Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting

[spp]

Ricky81682 (T-C-L) just got nailed for sockpuppetry. Interesting way to go out after 11 years, especially as he has come across as a hard-ass to those who've puppeted in the past. It seems the powers that be found out sometime in early September as that's when ArbCom first pinged him.

[thekohser]

I've never even heard of this editor, so I am suspecting that he or she was not an influential player.

[Earthy Astringent]

I've never even heard of this editor, so I am suspecting that he or she was not an influential player.

His original username was Ricky, but someone told him not to lose that number.

[Hex]

I've never even heard of this editor, so I am suspecting that he or she was not an influential player.

His original username was Ricky, but someone told him not to lose that number.

[spp]

I've never even heard of this editor, so I am suspecting that he or she was not an influential player.

Interesting as he was an admin frequently chiming in on ANI and AE requests. It's hard to pinpoint any defining moment but just present quite a bit.

I've never even heard of this editor, so I am suspecting that he or she was not an influential player.

His original username was Ricky, but someone told him not to lose that number.

[Midsize Jake]

Interesting as he was an admin frequently chiming in on ANI and AE requests.

He's not actually an administrator - you might be thinking of Ritchie333 (T-C-L), Rschen7754 (T-C-L), or the inimitable RL0919 (T-C-L).

[Mason]

Interesting as he was an admin frequently chiming in on ANI and AE requests.

He's not actually an administrator - you might be thinking of Ritchie333 (T-C-L), Rschen7754 (T-C-L), or the inimitable RL0919 (T-C-L).

Well, he isn't now, but he was when he woke up this morning.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, he isn't now, but he was when he woke up this morning.

Oh dear, my mistake then. I must've looked at the local user rights log instead of the global one, maybe?

Sorry about that...

[Dennis Brown]

Ricky was a fairly hard nosed admin, but not as much as some. We've disagreed on several things but probably agreed on more. I can't remember it, but we only had one real strong disagreement, if memory serves me here. He would come and go in waves at ANI and on socks. Not really a stand out admin, saw some drama but not more than anyone else.

I tend to have faith in their conclusions and glad they nailed him. I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

[Demonology]

Was he a member here so he might explain what he was up to? I'm looking at some of the socks and it looks like he was using them to troll SmokeyJoe (T-C-L) for voting at AfDs, and possibly using them to "harass" himself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nd_another

[Vigilant]

Ricky was a fairly hard nosed admin, but not as much as some. We've disagreed on several things but probably agreed on more. I can't remember it, but we only had one real strong disagreement, if memory serves me here. He would come and go in waves at ANI and on socks. Not really a stand out admin, saw some drama but not more than anyone else.

I tend to have faith in their conclusions and glad they nailed him. I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

If there were secret, random CU testing of admin accounts, you'd 'lose' at least, at the very, very least, 20%.

[MoldyHay]

The self-harassment bit is quite interesting. He pissed off the wrong WOP troll a few months back and had all kinds of sock puppets dragging him to ANI for awhile...I wonder how much of that was made up?

[Dennis Brown]

Ricky was a fairly hard nosed admin, but not as much as some. We've disagreed on several things but probably agreed on more. I can't remember it, but we only had one real strong disagreement, if memory serves me here. He would come and go in waves at ANI and on socks. Not really a stand out admin, saw some drama but not more than anyone else.

I tend to have faith in their conclusions and glad they nailed him. I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

If there were secret, random CU testing of admin accounts, you'd 'lose' at least, at the very, very least, 20%.

Ah Vigilant, I can always depend on you for my daily dose of pessimism. I can honestly say I've never socked but I'm very aware several do. If I knew who, I'd block them. Yet I still doubt it is 240 admin, which is 20% of 1200. We probably don't have that many that are fairly active.

[Kelly Martin]

I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

I expect that you are not the norm amongst Wikipedia admins in this regard. You may recall that SlimVirgin demanded six different forms of investigation when someone leaked to her that I had checkusered her once, and continued to defame me even after I was cleared of wrongdoing, for at least five years after the fact.

I imagine that Ms. Virgin's attitude is far more common among Wikipedia administrators in this regard than yours is.

[Earthy Astringent]

I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

I expect that you are not the norm amongst Wikipedia admins in this regard. You may recall that SlimVirgin demanded six different forms of investigation when someone leaked to her that I had checkusered her once, and continued to defame me even after I was cleared of wrongdoing, for at least five years after the fact.

I imagine that Ms. Virgin's attitude is far more common among Wikipedia administrators in this regard than yours is.

Why did you run a CU on her?

[Kelly Martin]

I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

I expect that you are not the norm amongst Wikipedia admins in this regard. You may recall that SlimVirgin demanded six different forms of investigation when someone leaked to her that I had checkusered her once, and continued to defame me even after I was cleared of wrongdoing, for at least five years after the fact.

I imagine that Ms. Virgin's attitude is far more common among Wikipedia administrators in this regard than yours is.

Why did you run a CU on her?

I had a suspicion that her account might have been compromised, and ran a checkuser to see if any recent edits were from addresses that she did not typically use. A check indicated that this was not the case, and so I took no further action. Under the guidelines that were in place at the time, this was a perfectly acceptable thing for a checkuser to do.

Her problem was that one of her "enemies" might know her IP address. While I did see her IP addresses when I did that, I paid no attention to what they were, other than that they were the same for edits that I were confident were here and the edits of which I was unsure were her. Like most people who work in IT, I am fairly adept at "seeing without seeing". But, of course, she was incapable of understanding that one of her enemies could behave in an ethical manner with such data; she knows that she would be unable to do so, and assumes that everyone else would behave in the same unethical way that she would.

[Dennis Brown]

I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

I expect that you are not the norm amongst Wikipedia admins in this regard. You may recall that SlimVirgin demanded six different forms of investigation when someone leaked to her that I had checkusered her once, and continued to defame me even after I was cleared of wrongdoing, for at least five years after the fact.

I imagine that Ms. Virgin's attitude is far more common among Wikipedia administrators in this regard than yours is.

I don't know, perhaps a lot more people are bored with life and so Wikipedia is a bigger deal than it is to me. I edit, I admin, I do lots of this while in between things at work, when I wake up and get home. I piddle with it, hoping to make it a better place, but it isn't a game nor does it add to my self-esteem. It's just something I do to kill time, learn and make a tiny bit of difference, with a bit of altruism thrown in. I'm a terrible troll as well, although I do have my singular moments. I genuinely have no understanding of people who do what Ricky did, sock and play games. I mean, are people REALLY that bored with their lives, or hate their real lives that much?

ADDED: To clarify, I understand why trolls are trolls, why vandals are vandals, but to go and edit for a couple of years professionally, prove yourself trustworthy, just to get admin and troll and vandalize as a sock? Seems like a lot of effort for such a small payoff.

[Katnips]

What an odd situation. If he was going to be sockpuppeting, he surely could have thought of more fun things to do than troll....himself? Huh.

[The Garbage Scow]

Interesting that they only desysopped him and didn't block him.

Does anyone have a history of admins who have been desysopped and/or blocked specifically for sockpuppetry in similar fashion? I remember Dereks1x and Altenmann. Altenmann was eventually allowed back, but without the admin bit.

[Katnips]

Interesting that they only desysopped him and didn't block him.

Does anyone have a history of admins who have been desysopped and/or blocked specifically for sockpuppetry in similar fashion? I remember Dereks1x and Altenmann. Altenmann was eventually allowed back, but without the admin bit.

I think he is blocked, though: 10:49, 5 October 2016 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs) blocked Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ricky81682)

[Earthy Astringent]

I used to have a note up saying CU can be run on me at any time, and really, it wouldn't bother me if they CU'ed admin randomly since we are at a level of higher trust. If they saw something suspicious, they could privately ask for an explanation. If they did that, I get the feeling we might lose a couple more admin.

I expect that you are not the norm amongst Wikipedia admins in this regard. You may recall that SlimVirgin demanded six different forms of investigation when someone leaked to her that I had checkusered her once, and continued to defame me even after I was cleared of wrongdoing, for at least five years after the fact.

I imagine that Ms. Virgin's attitude is far more common among Wikipedia administrators in this regard than yours is.

I don't know, perhaps a lot more people are bored with life and so Wikipedia is a bigger deal than it is to me. I edit, I admin, I do lots of this while in between things at work, when I wake up and get home. I piddle with it, hoping to make it a better place, but it isn't a game nor does it add to my self-esteem. It's just something I do to kill time, learn and make a tiny bit of difference, with a bit of altruism thrown in. I'm a terrible troll as well, although I do have my singular moments. I genuinely have no understanding of people who do what Ricky did, sock and play games. I mean, are people REALLY that bored with their lives, or hate their real lives that much?

ADDED: To clarify, I understand why trolls are trolls, why vandals are vandals, but to go and edit for a couple of years professionally, prove yourself trustworthy, just to get admin and troll and vandalize as a sock? Seems like a lot of effort for such a small payoff.

People used to (still?) pay thousands of dollars for characters and items for online games such as UlitimaOnline and WoW. They spend mind numbing hours "farming" like blue haired grannies tied to a slot machine.

[tarantino]

Interesting that they only desysopped him and didn't block him.

Does anyone have a history of admins who have been desysopped and/or blocked specifically for sockpuppetry in similar fashion? I remember Dereks1x and Altenmann. Altenmann was eventually allowed back, but without the admin bit.

There are twelve listed at Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/for_cause, and at least two of them are active here. The list isn't complete, though. Oldwindybear (T-C-L) is missing.

[Sophie]

He's appealing to ArbCom.

[Eric Corbett]

He's appealing to ArbCom.

Pathetic.

[The Garbage Scow]

It appears he'll get what he wants, subject to a "one account restriction".

[Sophie]

It's just yet another example of the double standards constantly applied throughout Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

Evidently, Arbcom think that he is appealing (pun intended).

[Randy from Boise]

It's better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in...

WMF needs to get serious with its registration processes. I'll die of old age before that actually happens.

t

[Beeblebrox]

It's just yet another example of the double standards constantly applied throughout Wikipedia.

He appealed under the standard offer, as anyone who was blocked for socking can do, and appears to have complied with the terms, including making positive contribs on other projects and refraining from further socking for a prolonged period. We're certainly not considering giving him back his admin tools, and he will permanently restricted to one account. So, I'm not seeing this double standard.

[Eric Corbett]

Perhaps you need to look a bit harder then. How many non-admins have successfully appealed their blocks to ArbCom?

[Ryuichi]

Perhaps you need to look a bit harder then. How many non-admins have successfully appealed their blocks to ArbCom?

At least one.

The success rate for non-admins is likely a lot lower than for admins. But, this is true for any block appeals (Talk page unblock requests, AE, etc).

[GorillaWarfare]

Perhaps you need to look a bit harder then. How many non-admins have successfully appealed their blocks to ArbCom?

Seven in the past 15 days (or eight, if you count two who were blocked as socks of each other).

[Midsize Jake]

Seven in the past 15 days (or eight, if you count two who were blocked as socks of each other).

In Mr. Corbett's defense, that does seem higher than usual. You would know better than most, though, so... is it?

I suppose the number might be higher now because it's a new Arbcom, and maybe people who didn't think they had a chance before have now decided the appeal process is worth a shot. But most of the accounts listed on the "Requests for unblock" page were blocked within the last couple of weeks, looks like.

In any event, it's hard to imagine Arbcom maintaining a rate of ~15 successful block appeals a month — over the course of a year that would be around 180 accounts unblocked, and I wonder if they've done that many in the past four years combined (i.e., since the Ban Appeals Subcommittee was shut down). If so, they've been very good at keeping it on the down-low.

[Beeblebrox]

What's going on is that the 2019 committee, with their severe attrition rate, just didn't get a lot of things done. So, we have a rather large pile of appeals from last year that we are trying to clear, and GW is doing an awesome job of keeping the ball rolling so we can clear the backlog. We've said no quite a number of times as well but we generally don't post about those.

[Vigilant]

What's the unblock percentage?

[Osborne]

So, I'm not seeing this double standard.

He might be referring to those editors, whose appeals don't even get a reply.

Perhaps you need to look a bit harder then. How many non-admins have successfully appealed their blocks to ArbCom?

Seven in the past 15 days (or eight, if you count two who were blocked as socks of each other).

Wow. That's an extreme number, good job! I wonder if my appeal will get processed too, after half a year...

[Sophie]

It's just yet another example of the double standards constantly applied throughout Wikipedia.

He appealed under the standard offer, as anyone who was blocked for socking can do, and appears to have complied with the terms, including making positive contribs on other projects and refraining from further socking for a prolonged period. We're certainly not considering giving him back his admin tools, and he will permanently restricted to one account. So, I'm not seeing this double standard.

How kind of you to explain the standard offer to me; however, FYI, I am fully conversant with most of the workings of Wikipedia. And, no, I am not blocked neither am I under any editing restrictions.

And the support vote from WTT takes the number up to eight, sufficient for the motion to pass; what a farce.

[Osborne]

And the support vote from WTT takes the number up to eight, sufficient for the motion to pass; what a farce.

I still have to understand what's the reason for the hate? I hate too that editors don't get this treatment and so good chances, but I don't hate Ricky for that... Maybe I don't know about something egregious?

[Sophie]

I have nothing against Ricky81682; in fact, I don't believe I've ever interacted with him.

It is the ridiculous actions, attitudes, double standards and incompetence etc of most of the members of ArbCom, including those recently appointed, some admins plus various others on Wikipedia that I was attempting to highlight.

[MoldyHay]

I’m a little surprised nobody suggested a topic ban on WOP.

[GorillaWarfare]

Seven in the past 15 days (or eight, if you count two who were blocked as socks of each other).

In Mr. Corbett's defense, that does seem higher than usual. You would know better than most, though, so... is it?

I suppose the number might be higher now because it's a new Arbcom, and maybe people who didn't think they had a chance before have now decided the appeal process is worth a shot. But most of the accounts listed on the "Requests for unblock" page were blocked within the last couple of weeks, looks like.

In any event, it's hard to imagine Arbcom maintaining a rate of ~15 successful block appeals a month — over the course of a year that would be around 180 accounts unblocked, and I wonder if they've done that many in the past four years combined (i.e., since the Ban Appeals Subcommittee was shut down). If so, they've been very good at keeping it on the down-low.

Yeah, Beeblebrox is correct that the high number of accepted appeals is more to do with the fact that we had a long backlog of appeals to work through.

What's the unblock percentage?

Out of the appeals we have handled since the beginning of the year, it looks like about 50% were declined, 25% were accepted, and the other 25% fall into the "other" category—either they weren't blocked for one of the reasons in which the ArbCom hears appeals and so they referred back to the community, they were globally locked and need to talk to the stewards first, or they weren't actually blocked (folks caught in a rangeblock thinking their account was blocked).

[Beeblebrox]

I have nothing against Ricky81682; in fact, I don't believe I've ever interacted with him.

It is the ridiculous actions, attitudes, double standards and incompetence etc of most of the members of ArbCom, including those recently appointed, some admins plus various others on Wikipedia that I was attempting to highlight.

Well, you've failed to do that because you won't explicitly say what the supposed double standard is.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, you've failed to do that because you won't explicitly say what the supposed double standard is.

Well now, I don't think she has to explicitly say what it is — this thread was resurrected because Ricky81682, a former admin, successfully appealed his indefinite block from 4 years ago. The question here is simply, to what extent was he unblocked because he was once an admin, and would someone who wasn't a former admin have been unblocked under similar circumstances...?

It does look like the new(-ish) Arbcom is being a little more generous in this regard, and that's probably good, but that doesn't mean the double-standard (to the extent that it may exist) has been eliminated. It's only natural that the Arbcom folks, all of whom are current admins, would have a positive bias towards former admins — and personally, I'm not even sure it isn't justifiable, at least in some cases.

[Beeblebrox]

Well, he's not an admin anymore, his admin rights having been removed back when he was blocked, so you can't even call it a SuperMario problem, which I agree does exist, it simply isn't applicable in this case. And most unblocks aren't subject to a discussion and a public vote like this, but we thought it would be best due to the nature of the original block. If anything this is more of a process than most SO unblocks go through, so I'm still not seeing what Sophie seems to think is so painfully obvious.

She's alleged "ridiculous actions, attitudes, double standards and incompetence" all over one unblock, that is the subject of a very public process and is being supported by the community. I don't see any of that here. What is so ridiculous about it? Personally I am less inclined to unblock an admin who was caught socking, that's a very serious breach of trust, but it's been a long time, Ricky has contributed positively to to other projects, and wrote a an honest and forthright appeal. It's basically a textbook case of how to conform to the terms of the standard offer.

I'm not going to sit here and say all arbcom unblock procedures are fair and perfect, I've certainly seen some that I thought were 100% wrong, and we've got some in the backlog right now that have been sitting way, way too long without being actioned, but I simply don't see what the problem is with this one specifically, and apparently Sophie is unwilling to describe it in any but the vaguest of terms.

[Vigilant]

Well, he's not an admin anymore, his admin rights having been removed back when he was blocked, so you can't even call it a SuperMario problem, which I agree does exist, it simply isn't applicable in this case. And most unblocks aren't subject to a discussion and a public vote like this, but we thought it would be best due to the nature of the original block. If anything this is more of a process than most SO unblocks go through, so I'm still not seeing what Sophie seems to think is so painfully obvious.

If you're handing out indulgences and all under this revised sacrament, is now the time I should ask for my long overdue absolution?

[Beeblebrox]

If you're handing out indulgences and all under this revised sacrament, is now the time I should ask for my long overdue absolution?

If I'm reading your block log correctly and this is you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... type=block then you would not be eligible for an appeal to arbcom. You can do it the easy way on your talk page if you're serious. 14 years is a long time and I actually wouldn't be surprised if your appeal was accepted.

[Osborne]

I have nothing against Ricky81682; in fact, I don't believe I've ever interacted with him.
It is the ridiculous actions, attitudes, double standards and incompetence etc of most of the members of ArbCom, including those recently appointed, some admins plus various others on Wikipedia that I was attempting to highlight.

Well, you've failed to do that because you won't explicitly say what the supposed double standard is.

Another name for these double standards is Authority bias (T-H-L), which is a bit less negative, therefore may be more acceptable. It happens every day on the wiki, the dramaboards and also ArbCom - albeit more eloquently. It's so common it's pointless to prove it every day to people, who don't want to see it. That tendency - also very common on WikiPe - goes by the name of Confirmation bias (T-H-L). There's so much bias, we could be listing them all day.

Just recall the resysop request of Kudpung after the clouds cleared up - an active case, on which you might be working now -, the uncivil remarks and attacks he made there would have gotten any editor with less than 5 years a community ban, or at least an indef. He, in turn, was resysoped...

[Vigilant]

If you're handing out indulgences and all under this revised sacrament, is now the time I should ask for my long overdue absolution?

If I'm reading your block log correctly and this is you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... type=block then you would not be eligible for an appeal to arbcom. You can do it the easy way on your talk page if you're serious. 14 years is a long time and I actually wouldn't be surprised if your appeal was accepted.

I can only imagine the shrieks of fury were that particular unblock made.

[Sophie]

......

She's alleged "ridiculous actions, attitudes, double standards and incompetence" all over one unblock, ... blah, blah, blah ...
...
... apparently Sophie is unwilling to describe it in any but the vaguest of terms.

I made a broad statement concerning the type of actions on display over many years all over Wikipedia; my comment was not specific, so not "all over one unblock" as claimed.

Anyway, I've only ever made very occasional comments on this forum and feel I'm as done here as I am on Wikipedia.

[Beeblebrox]

......

She's alleged "ridiculous actions, attitudes, double standards and incompetence" all over one unblock, ... blah, blah, blah ...
...
... apparently Sophie is unwilling to describe it in any but the vaguest of terms.

I made a broad statement concerning the type of actions on display over many years all over Wikipedia; my comment was not specific, so not "all over one unblock" as claimed.

Anyway, I've only ever made very occasional comments on this forum and feel I'm as done here as I am on Wikipedia.

Reminds me of a time someone called the company I used to own to complain about one of my employees. They said he was rude. I apologized and asked them to describe the rude behavior so I could do something to correct it. "He's just rude" they said. "Could you give me just one example so I have some idea what we're talking about?" I replied. "He's rude all the time, everything he does is just rude."

In another instance the custodian of a small apartment complex called and said my drivers drove unsafely on the property. I asked if he could give me dates and times so I could identify which drivers had done so, and he said "all of your drivers, every single time they come in here." I informed him that I had driven company vehicles on this property many times myself and did not recall behaving in an unsafe manner or any complaints from our actual customers, and further that the parking lot of this complex is so small I can't imagine what the unsafe behavior could even be unless he could define it more specifically so I could address it with my people. He hung up on me.

What is anyone supposed to do with that sort of feedback? If there's a problem, I want to solve it, but with no details beyond basically saying "you suck all the time" it's just meaningless noise.