Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Desiphral

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desiphral (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 15 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Desiphral

Desiphral (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected


Report date September 13 2009, 22:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Triplestop x3

Based on this link which is from the user's Elance account, [1] (click on the projects link in the box) this user is at it again. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#Proposed_ban_for_Elance_user_Tayzen All of this user's sockpuppet accounts stopped at the same time so it is likely that he is using ban evasion through sockpuppets. Triplestop x3 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to CheckUser, I am asking for an inspection on the sock puppets' IPs and/or neighboring IP ranges (if possible) to find suspicious users. Please refer to the Projects section on the elance page for edits to look out for. Projects listed include a blatant PR vanity page for some CEO and a spam page on some restaurant chain.


From Elance job description


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I mention that only two months ago I went through a checkuser on exactly the same accusations. The issue was that I mentioned then sincerely the relation with the other people (some of them now part of Tayzen team), although I could shut up and wait for a checkuser to get me clear. However, I met the guys with strong opinions against paid editing and I got blocked for speaking freely about this issue. This while those users actually accused of paid editing were free to edit. Fortunately, I met on wikien-l people more open to talk about such issues (the relevant thread), one of them run a chekuser, found nothing wrong and unblocked me. I was also covered in an article of one of the teams working in this field.

It seems that my accusations of unprofessionalism and bias that got me blocked then are once again confirmed. There were no apologies two months ago after I was unblocked, on the contrary, now my userpage has again the "sockpuppet" notice. For an issue that got no new developments in the meantime (in fact, as Nathan remarked, none of the accused accounts are editing). I mention that I keep having a cordial relation in real life with some of the people from Tayzen team that are accused of paid editing, I keep saying that the actual edits of a certain user should be judged, not the the views and the motivation for editing of the respective user. And, of course, this issues should be discussed openly, otherwise we get this kind of Wikipedia culture, as I said then and I was blocked, "ending up as a police state or as an African National Park with thrilled hunters". By now, the real problem brought by paid editing seems to be this permitted "mob violence" against suspects. And, of course, the vested interests, as pointed out by the guys from Tayzen team. There is no real interest in actually dealing with the paid editing, there is no focus on specific paid editing, but on specific users. There are other Elance accounts gaining Wikipedia-related projects, but only Tayzen is targeted at Wikipedia, thus only helping the others getting the projects, the actual paid editing is not decreasing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desiphral, you previously admitted to allowing other people to use your account to edit but stated that you now understood that this violates Wikipedia policy. Can you describe (again, if you have before, and as concisely as possible) your relationship to these other people, whether you or others at your place of business/residence continue to edit using your accounts or others, and whether you or others are paid for these edits? Your answers will inform the results of this case. Thanks, Nathan T 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the years 2006 - 2008, especially in the summer months, some of the edits of my English Wiki user account were the result of real life talk of me and other people in front of the computer with me at keyboard or with others at keyboard. Everything was under my supervision, I was pleased that Wikipedia coverage on the specific field I'm interested in increased considerably with material I'm not ashamed of (and also a bit extended in Wikipediae in languages I don't know) and that also those who participated gained experience of editing at Wikipedia. After the summer of 2008, I did not have time for Wikipedia anymore. Personally, I hope I'll have the time to come back someday and continue the editing in what I'm interested in. Some of these guys kept an interest in Wikipedia and went with their own accounts. Two months ago I learned about what is saying about me here in connection to them, then, when I came to respond, I learned also that my previous practice could be interpreted as a multiple account. Regarding the current status, I still don't edit and I don't know whether I'll have the time to resume it soon. As for the others, after seeing the current atmosphere surrounding the "paid editing" issue, it's obvious they won't be fairly treated. My opinion is that first this issue should be regulated to assure in practice a fair approach, not some users telling them that their work is illicit and spam, no matter what. Plus that my current discussions with them are mostly about what are they are currently experiencing and on theoretical level about the concept of paid editing, there is no need to dwell in specific details. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 17:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status –   In progress: This case is being actively reviewed by a Checkuser.    Requested by Triplestop x3 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk endorsed However, you should probably list the suspected socks listed in the AN thread here for convenience. MuZemike 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that none of the above accounts are editing or currently blocked. Desiphral was unblocked per this message by Fred Bauder to EyeSerene, and a conversation on WikiEn-l (in which I participated). Nathan T 16:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Taking a look. Will note for now that Yaromunna (talk · contribs), Vpopescu (talk · contribs), and Chabaka (talk · contribs) are all   Stale. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still in progress, I'm asking some other checkusers to take a look at it as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on the mailing list. Brandon (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Desiphral&oldid=314150351"