Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

User:Fonez4mii

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fonez4mii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

84.13.166.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (This one was already admitted by Fonez4mii, who openly stated it was him as soon as was asked when the case was brought against him)(Fone4Me 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipéire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (The checkuser has proved negative on this)(Fone4Me 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Report submission by

Jack forbes (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User Fonez4mii and ip 84.13.166.40 (talk) began a discussion at talk Scotland on the 14th of June using exactly the same arguments. This was user Fonez4mii's first edit for over a month and was the ip's first edit ever. I became suspicious as time went on and when I spotted this diff alarm bells rang. When the very argumentative discussion was brought to the attention of an admin and he mentioned a check user may be in order, the ip, other than one comment, never returned.

The reason I referred to the IP in third person was because there were two IP addresses, and in order to specify which one I was talking about, I gave the exact name of the IP. At no point, did I refer to myself as if I was two people however. Fone4Me 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post to GoodDay in an attempt to convince him "several" people were calling me a troll and questioning my conduct, when in fact it was only Fonez4mii and his IP account. A clear case of using a sockpuppet to try and influence another editor. Jack forbes (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a reply to an admin using his IP accusing me of using an IP in an attempt to deflect attention away from himself. He did not own up to using an IP until this case was brought against him which I believe was an attempt to avoid a checkuser. As he said on this page "But there isn't any need to do a checkuser. I've admitted the IP was me as soon as was asked". Jack forbes (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a diff of him asking for something to be changed as he could not do because he was an IP. This is the diff of Fonez4mii changing it. So, with one account he asked someone to make an edit, and with the other he did. Jack forbes (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I swear I already answered this. What just happened to my reply?? Anyway, I will answer again. No, I asked for something to be done on my IP address, after I tried to do it, and I found I couldnt because the page was protected. I thought the page was fully protected, and that I was still logged in, so I asked someone to go do it for me. Then, I realised that I was logged out, so I tried logging back in to edit, and found it was only semi-protected. So point countered. And seriously, where has the comment I just left about this gone?? Fone4Me 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the diff "Can someone please revert that, since I, as an IP, cannot". He knew he was not logged in. Jack forbes (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What need would I have for deflecting a checkuser? I told you the truth, and the checkuser has confirmed this. The reason I questioned you was that if the IP was yours, it was being used to pretend to be two different people. I did not use the IP to pretend to be two different people, as already explained countless times. Fone4Me 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The user is very aggressive and tries to create momentum by forcing straw polls then claiming that 9-6 vote on a controversial issues indicates that everyone agrees with his/her. Lots of POV accusations including generic ones without much evidence. It seems a similar style to other Sock puppets on the UK related pages. I think its worth looking into. --Snowded (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the user was being aggressive or trying to push a POV and it is clear that you are WP:ATTACKing all the editors on the UK talk page who don't agree with you. He/she was not even trying to claim the straw poll is consensus and was engaging in discussion which you were not participating in and just kept posting the same views constantly. I would think it is worth looking into that you are accusing anybody who does not agree that Scotland is not a constituent country is a sockpuppet. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both editors certainly have similar editing habits and a similar style. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but I definitely think it is worth looking into. The above provided diff certainly does seem to be a tell tale sign. --Cameron (T|C) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What is this? The IP address was me. I accidentally got logged out. I never denied it was me. I haven't used it to sockpuppet or inflate any votes. I even said myself on the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom that no IP addresses should be allowed to vote. That other account is not me though. I don't know why you could not just have asked me to be honest? Fonez4mii (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be [this diff] that was worrying. Would you care to explain it? --Cameron (T|C) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well after I had accidentally got logged out once and started to engage in conversation with GoodDay, I kept logging out to get to my IP's talk page to contiue the conversation with him. I then forgot to log back in for the main discussion, so i had written "my talk page" from my IP address, even though I was trying to say the talk page of my account. So i logged onto my account and corrected it. Sorry if any inconvenience has been caused. I must say though, it really would have been more helpful to have just asked me in the first place. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a further notice, i find the "aggressive" description above a personal attack, simply because I am fighting for a NPOV (along with the now clear majority of contributors there). Fonez4mii (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think this was a bad faith nomination all stemmed from a long discussion on Talk:United Kingdom. The nominator has a different view than the accused over a contraversial subject. Above the accused admits the IP is his/hers and was editing whilst logged out. There has been no votestacking with the IP and has not been used to avoid a block or the 3 revert rule as far as I know. All in all pretty bad faith tbh. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the discussion on the Scotland talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't tell us anything. I told you the IP was me. I told you why I logged out to use it - to talk to GoodDay after i accidentally got logged out the first time - not to inflate any votes, and if you notice, I have not used my IP to vote on anything. I consider you try to make it look like I'm doing something "wrong" simply because i am opposing your POV at the United Kingdom. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the same thing, you are just spreading it around wikipedia when it should be centralised discussion on Talk:United Kingdom. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the fact that JackForbes went round to every single other user involved to tell them about this case, yet did not tell me, shows that there is a clear indication that he/she was more interesting in trying to tarnish my reputation than actually see if I was a sockpuppet or not, and therefore, lower my opposing quality against his POV on the UK page. This is unnacceptable behaviour, and certainly done with some level of bad faith. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, the fact that a non-existant user was added to the suspected sockpuppet, simply to make it look on appearance that I had been editing with an account, is also clearly done for the reasons above. I have explained the reasons for why I was using my IP address:
  • I accidentally got logged out first of all.
  • I then engaged in conversation with GoodDay with my IP.
  • In order to continue the conversation with GoodDay, I had to log out to get to my IP talkpage.
  • I did not user my IP to inflate any vote, and in fact was the person who wrote on the vote that no IPs were allowed.
I think this case is done, and an eye should be kept on JackForbes's actions, per this and his behaviour on the UK talk page. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even try that. you do not say when the case is done. When the admins come in, they decide. Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no need for further comment on this page, as I have given the reasons why my IP was used. You are however in the wrong, for:
  • Accusing me of being a sockpuppet of an account with no basis (I am not talking about the IP address), showing you had alterior motives.
  • You went round informing everyone else of this page, except for me.
  • You appear to be using this simply to combat the fact that I have repelled your POV at the UK page.
  • You continue to argue even after I am done. This discussion needs no further debate, as I have already told you the IP address was mine.
  • The fact you came here straight away without even asking me if the IP was mine, shows, again, other motives.
As I said, I am done with this discussion. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Camerons page you will find that he told me I should place a Template on your page and I found it difficult to figure it out, so he kindly did it for me. Do you remember on the Scotland talk page you accused me of possibly using a sockpuppet? Strange how it turns out. I suspected you from an early stage and believe I will be vindicated. Jack forbes (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, when did you let everyone know you were using an ip? Was it when you were accusing me of trolling within a few minutes of each other? When? Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, after Cameron had the decency to inform me of what you were suggesting. As soon as I saw, I instantly remarked that it was me, and I never denied that it was. You are clearly using this as a means of attack, and I am not going to participate in your games. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here was me thinking there were two people with the same opinion and it was just you all along. It was also strange that after the admin said there might be a case for a checkuser there was only one comment from the ip to say you suspected me of sockpupperty and then nothing. Did you suddenly have no problems logging on? Jack forbes (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please let's all assume good faith. It was me who told Jack to inform the users who were involved in the discussions. Further, I took the liberty of informing you when he forgot. I also advised him to add the template. When he was unsure about it's placement, I placed the template for him. I take full responsibility for any actions I have made. --Cameron (T|C) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to be responsible for Cameron, I was the one who was unsure of the procedure. Jack forbes (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To be honest, I'd be disinclined to assume good faith on Fonez4mii's part. After the comment about the talk page, I noted here to what I thought was simply an anon that he should probably make an account himself instead of accusing others of using anon addresses. At that stage, he could have cleared up who he was. That wasn't done, and as such I would hold the view that the anon account was simply being used in an attempt to show there was more support for a position than there really way. It's not votestacking, of course, but it is in clear violation of WP:SOCK. --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Schambo is one of the few editors, along with JackForbes and Snowded who is opposing us on the UK page. I have explained the reasons why I used my IP address. I never once denied the IP being mine. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone's position at the UK talk page is irrelevant. The simple fact is that you were using an anonymous IP address to attempt to advance your own viewpoint, and you've only admitted such after being pulled up here about it. --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. I did not use my IP to advance any kind of viewpoint. As stated already, I accidentally got logged out (I closed my browser) and I started engaging in a conversation with GoodDay on my IP's talkpage. I then realised and logged in again to continue discussion, logging in and out to continue to talk to GoodDay. However, I forgot to log in several times. If I was trying to enlarge my vote, I would have been "talking to myself" using my IP and my account on the discussion page, which I did not do. I have not mentioned the IP thing since because I have since then ensured I was constantly logged in, and even wrote on the page that no IPs should be allowed to vote.
And in some ways it is certainly interesting that all those who are pushing the POV on the UK page are here trying to pretend I have done something wrong. Point made. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were using your IP and your account to make it appear there were two people rather than one with your opinions. You don't have to talk to your IP to do that. You have not answered the question, why did you tell an admin that you would not be surprised if I was using an IP in the same discussion, when you were doing exactly that, and did not own up to it till you came to this page? Jack forbes (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was a difference. You were actually talking to the IP address. Myself however, did not use the IP to inflate any kind of oppinion. I am becoming tired of your constant refusal to get the point on both here and on the UK page. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather interesting, also, to look at JackForbes' contributions. The whole last page seem to be primarily on his sockpuppetery accusation, and has not made a single constructive edit since. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are now clutching at straws. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, please reply with a better response. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Ahem. The irony in your assertion that only those who hold opposing viewpoints to your own are trying to question your credibility is quite brilliant! Using your IP, you yourself accused Jack Forbes, someone with whom you didn't agree, of using a sockpuppet, here, therefore implying that the 'other side' was breaking the rules in their arguing of their case. You've already done what you're accusing us of doing. Point made. --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read my point above. Point made. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you can stop making baseless allegations. If you believe Jack Forbes was using another IP address, then make a sockpuppetry case. If not, then drop it. Second of all, you were attempting to blacken the credibility and opinion of a user holding a different opinion to yours. You did it using a different anon account. That alone is in breach of WP:SOCK, as deflating the opinion of the other side is just as bad as inflating the opinion of your own side. --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing. I at no point denied those edits were me. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you never denied they were you, that's because you never admitted they were you in the first place! --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was never asked. Please try and use an ounce of logic. -.- Fonez4mii (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SOCK. If you use two accounts, the onus is on you to make that clear, not on us to find out: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry". --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not used two accounts. I accidentally got logged out. There is a difference between doing that and clearly making another account to pretend to be two people. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you did pretend to be two people. Do you not understand that? You engaged in the same debate using two accounts. Regardless of whether you got logged in or logged out, that gives the appearance that more people support a position than actually do. And that's sockpuppetry, my friend. --Schcamboaon scéal? 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if I used my IP address to inflate a vote or oppinion. This way, all I did was talk as if I was one person (which I am). So sorry to disappoint you, but I have not sockpuppeted. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are you where pretending to be two different people [1] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one! I think that just about confirms it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does that source show me in any way pretending to be two different people?? Fonez4mii (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words 84.13.166.40 is certainly not a troll for bringing up a valid point. 84.13.166.40 being yourself of course, and responding to someone twice using your account and ip Fonez4mii @ 18:15 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 sockpupperty--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, how does that show me pretending to be two different people? All it shows is that I am showing I was bringing up a valid point. Deary me, please read. Also, if you would like to accuse me of any more sockpuppet allegations, why dont you go over to Talk:United Kingdom right now, where I accidentally got logged out again. Go on... you know you want to; I mean, Jack Forbes has obviously sat here all day simply on this page, since this is the only thing he has even contributed to recently. And its strange isn't it, how all the people who accuse me of having done something wrong are the exact same people that we have been fighting off for pushing a POV at the UK discussion. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go near the UK talk page and try to compromise with someone who uses a sockpuppet. Jack forbes (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I have not used a sockpuppet. In fact, I am the one who wrote on the poll, that no IP addresses should be allowed. You are tiring me now, and you are embarassing yourself. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read none of the evidence given against you? Admins will certainly read everything, then make their decisions. So we shall wait for that. Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move indent You where clearly pretenting to be two different and where caught out with the Goodday comment as the above diffs clearly show [[2] this one] you say you confirm you are brining up a valid point then why not say that then why refer to the IP address as a third person ? and these two Fonez4mii @ 18:15 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 say it all responding to the same person twice within 4 minutes and both with critical comments and starting new sentence each time --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I was pretending to be different people, I would have said things like "yes, fonez4mii is right". However, I did not, and simply spoke as one person. If I was using it as a sockpuppet, I would have denied it. However, I completely admitted it was true the moment I heard people asking, so don't give me any rubbish about how I was using it to pretend to be someone else. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you said the was IP right, the IP of course being yourself there is no difference. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did not say "the IP" - I gave the name of which IP it was, since there were two IPs, just to clarify. You don't have an argument to stand on, and it is increasingly clear that your primary aim is to accuse me of sockpuppetery for opposing your non-neutral POV on the UK page, and I am quickly tiring of your immature behaviour. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to thrash petty insults at eachother and to try pretend eachother has done something wrong. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why give the name of the IP when it was yourself, you never at any point said that the IP was yourself intact you did the opposite and its you and your IP alter ego who was throwing around the petty insults, and even more references to the IP as a third person diff!
I don't think you're listening, and it is becoming repetitively boring repeating myself. I referred to the exact name of the IP address so it was clear which IP I was talking about. And I behaved identically with both my account and my IP. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You said "84.13.166.40 is..." which is a synomym in the minds of most people for "the IP is...". Why are you trying to defend this? Why would you refer to an account you were using as if it were a completely different person who was behind it? You are the one who doesn't have an argument to stand on here.
Yes you referred to the name of the IP, but you didn't feel like dropping in "oh and by the way I may be talking as if this IP is another person, but it's actually me after getting logged out", did you? --Schcamboaon scéal? 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already explained, there were 2 IPs, and referring to the exact one clarified. I, at no point in the conversation, made no attempt to name myself as a different person. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Checkuser will quell any concerns. The innocent will be exonerated 'or' the guilty will be blocked. Case closed -eitherway-. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't any need to do a checkuser. I've admitted the IP was me as soon as was asked. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry (I didn't read the 'entire' discussion). Hmmm, well seeing as you've admitted ownership of the IP address? I recommend (at talk: Scotland) scratching out your IP address postings or re-naming them with your Username. Also, I see no reason (IMHO) to apply a 'block'. Please, understand my reasoning insn't because I support 'constituent county'. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry GooDay, he can't scratch out his IP address, this is evidence in this case. Jack forbes (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I do this now? Fone4Me 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A block should be given the user pretended to be two different people. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not, since i did not pretend to be two different people, and openly said I was the IP address when asked. The only reason you wish for me to be blocked is because you wish for there to be one less oppose against you on the UK page. Fone4Me 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Fonez4mii: Don't rename or change anything until the case has been reviewed by an admin! --Cameron (T|C) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Fone4Me 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my lack of clarification Fonez (and everybody else). Only if Fonez is found innocent, he could fix his IP postings (better yet, put his Username next to the IP address. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he wont be found innocent he has admitted he made the IP postings, the point is he was making out that the IP was not him when making those posts as the evidence clearly shows something he is denying now. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I did not use the IP to:
  • Evade blocks or bans
  • Inflate polls
  • Avoid 3RR
Meaning, I am innocent of sockpuppetry, wether you like it or not. Fone4Me 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about this particular case. It seems, if Fonez gets blocked? possible charges of 'political censurship' might be laid (considering the high emotions at United Kingdom). But, if Fonez is 'let go'? then charges of injustice will come. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with politics. It is a straightforeward case of, is he a sockpuppet user or not? Anything else means nothing, Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there. And since I have not used my IP for any of the 3 points above, I am clear of sockpuppetry. Fone4Me 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well people, the case is in the hands of the Administrators. They'll make the ruling. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he was trying to confuse or deceive anybody intentionally and being logged out is an easy mistake to make for users not yet fully to grips with Wikipedia. I think you are assuming bad faith here with no serious evidence of any bad intentions on Fonez4mii's part. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you think accusing me of using an IP account as a sockpuppet whilst using one himself was showing good faith? Jack forbes (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a wild and radical idea! Why not simply ask for an apology? He has no proof so I am sure he can see he was in the wrong for saying that. I am sure you yourself have already learnt that the talk page of Scotland is a dangerous place and it's not easy to keep one's cool. I think there has been a huge amount of assuming bad faith by many people. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a dangerous place and hard to keep your cool, but that is no excuse. I think Barryob could be right about more socks, we will have to wait and see. I'm sure you would not have made the accusation yourself, never mind using an IP to do it. Jack forbes (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but what ? have you seen the evidence he was clearly pretending to be two different people with the back to back replies to Jack forbes within the space of four minutes come its blatant and the new users knowledge of other polices suspect me to believe there may be more socks --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to WP:AGF at this point where the user has been pretending to be two separate people and finds nothing wrong with that ! how you can keep defending him is beyond me. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I point out what a wonderful editor some people are defending, look at this post to GoodDay [3]. Note that he says I am being accused of trolling by several people. Guess what, it was him(the IP) and Fonez4mii, yep, he was using a sockpuppet to imply more than one person was calling me a troll. Not such a nice thing to do is it? I would just like to point out that GoodDay wanted nothing to do with it as shown [4] Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Seriously, can anyone now defend this editors conduct? Jack forbes (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with whatever the ruling is. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got this message from admin Bencherlite on my talk page. Looks like a checkuser is in order. Jack forbes (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, I haven't used my IP to:
  1. Inflate a poll. And in fact, I actually wrote on the poll itself that no IPs should be allowed to vote.
  2. Evade a block or ban.
  3. Evade a 3RR.
I don't see how you can even suggest a block. The logging out at first was accidental, and i simply kept logging out to get to my IP's talk page to continue the conversation with GoodDay, and I forgot to log back in a couple of times.
I also must point out, it is significant that all the people who are pretending I have done something wrong, are the ones opposing my (and the majority's) views on the UK page. They are clearly expressing this view in order to lower the opposition.
Fone4Me 07:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the "this page in a nutshell" section on WP:SOCK.
  • Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue. Check. Remember, this doesn't mean simply voting: you replied to someone twice in four minutes, trying to show more people disagreed with him than really did.
No, I did not mention the same points. I didn't go "oh, I agree with Fonez4mii". Fone4Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use multiple accounts to mislead others. Check. You certainly mislead me into thinking you weren't using a sockpuppet on a talk page.
Well that's your fault, not mine. I openly stated I was the IP as soon as I was asked. Fone4Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use multiple accounts to artificially stir up controversy. Check. You stated that "several" people thought Jack Forbes was a troll, when in fact it was just you and your sock.
No, I was not in fact referring to that. I was referring (if you cared to read what I wrote) to the other incidents where JackForbes had been trolling through looking through the archives. Additionally, I am starting to have even more doubts about Jack Forbes now, since looking at his/her contributions, not a single constructive edit recently has been made, and all recent edits are about me, and nothing else. Fone4Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use multiple accounts to aid in disruption. While you might call the above diruption, I'll say no here since most of your contributions are as valued as anyone else's.
  • Do not use multiple accounts to circumvent a block. No.
So that's three from five you've hit straight on. --Schcamboaon scéal? 09:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So no, I don't agree I did any of them. Fone4Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the point of the checkuser? Fonez4mii has already stated (from the beginning) that he did use the IP. Unless there's any more "evidence" to review, then I think we are going round in circles. Let's stop arguing and await an administrator's verdict. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 11:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to reiterate that he stated he used the IP only when this case was brought against him, not when he was using it. Jack forbes (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because no one asked before, and it was rather obvious who I was, since I stated using my IP that I wanted something to be reverted on the Wales page, and then I did it with my account. I at no point denied who I was, and therefore, have not sockpuppeted. If I had denied who I was, or purposefully made myself appear as two separate people, then I would somewhat agree, but as it stands, I did none of those things. Fone4Me 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the diff stating you wanted something reverted on the Wales page. Exactly who were you asking to do it for you? Yourself? Jack forbes (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, first of all, when I tried to edit the page, I realised I couldn't. I presumed this was because it was fully protected, so I asked for someone to go revert the change that someone had made. However, I then realised that I could log in and that it was only-semi protected. So no, I did not "ask myself". Fone4Me 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not read WP:SOCK? I said this up there, and I'll say it again. The onus is on you to declare if you are using more than one account, more so if you are using two accounts in the same conversation: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry". You gave the appearance that your IP and your real account were two different people. If you had done it once, then maybe it would be an accident. But you repeatedly did it, so yes, you did make yourself "appear as two seperate people", as you say. --Schcamboaon scéal? 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain, again. I first of all got logged out by accident. While I was on my IP, I engaged in a conversation with GoodDay on my talkpage. In order to get back to this conversation, I kept logging back out to get to my IP talkpage. However, I kept forgetting to log back in on the main conversation. But I at no point denied the IP was mine, and made no attempt to have a "conversation with myself". Fone4Me 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) One other thing that I think needs to be checked. This user's first edits appear around the same time as Wikipéire was banned as a sock puppet. The signature style is identical (three colours etc.) and the confrontational approach to removing any reference to national identity is the same. The user also has a history (although deleted on the talk page) of editing other people's material and received one gentle warning form an Admin. This could be a complete red herring, but we have suffered so much from sock puppets with aggressive POV agendas that a little bit of paranoia is justified. The protests on this page are similar to Wikipéire's early protests as well and the editors knowledge of Wikipedia process is very advanced for someone who started editing a couple of months ago. --Snowded (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, yet more accusations. Checkuser me all you want. This is starting to fringe on harrassment now however. Fone4Me 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Troll" here, (See talk:Scotland#Alright, enough.), feeling somewhat deflated and a bit disgusted. I agree that Wikipéire does indeed have a passing resemblance. (We also had our run-ins in the past). Things like this make me realise what an idiot I am for wasting time on this site creating articles, editing articles, designing, adapting and posting images, and generally discussing article content, which in truth, despite the occasional accusation of being a "troll" and countering with the odd "dry-up mate" in response, I genuinely enjoy. Reading this catalogue of abuse of good faith sickens me, frankly. Sad, very sad. For the sake of my own faith in human nature I hope the accusations are proved to be unfounded, but I have a hunch I'll be disappointed in that respect. It is this type of behaviour which made me pack my bags first time around. Guess I'll be off again for a while if a "guilty" verdict is given. Watching with interest... 80.41.245.87 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly interesting that every single person on this page who has suggested I have done something wrong, has been opposed to me on the UK pages. And that isn't anything generic either, since there were only a tiny proportion of people there that opposed me. And just go ahead and checkuser me. I am sick of you adding more and more to the list. Just do them all at once so I can carry on editing without having to reply at this page every 5 mins. Fone4Me 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you behaved more reasonably, assumed good faith and engaged with people's arguments you would get less of this. You need to realise (assuming you are not Wikipéire, and I really hope you are not by the way) that there has been a lot of grief on these sites and people have lots of scars. You have entered this space on a single issue since May with no previous engagement on any of the pages. Winning trust is part of editing here.--Snowded (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well from what it seems, I have gained trust with most of the editors, as the majority have followed my support. Only a small POV pushing minority are still arguing against. Fone4Me 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that this is very difficult for you, but please stop saying that anyone who disagrees with you is pushing a POV. I am very pleased that you are not Wikipiere, but I really wish you would stop behaving like him. Assume Good Faith. --Snowded (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes difficult to maintain assumption of good faith, when
  1. The only recent edits Jack Forbes have made have been all about me, in the entirity of the last 2 days!
  2. I am accused of being multiple differing people.
  3. The people that are accusing me are, incidentally, all the same people that are opposing me on the UK page.
  4. When Jack Forbes went around telling everone about this case, he made sure to tell everyone except myself.
  5. People are refusing to listen to the fact that I did not do anything intentional to make myself look like two people.
I have now come up with what I consider to be a great alternative on the UK page, if anyone is interested, rather than watching this page all day. Fone4Me 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember whether Fonez4mii and I agreed about the underlying discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way by anyone. Given the evidence, it really could go either way. You can look at as an intentional effort to deceive or as an accident. In the latter event, Fonez was wrong not point it out immediately in some way. What upsets me as an editor is that he created this impression, intentionally or not, but has been unwilling to simply say, "I was wrong not to bring this to everyone's attention when I figured it out and will do so if it ever happens again". This unwillingness to back down you are wrong or have done something wrong makes participating in this project less wrong. I have been an ass from time to time and have apologized for it. Once you step back and take a deep breath, it's not that hard. Having said that, I think it is a close enough case that it would be wrong to punish. Instead he should be reminded to assume good faith both because of his lashing out at those who disagree with him and because of his Troll allegation. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser result
I don't normally like associating IP addresses with accounts but feel it's warranted in this case, given the extensive evidence. And in this case, it's  Confirmed - Alison ❤ 05:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you the IP address was mine! Fone4Me 07:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to quell growing concerns; perhaps it should be determined if Fonez is or is not Wikipiere. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fonez4mii (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to Wikipéire (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting it done so fast. I am now able to continue editing normally, without being accused harrassed every 5 minutes about another potential sockpuppet. Fone4Me 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

I've read some of this long discussion, but there's not much I can add. Based on the tone of the arguments, and without looking at the original evidence because we "already know the answer", it appears that Fonez4mii did nothing wrong and that Jack Forbes was a little too eager in suspecting him of ulterior motives. Nonetheless, I want to assume good faith on both sides and ask everyone to leave this aspect of your dispute in the past. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have retired, but I need to come back one last time to comment on this farcical decision. You are a disgrace! You say you read some of the discussion. SOME? You could not read all of it? I thought that's what you were here for. You also did not read the original evidence. WHAT?. This means you did not read any of the diffs proving he is a sockpuppet, this really takes the biscuit. Why did I and others put forward evidence if you could not be bothered to read it? I hope you show more dilligence in your day job than you do here, otherwise you would be fired for incompetence. If you are typical of admins and wikipedia in general I am well out of here. you have just made wikipedia a laughing stock! Good luck to all the decent editors out there, you will certainly need it! Jack forbes (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, next time you want to win an argument or besmirch someones name, use a sockpuppet, then when you are brought to account for it confess, pretend you did not mean it, despite all the evidence which won't be read anyway, and hey presto! All is forgiven. Check that,you will be told you did nothing wrong and it was the bad man who accused you who is at fault for bringing it up. Jack forbes (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am overruling the close on this one. There clearly was abusive sock puppetry, where an editor used an alternate account deceptively. [5]

[6] [7]. I will now study the evidence further and decide what to do about it. Jehochman Talk 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fonez4mii&oldid=1149992676"