Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 13 July 2011

Breein1007

Breein1007 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Breein1007/Archive.

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

09 July 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Bob drobbs (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I went back and merged the contribution history of these two users. Looking at the timing of their edits over a five day period (see table below), it seems fairly evident that the edits are being made by the same person. I asked Bob drobbs about previous accounts, and he denied having ever used them. I have a comparison over a longer time period in an Excel sheet. If anyone is interested, e-mail me. I thought 5 days would sufficiently prove the point. NickCT (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Bob drobbs has recently been editing at Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, notably in trying to introduce a POV contentious "Housekeeper credibility" section which he introduced here (diff) despite clearly not achieving consensus for it on the Talk page about it. When I successively reverted his edits he sent me an edit-warring notice on my Talk page. FightingMac (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll pipe in here since NickCt gave me the link. As to NickCt. The flotilla incident of 2010 was a highly contentious political incident which had a large number of editors. It should be of zero surprise to anyone that multiple editors would be changing the page at the same time. As for the rest, do you always assume tht two editors both writing about things vaguely and distantly related to Israel, _must_ be the same person. *sigh*

I've told you NickCt before, and I'll tell you again. I've never edited under another account. And at this point, I think you're in gross violation of WP:AGF since you're in effect calling me a liar.

As to FightingMac, with your violation of 3RR, you are guilty of more POV edits than anyone else on that page. Please stop reverting. Everyone's default mode of behavior, including your own, should be to improve on other editor's work, instead of deleting it.

To any administrators, you're welcome to continue this on my talk page. I'm just me, no one else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@User:Tnxman307 - Both of these editors are involved in somewhat contentious edits on Israel-Palestine articles. Creating new accounts seems like a pretty obvious attempt to avoid scrutiny.

On another note - Even if you don't want to take action here, could I get your impression as to whether the chronological evidence here points to a sock? NickCT (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your second question first- the timing of the edits possibly point to a sock. It certainly would have warranted investigation at the time it was occurring.

As for avoiding scrutiny, I thought that was impossible on I-P articles. :) More seriously, I just have a hard time taking action on edits a year old. Has there been socking/scrutiny avoidance since then? TNXMan 14:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

re "As for avoiding scrutiny, I thought that was impossible on I-P articles." - Probably true, but what I'm concerned about is that if Bob drobbs were to go up for arbitration, Breein1007's blocks and history of tendentious editing won't get considered. That's what I meant by avoiding scrutiny.

re "More seriously, I just have a hard time taking action on edits a year old" - That's reasonable. Frankly, if Bob drobbs had just admitted to socking a year ago, I probably would have just dropped it.

re "Has there been socking/scrutiny avoidance since then?" - I suspect there is. Note that Breein1007 has come up for socking multiple times and each time the cases have sorta fizzled, b/c the socking stopped or lacked evidence. I'm guessing we have a committed and well-versed socker here; hence, I wouldn't be surprised if drobbs is currently operating another account. I've been thinking about doing a fine-toothed, chronology based, I-P sock comb to try and confirm this suspicion. Frankly though, doing this kind of thing can take an hour or two and I'm not sure I care enough invest that kind of time. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NickCT, I've already told you that I'm just me, and I've never edited under another account. Long ago, you crossed the line violating WP:AGF by in affect repeatedly calling me a liar. How would _you_ feel if I started posting that you were a sock puppet and a liar, of how I suspected you of all sorts of nefarious behavior, and of my plans to stalk you, watching your every move?

And now, it's sounding like a witch-hunt -- You probably would have dropped this, if only I'd confessed. WTF?

I'm simply going to ask you to treat me with the same respect with which you would like to be treated. Do you want people accusing _you_ of being a liar? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk note: I just have to drop by and say thank you. This makes our job easy. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Clerk declined - It'll make our jobs easier for determining this by behavior; the master and all accused accounts are stale. — HelloAnnyong 01:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any alternate account abuse here- Breein1007 stopped editing a long time ago and is not currently blocked. So even if Bob drobbs is Breein1007, they're not evading a block, nor using multiple accounts currently to fake consensus. If it was the same person editing the Gaza flotilla article, that was a year ago and is unactionable now. TNXMan 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases declined for checkuser by clerk