Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Reneec


 * 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:Reneec

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Vary | Talk 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are SPA's dedicated to getting David Saks of Memphis onto Wikipedia. Identical prose style: The latter account appeared a few days ago and picked right back up where the former had left off, down to including a laundry list of complaints against the same editors that Reneec had been railing against up until he was indef blocked in August of 2006.
 * Evidence

This request may be counterproductive at this time and may be better suited for later. I am attempting to talk to both sides. Vary and Jersyko are opposed to David Saks. I am neutral. I might note that not all editors are socks as the checkuser previously showed that there are at least two separate editors, not just Reneec. See. I suspect that this matter has no chance of resolution if focused on the sock issue but has some chance of resolution if the David Saks song issue is resolved. Some of the previous editors have discussed this in 2006. A summary of ideas might be useful in a RFC. It has something to do with possible inclusion of a David Saks song in the Memphis, Tennessee article since at least one song was cited in a city council resolution. Archtransit (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * First, I am not 'opposed' to David Saks, and I'd appreciate if you would rephrase that statement as it implies that I have some sort of personal vendetta against the man. I am opposed to including David Saks on the article on Memphis, because of past consensus that he and his song do not merit inclusion.
 * The song issue has been resolved. Long ago.  This editor would not accept the consensus, and continued to argue and make ever more serious personal attacks until he was blocked for threatening to interfere with an editor professionally.  Encouraging further discussion on the matter is only going to expose the editors in good standing who have dealt with this case in the past to further threats of the kind this editor was blocked for.  There is a reason why indef blocked editors are not permitted to return to editing under new accounts.
 * Finally, the checkuser case did not prove that there were multiple editors involved. Checkuser can provide very strong positive evidence of abuse, but very little in the way of negative evidence.  All that it showed was that Reneec did not edit from that range while logged in.  And anyway, as the evidence I provided has nothing to do with past IP abuse, I'm not sure why the fact is even relevant.  -- Vary | Talk 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock, indef'ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * Note: - Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself. FT2 (Talk 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)