Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TheRegicider

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TheRegicider}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

TheRegicider[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 11:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ryanholiday mentions Seth Godin [[4]] TheRegicider edits Dachshund [[5]], ryanholiday blogs about his dachshund: [[6]]. basically, anything TheRegicider edits, you can find ryan holiday blogging about on ryanholiday.net. also, ryan holiday has a habit of linking to his ad-filled website from wikipedia articles he edits (big time COI), and then he wrote an article on ryanholiday.net about how wikipedia is a good way to get traffic to your website. see: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ZhNFQn9IDVYJ:www.ryanholiday.net/archives/building_a_wikipedia_account.phtml+ryanholiday+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us since his website has tons of ads, you can easily conclude that he is profiting off his COI. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account at my work computer and one at home/laptop. I'm honestly not very comfortable discussing my personal life here (nor do I on my website other than my name), it makes me feel a little violated to see this extensive backlog of research that this user has done especially considering my edits have been in good faith and taken up tons of my personal time. Is there probably a bit of conflict on me editing that article, yeah. If you'd like me to stop, I definitely will.

Regardless, I'd like to stress again that comments like this one that Theserialcomma left on my talk page make me very uncomfortable.

I will be filing an official report of this conflict of interest to the proper channels if we can't settle this informally. The uninvolved administrations will then make a decision based on the evidence which will either exonerate you or verify the conflict of interest. Please respond here and let me know how I shall proceed.

It also really sucks to see an abusive editor and generally destructive person post my personal details and estalk me because he so hates someone I had some affiliation with. Nevertheless, he wins. If at all possible, I'd like if this page could go away because it gives me the creeps. TheRegicider (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

you've been editing wikipedia long enough (under multiple accounts) to know that this sockpuppetry and conflict of interest is simply unacceptable. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I really like Wikipedia and have edited hundreds of articles. I've obviously made some mistakes but I think I've also worked really hard to research and come at things from new angles across subjects. I'll save everyone the trouble and just close my accounts. The whole thing makes me really queasy and uncomfortable so I will step away. Anyways, thanks to all. I apologize for any conflicts although not for the hatchet job posted above.

If I could, this page violates WP:OUTING and WP:HUSH and it would be very much appreciated if it could be taken down or archived or something. I understand rules but it's a shame when they become suicide pacts.TheRegicider (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

you've been editing since early 2006. you know that adding links to your personal website to gain ad revenue from your sock account is wrong. you also know that edit warring and abusing on Tucker Max, your boss and roommate, is also wrong. you are not the victim here. i hope that even though you've admitted to being an abusive sock, the checkuser will still occur, because i believe that you have done other abusive editing under other accounts. User:Svernon19, for example, has similar editing habits to you. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed. I need some evidence to suggest that sockpuppets have been used abusively. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a very POV editor.

(POV/COI) * here[[7]] theregicider says it's 'retarded' for a certain blog to be removed from Tucker Max. an RfC had to be filed to get the blog removed. If you click the link of the blog, Ryan Holiday User:RyanHoliday turns out to be the author of the article -- TheRegicider's sock. User:Svernon19 was the one who introduced the blog to the article to begin with, and also argued for its inclusion. this is one of the reasons why svernon19 appears to be in cahoots with TheRegicider, besides the fact that svernon19 is a blatant SPA who only POV edits on Tucker Max

(POV/COI) * [[8]] here he calls a new editor a vandal when it was actually a content dispute on his boss's article Tucker Max (he's been editing since 2006 - he should know what vandalism is)

(POV/COI) * [[9]] here he reverts a content dispute as 'vandalism' on Tucker Max again

  • [[10]] here he adds links to his own website (ryanholiday.net) from the article Entrenched Player's Dilemma - presumably all those advertisements on his website lead to some sort of a profit for him. he shouldn't be profiting off wikipedia.
  • [[11]] he links to http://www.streamjackiegreene.com/, a now defunct website that he owned and promoted. (you can google 'ryan holiday streamjackiegreene' to see where he admits he owns that site.
  • [[12]] adds another link to his own site, under his sock name
  • [[13]] calls a user a 'troll' for editing Tucker Max, his boss's article which he's been protecting for years.
  • [[14]] edit wars to remove all controversy from Tucker Max
  • [[15]] adds links to his employee's wiki from another article
  • [[16]] created Fratire, a mostly vanity genre that relates primarily to Tucker Max. the article survived AfD a few times.
  • [[17]] adds Tucker Max anecdotes to Flaming Doctor Pepper

There are more. His editing of his boss's article Tucker Max has been tendentious and never NPOV. He and another SPA, listed above, have been working in tandem to keep his boss's article how they want it - and they launch personal attacks against anyone who opposes them Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If theserialcomma will remember, we were both involved in a dispute as to whether Tucker Max was "gonzo." If I remember correctly, he did not think that there was enough of a consensus to attribute the word "gonzo" to Tucker Max. I disagreed, and looked for another source to support this. If you type in the words "Tucker Max" and "gonzo", the UCR source in question is the first hit.
I won't complain about this, because in light of recent events, I agree it does seem pretty coincidental. However, it's still bad faith to jump to the conclusion that I'm a sock puppet without looking for another more reasonable explanation. Svernon19 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mmm. your very first edit to Tucker Max was to add a reference to tucker max being a "Gonzo" journalist, back on July 16 [[18]]. Except, you didn't add Ryanholiday/TheRegicider's blog to Tucker Max until August 16 [[19]] as a source for him being a Gonzo journalist. The timing is not exactly germane. Which brought me to the Gonzo article itself. I checked the history, and TheRegicider added that very same blog (a blog he wrote) [[20]] to the Gonzo article, except he did it on July 21. If you say you googled to find that blog, that's fine. Personally, i believe that anyone who checks your limited edits (mostly to tucker max) can see some potential collusion going on, but that is ultimately up to the checkuser to decide. and i don't think it's failing to assume good faith to suspect collusion based on the evidence. i think it's pretty obvious. and, by the way, this is a checkuser page. this is exactly where you provide evidence for this type of thing. don't take it too personally.

In light of this, I am adding more evidence:

  • More COI/Sockpuppetry to add links to his own blog, and to publicize tucker max by linking gonzo <-> tucker max <-> fratire.
  • TheRegicider edits Gonzo to add "Fratire author Tucker Max has also been recognized as using the gonzo style in his drunken, sexual stories.[1][2]" which theregicider forgets to credit himself as the actual author, and just just credits it as "Blogcritics.com December 02, 2005. Republished from UC Riverside Highlander", but the review itself says "You can view more work by myself at Ryan Clark Holiday.com. Another Tucker Max review I have written can be viewed in my Blogcritics archive or here" Theserialcomma (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, I agree that TheRegicider appears to be a sock puppet of RyanHoliday. But in leading this discussion, there's a few things I disagree with. The first is implicating several other users without providing substantial evidence. If I'm implicated because of the UCR thing, fine. I've already stated why I put that source in the article, and I'm not going to defend myself again. But let's take a couple of the other people. Alex.simon has contributed to the Tucker Max article three times, each time to add a source about the movie. That's not contentious or abusive in the least bit. The only reason FrancisMurphy is in there is because he deleted the "Controversy" section -- a section that theserialcomma was an ardent supporter of and broke quite a few BLoP rules to include. It took GeorgeMilo three weeks after his registration to post on the Tucker Max talk page, and if you look at his contributions, he has written extensively about other subjects. Ljheidel hasn't posted in over a year.
In addition, theserialcomma cited a contribution on the "Entrenched Player's Dilemma" as evidence that TheRegicider used his account maliciously. What he failed to mention is that it appears that this entry was written almost entirely by the user in question, and he provided many other sources other than his own website. If he has profited off of adding his link to the page, he couldn't have gotten more than a few cents off of it. In fact, looking over his edits, this has been a user that has contributed extensively to Wikipedia in a multitude of areas, whereas the user making accusations is the one who has contributed little.
It sucks that TheRegicider had to use a separate account to edit the Tucker Max page, because not only is that an obvious COI, but it has implicated other users such as myself in this whole mess. But dude, he already admitted to it and closed both of his accounts. I think the matter has been put to rest. Svernon19 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from http://www.violentacres.com/archives/386/ryan-holiday-is-a-really-private-person I just wanted to say, as a neophyte to Wikipedia, I looked the publicly available evidence presented here and I believe that svernon19 is definitely working in tandem w/TheRegicider to put a positive spin on Tucker Max, and a negative spin on anyone who opposes them. Watching Svernon19 and TheRegicider attempt character assasination against serialComma because he collected some evidence is just insane. I am surprised there are not rules against this type of behavior, and I'm surprised it's allowed to continue . The violentacres post points out what a hypocrite Ryan is, since he 'outed' this anonymous blogger on his website, yet he is crying about being 'outed' on wikipedia since he is such a private person -- such a private person whose website has his full name on it. Regicider and svernen, stop trying to manipulate the facts. It isn't working. Just sttick to the facts and Not character assassination. This is supposed to be a reliable source of knowledge, not a place for your Insults. Oh And Svernon19, How do you know TheRegicider and Ryan Holiday have cancellled his account? The wikipedia page does not show any such cancellation. As far as we know, he just claims to have cancelled it . But, maybe you have some insider information? Maybe since you know him, he told you the details. You just busted your self. Oh and SVernon, I see in your HIstory that you just notified McJeff about this in order to coax him into further insulting and attacking Serial. How many people else are you going to contact to drum up support against the person who filed this report? I await for McJeff's attack to follow shortly

There's strong circumstantial evidence that the above anonymous poster was in actuality Theserialcomma himself. Probably taking advantage of a trip out of town to edit from an IP that wouldn't match his on a checkuser. McJeff (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that might possibly be the most ridiculously bizarre accusation you've ever made about me. i thought you'd feel bad about making that person quit wikipedia [[21]], but instead you're somehow trying to finagle the situation into some sort of attack on me. very strange Theserialcomma (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You took a three day break from editing wikipedia. That IP address was active only while you were gone - its first edit after you disappeared. Its edits focused entirely on Ryan Holiday, the person you're pursuing this checkuser on and researching off-wiki. It eventually "quit wikipedia", blaming me, which needless to say is very convenient for you (obviously, your first defense against my suspicions was to bring it up). Half a day later your first edit in 3 days is an edit to my talk page badgering me about having made an editor quit. Incidentally, I had reverted that edit hours before your return, so I'm left wondering how you knew. Do you have my talk page watchlisted? Or did you know about it ahead of time? A very, very suspicious timeline and series of events. McJeff (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence: Theserialcomma was inactive between 4:30, 27 September 2008 and 21:27, 30 September 2008. IP address 207.114.152.6, the primary IP, edited on 03:13, 28 September 2008, having been previously active but having made no edits for 11 moths prior. IP address 207.114.152.220 edited at 04:37, 28 September 2008, and was only active on 28 September. Both IPs are on the same range and are clearly the same user. Both IPs focused entirely on the debate involving TheRegicider. One knew enough about wikipedia policy to go remove all incidents of Ryan Holiday's websites being cited and correctly claim WP:RS. IP 207.114.152.6 claimed that he quit wikipedia at 05:31, 30 September 2008, I remove the comment approximately one hour later. Theserialcomma's first edit in 3 days, as previously mentioned having been at 21:27, 30 September 2008, was an edit to my talk page about a comment that was removed 12 hours ago. McJeff (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's your "strong" evidence? you are very disturbing. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
maybe you should read the site they claimed to have come from: [[22]]. that might explain why all their posts were related to theregicider? or did i make that website too? just like you claimed i am affiliated with gawker.com? and just like i took a secret vacation just to edit wikipedia and pretend to quit it? do you even realize how all this sounds? Theserialcomma (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "quite convincing"? --Deskana (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Bickering on checkuser case pages does nothing apart from get checkusers angry. Also, theserialcomma might want to consider the methods with which he is refuting the accusations, as he's doing it in a manner highly indicative of serial sockpuppeteers, by telling people they're "very disturbing" but provding very little constructive information. --Deskana (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Despite all of the text above, I'm not seeing anything that clearly suggests a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. 207.114.152.6 (talk · contribs) does appear to be a closed proxy, but doesn't match any of the users mentioned here. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


  1. ^ Darko to Serve Max's Beer Variety. "Richard, Ted and I all appreciated Tucker's gonzo style of writing in his book", Tatiana Siegel, June 10, 2008
  2. ^ Tucker Max: Belligerent Genius and Gonzo Incarnate Blogcritics.com December 02, 2005. Republished from UC Riverside Highlander
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/TheRegicider&oldid=1083986105"