96.233.40.199

96.233.40.199 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 28 2010, 10:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by blackash

96.233.40.199 out themselfs on the Tree shaping talk page in recap. "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person (me) and that I'm a Wikipedian not a treescuptor. Reames has expressed approval that I've turned my attention to the article but has lately taken a very "hands off" approach citing his own WP:COI. No other editor has been involved recently, leaving me and User:Blackash to conduct what is basically a "slow-motion, no 3RR edit war" over these issues." then they sign with --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Blackash (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Wikipedia:IPs are human too is actually only an essay someone wrote. It's not policy, though complaints by anyone should be taken seriously and be respected. –MuZemike 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: I think the person was in two separate locations, as well. Keep ironing it out at WP:COIN. I would advise the anon, however, to set up an account if at all possible. –MuZemike 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
03 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

and separately but relatedly,

Evidence submitted by Duff

There have been multiple similar accusations at Talk:Tree shaping, over a wide time period, and the topic has now bubbled up again with new details. I am neither the accuser nor the accused, but I find the ongoing suggestively pejorative comments on the talkpage both disruptive and confusing, and I would like to get to the bottom of it so that all cards can be turned up, once and for all, and the matter can be closed. In addition to the prior formal investigation initiated by Blackash that is referenced by this request title, here is one of the many times this suggestion has been dangled before:

User:SilkTork previously did what I believe was a checkuser on both Slowart/Reames/208.91.143.205 and Griseum/208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199, here [3] and found no connection, but recent accusations (detailed below) indicate that User:Blackash still harbors the belief that this was not a thorough enough investigation and that a deeper form of evasion might be afoot.

To be clear, it is my belief that Slowart/Reames/208.91.143.205 is a single discrete individual, and that he has fully disclosed both his identity and his reasonable use of each of those logins. It is also my belief that Griseum/208.59.93.238/96.233.40.199 is another single discrete individual and that he too has fully disclosed both his identity and his reasonable use of each of those logins.

Here [4] is the substance of the new accusation by User:Blackash, as explained to another user User:Sydney Bluegum (User talk:Sydney Bluegum) who had requested here [5] an explanation for this comment here [6] by User:Blackash. I had also previously requested an explanation for the same comment here [7], here [8] and here [9], but one was not provided either on my talk page or on the article talk page.

This Talk:Tree shaping#Sockpuppet accusations is my comment on the matter, my request for resolution advice, and the advice I received from another user, E. Ripley, all following the rather cryptic response by Blackash to Sydney Bluegum's request for an explanation.

As I noted there, I am now beginning to think it is possible that User:Blackash (who has acknowledged both currently operating a WP:ROLE account, with her partner, under that username and previously having canvassed a private email list of 500 supporters to comment), and User:Sydney Bluegum (User talk:Sydney Bluegum) (who has confirmed a reason for posting as User:203.192.130.94) might be socks of each other, and could be fabricating the entire sockpuppet claim against Griseum and Slowart. If I am wrong, I sincerely apologize now to both all parties, and wish them all to know that I am filing this request only to get the whole mess out in the open, so that joyful editing can move on, free from any such suspicions.

Sydney Bluegum is a fairly new and entirely single-purpose Special:Contributions/Sydney Bluegum(so far) account, who commented recently in an RfM here: [10] directly influencing the outcome of that RfM, and who seemed (there) to very closely reflect the precise opinions and word choices as Blackash, and also seemed curiously similar here [11] and then again here [12].

Perhaps the Blackash>Sydney Bluegum and the Griseum>Slowart inquiries should be separated, but since they are very closely entwined (accusations having been made by one about two of the others), I want to acknowledge the possibility that I am now conflating them inappropriately. This is the first time I've ever submitted such a request, so please pardon me if the construction is improper in any way. One thing I know for certain is that I am a single discrete editor who's been editing in good faith for several years on a wide variety of articles and has no outside connection or dispute with any of these users, so hopefully I can and have remained neutral about the whole matter. That is my intent. I am not sure whether to place the template on each of their user talk pages to come and comment (or at Talk:Tree shaping#Sockpuppet accusations, as I do not wish to create further disruption to any of them, or to the page, all of whom (and which) have experienced more than their share.

Is any of this appropriate for checkuser? If it isn't, what's the proper procedure to put those matters to rest so we can all get on with improving the article, unhindered by doubts? Duff (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Duff states that they are quote "I am neither the accuser nor the accused", yet here "a few weak socks" here "I'm not entirely convinced either that Blackash and Sydney Bluegum aren't socks (or meats, or roles) " and here "Are you Blackash's cohort" they have make accusations or questioned other editors integrity, they are also the only editor to accuse me of having a WP:ROLE account. I believe they should have filed this as accuser, at least about editors Blackash, Sydney Bluegum and 203.192.130.94 Blackash have a chat 09:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duff you stated when you listed this investigation, you are not the accuser nor the accused yet below in your comment you state A question I have is whether Sydney Bluegum is the registered username of the life partner of Blackash Umm sound likes an accuser to me. Blackash have a chat 08:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Blackash

From Griseum's first comments there has been a veiled hostility that would later become downright rude. Here is his first changes diff I disagreed and stated why on the talk page earlier edits. In response Griseum created this section Conflict of interest article ownership

If you read some of the comments that Griseum has made to me or about me there is a hostility inherent in his opinion about me. Here "I reject edits which are grammatically incorrect or sound like they are written by someone who hasn't quite mastered the English language". Yet he never corrected the grammar only removed my attempts at a compromise between my view and his. When I called a Truce they edited the page to suit themselves with edit summery of quote (supposed compromise does not reflect any of the edits i feel are important. WTF? Griseum most recent comment to me was WOW "Wow. Really? Wow. W:OR and W:V are essentially opposites, and W:N we are not debating. User:Blackash, if your intention was to make me feel so sorry for you that I'd walk away for a while out of sheer embarassment for both of us, you've suceeded. --Griseum (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)".[reply]

Richard Reames has pointed to Griseum's user page as a reference about me to other editors example[13]. Griseum's page is less than complimentary [14]. I believe Griseum is the bad hand of Richard Reames while Slowart/Reames is the good hand of Richard Reames. Blackash have a chat 12:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Richard Reames coined the word Arborsculpture and has vested intrest in what happens on the Tree shaping article. Blackash have a chat 05:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How Griseum is Richard Reames

208.91.143.250 comment on SilkTorks talk page innocent word made references to specific events that have happened around the word Arborsculpture to do with me (Blackash) and made a statement about how I had upload photos of theirs. The only photos I have ever uploaded with out permission was Richard Reames. So I wrote a comment saying quote "@ 208.91.143.205 Hi Richard Reames Blackash (talk) 00:12, 8 February" 2010 (UTC) Then on my talk page an editor angrily responded to my comment of "Hi Richard Reames", starting a section Hi Richard Reames as though I was talking to them personally. But they signed as Griseum. Then four seconds later removed the whole comment from my talk page. When this inconsistency was pointed out on SilkTork's talk page innocent word. Griseum's reply was quote "Sigh. I'm never used 208.91.143.250 and my note on User talk:Blackash was an error that was removed 4 seconds later. I do make errors, and I'm a little stupid dyslexic with numeric sequences sometimes"

I'm asserting that Griseum didn't reply to a number but that he replied to the text of my comment as though it was personal. My comment was to Richard Reames. I believe Richard forgot who he was sign in as, when he replied on my talk page. After saving the page and seeing the wrong signature he tried to correct the mistake by deleting the comment from my talk page. If it was a number problem he could have edited his comment to fix the number. Blackash have a chat 12:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

rebuttal I am the only person to edit under this account. Thou my english can be appalling at times, that is due to the fact I'm dyslexic. When I enter text I either type straight in (this is usually when I make the most mistakes with spelling and grammar) or I use dictating software. I sometimes have my life partner (who also is a co-founder of Pooktre with me) Pete to check my writing (he usually picks up that I leave apostrophes out and the small words that help sentence makes sense.) On the Tree shaping talk page when I'm discussing about Pooktre or relevant points and I know Pete agrees with my opinion I will use the wording of we in my comment.
rebuttal Yes a newbe mistake in Jan 2009 when the article name was first changed from Arborsculpture to tree shaping. I was an editor with less than 100 edits at that time.
rebuttal I don't know the password or use the account of Sydney Bluegum. Quite frankly just editing with the account blackash uses alot of my time, with all the checking of my writing, spelling and grammar. Blackash have a chat 10:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Comment Could someone please check the behavioral evidence before closing this case? Blackash have a chat 01:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems a little confused; the behavioural evidence was considered, and that was what led us to the check. We don't ignore the behavioural evidence people provide and simply put a "checkuser please" stamp on cases. What exactly are you asking us? --Deskana (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that CU is not fairy dust, my comment was in reply your (Deskana) comment below, it seemed to me that you looked at the IP data, and not at the behavioral evidence submitted. I submitted my evidence about Richard Reames/Slowart (self outed) and Griseum after the CU was appoved, and so I was requesting that my evidence be considered before the case was closed. The page when CU was approved. Please note inspite of Duff's statements of quote "basically it is an extremely suggestive accusation that Griseum and Slowart are one and the same person" leading to quote "It definitely does not AGF and should not be left out there hanging" diff Duff didn't list Slowart and Griseum to be cross checked. I feel the evidence about Slowart and Griseum being the same person is not in the IP data but in the behavioral evidence. Blackash have a chat 05:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My intention, hopefully clear in my detailed request, was to sort out all such accusations and put them to rest, once and for all, spite-free. Griseum made a clear explanation (which makes sense to me, anyway) on the talk page, concerning what that very old misunderstanding amounted to, both when the accusation first surfaced and was investigated, and again quite recently, as the accusation has surfaced again. I've again reminded there that Griseum & Slowart may wish to comment here, but I rather doubt that either will bother. A question I have is whether Sydney Bluegum is the registered username of the life partner of Blackash, who shares also the Blackash account. I didn't read a denial that specifically excludes that possibility, but instead one that strongly suggests it. duff 03:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Griseum give an explain here quote "Me cutting and pasting the incorrect IP address in a message is the entire story of that". -Griseum (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Please note this comment is after Duff listed this investigation. If it was just an IP mistake Griseum could have edited his comment, he chose to delete. Griseum didn't reply to a number, but replied to the text of my comment as though it was personal.
  • Duff please show a link where you have asked about Sydney Bluegum being my life partner. For the record my life partner Peter Cook doesn't have any account with wikipedia. If he did so I would list his user name on my user page as my life partner and Co founder of Pooktre. Blackash have a chat 08:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing and have been reading these pages for months before I made my first comments and commented on how I see (read ) the situation. I made a comment from my research about a marketing funnel flowing from arboursculpture. This was not commented on by any editors so I take that as everyone is in agreement. Rather than focusing on the comments I have been attacked. Is this a wiki record for sock puppet accussation after 4 edits??? I am not the partner of anyone or am anyones sock puppet, meat puppet or anything else Duff or the arboursculpture camp would like to call me.I stated previously that I was interested in the artform and wanted to learn about different methods of tree training. I dont believe I have to state anything futher about myself. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

I did not log in when my number came up and I explained this previously.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed to check on the registered accounts in the first group (Blackash/Sydney Bluegum) and in the second group (Slowart/Reames). As far as Griseum is concerned, we normally do not use CU to publicly establish connections/nonconnections between users and IPs, and that goes for the rest of the IPs mentioned, as well. –MuZemike 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no comment on any of the IPs, all of the accounts look unrelated to each other. That said, I managed to do a good job of confusing myself when I looked at the technical data, so please let a second checkuser look over the data too before closing this case. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no other checkusers have bothered to look at this in these five days that this has been sat here, I'm going with all accounts being Red X Unrelated. As usual, I make no comment on the IPs. --Deskana (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add this: Reames is  Stale. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More