Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nikodemos

message: ::::Reverting back to the version of your sockpuppets is supporting the versions/arguments of your sockpuppets. It is creating the illusion that others besides you agree with your version of the article. The only reason your Ruadh sockpuppet has not edited since you got back from your 7 day break is because I caught you. Billy Ego 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that you can accuse someone of a policy violation that would or could have happened. I have never even violated 3RR before; what makes you think I'd use sockpuppets to do it? I even offered to give up Ruadh's version entirely, just to make sure I wasn't supporting anything he wrote,  but you refused that, too.  I have explicitly stated that I do not claim to have any support other than my own; how exactly was I trying to create an illusion that goes against my own words? -- Nikodemos 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You offered to revert back after you had been caught. If you hadn't told you I was aware of your attempted manipulation you would have done no such thing. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry says "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." It doesn't matter whether you violated 3RR or not. You're obviously violating that policy because creating an illusion of broader support than exists. Whether you knew what the policy was or not is irrelevant. You knew exactly what and why you were doing it. Billy Ego 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not presume to know what I would or would not have done. I'm not creating any illusion. I have said numerous times that I claim to have no one's support but my own. Sporadic editing by two users a week apart is hardly an attempt to show broad support for a position. Oh, and I do know the sock puppetry policy very well. -- Nikodemos 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to say explicitly in words that you support another user's version. Simply by reverting to that version you are showing support for the version. You are creating an illusion that someone else supports that version of the article besides you. It was an ongoing act of deception by you. 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ongoing? Unless I am very much mistaken, I reverted to User:Ruadh's version, but he never reverted back to me. -- Nikodemos 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that matter? You're still showing support for the version of your sockpuppet. You were creating an illusion that somone besdies your sockpuppet supported that version. Notice also that on February 20 your sockpuppet 69.6.107.236 from St. Lawrence made reversions on the same day are your Ruadh sockpuppet.  Billy Ego 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that were true, it would amount to only 2 reversions by the same user that day. And it only happened once. I find it interesting, however, that you go to the trouble of checking the origin of IPs you dislike. One might call that harassment. -- Nikodemos 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Following a prompt by User:TexasAndroid, I realize that the above argument was unnecessary and disruptive. I wish to apologize for getting lost in the heat of the moment. I will now cease editing this page until a third party comes in to comment. -- Nikodemos 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That particular section of WP:SOCK is referring to vote fraud, which did not happen here. There was no policy violation here. Users may have sockpuppets as long as they don't use them inappropriately. According to WP:SOCK, you can use socks to do things that would normally be allowed by regular editors (such as what happened here). This is, of course, assuming that there was no 3RR violation. PTO 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me when it says "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists" that it's talking about something other than voting. That is under "Voting and other shows of support" therefore that's explicitly talking about activities besides voting. Having sockpuppets reverting to a particular version created by one of those sockpuppets is creating the illusion that there is broader support for that version than there actually is. I thought there were mutiple people opposed to the version I wanted until I figured out the deception. I don't see how that kind of manipulation could be allowed. I think it is in violation of that section of WP:SOCK. Billy Ego 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that Billy Ego accused me of sockpuppetry in the very first edit summary after my edits to that article.  Thus it is unlikely that he ever thought such a thing as claimed above. I would also like to point out that, in my second communication with Billy Ego on his talk page, I said "I am not someone new to those articles. I have edited both of them in the past. Nor do I claim to have two people on my side. User:Ruadh seems to have not edited anything for a long time. It is definitely just you and me, at least for the moment."  Thus I openly disavowed any attempt at deception. -- Nikodemos 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to Billy Ego) Now that section ("Sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists...") is also a reference to creating straw men for discussions. In Wikipedia context, A straw man gets in a conflict and gives a very bad argument, which the main account can easily refute and hit "out of the park" to convince other people that their side is correct using a well-formulated argument. The situation that you are in has nothing to do with straw men, so there is still no violation. However, I could be wrong, and the checkuser looking at this case will make a better yes or no answer than I will. I'm just a humble clerk :P. PTO 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I would like to provide a further argument. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that I am Ruadh. Not only was there no 3RR violation, but the two accounts edited the same articles seven days apart. Is there a policy that makes it illegal for a person to use two accounts to edit an article not just within the same day, but even within the same week? -- Nikodemos 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say you weren't trying to deceive but you're just saying that after you got caught by me. I don't believe that you weren't trying to deceive and I'm sure no one else believes you either. There is no reason to use multiple usernames to revert an article back to a particular version other than to fool people into thinking that more than one person supports that version. Whether there is a, rule against it or not, which I still think there is and if there is not there should be, what you have done is a gross ethics violation. Now we know to watch your activities more carefully. What looks like support by multiple persons for a version of an article may simply be you and your sockpuppets. Billy Ego 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing how you "caught" me (that is, accused me of sockpuppetry) as soon as I made my first edit, I don't see how you could possibly guess what I would have done otherwise. Perhaps I am not Ruadh, and I noticed you after you made your edits on Talk:Socialism a few days ago. Perhaps I am Ruadh and I decided to start editing articles with my main account rather than my secondary account. Perhaps I was planning to violate 3RR, but you stopped me, so I didn't. How would you know? I have maintained a standard of good behavior throughout my 3 years of contributions to wikipedia, and I see no reason for you to believe that I would suddenly throw all reason to the wind. In any case, you can hardly condemn me on the basis of a violation that did not actually happen but that you believe would have happened. -- Nikodemos 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Proof of not being caught in 3 years is not proof of doing everything on the up and up. There is no telling what kind of tactics you have been using in those 3 years.  Billy Ego 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm guilty until proven innocent? -- Nikodemos 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition "it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions." That is in WP:SOCK under "Avoiding scrutiny by other editors." Billy Ego 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, creating multiple accounts is not a violation in and of itself. If I were trying to hide my trail, I wouldn't suddenly start editing with my main account, would I? -- Nikodemos 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure you would. If you've been doing your reverts under Ruahd then you use Nikodemos to revert to Ruadh's version then you have made it look like Ruadh is not the one that is making changes. You've thrown people off the trail of Ruadh so that your changes to articles couldn't be tracked. Billy Ego 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruadh has less than 50 contributions and is a relatively new user. I have thousands of contributions and have been editing for three years. Which is more likely to be tracked? In any case, this is idle speculation. You have provided no evidence of malicious intent of any kind. -- Nikodemos 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This might be a good time for me to ask you again: Are you willing to discuss our content dispute in a calm manner, so that we may reach a compromise on the two articles we have conflicts over? In the past, you have said that you will simply revert all my edits out of hand.  -- Nikodemos 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you really want me to present absolute proof that 69.6.*.* is you as well, I can do it but I don't think you want me to go there. I don't want to compromise your identity. Billy Ego 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP with four contributions, back in February? Even if that were me, how would it affect things in any way? -- Nikodemos 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If shows that you're editing under more than just "Nikodemos" and "Ruadh" and using those as well as the IP address to revert articles to your personally supported version, creating the illusion that there is broader support for that verison of the article when it is actually just you and your sockpuppets. Billy Ego 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from case page

message: Can you help then? The problem is someone using sockpuppets to pretend that more than one person supports a version that is being reverted to by reverting to that version. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which says "sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." What letter would that fall under? Billy Ego 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular section of WP:SOCK is referring to vote fraud, which did not happen here. There was no policy violation here. Users may have sockpuppets as long as they don't use them inappropriately. According to WP:SOCK, you can use socks to do things that would normally be allowed by regular editors (such as what happened here). This is, of course, assuming that there was no 3RR violation. PTO 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me when it says "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists" that it's talking about something other than voting. That is under "Voting and other shows of support" therefore that's explicitly talking about activities besides voting. Having sockpuppets reverting to a particular version created by one of those sockpuppets is creating the illusion that there is broader support for that version than there actually is. I thought there were mutiple people opposed to the version I wanted until I figured out the deception. I don't see how that kind of manipulation could be allowed. I think it is in violation of that section of WP:SOCK. Billy Ego 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that Billy Ego accused me of sockpuppetry in the very first edit summary after my edits to that article.  Thus it is unlikely that he ever thought such a thing as claimed above. I would also like to point out that, in my second communication with Billy Ego on his talk page, I said "I am not someone new to those articles. I have edited both of them in the past. Nor do I claim to have two people on my side. User:Ruadh seems to have not edited anything for a long time. It is definitely just you and me, at least for the moment."  Thus I openly disavowed any attempt at deception. -- Nikodemos 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to Billy Ego) Now that section ("Sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists...") is also a reference to creating straw men for discussions. In Wikipedia context, A straw man gets in a conflict and gives a very bad argument, which the main account can easily refute and hit "out of the park" to convince other people that their side is correct using a well-formulated argument. The situation that you are in has nothing to do with straw men, so there is still no violation. However, I could be wrong, and the checkuser looking at this case will make a better yes or no answer than I will. I'm just a humble clerk :P. PTO 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I would like to provide a further argument. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that I am Ruadh. Not only was there no 3RR violation, but the two accounts edited the same articles seven days apart. Is there a policy that makes it illegal for a person to use two accounts to edit an article not just within the same day, but even within the same week? -- Nikodemos 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say you weren't trying to deceive but you're just saying that after you got caught by me. I don't believe that you weren't trying to deceive and I'm sure no one else believes you either. There is no reason to use multiple usernames to revert an article back to a particular version other than to fool people into thinking that more than one person supports that version. Whether there is a, rule against it or not, which I still think there is and if there is not there should be, what you have done is a gross ethics violation. Now we know to watch your activities more carefully. What looks like support by multiple persons for a version of an article may simply be you and your sockpuppets. Billy Ego 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing how you "caught" me (that is, accused me of sockpuppetry) as soon as I made my first edit, I don't see how you could possibly guess what I would have done otherwise. Perhaps I am not Ruadh, and I noticed you after you made your edits on Talk:Socialism a few days ago. Perhaps I am Ruadh and I decided to start editing articles with my main account rather than my secondary account. Perhaps I was planning to violate 3RR, but you stopped me, so I didn't. How would you know? I have maintained a standard of good behavior throughout my 3 years of contributions to wikipedia, and I see no reason for you to believe that I would suddenly throw all reason to the wind. In any case, you can hardly condemn me on the basis of a violation that did not actually happen but that you believe would have happened. -- Nikodemos 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Proof of not being caught in 3 years is not proof of doing everything on the up and up. There is no telling what kind of tactics you have been using in those 3 years.  Billy Ego 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm guilty until proven innocent? -- Nikodemos 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition "it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions." That is in WP:SOCK under "Avoiding scrutiny by other editors." Billy Ego 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, creating multiple accounts is not a violation in and of itself. If I were trying to hide my trail, I wouldn't suddenly start editing with my main account, would I? -- Nikodemos 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure you would. If you've been doing your reverts under Ruahd then you use Nikodemos to revert to Ruadh's version then you have made it look like Ruadh is not the one that is making changes. You've thrown people off the trail of Ruadh so that your changes to articles couldn't be tracked. Billy Ego 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruadh has less than 50 contributions and is a relatively new user. I have thousands of contributions and have been editing for three years. Which is more likely to be tracked? In any case, this is idle speculation. You have provided no evidence of malicious intent of any kind. -- Nikodemos 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This might be a good time for me to ask you again: Are you willing to discuss our content dispute in a calm manner, so that we may reach a compromise on the two articles we have conflicts over? In the past, you have said that you will simply revert all my edits out of hand.  -- Nikodemos 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you really want me to present absolute proof that 69.6.*.* is you as well, I can do it but I don't think you want me to go there. I don't want to compromise your identity. Billy Ego 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP with four contributions, back in February? Even if that were me, how would it affect things in any way? -- Nikodemos 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If shows that you're editing under more than just "Nikodemos" and "Ruadh" and using those as well as the IP address to revert articles to your personally supported version, creating the illusion that there is broader support for that verison of the article when it is actually just you and your sockpuppets. Billy Ego 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from the page again