Misplaced Pages

:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:28, 16 June 2008 editJack forbes (renamed) (talk | contribs)5,052 edits →User:Fonez4mii← Previous edit Revision as of 21:30, 16 June 2008 edit undoFone4My (talk | contribs)696 edits →User:Fonez4mii: reNext edit →
Line 165: Line 165:
::I'm concerned about this particular case. It seems, if Fonez gets blocked? possible charges of 'political censurship' might be laid (considering the high emotions at ]). But, if Fonez is 'let go'? then charges of injustice will come. ] (]) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) ::I'm concerned about this particular case. It seems, if Fonez gets blocked? possible charges of 'political censurship' might be laid (considering the high emotions at ]). But, if Fonez is 'let go'? then charges of injustice will come. ] (]) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
:::It has nothing to do with politics. It is a straightforeward case of, is he a sockpuppet user or not? Anything else means nothing, ] (]) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC) :::It has nothing to do with politics. It is a straightforeward case of, is he a sockpuppet user or not? Anything else means nothing, ] (]) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree there. And since I have not used my IP for any of the 3 points above, I am clear of sockpuppetry. ]]] 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


;Conclusions ;Conclusions


Revision as of 21:30, 16 June 2008

User:Fonez4mii

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fonez4mii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

84.13.166.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SOCKPUPPET2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Jack forbes (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User Fonez4mii and ip 84.13.166.40 (talk) began a discussion at talk Scotland on the 14th of June using exactly the same arguments. This was user Fonez4mii's first edit for over a month and was the ip's first edit ever. I became suspicious as time went on and when I spotted this diff alarm bells rang. When the very argumentative discussion was brought to the attention of an admin and he mentioned a check user may be in order, the ip, other than one comment, never returned.

Comments

The user is very aggressive and tries to create momentum by forcing straw polls then claiming that 9-6 vote on a controversial issues indicates that everyone agrees with his/her. Lots of POV accusations including generic ones without much evidence. It seems a similar style to other Sock puppets on the UK related pages. I think its worth looking into. --Snowded (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the user was being aggressive or trying to push a POV and it is clear that you are WP:ATTACKing all the editors on the UK talk page who don't agree with you. He/she was not even trying to claim the straw poll is consensus and was engaging in discussion which you were not participating in and just kept posting the same views constantly. I would think it is worth looking into that you are accusing anybody who does not agree that Scotland is not a constituent country is a sockpuppet. Joshii└┘ 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say both editors certainly have similar editing habits and a similar style. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but I definitely think it is worth looking into. The above provided diff certainly does seem to be a tell tale sign. --Cameron (T|C) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What is this? The IP address was me. I accidentally got logged out. I never denied it was me. I haven't used it to sockpuppet or inflate any votes. I even said myself on the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom that no IP addresses should be allowed to vote. That other account is not me though. I don't know why you could not just have asked me to be honest? Fonez4mii (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be that was worrying. Would you care to explain it? --Cameron (T|C) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Well after I had accidentally got logged out once and started to engage in conversation with GoodDay, I kept logging out to get to my IP's talk page to contiue the conversation with him. I then forgot to log back in for the main discussion, so i had written "my talk page" from my IP address, even though I was trying to say the talk page of my account. So i logged onto my account and corrected it. Sorry if any inconvenience has been caused. I must say though, it really would have been more helpful to have just asked me in the first place. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On a further notice, i find the "aggressive" description above a personal attack, simply because I am fighting for a NPOV (along with the now clear majority of contributors there). Fonez4mii (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


I think this was a bad faith nomination all stemmed from a long discussion on Talk:United Kingdom. The nominator has a different view than the accused over a contraversial subject. Above the accused admits the IP is his/hers and was editing whilst logged out. There has been no votestacking with the IP and has not been used to avoid a block or the 3 revert rule as far as I know. All in all pretty bad faith tbh. Joshii└┘ 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the discussion on the Scotland talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't tell us anything. I told you the IP was me. I told you why I logged out to use it - to talk to GoodDay after i accidentally got logged out the first time - not to inflate any votes, and if you notice, I have not used my IP to vote on anything. I consider you try to make it look like I'm doing something "wrong" simply because i am opposing your POV at the United Kingdom. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's all the same thing, you are just spreading it around wikipedia when it should be centralised discussion on Talk:United Kingdom. Joshii└┘ 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, the fact that JackForbes went round to every single other user involved to tell them about this case, yet did not tell me, shows that there is a clear indication that he/she was more interesting in trying to tarnish my reputation than actually see if I was a sockpuppet or not, and therefore, lower my opposing quality against his POV on the UK page. This is unnacceptable behaviour, and certainly done with some level of bad faith. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, the fact that a non-existant user was added to the suspected sockpuppet, simply to make it look on appearance that I had been editing with an account, is also clearly done for the reasons above. I have explained the reasons for why I was using my IP address:
  • I accidentally got logged out first of all.
  • I then engaged in conversation with GoodDay with my IP.
  • In order to continue the conversation with GoodDay, I had to log out to get to my IP talkpage.
  • I did not user my IP to inflate any vote, and in fact was the person who wrote on the vote that no IPs were allowed.
I think this case is done, and an eye should be kept on JackForbes's actions, per this and his behaviour on the UK talk page. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't even try that. you do not say when the case is done. When the admins come in, they decide. Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no need for further comment on this page, as I have given the reasons why my IP was used. You are however in the wrong, for:
  • Accusing me of being a sockpuppet of an account with no basis (I am not talking about the IP address), showing you had alterior motives.
  • You went round informing everyone else of this page, except for me.
  • You appear to be using this simply to combat the fact that I have repelled your POV at the UK page.
  • You continue to argue even after I am done. This discussion needs no further debate, as I have already told you the IP address was mine.
  • The fact you came here straight away without even asking me if the IP was mine, shows, again, other motives.
As I said, I am done with this discussion. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look at Camerons page you will find that he told me I should place a Template on your page and I found it difficult to figure it out, so he kindly did it for me. Do you remember on the Scotland talk page you accused me of possibly using a sockpuppet? Strange how it turns out. I suspected you from an early stage and believe I will be vindicated. Jack forbes (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, when did you let everyone know you were using an ip? Was it when you were accusing me of trolling within a few minutes of each other? When? Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On this page, after Cameron had the decency to inform me of what you were suggesting. As soon as I saw, I instantly remarked that it was me, and I never denied that it was. You are clearly using this as a means of attack, and I am not going to participate in your games. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
And here was me thinking there were two people with the same opinion and it was just you all along. It was also strange that after the admin said there might be a case for a checkuser there was only one comment from the ip to say you suspected me of sockpupperty and then nothing. Did you suddenly have no problems logging on? Jack forbes (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please let's all assume good faith. It was me who told Jack to inform the users who were involved in the discussions. Further, I took the liberty of informing you when he forgot. I also advised him to add the template. When he was unsure about it's placement, I placed the template for him. I take full responsibility for any actions I have made. --Cameron (T|C) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You have nothing to be responsible for Cameron, I was the one who was unsure of the procedure. Jack forbes (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be honest, I'd be disinclined to assume good faith on Fonez4mii's part. After the comment about the talk page, I noted here to what I thought was simply an anon that he should probably make an account himself instead of accusing others of using anon addresses. At that stage, he could have cleared up who he was. That wasn't done, and as such I would hold the view that the anon account was simply being used in an attempt to show there was more support for a position than there really way. It's not votestacking, of course, but it is in clear violation of WP:SOCK. --Schcambo 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that Schambo is one of the few editors, along with JackForbes and Snowded who is opposing us on the UK page. I have explained the reasons why I used my IP address. I never once denied the IP being mine. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone's position at the UK talk page is irrelevant. The simple fact is that you were using an anonymous IP address to attempt to advance your own viewpoint, and you've only admitted such after being pulled up here about it. --Schcambo 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Untrue. I did not use my IP to advance any kind of viewpoint. As stated already, I accidentally got logged out (I closed my browser) and I started engaging in a conversation with GoodDay on my IP's talkpage. I then realised and logged in again to continue discussion, logging in and out to continue to talk to GoodDay. However, I forgot to log in several times. If I was trying to enlarge my vote, I would have been "talking to myself" using my IP and my account on the discussion page, which I did not do. I have not mentioned the IP thing since because I have since then ensured I was constantly logged in, and even wrote on the page that no IPs should be allowed to vote.
And in some ways it is certainly interesting that all those who are pushing the POV on the UK page are here trying to pretend I have done something wrong. Point made. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You were using your IP and your account to make it appear there were two people rather than one with your opinions. You don't have to talk to your IP to do that. You have not answered the question, why did you tell an admin that you would not be surprised if I was using an IP in the same discussion, when you were doing exactly that, and did not own up to it till you came to this page? Jack forbes (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Because there was a difference. You were actually talking to the IP address. Myself however, did not use the IP to inflate any kind of oppinion. I am becoming tired of your constant refusal to get the point on both here and on the UK page. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It is rather interesting, also, to look at JackForbes' contributions. The whole last page seem to be primarily on his sockpuppetery accusation, and has not made a single constructive edit since. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You are now clutching at straws. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, please reply with a better response. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Ahem. The irony in your assertion that only those who hold opposing viewpoints to your own are trying to question your credibility is quite brilliant! Using your IP, you yourself accused Jack Forbes, someone with whom you didn't agree, of using a sockpuppet, here, therefore implying that the 'other side' was breaking the rules in their arguing of their case. You've already done what you're accusing us of doing. Point made. --Schcambo 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my point above. Point made. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you can stop making baseless allegations. If you believe Jack Forbes was using another IP address, then make a sockpuppetry case. If not, then drop it. Second of all, you were attempting to blacken the credibility and opinion of a user holding a different opinion to yours. You did it using a different anon account. That alone is in breach of WP:SOCK, as deflating the opinion of the other side is just as bad as inflating the opinion of your own side. --Schcambo 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I did no such thing. I at no point denied those edits were me. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course you never denied they were you, that's because you never admitted they were you in the first place! --Schcambo 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it was never asked. Please try and use an ounce of logic. -.- Fonez4mii (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:SOCK. If you use two accounts, the onus is on you to make that clear, not on us to find out: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry". --Schcambo 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have not used two accounts. I accidentally got logged out. There is a difference between doing that and clearly making another account to pretend to be two people. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But you did pretend to be two people. Do you not understand that? You engaged in the same debate using two accounts. Regardless of whether you got logged in or logged out, that gives the appearance that more people support a position than actually do. And that's sockpuppetry, my friend. --Schcambo 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Only if I used my IP address to inflate a vote or oppinion. This way, all I did was talk as if I was one person (which I am). So sorry to disappoint you, but I have not sockpuppeted. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are you where pretending to be two different people --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I missed that one! I think that just about confirms it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How does that source show me in any way pretending to be two different people?? Fonez4mii (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In your own words 84.13.166.40 is certainly not a troll for bringing up a valid point. 84.13.166.40 being yourself of course, and responding to someone twice using your account and ip Fonez4mii @ 18:15 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 sockpupperty--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I ask again, how does that show me pretending to be two different people? All it shows is that I am showing I was bringing up a valid point. Deary me, please read. Also, if you would like to accuse me of any more sockpuppet allegations, why dont you go over to Talk:United Kingdom right now, where I accidentally got logged out again. Go on... you know you want to; I mean, Jack Forbes has obviously sat here all day simply on this page, since this is the only thing he has even contributed to recently. And its strange isn't it, how all the people who accuse me of having done something wrong are the exact same people that we have been fighting off for pushing a POV at the UK discussion. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't go near the UK talk page and try to compromise with someone who uses a sockpuppet. Jack forbes (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, I have not used a sockpuppet. In fact, I am the one who wrote on the poll, that no IP addresses should be allowed. You are tiring me now, and you are embarassing yourself. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you read none of the evidence given against you? Admins will certainly read everything, then make their decisions. So we shall wait for that. Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
move indent You where clearly pretenting to be two different and where caught out with the Goodday comment as the above diffs clearly show this one] you say you confirm you are brining up a valid point then why not say that then why refer to the IP address as a third person ? and these two Fonez4mii @ 18:15 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 say it all responding to the same person twice within 4 minutes and both with critical comments and starting new sentence each time --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If I was pretending to be different people, I would have said things like "yes, fonez4mii is right". However, I did not, and simply spoke as one person. If I was using it as a sockpuppet, I would have denied it. However, I completely admitted it was true the moment I heard people asking, so don't give me any rubbish about how I was using it to pretend to be someone else. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well you said the was IP right, the IP of course being yourself there is no difference. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually did not say "the IP" - I gave the name of which IP it was, since there were two IPs, just to clarify. You don't have an argument to stand on, and it is increasingly clear that your primary aim is to accuse me of sockpuppetery for opposing your non-neutral POV on the UK page, and I am quickly tiring of your immature behaviour. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to thrash petty insults at eachother and to try pretend eachother has done something wrong. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But why give the name of the IP when it was yourself, you never at any point said that the IP was yourself intact you did the opposite and its you and your IP alter ego who was throwing around the petty insults, and even more references to the IP as a third person diff!
I don't think you're listening, and it is becoming repetitively boring repeating myself. I referred to the exact name of the IP address so it was clear which IP I was talking about. And I behaved identically with both my account and my IP. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You said "84.13.166.40 is..." which is a synomym in the minds of most people for "the IP is...". Why are you trying to defend this? Why would you refer to an account you were using as if it were a completely different person who was behind it? You are the one who doesn't have an argument to stand on here.
Yes you referred to the name of the IP, but you didn't feel like dropping in "oh and by the way I may be talking as if this IP is another person, but it's actually me after getting logged out", did you? --Schcambo 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have already explained, there were 2 IPs, and referring to the exact one clarified. I, at no point in the conversation, made no attempt to name myself as a different person. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A Checkuser will quell any concerns. The innocent will be exonerated 'or' the guilty will be blocked. Case closed -eitherway-. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But there isn't any need to do a checkuser. I've admitted the IP was me as soon as was asked. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry (I didn't read the 'entire' discussion). Hmmm, well seeing as you've admitted ownership of the IP address? I recommend (at talk: Scotland) scratching out your IP address postings or re-naming them with your Username. Also, I see no reason (IMHO) to apply a 'block'. Please, understand my reasoning insn't because I support 'constituent county'. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry GooDay, he can't scratch out his IP address, this is evidence in this case. Jack forbes (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I do this now? Fone4Me 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A block should be given the user pretended to be two different people. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No it should not, since i did not pretend to be two different people, and openly said I was the IP address when asked. The only reason you wish for me to be blocked is because you wish for there to be one less oppose against you on the UK page. Fone4Me 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Note to Fonez4mii: Don't rename or change anything until the case has been reviewed by an admin! --Cameron (T|C) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok Fone4Me 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my lack of clarification Fonez (and everybody else). Only if Fonez is found innocent, he could fix his IP postings (better yet, put his Username next to the IP address. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But he wont be found innocent he has admitted he made the IP postings, the point is he was making out that the IP was not him when making those posts as the evidence clearly shows something he is denying now. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But I did not use the IP to:
  • Evade blocks or bans
  • Inflate polls
  • Avoid 3RR
Meaning, I am innocent of sockpuppetry, wether you like it or not. Fone4Me 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this particular case. It seems, if Fonez gets blocked? possible charges of 'political censurship' might be laid (considering the high emotions at United Kingdom). But, if Fonez is 'let go'? then charges of injustice will come. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with politics. It is a straightforeward case of, is he a sockpuppet user or not? Anything else means nothing, Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree there. And since I have not used my IP for any of the 3 points above, I am clear of sockpuppetry. Fone4Me 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Conclusions