Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Weggie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Weggie[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Weggie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.12.249.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Damac 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

It is my suspicion that User:Weggie has been engaging in sockpuppetry in an attempt to engage in an edit war on Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007.

For many months now, User:Weggie has persistently prevented any attempts to include the micro political party Republican Sinn Féin in the results of the Northern Ireland Assembly election. He basis his actions on the argument that as RSF is not registered with the UK Electoral Commission, the party does not exist and can therefore not be included in election results on Wikipedia.[1]( See Talk:Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007#RSF) Weggie is alone in this view, and has not received any support from any other editor.

On 24 March, seasoned editor User:Sam Blacketer made the bold move and included RSF in the results table[2], and announced this on the page's talk page. At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration. Instead, I believe he made anonymous edits as User:86.12.249.63, even exceeding the 3RR rule.[3] Today, I believe he has established a new account, User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 to pursue his POV.

Recently, on 11 April 2007, Weggie announced he was taking a break from Wikipedia.[4] This was then followed by increased activity by User:86.12.249.63 on pages that Weggie had once engaged in, including Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007. After I and others requested this anonymous user to sign up to Wikipedia,[5], a new account User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 appears on the scene.

Comments
User:86.12.249.63/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007
"For many months now, User:Weggie has persistently prevented any attempts to include the micro political party Republican Sinn Féin in the results of the Northern Ireland Assembly election."
This statement is untrue the results/candidates table only came into existance on the 14th of February [6], having existed for less than 2 months it is unlikely that this bahaviour has persisted for "many month"
"He basis his actions on the argument that as RSF is not registered with the UK Electoral Commission, the party does not exist and can therefore not be included in election results on Wikipedia.[1]( See Talk:Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007#RSF) Weggie is alone in this view, and has not received any support from any other editor."
This article has existed for some time with the position that the legal accepted results should be used, unfortunately as a past election, interest has gradually fallen off, and only a small sectarian rump of editors remain, the position to use the legal definition of a political party was supported in the past by at least:
In addition to myself and (apparently) user Weggie
"On 24 March, seasoned editor User:Sam Blacketer made the bold move and included RSF in the results table[2], and announced this on the page's talk page."
User:Sam Blacketer [9] has only been active on wikipedia, for four months, and while he does make a good contributions, I would not yet call him seasoned!
"At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration."
no comment
"Instead, I believe he made anonymous edits as User:86.12.249.63, even exceeding the 3RR rule.[3] Today, I believe he has established a new account, User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 to pursue his POV."
The 3RR was accidently broken, and within 1 minute of breaking it, I undid my last edit [10], and refrained from editing WP for 24 hours (23 being honest). If you have an issue with this, there are proper forums upon which to raise it.
"Recently, on 11 April 2007, Weggie announced he was taking a break from Wikipedia.[4] This was then followed by increased activity by User:86.12.249.63 on pages that Weggie had once engaged in, including Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007."
The increase in activity of User:86.12.249.63 also happpened to coincide with the end of lent, a christian period of abstenance, you may also find find a similar drop in activity at around Ash Wednesday. I would suspect that many wikipedians have similar editing patters, and the editors of Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007 would have similar interests in common.
"After I and others requested this anonymous user to sign up to Wikipedia,[5], a new account User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 appears on the scene."
There is little reason for me to have an account, and being given a rather rude reception by amongst others editors Damac [11] [12] [13] for not usinng a registered account, I chose a ridiculous name "User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007" and doing so to edit the article Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 it was meant to be obvious that they were the same account. This account was being used entirely consistantly with the WP policy on sockpuppets.
I would hope when this is resolved that users user:Galloglass [14] and user:Damac [15] both retract their unfounded allegations and apologise to both myself and User:Weggie
In addition to the two user talk pages, additional locations of retractions should be placed at [16], [17], [18], [19] & [20]
Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damac's response to alleged sockpuppet's comments
(I originally inserted most of these comments into the text above.[21])
This is mid-April. In early February you were complaining about this.[22]. That constitutes a couple of months.
WP:AGF and WP:NPA! I resent you including me among a group of "sectarian rump of editors" and demand that you withdraw it. Weggie has used this label in the past in an attempt to intimidate legitimate editors from raising legitimate concerns.
Compared to you, User:Sam Blacketer is a seasoned editor. You registered on April 16. But then again, are you Weggie?
Why do you refuse to comment on my remark regarding "At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration" if the whole affair has nothing to do with you?
I note with interest that while you admit that User:86.12.249.63/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 are one and the same, you make no statement, positive or negative, regarding your relationship with Weggie. The silence is deafening.--Damac 08:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments by Damac
Please note that after User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 challenged me to make a formal complaint about my suspicicion of sockpuppetry,[23] he now deems this whole proceedure as trolling,[24] and vandalism.[25] Furthermore, he now accuses me of being "politically motivated", using "bully boy tactics", and being a "dishonest troll" and engaging in "vile activities".[26]--Damac 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Damac's response to alleged sockpuppet's comments
"This is mid-April. In early February you were complaining about this.[22]. That constitutes a couple of months."
This edit by weggie seems quite random and doesn't relate directly to the article content. The claim that this behaviour has lasted "many months" given in the evidence is dishonest
"WP:AGF and WP:NPA! I resent you including me among a group of "sectarian rump of editors" and demand that you withdraw it. Weggie has used this label in the past in an attempt to intimidate legitimate editors from raising legitimate concerns."
This is outside the scope of the sockpuppetry discussion
"Compared to you, User:Sam Blacketer is a seasoned editor. You registered on April 16. But then again, are you Weggie?"
Stating seasoned editor out of context, most users would consider this compared to a typical wikipedian. This point was made to demonstrate the dishonest nature of the language used in your evidence, (My comment is not a comment on this users abilities).
"Why do you refuse to comment on my remark regarding "At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration" if the whole affair has nothing to do with you? "
The very reason I do not comment on this is it has nothing to do with me
"I note with interest that while you admit that User:86.12.249.63/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 are one and the same, you make no statement, positive or negative, regarding your relationship with Weggie. The silence is deafening."
I do not believe you are that nieve to believe your own propoganda, however for the record I am not user Weggie
"Please note that after User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 challenged me to make a formal complaint about my suspicicion of sockpuppetry,[23]
I requested that if your were going to label me a sockpuppet that you follow procedure, I look forward to that label being removed
"he now deems this whole proceedure as trolling"
WP:TROLL refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors. This process is a waste of my, yours and the arbators time, your evidence is weak at best, and you haven't even attempted to claim a policy violation.
"and vandalism.[25] "
The vandalism comment was about user Damac making unconstructive edits to my userpage, and for you to attempt to dress it up differently is dishonest!
Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response From Weggie

CHECK USER NOW OR WITHDRAW THIS. I have Zero sockpuppets. Yet more harrasment from Damac. The claim that because I once contributed to a debate on a topic is no evidence of anything and given my clarification of the legal status on the RSF article (information which is still in there) and also my contribution to adding the RSF results at election time to the RSF article entirely illogical. I would say Damac is both trying to intimidate the user above and to try diminish my ability to edit. I have NEVER had a allegation like this before - whilst I have had instances of harassment from Damac, including general complaints on project pages which were ignored by other users Weggie 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from User talk:Damac[edit]

Please use check user ASAP for your claims that I have used a sock puppet. I have NOT ever, nor have been accused of this before or been banned for any activity. I was taking a break for a holiday and now I find yet more of your aggression towards me. Please check user or remove your claims. Weggie 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a checkuser, as you requested.
I was concerned about the edits on Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007, checked on and followed Wikipedia proceedure for dealing with allegations of sockpuppetry.
I'm sorry that you see this as "more ... aggression" towards you (can you please tell me when I was "aggressive" towards you in the past?), but I would ask that you allow Wikipedia proceedures to run their course. If an editor has a legitimate concern that something is up, s/he has the right to follow proceedure. You may encounter sockpuppets in the future and may very well have to do the same.
While I can understand that the whole proceedure is unpleasant, I was acting on legitimate concerns. As always, please try and remain civil (WP:CIVIL).--Damac 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Damac but can you complete the request with the violations you are concerned about from the other user as you have not provided a clear rationale for the check user case Weggie 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you move this discussion concerning "check user" to the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Weggie talk page, as it concerns a wider issue, and other users, Thankyou Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of information User:Damac did not follow procedure, and it is dishonest of him to claim so, he tried to use bully-boy tactics to label me a Sockpuppet, [27], [28], without reference to procedures, it was only after I repeatedly refused to accept his Vandalism and told him so [29] that he was prepared to give lip service to procedures, and has yet to make a claim of policy violation with regard to sockpuppetry - Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the exact proceedure, but followed it when it was pointed out. As regards the WP:SOCK proceedure, I'm on a learning curve. I don't particularly enjoy dealing with alleged sockpuppets, but feel that it is important to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.
This is nothing personal, for I have dealt with other alleged sockpuppets in a similar manner. For instance, discounting your claim that I form part of a "sectarian rump of editors", I've challanged RSF fanatics and vandals countless times. Back in October 2005, I simply created lists of ISPs used by one notorious RSF vandal/sockpuppet (see User:217.43.172.38). Later, I learned about sockpuppet labels and applied these accordingly (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Seán1905). As you would claim, I was using "bully boy" tactics in doing so, yet I feel that by preventing article being vandalised and abused, the integrity of Wikipedia was upheld in the long run.
I've also had to deal with Greek sockpuppets, as in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mitsos.
Although this might not come as a consolation to you (sing/plural), there is nothing personal or political in all this. I dispise RSF more than I do sockpuppets.--Damac 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a further point of information, "sectarian rump" was intended to reflect a small group or sect of people all dogmatically of one opinion, (ie regarding the format of the results table), it was not meant in the colloquial, Northern Ireland sence of the word. 86.12.249.63 09:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check User[edit]

Conclusions

Checkuser finds no connection, and I don't either. Interests are similar, but other normal indications of puppetry aren't there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Weggie&oldid=124594824"