Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Doxelary: 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:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:21, 17 September 2014 editDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,337 edits →Comments by other users: no good deed goes unpunished← Previous edit Revision as of 16:28, 17 September 2014 edit undoDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,337 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit →
Line 42: Line 42:


(response to Bbb23): I cited the quote. Read it. Your interpretation may vary but please don't give orders. Drmies blocked on the presumption it was a sockpuppet so your reasoning that a Sock Puppet Investigation is unwarranted is specious without an accompanying unblock. Drmies statement is "I can't let you continue making such points under this account..... Listen, I wouldn't be surprised if you had invited CU already with your highly-visible edits, and hope this doesn't come back to bite you in the ass." My reading is that his block was done in a fashion that would prevent future edits that would invite more evidence for a SPI even though he already made the conclusion of an alt. What is your interpretation? --] (]) 03:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC) (response to Bbb23): I cited the quote. Read it. Your interpretation may vary but please don't give orders. Drmies blocked on the presumption it was a sockpuppet so your reasoning that a Sock Puppet Investigation is unwarranted is specious without an accompanying unblock. Drmies statement is "I can't let you continue making such points under this account..... Listen, I wouldn't be surprised if you had invited CU already with your highly-visible edits, and hope this doesn't come back to bite you in the ass." My reading is that his block was done in a fashion that would prevent future edits that would invite more evidence for a SPI even though he already made the conclusion of an alt. What is your interpretation? --] (]) 03:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
*DHeyward, {{UU|Bbb23}} laid out the rules for how SPIs typically work. They are not fishing expeditions. If an editor wishes to file an SPI, they may do so--but they should present evidence and at least a suspicion of ''who'' it might be. That's all. That my block was done "to prevent future edits blah blah" is hogwash. If I wanted to somehow shield this person I could have emailed them to adopt a lower profile. I certainly wouldn't have ''blocked'' them. And CU probably doesn't need any more evidence than they can already glean from the dozen or so edits this person made. But, for next time, what do you want admins to do? ''Not'' block so they can go on with their disruptive edits and we can find more evidence, secretly? ] (]) 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the problem with your reasoning is that by invoking the block, the original account or IP may already be affected. Per ] a SPI should be done and the results used to determine the fate of the editor in question. A block may unfairly stop a contributor without a proper investigation even if the alternate account/IP is unknown. --] (]) 04:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC) BTW, the problem with your reasoning is that by invoking the block, the original account or IP may already be affected. Per ] a SPI should be done and the results used to determine the fate of the editor in question. A block may unfairly stop a contributor without a proper investigation even if the alternate account/IP is unknown. --] (]) 04:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Revision as of 16:28, 17 September 2014

Kaletony

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

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

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


15 September 2014

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

Suspected sockpuppets


User Kaletony (talk) created his/her account on 13 September 2014 ( ).

I asked Kaletony (talk) "you are apparently brand new to Misplaced Pages, yet amazingly you have mastered WP policy, jargon and formatting codes -- within 24 hours. Would you be willing to clarify whether you have ever edited WP under another username, or via an IP address? Are you a sock? Memills (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Diff

Kaletony (talk) responded, but did not address my question. However, in the explanation field of the response Kaletony stated: "I believe the preferred term is 'alternate account.'" This appears to be an admission that Kaletony has more than one user account. Diff

I asked again Kaletony: "...an SPI would not be needed if you simply answered the question: Do you have more than one account? Per WP:Sock: "The general rule is one editor, one account." You state here that 'I believe the preferred term is "alternate account'" which suggests that you have two accounts. If you are using an alternative account, per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY you should have links to each on both your "...main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose." Linking the two accounts would obviate the need for an SPI. Diff

Katetony responded with a taunting "Please stop badgering me. If you think I'm breaking some rule, take it to ANI, " but again did not address the question re multiple user accounts. Diff Memills (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

It appears that User:Kaletony is only here to stir the drama pot. The contribs list is small enough that only his talk page, Jimbo's and ANI have been edited. Kaletony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It's interesting that the teahouse bot thought he dropped a note there or something and left a note on his talk page. Not sure if that's a UID recreation effect or some other artifact. Misread it as a "thank you" for teahouse edit. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.' I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but one possibility, based on previous reliance on Wikipediocracy as a source, is User:Sonicyouth86. Memills (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears drmies may have blocked to thwart a SPI investigation based on his comments . The block is valid but please continue the SPI to identify whatever "irony" Drmies suspects. I would find it disturbing that ganming the system in this fashion would thwart an obvious SPI checkuser. I find it rather disturbing that the blocking admin has sympathy for protecting an alt account from disclosure. --DHeyward (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, really. What have I done? Thwarted something? By blocking the editor? And who are you accusing of "gaming the system": me or Kaletony? I think, Dheyward, you owe me an apology--you're making me an accessory to a crime because I left a friendly note for an editor after I blocked the account indefinitely? You'll make a great bureaucrat. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Me too. It think it is very important that the SPI team discover and identify the 'alternative account'(s) which Kaletony has now admitted to using (yet in the edit explanation suggests that this is just "red herring," and, appealed unsuccessfully to lift the block). Another possible 'alternative' account to investigate might be User:Kaldari who has admitted previously to sockpuppeting. Memills (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm only afraid of publicly criticizing Eric. I'm happy to publicly criticize gamers, men's rights activists, and other misogynists :) BTW, aren't you supposed to have some sort of evidence before accusing people of being sockmasters (besides Wikipediocracy discussions)? Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what the alternative accounts might be, as I noted. And, I don't have the knowledge/means to find out. But, I think it's important that the SPI team does. Sorry, in advance, to any innocents caught in a net of suspicion. Memills (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(response to Bbb23): I cited the quote. Read it. Your interpretation may vary but please don't give orders. Drmies blocked on the presumption it was a sockpuppet so your reasoning that a Sock Puppet Investigation is unwarranted is specious without an accompanying unblock. Drmies statement is "I can't let you continue making such points under this account..... Listen, I wouldn't be surprised if you had invited CU already with your highly-visible edits, and hope this doesn't come back to bite you in the ass." My reading is that his block was done in a fashion that would prevent future edits that would invite more evidence for a SPI even though he already made the conclusion of an alt. What is your interpretation? --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories: