Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 23 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 open.

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)

This appears to be an admission: - note the use of "last time".

How many times do we need to go through the same argument with the same person? Toddst1 (talk) 06:43, 23 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)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review