Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) Tag: Replaced |
update |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{SPIarchive notice|Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b}} |
{{SPIarchive notice|Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b}} |
||
{{SPIpriorcases}} |
{{SPIpriorcases}} |
||
===24 January 2019=== |
|||
{{SPI case status|}} |
|||
====Suspected sockpuppets==== |
|||
* {{checkip|1=129.100.255.31}} |
|||
* {{checkip|1=129.100.255.32}} |
|||
<!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> |
|||
*'''Tools''': <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py Editor interaction utility] • [https://tools.wmflabs.org/interaction-timeline?wiki=enwiki Interaction Timeline] • [https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/uc?uc=Renamed%20user%2049274c4c204245204241434b User compare report]</span> <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small> |
|||
As shown in the archive, this wikistalker has been using sockpuppetry to disrupt my contributions for almost two years. |
|||
While they never really understood our policies, when they used a named ID, they did learn how to draft an edit summary that gave the surface appearance of normalcy. Of course all their claims fell apart when looked at in detail. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Haspel&diff=prev&oldid=880016554 Removing BLP violation. You cannot claim something that you can't defend with a reference.] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Haspel&diff=prev&oldid=879975763 Original word choice violates BLP. Unsubstantiated claims cannot be turned into certainity.] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FEMA_port_security_grant&diff=prev&oldid=879499974 Removed redirect to Department of Homeland Security Port Security Grant] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Mulroney&diff=prev&oldid=872592552 Revert addition of unnecessary spaces] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bofors_40_mm_gun&diff=prev&oldid=869807143 Undid addition of incorrect material.] |
|||
The ''second'' most recent edit summary is a great example of their bad faith. It would be an excellent justification for a reversion -- '''if it were true'''', but the original wording did not imply '''"certainty"'''. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== |
|||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
|||
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
|||
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
Revision as of 20:52, 24 January 2019
Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b
- Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 January 2019
Suspected sockpuppets
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
As shown in the archive, this wikistalker has been using sockpuppetry to disrupt my contributions for almost two years.
While they never really understood our policies, when they used a named ID, they did learn how to draft an edit summary that gave the surface appearance of normalcy. Of course all their claims fell apart when looked at in detail.
- Removing BLP violation. You cannot claim something that you can't defend with a reference.
- Original word choice violates BLP. Unsubstantiated claims cannot be turned into certainity.
- Removed redirect to Department of Homeland Security Port Security Grant
- Revert addition of unnecessary spaces
- Undid addition of incorrect material.
The second most recent edit summary is a great example of their bad faith. It would be an excellent justification for a reversion -- if it were true', but the original wording did not imply "certainty". Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.