Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am no sock puppet. Last time I was accused of being Pocklington Dan, see [[1]] This time it is oldwindybear. Please do check. I don't think you will find us editing in some pattern, either. Stillstudying 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added another that displays the same style, exactly what User:Barneca said. GDonato (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Jonashart is fairly obviously a resident of Vermont, this is beginning to look just a little bit like a fishing trip to me. Kirill 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Hi Kirill! My goodness, poor Jonas is a friend, who has posted a couple of messages for me while I was at work, and unable to do so! He is in new england, (the place) and I am in southern maryland, or he was the last time I asked, though he is moving soon. I am really saddened that he has been drug into this, and have to humbly repeat what I asked earlier, what in the world got my name involved in this? I don't blindly endorse Stillstudying, (whose tone to Deskana was appalling!) though I have tried to get him more involved in our military history project - but I do that with Ewulp, Jonas, and view it as one function of a good editor! I am really distressed, and would like to know, what did I do? old windy bear 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do feel I must note that as to Jonashart, the only time I have "posted" without posting was by sending an email (I was at work) to Jonashart and he posted for me, with a note he was doing so, and why. (in other words, he posted saying "this is from oldwindybear who is at work." I am not aware this is a violation of the sock puppet rules, but if it is, I am truly and really very apologetic, and note that I did not try and hide that I had asked another editor to post a message for me! If this is a violation, I would appreciate being informed of same. I have also, occasionally, switched computers at home, and forgotten to sign in on the laptop, which leaves my internet address, (but not my user name of owb), but I try to go back and sign in, and note I had forgotten, as I did a few minutes ago on [[2]]. These are the only incidents I know of that I have "posted" without doing so personally as oldwindybear. I must now run, and hope this will be resolved, and please someone, tell me what I have done to be involved in this? old windy bear 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

barneca (talk I certainly will support having a check done. I do wonder why I am involved with this, since the last time Stillstudying was previously accused of being a sock puppet, he was accused of being Pocklington Dan I am not him, but I also do humbly ask why I was accused this way? I do not take the same tone he does, and I am at a loss – since last time he was accused of being Pocklington Dan – why I am accused this time? I understand Deskana’s irritation at him, I am irritated at him myelf for sparking this! But I really don’t understand how my name got involved. I certainly have no problem with a check user. As to the geographic area theory, anyone who reads both our pages knows he says he is from dc, and I am from southern maryland, so we are probably within 10 million people and 50 miles of each otehr, assuing his residence statement is true. Again, I would respectfully ask how I am involved in this, what did I do? I do not object ot check-user, and will stand down till this is resolved.old windy bear 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's funny stuff. I'll give this a day to sort itself out. Do some homework, seriously. Given a minute of research, you should find how silly your suggestion really is. And then, once you've figured it out, feel free to apologize.--Jonashart 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)For the record, I reviewed Jonashart's contributions before submitting this request, and personally don't have evidence he is a sockpuppet. I don't know how that affect his inclusion in the checkuser review; for all I know he would welcome the check. But I would not argue against his removal, and intentionally did not include him in my initial request. --barneca (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser may refuse this particular user if they wish, then. GDonato (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you, if someone, who evidently can't differentiate between users based on well-maintained system of history and documentation, is able to call into question the ID of another user, methinks the system has a problem. This ought be fixed soon.--Jonashart 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that StillStudying and OldWindyBear also have an unusual habit of copying the signature of the user they are refering to. Some users Wikilink, but they are the only two I've seen copy the entire coding of a signature. And this comment by StillStudying almost made me open a case on them, but considering my dispute with them I didn't per COI. New England ^{(C) (H)} 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional information: Checkuser is invited to review User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report

[edit] SHUT DOWN

This is my last edit. I know checkuser will show that I did nothing wrong, but I am not going to be constantly harrassed. New Enlgand, please, Pedro pointed out on the admin's page that I copied the opening, and I did. A thorough checkuser will show: 1) I am me, and not using anyone's computer; 2) a year and a half, 500+ edits, and my interests are books and movies, basically, only going to military sites because the bear recruited me. I think you will find our interests different. This whole thing is outrageous, and I am shutting down, but I want checkuser to clear our names. For me, if it is not this, the people who dislike me will find something else, so I am going, and staying gone, this is the last edit I will make, ever. Stillstudying 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the report saying?

barneca (talk I would like to ask you a favor - what am I looking at with the report? Days and times we edited? I don't exactly understand what it is, forgive me, I would ask you to explain it. I promisd I would not post endlessly, and I will not. I can not see why it is unusual that a student would post during the day, and myself, who works, would do so during the evening. I also have trouble believing that somewhere in these edits are not ones done close to, or the same, time. Folks, this is not a difficult situation. We operate here on trust, to a large extent. I know that check-user will verify that I am not anyone else, and I don't use sockpuppets. Let me reassure you - if you, as a group, find that you think I have broken the rules, even if the check-user says otherwise, (which it will), then I will quietly resign. Why? Because no admin, and I am proud of being elected one with no opposing votes, and no good editor, can operate without the trust of his or her fellows. If you don't trust me, as a group, then I will resign. I cannot make my good will and strong belief in our project here more open than that. The project is more important than any one person! I would hope though that you will all weigh what Pedro |  Chat  and Kirill , and others have said, jeez, this editor irritates people, and imitates my greeting, and somehow, I am caught up in this! Still, I will not stay if not wanted. I hope that day does not come, but I wanted to reassure everyone my first priority is the encyclopedia. old windy bear 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OWB, I believe I have addressed this in even more detail in the accompanying text at the front of the list on User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report.

All, if anyone is preliminarily convinced that I am right, or has noticed these patterns before, I wouldn't mind some help at User:Barneca/Draft SSP report formatting and getting diffs for some of the points below. It seems clear that many of OWB's friends will need a lot of convincing, so one or two diffs is probably not going to cut it. I think I will need to do a page move when I'm done here, rather than copy and paste, to preserve GFDL, right? --barneca (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

barneca (talk) Well Barneca, I looked over your "evidence" and what you are saying is, the fact that you say - and I am not convinced, I have not looked at every edit - that SS and I do not edit at the same time is "evidence" we are the same person. I ask in return, what about the pattern of editing? We don't edit the same topics, except where I tried to get him interested in military history, AS I DO FOR MANY EDITORS. (ask Jonas and Ewulp, to name two I did the same thing for!) A detailed look at his contributions show a different style, and different interests, his are primarily movies and books, while mine rarely enter into those areas. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to override check-user by saying it is possible, since we both, admittedly, live in the same metropolitan area, (by our talk pages), to be the same person. To support this, no offense, and to override the fact we had different basic interests, you say since he edited during the day, and I the evening, that we must, epso de facto, be the same person. No offense, but that is INSANE. Would you like to offer a thought what I had to gain by editing over 500 edits, in different areas, over a year? 66 people, 64 if you discount the two you have identified, thought enough of me to vote me unopposed for admin. You pretty much concede that check-user will not support any charges, so you say to heck with that, if they didn't edit the same time - never mind they were editing different things most of the time - they must be the same person. I am sorry, but that is plain crazy. Finally, I will offer that if anyone contacts Jonashart, he will verify that while SS was arguing with people in wikipedia, I emailed him, telling him no good would come of it, and asking him to post a message asking SS to email me from my profile. Are you also saying then that I was similitaneously emailing Jonas to leave messages for myself while answring them? I am sorry, but you pretty much concede there is NO evidence except we may, if the two talk pages are correct, live within the same general metropolitan area. I am sorry, but that is really stretching it, and as Kirill says, this has become a fishing expedition. I have tried to be patient, but this has gone into the realm of the downright silly. Bluntly, you have not even offered enough real evidence to even warrant check-user, but as you probably know check-user won't show us to be the same, you are now saying, ah-hah, they planned this out, and what evidence is there? Where are the same interests, the same type edits? His shining achievement was a rewrite of The Searchers, the film, and if you study that rewrite, and the peer review, it is totally different from my style of writing. We are supposed to assume good faith, to override it, to go big brother, to quote you, to have compelling evidence. You have NO evidence, except the admitted fact we may live within the same 10 million person metropolitan area! This is sad. User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that in a year, over 500 edits, that I would not, at some point, have used the same computer if I were SS. He certainly fouled up and used the same one as FWS, so it makes NO sense to claim I would do differently. Add that to the different interests, different attitude - I would never talk to someone the way he did Deskana - and I think the matter is settled. Since check-user has completely vindicated me, I have resumed my duties as an admin and editor, and I thank everyone for their support. Barneca, I don't think you enjoyed this, and hopefully you will accept the result. (I don't live in teh same state as SS!) Thanks,old windy bear 10:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)