Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

[edit] Ramdrake

• Ramdrake (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 24.37.123.58 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

• Code letter: E

Ramdrake breached WP:3RR in the article race and intelligence restoring deleted material or deleting added material undoing the actions of MoritzB and other editors 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)

The 6th edit made with the IP address sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=153806218&oldid=153805988

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 using of a sockpuppet mala fide to circumvent the three-revert-rule.

MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: MoritzB was recently the subject of a RfCU case filed by Ramdrake. WjBscribe 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Declined. The privacy policy generally prohibits releasing IPs. It's obvious that the IP is him, anyway. --Deskana (apples) 01:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Comment Please, is this then believed to be abusive editing and can result in an indef block? If so, that is very sad for Wikipedia. It may have been out of frustration, but abusive? Isn't that a bit harsh considering the history of the editors, nature of the articles in question, the constant intimidation by other editors who use offensive language, treats of blocks, wrong accusations to intimidate, etc.? If Ramdrake gets blocked by this one instance, when I've seen others who are actually sinister and dishonest, able to evade sockpuppet blocks over and over again and actually DO indulge in abusive and destructive editing, then this is sad indeed. Ramdrake is NOT guilty of this. And if Ramdrake is blocked, we will be losing a valuable editor. I'm not defending that what he did was right at all. But was that one edit misguided out of frustration, and a poor decision? I believe so. He was not hiding behind a dubious account id to hide his identity, like many I've seen on these highly controversial articles that we are involved in editing. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This almost certainly won't be a indefinite block. Probably just 24hrs like his last block in December. The Behnam 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that Ramdrake really was "hiding behind a dubious account id to hide his identity."

I do not know whether any Wikipedia policy prohibits lying but this is an obvious case of dishonesty.

MoritzB 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)\

You're so full of it. You are insulting to this project. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am just disappointed that he used an IP sockpuppet and didn't tell the truth after I specifically asked him. MoritzB 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, poor thing you are so disappointed in his "dishonesty". Because <Jack Nicholson as Col. Jessep voice> YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!.</v> - Jeeny ^Talk 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: what really happened involved two people sitting at two computers that day, sharing the same internet connection, and one of them showing the other how frustrated he got about certain specific issues (and certain specific editors) around Wikipedia. The rest is history. Although, I'm fully willing to bear the full responsibility for this offense and take whatever sanctions are deemed fitting for it, commensurately to the gravity of said offense.--Ramdrake 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you "implied" (in your own words) that it wasn't your own IP [12], and now you are saying that that is false, and that you knew it. Indeed, in light of what seems like clear dishonesty, am I also to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that this second person on your IP, who, despite being on a different computer, apparently also shares your exact same browser, version, and operating system, happened to have made one of only four logged-out edits by your IP? Interesting also, that the other three edits, just like this one, consist of reverting to you and two reverts [13] [14] just prior to your "compromise" edit [15]. Looks like you're making a habit of showing your frustration to this rude house guest of yours, while you two sit at your separate computers. Dmcdevit·t 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

IP is blocked for one month, account creation enabled. Please note that in order to continue to edit, your rude houseguest should create an account and attempt to avoid meatpuppetry in the future. If this sort of rule violation continues, the IP may be blocked with account creation disabled next time, and for an extended length of time. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. One month! I've lost all faith in this project. Fourdee will be back, so will Phral, much sooner, like they're done numerous times before. A person who uses his own account with personal information clear as a bell on his user page, and the IP matches. This is some kangaroo court of wannbe lawering. Whatever. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the block does not affect Ramdrake at all, just anonymous editors using his IP. It's up to him if he wants to let his rude houseguest know that this is the case. Really, Jeeny, way to jump to conclusions. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a bad few weeks. Sorry for jumping. I really think there should be a wiki-psychologist on board for in this type of stuff. ;p - Jeeny ^Talk 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about it, just asking if it would be wise to request a perma-block of the naked IP (same settings as now) so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety in the future? Is it a wise thing to ask for?--Ramdrake 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)