Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Report date February 7 2010, 06:03 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Sole Soul

An IP user apparently related to

talk · contribs) (notice the similarity between the 2 names) was blocked in 30 January 2009 for "Attacks to Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician), WP:BLP violations". A user named MBernal615 (talk · contribs) whose first edit was to create the article Nelson Antonio Denis
, started to edit Adam Clayton Powell page in July 2009. The user edits are almost all negative.

After a user reported the BLP violation in

Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician). MBernal615 restored the page as I'm writing this report. Sole Soul (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Even the picture of Adam Clayton Powell uploaded by MBernal615 is unflattering to any politician and sends a clear message. Compare it with the picture for Nelson Antonio Denis they uploaded. Sole Soul (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

  • There is a similarity between the name of the user Nelsondenis248 and a political rival for Adam Clayton Powell IV named Nelson Antonio Denis.
  • Nelsondenis248 was blocked indefinitely in 30 January 2009 for smearing A.C. Powell
  • MBernal615 added a lot of negative infos and unflattering copyrighted pictures to A.C. Powell page.

Update:

  • Nelsondenis248 last edit was on 1 December 2008
  • MBernal615's first edit was on 1 December 2008
  • MBernal615's first edit was to create the Nelson Antonio Denis page
  • There is a clear similarities between their edit summaries on 1 December 2008 [1] [2]:
  • Both end their edit summaries with dots
  • Both used capitalizations to emphasize words. Nelsondenis248 emphasized "FIRST GOOGLE PAGE" and MBernal615 wrote "New York NEWSDAY, not New York Post. Article is now FINISHED."
  • Both used brackets in their edit summaries [3] [4] [5].

Sole Soul (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

There is no evidence for this charge.

There has been no abuse of multiple accounts, disruptive edits, or efforts to distort consensus or circumvent policy.

There has been no recruitment of proxies to sway consensus.

The history of my editing will speak for itself. It is not limited to Adam Clayton Powell IV, and it is always well-documented (sources, newspaper articles, in-line references) and constructive. I have not engaged in edit wars or other negative behavior.

This accusation appears to be in bad faith -- made by an editor Sole Soul who has repeatedly PAGE-BLANKED the entire article of Adam Clayton Powell IV. At the moment I write this, the article remains Page-Blanked by Sole Soul, and his/her editing should be examined.

Sole Soul also submitted inaccurate facts. NelsonDenis248 was not blocked on January 30, 2009.

Again, this charge is not backed by the evidence.

MBernal615 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use
Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician) and you thanked me for it. Unfortunately, I did not read the article at that time. Sole Soul (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments by other users

All of

User:Nelsondenis248's edits, starting with his first, charge Powell with rape and/or other crimes/malfeasances. After being reverted at least twice, his final two edits
add the rape and DWI charges again.
User:MBernal615 appears 4 Feb 2009, works on the Denis and related articles for a few months, then on 15 July 2009 touches up the rape charges, then in Sept 2009 expands the article significantly. Just sayin'. CliffC (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below. serious BLP violation    Requested by Sole Soul (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

duck. --Bsadowski1 06:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not really seeing any definitive links between the two accounts. Can someone provide from comparison diffs that can show any other similarities between these two users? I'm seeing some considerable gaps here (unless something was oversighted or something). –MuZemike 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First account was indefed, second user has repeated the same awful behavior and also created attack article, can I please have a block button. He knows the game is up anyway, he is exposed and is unable to continue with his actions, he has violated copyright to an awful extent, user is clearly here to portray a living person in as negative way as possible.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I was hoping checkuser was possible, I will focus now on the behavioral aspect, updated now. Sole Soul (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Sole Soul's additional evidence is compelling enough and more clear, also given Bearian's summary of the situation. Blocked and tagged. I'm leaving this case open for the time being as I am looking into some other things as well. –MuZemike 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done MuZemike, there are other issues,

Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Looking at his contribs real quick, I highly doubt that Marine 69-71 is a sock, as his edits more involve Puerto Rico (as well as Puerto Rican politicians) and not just the politicians in question. Remember that not liking a certain politician doesn't necessarily mean they're tag-teaming or socking. –MuZemike 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Marine absolutely is NOT a sock. Sole Soul (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a sock, but supported his actions and I expect more from an administrator.
Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


15 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

  • 216.57.39.35: Editing pattern, talk page rhetoric and aggressive POV editing in Nelson Antonio Denis are similar to User:MBernal615, previously identified sock of Nelsondenis248. Edit on this page indicates that this is the same editor as 69.203.119.66 [6]. (IP 216.57.39.35 identifies himself as 69.203.119.66, indicating the same person editing under both IPs.)
  • 69.203.119.66: Newly reactivated IP. Talk page edits (accidentally logging off and then logging on) [7] [8] [9]indicate this IP is banned Nelsondenis248 sock User:MBernal615. This IP was blocked for six months in March and in unblock request admitted to being User:KHamsun, apparently not knowing that account had been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:MBernal615[10].("Our IP address was temporarily blocked due to a user named MBernal615. I am not MBernal615, I am KHamsun"). This IP resumed editing the Denis article immediately after 216.57.39.35 commenced its edits today, and aggressively responds below, displaying the same writing style as 216.57.39.35 and MBernal615. These IPs are obviously being used again to evade the indef block of Nelsondenis248 and his socks.
  • Compare rhetoric of IPs in interminable posts on this page to sock User:MBernal615's talk page posts, such as defense to sockpuppeting charges [11]. Writing style is virtually identical. Note also similarity between MBernal615 post to user talk page here[12] and 216.57.39.35 post to the same editor's talk page here[13]. Note similarity in writing style and capitalization of "AGAIN" in both posts.
  • The "Taft" account is User:SRabassa and User:Caguas28. This person mistakenly was logged onto the Taft account when creating the two user pages for those two accounts. See [15] and [16] This indicates that these two accounts are additional block-evading sock accounts. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sleeper accounts may exist, and may be shown via CU of the above IPs.
  • Please note that these are apparently static IPs. 69.203.119.66 was previously blocked for six months. Another block of that length would not prevent legitimate editors from accessing Wikipedia.

ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Response from 69.203.119.66: The accusing editor Scotty Berg left an article in this condition:[18] until his alleged sockpuppet asked for a review.
  • The responses to the charges against 69.203.119.66 and 216.57.39.35 appear below, in greater detail and (unfortunately) greater length. I believe these charges fall into three categories: 1) charges against stale accounts, 2) charges against editing that is non-disruptive and carried out in good faith, and 3) issues that a) occurred nearly one year ago, b) involved no disruptive editing, c) have no bearing on any current issues, and d) were already adjudicated.
  • After he left the article in this condition:[19] the correction of one mis-spelling was deemed a "sockpuppet" offense by this same editor. He is now requesting some sort of endless double jeopardy, with punishments meted out ad infinitum, regardless of who receives those punishments.
  • I apologize for the length of this page, but several charges kept repeating themselves, and I had to respond in some manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.119.66 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from 69.203.119.66: As far as I know, an editor may edit on Wikipedia without being called a sockpuppet. The article(s) which I choose to edit do not make me or any other editor a sockpuppet. There is no creation or abuse of multiple accounts on my part. There is no evidence here, of sockpuppetry. The fact that I contribute to an article (with no account or IP abuse) does not make me a sockpuppet. Finally, the "editing" which triggered this report was my correction of a typo, the correction of a mis-spelled word. I don't believe that warrants a sockpuppetry charge, and being banned from Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C.P.Taft (talk • contribs)
  • - If you are blocked under another name, for example
    Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Response from 69.203.119.66: There is an ever-widening set of charges, all stemming from the correction of one typo, which was a constructive edit. As stated before, there is no account or IP abuse here. There is however, a certain amount of Wiki lawyering here, since after one edit which merely corrected a mis-spelled word, I did not suddenly turn into a sock puppet.

There is no attempt to thwart consensus, no destructive editing, no real evidence to suddenly declare me as a sock puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.39.35 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have already identified yourself as a sock of a banned user. [20]. There is an "ever-widening set of charges" because there seems to be an endless number of socks. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you acknowledged in your last post that 69.203.119.66 is the same as 216.57.39.35. [21] ScottyBerg (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from 69.203.119.66: We seem to be involved in "Gotcha." I am fully aware that a post will show your IP address. Since I am not engaging in sock puppetry, I have nothing to hide. I am responding to the basic charge, and trying to avoid confusing it with any additional unrelated issues. There is no sock puppet or account abuse. As you know, an editor can post from wherever they happen to be located. And of course the IP address will always show up, so I do not understand this "Gotcha."

Please note the following statement, as it currently appears in

Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry
:

"Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred."

I fully expect that when you receive a response to the 216.57.39.35 charges, there will be another round of "Gotcha." That is why I feel there is Wiki lawyering here, rather than a focus on the basic, core principle: that there is no sock puppet, account abuse, or evasive attempt. Only a series of good-faith edits with a trail of "Gotcha" sock puppet charges.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.39.35 (talk • contribs)

Its just that there has been abuse at this article previously and contributors have been indefinitely blocked and if those users contribute under a IP addresses they are evading their indefinite editing restriction.
Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
My point is that it is indisputable that these IPs are socks of an indefinitely blocked editor. 216.57.39.35 is 69.203.119.66 and 172.129.26.25. 69.203.119.66 is indef blocked user User:KHamsun, which is indef blocked user User:MBernal615, which is Nelsondenis248. It's all in the diffs. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from 216.57.39.35: I'll try to keep this brief and succinct, but there are several charges which I need to address.

As to being a sockpuppet, there is no account abuse, falsification of consensus, or other sockpuppet behavior. There is no real, direct evidence of this sockpuppet charge.

As to "wholesale reversion," the first reversion was performed by the Administrator named Tony the Marine, and the editor Scotty Berg reverted that. I then affirmed Tony the Marine's reversion, so that other editors could get a chance to view the entire article.

As to "aggressive POV editing, canvassing and personal attacks," these did not occur. Two editors formed a "consensus" over a period of two hours, and one of those editors massively removed an article which had existed for over one year. Over a dozen editors and one Administrator had viewed the article and contributed to it throughout that year. Then in two hours the article was virtually eliminated, including the removal of dozens of in-line references to newspaper articles and NY state government publications. I asked a few of the editors who had contributed to the page, to take a look at it and help with this process.

A sockpuppet would have "invented" editors and fabricated consensus. I did the exact opposite.

As to editing the Nelson Antonio Denis article, I don't feel it is constructive to accuse an editor merely because they edit a particular page, or defend the merits of that page. In the end, that is what this boils down to (despite disclaimers to the contrary).

  • I do not believe this sockpuppet charge should be sustained, based on the real evidence before you.
  • The same holds true for other editors accused above. These "charges" seem more related to a collateral attack on a page, than any good-faith concern about "sock puppets."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.39.35 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want "gotcha," as you put it, stop evading your indefinite block. Your editing behavior is precisely the same as your previous blocked accounts, but what matters is less your behavior than your obvious socking. The fact that you're blatant about it through this kind of goof is evidence of sockpuppetry, not the absence thereof. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no "goof" because, as I said before, I have nothing to hide and am engaging in no evasion. I am (properly and with no evasion) communicating with you in a clear and open manner. I hope that a Patrolling Admin will consider the substance of that entry, and the narrow focus of your response. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but please read the following in
    Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry
    :

"Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.119.66 (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been blocked before and are now editing under IP addresses that is block evasion, if you are connected to these accounts then you are actually blocked user evading that block.
Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, here is some new evidence: When you were editing a talk page of an article on a Denis associate a few months ago, you neglected to log in and edited a comment by User:MBernal615. That demonstrates that you are that indef banned sock. See [22]. Earlier, you started that talk page section without logging in [23], but then you caught your mistake, logged in as MBernal615, and posted using that account. [24] I know, you're brazening this out, but it's getting silly. I agree with you that further argumentation of the kind that you have been engaged in is pointless. Either respond directly to this evidence, without blowing smoke, or hold your peace. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is getting silly, because you are asserting issues that 1) occurred nearly one year ago, 2) involved no disruptive editing, 3) have no bearing on your current issues, and 4) were already adjudicated. Unless you are requesting some sort of endless double jeopardy, with punishments meted out ad infinitum, regardless of who receives those punishments. I suggest we allow the Admins and decision-makers to consider the current issue before them.

I believe that Wikipedia will be a hostile place, if the only editors able to contribute, are the ones that wage endless wars on others. I can only repeat what was said before:

  • I do not believe this sockpuppet charge should be sustained, based on the real evidence before you.
  • The same holds true for other editors accused above. These "charges" seem more related to a collateral attack on a page, than any good-faith concern about "sock puppets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.119.66 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SineBot just suggested that I add the tilde, so I'm adding it now.

69.203.119.66 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that some, by no means not all, of these diffs go back a few months, and indicate things overlooked by the administrators in the earlier sockpuppet investigation. They are relevant now because you've resumed evading the ban using these same IPs and accounts. In addition to evading the block, you're posing as multiple "editors" on this very page. Some of the most important diffs are a day or so old, indicating that your two IPs are the banned sock User:MBernal615. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see, from the IP I am responding from, there is no evasion because I am doing nothing wrong. Admins and others may wish to consider the state in which the editor ScottyBerg left the article in question, before a request was made (by your alleged "sockpuppet") to give it a proper review: [25].
  • A charge of meatpuppetry could easily have been made against ScottyBerg and the other editor involved, but that would not have been constructive.
  • I believe this discussion belongs on a talk page, not an investigation page. Again, I suggest we allow the admins and other decision-makers to consider the issue.

216.57.39.35 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If administrators want to review the editing history of Nelson Antonio Denis, they can review the talk page and the recent edit summaries, where the article's past problems are described in some detail. The article needed to be stubbified to remove puffery and unsubstantiated claims, but is now about the same length as before, having been expanded with stuff that had been omitted when you created and puffed up the article -- such as the names of the candidate who defeated him, which was Adam Clayton Powell IV. As can be seen from the original sockpuppet discussion, you originally were sitebanned for your attacking edits to the Powell article.
If administrators want a sampling of your recent behavior, they can peruse your recent canvassing and personal attacks [26] [27] [28] [29] [30], and your wholesale reversion of the puffery-laden article [31], reinstating unsubstantiated and dubious claims concerning Denis and rampant puffery.
However, since the issue here is that you are a ban-evading sock, and that the evidence of that (correcting posts by the banned sock, etc. etc.) is overwheming I'm not sure how relevant your behavior is. Even if you were a saint, what matters is that the evidence of the ban-evading socking is indisputable and in fact has not been contested by you except to say "I didn't sock." ScottyBerg (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your evidence is far from overwhelming, and behavior is relevant. So is the condition in which you (Scotty Berg) left an article: [32] until your alleged "sockpuppet" asked for a review. Your repeated charges of "canvassing, personal attacks and wholesale reversion" have already been addressed above.
  • Your determination to have the last word in this discussion, and to keep repeating the same charges, will only prolong this page and inconvenience the Admins and other people who will be forced to read it. Again, I suggest we allow them to consider the facts presented above.

69.203.119.66 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When this IP was blocked in March for six months, you said [33] "Our IP address was temporarily blocked due to a user named MBernal615. I am not MBernal615, I am KHamsun" However, User:KHamsun was blocked as a sock of MBernal615/Nelsondenis248.[34][35] I think perhaps that you don't understand that you can't edit Wikipedia if you have been blocked by simply going to a computer and not logging on. The same computer is now obviously used by the same person for the purpose of evading the block on MBernal615/KHamsun/Nelsondenis248. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - So the IP accounts and the taft accounts are socks of indefinately blocked sock master
    Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Basically, its all a single person that has actually been indefinably blocked. We can't say it was months ago and leave an account open as he has been repeatedly socking. Is there any value if he comes clean and agrees to edit on a single account?
Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No. This is a friggin sock farm he's running. Besides, he was blocked for reasons in addition to abusing multiple accounts, for BLP violations as well as for socking. They haven't completed the investigation, as far as I can tell. What was just posted was simply a CU finding. However, the proof of socking is really in the contribs as much as the CU. Speaking of which, the user pages of SRabassa and Caguas28 were created by Taft, which is evidence of socking and not, I trust, a random act of kindness. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response from 69.203.119.66: There is no "sock farm" and there is no improper editing. The Admins and others will review the facts above, and make their decision.

69.203.119.66 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Let's confirm these other user logged in userpage requests and see if we get other floaters. No comment on my part about the IPs as tldr (I don't have time right now). --
    (t) (e) 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Nope, there are non-stale accounts in there.

Anyways, C.P.Taft (talk · contribs), H.D.Taft (talk · contribs), and the above-reported IPs are  Confirmed to be the same person.

As mentioned by DeltaQuad, SRabassa and Caguas28 are  Stale. –MuZemike 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Following Muzemike's findings, I've blocked H.D.Taft. I'm going to leave the IPs alone as they haven't edited in awhile, though I admit that's because this case went untouched for some time. If/when they do start up again, feel free to relist and we'll have another look at it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

A

duck if ever there was one. Some obsession with Nelson Antonio Denis as Nelsondenis248 and MBernal615, same use of boldface and writing style as previous socks, especially MBernal615.(See archive) This time he's using a New York Public Library computer or hotspot, while he edit wars to reinstate photos to the Denis article and to defend the copyright status of photos he improperly uploaded and added to the article. This IP address has a long history of abuse unrelated to its current use by this sock, so a long block would do no harm. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
28 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Sock admits to being indefinitely blocked sockmaster

WP:DUCK test in spades. What makes this admission irksome is that this IP had denied being a sock in previous sock investigation[38]
.

This sock farm has been persistent and disruptive (see three previous sock investigations, last one 13 June) and is promising further disruption and socking (see vague threat of being "forced to continue asserting this issue" here). This is a static IP, so a long-term block would not be harmful. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC) ScottyBerg (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

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

What is the crime here?

One editor is communicating with another, to try to resolve an issue. That is how questions/issues get resolved - by communicating.

The greater crime would be to prohibit, or even sabotage this process of communication. That is what this "sockpuppet" charge appears to be. There is no disruptive behavior here, no vandalism, but rather the exact opposite - a respectful and courteous attempt to resolve an issue.

An issue cannot be resolved on its merits, if you prohibit the process which might resolve it. The process which NelsonDenis248 initiated - to respectfully and courteously contact a blocking Administrator, is precisely the manner in which issues are supposed to be resolved.

The record here shows that NelsonDenis248 is respectfully trying to resolve this "sockpuppet" question, by courteously reaching out to the blocking Administrator. That is the established and recommended process.

If we prohibit even the mere communication from one editor to another, then this process becomes a sham, issues do not get resolved, and Wikipedia loses editors, civility and a credible structure of rules.

The NelsonDenis248 issue should be resolved - on its merits - rather than by closing off all reasonable avenues of communication.

Ask yourself this: how can one editor communicate with another, and resolve any issues, if they are hounded and prohibited from communicating?

68.174.70.117 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nelsondenis248/Archive&oldid=1091460297"