Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

-- Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Evidence

Editor Rossdv added a trivia item to Sting regarding an on-stage duet the singer did with someone called Ross Viner. Rossdv described himself in nearly identical terms to the Ross Viner IMDB bio. On the YouTube page that Rossdv wanted to add to the article, a YouTube user named rossdv commented, "Hey. That's ME! RIGHT ON!!!"

When Rossdv's edits were reverted by multiple editors (which he repeatedly reverted), and he was called out for having a conflict of interest and making vanity edits, he deleted the description from his user page. During the discussion, the apparent single-purpose account Rviner posted in Talk:Sting, saying "Rossdv, are you someone I know? Are you family? LOL. Or is that your real name and initial?". Rviner has made no other edits.

When Rossdv opened a MedCab case on the edit he wanted to make, the Mediator asked if he impersonated Viner, and he denied it and changed his story about the similarity.

I have never changed my story. Plus this has all been explained to the mediator.

As an additional data point, this Shaw Communications IP address which is already tagged as a multi-user IP has two edits as Rossdv.

and this is my fault?

Note that 64.59.144.21 (which as I said made this edit signed two minutes later by Rossdv) resolves to pd1px1.st.vc.shawcable.net, a Shaw server for Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [1]. We may conclude that Rossdv has internet access from that location. According to Ross Viner's resume he is an actor working in Los Angeles and Vancouver; his representation uses a 604 area code, which is in British Columbia as well. Another remarkable coincidence. -- Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Uhm, Greater Vancouver has over a million people and that IP address probably involves a great number of people. Yes I am there. And I know Ross spends time here. So what? And I just checked my ip and it is nothing likeit. It states 24.84.207.23.

You found his résumé, and you claim this is not personal? So why not call him and ask? Email him? I did and he was kind enough to reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossdv ( talk • contribs) .

I may have misunderstood something. Are you saying that you have no connection with the IP address 64.59.144.21? -- Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not saying that. I am simply saying when I go to an IP checker it say I am not the IP you say I am. I suspect that is a genreic IP (the one you refer to) as in the past (prior to registering) when I clicked on parts of wikipedia it would say that IP was blocked (something about spamming). Since I never have spammed this IP probably applies to a wide region. I don't know enough about IP's to know. Just a theory. I never took note of the IP so maybe it is that one. I don't know. I do know, today, as of moments ago it was not that IP according to an IP checker. Rossdv 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Both 24.84.207.23 & 64.59.144.21 resolve to Shaw in British Columbia. Rossdv's email address is provided by Shaw. -- nkayesmith 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Shaw is perhaps the biggest internet provider in Western Canada and I am with them. Rossdv 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The point is, Ross Viner is in British Columbia (according to [2]), and you are too. -- nkayesmith 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

My summary from the MedCab page, including some new information: Ross Viner's representation as more notable than other fans performing with Sting in the 1996 tour is supported by IMDB and a Sting biography, but Rossdv's intentions must be questioned: If he is actually Ross Viner, the edit may be removed, for reasons explained in Wikipedia policies. There is strong evidence to suggest that he is affiliated with Ross Viner in some way, as he is located in the same area (British Columbia), impersonated him on Wikipedia for a short period (although allegedly not in bad faith). He did not confirm allegations from the beginning that he was Ross Viner, but nor did he deny them, although recognizing them: "I'm surprised you need correcting on this but I wasn't plugging myself. In fact I never wrote an article about me." He did not correct anyone when they referred to him as Ross, although according to an email he sent me, his name is Ralph. Someone of the same username impersonated him on Youtube, and Ross Viner (as supported via private email) supposedly created his only account on Wikipedia on 1:21, November 16 2006, 9 minutes before commenting on the case on Talk:Sting - however, given the fact that this was 40 minutes after Rossdv's last edit, the fact that Ross Viner is extremely proud of his "brush with fame", and Wikipedia's high pagerank, this particular piece of evidence is not conclusive. -- nkayesmith 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

New evidence: Ross Viner (confirmed) told me that his IP address is 64.180.252.173 (Burnaby, British Columbia - Telus Communications), and that his username on Youtube is Rossdv. -- nkayesmith 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

I personally appealed to Rossdv to come clean, and he basically invited escalation. I would rather have resolved this amicably. I would not normally consider this worth this level of handling, but as I stated on Talk:Sting, Rossdv has involved the community's resources through opening a formal MedCab case. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

First, I did not invite this. Dhartung threatend me with checkuser unless I "admit" I am both users (this has been explained to the mediator already). Since I would not, he opted this route. His call.

Second, I was asked to provide evidence for the content I submitted, therefore I did (multiple times). Despite providing the evidence they continued to erase the trivia.

I tried debating the merits of the trivia to which they declined and Dhartung still refuses, only insisting it does not belong. Therefore I asked for it to be mediated (rather than it being continuously added then erased). Currently the Mediator's response deems the original trivia issue as worthy and believes the claim "notable is given strong evidence". I feel it is because of these findings Dhartung has escalated this here as an attempt to threaten and apply pressure (intimidation). Instead of arguing the merits of the proposed trivia and evidence (which he still has not addressed). It appears he has taken this personally and has a vendetta.

He made no such "amicable" solution as he claims but threatend me unless I "come clean", whereas I have offered a compromise in the mediation where Dhartung still refuses to engage.

Finally he says this issue is "not normally consider this worth this level of handling" (for checkuser) Yet he filed this. So clearly he does feel it worthy of this level of handling, or is using it in a personal vendetta.

If checkuser is meant for this type of pettiness (a simple disagreement) or threaten, or intimidate, or in the event of a disagreement, it is Dhartung erronously using up wikipedia resources, not I. Rossdv 11:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I invite anyone to examine my own edit history Dhartung ( talk · contribs) and decide for themselves whether I have a personal animus against this, or any other editor. As I have stated this issue should be separate from the question under consideration in the mediation.

Yes, please do. You will note he objected to the evidence stating "Unless there is an extraordinary circumstance, there is nothing encyclopedic about such links". So when stronger evidence was provided he obected to youtube so that was changed. Then when the mediator leaned towards my position he filed this checkuser request. He also stated I suffered from a psychological condition.

You wanted to use this to apply pressure and threats as per your statement here. And according to policy checkuser is not meant for that. Something you must have known but chose to ignore.

I state again that I would rather you just admit that this is more than a really, really uncanny coincidence, and I'll happily enter into mediation on the article issues alone. I was not listed as a participant in the mediation, which was your choice, so to say that I'm refusing to participate is a little hard to understand. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hard to understand? Actually you stated you will take a position, here . There is nothing stopping you from participating in the mediation as you pointed out saying "Anyone else is welcome to join the mediation by going to the case and entering the discussion". but for some reason (personal) chose to put your energies in filing a chuckuser rather than addressing the issues which I have requested many times. I never claimed it was a coincidence and explained the circumstance of the username before. You are free to review again the mediation section (you keep referring to it yet refuse to participate in the issue). You admitted this to be trival and "didn't" want it to be brought here. yet you did. Proving a personal vendetta. And now by following up here after your initial request you simply want the last word. And the immense time, research and work you have put into something you "would not normally consider this worth this level of handling,",points towards a personal vendetta.

I will say this; Thanks to you I have learned way more about wikipedia and how to edit than I ever would have before. Rossdv 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) reply

May I ask - What do you think Dhartung's motivation is for this 'personal vendetta'? -- nkayesmith 05:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Just ego. He has tried to block this from the beginning with statements such "Certainly, the number of artists who have invited fans on stage is enormous, so this cannot be notable either". Which simply is not true. Few artists have done this (U2 did it once I believe). Then he offers to take a position if no one else does. Then filing the checkuser only when further evidence supported the submission. He claims his only motive is enforcing policy, yet filing checkuser for this is against policy since sockpuppets are not against the rules (excluding voting). He is simply reluctant to go against his first decision as it would be similar to admitting a mistake. Rossdv 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Conclusions