DVMt

DVMt (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


The account Drk878 uses standard shorthand and terminology, despite having only 11 edits. It first appeared in an obscure article DVMt created [1]. It has supported DVMt by performing two reverts in support. Highly suspicious, looking for checkuser for confirmation and for any sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

She is my wife and created her own account. I don't use socks, but I have encouraged friends, family and colleagues to join Wikipedia over the past month. Thus, one can expect a potential influx of editors. DVMt (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain the socks familiarity with wikipedia terminology, nor its focus on exactly articles you have created or edits you specifically have made. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James is censoring all material related to chiropractic. Of course he wants an indef block. I suppose he perceives me as a threat to the status quo. I've discussed everything at talk, he just reverts everything citing lack of consensus. This seems like a smear campaign. DVMt (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those assuming that DVMt and I are one in the same; that assumption is incorrect. Though I am DVMt's wife, we are separate people. I am familiar with his edits as I have created an account to help him with copy edits. Drk878 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drk878 (talk • contribs) [reply]
I think this is a little bit too transparent that it's still you DVMt. (It looks like you decided that your wife isn't a chiropractor after all: [2]). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure of what it is you're trying to do here. False accusations are not appreciated. If you are concerned we are the same, what will it take to convince you otherwise? Drk878 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you need to see we are 2 different people? DVMt (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: her "field" is writing. She is a writer and editor. You misread into that. DVMt (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the user promoting chiropractics, or as a physician is Doc James attempting to censor chiropractics? WP:GAMEPatriot1010 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should go do some research and find the answer to your question before you accuse someone of gaming. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely looks like an attempt to censor chiropractic and anything related to effectiveness of CAM interventions. He wasn't even participating at the talk page. DVMt (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only have 1 computer at home. I am currently at work, therefore on another computer. You must stop with these accusations. I'm not sure what meatpuppery is, but if this continues, I will bring this to a moderator.Drk878 (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty liberal interpretation, IRWolfie. I have collaborated with you on the talk pages and we were editing together. I mentioned to my wife awhile back about helping me out with copyedits. As a disclaimer, I mentioned on facebook regarding the apparent systemic bias at Wikipedia. Any new editor that joins is free to voice their opinion and concern. More editors and eyes here can't hurt, especially knowledgeable ones who have the appropriate scientific background. Regards, DVMt (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your wife sounds a lot like a WP:BROTHER excuse. The facebook group sounds a lot like creating off-wiki canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with IRWolfie's analysis - whether sock puppetry or meat puppetry the effect is indistinguishable. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, accusations without a suggested resolution. I hate repeating myself, but what will convince you otherwise?Drk878 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I suggest an indefinite block of both accounts to resolve the situation. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I don't think so. I've been blocked once and have not done anything to deserve another block let alone an indefinite ban. Regrettably this has turned into a witch-hunt; and the facts don't justify any blocking of any account. To summarize: I am being accused of manipulating (ha) the game by creating a sock puppet (not me; my wife) despite the fact we both are asking for independent verification. Jumping the gun doesn't help and comments like these add fuel to the fire. DVMt (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with an indef block of both accounts. As it does not resolve the matter. Only goes to show that you're trying to support a ban of both parties without the proper evidence. There's nothing but accusations here. Come back to me with something more valid and fair. You can't just go around suggesting bans without proper supporting evidence, just to get what you want. User:Drk878 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drk878 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how the situation might be resolved and I gave my opinion. The decision lies with the appropriate admin, but sock puppetry and/or meat puppetry are blockable offences. I'm sure if you reflect on the matter you will be able to see how problematic such behaviour is and why it generally requires a block. Previously, I've extended you every good faith and often despite my better judgement, but, I'm afraid, that reservoir is now fully depleted. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opinion, however in this matter it seems one sided. You are obviously assuming and accusing my husband and I of many things here that are simply inaccurate. The behavior you suggest is false, therefore to suggest a ban because of it is unfair, and simply shows bad faith. Drk878 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Fiachra, I don't doubt his motivations or intentions. I disagree with his proposed solution "indef blocking" which is absurd for mentions already mentioned. I don't know what I did to anyone here to deserve such a smack-down. One more point: Why would I want to jeopardize all the work I've done by creating a dummy account and then "talking" to myself and dragging this out. It doesn't make any sense, nor is it logical. At the very least, IRWolfie should have addressed his concerns to me or to my wife and this could have been avoided. Trying to get me kicked off WP for nothing more than providing a contrary opinion (supported with research, no less) is tantamount to censorship. The admins will do what they think is appropriate; and maybe make a matyr out of me. As for the canvassing allegations elsewhere on this page, bringing this matter up at Facebook so people can provide their own opinion is not canvassing. I'm not going to allow anyone here to bully myself or my wife. I've asked for the opportunity to demonstrate to the community we are separate individuals so this nonsense can stop. Skype? Phone calls? Whatever it takes. I want justice. Accusations with no evidence of any wrongdoing is bogus. To think I looked up to some of you. Fiachra, we can mutually agree not to communicate. I'm disappointed. IRWolfie, it has always (until today) been collegial and I'd like to keep it that way. Doc James and I are like oil and water; and he has rejected all of my attempts to reach out to him and start fresh. He is censoring though. The same old same old; anything to discredit, and contain the flow of information. He de-facto WP:OWNs the article. In all reality, that article and other articles getting the short shift like alt-med, acupuncture, etc are biased and have misuse of the sources and bad paraphrasing to lessen any evidence of effectiveness. End rant. DVMt (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing that you're separate individuals should not be problematic if that is the case. As meat puppetry, however unfortunate a term, is indistinguishable from sock puppetry in its effects it doesn't address the underlying issue. In your postings on this page there is a continuing failure to recognize how the editing pattern of these two accounts, DVMt and Drk878, in the same article space is deeply problematic and serves to undermine process. Looking at the diffs posted by IRWolfie above, it is clear that the Drk878 account is reverting edits in support of the DVMt account [7] [8] [9] [10]. It shouldn't require reference to Wikipedian policy to comprehend that such behaviour undermines the fundamental ethical and procedural basis upon which article creation and development depends. The fact that you have not acknowledged this after a considerable period of time and argumentation on this page is itself indicative of a serious problem. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This has escalated quite quickly into a complete lack of good faith. How can we prove we are 2 different people? No one has addressed this point. DVMt (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't try because it's a terrible excuse and shows meat puppetry at the very least, but pretty obviously it's a sock of yours. Someone will indef the "your wife" sock, and it's possible you will also get indefed. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an excuse. I would like this to go to a moderator/admin. Complete and utter BS what is happening here. Family members can edit Wikipedia freely. This is beginning to look a lot like censorship and I won't tolerate it. Tell me where to go to state the case. DVMt (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just have. An SPI admin will pass through and close the case and do the necessary admin work.There is no such thing as a moderator by the way, they are just called admins. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what an SPI admin is. DVMt (talk) Edit: Why would I get blocked/banned indefed anyways? DVMt (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin who patrols SPI (sockpuppet investigations) pages; usually one of the clerks WP:SPI/C. IRWolfie- (talk)
We are married. We live in the same house and use the same computer. For the 3rd time...how should we resolve this? I would like constructive comments. Please stop your accusations, unless you have some way to resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) Drk878 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not sign above and that is not my comment. So, unless there is a policy that states family members can't edit WP from the same household, this is a rather bogus. DVMt (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I edited my previous reply, as I forgot to sign it. I don't appreciate that you would go and edit it and make it look like my husband wrote it. You are taking this too far.Drk878 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013

(UTC)

What a disgrace. I want someone to tell me where it states that family members can't edit at WP. DVMt (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Edit: This [11] is not right. How do my wife and I prove we are separate people? DVMt (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not looking good. What about taking a little time for calm reflection. There may even be a WP for those who need guidance about it. Of course it does not always work, but it often helps. That is, unless the aim is to induce indef. and claim injustice. Who would want that, for self or spouse? Qexigator (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban may be sufficient. Both accounts were edit warring with respect to the same content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of blocks, it should be the sockpuppet that is indeffed, not the main account; unless an admin wants to indef for the disruption (the continued disruption by DVMt on this page is an issue). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My wife edits occasionally but she edits different content and would never edit war for me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Women ! "Forget about those, they ain't nothing but trouble ". Baloo, The Jungle Book (Disney,1967)[12]Aspheric (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban seems to be the best solution, and a very logical one. I think that's what's been done in the past. User:Drk878 should stay completely away (including discussions on the talk pages) from anything related to chiropractic or alternative medicine. They will need to develop and maintain separate interests here, seeking at all times to keep clear of each other's "territory." That way there will be no questions of a COI, socking, or meatpuppetry, and each will be able to relax and enjoy their stay here without any nervousness about "am I now in danger of causing trouble for myself or my spouse?". -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
03 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Sudden appearance of a new user (one edit) and an IP to help in edit warring carried on by User:DVMt. DVMt has been blocked before for sockpuppetry in connection with edit warring, and immediately after returning from his block began edit warring again. Now these "helpers" come along to help. Very suspicious. IP is also at 3RR. We need these articles semi-protected.

RachyB1

15:19, April 2, 2013 [14]

99.235.143.175 (includes a 3RR violation)

DVMt happens to be editing from the Toronto area of Canada, so this is very suspicious.

04:50, April 3, 2013 [15]

04:38, April 3, 2013 [16]

04:34, April 3, 2013 [17]

04:18, April 3, 2013 [18]

01:06, April 3, 2013 [19] Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 In progress Not enough clear evidence to link RachyB1. IP address normally can't be linked to an account via CU per policy. Hence, declining request for CU. However, I see more than ample behavioural evidence here linking DVMt and 99.235.143.175; I'm going to block them for sockpuppetry, 3RR, and EW. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More