Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HighKing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:33, 20 October 2012

HighKing

HighKing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HighKing/Archive.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
 {{SPIarchive notice|HighKing}}<br />{{SPIpriorcases}}
-=====<big>21 June 2010</big>=====
-{{SPIcat}}
-<!-- Please do not add a header here -->
-======<span style="font-size:150%"> Suspected sockpuppets  </span>======
-* {{checkip|209.119.9.98}}
-* {{checkuser|Popaice}}
-* {{checkuser|Insectgirl}}
-* {{checkip|83.70.162.125}}
-* {{checkip|62.77.187.21}}
-* {{checkuser|Fionnghlas}}
-<!-- Please duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts-->
-======<span style="font-size:150%"> Evidence submitted by [[User:LevenBoy|LevenBoy]] </span>======
-<!--## Sign below your evidence with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"        ##-->
-This is a relisting of the case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HighKing/Archive]. I am asking for a second opinion since it is unclear how the case was concluded. There was an apparent admission of sockpuppetry by HighKing, but no sactions were imposed and account Popaice, which seemed to be acknowledged as a sock, was not even blocked. The account Fionnghlas has been added to this report.
-Many of HighKing's edits are concerned with the removal of [[British Isles]], the latest being [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Housebarn&diff=prev&oldid=369214003 here]. Edit summaries of this class of edits do not normally state that British Isles is being removed. Frequent edit wars have resulted from HighKing's removals and it is possible that alternate accounts and IP editing is, or was, being used to gain an advantage.
-Behaviourial evidence is strong in the case of all the IPs and the Insectgirl account. Checkuser may assist with Popaice and also with the Fionnghlas account, which appears to have been set up solely to revert edits of [[User:MidnightBlueMan]] on a single article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fionnghlas].
-======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>======
-<small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</span></small>
-More fishing - this is vindictiveness, plain and simple.  Odd though.  This comment, asking LevenBoy [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&diff=prev&oldid=369343585 to explain their relationship with previous sock] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MidnightBlueMan/Archive MidnightBlueMan and Mister Flash], results in this SPI filing.  Distraction tactics perhaps?  Odd that LevenBoy restarts editing, on the same "British Isles" articles, practically to the minute of MBM.MF being blocked.  --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users  </span>======
-======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
-{{RFCU| D | F | New }} &nbsp;&nbsp; <small>Requested by [[User:LevenBoy|LevenBoy]] ([[User talk:LevenBoy|talk]]) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) </small>
-<!--## Replace CODE LETTER by the appropriate code letter and Replace No2ndLetter if you need a 2nd code letter (or leave it alone if not)  ##-->
-<!--## Codeletters are:
-       A - arbcom ban/remedy evasion
-       B - Ongoing serious pattern vandalism
-       C - Vote fraud, please wait until after vote closes
-       D - 3RR with socks
-       E - Evasion of community based bans or blocks
-       F - Other, please explain why a check should be run -->
-<!--## Make sure your evidence explains why CheckUser is appropriate                 ##-->
-Checkuser may confirm once and for all whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring in this long-running issue, which has already involved the use of socks by opposing editors, and which has spread accross Wikipedia affecting many articles. [[User:LevenBoy|LevenBoy]] ([[User talk:LevenBoy|talk]]) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-: Popaice should have been blocked on conclusion of the prior case, I have done so now. FWIW, I had asked other [[WP:FUNC|functionaries]] for input and review before closing the last SPI case. I have no problem with an explicit review though.<br>{{Cu-endorsed}} for second opinion, a CU can see my more verbose conclusions in the 9 June 2010 mail. [[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-:: To clarify: I am confident that my conclusion is correct, but can understand that the context of this case and the necessary [[m:Help:CheckUser#Wikimedia privacy policy|Magic 8-Ball close]] leaves open questions. Those questions will in all likelihood not be answered. In particular you can't expect any comment on the IPs here. A second opinion will, assuming it agrees with me, only give you more confidence in the close, not more information. [[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-::: Well I'm quite confused by your comments. It boils down to one simple question; is user [[User:HighKing]], or has he at any time, been operating sockpuppets to further his agenda concerned with [[British Isles]]? Looking at the suspected socks it seems a straightforward case for Insectgirl and all the IPs, where surely [[WP:DUCK]] applies. Presumably checkuser will confirm Popaice and Fionnghlas, or not, as the case may be. I assume some of the IP edits are out of checkuser range, but others aren't, so in terms of the ip edits all we need is a statement to the effect that HighKing is, or is not, using IPs to further his British Isles agenda. I've looked at a number of sockpuppet cases involving IPs and they seem to be handled without this sort of "behind the scenes" activity. I'm a little concerned that everything is not out in the open here, and I'm not sure why. Reading comments at the archived case it seems there's a strong suggestion that a little bit of sockpuppetry is Ok and can go through on the nod. Maybe you can confirm this is not policy and that a sock is a sock is a sock, whichever way you look at it. Yes, some cases are worse than others, but so far as I understand it there's no lower limit below which the activity faces no sanction. [[User:LevenBoy|LevenBoy]] ([[User talk:LevenBoy|talk]]) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)