Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TharkunColl

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:TharkunColl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sprigot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Giggy UCP 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Sprigot (talk · contribs) made his third edit in this report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx - hardly something you'd expect from a new user. XAndreWx (user in question, who has asked me to step in and help here) was at the time "edit warring" with TharkunColl (talk · contribs)

Sprigot has also made several edits that, in nature, "agree" with TharkunColl. Here are three edits by TharkunColl: [1], [2], and [3]. Here's Sprigot editing the same article, and adding unsourced (and possibly untrue, OR in any case) statements that had been removed by consensus: [4]

One may also wish to note this block log - obviously TharkunColl is used to this sort of warring...and who's to say he won't create a "scapegoat" to get out of it. Giggy UCP 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I am not Sprigot. TharkunColl 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hardly expecting you to confess to it. But can you provide any proof? Giggy UCP 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What sort of proof? TharkunColl 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The onus is on the accuser to provide proof, not the accused to prove innocence (i.e. a negative). Your "obviously... who's to say" comment is also unhelpful. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "possibly untrue, OR in any case": It's far from untrue and not OR to say that Birmingham has a significant Irish population; which appears to be the sole piece of "evidence" you have to offer. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If TharkunColl and Sprigot can make edits at the same time. That may end the sockpuppet speculation. GoodDay 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a friend of Tharkie's and would like to say, I don't think he is User:Spigot. The reason being, that Tharkie wouldn't have the patience/immediate how-to knowledge on wiki to know how to file a page such as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx I'm afraid I myself don't know how to do diffs properly, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TharkunColl&diff=prev&oldid=146296216 he hasn't even archived his talk page yet after almost 2 years. What I mean to say is that Tharkie might love a good argument, but he sticks to that most of the time, and would not be bothered or even able technically to do this without spending time he'd rather spend in discussion about the articles.Merkinsmum 01:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet a brand new user making his third edit is able to file an SSP report? It took me all of 5 minutes (patience isn't an issue) and I had to provide a few diffs that can be found easily once you've read WP:DIFF (technical how-to). Giggy UCP 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is in any case my opinion that this accusation is malicious, since it emanates ultimately from XAndreWx, who for quite some time now has been edit warring on the Manchester and Second city of the United Kingdom articles and causing general disruption - for which he has already been blocked. TharkunColl 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Brand new account != brand new user. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate please Andy? Now it seems (to me) that I'm being accused... Giggy UCP 08:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To pun on the Private Eye magaine running gag re: drunken journalists - "Socks all round". Sprigot 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you think you're being accused of, and why do you think that? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Sprigot responds

I'm Sprigot and I find it insulting that you think I'm TharkunColl - is it inconcievable that a long term Wikipeida 'user' as in reader would pick up a fair amount ? I've been reading the Second city of the United Kingdom article for the last few weeks - and frankly Giggy the behaviour of your adoptee XAndreWx has been not just rude - but down right disgusting - he constantly lies - especially about "not being aware" of Wikipedia rules he's already been told of (and broken - proof here) - frankly it makes my blood boil the way he was behaving - and that's why when I found the multiple transgressions (3RR and Sock Puppeteering) I very easily figured out that everything on here has a 'WP:' - basically 'cause all of you talk in acronyms and you have to look it up to figure out what you're talking about (and remember the 3P's - Process, Process, Process). As to refruting the claim then here goes:

  • Can someone check mine and Tharkuncoll's IP addresses please ? I assume that they are different.
  • Would anyone like to read my work - of which there is plenty on my Talk Page, I find it is substantially different in content, tone, and metre - metre is the hardest to fake because people 'slip' back into the 'way they talk / write' very easily.
  • My spelling is awful - and I couldn't give either - I suspect Tharkuncoll's spelling is better than mine, and that he could (give that is)
  • Repeated words and phrases - most people use repeated words or phrases in there languages - look at this reponse and compare it to my other texts and then to Tharkuncolls - you'll see there is a lot of repeated use of words and phrases in my text which are not in Tharkuncoll's
  • I suspect I've made edits which Tharkuncoll disagrees with - someone mentioned my addition of Birmingham to the list of large Irish immigrant population would be against Tharkuncoll's judgement on the English people article. My ancestory is Irish (as well as Lancastrian and also from Birmingham - see more on my Talk Page). Birmingham has a large Irish population - although as most have been here for 40 / 50 years so they have married into the indigenous population (like my family) - so it's all a bit blurred - but Birmingham has a very inclusive and vibrant St. Patrick's Day parade, a large Irish quarter (Digbeth), and even an Irish Mayor.
  • Happy to talk to you or an administrator via Telephonic Communication.
  • Happy to meet XAndreWx in his home town of Manchester - I'm there about once a week for work (not a threat - please don't mis-construe it as one).
  • GoodDay's point above is valid, don't you think ? "If TharkunColl and Sprigot can make edits at the same time. That may end the sockpuppet speculation. GoodDay 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"
  • Any other means of proving that I'm real I'd be happy to discuss (although blood samples are out - I'm not keen on needles, lol). I've never been accused of being purely 'virtual' before - and find the experience quite strange - but amusing too.

Finally I'd like to add - isn't this a case of sour grapes ? I mean your very anxious to defend XAndreWx aren't you ? It's not my fault that your adoptee is a foolish liar (apart from the evidence above how about here too- at the bottom of the page). Ammusingly he blames his multiple transgression of the 3RR rule (XAndreWx specific) on you over here on the page investigating his suspected Sock Puppeteering (the evidence I raised against him is substantially better than than the evidence you've raised against Tharkuncoll too).

In our conversation over here you say that "As I said to Maxim, I haven't spoken to Andrew in several weeks now, and am not fully responsible for his behaviour. I have attempted to contact him, but to no avail...I will try again. In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not. I'm an external party who is currently removing the adoptee template from his userpage since that's clearly over. I'll try to talk to him again, but you can't expect me to control his behaviour fully, as it isn't possible. Giggy UCP 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)". Yet when Maxim unblocks XAndreWx's initial 3RR over here (bottom of the page) Maxim says "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." - if you hadn't spoken to XAndreWx then why did you talk to Maxim about 'letting him off' his initial 3RR ?

I see that according to your sentance above "XAndreWx (user in question, who has asked me to step in and help here)" shows that XAndreWx has been in touch with you since you removed him as a adoptee (I hope in the words of Maxim he has "cooled off" by now too), and this accusation of Sock Puppeteering against Tharkuncoll very much goes against your previous statement of "In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not." and your asseration that you are not on XAndreWx's 'side' (I think you'll find that 'it's hard to defend the indefensible').

What has been heartening about this has been all the messages of support to Tharkuncoll on this page and his Talk Page - support that was not in evidence in XAndreWx's Sock Puppeetering case I may add - thanks to everyone for there support!

Giggy - when this has been fully refruted - I'm expecting a full apology from you - otherwise your going to look very silly over all of this...

All the best to all - especially Giggy. Sprigot 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks User:Sprigot. I really don't think you are Tharkie- you have a more informal tone and use hyphens as punctuation- as I sometimes do.:) Instead of these accusations/ flaming, why doesn't one of you just file a Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and as Thark says, they can check their IP addresses?Merkinsmum 10:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No - 'Thank you' Merkinsmum - from this link I've learnt that neither I nor TharkunColl can use it in this manner (see main table at the start of the page "Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask.") - although perhaps someone here could do that for us - I'm happy to be submitted to investigation - in fact I look forward to being vindicated by it. Also I've learnt a great deal apart from the above from this page - it's been very useful - so thanks again. Sprigot 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I meant 'the other team' could do it rather than the two of you.:) Anyway as I see it User:Sprigot has not been a disruptive editor. He has no 3RRs etc. I'm not that aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia buerocracy, but it strikes me they may not have grounds for Checkuser, as Sprigot has not been disruptive in any way. Socks are not actually banned,

"Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

So they would have to argue that Sprig is definitely being used to circumvent 3RR repeatedly or something like that.

Anyway that's by the by as I really think Sprig is not Tharkie. I really wish it could be checkusered, as it may discourage editing if people feel unable to revert or make similar edits for fear of being accused. I just hope that this extreme case of biting a possible newcomer, or of a newcomer being caught in crossfire, doesn't result in Sprig and other new editors who may come to the pages involved, from editing. Maybe it is time, I hate to say it, for the issues on some of these pages to go to arbitration, as has been suggested here Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-10_British_monarchy#ArbCom then checkuser could be part of that process.Merkinsmum 11:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I can't understand how this allegation could ever have been entertained as a serious possibility, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support it, apart from a perfectly normal convergence of views on certain topics. And at the risk of giving our accusers even more "evidence" (I use that term in its loosest possible sense), I must say that I agree with Sprigot's views on the role of the Irish in Birmingham, and indeed number amongst my friends individuals of that very ilk. TharkunColl 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes Sprig is probably bound to have slightly similar views on some issues as Tharkie, as he is a Brummie. Just because people are from Birmingham, doesn't mean we are all sock or meatpuppets of User:TharkunColl. After all, there are over a million of us, as our city has the largest number of people residing in it after London. This is due to it being the Second City of the United Kingdom -but I won't get into that now lol.:)Merkinsmum 12:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but being poorer and more "slummy" than Manchester, with fewer educated people, Birminghamopolis has fewer internet connections. I rest my case. By the way, I do happen to know that Andy Mabbutt really exists so I do strongly suspect that account to be real. I also ran the TharkunColl/Spigot comparison through my personal "in-brain" semantic analyzer and the two do seem to be different in their behaviour. For one thing, TC would never in a million years attempt to reach a consensus before editing, even though the "consensus" that "Spigot" is aiming for is actually within his POV. So in this reality at least, everything appears to be fair. Andy by the way, do you still work for Birmingham City Council? MarkThomas 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"poorer and more "slummy"" - is a bit low isn't it - why not just go for direct name calling. Sprigot 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Brummies just don't often join in this debate about the 2nd city as a) it's daft and doesn't reflect the real world b) it's not worth it as the hastle and most people don't enjoy such heated debates as much as Tharkie. Some issues on wiki, are discriminated against and maybe this is one. I don't know if anyone has seen this before with various subjects, but it happens a lot on articles about occult or new age subjects- they get deleted or one perspective (which may have an admin working for it or something) gets the page reflecting it's views more than is reality. But I hate to sound like a wiki conspiracy theorist:)Merkinsmum 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really Irish any more - stuck in bit of a 'mush' between England and Ireland - although it drives me 'barmy' when I hear my Irish relatives talk about 'going home' - it's been over 40 years... Sprigot 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange that User:TharkunColl is the one being accused here yet User:Sprigot is the one writing the majority of the defence. Either TharkunColl doesn't care or he has decided that the history of his account is so negative he is moving on to become Sprigot. Therefore using that account to defend himself. When he accused me of being a sockpuppet the IP he said I used never edited again after the one day so I dunno who that even was. XAndreWx 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl just has a dryer, less long-winded writing style than Sprigot also as we stay longer on wiki I don't think our responses are quite as long. But I've seen Tharkie be a subject of a debate on another forum and he wasn't frantic in his own defence there either. I think he enjoys controversy about him and if people throw around wild accusations about him, he sits back and watches the ensuing debacle laughing to himself and finding it a great source of hilarity!:)Merkinsmum 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
and your asseration that you are not on XAndreWx's 'side' - I didn't say I am. But I'm hardly going to let a "hate campaign" (what a fun word to use, so let's go with it) run against him when I know he's innocent. I'd be doing this even if I did detest him. Nothing else to say really...I mean, the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop. Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone! Giggy UCP 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Giggy wrote "I mean, the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop." Aaah, so Tharks was right and this page has only been made as a 'tit for tat' malicious page. It's WP:POINT then and people's time is, in effect, being wasted. Case closed I think.:)Merkinsmum 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?
I presume that waste of admin time by raising false WP:SOCK accusations is at least one of the issues - as is the libellous nature of the false WP:SOCK itself.
Thanks in advance. Sprigot 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Name an admin who wasted their time here. If you really wish to complain, go to WP:AN/I. Giggy UCP 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would it have to be an admin that wasted their time for it to be reprehensible? It's not just an admin's time that's counted. We are all supposedly equal when it comes to problems with contributors.Merkinsmum 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sprigot said admin time, so did I. Read his comment ;) Giggy UCP 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions
  • Well, case withdrawn. We aren't going anywhere with this...hopefully we can just assume innocence on both sides, and hope for an end to the edit war. I've closed the case as withdrawn. Giggy UCP 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not close it actually - until it's been reviewed - especially as you still have doubt in your mind - assumed innocence is not innocent - I and TharkunColl are innocent and you need to recognise this (I look forward to being fully vindicated). You've wasted a lot of peoples time on the page above - that's nothing to be proud of - perhaps you should be apologising to them as well. Sprigot 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    I recognise your innocence with the limited capabilities I have to do so. Since there is no hard proof, I must assume it, hence my comment. Giggy UCP 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As to the Second city of the United Kingdom edit war my audit log of contributions show that for the last two days I've been trying to move Towards a Consensus after calling for a Rational Debate on the subject, so please don't lecture me on an article you haven't been involved in editing. Sprigot 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    Edit war between Tharkun and Andrew was what I referred to. And my having not edited it doesn't mean I'm not able to read it, read the talk page, and assess the situation. Giggy UCP 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange that Giggy is so keen to close this once we've got to the crux of the matter.Merkinsmum 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm withdrawing as it's obvious there is no puppetry. Giggy UCP 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not my place to take this to WP:AN/I for admin attention, but if either Tharkie or Spriggy, the offended parties, are sufficiently put out to take that step, they are of course within their rights to do so and I think I would support them.Merkinsmum 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that 'passions' have cooled. In future, we must stick to 'talk pages' to settle matters (instead of 'edit warring'). Congratulations to Tharkie and Spriggy, on their vindications. GoodDay 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Case withdrawn without prejudice. MastCell Talk 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)