BLOCK ME |
BLOCK ME |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<!-- Please do not add a header here --> |
<!-- Please do not add a header here --> |
||
{{closed}} '''GAYDENVER AGREES TO BE BLOCKED TO AVOID TROUBLE AT WORK. YOU WIN. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO GET ME FIRED.''' |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Suspected sockpuppets </span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Suspected sockpuppets </span>====== |
Revision as of 23:42, 7 March 2010
Gaydenver
- Gaydenver (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date March 7 2010, 22:07 (UTC)
GAYDENVER AGREES TO BE BLOCKED TO AVOID TROUBLE AT WORK. YOU WIN. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO GET ME FIRED.
Suspected sockpuppets
- John Obamo (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- JB50000 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Suomi Finland 2009 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Judith Merrick (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by DD2K
JB5000 and John Obamo are legal accounts by the same editor, but I listed both to make sure all evidence is listed. The account for Gaydenver had his first edit on 2-28-2009, but waited until 8-24-2009 to start editing consistently. Shortly afterwards the user started editing the Barack Obama article. I will highlight this edit regarding Obama as being listed as a professor in the article, with the edit summary stating- "removing false information. Please, don't put in wrong information". Then the user went to another editors page and made this edit, warning the user to 'not put false information' in the Obama article. The user then went on to revert two(1, 2) other editors, and then made a report at ANI demanding one of the users be blocked for inserting 'false information'. Which eventually got Gaydenver blocked. I will also highlight these four edits(1, 2, 3, 4) while the user was blocked, for comparison to JB50000's behavior while blocked. Also, the user negotiates with administrators by offering deals and 'being nice'. Which is another familiar trait used by JB50000 and the other users in this SPI case. Which I will now list.
JB50000 examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Judith Merrick creating an article titled "Barack Obama condolences" within a week of the users first edit. The article was put up for deletion and was deleted. Then the user proceed to make edits that are strangely similar as the other users in this case. 1 2 3 4
Also, both JB50000 and Judith Merrick edit(Judith Merrick created) the Samuel Zoll article and have very similar edits. Gaydenver's account was inactive from August of 2009 to March of 2010, JB50000 was blocked for 1 week on March 2 2010.
I believe there are many more sock-puppets involved here, and a CU is needed to prevent further disruption in several articles. One of the earlier edits JB50000 made was to John Carter's page concerning a RfC for Rjanag, where I believe the main 'puppetmaster' could be located. With a CU. DD2K (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
I don't see what the logic to listing me with some of these other people. JB50000 seems very argumentative, but I am not. Soumi Finland 2009 writes about things I never heard of, such as Joaquin Lavin. I never edited anything the same as Judith Merrick. The question to the checkuser is why is this POV extremist picking on me?
The thing that binds all these users is only that DD2K doesn't like them. Some are tied because they use the word "nice"; I don't use the word nice.
If there is a checkuser done, then DD2K should have a checkuser on him since the accuser of a crime is sometimes the real criminal, at least in real life.
I am not these people and I want my name dropped because I don't edit the same articles as the others. So that's innocence two ways, not these people and not editing the same. These kind of accusations just drive people away so that DD2K can do anything he wants.
Conclusion: DD2K wants to block anyone that doesn't agree with him. If there were a poll and users voted the same way is one thing but I edit different articles than the others. Gaydenver (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Behavior does look pretty similar, particularly stances demonstrated in comments at the Obama talkpage, and his tone & style. JB50000 was recently blocked, partly because of edits he did to Talk:Barack Obama, so if he is continuing to edit there with some other account then his block ought to be extended quite a bit. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree as above, the behavior is very similar in several ways. This editor only returned recently with the block of JB50000, so if this sock comes back positive, I agree with Rjanag that JB's block should be extended. He's been disruptive enough. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can anyone else see any reason for this edit [1], in which Gaydenver appears to be asking for help from the same new admin that JB50000 went to? Is there a reason for the coincidence? Dayewalker (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I reviewed the edit history of all those users and there is a big pink label on JB50000 that he was blocked by that administrator. Ok, you are so persistent I will tell you. I am an employee of the City and County of Denver and do not wish to be more involved because I could be fired for wasting time. Please block me for life. Gaydenver (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
- Current status –
Endorsed for Checkuser attention. Requested by DD2K (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)