Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ray andrew

User:Ray andrew

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

—Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray andrew &mdash; checkuser request resulted in a "likely" that Ray andrew and Proctor spock are one and the same.
 * Proctor spock was created while Ray andrew was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Proctor spock immediately began edit warring over an article Ray andrew had edit warred over in the past. I immediately requested a RFCU as I suspected this new editor was merely Ray evading his 3RR block.
 * The account continues to edit and "contribute" by reverting edits similar to Ray, as well as sharing opinions similar to Ray (this is, obviously, not evidence enough by itself, but is contributory I believe).
 * For an account recently created, Proctor spock seems to be very familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies/procedures.
 * Evidence (with responses)
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray andrew &mdash; checkuser request resulted in a "likely" that Ray andrew and Proctor spock are one and the same.
 * The only evidence that that conclusion was based on was that one of us (not me) was using an open proxy. Thats pretty thin if you ask me. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alison's result was (surprisingly) faulty and I am still in the process of asking her about this. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Proctor spock was created while Ray andrew was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Proctor spock immediately began edit warring over an article Ray andrew had edit warred over in the past. I immediately requested a RFCU as I suspected this new editor was merely Ray evading his 3RR block.
 * From the time stamp I see he was created near the end of my ban, why would I create a sock puppet just before I was to be unbanned? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From the time stamp, you can see I created this account after Locke Cole inappropriately removed content about 51 GB (triple layer) HD DVD discs from the HD DVD article. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The account continues to edit and "contribute" by reverting edits similar to Ray, as well as sharing opinions similar to Ray (this is, obviously, not evidence enough by itself, but is contributory I believe).
 * Is it hard to beleave that other editors would have similar views in that dispute? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While we share some views, we differ on others. In general, though, we both respect WP:NPOV above our own desires to promote a particular platform.  At least, that is what I have observed. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For an account recently created, Proctor spock seems to be very familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies/procedures.
 * Finally, a compliment. Though I do not think it was meant as one.  I do know this -- I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies and procedures as an editor who has been through arbitration.  Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I can provide diffs if needed, but I think the RFCU coupled with just looking through their contributions should be enough. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure it was appropriate for Ray to respond directly to the evidence, but I'll leave it alone for now. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A fuzzy investigation gives a fuzzy result. Where is the evidence? Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The RFCU should be enough on it's own, but the editing patterns visible just by opening up each of your contribs stands out like a sore thumb. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. You are saying that look over there in that general direction is enough?  Sounds fuzzy, not of the warm feel good inside variety, but of the inconclusive variety. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Initial comment by Proctor spock: This is disappointing. Rather than address the merits of my arguments over at Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats, Locke Cole has resorted to personally attacking me and Ray andrew as being "sock puppets".  It is aggravating and it muddies the waters when you are trying to address a difficult content issue on an article to be falsely accused like this.  While assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe Locke Cole can honesty hold the belief we are still one and the same at this time.  I hope that this case can finally put an end to being falsely accused by Locke Cole of being someone I am not.  It would be nice to get back to discussing the article and not one another. Proctor spock (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As you've been told, pointing out that you are a sock puppet of Ray andrew is in fact not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you do not know I am a sock puppet of another editor, it is a personal attack. Please, as I have asked you repeatedly, stop it. If you must attack, focus on the arguments, not the person.  Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But I do know. And you've already been told it's not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not get to decide what is and is not a personal attack. You have been personally attacking me repeatedly on the Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page and asked nicely to stop on multiple occasions.  Again, I ask, please stop with the personal attacks. They do nothing to add to the discussion, and instead serve to distract and delay, unnecessarily prolonging the formation of consensus. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This accusation has mainly been used to discredit me and my positions and to avoid the real debate. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No Ray, it's not some insidious plot to win a debate on an article. I just like knowing that I'm not being abused (as I believe I am) by someone who is manipulating the discussion by using a sockpuppet. Someone who used the same sock puppet to evade a 3RR ban and revert war on another, related, page. I think those are the real reasons I brought these accusations. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, trying to get another editor blocked who shares views similar to an editor you already oppose is a way to win a debate on an article by silencing the opposing side. You have only filed this sock puppet case when it became clear your desired version of the chart had fallen out of favor.  Funny that. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You would do well to take this seriously rather than continuing to try and bring up an article dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You brought this suspected sock puppet case because of an article dispute. As interesting a movie as Secret Window is, the world becomes absurd when you ask me to imagine that I am Ray andrew, whom I have never met and do not know outside these bits.  I take my duties as an editor seriously, which is why I have stuck around through your abuse. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently Locke thinks warnings about his personal attacks are silly --Ray andrew (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're irrelevant. An RFCU has resulted in a "likely" that you and Proctor spock are one and the same. Besides, you've already been told that those aren't personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * YOU can tell me that they are not personal attacks all day but, it sure feels like it to me. Practly every other comment you made recently on Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats accused me or Proc. of being sockpuppets. The "Likely" conclusion of the RFCU does not give you the right to go around and publicly smear me because you disagree with my views, that is a personal attack. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ray andrew here. Locke Cole, your belief that because someone wrote something you are now free to personally attack me and Ray andrew is erroneous.  You are responsible for what you say. You can't put this on another editor. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How shall I count your errors... Oh, yeah, and always remember to cover your tracks in the woods, even bears can be smart, if they try. M1N (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RFCU=Request For CheckUser
 * if RFCU's come back "likely", anything that even seems like two accounts supporting one another is used against you.
 * Besides, the admins have tools even I can not access. This includes IP location tracking.
 * that wraps it up.

The request for checkuser has been revised and the outcome is "". Proctor spock (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet it still remains that the original outcome was "likely" and that the timing of your account creation (while Ray was blocked for 3RR) and your edit history since then reinforce the idea that you and he are one and the same. You support nearly the same points of view, you have the same habit of revert warring (something a Wikipedia newbie shouldn't be too familiar with, yet your first three edits consist of reverting a single page to your preferred version), and so forth. I still say you're a sockpuppet of Ray and this wikibreak he's on is a sham. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: both accounts have denied responding to this claim: I believe Ray andrew may be evading a 3RR block, the Proctor spock (talk · contribs) account was created today and within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Specifically: ...within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. ... Therefore: You like pie. But seriously, this SSP war has been all about blocks, name-calling, and hatefulness. How about we actually use actual proof. M1N (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll respond :) Note that the reverts Proc. made when he signed up were not on the same page and not on the same topic. He was reverting the removal by Locke of well sourced information, strange thing to get banned for, but I guess Locke has some friends. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CU was inconclusive and this SSP is nothing but a fingerpointing match, and uncivil at that. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions