Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HighKing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deskana (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 23 June 2010 (→Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HighKing

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



21 June 2010


Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by LevenBoy

This is a relisting of the case [1]. 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 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 [2].

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. More fishing - this is vindictiveness, plain and simple. Odd though. This comment, asking LevenBoy to explain their relationship with previous sock of 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. --HighKing (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

There's alot of suspicions around the British Isles stuff. One could ask for an SPI on all involved parties. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: D  + F (3RR using socks and another reason)
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by LevenBoy (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

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. LevenBoy (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popaice should have been blocked on conclusion of the prior case, I have done so now. FWIW, I had asked other functionaries for input and review before closing the last SPI case. I have no problem with an explicit review though.
 Endorsed by a checkuser for second opinion, a CU can see my more verbose conclusions in the 9 June 2010 mail. Amalthea 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I am confident that my conclusion is correct, but can understand that the context of this case and the necessary 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. Amalthea 18:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. LevenBoy (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always that simple. I've spoken to Amalthea and I expect he'll be back shortly to wrap this case up. --Deskana (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be a second opinion. Can you elaborate why this particular case is not that simple? There is one straightfoward question to answer, and it is this; has HighKing been engaging in sockpuppetry or not? LevenBoy (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't tell you why it's not simple. I'm well aware that there is one straightforward question to answer, but due to the checkuser and oversight policies, the community standards for checkusers, and the AUSC, the answers aren't always simple (and there aren't even answers sometimes). --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HighKing&oldid=369767912"