This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) at 13:28, 3 July 2011 (Comment, marking case as closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:28, 3 July 2011 by HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) (Comment, marking case as closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Dajudem
Dajudem (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem/Archive.
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
27 June 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Snakeswithfeet (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.
Common articles:
- 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle Tundrabuggy
- Irgun Tundrabuggy, Stellarkid
- 1948 Palestinian exodus Stellarkid, Dajudem
- Plan Dalet Dajudem
- 1948 and After Dajudem
Stellarkid wrote on his userpage that he had a copy of Jewish Villages in Israel published by the Jewish National Fund (see here) . Snakeswithfeet has been using that source extensively. See the article List of Jewish villages in Israel through 1948 and the blue links within that article. There is additional behavioral evidence that I would rather not include here but would be happy to email a reviewing clerk or CU. While I realize the data on Dajudem's known socks will be stale by this point, I am under the impression that the relevant data has been archived somewhere. Additionally, the most recent blocks of Dajudem's socks resulted in multiple named accounts being blocked at once, the last time that I am aware of was when CJStevens, JuJubird, and KantElope were all blocked as Dajudem socks. I am asking for a similar check for other named accounts, though I feel the private evidence that I have is fairly conclusive regarding Snakeswithfeet. nableezy - 18:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Steven, I would prefer to not include the additional evidence on-wiki as it may enable Dajudem to escape detection in the future. Regarding whether or not the data is available elsewhere is something I would like to get a CU to comment on. I am aware of the retention policy for the actual checkuser tool, however there are additional logs and archives elsewhere. As far as emailing you the evidence, I could do that but as you are not an admin you wont be able to do much with it besides emailing it to others. I hope you dont mind, but I would rather email the evidence to an admin who is also a clerk. nableezy - 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Email sent. nableezy - 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
On hold - Noting first that Dajudem (talk · contribs) is too 
Stale for a checkuser to be of any use, but I do note that Stellarkid (talk · contribs) was blocked on behavioural evidence in early June as a sock of Dajudem. As for the checkuser data, no, the data isn't archived anywhere, after the 90 day period, it's gone. If you feel the evidence you have is not suitable to post on-wiki, you can email it to myself here and I will distribute it to the clerks/checkusers, but I am still a bit puzzled as to why it cannot be posted on-wiki. If possible, posting it on-wiki would be a better option. I'd like to see what other clerks think on this matter as well. Steven Zhang 23:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nableezy, you can send the email to me. Checkusers do retain notes for some high-profile sockmasters, however I cannot find any notes on this one, and I doubt anyone else has them either since a) there was only one case prior to this one and b) it looks like checkuser wasn't used during that case either. I'm not sure what you have in this email, but it's looking like CU will be of little to no use here. Hersfold 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The content of the email is behavioral evidence that probably could be posted here; if any clerk wants a look at it, let me know and I'll forward it on. However, this evidence does not indicate to me that checkuser is entirely necessary here; it demonstrates that this is a very clear-cut case that shouldn't need checkuser even if all of these accounts weren't stale. Absent indications that there may be sleepers, and given that Snakeswithfeet was created after the last case was closed, I don't think that's the case here, I see no reason for checkuser. Request
Declined. Hersfold 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- The content of the email is behavioral evidence that probably could be posted here; if any clerk wants a look at it, let me know and I'll forward it on. However, this evidence does not indicate to me that checkuser is entirely necessary here; it demonstrates that this is a very clear-cut case that shouldn't need checkuser even if all of these accounts weren't stale. Absent indications that there may be sleepers, and given that Snakeswithfeet was created after the last case was closed, I don't think that's the case here, I see no reason for checkuser. Request
- Nableezy, you can send the email to me. Checkusers do retain notes for some high-profile sockmasters, however I cannot find any notes on this one, and I doubt anyone else has them either since a) there was only one case prior to this one and b) it looks like checkuser wasn't used during that case either. I'm not sure what you have in this email, but it's looking like CU will be of little to no use here. Hersfold 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Administrator note I've not seen the evidence (would've been nice if it had been posted here) but I've blocked and tagged per my own findings. — HelloAnnyong 13:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories: