Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poison sf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have to agree with UberCyrix that the user is attempting subversion of Wikipedia policies. I am, of course, no sock-puppet. Anyone remotely believing that should look at my Userpage. Anyone making this effort for a sock-puppet is a Moron. What User:Stick_to_the_Facts is confusing here is same opinion and same person. We are quite distinct persons having the same opinion ("Stick_to is damaging Wikipedia"). Nominating User is unable to accept valid criticisms.--ExplicitImplicity 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You created your account on sept 11 and first edit was to stormfront article sept 13th. You are also clearly experienced in using wikipedia. Stick to the Facts 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I indeed created my user account on sept11 and my first edit was my userpage. That alone should convince you i am no sockpuppet. I am indeed experienced in using wikipedia, but if you would look at my userpage, the first sentence contains the answer as to why (i am a user for the last 4 years....). Also have a look at my Contrib-page. If i'm a sockpuppet, i'm quite a versatile one.... But you won't believe me, even if we met face to face. Gladly for me, you don't have to believe me.--ExplicitImplicity 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I meant that your first edit of a wikipedia article was to Stormfront's article. That you state that you created this account on September 11, 2006 and have been using wikipedia for four years appears to be an outright admission that you are a sockpuppet of SOMEBODY. Please refer to wikipedia policy on sock puppetry. This violates the one editor one account rule. Let it be so noted. Stick to the Facts 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am unsure if i should laugh or cry. Let's make it clear for you: This user account (ExplicitImplicity) is attributable to ONE UNIQUE human being. This human being has exactly ONE UNIQUE user account (ExplicitImplicity). Therefore i am neither a sock-puppet, nor a sock-puppeteer. ...... *deepbreath* ..... So there are multiple possibilities for what you called my "admission":
  1. I once had an account and lost my PW and now registered a new one
  2. I never had an account for the last 4 years and just registered
  3. I use this account for editing on public computers
  4. I use different accounts to help preserve my anonymity
  5. I registered this account in order to experience how the community functions for new users
  6. I am a vicious liar and indeed a sockpuppet
That you call my words "an outright admission that you are a sockpuppet" evidences that you immediately jumped to the last possibility, without looking at the others. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. You might also have a look at WP:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts. Thanks very much.--ExplicitImplicity 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Your account is only 8 days old so, in the worst case scenario it gets banned. Eight days isn't that much. Or, if you are telling the truth, you'll be ok. I guess the only reason I'd be as concerned as you appear to be would be if I really WERE a sock puppet of one of the other accounts - and you were afraid that both would be banned. In any case if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about. Stick to the Facts 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Let me add this: if in fact this is true: "This human being has exactly ONE UNIQUE user account (ExplicitImplicity)" then it necessarily follows that out of the six hypos you suggested above, only 2 and 6 apply. That means you either lurked for 4 years without an account and just decided to make one a few days ago (where did you learn to create user pages so quickly?), or you are, as you put it, "...a vicious liar and indeed a sockpuppet." Stick to the Facts 09:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


You are capable of Deductive reasoning. WOW! You are right, of my 6 hypotheses only 2 and 6 apply. Now choose... *lol*
"In any case if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about." Indeed, I have nothing to worry about. I am just concerned about you seeing a conspiracy everywhere. Now you construe my Userpage as evidence that I'm a sockpuppet. *lol* As i said again and again (but you don't listen) if i were a sockpuppet my puppeteer surely wouldn't spend as much time editing the userpage of a stupid puppet.
Are you listening now ? And, yes, you are right. I "lurked" for 4 years without an account and just decided to make one a few days ago. WOW, what a surprise. But why do you use the term "lurking" for my use of wikipedia ? You are construing bad intent again !!! Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith again.--ExplicitImplicity 13:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
How did you learn to create a user page so quickly? I don't see how you would acquire that skill if you had only been lurking for 4 years. Also, can you deny that SOME of these people were invoved in sock/meat puppetry? Look at the thread on the stormfront forum where people were recruiting editors and gloating over taking the page over. Are you sticking up for them too? Stick to the Facts 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"How did you learn to create a user page so quickly?" Let's say I am capable.... Of transferring my skill in editing an article to editing a userpage. Not that big a stretch, isn't it ? As for the other people: I can't tell. I believe that Brimba, Alecmconroy, UberCryxic and Poison are distinct people. But how could i tell ? I'm neither god nor an Admin. And neither are you. I completely agree with what UberCyrix said: "I am defending no one. I am merely using common sense and assuming good faith. I have no reason to suspect any editor of sockpuppetry, and neither do you." I'm just quite concerned about your flat-out refusal to assume good faith. Whatever it is, you interpret it in the most damning and conspiratorial way possible. That seems problematic to me.--ExplicitImplicity 14:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)



Wow lmao. Unbelievable. Here you can find that the first edit I made to the article was at 17:49 September 16, which corresponds to 5:49 pm in military time. And you can see at [[1]] that Poison nominated the article at 15:59 on September 16, which corresponds to 3:59 pm. The user is confused.UberCryxic 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My timestamp says what I claimed it does. It still says that. If my timestamp is different from yours, perhaps it is because my time offset is different - but I don't know why it would effect one timestamp and not the other. If you are correct then that will be clear to other people and you have nothing to worry about, at least on that point. I am curious about how many other RfC's you've responded to in less than 2 hours. In any case, if I am wrong it certainly was no intentional error - the record is there for all to see. And the evidence is not limited to this one point. Stick to the Facts 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the time thing works. You might be in a different time zone. So an edit that I make at 6 pm could appear like one I made at 2 pm to you. But that doesn't resolve anything, because then Poison's RFC nomination should also appear at an earlier time. My only conclusion is that you are blatantly lying and are now trying to find an excuse to get out of it (or ignore it altogether). Your latter point proves nothing. I was roaming around RFC and I happened to bump across this one shortly after it was posted. We're obviously way beyond assuming good faith here, but you almost sound like a conspiracy theorist. Everyone here is apparently out to get you and your precious little article. You can't just fathom for a second that all of us were trying to help for the good of Wikipedia.UberCryxic 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The time stamp of your last edit here reads 02:01, 20 September 2006 and it is 22:15 on Sept. 19th where I am now. Perhaps there is a quirk with the time offset that I'm not aware of. In any case if what you say is true then you have nothing to worry about - on that point anyway. Stick to the Facts 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Followup - my timestamp above is for 2:19AM on the 20th but when I checked the history for this page it said 10:19PM on the 19th. Clearly there is a time artifact wherein different times are shown as local server time and others are user time. I'm guessing that local server time must be Grenwich Mean Time (with no daylight savings time) and mine is Eastern time (with DST.) That solves the time differential and also clears me of your accusation of lying. Now that you've established that you first posted just under 2 hours after the RfC we can turn to the other evidence.
I should also add - why are you so confident that there was no 'conspiracy' (ie sock/meat puppetry) at all? Perhaps some/all of the others did engage in sock/meat puppetry even if you did not. Why are you so quick to defend the rest of them? Stick to the Facts 02:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course. This proves everything. I am defending no one. I am merely using common sense and assuming good faith. I have had no prior interaction with any editors of the Stormfront article. I have no reason to suspect any of them of sockpuppetry, and neither do you.UberCryxic 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Go check out the updated link to the google cache of the thread on Stormfront - the editor recruitment thread. One of the Stormfront usernames is Poison. Poison? Poison sf? Coincidence? Stick to the Facts 02:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm so glad that we solved that (*rolls eyes*).....there is nothing else to discuss.UberCryxic 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is, actually. Stick to the Facts 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Can't say there is. We're pretty much done.UberCryxic 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why would I use sock-puppets, if other, without a shadow of doubt genuine and established, wikipedians demonstrated good judgement and neutrality on this issue, for which they have my respect, regardless of worldview differences? To get myself blocked? Anyway, the accusations are absurd enough on their own. Magnetic, Conserve and some anon editors may be Stormfront members or sympathizers, but they're not my sockpuppets, I only edit under this account on english Wikipedia. I think I've reverted an edit or two by one of those users and would have done so again if I saw any destructive editing by them while I'm logged on. Poison sf 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the report was suspected sock AND meat puppets. There is a detailed sample of reasons why people use sock puppetry at wikipedia: sock puppetry. Stick to the Facts 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Meat puppets are an entirely different matter and, I suppose, have to be reported and discussed elsewhere (maybe RFC on my conduct as an editor or something), because checkuser has nothing to do with that, it can only identify sock puppets. That you try to throw everything you got in to support your absurd claims, including completely unrelated and even mutually exclusive things, just shows how confused and desperate you're. Good luck proving the false, absurd and paranoid claim about sockpuppets. Poison sf 10:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] closer look, investigating meat puppets

Per UninvitedCompany's request I am placing this here.

I'm wondering which usernames were reviewed in the 'representative sample'. I am pretty much positive that Poison sf, Brimba, UberCyrxic, and Alecmconoy are meat puppets but not sock puppets so a CU comparison of just them wouldn't turn anything up. The ones I suspect most stringly are UberCyrxic and ImplicitExplicity, and Poison sf with either Magnetics and/or Conserve. Each of these matchups post significantly close to each other in time and/or use very similar mannerisms and language in posting.

Also, how do I go about presenting the evidence for a meat puppet inquiry? There is a lot of evidence including a thread on the Stormfront website, seeking to recruit members for the edit war. One of the participants is names Poison and one of the usernames on wiki is Poison sf. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Something about this whole affair just smacks of witch hunts and McCarthyism in the 50s. Phrases like "I am pretty much positive" or "the ones I suspect most" are fairly indicative of the weight that your claims hold. That is, they hold none. They are only significant in as far as you have interpreted them, and your imagination has run a little wild in the past few days.UberCryxic 04:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
IMO this user is borderline insane. I mean, everybody has hard moments and it would be understandable to do stupid things in a heat of confrontation. But that he continues to dwell on this issue even after he had more than enough time to cool down and think what he's doing and saying IMO indicates some VERY serious problems. BTW UberCryxic I share you concerns that this checkuser was actually performed. IMO a cursory glance shows that it's confused and crazy BS. OTOH, I've nothing to worry about so anybody can check until he turns blue in face, because there's simply nothing to be found. BTW it's ridiculous to claim that I've any common "mannerisms" or language with Magnetic or Conserve: both AFAIK did just a few edits and didn't join the discussion at Talk:Stormfront, so there isn't anything to compare the language to. I guess the only "mannerism" we (users on the list) all share is (oh horror) disagreeing with this madman. Poison sf 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


"Each of these matchups post significantly close to each other in time *and/or* use very similar mannerisms and language in posting."
Re "post close to each other in time" : I just checked contribs of Magnetics and Conserve and I think that (oh what a surprise) you're lying again. A lot of their contributions seem to be done at a time when I'm usually either sleeping or busy, thus outside of the usual timespan when I may be editing wikipedia (note: currently and for last 2-3 days I'm staying home ill, so my editing timespan is different, but I'm referring to the usual one). This corresponds to my previous observations, as I remember that I rarely edited at the same time with Magnetics and Conserve, usually I was seeing them in edit history only. However, in times when our "wikipedia editing time" matched, we sometimes disagreed on the article's content:
Anyway, your other accusations are so ridiculous that it's obvious that you just in denial that somebody can disagree with you. Actually, this list contains ALL people who disagreed with you, including those who answered the RFC. ROFLMAO!!! They're all sock/meat puppets, yeah. Poison sf 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right Poison. It seems like this RFCU and all actions the user has taken in recent days are some sort of defensive mechanism to shun a reality that increasingly turned against him. There were times when I thought to myself that the user was actually delusional; some of his claims are so preposterous and disingenuous that one wonders if he actually made them. Ultimately, the best we can hope for is to put this behind us and focus on improving Wikipedia. The sooner we do that the better. As the great Virgil once wrote, "time bears away all things," and with time all of us will forget these unfortunate incidents.UberCryxic 01:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)