Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sdruvss

Sdruvss ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date December 23 2009, 03:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Spike Wilbury

Sdruvss ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has been arguing for certain "facts" to be included in Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. His entire history consists only of arguing at Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 and now at the BLP noticeboard. I attempted to engage him about his seemingly unerring interest in solely this topic, but he declined to respond. Recently, another SPA, Wiki2wk ( talk · contribs), has appeared to mysteriously back up Sdruvss; his only two contributions are here and here. I believe Sdruvss is using socks to creating the appearance of support for his position. Spike Wilbury ( talk) 03:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I have added a few more suspected socks, all SPAs with no other edits except to that page, all have similar "voice", and the IPs all seem to come from the same area. Crum375 ( talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, to clarify, this was a low traffic talk page, esp. after the FA promotion, and the suspected SPAs all appeared at roughly the same time, to create an impression of support for Sdruvss. Crum375 ( talk) 13:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

I didn't answered earlier this "investigation" because I didn't notice it. I'm not a heavy user of WP. Sdruvss ( talk) 12:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Crum said: "Also, to clarify, this was a low traffic talk page, esp. after the FA promotion, and the suspected SPAs all appeared at roughly the same time." Yes, this is absolutely true. I have just read this article, few weeks ago, found so many mistakes, unreliable sources, partisan, biased, that this made me write in Talk Pages that it is a extremely low quality article that shouldn't receive FA promotion. This article seems an annex to Joe Sharkey blog. Sdruvss ( talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users
  • Sdruvss said: "I think you should investigate Crum375 and the manipulation of this article. I'm a victim of his strategies. He is using this kind of manipulation to say I have puppets when is he who is creating the puppets. He is known in internet by these strategies.". That's a serious accusation. You should have evidence to back that up. I was a major contributor to this article early on and I don't see anything in this article that would make it analogous to Joe Sharkey's blog. I would've been the first to edit it if that was the case - Sharkey's reports are indeed heavily biased and anything other than his first-person account of the moment of the accident itself doesn't belong in the article. From what I see, the article gives equal weight to the findings by the NTSB and CENIPA and doesn't seem to be biased in any way. XXX antiuser 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My comments are based in an internet search. I apologize, if they are false. And it is not an accusation, it is just a request to be investigated, as I am been investigated. Sdruvss ( talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why don't you provide links to the results of this search you made? You have to understand that accusations like that are not taken lightly. XXX antiuser 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I retract that accusation, and I think that here is not the place to do it, neither of what I said. I apologize. Sdruvss ( talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. If these are socks, I'm not sure who they would be socks of (whether it would be of User:Sdruvss or possibly somebody else entirely. CU could help here. – MuZemike 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). J.delanoy gabs adds 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions
  • Three sockpuppet accounts blocked and tagged; Sdruvss warned to not abuse alternative accounts in the future. NW ( Talk) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sdruvss/Archive&oldid=1141879487"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sdruvss

Sdruvss ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date December 23 2009, 03:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Spike Wilbury

Sdruvss ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has been arguing for certain "facts" to be included in Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. His entire history consists only of arguing at Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 and now at the BLP noticeboard. I attempted to engage him about his seemingly unerring interest in solely this topic, but he declined to respond. Recently, another SPA, Wiki2wk ( talk · contribs), has appeared to mysteriously back up Sdruvss; his only two contributions are here and here. I believe Sdruvss is using socks to creating the appearance of support for his position. Spike Wilbury ( talk) 03:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I have added a few more suspected socks, all SPAs with no other edits except to that page, all have similar "voice", and the IPs all seem to come from the same area. Crum375 ( talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, to clarify, this was a low traffic talk page, esp. after the FA promotion, and the suspected SPAs all appeared at roughly the same time, to create an impression of support for Sdruvss. Crum375 ( talk) 13:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply


Comments by accused parties

I didn't answered earlier this "investigation" because I didn't notice it. I'm not a heavy user of WP. Sdruvss ( talk) 12:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Crum said: "Also, to clarify, this was a low traffic talk page, esp. after the FA promotion, and the suspected SPAs all appeared at roughly the same time." Yes, this is absolutely true. I have just read this article, few weeks ago, found so many mistakes, unreliable sources, partisan, biased, that this made me write in Talk Pages that it is a extremely low quality article that shouldn't receive FA promotion. This article seems an annex to Joe Sharkey blog. Sdruvss ( talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users
  • Sdruvss said: "I think you should investigate Crum375 and the manipulation of this article. I'm a victim of his strategies. He is using this kind of manipulation to say I have puppets when is he who is creating the puppets. He is known in internet by these strategies.". That's a serious accusation. You should have evidence to back that up. I was a major contributor to this article early on and I don't see anything in this article that would make it analogous to Joe Sharkey's blog. I would've been the first to edit it if that was the case - Sharkey's reports are indeed heavily biased and anything other than his first-person account of the moment of the accident itself doesn't belong in the article. From what I see, the article gives equal weight to the findings by the NTSB and CENIPA and doesn't seem to be biased in any way. XXX antiuser 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • My comments are based in an internet search. I apologize, if they are false. And it is not an accusation, it is just a request to be investigated, as I am been investigated. Sdruvss ( talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why don't you provide links to the results of this search you made? You have to understand that accusations like that are not taken lightly. XXX antiuser 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I retract that accusation, and I think that here is not the place to do it, neither of what I said. I apologize. Sdruvss ( talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. If these are socks, I'm not sure who they would be socks of (whether it would be of User:Sdruvss or possibly somebody else entirely. CU could help here. – MuZemike 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). J.delanoy gabs adds 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Conclusions
  • Three sockpuppet accounts blocked and tagged; Sdruvss warned to not abuse alternative accounts in the future. NW ( Talk) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sdruvss/Archive&oldid=1141879487"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE