Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


Eastbayway

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt, a variety of single purpose accounts have come out of the woodwork to oppose. These accounts have very low edit counts, or have been inactive for long periods of time. Please check if they may be related to each other, or to any of the litigants at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Cirt is known for having stood up to a variety of abusive pro-Scientology accounts. There is an appearance of payback here. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like abuse of the
    T) 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Don't remove people from the RFCU like you did here, it's inappropriate. If it's fishing, the Checkusers will turn it down on their own discretion, with or without any of our approval.
    T) 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Still, lets leave this just for the right people to do stuff like that. Since it's clearly a pattern of harassment of Cirt, they may want to compare notes to see who's doing the harassing.
    T) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

 Bureaucrat note:If this isn't socking, it's canvassing, could be both. I have at least four other voters in that RFA I'm suspicious of. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that

  • ShadowVsScientology is Richard Rolles, as remarked on the other RFCU
  • Eastbayway is also Littlebutter and Ebay3

It is not clear whether Julia1287 is a sockpuppet, abusive or otherwise.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:SvS already blocked, tagged properly. Eastbayway, Littlebutter, and Ebay3 blocked and tagged. Cleaned up RFA. No action on Julia1287, but I strongly suspect canvassing in that RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

206.188.48.235

Also, Durova pointed out 206.188.48.235 (

T) 23:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Red X Unrelated. Appears to be an editor accidentally logged out, rather than anything malicious, despite the bizarre comment. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troikoalogo, Gray62

Now that we've cleared the obvious socks, lets look at some that may be more subtle.

Evidence
  1. Nominating articles for AfD, correctly, within their first few edits.[4]
  2. Finds Erik Möller within first 10 edits, and pushes a troll meme.[5] This article has had way more than its fair share of mischief. This account showing up there is probably not a coincidence. This edit was not a problem, upon second reading. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Has only been with us four months, but knows all about socks.[6]
  4. Trollish comment, "WTF", and appears to have an axe to grind with Durova. Appears to have followed her to RFAR. [7] Also not a problem upon reconsideration. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt. When five oppose votes have already been struck for shennanigans, there is good reason to look closely at any other irregularities. Jehochman Talk 03:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting ridiculous. Obviously, I'm not a new user. I've never hidden that fact - indeed I've twice made it clear. Jehochman, if you want to know who I am, you are welcome to e-mail me and ask. Yeah, and why didn't you post these concerns to my talk page? No, really, why not? And unless you see evidence of abuse, why the fishing trip. This account has obviously been active for months - I am not currently using any other - and sneaking here without asking me really is deplorable.--
    talk) 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
information Note:I confirm this is a legitimate account from a wikipedian in good standing, per an off wiki confirmation. -- lucasbfr talk 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the identity of this account and am wholly satisfied that it is legitimate. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, the "evidence" of trolling looks like it comes from the !! school of sleuthing. I'm just glad I didn't edit
talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Unlike the case of !!, you were not blocked, you were not outed, and the proper process was used to investigate: checkuser. As it happens, if you look up and down this page, none of my requests returned a result of "fishing", and a high percentage of "confirmed" sock puppetry. Requiring 100% of checks to come back positive is unrealistic. I would appreciate if you let this matter reach its natural conclusion. Jehochman Talk 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem wasn't with the checks. It was a) you didn't ask me for an explanation for the behaviour you found strange. And b) you labelled (see above) two of my edits as "trolling". Interestingly, the (sourced) edit to the Moeller article was accepted by other editors, and remains on the article. The RfArb comments were a good faith and balanced analysis (even if later shown to be wrong) - that no one objected to. As I say, that my account was obviously an established user with a new account participating in an RfA, raises perfectly legitimate questions, that it was fair of you to ask. But the manner of the asking, and fishing trip (sleuthing) that was obviously out to find evidence of mis-doing rather than to make a realistic assessment, failed not only to assume good faith, but they failed to be a balanced reading of the evidence. Anyway, sorry about the tone of the above remark. I hope you continue to be alert and involved in identifying abusive accounts, but I also hope you might also ask - "could there be a perfectly legitimate explanation for this?", and adopt a manner appropriate to that possibility. (And yes, of course AGF has its limits - sometimes abuse is obvious.) Anyway, there I will drop it and unwatch this page.--
talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Account has been inactive since December 2007. It suddenly re-awakens and votes at a bunch of RFAs [8], including Cirt. This creates the appearance of a sleeper sock. Jehochman Talk 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, what about
WP:Good faith that YOU, of all people, teached me about on my homepage? I have been busy in real life, and the increasing polarization evident at Wikipedia turned me off. And if you do a checkuser, you'll only find that I did some small time editing as an IP every now and then. This certainly doesn't make me a sockpuppet. And so I suggest that you concentrate on your successful work of exposing socks by checking the voters in the support section, too, instead of wasting your time with conspiracy theories. Btw, imho, ALL voters should be regularly checked for sockpuppetry (not only the opposing ones), and the candidates should have to go through a checkuser, too. The poetlister desaster should be a alarming sign. Gray62 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Btw, would pls someone advice me where I can post a complaint about the discriminating treatment of "oppose" voters in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt? Maybe it's only me, but imho Jehochman's onesided approach comes dangerously close to pressurizing editors to votes yes or not participate at all, and I would like some neutral admins to look into this. Imho, if the editors in such an RfA are checked (and I support this generally), than ALL should be checked, and not a selection depending on the whims of one single admin. Again, where's the proper place to let this be discussed? Gray62 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: I protest that this checkuser request against me runs under the headline "Case/Eastbayway". Imho implying that I'm associated with a convicted sockpuppet is grossly unfair and a stain on my username. I also want to state that I'm not connected in any way with troikoalogo and don't understand why Jehochman is implying that there is any connection. Pls open up a Case:Gray62 instead. The total lack of evidence of me doing anything wrong, except voting against Cirt for adminship, should be evident to any editor who visits this page. I'm looking forward to you checkusing my account soon, so that this nonsense comes to an end. Gray62 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated to anyone else, and no evidence to suggest sockpuppetry. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spacefarer

This one appears suspicious possibly, but this one may be fishing, I leave it to the checkusers. The same basic "style" of user pages here, as is seen on the above confirmed socks.

T) 07:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You should cite evidence, with links. This account appears to be a single purpose, agenda account editing
Landmark Education, a hot zone of litigation and POV pushing.[9] Could be a sock, or part of a tag team. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a sockpuppet of FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs), who edits the related area of Werner Erhard, who has a Scientology connection. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only connection between Scn and EST is that Scn considers EST a "suppressive group". So is there evidence of misuse of the sock or are you outing him here out of your "I don't have the follow the rules because I am wise" philosophy? --Justallofthem (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Is the Freedom related in anyway to Eastbayway or any of his other accounts? Tiptoety talk 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not technically, no. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't "outing"... The fact that Cirt has attracted a great deal of opposition from users involved with Scientology and the fact that this user has been editing articles such as this one make the connection well worth establishing. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Bureaucrat note: will look at this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: These two did not double vote, so I leave to someone else to close this. NOTE: FBD is indef but Spacefarer is not blocked yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Both Spacefarer (talk · contribs) & FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs) have been indef Blocked Tiptoety talk 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more (Supporters)

A few more accounts worth checking. They have low edit counts, and appear not to be new users.

Please don't out these accounts unless there is actual mischief going on. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked at these per a private request and there is nothing useful to say on them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The irregularities continue

Balloonman said, "Yet another instance of an account with limited activity. Account create in July, made fewer than 40 edits, and last edit was July 28th before !voting here. Closing crat should take into account the obvious vote stacking which is occurring here. Somebody is obviously soliciting opposes or using socks of some sort."[12] Jehochman Talk 01:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've matched up one of the accounts from above. These two both show a strong interest in Broadway In Chicago. Check contribution histories, they are short. Jehochman Talk 01:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder what Sinebot is doing right now, but the cofirmation comes from Sam Korn. Which begs a question: Sam, you did check the same user two days ago, and wrote it is "not clear" if she is a sockpuppet. Now, excuse me pls, but can you explain this change of view a bit more (without exposing any confidential info, of course)? Did you simply look into the case a bit deeper the second time, or what is behind this somewhat surprising new verdict? No misunderstanding pls, I don't want to defend any puppet players, but after my unpleasant experience, I'm a bit concerned about false positives. Gray62 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray62, the Kimberlyhobart account was not checked. By putting the two together, checkuser was able to establish the connection. Jehochman Talk 12:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Bureaucrat note: will look at this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Education Group of Sock or Meat Puppets

These accounts all show a long term interest in

Landmark Education, Werner Erhard (founder), and related articles. The diffs above show that each has touched one of these articles within the most recent 50 edits, and within their first 50 edits. All of them sport a similar one line, or minimalist, userpage.[21][22][23][24] It looks like the user did the minimum work to avoid having a redlink. They have all showed up to oppose Cirt. Jehochman Talk 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It is  Possible that Gilbertine goldmark is Barnham. YellowMonkey has blocked both of these (and two large sockfarms) for sockpuppeting. I commented on Spacefarer above; Mvemkr doesn't appear related to any of them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Bureaucrat note: will look at this later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on editing patterns, I believe this group should be treated as a single account, per
Landmark Education. Aside from cleaning up this RFA, these accounts need to be dealt with to bring an end to that long term article disruption. Jehochman Talk 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that the COFS arb dealt with multiple editors coming from related corporate-owned IP addresses. It was not about editing patterns and in fact it was established that this were distinct editors that claimed no meatpuppet relationship. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from COFS:

Multiple editors with a single voice

8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have such a situation with the

Landmark Education typists listed above. They may be using different IPs, but their behavior is the same. They are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You are twisting the finding of the arbcom; "In such cases" clearly refers to "several editors from the same IP or corporate server" not editors that you think edit in a similar fashion or share similar views. Even if are right about them being socks you are going about this all wrong. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Who's who

2) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have such a situation with the

Landmark Education typists listed above. They may be using different IPs, but their behavior is the same. They are virtually indistinguishable from one another. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikilawyering is pointless. When a bunch of editors are indistinguishable from each other, they can be treated as one. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: GG and Barnham do appear the same. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Check this blocklog and you see:

  • Triplejumper, Oneoneoneoneone, Jjaberwock, Gilbertine goldmark = socks of Gilbertine goldmark
  • Ftord1960, Sailor1889, Saladdays, Barnham = socks of Barnham

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tikiwont (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I concur with YellowMonkey's finding here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update

Above two accounts blocked by Deskana (talk · contribs) as socks of Barnham (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eastbayway&oldid=1088199628"