerable weight is given, and rightly so, to what end the supposed puppet was used. In this case, the user, who is not myself, made only a few edits, and while he supported my stance, it is notable that:
 * every user who participated - except the complainant against me here - in the peer review page was happy with the revisions, and with my participation; indeed, while I appreciate anyone's endorsement of my work, I was honestly more interested in how to improve the article, as the peer review, and talk page, clearly show:
 * AndyZ first put together a list of weasal or subjective words that needed changing which was done at once, and he endorsed the use of direct history to replace them to eliminate any question of POV;
 * Cherry blossom tree suggested we consolidate sections, without losing facts, to tighten the article, this was done immediately, and she was pleased;
 * Ewulp suggested we add facts about Bonnie's youth, rewrite paragraph two of the intro - and her rewrite was incorporated at once for which she thanked me personally, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde
 * Ewulp has since rewritten the legacy section to tighten it, and again, we worked together quite well,

My point is, that while I appreciate a nice supporting word, the supposed puppet had no real input in the article, i. e. those users who came to the peer review, like AndyZ (who also taught me to link references, finally!), and Cherry, or worked with me on the talk page, like Ewulp, are the ones who influenced the article. I felt this needed to be emphasized, in addition to what I already know, that the check/user will clear me by itself, but I felt in addtion the committee should look at the fact there were not five edits involved, none were influential in the peer review, and frankly, had I been low enough to stoop to this, unethical enough, which I am not, I would have specifically endorsed more things, more often. The alleged charge does not make sense, when you view the peer review, talk page, and who worked to achieve consensus. old windy bear 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I started the peer review on the Bonnie and Clyde page. Old windy bear immediatly impugned my motives, cautioned others not to make changes, used it as a forum to attack me, and air out his greviances towards me. All of this was wrong for a peer review page and in complete bad faith. His vitriol co-opted me from the peer review process. In short order, he declared the peer review closed.  AndyZ, Cherry blossom tree, Ewulp did a fine job, I applaud thier effort. They have been the type of editors I was looking for, and I hope they continue on the B&C page.
 * Their has been no response, to this sockpuppet inquiry, by an admin to date. I think a checkuser should be done to clear up this up.
 * Mytwocents 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mytwocents Actually, you are incorrect, as usual. AnnH is an admin, and you see her comment.  Nonetheless, I ORGINALLY REQUESTED CHECK/USER because I believe - see the comments by stillstudying -- that your crude bully tactics are effective in discouraging dissent, and stifle free expression, and you need to be banned.  Proof of a false accusation done solely in retaliation, like calling me names behind my back, may be enough to get you off wikipedia, at least for awhile, or so I have prayed to the mediation committee.  old windy bear 18:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, and first asked for, the check/user page, before this person,Mytwocents did - and he, who dares to impugn other's motives, called me names on a wikipedia editor's talk page, filed this deliberately false accusation -- yes indeed I want check user done, then I want Mytwocentsto be disciplined for:


 * constant unending personal attacks such as this one;
 * falsely accusing me of sock puppeting;
 * lying about me to editors;
 * calling me names on an administers talk page;
 * edits talk pages and deletes sections as though he is some master of the language - where are his credentials to do such? He has none except his vicious personal agenda against those who disagree with him;
 * attempting to bully, harass and intimidate every person who dares disagree with him - I have gotten two private emails from other members applauding my refusing to be bullied by his vicious, unending, vile personal, attacks.
 * why is it that every other user got along fine with the peer review except this one? BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GET HIS POV WAY.  He asked for a peer review, then whined, cried, moaned, and launched every vicious personal attack he could on me when others did not see things his way;
 * he should NOT be on wikipedia in any capacity, and I beg the committee, once the check/user is done, to punish him severely for the false accusation, and his unending personal bile;
 * I am quoting directly from one of the emails: "this person is the most arrogant and meanspirited person on wikipedia, and hopefully after this phony sock puppet charge, they will finally kick him off." I will gladly forward the emails to you!  Other people are tired of this vile neverending personal assaults that typify this user.


 * But as other folks on the page have noted, after the ip addresses are proven different, I woudl still request you simply look at the edits. The style, timing, writing - all different.  If I was inclined to use a puppet, which I would not, why didn't I do so when we were battling over Tours, which was much more heated on occasion than this!   Or to vote for me on teh military project, which I wanted badly, and came in fourth!  Puppets could have won it for me!  My point is I want my name CLEARED TOTALLY, which requires looking at the edits AFTER you find the ip addresses to be different.  (which, since I am not stillstudying, they will be!)

YES, PLEASE DO CHECK/USE, AND ASSESS THE EDITS, WHEN THE IP ADDRESSES PROVE TO BE DIFFERENT, AS THEY WILL, AND THEN PLEASE SEVERELY DISCIPLINE THIS TRULY SICK INDIVIDUAL.old windy bear 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS COMPLAINT?
Today will mark 7 days since it was filed, wikipedia policy says a decision must be rendered after 7 days, and the only administrator to come to the page said it was a ridiculous accusation. The verdict of check/user, which will show I did not make the edits should be done (as will any review fo the edits in question, as one administrator has already done, as noted earlier) and I would like this struck from the sock puppet page, obviously. Anyone doubting my work on wikipedia, please ask Kirill Lokshin I don't use sock puppets - which should have been confirmed by now by check/user, and my work history speaks for itself. Again, anyone doubting, ask those administrators who have worked with me. Heck, anyone who wants to see what I am trying to do on wikipedia, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia#.5B.5BUser:Oldwindybear.7Coldwindybear.5D.5D This was a personal attack by the most pov'd user on wikipedia. Respectfully, it has been 7 days, and I would like this unfounded accusation closed. THANKS! old windy bear 18:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Status of this complaint is that it is a rahter messy one. And I really don't know what to think of it. To me it seems that User:Stillstudying might be a sock puppet, but the evidence is pretty much weak. And User:Oldwindybear has agreed to CheckUser. But I'm pretty sure that the guys performing CheckUser would decline this one as it is by no means an important case.
 * This is what we'll do. I'll now ask few other admins to take a look at this case. And we'll make some kind of desicion about it. If you ask me, I'd rather forget about since now you have a Request for Mediation... --Dijxtra 16:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra i trust you to do the right thing - and won't object whatever you decide. Obviously, I would rather have check/user, because honestly, there is no sock puppet by me. Dijxtra you have a good rep as a fair person. Look at my work, what I have done in the military project, the body of my work in total, and ask yourself honestly if you think I would use a sock puppet. Why? Why would I ruin (if you look at my talk page, and requests for my help on projects) a reputation I have carefully built after a rocky start on wikipedia. (I will say in my defense I was on chemo - which anyone who has been through can assure you is going to make you surly as a bear, not that it excuses rudeness; but EVERY person I argued with, except one banned user, and this current accuser, now considers me a valued editor and some even a friend!)


 * I certainly trust your fairness, and that of other admins. My concern in the check/user not being done, is that honest to God, I did not use a sock puppet, but it is pretty clear by making that accusation MyTwoCents drove out a potential editor, by, and I am semi quoting stillstudying "My experience with wikipedia has not proven to be very appealing - to be accused of being someone else? Thanks, but no thanks".  That concerns me as much as my own reputation.  I wanted to leave a supporting message - but dared not, least that get me accused of other things!  Thanks to Charlie for leaving a message to a new contributor not to let a personal vendetta against me, another contributor, drive you away!  And that is my main concern in check/user not being done.  It sets a precedent that if you want to drive out people and eliminate voices you don't want heard, just involve them in a messy personal dispute.  I knew the one admin that has already been here, AnnH, made clear, as you did, that the "evidence" is pretty much non-existant.  I have gotten 3 emails of support for standing up to MyTwoCents, who is regarded as a bully.  My overriding concern, and I would beg you to at least consider asking for check/user for this reason, is that this allowed a POV person to drive out dissenting voices by falsely accusing them.  That is TERRIBLE.   The emails to me tell me, as do requests for help in projects, that wikipedia folks (at least those who know me and my work!) regard me with some degree of respect.  I am more concerned for the totally innocent contributor who appears to have abandoned us because of a totally unfounded attack.


 * Bottom line for me: I trust you, and the other admins, to look at ALL my work, check what I just did on three projects other people asked me to help with, (Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, Sassanid Empire, Early Campaigns of Charles Martel, and those just in the last couple of weeks!). Look at the consensus all the rest of us reached on Bonnie and Clyde, and I am confident you will decide whatever my faults are, I write in MY OWN NAME, AND WITH PRIDE IN MY WORK.  I like and admire User:Essjay who will see a mediation done on my own problems with my accuser, the name calling by him, the edits to other people's writings, deletions, et al.  Here I worry most about new contributors being driven out to prevent their voices from being heard.  Dijxtra do what you feel is right though, I trust you. old windy bear 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

ilo-Lima|(talk) Thank you for your courtesy in letting me know, and while I wince at the inconclusiveness - who wants a shadow when you are innocent and check/user can be used to ascertain the truth? - I believe yourself and Dijxtra fair admins, and I told him I would abide by your judgement, and so I will.