User talk:Vhjh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] I am not a sockpupet

Have removed untrue notice - I am nobody's sockpuppet. How very silly. Vhjh 13:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like someone to explain why I am blocked from editing. Who is Jayjg and why do they think I am a sockpuppet? Vhjh 12:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jayjg is an administrator with checkuser access. The accusations came from a vote a month ago at Talk:Jesus and some edits at Robert Steadman. Jayjg ran a checkuser test and rather quickly rendered his judgement. That's all I know. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 05:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here is the block log. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 07:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

PPS: Here's a little more. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with this you will need to contact the admins via e-mail to explain why they are wrong. They do seem to have clear evidence so you will need to be specific about the details of why they have misinterpreted it. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 08:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I emailed Jayjg last Thursday and have heard nothing from him. I notice he has been editing since then so can only assume he is ignoring me. I am not happy about that nor the whole situation. Can anyone suggest how else I should now approach this? Is there a friendly admin who will listen? Vhjh 09:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. There was an editor (Gator1) who was willing to defend Rob and I thought he might be willing to defend you as well. Unfortunately, he has run into trouble of his own and has been driven away from Wikipedia. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 09:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to say, thank you to those who replied. user:SOPHIA how can I know what they have misinterpreted if I cannot see the evidence? The phrase kangaroo court comes to mind. Vhjh 09:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg is a member of the arbitration committee which have greater system access than admins so it's best to try another arbcom member. I have dealt with Matthew Brown and found him to be approachable and fair. If not then try other members listed on the arbcom page. I should point out to you this [1] so you will need good evidence to convince them. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I don't know Matthew Brown myself, but I trust SOPHIA's judgement. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 09:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed Matthew Brown. Thank you. I see that Jayjg has been involved in pages that robsteadman has been editing - is there a likely link? Vhjh 09:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you implying that Jayjg fabricated the evidence? He voted the same way as Robsteadman and Robeaston99 and you here , so if he were dishonest, he'd have no motive for making a false case of sockpuppetry, since it caused him to lose two votes that were on his side. AnnH ♫ 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that Jayjg fabricated the evidence, but the effect on the vote was minimal. It changed the vote from dead even to a slim majority of two votes (out of about 40). We had already decided not to make any changes based on a slim majority, because such a slim margin reflected a lack of consensus.

Jayjg's conclusions have been verified with other admins who have checkuser priveledges, but it would have been wise to do this sooner. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would it have been "wise to do this sooner"? Was there any doubt? A week ago wasn't soon enough? Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just sent the following to user:Jayjg:

I emailed you last week but have received no reply to date.

I am deeply concerned that you have blocked me as a sockpuppet of robsteadman when this is not true.

Some other editors have put various links on my talk page but this doesn't help me understand why you have blocked me.

I request that I am unblocked immediately and the labels on my page (saying that I am a sockpuppet) are removed.

vhjh

Let's hope this merits a response and some action. Vhjh 09:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thought - I suspect they have IP information linking you to Robsteadman (ie both usernames have used that IP). If the IP in question is the school IP and you are a fellow teacher or student then this would explain things. If however the IP you shared is Rob's home IP you'll never convince them as they will class you as a meatpuppet even if you are not a sockpuppet. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A checkuser admin would never block someone indefinitely as a sockpuppet simply for sharing a school IP address with another user. There are lots of things they look at, but they don't make them public because for one thing it might reveal a user's whereabouts, and for another, they don't want to teach people how to engage in sockpuppetry without getting caught. AnnH ♫ 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think anyone who uses wiki for a while could work out how to do it for themselves but as I have pointed out elsewhere from the edit histories alone this user and User:Robeaston99 look like socks so it wouldn't take much else to confirm. However the secrecy surrounding this case does seem strange when compared to other check user issues which are openly discussed. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it reasonable to reveal the evidence to the person being accused - particularly when the accusation is being denied? It would happen in a law court, why not on wikipedia? Vhjh 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's a matter of privacy. This is an administrative rather than a judicial matter, so the procedure is somewhat different. My advice would still be to find an advocate if you are going to contest this. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So the info about me is private from me. That makes no sense. I am waiting to see if the admin you suggested gets back and whether Jayjg has the decency to reply to a second email. I do intend to contest this because it is untrue and smacks of someone trying to make someone look dodgy. Vhjh 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what I heard. There's too much I don't know for it to make sense. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. Didn't mean to sound aggro at you. Just pissed off with this situation and the fact it seems someone is being very unfair. Vhjh 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you state (not necessarily in public but to the arbcom members) what connection you have to Robsteadman and Robeaston99? If you have an IP connection to Robsteadman you must know him, as he used his real name on Wikipedia. You and Robeaston99 were involved in his article, and in voting for what he voted for, and in opposing people who were annoying him. That and the timing of the edits are the evidence available to everyone. The checkuser admins have IP evidence, in addition to that, and they certainly would not block indefinitely as a sockpuppet based solely on a shared use of a semi-public IP such as a school one. They can't give out such information, as it's against their policy, but you certainly could give more information if you wanted to. You deny that you are Robsteadman, but you haven't given any other information. Are you a student at his school? Are you a teacher at his school. Do you know him? Does he know who you are? Do you know who Robeaston99 is? You once voted within minutes of each other.[2] If the IP address for those edits is the same, one of you must have jumped up from the computer to make room for the other, or you must have been sitting maybe side by side at different computers in the same room. Rather a coincidence that you would both find your way to voting on Jesus and Historicity of Jesus with no prior history of editing there, and that you would both vote the same way as a man whose article you edited frequently, and who has been VERY STRONGLY linked to you by IP evidence, to the extent that an uninvolved checkuser admin has said that there is no other way of looking at it.
Please note that I'm not asking for any answers to these questions. But if you want to dispute the accusation, you'll need to be as open as possible. Sophia pointed out that they could call you a meatpuppet if you shared his home IP, even if you're not the same person. I think that the fact that you voted for what he voted for, and edited his article, and opposed Crusading composer, combined even with a shared school IP address would lead people towards the sock-or-meat puppet conclusion. Wikipedia welcomes users who share an IP with other users; some of these users are admins — User:Angela, User:David Gerard, User:Haukurth, User:Jdavidb, User:Mindspillage, User:Tim Starling, etc. What Wikipedia does not welcome is users who turn up to vote for what another user wants at an article in which they have shown no prior interest, particularly when they are shown to have an IP connection to that other user.
Finally, with regard to those who carried out the check and examined the evidence, it's not that easy to become an admin; it's even harder to become an ArbCom member and be granted checkuser rights. It is an indication that these users have built up a high level of trust from the community, and I think we should respect their need to follow policy about keeping such information private. I am quite sure that the arbcom members will reply appropriately to any e-mails in due course. I am also quite sure that the member who carried out the check, and the others who endorsed it can be trusted. They have the evidence; we don't.AnnH ♫ 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Six different administrators with CheckUser access have evaluated the evidence (including Matthew Brown) and confirmed that this is an obvious case of sockpuppeting. This is, without doubt, Wikipedia's most thoroughly investigated sockpuppet check request. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's that clear cut how come two of the usernames involved have disputed it? It seems that, whiulst the circumstantial evidence might suggest the accusation made, maybe the actual truth is different? Maybe there should be doubt? Maybe Jayjg and the others are wrong? 81.76.184.116 20:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

At least someone talking some sense. Just a shame it's not Jayjg who seems incapable of accepting he's made a mistake. Or is it because he's scared of the consequences as he's involved in some of te pages being edited by Mr. Steadman? I must insist that the untrue label is removed from my user page and that I am unblocked. The reason for the block is false, no matter how many admin say it is true, and I suspect that Jayjg did it with a mission in mind and to please his editing mates. Vhjh 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)