User talk:Spud770

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Spud770 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is not a sock puppet account. I have held this account for more than five years and never once engaged in sock-puppetry.Spud770 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Following your request, and discussion with the admin, I've unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, please explain? Spud770 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The activity of your account is very consistent with a sleeper account. Given that you returned from a reasonably long absence to edit ~~war~~ at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. More recently you continued an edit war at Hamas Covenant following on from three confirmed sock puppets, a page which you had not previously edited. Likewise on History of Israel, also a page you had not previously edited, your edits appear in between the edits of two confirmed socks and an IP blocked for block evasion. Again on Hamas, ~~a page you had not previous edited,~~ your edit comes immediately following a confirmed sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc Thanks for your response. So can you actually specify what it is that led you to conclude that I am a sock puppet? (Other than my edits happening to appear in proximity to those of sock puppets.) Spud770 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to your reference to edit warring. Not once have I engaged in, been accused of, or been warned about edit warring in my five years on Wikipedia. You ignored the fact that I contributed constructively to a wide variety of pages. I recognize now what may have been the real reason you blocked me. I hope a neutral third-party administrator will resolve this amicably. Spud770 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Given that you returned from a reasonably long absence to edit war at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict." This is patently false. My contributions log shows several edits the previous month, as you can readily see. And: "Again on Hamas, a page you had not previous edited..." Were you not aware that I edited the Hamas page in July 2014, as my contributions log shows? Spud770 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just in proximity on multiple articles (including two which you hadn't previously edited), which would be enough had your account been newer, but also that in two of the examples you involved yourself in an edit war which was being fought by other socks. I've struck a couple things in my comment above. You have edit warred in the example articles I linked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can adequately explain how you found the edit war the socks where participating in on those two articles, or more broadly why you decided to edit those articles I'd be willing to consider unblocking you. However from my perspective I see a sleeper account which made good edits in order to establish themselves, left for a while, then made some more good edits then got involved in edit wars on two articles which confirmed sockpuppets where involved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc I cannot believe this is actually happening. Surely you are not asking me to justify or explain the edits you find problematic as a condition for getting unblocked. You can readily see from my edit history that I have developed a strong interest (especially over the last six months or so) in the subject of the pages I have edited (namely the Israeli-Arab conflict) and that when I see a conflict between editors, or feel that Wikipedia policy has been violated on those pages, I weigh in accordingly (as any editor would do). I do not check, and I have never checked, to see whether the editors before me or after me are sock puppets. That's your job. The fact that there were sock puppets involved in two or three of the edit conflicts I was involved in (as you pointed out above) came as a surprise to me; how you can possibly suggest that I was ever aware of that or that I am somehow implicated in their actions remains a wonder to me. I still cannot fathom how that alone formed the basis of your decision to block me as a sock puppet. How can I possibly be a sock puppet of the above-mentioned user as you allege, if my account preceded his by about four years? I hope a neutral administrator reads this and rectifies this situation in a timely fashion. (I do appreciate that you admitted your errors above and edited your response accordingly. However your description of my account history in your most recent response is still grossly distorted, as anyone who actually inspects my full editing history will see. From the very weak rationale you have provided for your block I feel that it was reckless and misinformed at best, and nefarious at worst.) Spud770 (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:- my understanding is the evidence here is purely behavioural, and not based on checkuser evidence. As an uninvolved admin, it's hard for me to review this unblock request, as I don't entirely understand the evidence. Could you summarise the evidence? PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is behavioural, though whether sockpuppetry or perhaps a little meatpuppetry isn't totally clear:

The two big ones are appearing on Hamas Covenant and History of Israel, no previous edits on those pages, to continue the editing after the confirmed socks. Included with that there is the refusal to answer simple question on why edit war on those two pages, which would explain the primary piece of the link.
Related to that is editing Hamas after another sock - which is circumstantial.
Edited Blockade of the Gaza Strip, a day after Wlglunight93 was blocked, a page which Wlglunight93 had previously edited - again circumstantial
2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack also edited by a Wlglunight93 - very circumstantial
Unfortunately we can't really use the times of activity on WikiChecker as conclusive evidence either way.
Edit summaries don't provide a whole lot of help

The Wlglunight93 account used lowercase wikilinks however newer socks have used both (see recent history of Hamas Covenant), in the one eg spud used uppercase).
Wlglunight93 used "NPOV" (as does Spud) whereas new socks use just POV.
After the undo edit summary both Spud and Wlglunight93 don't use any punctuation between the auto summary and any additions to it (circumstantial) there isn't really a pattern with Wlglunight93 and socks as to whether they use an upper or lowercase letter after the auto summary.

Spud's interest in Arab-Israeli conflict developed within a month or so of Wlglunight93, though they did usually edit different articles.

I hadn't actually noticed that Wlglunight93 is only a year and a half old, I was under the impression that they were much older, which suggests that this isn't sock puppetry but maybe meatpuppetry. Having said that, I'm happy for you to unblock if you don't feel that there is enough behavioural evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll unblock. The level of evidence is easily enough to justify a checkuser, but I feel it doesn't quite justify an indefinite block. Thanks again. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Thank you for your timely remediation. Please note that Callanecc failed to acknowledge (or worse, willfully ignored) my answer to his request above, which explains why I made the edits in question. Furthermore, he wrote as evidence: "Edited Blockade of the Gaza Strip, a day after Wlglunight93 was blocked, a page which Wlglunight93 had previously edited..." This statement is false. I edited Blockade of the Gaza Strip on October 20, and Wlglunight93 was blocked on November 17 - almost a month later. You can readily see this in the edit history. Callanecc's falsification of evidence and obvious failure to assume good faith in his responses tells me that his actions were indeed nefarious. I expect an apology from Callanecc, here on my talkpage, for wrongfully blocking me, falsifying evidence, and failing to assume good faith. If an apology is not forthcoming I will be making a complaint with the Arbitration Committee (unless you suggest a more constructive course of action). Once again, thank you for your swift response. Spud770 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the block however I still feel that there is evidence which suggests that you were engaging it sock or meat puppetry. To clear up one point, Wlglunight93 was blocked on October 20 (see here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Positions on Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus separatum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]