Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:29, 27 November 2016

Oneshotofwhiskey

Oneshotofwhiskey (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/Oneshotofwhiskey/Archive.

Please note that a case was originally opened under Dreaded hall monitor (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey. Future cases should be placed under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey.

27 November 2016

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• 71.218.129.181 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.16.214.83 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Sockpuppeteer Oneshotofwhiskey was indeffed as a result of his previous attempt to frame me, and it looks like he's at it again. IPs 71.218.129.181 and 174.16.214.83—purporting to be an impartial observer—reported IP 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F to an admin, claiming to be concerned that I was using the latter for "socking ... AND trying to use an anon IP to get around ... ARBAP2 Sanctions." The IPs proceeded to make a number of revealing comments about yours truly, including "TTAC ... is a long-time disruptive cunning member who will edit war when possible and exploit his experience on wikipedia to advance his POV"; "After closely reading the account summary on TTAC's page, it seems like that user views wikipedia in terms of opponents and gaming"; and "He's been getting away with edits on articles suggesting Obama is the 'founder of ISIS' and is politically jailing conservatives (all lies)" (that's for sure!). On his talk page, Oneshot engaged in strikingly similar rhetoric, referring to me as a "disruptive editor" with a penchant for "cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic(s)." Moreover:

• The IPs misrepresent the following message from my userpage as a POV battle cry: "I take my responsibility to edit in a neutral manner seriously, and believe I do a better job of it than many of my opponents. But where did they even get the idea to do such a thing? Apparently, from Oneshot's close collaborator SPECIFICO, who left the following message on Oneshot's talk page: "At the very top of Times' user page he reveals his approach to editing Misplaced Pages: 'I do a better job of it than many of my opponents.' Having seen him in action recently, that attitude pretty well sums up his behavior. It's as if he views WP as another online video game, similar to the many games he lists having edited."
• I've never suggested Obama "is politically jailing conservatives," but the IPs's assertions to the contrary constitute solid WP:DUCK evidence regarding their master. (This requires a bit of explanation, so bear with me.) During a recent edit war at Dinesh D'Souza, Oneshot replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight separate times (, , , , , , , ), alleging it was "WP:SYNTH" to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because "he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza," and adding: "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Dershowitz's sin? He had argued that D'Souza's conviction for campaign finance violations "smacks of selective prosecution"; Onehot and his sockpuppets conflated Dershowitz's assessment with "claiming ... Obama and the government imprisoned D'Souza which suggests Obama broke the law and that the government engaged in unconstitutional behavior," and sought to label D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" in violation of WP:BLP, citing "his conspiracy theory that the government through Obama directly or indirectly imprisoned him unfair as part of some retributive plot against him." (As another user noted: "Most people who have been prosecuted believe that they have been unfairly treated and lawyers routinely say that. We do not label all convicted criminals and defense lawyers conspiracy theorists.")
• Like the IPs, Oneshot repeatedly accused me of "gaming the system."
• Finally, the IPs mention that their goal is to ensure "a fair hearing for everyone else involved, most important of all for his victims." In this context, I think it's obvious that the "victim" in question is none other than Oneshot himself, as he maintained that the previous SPI was somehow "fraudulent."

While I think the evidence above more than satisfies WP:DUCK, it would be interesting to confirm that the IP being "reported" is a likely match for the other two, and thus that I was in fact being framed from the beginning. (On the admin's talk page, the IPs hint at this possibility: "That would aid him in some attempt to game the system if he tried to boomerang a response into a charge of trying to frame him.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The TL:DR quality of this - and especially the tone - scream suspicious on the part of TheTimesAreAChanging (talk).

The convoluted nature of it is misleading and belongs as a complaint on the noticeboard for administrators for - at best - long term IP abuse or block evasion and not as an SPI. Even then it is a flimsy accusation-->>> The purpose of using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny doesn't fit the fact pattern here as I'm not seeing much evidence of that and if the idea was to evade scrutiny then what scrutiny was the IP hoping to evade? The "accused" editor hasn't even edited any articles or weighed in on any debates involving content disputes. Even then it doesn't strike me as terribly disruptive if an anonymous editor was only asking an administrator for an opinion about an AE that involves TheTimesAreAChanging (talk).

For that reason, after reading the AE, I would be careful trusting TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) as he or she is currently being investigated in that AE: : for exploiting his many years of experience editing to abuse the system.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) is accused for "serious breaches of policy" and "gaming wikipedia to advance edit wars." It is very possible he or she is exploiting SPIs in a similar vein to possibly deflect attention from his or her own bad behavior elsewhere: using his or her reputation and experience as an experienced editor as camouflage to get away with harassing members and disrupt articles under sanction. Rather than show contrition and take responsibility for what looks like a pretty straightforward violation of the discretionary page restrictions on political articles, he or she responded deceptively with this response. He or she accuses others of a "witch hunt" and "stalking him." The tired old argument that there is a conspiracy to frame an editor is almost always indicative of a guilty mindset when trying to shift blame elsewhere without evidence.

Unironically 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F is also very possibly TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) given the similarities of obsessions and edit histories and the all too convenient way it fits into this SPI. He only listed this IP in this SPI after being accused of socking here: A few weeks ago when it came up he self-consciously and suspiciously convinced an administrator that this IP was NOT socking, or OSOW. He conveniently forgot to include this here. Maybe this fits into a larger pattern of trying "to game wikipedia" by trying to flip the charge against his intended target. If so then we need to boomerang this SPI.

Recommend closing this SPI and filing an ANI if the anonymous editor engages in truly disruptive behavior. Then RPI where necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.241.122 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2016‎ (UTC)

The IP's claims above are factually incorrect. I determined that IP 2A01:4F8:191:84C3:0:0:0:2 was likely not Oneshot (after first reporting it to the admin DoRD) because it geolocated to the UK; that IP has made no edits since November 1 and is currently blocked. The IP I reported above—IP 2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F—made all of its edits on November 7, is not currently blocked, and geolocates to the U.S.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you mean CU can't even confirm whether or not the IPs are likely matches for one another? (Because that's all I wanted to know.) If so, I did not realize that; my bad.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined - As before, we can't use CU to connect named accounts to IPs. GAB 03:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• These IPs very well may have been used by Oneshotofwhiskey, but the IPv4s are stale for blocking purposes, so there isn't much we can do at this time. I did block the IPv6 range because it is belongs to a web hosting provider. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'll also note that 71.218.129.181 (talk · contribs) and 65.102.241.122 (talk · contribs) are also likely this user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive