Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Outside comments 1.1 Outside statement by David Gerard 1.2 Statement by Garglebutt 1.3 Statement by Xtra 1.4 Outside statement by Esteffect 1.5 Note on sockpuppets from David Gerard 1.6 Additional note on sockpuppetry from Kelly Martin 1.7 Comment by Stevage 1.8 Comment by bainer (talk) 2 Blocking of DarrenRay

[edit] Outside comments

[edit] Outside statement by David Gerard

This may be related to the Australian Politics Vandal, a troll/vandal who adds possibly defamatory statements to all manner of articles related to minor Australian politics. The link is not certain, but it smells of it - David Gerard 11:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked in CheckUser. There's a sockpuppet theatre going on here. I'll be writing up a private report with details for the AC and blocking a string of sockpuppets very soon - David Gerard 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At Ambi's request, I've run the necessary checkusers and blocked all the sockpuppets I could find. My results are available to the committee privately, and I'm working on a detailed breakdown. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Garglebutt

I have probably been more involved in the heat of this battle than most other editors. Both the involved parties came to WP with strong agendas and predetermined views on how articles would look, with strong opposal to any views that did not coincide with their own. They sought and ignored advice from others, including admins, as they tried to find a way to enforce their particular POV on the articles of interest to them. I appreciate there are (at least) two sides to every story, but it is not appropriate to swing an article from one extreme to the other and call it NPOV.

Criticisms aside, both DarrenRay and AChan have made some worthwhile contributions when they are not revert warring over contentious political articles, but on a number of occasions when things seem to be settling down, 2006BC has stirred the pot as is the case with the Rugs Galore article.

I believe they should all, at the very least, be banned from editing any articles relating to Melbourne University, including the student union liquidation, those directly or indirectly involved, and associated student bodies. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Xtra

I have previously supported a Request for arbitration against these two and their "associates". They are not interested in consensus building and are continually adding personal attacks against Dean McVeigh. Normally I would think that it is good that someone associated with an organisation is adding content, but ith these two users I differ. Due to their continual POV pushing, adding of personal attacks, reverting against consensus, I believe they should be banned from editing any page to do with Melbourne University student activities and from adding any content to do with Dean McVeigh. Xtra 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside statement by Esteffect

I apologise if this statement is being made in the wrong place, but I figured it is correct. Please note that I am not at all defending either user's actions, which I believe are wrong. However, I am almost certain that Darren Ray and Benjamin Cass are different people. Firstly, both are listed as presidents of the Melbourne University Student Union. Secondly, various Google searches give results such as this, which suggests that both persons do exist. From an hour long discussion on IRC in #wikipedia, which both Ray and Cass were present for, it seems that the two are very good friends with very similar ideologies, and that the two work together (I will loosely suggest that is where the matching IPs came from). I'm not supporting or opposing any motion with regard to blocking and unblocking, but in the interest of fairness, I hope that the two are treated as different people in this case, and not as the same. Esteffect 13:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on sockpuppets from David Gerard

Darren Ray is User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed different people, although they appear to have edited from each others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks' accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks.

If these guys aren't actually the exclusive operators of the phenomenon that the vandal-hunters have named "the Australian Politics Vandal" then they're the main operators.

I've sent a fuller report to the AC. I also just blocked AChan as a sock indefinitely and DarrenRay for 48 hours for sockpuppet abuse to evade 3RR. Darren can, of course, still communicate with the AC via email. (You lucky people!)

And their obsession with small-time headkicking politics is remarkable. I got a query on my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party affiliation is. WTF. I'm with the "we're here to write an encyclopedia, not play pitterpat with people using it for petty outside ambitions" party. Thanks ever so much - David Gerard 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence is confusing until you realise there's more than one person, which is probably how Essjay concluded 2006BC was the same as DarrenRay. Coordinated vandalism/POV-pushing teams are really quite rare, thankfully. I'm now trying to work out who person number three is editing as, and if there's a fourth.

I strongly recommend the AC ban Darren Ray and Benjamin Cass by name. Knocking their political legs out from under them is the only way to take away their motivation. They've been trashing Wikipedia for months in this cause, and a general admin disgust ban hasn't stopped their assiduous work one dot - David Gerard 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional note on sockpuppetry from Kelly Martin

I've also reviewed the CheckUser evidence that David and Essjay refer to above, and I see clear indication of a combination of multiple sockpuppetry, coordinated edits, and so forth. I've submitted a summary of the evidence to the Arbitration Committee privately, and place myself at their discretion should they require additional information on the basis of my conclusions. It is my opinion that there are two individuals, possibly three, who are coordinating their activities across multiple accounts for the purpose of using Wikipedia as a vehicle to gain advantage in a dispute not within Wikipedia. As such, I recommend that all such individuals should be banned under the precedent set in the Bogdanov Affair case last year and all accounts used by those individuals blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Stevage

In case no one has pointed out the obvious:

• DarrenRay - president of MUSU 2002, runs vitriolic blog musulies.com, edits MUSU related pages claiming to "remove POV"
• 2006BC - president of MUSU 2000, creditor of musu which is liquidated by McVeigh, runs vitriolic blog makemcveighpay.blogspot.com, edits McVeigh related pages, including Rugs Galore. Also attempted to hide links to sources ([1]) - note that the articles were *not* editorials

I'm sure I read somewhere on Darren's blog that the two went to school together, then drifted into different political affiliations at uni (Democrats and Labor, from memory). Can't find the link now.

Personally, I don't find their POV's a concern - they're understandable, and manageable - but their behaviour is frustrating at best. Deeply POV statements (to the level of attack pages against this McVeigh character) inserted without the slightest hesitation, reverts, and accusations of "defamation" and vague threats when challenged. Plus the continuing paranoia that every "anonmyous/pseudonymous" editor is either directly involved, "hiding something" or has some strong political affiliation is really tiresome. Stevage 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by bainer (talk)

My key concern is essentially that identified by Ambi: "This is a fairly simple case - two people who are being sued by an auditor over their role in the collapse of a company are way too personally involved to be editing articles about said auditor and said company." In my evidence, I have focused on these users' edits to pages relating to the student union. In my opinion, these edits, which mainly consist of removing published information about the student union's liquidation, are inappropriate in general, but are especially inappropriate given the fact that the users in question are (or at least appear to be) two former presidents of the union, who are and have been subject to legal action arising out of the liquidation.

As to the allegations of sockpuppetry, I have no comment, other than to point out that the different people these users claim to be are indeed real people, and also to point out that the different users have collaborated to make reverts. --bainer (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of DarrenRay

Can the arbitrators please instruct the unblocking of User:DarrenRay so that he can participate in this arbitration? Xtra 07:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I requested a temporary injunction limiting his editing only to arbitration-related pages. Feel free to edit it as necessary. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've offered to pass Darren's messages on, and have watchlisted his page, but I think the proposal from Johnleemk is a good one and I'd second the request. --kingboyk 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important that User:BenjaminCass be given the same privledge. Frankly his blocking as asockpuppet is rather absurd. Everyone seems to agree that he is really editing (probably from the same flat or office as User:DarrenRay, hence the checkuser result). Sam Spade 21:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)