Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rudi Dierick

• Rudi Dierick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lucas Richards (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• The two are involved in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of persecuted Turkish writers. Both voted "Keep".

• Both have identical edit patterns (usually involved with Turkey and Flanders)

• All three have been reverted by multiple users on Turkey and other Turkish-related articles after making some very POV edits. --Kilhan 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:Much of the possible evidence is stale having auto-compared the contribs. Lucas Richards has never been blocked and I also don't see a specific evidence of abuse though there are some odd POV edits that were reverted. However, the history pages of Sharia and Politics of Flanders reveal some very suspicious edits, enough perhaps to look into this.Voice-of-All 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed Could we have specific, recent diffs demonstrating policy violations? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having rumaged through the page/diff comparison again, I'd have to say that there are no severe violations. While the possible vote-stacking would be serious enough, its just paradoxical in that there is little to suggest that it really is vote-stacking. While there are POV edits, they are not repeated nor clearly used to circumvent 3RR. Voice-of-All 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Dieric and Lucas Richards appear to be one and the same person. There seems to be a double vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of persecuted Turkish writers. I request that the administrators ascertain the validity of those votes. While they may just add up to a mere couple of votes, it is worthy to notice that just seven users have voted on the AFD, and therefore these have the potential to affect the outcome.

Voting (Vote stacking) List of persecuted Turkish writers was created by Lucas Richards. Following listing for deletion ,Rudi Dieric "came out of hibernation" (since 9 April 2006[1]) and voted "Keep" in line with Lucas Richards' views [2]

Recently edited articles (as of July 24 2006) The editing patterns of both accounts bear strong similarity, and appear to be concentrated almost exclusively in 3 topics.

User:Lucas Richards

Involving Turkey

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of persecuted Turkish writers, Human rights in Turkey, List of Turkey-related topics ( addition of List of persecuted Turkish writers), List of persecuted Turkish writers, Turkey, Politics of Turkey, Accession of Turkey to the European Union

Involving Flanders (Belgium)

• Brussels-Capital Region, Antwerp, Politics of Flanders, Belgium, Education in Belgium

Involving islam

• Sharia, Hijab

User:Rudi Dierick

Involving Turkey

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of persecuted Turkish writers, Turkey

Involving Flanders (Belgium)

• Flemish Community, Flanders, Flemish people, Belgium, History of Belgium

Involving Islam

• Criticism of Islam, Islam, Islam and other religions

 Confirmed Would the sockmaster please post here and indicate which account he desires to retain? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a meager research you did. I also checked out 'Rudi Dierick' (including a Google check), and it looks like he is probably a Fleming, writing most often in Dutch (which goes far beyond my competencies), and on a much wider range of topics then I'm doing (just go trough a Google check in addition, and you'll see he writes on MUCH MORE then just 3 topics). The fact that he voted for one topic for which I also voted appears very easy to explain, just the fact of setting a 'Watch this page' flag appears enough. Moreover, the fact that there is a partial overlap (me writing on say 1/5 or less of his topics) in topics covered appears a very meager argument to. --Lucas Richards 10:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The confirmation is based on an analysis of the IP addresses most recently used by these two accounts, using the CheckUser function of the wikimedia software. Is there is some other reason why both Lucas Richards and Rudi Dierick would be using the same computer? Thatcher131 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm very often using computer equipment that is also used by many other users. I'm doing this both for professional reasons, working from different locations for an organisation headquarered in Brussels, as from computer facilities at the university where I'm involved in a post-graduate. Friends often warn about posting 'personal' opinions from where I work/study, and it looks like this inded might cause confusion. What do you suggest about this? --Lucas Richards 09:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucas Richards account came into being after Rudi Dierick went into hibernation, and was immediately used to praise the opinions ventured by Rudi Dierick in a rather uncritical way and support him otherwise: [3], [4]. This is consistent with a pattern of sockpuppetry. Both users are pov pushers and resort to uncivility to attack counter arguments. Lucas Richards edited before anonymously as 80.201.35.124, which is an IP of Skynet, a major ISP in Belgium. --Lambiam^Talk 12:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, looks like you suggest patterns that are quite vague. Strange, but this and other rather generalor most vague (BigHaz, ...) accusations seem to neglect that I've been very busy with explanations on Talk pages, explaining background info, reasons for adding or doiubting about certain other info etc. while at the same time, several other contributors are just deleting parts of my contributions, most often without ANY explanation at all. I've also been busy with adding references, in reaction to criticism from others, and then those other contributors just throw away references, and again without any explanation at all. Worse, several of those cutters don't provide any references at all. So who is respecting Wikipedia guidelines here? Those 'cutters' all demonstrate a very POV-pusher behaviour. --Lucas Richards 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the match was not made on the basis of Kilhan's presentation but by technical analysis of the IP address used by the two accounts. What to do with that info is the subject for a discussion someplace else. Many accounts confirmed as sockpuppets later claim to be friends, roommates, co-workers, etc. Checkuser can't help you decide whether these claims are valid. Thatcher131 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About who is who: I don't know who is that Mr. Dierck. I can just speak for myself. And I can only guess he must be alsoworking from PC's at my employer, or more probably at the univ. I invite you to have a closer look on the apparently 'concerted' cutting-away-anypart-critical-of-Turkish-nationalism-without-any-explanation to find out more about what might be going on here. I also would welcome clear and precise criticism. Whatever I can learn something fromis appreciated. However, vague criticism as those on my own page from BigHaz, MonsterOfTheLake and others, is very difficult to appreciate. Hope you understand my frustration about seeing all those blind cutters just vandalising my contributions. --Lucas Richards 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]