| Revision as of 15:29, 27 November 2016 editDoRD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers22,865 edits two more← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:22, 30 November 2016 edit undoVanjagenije (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators130,600 edits Archiving case to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey/ArchiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{SPIarchive notice|Oneshotofwhiskey}} | {{SPIarchive notice|Oneshotofwhiskey}} | ||
| {{SPIpriorcases}} | {{SPIpriorcases}} | ||
| ===27 November 2016=== | |||
| {{SPI case status|close}} | |||
| ====Suspected sockpuppets==== | |||
| * {{checkip|1=71.218.129.181}} | |||
| * {{checkip|1=174.16.214.83}} | |||
| * {{checkip|1=2604:3400:DC1:43:216:3EFF:FE6B:497F}} | |||
| <!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> | |||
| * <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small> | |||
| * | |||
| Sockpuppeteer Oneshotofwhiskey was indeffed as a result of 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— 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 with a penchant for Moreover: | |||
| *The IPs misrepresent the following message from my userpage as a POV battle cry: 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: | |||
| *I've never suggested Obama "''is politically jailing conservatives''," but the IPs's assertions to the contrary constitute solid ] evidence regarding their master. (This requires a bit of explanation, so bear with me.) During a recent edit war at ], Oneshot replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his and mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like ] eight separate times (, , , , , , , ), alleging it was to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because and adding: 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 and sought to label D'Souza a "''conspiracy theorist''" in violation of ], citing (As another user noted: ) | |||
| *Like the IPs, Oneshot repeatedly 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 | |||
| While I think the evidence above more than satisfies ], 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.''")] (]) 00:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== | |||
| <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> | |||
| The '''TL:DR''' quality of this - and especially the tone - scream ] on the part of ] (]). | |||
| 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 ] (]). | |||
| For that reason, after reading the AE, I would be careful trusting ] (]) as he or she is currently being investigated in that AE: : for exploiting his many years of experience editing to abuse the system. | |||
| ] (]) 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 . 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 ] is also very possibly ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
| :The IP's claims above are factually incorrect. I determined that 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——made all of its edits on November 7, is not currently blocked, and geolocates to the U.S.] (]) 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.] (]) 04:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== | |||
| *{{Decline}} - As before, we can't use CU to connect named accounts to IPs. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. —] (]) 15:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll also note that {{user|71.218.129.181}} and {{user|65.102.241.122}} are also likely this user. —] (]) 15:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | |||
Revision as of 13:22, 30 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.