Reopened. See Center for Economic and Policy Research, (CEPR) Mark Weisbrot is a principal, similar revert pattern from User:Kriswarner. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted

Can Checkuser determine if/which of these accounts may be editing from CEPR.net, and which may be editing from home or other IPs? Who will handle the blocking/tagging? These socks have been active across three articles ( Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, and Center for Economic and Policy Research), and meatpuppetry is an ongoing possibility. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

187.47.23.230 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now removing a COI tag from Talk:Mark Weisbrot (a Brazilian IP was involved in the debates about the reliability of Venezuelanalysis.com, another site connected to CEPR.net-- Center for Economic and Policy Research). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Before checking this IP, pls give me a moment to gather other Brazilian dynamic IPs involved in related discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Related discussions from SPA Brazilian dynamic IP here and here; see also 189.116.62.114 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 187.46.229.120 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 189.65.155.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and there have been others. See also Talk:Mark Weisbrot for the connections between CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Considering multiple discussions elsewhere on Chavez, Venezuela, CEPR and Venezuelanalysis.com articles, where neutrality is becoming an issue, I believe there is evidence to check these IPs versus Off2riorob ( talk · contribs), Rd232 ( talk · contribs) and JRSP ( talk · contribs). In particular, this IP shows the same partial grasp of Wiki policies as Off2riorob and Rd232, [3] [4] and the Off to Rio is suggestive of Brazil. Of particular relevance is the thread linked above to the WP:RSN discussion of Venezuelanalysis.com, the discussions at Talk:Hugo Chavez and the discussions at Talk:Mark Weisbrot, where Off2riorob has suddenly appeared and taken a stance that has not been neutral. [5] [6] [7] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Specifically, lest it's lost in the numerous diffs above, we have:

1. Rob in Rio Brazil removing text from Mark Weisbrot that is sourced to The New York Times, USA Today and numerous other (lesser) supporting sources, [8]--sourced text that it now appears that someone does not want in the article about CEPR's connection to Chavez-- while proposing a reversion to wholly unsourced text written by proven socks with a COI. [9]
2. Rob in Rio removing a well-substantiated and under discussion POV tag from Hugo Chavez, [10] backing Rd232. [11]
3. Brazilian IP, involving itself it says to defend Rd232, another pro-Chavez editor [12] whose tendentious edits across Chavez-related articles are well documented.
4. John Z welcoming now-blocked sockpuppet User:Markweisbrot, without mentioning the COI and editor naming issues; [13] (at least he hasn't attacked me for pointing out policy [14]).
5. Three of the four of these editors (IP, Rd232 and Rob in Rio) willing to engage in personal attacks on me rather than addressing the edits and Wiki policy.
6. Rob in Rio removing sources and adding text not supported by mainstream reliable sources, [15] against consensus. [16] The same well cited text was removed several times by Rd232, sample [17].
7. In spite of the similarities in their editing, including a long absence from Wiki followed by a return to pro-Chavez editing, [18] John Z denies any association, [19] [20] and he doesn't have the same tendency towards personal attacks as the others. On the other hand, the two main pro-Chavez editors, User:Rd232 and User:JRSP have been largely absent recently from Wiki, since Rio/Rob and the Brazilian IP have been editing. [21] [22]
8. While I have long been concerned about off-Wiki coordinated editing, COI, tandem reverting, WP:OWN, WP:BITE and meatpuppetry across all of the Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles, only yesterday did I understand that Rd232 had a very different, unexplained concern: the appearance that Mark Weisbrot could be charged with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. [23] [24] Where did that come from? We have multiple editors and IPs jumping on board to cleanse CEPR-related articles, simultaneously, with Rd232 and Off2riorob leading the charge while JRSP has disappeared, and I have to ask where this strange connection to a US legal issue came from? Rd232 says he is a UK editor, but this notion evidences some awareness of US legal concerns that hadn't even occurred to me. The question must be asked: are Rd232 and Off2riorob editing on behalf of CEPR? Rd232 has long used Venezuelanalysis.com to source POV articles, and Venezuelanalysis.com frequently uses CEPR as a source. A CU would help resolve possible sockpuppetry, if not meatpuppetry.
9. This comment might warrant some explanation; why is Off2riorob aware of Rd232's personal opinions on Chavez-related articles?

Too many non-neutral admins here; too much censorship of Wiki aimed at the CEPR, Weisbrot, Baker articles; and too much uneven application of Wiki policy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Way to make a fool of yourself there. All you had to do was ask. Yes I'm the same IP that commented on the Venanalysis issue thats how I learned of this mess. You should also note that in none of the articles that you mention have I ever made a single edit. I have no stake in the whole Chavez debacle, but I do want to see WPs policies applied. Claiming that I have a partial understading of policies doesnt make it so. I can say the same about you. And finally, no, I'm not a sock or unlogged incarnation of any of the editors that you mention. You're trying to make every single editor that disagrees with you into a sock of somebody else. Its not a conspiracy. 187.46.135.78 ( talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, well ... since CUs have so far borne out, I'm not too concerned about "mak[ing] a fool of myself"; we've got massive POV-pushing going on across all Chavez and Venezuela articles, several involved admins, and enough evidence to get to the bottom of this issue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I totally object to my inclusion here, there is absolutely nothing to check user me for over this, there is clearly some COI in the report. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia is trying to paint everyone who disagrees with her crusade as a Sock so she can use that to discredit such editors. This is a smear campaign plain and simple. But of course she will suffer no repercurtions. 187.46.135.78 ( talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, well. We have plenty of evidence of non-neutral admins involved themselves in these articles, with an uneven understanding and application of policy (including from Rd232 and Off2riorob), all of them willing to engage in personal attacks on me, and a real issue of POV-pushing on Chavez-related articles. When I've been checkusered on far less evidence, I've welcomed the opportunity to be exonerated; do you? Off to Rio is certainly suggestive of Brazil, to say the least, and the evidence of your non-neutrality on these articles is there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

"We" don't have anything. All we have is you throwing accusations around. Everyone who disagrees with you seems to have "an uneven understading and application of policy." All of them seem "willing to engage in personal attacks on me" And all seem to be Chavez' POV pushers". Have you even entertained the possibility that the problem is not those editors? But you? Have you considered that your frequent condescending and patronising attitude welcomes snarky responses? Or maybe you do it deliberatly? Trying to use the civility policy to your advantage? And no, I don't welcome baseless accusations and I don't really care if you do. And the Off to Rio thing... well that at least put a smile to my face. 187.46.135.78 ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Happy to have entertained you. Now, I believe this discussion is no longer about the CU, but became personal on account of both of you quite a while ago, so how about leaving it to the CUs now? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Both of us? I thought we were the same person? Freudian slip? 187.46.135.78 ( talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please try to stay on topic; a checkuser is nothing for innocent editors to be concerned about. Been there several times myself, glad to be exonerated, always wonder when "the lady doth protest too much". SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Theres nothing to be ontopic about, you've made this whole charede up. If you like being faselly accused thats your problem. Like I said I dont really care. You pulled this same thing ond Rd232 and now you'rre doing it to us. Every who gets in yourway has to face the fire. Get over yourself, you're not the bastion of impartiallity. 187.46.135.78 ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, rio, brazil, chavez...la la, If you are looking for a coi, look no further than your own edit history. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

If you believe I have a COI (which I don't), feel free to explore it on my talk page, and I will respond once I'm home. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Mirror mirror on the wall....who's got the biggest COI of them all? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The degree to which this is misrepresentation is quite outstanding; sadly, it's par for the course for Sandy. Equally sadly, I do not have the time to expose her constant misrepresentations (as well as a smear campaign against at least one living person) with sufficient clarity and impact (RFC/U / arbcom case) to stop her in continuing to constantly misrepresent and smear others. Rd232 ^talk 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

1. Bullshit. The issue of VIO being a agent of a foreign government is one you have been long involved with and know well. The point that attempting to associate people with such a foreign agent in order to discredit them requires zero knowledge of US law - it is straightforward smearing. You know perfectly well what you are doing: you're doing it even now by attempting to link CEPR with Venezuelanalysis - as if much citation (which from my experience is completely untrue) proved anything. (If it did, any source cited by Wikipedia would become automatically unreliable.) I have already explained this on your user talk page; yet you repeat it, which is part of your pattern of ignoring explanations of straightforward issue and repeating misrepresentations. You are a malicious and manipulative editor of the highest order. Rd232 ^talk 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

   Moved here as response to point 8. above. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• The allegation against Off2riorob makes little sense to me. He's clearly not a SPA.
• While Rd232 has been less than entirely neutral in his edits, and an admin might want to look into pro-Chavez POV-pushing, I don't think he is a sock. The problem is complicated because SandyGeorgia isn't always respectful of WP:SYN when trying to insert balance into the Venezuela-related articles, and an editor can have good-faith reasons for reverting his edits.
• Fwiw, I don't think that Weisbrot and Kriswarner are socks of each other. It's far more likely that they're co-workers editing from the same IP and in violation of WP:COI (which would require admin attention), but that's not being a sock. That said, Scalabrine might be a sock of one of them. THF ( talk) 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I've added diffs above (more can be provided); if you are concerned that I don't always respect SYN, please address on my talk with examples, but know that I'm unlikely to be able to respond until I return from travel (chasing socks while I'm on vacation is fun :) I think there's enough evidence for a CU here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Also, the Brazilian dynamic IP is still posting, although blocked for 4RR. [25] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Nice to see what you resort to when you're cought misrepresenting. That block was a joke. Any sensible admin wouldve blocked you aswell, but of course, you got wikibuddies who look after you. 187.46.135.78 ( talk) 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Re-iterating, your partial grasp of Wiki policies (for example on 3RR) and resorting to personal attacks is remiscent of others involved in these discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I agree entirely with User:THF's comments. This diff by User:Markweisbrot helps explain a little about the usage of his account. I think it is pretty clear this is Mark Weisbrot, a more experienced user like the others would not place his comments so badly. If he wants to edit here, which I unfortunately doubt is the case, and his identity is confirmed, I think he should be allowed to and unblocked. John Z ( talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is the biggest shame of this report, the committee has said that we are supposed to welcome users who are the subjects of BLP's and should listen to them and work with then, not throw seven barrels of poo at them and haul them over the coals and block them indefinitely, it is a shame and I totally agree with John Z. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think it's unlikely that Off2riorob is related to the other listed accounts. If you compare his communication style to the others, he lacks the same level of writing skill and eloquence. It looks more like a case of bandwagon-jumping. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Your comment is nothing more than a rude attack, you are more likely talking about yourself, get over it. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• CU can't rule out meatpuppetry, but at least it can determine sockpuppetry. Off2riorob still is suggestive of Brazilian IP, and we still have evidence of coordinated editing, and some editors taking up where others leave off. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• All froth and nothing at all to support your unfounded assertions. Your asking for a checkuser on the grounds that I am suggestive of a brazilian ip and I have rio in my username? I suggest you edit some articles outside of you chosen subject you clearly are obsessed with conspiracy. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Off2riorob, I'm frankly amused that you haven't yet been blocked for these ongoing personal attacks on me. Perhaps you're not aware of my editing history, beyond trying to keep up with multiple editors inserting POV into multiple articles over the last month. The next personal attack on me is going to the circus at ANI, or requesting admin attention. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Go wherever you like, it is the same as your claims against me here, totally unfounded and without any substance. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) Did you bother to look at Rob's editing pattern? Most of his editing is at articles about British politicians, which hardly screams "Brazil". I agree that Rob has odd notions about BLP policy, but that and the other flimsy grounds you decided meant he was a sock don't amount to much, so you shouldn't be shocked at his reaction to you. Also, your ultimatum is at the very least uncivil gamesmanship, so perhaps you really should have a look in that mirror. - Rrius ( talk) 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Another attack Sandy on Wiki day :) We have two editors who both may be from the UK, one with a username suggestive of Brazil, and a Brazilian IP-- all making the same edits to Wiki, in defense of CEPR, when CEPR meatpuppetry and coordinated editing has already been demonstrated. And I've been enduring the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions quietly for a month. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• If you think that my contribution either attacked you (as your first sentence suggests) or assumed bad faith on your part, your definitions are too broad. - Rrius ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• IMO, "uncivil gamesmanship" was uncalled for, after the onslaught I've been subjected to for a month. But I agree your words weren't an attack, per se-- more likely a lack of awareness of how much I've endured before suggesting it's time for admin attention. My apologies for my overly broad use of NPA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Regardless of how put upon you feel, an ultimatum like that strikes me as nasty game playing. There is a significant difference between what you said noting that you are getting frustrated and are close to seeking relief at ANI. Whether intended or not, "The next personal attack on me is going to the circus at ANI, or requesting admin attention." looks like an attempt at intimidation. - Rrius ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Well perhaps you'd view it differently if you had been tolerating the attacks as long as I have, with no admin doing a thing about it. I've only catalogued the most recent; I suggest this conversation belongs on our talk pages. (I hope you're not condoning personal attacks by suggesting I shouldn't take them to ANI for attention?) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have to ask, why did you choose to predominately refer to User:Off2riorob as "Rob in Rio"? He doesn't appear to use that on his user or talk page to refer to himself. - Rrius ( talk) 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Because I'm a very busy editor, I make many typos, and every time I type out his name I get it wrong. If that troubles you for some reason, I'll take the time to type it out. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Why "Rob in Rio" and not just type "Rob" or just use cut and paste? I guess if you don't see how it could be perceived as an attempt to advance your narrative of his being a sock for someone in Brazil, then that wasn't your intention. I'll let you get back to your busy editing schedule. - Rrius ( talk) 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you read it differently than I do, but "Off 2 Rio" places him in Rio, so that's how I remember him most easily. At any rate, AGF. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe I was assuming good faith; if I weren't, I would have said straight away that it was devious instead of asking you why you did it. If you disagree, you are entitled to your perceptions. Speaking of perceptions, I would say "off to rio" puts one in a state of transit or even just desire. Once in Rio, you can't really be off to it. That difference of perception probably animated this bit of the discussion. - Rrius ( talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What an interesting piece of analysis on the phrase off to. It does seem like Sandy might be biased 129.133.193.100 ( talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

IP 129.133.193.100 was blocked for trolling (and then some). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, I came to the opposite conclusion, but whatever. - Rrius ( talk) 03:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

"Off to Rio" doesn't place him in Rio, it puts him either just leaving home on a trip to Rio, or wishing he were just leaving home on a trip to Rio. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Are we all off-topic enough yet? When I say I'm off to somewhere, it's because I'm on my way out the door to the place; apparently, I'm unusual. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No, that's the typical usage. But above you said "'Off 2 Rio' places him in Rio." And I say, no, it doesn't, it places him "on his way out the door", or wishing he were at least. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

So, can we get back on topic now? The point is the connection with the Brazilian IP, and possible sock or meatpuppetry. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Off-to-Pic, Off-to-Rio... whatever. I doubt Off2riorob is socking. He's strong-willed enough, he doesn't need socks. And I can relate to the that. However, I'm hoping a checkuser is done, to put this issue to rest one way or another. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Sandy, here. I have no idea how many times I have been checkusered, but I'm sure the number is not low, given some private emails I've gotten, as well as on-wiki accusations that were leveled against me. I really don't care if people CU me, because I am not running multiple accounts. Scott aka UnitAnode 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That hadn't occurred to me: an editor running multiple accounts would not want to be CU'd. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Of course not, because then collateral accounts -- perhaps even unrelated to the current kerfuffle -- would be revealed. Personally, I think O2rr is simply prone to jumping into discussions where he's not that well-informed, and it comes across the wrong way. I'm not saying that there is or isn't enough for a CU on him, but I do have some concerns that he didn't just say, basically, "Go ahead, make my day", as I (proverbially) did when threatened with CU. Scott aka UnitAnode 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Break

Sure, let's. Let me start by making clear that Rob and I don't deal with each other much, and we nearly always disagree when we do. He wants to delete everything even mildly controversial unless the subject is quoted as admitting to whatever the controversial charge is, and I don't. As a result, we have had the occasional edit war and several talk page battles. Given that history, I find it hard to believe that Rob would suddenly become a sock puppet or to collude in reference to an article outside of his normal editing area.

Did Sandy even look at Rob's edit history before deciding that he and these others must be the same people? Rob edits seem primarily to center on UK BLPs, but he spends a lot of time the BLP noticeboard advancing his view of BLP, which seems to be that we should not say things about subjects that he figures would upset them. He is incredibly distrustful of news reportage and often rejects perfectly respectable journalistic sources. In his, what, five? edits at Mark Weisbrot, he seems to have acted in conformity with that history. His removal of the POV tag is not exactly unprecedented, either, as it wasn't even the only time he did it in the last week. [26] Also, the biggest part of what he did was remove several six of seven cites that were shoehorned into one ref. From an outside perspective, it certainly looks excessive, so it is hard to see that as a POV edit.

Anyway, given the paucity of article-space edits involved, the conclusion that he may be a sock must based in large part on things that happened on the talk page or on noticeboards. I've read Talk:Mark Weisbrot, and how one could reasonably get the idea he's a sock or is colluding is beyond me. I challenge anyone to read the talk page from the section " Otrs ticket discussion" to " Article revisted" and explain how that makes Rob look like a sock. Apparently there was an ANI, but I haven't seen a link. Perhaps that is where the allegations of personal attacks come in, but that is hard to judge without diffs, and I'm not going to go hunting for them.

Two specific questions Sandy raised in her evidence were just odd. The allegation that Rob might be editing for CEPR is so lacking in any evidentiary basis that it is impossible to even address it. Finally, I have to admit accusation #9 made me laugh. I hope it was intended as a joke, because the existence of that conversation undercuts the very notion that Rob and Rd are colluding on these articles. Rob, as usual, supported removing controversial claims, but Rd thought they should stay.

I don't think there is any merit to the claims, and the checkuser request should be denied.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius ( talk • contribs) February 18, 2010

Thanks for the analysis, Rrius. What I saw was an editor who seemed to have some history or knowledge of Rd232's position on Venezuela/Chavez (see diff above), the Brazilian connection, coordinated editing from the CEPR crowd, sourcing to Venezuelanalysis which uses a lot of CEPR material, and lots of people suddenly reverting and attacking me for attempting to neutralize Chavez/Venezuelan articles. The only one who didn't use the same attack/revert editing style was John Z; Off2riorob got aggressive, which seems strange for someone who works in BLPs. You seem to know him better than I do; if you're right, a CU would exonerate him, but CU can't rule out meatpuppetry. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

One concern I have is how loudly Off2riorob protested. In my experience, socks tend to scream and yell when targeted. However, Rob is generally aggressive anyway, so that doesn't necessarily prove anything. But I'm of the school that if there's doubt, checkuser it and see... with this caveat: If the charges prove false, then Sandy should be topic-banned for awhile, to have time to study the situation and learn where he/she went wrong. Accusing someone of working for some agency is especially poor judgment. I used to work on the Apollo "hoax" article, and was accused by conspiracists of being a NASA employee. Yeh, right. Meanwhile, I apparently also worked for both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Yeh, right. also been accused both of being a Christian and of being an atheist. Beware of outrageous charges. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, dandy ... I identify a COI sock drawer, but I get topic banned if I missed on one? That'll prevent lots of people from requesting CUs ever. By the way, who has accused whom of working for what agency? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The point being that extreme accusations amount to personal attacks, and you have to be careful. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Extreme is in the eye of the beholder, after the attacks I've endured for a month; who has accused whom of working for what agency? And how do you account for my points 2 and 6 ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Now that's just ridiculous. Either the charge is strong enough for a checkuser or not. If Sandy is guilty of something, it should be apparent now, not after a checkuser. From my perspective, she is guilty of nothing more than being wrong because she didn't adequately investigate before listing Off2riorob. That's hardly worthy of a topic ban. - Rrius ( talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh, and where has Rob been "screaming" about the charge anyway? Anyone is going to be upset about a sock charge, and he doesn't seem to have been much more upset about it than others who have been falsely accused. - Rrius ( talk) 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, a bit of hyperbole there. :) I'm just saying that anyone with nothing to fear should welcome a checkuser. But that's just me. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As a devout civil libertarian, I reject that logic. If you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear from the government randomly searching your house or your person. Intrusions of privacy need to be based on more than the sorts of vague allegations we've had here, and that "you've got nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide" guff certainly has no place here. If you truly disagree, why don't we do a checkuser on you, just for the hell of it. If you've got nothing to fear, you should welcome it. - Rrius ( talk) 21:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Rrius; it would certainly have a chilling effect on CU if one could be topic-banned for initiating a CU with evidence, and I fail to see how Wiki's interests on Venezuela articles would be advanced by topic banning the one Spanish-speaking, Venezuela-knowledgeable editor willing and able to work on these articles. My impression (based on his attacks on me since I filed the CU) is that Off2riorob has been disproportionately upset; innocent editors usually say "go for it" so they can be cleared. I remain troubled about why Off2riorob reacted so strongly to the CU: I've been CU'd before, and I've most certainly been exposed to extremely outrageous claims about who I am that are far worse than anything Baseballbugs mentioned (stories best left untold, but anyone who knows my history on Wiki ... ) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you just don't value your anonymity as much as he does. In any event, deciding that the charges are somehow retroactively stronger because an editor who is prone to getting pissed off got pissed off is nonsensical. Go back and read the talk page. It is clear from that how he came to the page. Also, it is clear from his edit pattern and writing style that he is a UK user. There is simply no basis for your allegation that he might be Brazilian and editing for CERP (or whatever). The only real commonality between these editors is that they took the opposite side of a discussion from you and personally attacked you. Frankly, that is not a strong connection. Also, you have still failed to support your assertion that Rob attacked you. I don't doubt that he did (he's done it to me), but you rely on that without supporting it. What's more, why would Rob suddenly start colluding with someone about a topic outside his usual area of concern and which he clearly was drawn to because of something to do with ORTS ticket? The charge just doesn't make sense. To say a charge that becomes absurd with just a little light shone on it is somehow more likely to be true because Rob got pissed off just ignores human nature. A part of me wants the checkuser so that it can prove you wrong and prompt you to go back and look at where your assumptions went wrong. That latter part is not terribly likely, but more importantly, the standard should be quite high for piercing the veil of anonymity. - Rrius ( talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Speaking of valuing anonymity, you might not know my history on Wiki or some of the accusations that have been leveled at me or the things I face on Wiki, as recently as last night :) I was fairly certain I had posted links to the history and attacks here (see User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles), but that's neither here nor there anymore, since NW has closed those two cases. My apologies to Off2riorob and Rd232 for any discomfort the CU caused them, and I hope we can move forward collaboratively. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The only link seemed to be referring to Rd or the Brazilian IP, so I didn't follow it. But, as you said, it doesn't really seem to matter now. - Rrius ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I am tempted to allow checkuser to allow this user to see they were wrong, but her comments do not support that if I am found to be in th uk, she will move to claims of meat puppet, so there is no benefit to being cleared of sockpuppet, she has commented here recently when the socking has been questioned that checkuser doesn't reveal meaty puppets, I can hear her saying it now, ah rob in rio may not be a sockpuppet but that does not clear him of being a meatpuppet and I have been fighting off legions of meatpuppets for weeks, tiresome and tedious and actually disruptive accusatory editing the likes of which the editor in question only shows signs of continuing. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• This needs to end, NW has been absent without leave and I will ask him to decide if there is evidence enough to warrant a wikipedia check on a user or not, if not then the claims should stop and if yes then we will see. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply