Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship

User:CABlankenship

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Kja er (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * On the page Friederich Nietzsche I questioned the exactness of a quote. The phrase "their entire racism." seemed awkward, and I posted a request that the editor who added it verify from the text.  CABlankenship responded that ?he? had added it and it was correct.  I asked him to verify from the actual text.  He refused and responded with counteraccusation of POV - but I do not want text changed.  I tagged the item.  He removed the tag.  I added it again, and a new user, abrhm17 appeared, saying he could verify the quote.  But abrhm17 is entirely new with no contributions and the talk page for abrhm17 was none other than CABlankenship himself.  See edits:
 * 1) (cur) (last) 22:38, 1 January 2009 Abrhm17 (Talk | contribs) (163,842 bytes) (→Kaufmann quote) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 22:34, 1 January 2009 Abrhm17 (Talk | contribs) (163,848 bytes) (→Kaufmann quote) (undo)


 * User accuses me of trolling. I have previously editted Friederich Nietzsche and had no idea he would claim ownership of tagged quote or abrhm17 would appear with his talk page in edit history.  See history above, second edit was to change talk page linked to abrhm17 user name on edit signature Kja er (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC).


 * Comments
 * What he could possibly mean by "talk page for abrhm17 was none other htan CAblankenship himself" I can only guess. I am not abrhm17.  How can we resolve this matter conclusively?  Can an admin please check our IP's?  I am being trolled by Kjaer because of a previous dispute over the Ayn Rand page.  CABlankenship (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please request a checkuser. CABlankenship (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This business about my talk page is of absolutely no relevance. I'm lazy and I prefer to paste in the "signature code" of someone else and then change his username to "abrhm17". In the particular case that Kjaer mentions, I omitted to adjust one instance of "CABlankenship". I realized my mistake only after saving my edit.


 * Will Kjaer please refrain from laying on people extreme and serious charges on the basis of what is at best scanty evidence? abrhm17 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is reason to believe that this accusation was based on personal vendetta over an edit dispute at Ayn Rand. CABlankenship has in fact produced a source for the quote is question, and it has been added to the main article, and is on the talk page. And I agree, there is nothing supporting this charge other than the fact that these two edits seem to agree. The talk page comment makes very little sense, as abrhm17 does not have a talk page at all. Zazaban (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know what he meant by "same talk page". Admin, please verify this false charge with an IP check or some other method. CABlankenship (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Abrhm, to make your own sig after a discussion quote, type four tildes CABlankenship (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So here is what has happened as I understand it: Abrhm (not knowing that you could just type four tildes to make his own sig in a discussion page) pasted from my signaturequote and inserted his name in place of CAblankenship, but missed one. Kjaer then claimed we had the same "talk page", whatever that means. This is a personal vendetta caused by his anger over a Chomsky quote that he has been repeatedly trying to remove or cast doubt on for weeks. I have long since removed myself from that debate, but I was the original poster of the citation, and I argued with him over it for some time. He is now trolling me. CABlankenship (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur entirely. In fact, CABlankenship should be praised for his tireless efforts to improve the article in question, which has been left stagnating in a state of original research and POV for a very long time. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).

The problem is not the quote at all. My sole intent was to verify its accuracy, which was met with bizarre hostility (see this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/User:CABlankenship&curid=20918310&diff=261347406&oldid=261347322) outright refusal to verify the text, removal of the tag before the quote was verified, and the appearance of a new editor with the same talk page as the person in dispute. Accusations of my POV, desire to change the text, etc., are absurd - all I wanted was verification of an obviously oddly worded phrase.  CABlankenship was unable to show good faith, to refrain from calling me names, from vandalizing a tag or to refrain from multiple reverts of an inquiry in good faith. Kja er (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look right above you, there's a perfectly good explanation for the talk page. None of the rest has anything to do with sockpuppetry, and if you look at the talk page of Friederich Nietzsche you'll find a somewhat apologetic post by CABlankenship. I think that ought to settle the matter. Zazaban (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we resolve this? Hopefully an Admin can just check our IP's or something along those lines. CABlankenship (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I also want to note that Kjaer has been pulling this same garbage in the Ayn Rand page for at least a month. I added a citation from Noam Chomsky which was a negative comment about Rand, and he has bitterly disputed this quote and tried to have it removed, changed, or simply moved to another page/section for quite some time. I retired from that debate a little over a week ago, but I see it is still raging. Watch this user. CABlankenship (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits on a different page for which no accusations of wrongdoing have arisen have nothing to do with this matter. Blankenship's dislike of those edits (to wit, his remark "garbage" above) does not entitle him to act the way he has here - although he has explicitly used that as a justification for his actions, which have been out of line. At this point I see no prior edits by abrhm17 on the page in question. The timing and lack of history are suspicious. Perhaps all we have here is a user who thinks his anger and suspicion allow him to vandalize tags placed in good faith and tell editors that he refuses to verify his own source. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that a second editor with no history showed up to do the same exact reversions. I am not in a position to know. Kja er (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been told by multiple people that you are wrong on this, and your behavior is appalling. I believe that you have sought me out because of our previous dispute on the Ayn Rand page, and decided to vandalize a completely unrelated article that anyone could see I had spent serious time on simply by checking my edit history. It's clear that, since you have driven the Rand page into being locked, you are bored and perhaps you wish to troll. You disputed the accuracy of one word from a citation that was listed by book and page, and refused to be reasonable about the situation. I believe you were trying to rile me up on purpose. You have continued to misrepresent both me, and the nature of this dispute. You have not told the truth about hardly anything. You brought up a trivial matter over one word (dealing with the Nazi's and their 'racism', you demanded that it be changed to 'theory of racism', even though this was not what my source said. You then accused me of being wrong in my provided quote for that source, and challenged its accuracy), which was trivial and would have only served to confuse the article if you had your way. The citation was clearly given with both book and page number, yet you demanded that the citation be called into question until you 'went to the bookstore'. You have not apologized for this, even though you now surely see that you are wrong, as I even gave you a link proving that I had quoted the source accurately. In my opinion, it's clear you were doing this to annoy me. Disgraceful. I have requested administrator attention to this clearly false charge. CABlankenship (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to support CABlankenship, Kjaer is an aggressive editor with a history of pro-Rand additions and deletions and little understanding of WP:OR. Reversion (and tag teaming with one other editor) make a collaborative atmosphere difficult.  On the Ayn Rand page one has to choose between trying to get a NPOV and facing abuse, or just giving up.  You end up getting sucked into edit wars. At one point I corrected one his edits to conform with the text in his citation.  It was immediately reversed with an accusation that I hadn't read the material.  Corrected there was no apology just a claim that his paraphrase was more accurate.   Using accusations of sock puppetry seems to be just another tactic that has been seized on.  -- Snowded   TALK  07:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is a lie that I "showed up to do the same exact reversions" as CABlankenship. In fact, my account was created a day before the run-in with Kjaer. I defended CABlankenship in another discussion pertaining to the Nietzsche article, which had nothing to do with the quotation Kjaer stupidly contested. Abrhm17 (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, Abrhm and I are colleagues. However, I'm in the United States while he is in the UK.  I would have thought a routine check on IP's or ISP's would show this, but I don't know how that works here.  Our ISP's are separated by an ocean. Also, since I'm unaware of the rules on this I will ask the question: Is it against wiki policy for colleagues to support each other over the veracity of a reference?  CABlankenship (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a conclusion - just a note to others - please do not comment in the conclusion section unless you are actually an admin making a conclusion in the case. And especially do not comment in the conclusion section if you are a party to the case itself. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * Unfortunately there are not enough active admins to deal with long winded cases like these. Please see WP:MEDIATE if this is, essentially, a content dispute. If you need any help mediating please feel free to contact me personally. Scarian  Call me Pat!  05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)