Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen: Difference between revisions
→Comments by other users: Question, is something missing so this case can move foreward? |
|||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
*'''Question:''' Is this report missing something? It's been here, ignored for a while now so I'm thinking something more is needed to have the lists of possible socks checked, is this correct? Thanks in advance, --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Question:''' Is this report missing something? It's been here, ignored for a while now so I'm thinking something more is needed to have the lists of possible socks checked, is this correct? Thanks in advance, --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
**As far as I know, the report isn't missing anything; SPI cases just tend to take a while to get looked at in general. If you look at the main page [[WP:SPI]], none of the other (non-checkuser) reports posted around the time ours was have been handled yet either. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</font> |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== |
||
Revision as of 14:05, 31 May 2010
SkagitRiverQueen
- SkagitRiverQueen (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- UrbanCowboy12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
There are over a dozen more IP's listed here. Because a cell phone is being used in this case, I didn't want to clog up this report with all of them. The two articles in question have now been protected [1], [2], as the socking continued today.
- I've added User:UrbanCowboy12 to the list. Whether or not the sockmaster suspicions are correct, this account appears to have been registered by the thus-far anonymous user, as evidenced here. Equazcion (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Evidence submitted by Doc9871
A long history of problems on the Charles Karel Bouley article (as well as the Margaret Clark article) has resurfaced with IP socks. The IP's all appear to be related (Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless, MYVZW.COM domain) and the editing style and focus has convinced several editors who have experience with SRQ that they are her [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. SRQ often used phrases such as "for the good of Wikipedia" [9], "For the good of the article and WP in general" [10], and "the good of the article and the good of Wikipedia" [11] - and the IPs similarly not only "care about Wikipedia" [12], but are concerned with things that are "for the good of the article and Wikipedia" [13]. Both SRQ [14] and the IPs [15] threaten that the article will be "locked again". "Peacock" terms from this little-known article (where SRQ has a somewhat astonishing 343 edits) strongly want to be eliminated by both SRQ [16], [17] and the IPs [18] [19]. Both SRQ [20] and the IPs [21] give a brief "lecture" on the "Save Page" button below the edit summary. SRQ did say, "I am not going away from the Bouley article. Period." (and note the edit summary) [22]; in this passage, the phrase "social networking site" is mentioned, exactly like the IPs' use of it [23]. Both SRQ and the IPs have a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR and edit-warring, while engaging in it wholeheartedley: SRQ has often said things like, "The only person edit-warring is you..."[24], and the Ips lecture, "Edit-warring is unproductive..."[25] and "Edit warring over this article, or any article, is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia and deters others from wanting to take part in collegial editing."[26]; very familiar language from SRQ. When SRQ sought solace at Wikipedia Review after her community ban [27], she was told to sock; she said she wouldn't then, but she also said giving up on WP was not a "reasonable alternative". Given the history between SRQ and DocOfSoc on these articles and the IPs' attitude towards her [28], I feel this is very clear case of disruptive sockpuppetry. Doc9871 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
I just want to add that SkagitRiverQueen has notoriously used her cellphone to edit Wikipedia, although I can't find the place that it was revealed that her phone used the same provider as the IPs above. Her rollback was removed on January 3, 2010 which was noted here and here. I also am aware that checkuser is unavailable on edits this old, but SRQ clearly stated here that "Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless." I think this proof that she uses the same provider and the IPs listed above are to an article that very few other editors frequent is a prime example of a duck in the room that like the proverbial elephant, should not go ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- SRQ originally followed me to an obscure little article on my literally unheard of town before she was originally banned. An ongoing battle on minutiae ensued along with her de rigueur belittling. Coming back to said article to sock puppet does indeed make her the proverbial elephant. DocOfSoc (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which article is that? Equazcion (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Equazcion, Previous to or in November, 2009, history will show SRQ had followed me to both the "Margaret Clark" and "John Tran" articles, both Mayors of Rosemead, CA. I filed a complaint on November 14, 2009, in which I stated How else would she have found these articles if she were not wikihounding. Same nitpicking, same abusive language as the currrent Sockpuppet.DocOfSoc (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which article is that? Equazcion (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at their continued responses, I'm increasingly curious about the user's immediate comfort with terms like 3RR, sockpuppet, and AGF, demonstrated first in this early comment (and perhaps to a lesser degree, terms like "ownership" and "edit warring"). The user was first accused of 3RR and sockpuppetry in edit summaries, but wasn't actually linked to their policy pages, as far as I can see. The way they immediately responded to those accusations with a seeming extensive knowledge of them is curious. It seems that even if this user isn't SkagitRiverQueen, they are some past user who would've had experience dealing with those policies; it might help their case if they told us what previous account(s) they may have had, if not the one they're being accused of here. For the record though, the communication style, topic focus, POV and the seeming continuation of old rivalries with the same users do have me thinking this is SRQ. Equazcion (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Example: "IOW, she has ownership issues." -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also add that one of the IPs used phrasing such as "about building an encyclopedia.", a phrase that SRQ used to throw around when challenged and which she also discussed in her pleas for back-up over on Wikipedia Review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the ban length should be reset if it is confirmed that she has been socking here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- If all of these IPs are found to be related to SkagitRiverQueen, perhaps the ban length should be changed to indefinite rather than resetting a year. If this bears out, she would be much more prolific and in violation of her ban than anyone I recall seeing. I think that justifies indef. Just a suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure what Sarek means by "reset", but I think disruptive socking by a banned editor should entail more than the same ban length again. Equazcion (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- To "reset" a ban means to start it over again, with the same initial length, so that if SRQ is found to be socking, her ban is rest and she is banned for 1 year from the date of that determination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the ban shouldn't be reset, it should be changed to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that would depend on the admin who makes the determination, balancing SRQ's rather defiantly disruptive behavior against whatever contributions she may be capable of making to Wikipedia in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It should probably be up to the community rather than a single admin. This wasn't just a block, but a community ban. I'd say if the decision comes back that this is SRQ, and that she is socking disruptively in violation of her one-year ban, a discussion should be started on whether or not to make it indefinite. Equazcion (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Very good point, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- It should probably be up to the community rather than a single admin. This wasn't just a block, but a community ban. I'd say if the decision comes back that this is SRQ, and that she is socking disruptively in violation of her one-year ban, a discussion should be started on whether or not to make it indefinite. Equazcion (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that would depend on the admin who makes the determination, balancing SRQ's rather defiantly disruptive behavior against whatever contributions she may be capable of making to Wikipedia in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the ban shouldn't be reset, it should be changed to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- To "reset" a ban means to start it over again, with the same initial length, so that if SRQ is found to be socking, her ban is rest and she is banned for 1 year from the date of that determination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I was wondering the same thing. I'm not sure what Sarek means by "reset", but I think disruptive socking by a banned editor should entail more than the same ban length again. Equazcion (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
She states this is the first time editing this article. And then she states in very familiar rhetoric that the article should be locked *again*! How would she know that if she was was not prevaricating about her previous experience as SRQ? "This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia, just my first time editing this article.. For the good of the article and Wikipedia, maybe it is time for this article to be :locked again." 70.197.159.65 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Is this report missing something? It's been here, ignored for a while now so I'm thinking something more is needed to have the lists of possible socks checked, is this correct? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the report isn't missing anything; SPI cases just tend to take a while to get looked at in general. If you look at the main page WP:SPI, none of the other (non-checkuser) reports posted around the time ours was have been handled yet either. Equazcion (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)