Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RaveenS

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:RaveenS[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

216.95.23.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.95.23.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Zleitzen 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This anon users first edits were an immediate detailed reversion of material supported by User:RaveenS on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page. Utilising all the techniques of an experienced user, and an obvious knowledge of the material on a page that RaveenS created, the anon restored much of RaveenS material that had been deleted as original research. User:216.95.23.95 also shares the same editing pattern as User:216.95.23.239 and RaveenS, editing primarily on state terrorism subjects. This anon even appeared on a template for deletion discussion [1] which RaveenS was heavily involved in. The subject is again "state terrorism". Without wishing to sound like a wiki-stalker, this statement by RaveenS "I think we are trail blazing in Wikipedia. When we started the State terrorism series, we got into number of AFD's but all of them resulted in State terrorism becoming a standard subject" [2] speaks volumes.--Zleitzen 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It is me who used the above two Anon accounts when I didnot sign in but I did not vote in the TFD. Which is what the sockpuppet rules indicate as Sockpupprts should not be used to create an impression of more support to a cause when there is non. Hence the above asertion is malicious and I demand an apology. In the TFD I merely commented on others. Further I have re-directed the Anon accounts to my user page. I will continue to use anon accounts when I forget to sign in as it happens sometimes in the future. ThanksRaveenS 17:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to vote to create an illusion of support. And demanding an apology assumes that the request was made in bad faith, please read WP:AGF. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree see the following from sockpuppetry For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny." [1] Further I did not create them, I merely did not sign on and my AOL like account assigns what ever servor is available. Hence I did not create a sockpuppet. Creating a sockpuppet shows intent to cheat unless othewise stated. All what my behaviour can prove is that I did not sign on. Period there is no policy against it. Further in the TFD without my user account I merely pointed out that one one newbie had edited for the first time and another had lobbied for a vote. None can be construed as to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny.. It is merely like book keeping. Helping the ADmin to notice irregularities. ThanksRaveenS 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the same policy page The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably. Which shows that there no consensus as to what I did was wrong. Also Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Based on the above asertion I will in the future if I edit without signing on which will happen as I am a normal human being, I will make all reasonable attempt to link that Anon user page to my user page. ThanksRaveenS 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This report by Zleitzen doesn't assume WP:AGF to start off with and this whole report is baseless. User:RaveeS did not create and use multiple accounts. This whole dispute centers around of user:RaveenS not having signed in to ips. User:RaveenS is a person of high standing in the wikipedia community. You cannot deny he is exceptional here and deserves to be praised for his efforts to create neutral authoritative articles on wikipedia (some of which have been featured) and not be dragged through the mud as has been done here. It borders on being an unwarranted personal attack on user:RaveenS. RaveenS has done nothing wrong and the contribution history of the ip edits clear shows linkage to RaveenS. An intent to hide this was not shown so there is nothing malicious about it . The fact of the matter is there is a content dispute between the accused and accuser here and this seems to be a fall out from this. On the TFD, his anonymous ip was used to comment on what appears to be voting irregularities and not for or against any view even. I personally think this report should be withdrawn ASAP! Elalan 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a content dispute, between me (trying to make sure pages abide by WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) and User:RaveenS who appeared to be operating anon IP addresses on various pages and ignoring calls for WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, despite recommendations from myself and now two admins. Surely a person of "high standing in the wikipedia community", such as User:RaveenS would take a good look at the rule book and realise that this type of activity is not on. If it looks like User:RaveenS is being dragged through the mud, then the user should perhaps use only one acount to conduct major reversions of controversial articles and only one account to add comments to a tfd. And then perhaps User:RaveenS could address the other pending issues with his edits after that.--Zleitzen 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank you have not shown a shred of evidence RaveenS has used multiple registered wikipedia "accounts" and hence this whole report is dead in the water. I would suggest everybody here cooldown and take a deep breath and come back after some introspection. RaveenS has multiple ip addresses, which is normal in this day and age. There is nothing malicious in this and assuming so contravenes WP:AGF. Why RaveenS has multiple ip addresses and uses them doesn't contravene anything. Asking why is fine, but I am not sure RaveenS is answerable to that question (that is entirely his business). Further RaveenS has put in redirect from the ip addresses to his only user account. Elalan 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV really has no basis in this report. These are entirely content matters and should be dealt with in the content dispute forum. All of these points have to be agreed upon through consensus within the community. Elalan 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RaveenS has put in redirects from the ip addresses, true. Only after I added the sockpuppet tags. Either he did use different accounts to make major reversions of a controversial article and add comments to a tfd. Or he didn't. I believe he did - followed the correct procedure and alerted admins as per guidlelines. It would now appear that I was correct, and the user has admitted it - mistake or not. I would expect an editor with a "high standing in the wikipedia community" to be more aware of protocol, than to make basic errors of logging in and then respond in this way to legitimate wikipedia process - claiming it is "malicious" and demanding an apology. --Zleitzen 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also redirected IP 64.201.162.1 to my User page although in the IP talk page I had acknowledge long agao that it was me. Although I dont sign through the servor anymore, I did it to eliminate any questions in the futureRaveenS 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected[User:216.95.23.87]] to me. If I find more as these servors change all the time I will redirect them to my user pageRaveenS

This is such a petty non-issue - and appears to be a deliberate attempt to distract very good wikipedians who, from what I can see have done a great job in enriching the articles they have been working on. I find this a genuine mistake of the concerned individual (User:Raveen S), who most likely was unaware he wasn't signed in a few times - a common occurence - and he has my support. Citermon 12:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citermon, I consider your comments unhelpful and uncivil. I have never yet encountered a "good wikipedian" on my work on the 1000s of articles I work on - including featured articles - that has consistently forgotten to sign in whilst reverting extremely controversial articles a number of times, or whilst engaging in a tfd vote. Neither can such behaviour be described as a "petty non-issue" - that kind of activity demands an explanation. Which we eventually received thanks to this investigation. --Zleitzen 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean consistently forgotten, Are you insinuating I voted on the TFD contrary to evidence? Also are you personally attacking me contrary to the WP:NPA as above ? Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikipedians. Thanks RaveenS 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No evidence to show this was intentional sockpuppetry to gain the illusion of support, reasonable that this was a habit of forgetting to log in. RaveenS is reminded to be more careful, to avoid similar accusations in the future. Closing without blocks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]