Supreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs) |
PhilKnight (talk | contribs) →Evidence submitted by Dailycare: comment |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::This is not to find a "sockpuppet". His behavior as an IP would most likely have sanctioned him if he had done those edits from his main account considering his long history of contentious behavior. If we can identify him as Breein here, then we can continue with the Enforcement case. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
::This is not to find a "sockpuppet". His behavior as an IP would most likely have sanctioned him if he had done those edits from his main account considering his long history of contentious behavior. If we can identify him as Breein here, then we can continue with the Enforcement case. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::'''"His behavior would most likely have sanctioned him?"''' Are you a fortune teller?--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::'''"His behavior would most likely have sanctioned him?"''' Are you a fortune teller?--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Jiujitsuguy, your comments are unhelpful. Given the user has been sanctioned previously, if the IP was found to be connected, then it's possible that could have a bearing on whether a warning is sufficient, or whether further sanctions are required. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>====== |
Revision as of 22:48, 1 September 2010
Breein1007
- Breein1007 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
01 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- 174.112.83.21 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Dailycare
See evidence presented at the AE concerning this IP account: Wikipedia:Ae#Comments_by_Supreme_Deliciousness. Admins handling that AE suggested opening a parallel SPI case as there appears reasonable suspicion that the IP is Breein1007. User Supreme Deliciousness says to be in posession of further information linking these two accounts. Dailycare (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- In the first instance, please don't mis-state was was stated in the AE. The admins at AE never said there was "reasonable suspicion" of anything. Those are your words. They simply said that AE was not the right venue for your the claim. Second, Breein stopped editing from his account on June 13, 2010. So even if the IP was Breein, which in any case hasn’t been proven, there is no evidence that he’s using the IP to evade either a topic ban or 1R or 3R restriction. In sum, no rules have been violated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is not to find a "sockpuppet". His behavior as an IP would most likely have sanctioned him if he had done those edits from his main account considering his long history of contentious behavior. If we can identify him as Breein here, then we can continue with the Enforcement case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- "His behavior would most likely have sanctioned him?" Are you a fortune teller?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Jiujitsuguy, your comments are unhelpful. Given the user has been sanctioned previously, if the IP was found to be connected, then it's possible that could have a bearing on whether a warning is sufficient, or whether further sanctions are required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- "His behavior would most likely have sanctioned him?" Are you a fortune teller?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is not to find a "sockpuppet". His behavior as an IP would most likely have sanctioned him if he had done those edits from his main account considering his long history of contentious behavior. If we can identify him as Breein here, then we can continue with the Enforcement case. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
As dailycare says above, behaviour evidence has been posted at the bottom here, and I also have personal information linking Breein to this user that I can send through mail if requested. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per a request from Supreme Deliciousness
- I checked User:174.112.83.21's edit history against 500 of Breein1007's past edits.
- I didnt' find many matches. Both accounts worked on
- Jerusalem - IP, Breein
- Ships linked to the Gaza flotilla raid - IP edits MV Mariam, Breein edits MV Mavi Marmara
- Rawabi - IP, Breein
- User talk:Ynhockey - IP, Breein
- Muhammad al-Durrah incident - IP, Breein
- There are behaviorial similarities in edit summaries. Breein liked using the word "stop" in his edit summaries
- 174.112.83.21 appears to do the same
- I think there is moderate circumstantial evidence suggesting these users could be the same, but I'm not overly convinced. I wouldn't be surprised if both users were just agressively impolite, pro-Israel editors. Additionally, IP traces to Canada. I'm 80% sure breein lives in Israel. NickCT (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ill copy some evidence here from the arb page: They both have the same uncivil behavior: IP "wtf are you talking about" Breein: "What the hell are you talking about in your edit summary?" See for example this where the IP makes a comment and Breein continues the discussion: [1] Breein has made posts in hebrew:[2] IP also makes posts in hebrew: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)