Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ramdrake

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.

[edit] User:Ramdrake

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

--MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Ramdrake breached WP:3RR in the article race and intelligence undoing the actions of MoritzB and other editors and removing content five times between 12:57, 26 August 2007 and 20:17, 26 August 2007. See:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

I gave a message of this violation to Ramdrake. [6]

Ramdrake then performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article. [7]

However, 3 minutes after this edit IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to Ramdrake's version. This is suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada. (Confirmed with http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation)

Ramdrake states on his talk page that he lives in Montreal. See: [8]

The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar. [9] [10]

Ramdrake denied that he owns this IP address after I inquired about it. [11] Thus, I suspect him of mala fide use of a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule.

MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)




Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [12] [13], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [14] Many more examples can be given...) Recently Jeeny retired [15]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [16]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [17]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [18]. And of course they returned from the break together: [19] [20]. KarenAER 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments

I would just like to point out, for the record, before anyone starts on any chase, that these four changes do not revert to the same point at all, and one isn't a revert at all, as nothing was removed, and the additions were all original, so 3RR wasn't broken to begin with.--Ramdrake 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A revert is defined as "undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content." ([WP:3RR])
Your first two edits restored deleted content.
MoritzB 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the "evidence" in question, but in my opinion it is circumstantial at best. I do feel obliged however, to say that the user MoritzB merely made this page as a reactionary response to charges brought against him by the user in question.[21] Whatever the case may be, Ramdrake has done nothing as far as blatant disruption since he/she was merely reverting the apparent vandalism and strongly suspected sockpuppeting going on. Also, the only reason he got the idea was through an apparent instigator who has noted edit disputes with Jeeny[22], a user who warned him on his talk page about 3rr. The bias imo is apparent as the user even tries to connect Jeeny with Ramdrake, which is totally unfounded, and MoritzB merely compartmentalized it, and is trying to make an entire case out of it.[23]Taharqa 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER wrote on my talk page that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet, too. I didn't make that claim. Could you stop your pointless accusations, please?MoritzB 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Karen and Moritz, if you do not agree with a number of editors, that does not mean they are sockpuppets. In my opinion this is a complete waste of time. Before making accusations of sockpuppetry I recommend doing adequate research on the parties involved. In fact both of you have recent accounts, hmmm??. Muntuwandi 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The request for checkuser was declined by User:Deskana with the following statement:

The privacy policy generally prohibits releasing IPs. It's obvious that the IP is him, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake MoritzB 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Ramdrake is the ip. A few days off are warranted. The situation was very tense but I do not condone what was done. I do not know everyone very well to comment on Jeeny and Ramdrake. They seem to be different people but you never know. On the 3RR, I initially thought no harm was done, but upon careful inspection, there was a violation. Brusegadi 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had dealings with both of these editors and there is absolutely no indication that one is a sockpuppet of the another. Indeed the only substantial evidence presented here is that Ramdrake may have broken the three revert rule by making a revert while not logged in to his account. This may not be acceptable behaviour for sure, but this is surely evidence that RAmdrake and Jeeny are not socks or even Meatpuppets. If Ramdrake and Jeeny were sockpuppets why would be not just revert with his sock account? Why would he use an IP address? The evidence of sockpuppetry is nonexistent. If ramdrake reverted from his IP address then give him a warn, it's what is usually done surely? Alun 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Brusegadi is off-base. MoritzB and KarenAER have been pushing an extreme fringe POV on the article for several days with very little support, and in frustration have turned to (independent, no doubt) attacks on Ramdrake's character as well as Jeeny's very existence. The weakness of his argument is evident in that he has to combine it with a non-existent 3RR violation (the five edits concern two different matters, and the first set of edits really is rather trivial, mainly a dispute over what goes in a citation and not the actual removal of a view or content from the article) that is in any case unrelated to the charge of sock-puppetry. You know, I often agree with Jeeny and Ramdrake and often edit at the same time. I am surprised MoritzB or KarenAER have not accused me of being a "sleeper sockpuppet" - you know, four years before he set up his own account, Ramdrake created me just in case. The issue is simple: these editors are part of a tiny minority and several editors who are more familiar with the current research disagree with him. Instead of acknowledging that his in the minority, MoritzB can only imagine that everyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. This is reckless POV warrioring at its worst. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not said that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet and Ramdrake is the one who has seriously broken Wikipedia policies with his IP sockpuppet. This is a very simple case of a dishonest editor. Content disputes are irrelevant.
MoritzB 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all very well, but it doesn't explain why you posted information purportedly showing that Ramdrake has broken the 3rr rule. This page is supposed to present evidence of sockpuppetry and not evidence of breaches of 3rr. The IP account listed has only four edits, so it is obviously not being used as a sock account. Possibly it is Ramdrake, and if it is, it certainly is a foolish thing to do, but it does not represent a persistent attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies. If Ramdrake made a mistake, even if this mistake was engaging in an edit war using an IP, then this is a different thing to having a specific sockpuppet account for nefarious purposes. Let's remember to assume good faith. Also it's worth taking into account the essay regarding wikilawyering. All the best. Alun 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the sockpuppet was to circumvent the 3RR. It is specifically forbidden to use sockpuppets to circumvent policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy
MoritzB 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? Alun 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. MoritzB 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have modified my statement and apologize to you for my error. The fact remains that Ramdrake has done nothing wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake did broke the 3RR both with his account and the sockpuppet. See: [24]
MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I see this SSP report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nattang 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, Ramdrake (talk) filed a SSP report against MoritzB (talk) 2 to 3 days before MoritzB (talk) filed against Ramdrake (talk). So again, this report is nothing more than a way for MoritzB (talk) to get his revenge against Ramdrake (talk). nattang 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Ramdrake's previous (baseless) reports excuse his use of sockpuppetry to circumvent 3rr.
MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Will someone please close this case so I can get rid of the trolls harrasing me? Please do a check user on me and Ramdrake. Sheesh- Jeeny Talk 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

I'm going to leave the case open, but my provisional conclusion is that Ramdrake should not be blocked. I add a couple of notes:

  1. Ramdrake's block log shows two blocks for 3RR long in the past, one specifically regarding "race and intelligence." That causes people like me to become suspicious.
  2. MoritzB is clearly making a counterattack from Ramdrake's accusation against him two days earlier. That makes me suspect a bogus accusation.
  3. It's possible that the IP is Ramdrake. There's no way to be certain because of insufficient evidence. It is equally possible that the IP was some other fellow patrolling recent changes, who evaluated a diff and decided "Ramdrake was right." I have made such an evaluation doing RC patrol at least once. The nature of the 3RR violation, if there was one (counting the IP edit), is also questionable. If it comes to a question of whether there were three reverts or four, and maybe one of them wasn't really a revert, and maybe one of them was from a disinterested IP, and the whole dispute goes far beyond the bounds of this accusation, etc. etc., the best course of action is not to block Ramdrake.

That being said, it would be nice for everyone involved (especially MoritzB, the plantiff) to cool down, and for Ramdrake to be extra careful to avoid even the appearance of 3RR, given the past history.

The claim that Jeeny is related to these two editors is patently ridiculous and does not merit further comment. Shalom Hello 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now certain that the IP was Ramdrake, (confirmed with RFCU).

"Having discussed with Deskana privately, I believe that the privacy policy is not intended to protect the IPs of users when it is the IP itself that is being used for abusive editing. In this case it is a clear Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

MoritzB 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This matter has already been dealt with through the checkuser case linked above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)