Flying Jazz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
;CheckUser requests |
;CheckUser requests |
||
{{RFCU|C|No2ndletter| |
{{RFCU|C|No2ndletter|new}} <small>Requested by ---[[User:Irbisgreif|Irbisgreif]]-([[User talk:Irbisgreif|talk]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Irbisgreif|e-mail]])-([[Special:Contributions/Irbisgreif|contribs]]) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)</small> |
||
;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments |
;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments |
||
{{Admin-note}} Apparent bad-faith nomination. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
{{Admin-note}} Apparent bad-faith nomination. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:If you suspect meatpuppetry, why are you asking that a checkuser query be run? {{pixiedust}}. Furthermore, [[Special:ReadMind]] does not redirect to [[Special:CheckUser]]; I cannot use CheckUser to monitor every action that people take anywhere, because there are probably close to an infinite number of ways that people can communicate. If these people '''are''' meatpuppets, CheckUser would almost certainly show emphatically that they are {{unrelated}}. [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|<sup><font color="red">gabs</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue"><sub>adds</sub></font>]] 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
;Conclusions |
;Conclusions |
Revision as of 02:37, 8 November 2009
William M. Connolley
- William M. Connolley (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Report date November 7 2009, 21:41 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Polargeo (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs)
I believe that there has been some meatpuppeting on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
I should point out that I don't think any particular user is the "master" of this group, as I suspect meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry.
Evidence:
Claim of a meatpuppeting group. Removal of mention of that claim. Same, again.
I should point out that both users have been warned about re-factoring talk page comments, and that I have brought WMC to the attention of AN/I for WP:OWN issues. I don't wish to bring those up here as it's not germane to a sock/meatpuppet investigation. (That is, I'm not trying to forum shop, I'm just trying to bring some separate issues up in separate places.)
I believe, however, that a CU is warranted as it might have affected the recent AfD of the article in question. (If this is sockpuppeting, and not meatpuppeting.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Sigh* Well - go ahead - i'm from Denmark, WMC is from the UK. I only edit from 3 internet lines, 2 of them are static ip's (80.62.90.39,62.243.229.122), and the 3rd new one is reasonably static (87.104.62.222 dynamic - but up 24/7 - so stays there). I also have an IPv6 address - but i don't think that WP is on IPv6 yet.
I guess the submitter of this doesn't like that others disagree with him, so therefore they must be meatpuppets... I hold many of the same opinions as WMC, but i certainly do not always agree with him (same is the case for polargeo (i suspect)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sidenote - on 2nd thoughts, i have edited from various hotels on vacations, and i also own a mobile broadband connection (which i may have used - but can't remember). Certainly all very infrequently and in clumps (where i've been on vacation)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Ig is a waste of space and should find something useful to do. Someone put this pointless case out of its misery William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
Actually, I don't think it bad faith, but I do think it unlikely. I admit to agreeing with the nominator on the substance of his complaint, but I don't see any possibility of these established editors being sock puppets. I do think it likely that they have coordinated activity, both on- and off- Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Considering some recent edits, if they were identical editors, then WP:3RR would have been violated, and there is circumstantial evidence of coordination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Stop whining. Put up or shut up William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh! (again) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh? My talk page comments were the ones that were removed twice, and, yes, it pissed me off to the point where I've been so successfully infuriated that I don't want to contribute to that godawful list talk page for a week. Yes, I thought it was rude and a breach of etiquette, and evidence that these folks are engaging as a group in a battle instead of writing an encyclopedia article. But if anyone should complain about this particular incident at the moment, I think it should be me, and if I were to complain, I wouldn't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. As for meatpuppetry, I've always thought the idea is kind of cute. Just the visual of a meatpuppet makes me smile and diffuses tensions and makes me think of silly things. What was I talking about? Oh, yeah. The suggestion for investigation seems silly. If it was meant as some kind of show of sympathy or support for me being infuriated by this guy's talk page behavior, I appreciate the sentiment. But I can sure understand the view that asking for a sockpuppet investigation when you don't suspect any sockpuppet is a misuse of Wikipedia. I hope you withdraw this request. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- They do make for a cute couple of meatpuppets though, posting one minute apart like that...and engaging in identical talk-page blanking behavior. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- CheckUser requests
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )
- Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Administrator note Apparent bad-faith nomination. TNXMan 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you suspect meatpuppetry, why are you asking that a checkuser query be run? CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Furthermore, Special:ReadMind does not redirect to Special:CheckUser; I cannot use CheckUser to monitor every action that people take anywhere, because there are probably close to an infinite number of ways that people can communicate. If these people are meatpuppets, CheckUser would almost certainly show emphatically that they are Unrelated. J.delanoygabsadds 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions