The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dewarw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Rgsao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Macglue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added as a result of RFCU case

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Dewarw has a history of misunderstanding, or disregarding, image copyright policy [1] [2] [3], or copyright policy in general [4]. As can be seen from his upload log, most of his image uploads have ultimately been deleted. He has also previously admitted to using a sockpuppet [5].

In a recent incident, the fair use status of Image:Arrivavoyager.png was disputed. This image had previously been uploaded by another user, as Image:CrossCountry-train.jpg and been deleted [6], but Dewarw re-uploaded it the following day [7]. I warned him that this was a bad idea, and he claimed no knowledge that it had previously been deleted [8]; I had no reason to dispute this. There followed a considerable debate as to whether the image was fair use or not (now found here), specifically as to whether it was "reasonable" for a replacement to be found. This post suggests Dewarw's intention to violate policy, especially "I could also right now upload this picture again and state that it was my work!". I advised against this [9].

User:Rgsao then uploaded a "free" replacement image, Image:Arrivavoyagernew.png. However, it quickly transpired that the {{PD-self}} tag was inappropriate, as it was clearly screengrabbed from this online magazine.

Dewarw and Rsgao have very similar edit patterns, as can be seen from their contributions: here and here. All of Rsgao's edits have been to pages also edited by Dewarw, on topics related to either UK railways or to the RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School (which I believe Dewarw attends [10]). Indeed, the name RGSAO is an abbreviation for the school's name. I should also draw attention to Rgsao's upload log: the other images (used on RGSAO school-related articles) were also all blatant copyright violations. Rsgao was then blocked because of these [11] [12] pending an explanation, but it appears an unblock request may now be granted [13].

The similar edit patterns and dodgy image uploads seem too much of a coincidence to me. I have challenged Dewarw about this on his talk page [14], and other than a brief denial [15] I have yet to receive a satisfactory response, so I have listed this case here.

Comments

There are shared edits to RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School. In particular, the history of RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School contains three edits by Dewarw, followed by two edits by Rgsao, all within ten minutes of one another. By itself, this proves nothing, but together with the evidence above, it strongly suggests collaboration between these two accounts, and thus sock puppetry. A checkuser may be needed to prove it for certain. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, besides possible COI and copyright issues (which many users have trouble with), where is the disruptive sock puppetry? Mr.Z-man 19:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst-case scenario would be the intentional use of an alternate account to violate image-copyright policy. I'm not saying that is exactly what happened, but there was definitely something fishy going on here that needed to be investigated. Yes, there's no AfD vote-stacking or 3RR violation, but it is important to abide by the rules where copyright is concerned, and falsely claiming ownership of images is disruptive to the project. --RFBailey (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are assuming bad faith - that he/they are doing this to intentionally disrupt. Wikipedia's image copyright policy is incredibly confusing to most new (and some experienced) users. Many, many users assume that since it is their upload that they own the image or that publicly available = public domain. This case seems very pre-emptive. Mr.Z-man 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am usually happy to assume good faith, and did so when Image:Arrivavoyagernew.png was uploaded [16] [17] [18]. However, I then discovered the copyvio, and having looked into who uploaded it and discovering the (albeit circumstantial, but not unusually so) evidence I described above, I don't think I reached an unreasonable conclusion. --RFBailey (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dewarw has now uploaded a properly formatted fair use image and is engaging in discussion to learn about image policy. As I said, this looks like a preemptive investigation of a confused good faith user who is making productive article contributions. While it is certainly possible that edits like this are attempts to mislead us while he fills up Wikipedia with copyright violations, its a whole lot more likely that he is acting in good faith. Based on the most recent contributions, I see no convincing reason why Dewarw should be blocked. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that Dewarw should necessarily be blocked (he wasn't blocked after his last sockpuppet, for instance). There are other possibilities to the "worst case scenario" I described: it could be a school friend that Dewarw had been discussing Wikipedia with, off-wiki, who then decided to intervene independently. I thought (and still do think) that this was too much of a coincidence, so an investigation was needed in order that an explanation be found. --RFBailey (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that my last sockpuppet was not made in malicious intent. The reason why I added this was because I was elated that the problem was solved. I do not see how I was being misleading! Dewarw (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion was that if a user was trying to cover up the fact that they were using a sockpuppet, placing a message like that could be used as a red herring. --RFBailey (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Rgsao's unblock request has been turned down [19], so (s)he is unable to participate in the discussion on this page at present.

I am also now perplexed by this pair of edits, to the same page a minute apart, one by Rgsao [20] and one by Dewarw [21]. --RFBailey (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the defence

I am afraid that I do not have any idea about any of this. I am sure that many users upload poor images.

• It appears that User:Rgsao is a new user (from the link above) and therefore did not know what harm it was to upload the image. They probably thought that they were saving the day. And I thought that too, until I saw the magazine. Oh well, hopefully someone will take one soon!
• I completely deny this case. I have has a sock-puppet before, and I immediately admitted this as well as providing a full explanation (as it was not with malicious content- more of an accident.)
• Many people have similar edit histories- that is just a fact.
• I accept what I said shown above. This was in the middle of a large rant about free use and the problems I have had before, with a User trying 3 times to delete a page I had created, despite having no just reasons. I got rather angry when I was typing this. However, I stick by what said- if I were to go to the same point tomorrow and snap exactly the same picture- what could you do about it?
• I do not know who User:Rgsao is.
• I have looked at their contributions and noticed that there are large gaps between edits, indicating a passive user. Until recently, for example, there was very little on Rgsao's talk page.

In conclusion, I fully disagree and expect this matter to be closed swiftly. After my last sockpuppet, I am hardly going to make the same mistake again, am I?

An argument in my favour (if it is allowed) about copyright:

• I have put many images through the Graphic Lab, to remove copyright problems (eg Beeching maps, Superlink map, London Midland maps, Central Citylink map etc. This proves my commitment to improving images.

Remember, the recent problems have been about a free use image, not an illegal one.

Thanks for reading, Dewarw (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm asking the submitter to make a checkuser request. Unless another admin wants to act on this case, that's what I'd suggest we do. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dewarw. --RFBailey (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on solid RFCU results, User:Macglue is added to this case--he was just created about 1.5 days ago. Macglue and Rsgao are blocked and tagged as socks (Rsgao was already blocked for serious copyright issues. Since Dewarw seems to be trying to learn the complicated image issues, I'm not blocking him for that. I'm giving him an absolute final warning on both copyright and socking issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS just noticed Dewarw has a sock from August, Wrawed, so I'm blocking him for a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]