Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 6 July 2009

Papa November

Papa November (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/Papa November/Archive.

Report date July 6 2009, 16:26 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Verbal (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• A Man In Black (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Users commenting at the deletion review for Telepathy and war

Evidence submitted by Frei Hans

The users Verbal and Papa November campaigned for the deletion of an article for no reason other than they did not seem to like it. They deleted up to 17 references and citation from reputable sources, and then claimed in an articles for deletion "debate" that the article was unreferenced. The article was then deleted by an administrator, AMiB, who was found afterwards in an arbitration case to be a sock puppeteer and disruptive editor.

The users Verbal and Papa November often appeared together, at the same time, to remove content. One of the users (Papa November) seemed to have more administrative capabilities than the other, and carried out the actions of the user who seemed to have fewer administrative tools (Verbal) and whose user page showed he had been warned for edit warring on other pages.

On one occasion, at the time the two users had been visiting the article Telepathy and war to remove content, an anonymous IP (160.103.2.223) showed a revert of content. The revert was made only moments after Verbal, who seemed aware of 3RR (reverting content excessively), had already "used up" one his reversions. The user Verbal seemed very aware of 3RR and his user page showed a history of having been warned for making disruptive reverts before.

The users seem to be very familiar with forums and processes for carrying out disruptive discussions in the guise of forum "administrative processes" and "filing procedures". They seem more interested in removing certain types of content then in creating it. They display editorial bias, and are aggressive in their actions. They quote a lot of Misplaced Pages jargon and seem technically skilled with online tools but seem unwilling to work collaboratively to write encyclopedic content.

They seem to have all the traits of people who "game" the system, and their patterns imply multiple user accounts to bully other editors into accepting their deletions of content.

They seem to provoke and aggravate other editors by removing content and then citing Misplaced Pages "regulations" (although unable to operate themselves collaboratively within the spirit of Misplaced Pages and with good faith). They posted provocative messages on my user page. They campaign to delete articles and edit histories of articles they have "edit warred" on, neatly removing "edit war" histories that cannot by cited in evidence so long as they remain deleted. Frei Hans (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Frivolous report. Please see this active RFC/U for details of previous, similar behaviour. Papa November (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Sockpuppets are accounts created by one person. If true, how could they appear at the same time?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

They edited articles at about the same time. They appeared on similar articles, with a brief time lag between edits and comments - enough for a user to have switched accounts (which the reversion by the anonymous IP suggested). Frei Hans (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: B  + C (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and vote stacking affecting outcome)

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Frei Hans (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk declined. As I explained on WT:SPI, the evidence is far from sufficient to justify checkuser attention for any of these accounts. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the evidence is contained in the history of the article that was deleted. This cannot be linked to, as it has been deleted. A description of what happened, with links to relevant discussion, is the best I can do in this case. Also, I had not finished tidying up my request before it was declined. Frei Hans (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Code letters added. Frei Hans (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

• Open SPI cases
• SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review