Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weaponbb7/Archive

Sock accounts

See Defending yourself against claims. Hello, I do not deny that all of these are my accounts, Alternate accounts are permitted. If there is evidence i have abused these alternate accounts I request evidence be put forth. I contacted the foundation and it got forwarded to OTRS. User:Keegan has been providing me with copies of the deleted pages for a paper I was writing wish I hope to get published and am going to presenting at South Eastern Commission for the Study of Religion in March. There has been an overlap in my editing from such things as forgeting to log out of one and or jumping between Wikipedia and the CommonsThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed the above as one is my publishing name and thus Feel it violates my privacy to have it up here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to hide here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have thought of that before creating a public account. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep my academic research separate from general editing account as well as would like Reallife identity attribution for the pix i Upload on Commons The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the Village Pump question was not "Can i have" them It was "How do i go about getting them?" as there seems to be no dedicated forum for doing it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of letter I sent To who it may Concern, My name is XXXXXXXX

I am a researcher of new religious movements (commonly referred to as "cults"). Wikipedia has been the battle ground of several conflicts between NRMs and their opponents (academically referred to as the anti-cult movement). I plan a study of wikipedia communities interaction with these movements and their detractors. Case studies will be included on the "Jossi" incident in which an editor involved with Prem Rawat was banned and lead to some wider community sanctions. Secondly, the infamous Scientology Arbitration case, where I intend to do a complete qualitative survey with Arbitration committee members who were involved. The more recent case involving the Transcendental Mediation is also of interest to academic research though it is unknown how much time will be dedicated to it. What I would like the foundation to assist with is to give the user account I have set up (User:A NRM Researcher) temporary access (Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researcher#Researcher) to look through the history of deleted pages and see the former content of those pages.

I understand that this will take time to verify my identity as well as the user account. I believe that working together we can come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial for us both (you and I) in expanding awareness about concepts such as WP:COI, WP:NPOV in forums outside the confines of wikipedia policy. The paper will also demonstrate that wikipedia holds such policies in the highest regard thus increasing public trust in the Wiki-Policy.

• I thought that Weaponbb7 changed his name to ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) [30] [31]. Weaponbb7's userrights log implies as much as well. I would be interested to hear from the accused parties. Tiptoety ^talk 20:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, perhaps, but that is only one of the issues involved here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Weaponbb7 made a new account because Weaponbb7 was compromised. There was an AN/I thread about this. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is only one of the issues involved here. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is frankly idiotic. The Weaponbb7 account was compromised by a stalker, this was well acknowledged and dealt with at the time, and he created the anthropologist account a two or two later. Do you have any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry (beyond the sockpuppeting done by the banned stalker who compromised the weapon account?) I don't see any here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. User failed to disclose the multiple sock accounts, when requesting access to userrights to view deleted revisions. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he say above that he disclosed it, just not publicly? I own four accounts (though I only edit with two and make the connection obvious). There's nothing wrong with having multiple accounts in and of itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This email self disclosed on wikipedia by ResidentAnthropologist, failed to disclose the existence of any of the multiple sock accounts, to the Wikimedia Foundation, when requesting access to view deleted revisions. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "accused" has acknowledged that all of the listed accounts are his, there is nothing more to be done in the SPI, and no need for a checkuser. As a general statement, any individual requesting access from the WMF to deleted pages or revisions should be expected to disclose all accounts under which he or she has ever edited, and to give a candid account of all uses to which such access would be put. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note comment by Checkuser Nishkid64: "The motives for Weaponbb7's actions are suspect, to say the least. For example, it appears that multiple accounts – under your control, as per your admission at the SPI – were used to edit or discuss the Twelve Tribes communities article in a manner that seems to be a WP:SOCK violation. In addition, the user failed to reveal in his private OTRS correspondence the identity of his alternate account. I believe that simply wasn't an oversight on Weaponbb7's part." Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk declined - Checkuser is unnecessary, per admission that all accounts are his. I think the case should probably be closed too; it might be best to handle this somewhere else. NW (Talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with handling somewhere else, and with closing it. Now at ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]