Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 25 September 2011

FaheyUSMC

FaheyUSMC (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive.

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

15 September 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• 76.31.236.91 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Previous SPI page Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive shows 108.109.127.141 (talk · contribs) making edits like this to Least I Could Do and confirmed the relationship to FaheyUSMC.

76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs) has a first edit extremely similar to the diff above. The second edit by that IP shows a remarkable knowledge of policy - Edit Warring (see edit summary) while reinstating that same contentious edit.

The other confirmed sock, KSEVWatch (talk · contribs) made this more verbose but effectively the same edit as that of both IPs named above.

Two other diffs that show strong behavioral evidence are and in two different (almost identical) RFCs related to the insertion and sourcing of the same obscure piece of drama in two related articles.

The IP was blocked by me as a loudly quacking sock, and two admins declined unblocking on the same overwhelming behavioral evidence. Barek re-protected Least I Could Do recognizing the sockpuppetry (noted in the edit summary) as well.

Later, 76.31.236.91 was unblocked by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) despite not fully understanding the situation as evidenced by this talk page post.

Subsequent edits by the unblocked IP have shown a remarkable knowledge of policy , ,, , & -- far too much for a new user and the atagonism shown towards FaheyUSMC's foe, Elizium23 (talk · contribs) seems far too much for it to be a coincidence. Given the insistence on pursuing that virtually identical edit and the antagonism towards Elizium23, this sock/meat needs to be reblocked.

Please note that there was a coordinated sock/meatpuppet attack by FaheyUSMC at a recent Dragoncon gathering, declared in this this and this edit and briefly discussed in this archived ANI discussion.

I urge the reviewing admins to review the similarity to the edits of the entire Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of FaheyUSMC in the context of this SPI especially the suspected IPs which likely include some meatpuppets. This IP is clearly related to the previous disruption either directly or indirectly but is continuing the effort. Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read through this stupid, stupid dispute, and I understand it quite well, thank you. The anon's edit was substantially (although not completely) identical to Fahey's because he reverted to it. The hostility with Elizium started after the revert war. The anon was told that the issue had already been discussed, which it had -- but he was not pointed to the exhaustive discussion because it was on a talk page that got deleted. And we do tell people to read policy first, and he's become more knowledgeable about policy by having lengthy conversations with me on IRC. He is not a sock. To describe him as a meatpuppet would be stretching the meaning of the phrase beyond usefulness: Sohmer's fanbase is large enough (witness the amount that was donated) that it is not wholly implausible for two separate persons to want to include this statement in the article, without collusion being a requirement. That said, I'm not wholly convinced that the material should be in the article, but nor am I convinced it should be totally excluded. DS (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that we've had confirmed, disruptive collusion at Dragoncon on this issue, assuming this a coincidence would be naive. The quacking is deafening. I agree that the dispute about adding the same detail to the article is a one of the WP:LAMEr disputes. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• I'd like to point out that the evidence of meat puppetry is incontrovertible and it is the very same forum post that is so frequently cited as a source for the allegations that is where the coordination started. See this forum thread and don't forget to turn the page - there is more than one page full of posts. From there it is a trivial hop to the other forum thread where more meat puppetry is coordinated and attempted WP:OUTING takes place. I find it extremely hard to believe that 76.31.236.91 has come to Misplaced Pages on September 11, directly to this particular article, to insert this particular material, completely ignorant of this very forum post he's trying to use as a source. Furthermore, I find that this edit by 108.109.127.141 (the puppet who initiated a frivolous complaint against me at WP:ANI) and this edit by 76.31.236.91 have more than a passing resemblance to each other. Elizium23 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• The IP user freely admits that he has edited Misplaced Pages several times before as an unregistered account:

<Dragonfly6-7> you said you've edited before, yes?
<BetaCarrot> yes
<Dragonfly6-7> can you tell me something you've done?
<BetaCarrot> like I said I can't remember where. I don't do it often, just usually when I find a link to something and it seems off.
<BetaCarrot> like a spelling error on a video game's page or bad wording
<Dragonfly6-7> do you mind if I post these past few lines of conversation onto Misplaced Pages?
<BetaCarrot> If you want to
<BetaCarrot> go ahead yes
So... as I've said before, Sohmer's fan base is large enough (they raised over $100K) that it's not implausible that two people might have thought of this separately. DS (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk note: The IP seems to have gone quiet, so I'm going to close for now. Relist if there are further developments. — HelloAnnyong 13:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

IP is active (diff1, diff2) - reopened. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: I'm convinced of sock here but have not had time to read DS's comments fully/look into things fully. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Strike until I fully look into. Not fair to drop a half evaluation. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have taken a look over all the diffs, discussions, sidenotes, logs, you just about name it. This was a hard case to handle, but this to me looks like a recruit at least, maybe not a sock, but they are here for all same general purpose, therefore in violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT and we can't say for sure weather these two are the same people, the technical evidence is not clearly indicative of sock or meat, and neither are the edits. Going on what the Arbitration Committee stated back in 2005 about possible meats and socks, I am reblocking the IP for being a recruit and continued disruption and attacks on editors, even if those attacks are not blatant like some of the vandalism we get, they are still attacks. The disruption to the WP:DR process is a factor to my decision to reblock. The block length set is currently 1 week, subject to extension if need be. -- DQ (t) (e) 09:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. Sohmer's fan base raised over $100K; it's clearly large enough to contain more than one person who's interested in editing the article without it being indicative of collusion. The IP's temper aside -- and he does feel that he's been unfairly treated (and +g mode on IRC can be perceived as quite rude) -- I don't see that he's misbehaved. DS (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reblock him, i've made my block already. As for IRC, I have it because I get bugged by socks (one in particular a lot) so I have to use it because they evade my attempts to ignore them. Also his comments on IRC are just trolling because he's asking me about being paid to do this...he had his chance to request unblock civilly and WP != IRC, so if he's affected by my +g, that's not my issue esp. when my email is on my userpage & he has the unblock-en-l mailing list and even the BASC if he chooses so. As for the block, if anyone else wishes me to comment I will, but for now, he's unblocked (by DS), and i'm not going to try and push my arguments back. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been pondering this for a good part of the evening, and, while I have originally thought that this IP could be FaheyUSMC, I do have some doubts, now. At the very least, I can confirm, as a CheckUser, what FaheyUSMC said here (as he has already disclosed). There has been some indication that FaheyUSMC "knows what he's doing", and they both have tend to have fiery tempers. That being said, it's at the most  Possible that FaheyUSMC and the IP are related, while it is also  Possible that it's two separate people. This doesn't set aside the IRC-related disruption, but WP:BITE may be a result here if the latter ends up being true. –MuZemike 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive