Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/G-Dett
{{sspa}}
=[[User:G-Dett]]=
;Suspected sockpuppeteer
main suspect:
{{user5|1=G-Dett}}
secondary suspects:
{{user5|1=PalestineRemembered}}
{{user5|1=CJCurrie}}
;Suspected sockpuppets
{{user5|1=88.25.6.27}}
;Report submission by
JaakobouChalk Talk 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
;Evidence
User G-Dett has made 6 edits in 24hrs and a 3RR notice was placed, by me, on his page (without a pursue of a block).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AG-Dett&diff=151703864&oldid=151682223] after the notice was made, a new anon. editor[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=88.25.6.27&namespace=&year=&month=-1] appeared on the article
and made the "Reverting to NPOV version by G-Dett"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=151701978&oldid=151680842] and a "This version is unnacceptable"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=151704300&oldid=151703545] commentary which reminds of language used by G-Dett before about "red lines; anything crossing them will be reverted"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Jenin&diff=151656024&oldid=151650789]. also, the timing of the edits, at 22:59 and 23:13 revols closely to 23:10, the time in which G-Dett issued his apology to the 3RR note.
;Comments
- user PalestneRemebered is mentioned as a secondary suspect (with very weak evidnce) only based on the footnotes that he was just recently assigned a mentor, which should make him avoid open frontal conflicts with his user exposed and he has had a close relationship with the article.
note: if PR is unrelated to this issue, i plan on issuing an apology for the suggestion of his possible involvement. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- user CJCurrie is mentioned as a possible secondary suspect (with very weak evidence) due to some disruptive behavior (some very recent) on this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJCurrie#.22so_many_of_your_edits.22]
note: perhaps i'm over streaching the number of possible seconary suspects without real evidence, but this article has been a disaster to work on and i believe that a simple checkuser can find the culprit anon. abuser. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:I congratulate Jaakabou on making one true statement, that Battle of Jenin has been a disaster to work on.
:I hardly know what to add here. Jaakabou cannot fathom that three registered editors and one anon disagree with his edits and find his stated rationales unsatisfactory. That is the totality of his evidence. He realizes this is "very weak"; presumably he doesn't realize that it is also absurd, so he posts it here anyway. This is too idle and lackadaisical even to qualify as a conspiracy theory; it's just a waste of your time and mine. I encourage whoever is in charge here to do a checkuser and send the man on his way. May I ask that it not be back to Battle of Jenin, where he is making a mess of things.--G-Dett 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:I hate to dignify this nonsense with a response, but I should clarify that (i) I am not User:88.25.6.27 (or for that matter User:G-Dett or User:PalestineRemembered), (ii) Jaakobou's accusations of "disruptive behaviour" ring more than a tad ironic. CJCurrie 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:Its more likely this is a sockpuppet of Burgas00 who was blocked for 48 hours than the suspects that Jaaka has posted. Kyaa the Catlord 04:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::you have a very good point, i can't believe i missed it. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, yes, a very good point indeed. Another great hunch, another great gut feeling, another great lead. Yes, Burgas00 is a sock I've been knitting since March, having him edit on things like Llanito and Papiamento and Venezuelan Spanish, all in preparation for a moment like this when I really need him. The research into Romance philology and contemporary Spanish history was time-consuming, but it really paid off when I got to send Burgas00 to Kyaa the Catlord's user page to call that esteemed editor and sockpuppet detective a "fuckhead."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kyaa_the_Catlord&diff=prev&oldid=151450005]
::Sigh. By all means, go ahead and crank Burgas00's user name into the CU machine as well. In fact, crank in the name of every editor who has ever or will ever have the audacity to disagree with Detectives Jaakabou and Catlord.
::While we're waiting for the machine to stop whirring and belch out '"UNRELATED", I'll take a small liberty due to me in light of this harassment. Burgas00's style is not my style, but I understand his frustration. These editors' contributions to Battle of Jenin have been, on the whole, every bit as frivolous, tendentious, and evidence-free as their posts to this page.--G-Dett 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Your uncivil tone has been noted. Defensive much? Kyaa the Catlord 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::::WP policy says one shouldn't feed trolls. G.K. Chesterton on the other hand said one shouldn't suffer fools gladly; one should rather enjoy them immensely. I try to chart a modest middle course between these two bits of wisdom.--G-Dett 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:The anon user is in spain. I think suspected sock requests need better research than this. Checkuser can't be used to fish like this. Mark Chovain 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. I wasn't the one who started this RFCU, but I'd point out that based on the evidence none of the other users (I believe both PR and CJ-san are Canadians, and I have no idea where G-Dett is but, I never suspected her personally.) are in Spain. This leaves Borgas00 who, based on his edits, very well could be in the Canary Islands or Spain. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::May I suggest we close this one off and open a new one? I feel there's probably enough evidence to suspect IP is a Burgas00 sock. Mark Chovain 22:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I think Tewfik's on the case.--G-Dett 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I opened the RFCU immediately, and I didn't even realise that this case existed until just now. While I disagree with G-Dett about many things, I don't believe she is engaging in sockpuppeting, and suggest that this be closed promptly. That said, I was once subject to an RFCU on equally shaky grounds from editors with whom I was in conflict, but I kept my speech firmly in the realm of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and would hope that these policies would still be adhered to by all parties, especially in such frustrating circumstances as these. TewfikTalk 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- offtopic comment - this edit - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/G-Dett&diff=prev&oldid=151904325 here] - sure was witty. (reverted) JaakobouChalk Talk 23:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
;Conclusions
- There's no convincing evidence of sockpuppetry here, so I'm closing this case.
- By the way folks, this is not the Requests for Checkuser page, and the handful of admins who bother to look at the Suspected Sock Puppets page don't have checkuser access. If you want IP checks, ask for one at WP:RFCU. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
----