Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:52, 29 May 2014 editKing of Hearts (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators68,838 edits Endorsing for checkuser attention← Previous edit Revision as of 23:37, 29 May 2014 edit undoKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsNext edit →
Line 55: Line 55:
:As for Onediscdrive, I'll wait for this checkuser to go through before tagging, but the account is ''somebody'''s sock, so it's blocked.&mdash;](]) 04:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC) :As for Onediscdrive, I'll wait for this checkuser to go through before tagging, but the account is ''somebody'''s sock, so it's blocked.&mdash;](]) 04:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
*{{Endorse}} - DVMt and Klocek were both blocked and are now requesting unblock, claiming that they are not involved in sockpuppetry. Diffs: , , . Also it would help to identify the master of Onediscdrive, if they are indeed a sock. ] ] ] ] &spades; 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC) *{{Endorse}} - DVMt and Klocek were both blocked and are now requesting unblock, claiming that they are not involved in sockpuppetry. Diffs: , , . Also it would help to identify the master of Onediscdrive, if they are indeed a sock. ] ] ] ] &spades; 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
::*And I will reiterate that DVMt was ''not'' blocked for sockpuppeting, although he has done so in the past. He shouldn't be unblocked in the event that he is exonerated for socking when the problem is that he ignored a warning about edit warring.&mdash;](]) 23:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 23:37, 29 May 2014

DVMt

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

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

This case was moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt from Klocek (talk · contribs). Future cases should be placed there.



28 May 2014

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Suspected sockpuppets


DVMt Klocek has been recently blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, and has edited Acupuncture and Talk:Acupuncture as Klocek just before being blocked. Suddenly after DVMt Klocek got blocked (later edit: as DVMt's apparent sockpuppet), at Acupuncture another dormant account is revived after about five years of dormancy and shows up editing the article. At Onediscdrive self-identifies as a licensed acupuncturist, and DVMt self-identified as scientist and acupuncturist (later edit: having an interest in acupuncture) on his own user page. I have a strong suspicion that they are the same person. At User talk:Klocek the same argument about an account being revived after eight years of inactivity was made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one that upgraded the block. I may have misidentified the sock master, but there's no way that this is anything but a sleeper account. 10 edits in a burst the day of account creation, an eight-year gap, and then leaping in to restore the edits of another account that I blocked doesn't lead to any other conclusions.—

— Kww(talk) 13:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC), User talk:Klocek
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ricflairsbutt (blocked by User:Kww)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Kshilts meatpuppet/sock account

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jayaguru-Shishya meatpuppet/sock account

Kshilts deleted pseudoscientific and other text from the chiropractic lede

Kshilts wrote on March 31, 2014 "I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked."

Jayaguru-Shishya on April 1, 2014 put together some references and also deleted the word pseudoscientific from the chiropractic lede. Jayaguru-Shishya is strongly against including the word "pseudoscientific". See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_37#Pseudo-science. This kind of behavior to unilateral change the lede using meat/puppet accounts should not be tolerated. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Klocek is not a sockpuppet of any other user. I know him personally and can vouch for him. All he has done was to stop editing for 8 years, which he has explained on his talk page. He should be unblocked -- or do a checkuser first and you will see that the accounts are unrelated. HGilbert (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Klocek

Technically, meatpuppet is also a possibility to be considered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The odds that the accounts of two independent acupuncturists which were dormant for at least five years will be revived the same day week in order to help a fellow acupuncturist are astronomically low. So, this suggests at least meatpuppeting. What I wrote above about DVMt editing as Klocek was by assuming that Kww applied WP:Duck, as he stated it himself in the quote I have offered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the edit history; it appears to me that Klocek's edits have nothing whatsoever to do with DVMt's edits. Completely different material. Am I missing something? Furthermore, your assumption that Klocek is an acupuncturist seems to be based on as flimsy evidence as the rest of this. Or did you merely mean an editor of the acupuncture article? HGilbert (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem would not lie in trusting Klocek, the problem would lie in knowing that Klocek isn't the same person as DVMt, since this would imply that you know both persons, and therefore would give substance to the allegations of meatpuppetry. DVMt stated that he is a scientist and Klocek stated at Dennis Klocek that he does research, I don't know if Klocek is actually an acupuncturist or just an enthusiastic supporter of acupuncture. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
DVMt also stated on his talk page that he isn't an acupuncturist, but just has an interest in acupuncture. But, coming back to the checkuser issue, if DVMt agrees, it should be performed in order to clear his name. I have stated above why I suspected there was sockpuppetry going on, I might be wrong, but I was sincere in suspecting that it was going on. DVMt Klocek cannot deny that he got blocked due to the application of WP:Duck, whether it was a false positive or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Just to point out that I think a CU is virtually automatic in the case of a user requesting unblocking after being blocked for sockpuppetry. I don't know many admins that will lift a sockpuppetry block without a checkuser being run.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As for Onediscdrive, I'll wait for this checkuser to go through before tagging, but the account is somebody's sock, so it's blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And I will reiterate that DVMt was not blocked for sockpuppeting, although he has done so in the past. He shouldn't be unblocked in the event that he is exonerated for socking when the problem is that he ignored a warning about edit warring.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek: Difference between revisions Add topic