Poeticbent

Poeticbent (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date November 2 2009, 21:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Pantherskin

The editor previously used different IPs to avoid 3RR violations and to keep his main account clean (Link to the previous sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent). He seems to continue the good hand/bad hand behavior at Talk:Richard Tylman (diff: [1]). The IP used here is from the same ISP (Telus) and from the same location (Burnaby, B.C.) as the IPs confirmed in the previous sockpuppet investigation. Poeticbent was heavily involved in the creaton and the discussion of the Richard Tylman article. Note also the recent, ongoing EEML arbcom case. Pantherskin (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.
I'm not sure I know, what it is that you want from me, user Pantherskin. I cannot stress enough the importance of reading policies prior to taking actions if you don't want them to look frivolous and out of place. Do you know what a Wikipedia sockpuppet is and why it matters? Because neither of us has any reason to be here. You’re wasting other people’s time if you haven’t done your homework, and believe me, there are other things you can do to improve Wikipedia.
Note to clerk: inside the one and only diff provided by Pantherskin there's a stern warning he received from ArbCom you might want to consider. --Poeticbent talk 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of good hand/band accounts/ip is a policy violation, as has been already pointed out during the last sockpuppet investigation. Regarding the "stern warning" (clerk, not arbcom warning) it is rather immaterial to this case, as it is to the Richard Tylman article. It is not a good practice to go around and point out the block or warning history of editors on talk or other pages - instead we should comment on the substance of an argument, not on the editor him or herself. Pantherskin (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Is this for real? An SPI for an IP that has made one edit in the past 18 months—and to an article's Talk page at that! Don't we all have better things to do with our time? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the last sockpuppet investigation has shown Poeticbent uses dynamic IPs, resulting in each unique IP accumulating only a few edits. It seems that he has not stopped using IPs has is bad hand as evidenced by an ip from the same ISP and location used to smear me on a talk page, keeping his main registered account clean. Pantherskin (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Pantherskin (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


29 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Poeticbent has operated a large number of socks (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark/Archive) Here A. Kupicki added a poem, with a translation attributed to Richard Tylman: Richard Tylman is the reallife name of Poeticbent, it's hardly likely that anyone else but Poeticbent would use Tylman as a source. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Wow - is there some sort of trend involving Polish editors and sockpuppetry?Faustian (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
29 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


All three suspected socks focus on "Polish" topics, Rejedef explicitly adopts Poeticbent's POV here. Cezary B. appeared for the first time after Poeticbet's latest sock was blocked and started immediately to nominate his new articles to DYK (unusual for a newcomer) HerkusMonte (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Seriously, how is this not harassment? Poeticbent left Wikipedia, in good standing, after being viciously harassed off-wiki. He returned to editing Wikipedia with a new account - very understandably. He was then chased around and harassed on the project as well. Also understandably, he made new accounts and continued to edit Wikipedia. None of his edits have been controversial nor disruptive. He did not edit war, POV-push, get into a single disagreement, In fact they have all been exactly the kind of content creation that is sorely lacking on wikipedia these days. And now Herkus is throwing up pretty much any ol' account which edits Poland related topics into the fishing expedition. The bad faith behind these requests as well as the "it's a small time editor with no high-up connections using an alternative account therefore it must be blocked" (despite policy to the contrary) mentality of the blocking admins exemplifies the worst aspects of Wikipedia as it currently exists. Volunteer Marek  16:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the fact that checkuser links Poeticbent to the other accounts (WikiaPage, Pristinegoal, Iraqifury, Bigsean003000, Bilderbear), which are obviously not him, just goes to show how crappy of a tool that it is. Volunteer Marek  23:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following is the same as A. Kupicki (talk · contribs), who is blocked as a Poeticbent sock:

02 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

31.182.136.20 showed up to revert a POV tag some 90 minutes after the tag was added (and 60 minutes after the talk page rationale for the POV). Proceeded to file an AN/I report 6 minutes later, revert the POV tag again, and blank the section discussing the POV tag placement in the talk page. These are not the actions of new user (despite quite consistently not signing TP comments), nor are previous edits to National Independence Day (Poland) "newbie edits" (9 edits in history for this IP). From the timing of the edit flurry to Jedwabne pogrom and ANI (90 minutes after the tag, 60 minutes after the detail explanation on the talk) - it highly unlikely this is a "random IP" showing up and editing out the POV tag (while the article has been seeing increased traffic due to recent events - it under 4,000 views/day (or 240 views in 90 minutes) and many of these views would be expected to be non-Polish due to the world coverage of events. It is most likely it was one of the 88 watchers of the page (many of which are inactive). Poeticbent has been recently active (as well as authoring quite a bit of the presently disputed-POV text (top editor - some 23.4% of the article) - on Jedwabne pogrom - reverting several times to keep a Polish senate hearing as a RS for historical fact(!!!) for text that is victim-blaming the massacred Jews: Revision as of 17:47, 1 February 2018 Revision as of 22:25, 31 January 2018. Beyond the timing, there is a behavioral similarity between the two editors. The IP editor uses "Consensus is impossible - There is no place in wikipedia for Historical negationism" in an edit summary. Historical negationism (as opposed to revisionism) is not a widely used term (NGram viewer, negationism doesn't even appear in many dictionaries). Poeticbent, however, is well familiar with the term as he was active in Requested move 19 August 2016: Historical revisionism (negationism) -> Historical negationism - suggesting the final phrase to be used in this diff (the original RM target was different: [2]) with his evidence discussed at length in the discussion and carrying the day. The are other similarities, the IP in this diff uses scare quotes in his edit summary: "There is no source for this "etymology" - better add as cognate instead.". Poeticbent also makes use of scare quotes in edit summaries: as here "Undid revision 823443544 by Icewhiz (talk) verging on vandalism. "Report" was there for years, but only those who know little about the subject, would question, what are already commonly known facts written about in peer-reviewed books" as well as several others: [3][4][5]. There is also some similarity in the level of English (based on 9 IP edits)- the IP writes fairly good English, however he does use some odd phrases - e.g. "I am asking for a blockade until emotions stop". Final note - it is fairly obvious to me the IP editor has an account and is watching the Jedwabne pogrom page - removing a POV tag 90 minutes after it being placed in not a random edit by an IP that prior to February had 5 edits. The link to Poeticbent is based on recent editing (and I think not recent as well - but not sure) in regards to Wikipedia's handling of Polish complicity in the Holocaust (inlcuding opening a SPI report on 28 January). If the IP is an established editor (as I strongly suspect - particularly if Poeticbent, but also otherwise) - I think conduct should be examined beyond "just" socking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2018 (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

Retaliatory. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

HuffSmurf is a brand new account, their two substantive edits involve restoring a large amount of text to Jan Błoński and making a spurious report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Three things lead me to believe that this is Poeticbent: firstly Poeticbent is the original author of most of the restored text (they are the page's primary author), second the sock account has "deep knowledge" about wikipedia conflicts, third they hate icewiz and while they were still active made numerous accusation of socking (some correct and some not) by icewiz. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2023 (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

More