Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/50.106.8.144

50.106.8.144

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/50.106.8.144/Archive.

19 December 2012

– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• RMdeVienne (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 50.106.8.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

During an editing dispute, anonymous IP editor said his position is supported by a source and recommended checking the blog for that source. A brand new account was then created purporting to be the author of the source. If the new editor is the author of the source and is the IP editor, there is a conflict of interest in asserting that author's preferred view in the article. See Talk:Nelson H. Barbour#Barbour's_Middle_Name. Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The complainant simply does not like what I said. In point of fact the anonymous ip editor and I live in the same house. The anonymous contributor is my uncle and lives with us, but we are not the same person. I have a vested interest in this discussion because I am one of the authors of the book in question. My uncle is not.

This report is driven by Jefro77's pride. He is unwilling to admit that his "evidence" is deficient. My uncle appealed to me as the author of the book used to support this article (Nelson H. Barbour) to restate the evidence. I did so. If this makes me a "sock puppet" so be it. Jeff is incapable of evaluating evidence and doesn't want to "surrender" in the face of documented contrary evidence.

My uncle wrote most of the article as it now stands. My uncle is one of my research assistants and a historian in his own right. He is approaching eighty years. We are his primary care givers. Of course the IP address is the same. Let's not be silly. You may do what you wish. I have no intention of contributing to wikipedia. I don't allow my students to use it. I will not contribute to it, except in this one issue where my professional reputation has been impugned. While what you do is up to you, depending on how you make your decision and what comments you make, I may have recourse. If you further Jeff's attempts to libel me, I will be very unhappy.RMdeVienne (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So... an admission that it's the same IP followed by a veiled legal threat. I rest my case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "threat" was at all veiled. What I do think is that you're unfamiliar with any standard of historical evidence. You don't like being questioned. You don't like anything that exposes your poor research. A visit to the Library of Congress web site to read a card entry does not constitute support for your case. Filing this is retaliation for having your poor research and poor judgment exposed. If I'd have had my way, Uncle Wayne would not have written the article, certainly not have used my book as a source. That's beyond repair. But as long as it's up, it should be as accurate as possible. You're angry because his reversion and his comments expose you as the shallowest of writers. You're attempting to use "the system" to retaliate. Fine.

The fact remains, you're only supporting your "cause" because you can't take criticism. The standards used by professional genealogists and historians would admit our proof and discount yours. A library card made out sometime (some years) after Barbour's death does not have the evidential value that a document provided by him does. You hate that Wayne pointed that out. You hate that it seems to undermine your "authority." The actual "authority" is the document referenced in footnote 1 as the article now stands.

This is a pride issue, not an issue of who is whom. You hate it that an old man is more expert than you could hope to be. You spewed your sulking venom at him rather than engage in rational discourse. If you continue to contribute to historical articles on Wikipedia, you should take some course work that will put you in touch with the standards of evidence historians use. Brigham Young University offers those through the mail.

You presumed authority for a card cat entry that it did not warrant. You made no inquiry as to the original source of the entry, the date of the entry or any similar thing. You insulted Wayne for pointing out that a document that originated with Mr. Barbour was more valid than a card made up sometime after his death and by a man who would not know details. You stubbornly insisted that every known authority was questionable, simply because your feelings are hurt. You insulted me. You insulted my uncle. And this not because we provided poor evidence, but because your work was questioned. And, sir, your work is faulty. You don't like that your inability to process historical evidence was made public. That's why we're here.

It is the amateurish, those willing to uncritically accept anything they find on the internet,that makes educators reluctant to accept it as a source. That, Jeff, is a category in which you find yourself. That's also why we're here. Your reluctance to accept a rational standard of evidence, only to salve your pride, is why we're here.

Another issue is the drawing of Barbour attached to that article. It's copyrighted. It belongs to James Penton, a Canadian historian, and appears in his book Apocalypse Delayed. Did you put it up? Despite the notice in "talk" that it is copyrighted material? Who ever put it up, using it is theft.

References to my books appear in several wikipedia articles. One of my novels is cited, work appearing on our public history blog is cited, bits are quoted. I look at most of that with some bemusement. Occasionally I find it distasteful. Other than "edits" you make to articles, no one sees you as an authority. And that's also why we're here.RMdeVienne (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct that the issue here is pride. All I have done is restored neutral information, presenting what sources say about his name. Of course I have no vested interest in whatever his middle name might be, other than making the article neutral and accurate. On the other hand, you and the research assistant for your book certainly have a conflict of interest when a contributor to your book is editing the article. Your appeal to emotion regarding the picture you paint of the 'poor old man' coupled with your claims about me and my emotional state are all irrelevant.

I have no knowledge or opinion about the disputed copyright of whatever image to which you're referring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One of us will consistently restore the correct name until you wake up to standards of evidence. I see your case has been declined.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Check declined by a checkuser - the custom is not to link IP's and accounts, behaviour will have to decide this one. Courcelles 07:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

---