Richards1052 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Richards1052 identify himself as Richard Silverstein on his user page. רדיומן has wrote an article in his sandbox mentioning the Mint Press article before it was published on June 2nd. This seems extremely likely done by Silverstein or a close friend. Both Richards1052 and רדיומן reverted changes on Avera Mengistu article which violated WP:RS.

רדיומן is active on the article about Silverstein blog (Richards1052 declared COI) and promoted Silverstien here and here.

If it isn't a sock per-se, it is defiantly someone who work with him very closely. Kigelim (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found רדיומן contributes on Hebrew wiki often and since 2007. Thought Silverstein might speak Hebrew, I find it hard to believe they are one.

The sandbox-Mint issue shows extreamly close ties between the two but I'm not sure what are WP policies on the matter, especially when one write an article about a theory of the other. Kigelim (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I believe Silverstein has edited using both accounts. I don't think he's hidden this from anybody. Until today, I thought the Richards1052 account had been abandoned, but it appears not. I recommend counseling the editor about the importance of using a single account. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the two accounts were both Richard Silverstein's. I sincerely apologize to both editors if I was mistaken. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• History of the Avera Mengistu article shows he is actively using both accounts to edit the article (including reverts) within a short period of time. That he is using the רדיומן account to promote his own work, which is a blatant violation of COI, does not lead me to believe he was open about his identity. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an absolute lie that I have any other Wikipedia identity than the single one I use (richards1052). I have had this account for years and never published anything at Wikipedia using any other account. This is easy to check based on the IPs I use which resolve to where I live in the U.S. and have lived for 15 years. The accusation of socketpuppetry is outrageous, unfounded & without any basis. It shows in fact, the desperation of the individual who wants this article deleted. I am a freelance journalist. Of course, there are individuals with whom I discuss the articles I write before they are published. Radioman is one such person. He is not me. He never had been me.

Further, I write about Israel and there are sources with whom I work there who help me report stories. They are sources. There is nothing wrong with a journalist having a source. There is nothing wrong with a source contributing to Wikipedia articles concerning stories I publish.

It's possible that someone with whom I discussed the article knew it would be published. But I had nothing to do with the creation of this article. I did not know it was created until after that happened. I was only informed of this at all after I was told that someone was trying to get the article deleted. Then naturally, I wanted to defend my reputation and the reputation of Mint Press News, which published it.

All of this is beside the point. The argument offered for deleting the article is that my reporting is unreliable. But there has been no evidence offered that Mint Press News, which vetted my story before publication, is not a credible source. Further, the article itself clearly states that I interviewed members of the imprisoned man's family & that they confirmed the story. So in reality, this complaining individual is demanding that I be held to even higher standards than other journalists whose work is featured on Wikipedia. Which isn't fair.

Further, there are political motivations behind this campaign. The original person who complained comments at my blog. He was moderated and has both a personal & political vendetta rooted in his right wing views concerning Israeli-Arab politics. Mixing this up with false accusations of sockpuppetry is an attempt to further muddy the waters.

The plain fact is that this article is important. It is researched. It is sourced. It is accurate. I not only know the name of the imprisoned man, I know his father and brother's name. I know the street they live on in Ashkelon & have their phone numbers and have spoken to them all. This is what journalism is.

You will find that when Hamas and Israel agree to a prisoner exchange that this man is among those released. He is in the same role as Gilad Shalit was. If Gilad Shalit's identity had not been known, but a journalist published his name after confirming his identity with his family, Wikipedia would want an article based on such knowledge. That's why this article deserves to remain on Wikipedia.

If the article is removed, when Avera Mengistu is released and his name is confirmed outside of my Mint Press article, then anyone who had a hand in removing it will be seen as having done a disservice to Wikipedia.

I am being accused of reverting the page when the instruction said that once I'd responded to the demand to delete the article, the template noting it would be deleted within 7 days could be removed, which I did. This is not nefarious. Richard Silverstein (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard - You write "I did not know it was created until after that happened. I was only informed of this at all after I was told that someone was trying to get the article deleted". This is simply not true!

Personally, I only became aware of the article through a link on your blog (dated June 4th). But don't take my word for it! The initial deletion proposal was made on June 7th, 3 days after. This is undisputable evidence.

The reset belongs on the deletion page of the article and I'll reply there. Kigelim (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Richards1052 writes There is nothing wrong with a source contributing to Wikipedia articles concerning stories I publish. Yes there is. This is a complete WP:COI. If someone has a relationship with you as a "source," this is an external relationship (WP:EXTERNALREL). Same if it's someone you just "discuss" your stories with. But since radioman had enough detail to write a Wikipedia article about your article before it was even "published," it's wholly unbelievable to claim he's just a source. And please stop saying "this article is important" etc. Wikipedia IS NOT A NEWSPAPER. Everything must conform to WP:VERIFY and WP:NRVE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Edits from these account show considerable overlap in both what and when they edit. Both accounts were active on Dirar Abu Seesi in March 2011, Tikun Olam (blog) in October/November of 2012, and now Avera Mengistu. This level of editor intersection is simply uncanny for accounts that are not active for long periods of time or on many articles. I'll be asking both accounts to weigh in on the accusations before taking any administrative or clerking actions. The times of day in which both editors seem to edit, also supports the accusation that they are operated by the same person. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Richards1052's comment motivated me to analyze these editors' edit timestamps over a wider period of time. When I do that, it does start to look like they are editing from different continents: [1] [2]. In light of this new information, I'm tempted to conclude they are indeed different people, but I cannot explain the other coincidences, which still seem rather extreme. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Checkuser comment: Based on the above, and on Someguy1221's research, it is very unlikely these are the same editors, and no check has been done. Closing without further action. Risker (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]