- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Rogersleigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Granville1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JohnRobertsly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gibsonism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Xiahou 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User HaveyCarter and JohnRobertsly already confirmed sockpuppets Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/HarveyCarter could not reopen HarveyCarter case. 3 new usernames have made similar and exact edits like JohnRobertsly -
[38] -vs- Granville1 edit [39]
articles edited by Rogersleigh [40] almost identical to ones by Granville1 [41]
which both link back to JohnRobertsly's [42]
Also all 4 accounts have had the habit of not signing their posts on a regular basis. (the newest one does, thoug by now has to have read this and sees that fact) The first 4 accounts have gotten in trouble for posting quite inflaming things about both living and dead celebrities. By thier contributions almost all the same group.
[43] edits in the Sean Connery retirement section then [44] Granville1 says this in a related article
All 5 accounts have made VERY similar edits and comments in the John Wayne article and especially its talk page.
Here the known sockpuppet acct JohnRobertsly makes a comment in the talk page of Jimmy Stewart [45] and later Granville1 makes the same comment [46]
here JohnRobertsly says on the Steve McQueen talk page [47] here Rogersleigh tries to put in almost the exact same statment days later in the article itself [48] then Granville1 tries to put the EXACT same statement in [49]
Another linking of the original sockpuppet account HarveyCarter with the newer names [50]
HarveyCarter kept trying to put this in over and over when discussion page said it was very pov and recently [51] Rogersleigh put the same thing in after a long absence.
More unsigned comments (habit of all 4 accounts) saying practically the same things [52] by Granville1 and by Rogersleigh [53]
a couple accounts share an apparent hate of Mel Gibson so far as to say the same thing about him in different places on the Talk:We Were Soldiers Granville1 makes the comments [54] then recently on the Talk:Mel Gibson page [55] the newest account Gibsonism makes strikingly similar wishes dealing with cancer. (also violation of WP:BLP). In fact Gibsonism's next edit is almost word for word like the Granville1 we were soldiers edit [56] (it to a violation of WP:BLP)
Gibsonism makes this edit [57] just like JohnRobertsly a few days ago [58]
Plenty more just click all 5 accounts contributions
[59] edit of Granville1 vs [60]
- Comments
Looks like originally HarveyCarter had an account - got blocked for malicious text against celebrities both past and present. Then made an account of JohnRobertsly was shown in [61] to be the same account due to articles edited, not signing, very similar and identical edits. Now a few days later Rogersleigh starts an account using a similar type username then the edits come out some as seen above the almost the same as the previous proved sock puppets. Then they stop, then Granville1 starts they edit the same pages and as shown above make almost identical posts on talk pages of the same articles as the other 3 accounts. Even using the same terms. All 4 accounts are of the same blocked original user HarveyCarter. I had to open another case using the one of the new names due to the fact I can't reopen the HarveyCarter one. Added 4/24 Granville1 was blocked and immediately after Gibsonism was created and is making the exact same edits to the same articles now. Making the same statements slightly changed, one can take that pattern as he has seen what has gotten the previous accounts in trouble. [62] Their newest account.
- Conclusions
All probable socks, all blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Weggie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.12.249.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Damac 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
It is my suspicion that
Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007
.
For many months now,
Talk:Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007#RSF
) Weggie is alone in this view, and has not received any support from any other editor.
On 24 March, seasoned editor User:Sam Blacketer made the bold move and included RSF in the results table[64], and announced this on the page's talk page. At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration. Instead, I believe he made anonymous edits as User:86.12.249.63, even exceeding the 3RR rule.[65] Today, I believe he has established a new account, User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 to pursue his POV.
Recently, on 11 April 2007, Weggie announced he was taking a break from Wikipedia.[66] This was then followed by increased activity by User:86.12.249.63 on pages that Weggie had once engaged in, including Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007. After I and others requested this anonymous user to sign up to Wikipedia,[67], a new account User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 appears on the scene.
- Comments
- User:86.12.249.63/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007
- "For many months now, User:Weggie has persistently prevented any attempts to include the micro political party Republican Sinn Féin in the results of the Northern Ireland Assembly election."
- This statement is untrue the results/candidates table only came into existance on the 14th of February [68], having existed for less than 2 months it is unlikely that this bahaviour has persisted for "many month"
- "He basis his actions on the argument that as RSF is not registered with the UK Electoral Commission, the party does not exist and can therefore not be included in election results on Wikipedia.[1]( See Talk:Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007#RSF) Weggie is alone in this view, and has not received any support from any other editor."
- This article has existed for some time with the position that the legal accepted results should be used, unfortunately as a past election, interest has gradually fallen off, and only a small sectarian rump of editors remain, the position to use the legal definition of a political party was supported in the past by at least:
- In addition to myself and (apparently) user Weggie
- "On 24 March, seasoned editor User:Sam Blacketer made the bold move and included RSF in the results table[2], and announced this on the page's talk page."
- User:Sam Blacketer [71] has only been active on wikipedia, for four months, and while he does make a good contributions, I would not yet call him seasoned!
- "At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration."
- no comment
- "Instead, I believe he made anonymous edits as User:86.12.249.63, even exceeding the 3RR rule.[3] Today, I believe he has established a new account, User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 to pursue his POV."
- The 3RR was accidently broken, and within 1 minute of breaking it, I undid my last edit [72], and refrained from editing WP for 24 hours (23 being honest). If you have an issue with this, there are proper forums upon which to raise it.
- "Recently, on 11 April 2007, Weggie announced he was taking a break from Wikipedia.[4] This was then followed by increased activity by User:86.12.249.63 on pages that Weggie had once engaged in, including Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007."
- The increase in activity of User:86.12.249.63 also happpened to coincide with the end of lent, a christian period of
Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007
would have similar interests in common.
- "After I and others requested this anonymous user to sign up to Wikipedia,[5], a new account User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 appears on the scene."
- There is little reason for me to have an account, and being given a rather rude reception by
amongst others editors Damac [73] [74] [75] for not usinng a registered account, I chose a ridiculous name "User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007" and doing so to edit the article Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007
it was meant to be obvious that they were the same account. This account was being used entirely consistantly with the WP policy on sockpuppets.
- I would hope when this is resolved that users user:Galloglass [76] and user:Damac [77] both retract their unfounded allegations and apologise to both myself and User:Weggie
- In addition to the two user talk pages, additional locations of retractions should be placed at [78], [79], [80], [81] & [82]
- Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 09:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Damac's response to alleged sockpuppet's comments
- (I originally inserted most of these comments into the text above.[83])
- This is mid-April. In early February you were complaining about this.[84]. That constitutes a couple of months.
WP:NPA
! I resent you including me among a group of "sectarian rump of editors" and demand that you withdraw it. Weggie has used this label in the past in an attempt to intimidate legitimate editors from raising legitimate concerns.- Compared to you, User:Sam Blacketer is a seasoned editor. You registered on April 16. But then again, are you Weggie?
- Why do you refuse to comment on my remark regarding "At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration" if the whole affair has nothing to do with you?
- I note with interest that while you admit that User:86.12.249.63/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 are one and the same, you make no statement, positive or negative, regarding your relationship with Weggie. The silence is deafening.--Damac 08:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments by Damac
- Please note that after User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 challenged me to make a formal complaint about my suspicicion of sockpuppetry,[85] he now deems this whole proceedure as trolling,[86] and vandalism.[87] Furthermore, he now accuses me of being "politically motivated", using "bully boy tactics", and being a "dishonest troll" and engaging in "vile activities".[88]--Damac 05:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Damac's response to alleged sockpuppet's comments
- "This is mid-April. In early February you were complaining about this.[22]. That constitutes a couple of months."
- This edit by weggie seems quite random and doesn't relate directly to the article content. The claim that this behaviour has lasted "many months" given in the evidence is dishonest
- "WP:AGF and WP:NPA! I resent you including me among a group of "sectarian rump of editors" and demand that you withdraw it. Weggie has used this label in the past in an attempt to intimidate legitimate editors from raising legitimate concerns."
- This is outside the scope of the sockpuppetry discussion
- "Compared to you, User:Sam Blacketer is a seasoned editor. You registered on April 16. But then again, are you Weggie?"
- Stating seasoned editor out of context, most users would consider this compared to a typical wikipedian. This point was made to demonstrate the dishonest nature of the language used in your evidence, (My comment is not a comment on this users abilities).
- "Why do you refuse to comment on my remark regarding "At no state did Weggie attempt to challenge this alteration" if the whole affair has nothing to do with you? "
- The very reason I do not comment on this is it has nothing to do with me
- "I note with interest that while you admit that User:86.12.249.63/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 are one and the same, you make no statement, positive or negative, regarding your relationship with Weggie. The silence is deafening."
- I do not believe you are that nieve to believe your own propoganda, however for the record I am not user Weggie
- "Please note that after User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 challenged me to make a formal complaint about my suspicicion of sockpuppetry,[23]
- I requested that if your were going to label me a sockpuppet that you follow procedure, I look forward to that label being removed
- "he now deems this whole proceedure as trolling"
WP:TROLL
refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors. This process is a waste of my, yours and the arbators time, your evidence is weak at best, and you haven't even attempted to claim a policy violation.
- "and vandalism.[25] "
- The vandalism comment was about user Damac making unconstructive edits to my userpage, and for you to attempt to dress it up differently is dishonest!
-
- Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 15:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response From Weggie
CHECK USER NOW OR WITHDRAW THIS. I have Zero sockpuppets. Yet more harrasment from Damac. The claim that because I once contributed to a debate on a topic is no evidence of anything and given my clarification of the legal status on the RSF article (information which is still in there) and also my contribution to adding the RSF results at election time to the RSF article entirely illogical. I would say Damac is both trying to intimidate the user above and to try diminish my ability to edit. I have NEVER had a allegation like this before - whilst I have had instances of harassment from Damac, including general complaints on project pages which were ignored by other users Weggie 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved from User talk:Damac
Please use check user ASAP for your claims that I have used a sock puppet. I have NOT ever, nor have been accused of this before or been banned for any activity. I was taking a break for a holiday and now I find yet more of your aggression towards me. Please check user or remove your claims. Weggie 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have submitted a checkuser, as you requested.
- I was concerned about the edits on
Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007
, checked on and followed Wikipedia proceedure for dealing with allegations of sockpuppetry.
- I'm sorry that you see this as "more ... aggression" towards you (can you please tell me when I was "aggressive" towards you in the past?), but I would ask that you allow Wikipedia proceedures to run their course. If an editor has a legitimate concern that something is up, s/he has the right to follow proceedure. You may encounter sockpuppets in the future and may very well have to do the same.
- While I can understand that the whole proceedure is unpleasant, I was acting on legitimate concerns. As always, please try and remain civil (]
- Sorry Damac but can you complete the request with the violations you are concerned about from the other user as you have not provided a clear rationale for the check user case Weggie 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you move this discussion concerning "check user" to the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Weggie talk page, as it concerns a wider issue, and other users, Thankyou Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a point of information ]
- I was unaware of the exact proceedure, but followed it when it was pointed out. As regards the
WP:SOCK
proceedure, I'm on a learning curve. I don't particularly enjoy dealing with alleged sockpuppets, but feel that it is important to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.
- This is nothing personal, for I have dealt with other alleged sockpuppets in a similar manner. For instance, discounting your claim that I form part of a "sectarian rump of editors", I've challanged ). As you would claim, I was using "bully boy" tactics in doing so, yet I feel that by preventing article being vandalised and abused, the integrity of Wikipedia was upheld in the long run.
- I've also had to deal with Greek sockpuppets, as in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mitsos.
- Although this might not come as a consolation to you (sing/plural), there is nothing personal or political in all this. I dispise RSF more than I do sockpuppets.--Damac 07:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a further point of information, "sectarian rump" was intended to reflect a small group or sect of people all dogmatically of one opinion, (ie regarding the format of the results table), it was not meant in the colloquial, Northern Ireland sence of the word. 86.12.249.63 09:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check User
- Conclusions
Checkuser finds no connection, and I don't either. Interests are similar, but other normal indications of puppetry aren't there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
) in sig
- Possibly also a.k.a.
Initial suspect was Jeff Defender, but evidence has shifted the suspicion toward Uninsured Driver, which may itself be a sockpuppet; the puppeteer may well be as-yet unidentified; checkuser might be needed to resolve the matter.
- Suspected sockpuppets
Jeff Defender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (possible puppeteer)
Honda Pilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (goes by HP in link-free sig intended to prevent talk page feedback) — confirmed as a Jeff Defender sockpuppet via checkuser
Jbl1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (possible puppeteer)
68.237.229.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
)
- Report submission by
]
SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This is a procedural report, due to concerns raised in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dgies by User:SMcCandlish. --Wooyi
I've made it quite a bit more than procedural. :-) --SMcCandlish
Evidence from SMcCandlish:
I first encountered this clade of socks when
Next, the Uninsured Driver puppet attacked my RfA (successfully sabotaging it in fact) with an alarmist report that I was savaging some poor newbie, and then went and gloated about how my outing of the Jeff Defender puppet would harm my RfA, here (as shown below, this is the 2nd not 1st time that U.D. has popped up out of Neverland to defend J.D. from sockpuppet allegations). The Uninsured Driver puppet has done virtually nothing at all on WP other than try to defend Golden-Road.net, oppose username-related policy tightening at RFC, and upset the RfA of the "outer" of the Jeff Defender puppet, and create a NoInsurance (talk · contribs) doppelganger. Turned into a sleeper on Feb. 20. Contribs, for examination.
Didn't see much going on with these "users" until today, when Jeff Defender reactivated and opposed someone's RfA on grounds that can only be described as retaliatory for promising to firmly deal with vandals and spammers. This actually followed similar far-too-WP-wise commentary by "new" user Honda Pilot, and looks (until one digs deeper) like spontaneous support for a concern being raised about a potential admin.
Honda Pilot, an account which as existed for less than one day, and who like the rest of them, knows way too much about WP policy and procedures to possibly be an actual new user, is blatantly obviously the same person as Uninsured Driver. I can demonstrate this pretty easily, but do not wish to do so here without further consideration, as simply stating how I know this will reveal the puppeteer's "tell", whereas having him uncertain how he is giving himself away may be valuable in detecting more of his puppets. If I must give that evidence here, I will, but would rather be contacted in e-mail about it, by actual admins active in WP:SSP (i.e., I won't respond to random users' queries about it, since I can't be sure they aren't the puppemaster himself). Actually, anyone paying really close attention to the evidence posted above and below will probably notice the highly unusual quirk/pattern.
The other users mentioned will have to be investigated further by an admin, as this will require examination of talk and history pages which have been deleted. There are probably many others; these are just the ones I've personally enountered.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 06:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New evidence:
From Dgies RFA: "He's willing to have a zero-tolerance attitude. Is he here to block wayward newbies or will he AGF and indefblock only as a last resort? Jeff Defender 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)" diff
From Dgies RFA: "...Checking AIV, it's where you report bad users. do you make sure its the final warning and if it is do you indefblock or give a 24 hour block. I am judging based on his tolerance. HP 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)" diff
From AN/I: "don't condone initial indefblocks" (edit summary), "This is why I [93] Dgies (talk · contribs) RFA. The blocks shouldve been for just 1 day. You couldve avoinded these arguements. HP 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)" diff; and "...one last chance in leau of indefblock. Honda Pilot 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)" diff
- Please note that Jeff Defender wasn't (as such!) part of the AN/I debate, and Honda Pilot never mentioned AN/I diff1 diff2 diff3 and the issue did not arise at AIV, which Honda Pilot did mention. Ergo, Jeff Defender has no basis on which to even know what Honda Pilot is talking about with regard to Dgies, yet seems to know all about it and have a strong opinion. This is the puppetmaster forgetting which puppet is which and said what to whom, where!
- Note that Jeff Defender appears out of nowhere after a long period of WP inactivity to support brand-new, preternaturally WP-knowlegeable Honda Pilot on this indefblock issue only minutes after Honda Pilot rants about it; then only minutes after Jeff Defender does so, Honda Pilot is back adding more diff that echoes the "trust" issue expressed by Jeff Defender diff, which in turn basically reiterated Honda Pilot's own "trigger-happy" trust issue diff. It's a sockpuppet circle jerk.
- Compare:
- "I am judging based on his tolerance" --Honda Pilot
- "a zero-tolerance attitude" --Jeff Defender.
- Note also the rather arch rhetorical question format that "both" users seem to habitually employ; for example Uninsured Driver does it again here and a trawl through the edit histories of these so-called users reveals plenty more instances.
From AN/I: "This is why I [94] Dgies (talk · contribs) RFA. The blocks shouldve been for just 1 day. You couldve avoinded these arguements. HP 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) diff (Note: the passage is intended to read "This is why I opposed Dgies RFA", but the link code is wrong.)
From AFD: "Still, it may cost you support in your RFA. You accused him of disruptive editing, but... NoInsurance (chat?) 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)" diff
- Clear pattern of voting against an RfA as vengeance for the candidate's anti-spam/anti-vandal/anti-puppetry policy position, followed by gloating about the Oppose vote in the public forum in which the dispute arose. This childish antic is too "signature" to be a coincidence.
- As mentioned before I can identify another, far more "signature" action by two of these puppets, but I'm not sure I want to spill that here, as the pupetteer might stop doing it and make it harder to track his puppetry.
Please note also that this is not the first time that Uninsured Driver has inexplicably sought out and found places to defend Jeff Defender from accusations of sockpuppetry, for example here. Notice also at that link how much Uninsured Driver knows about the purpose and even web traffic at the http://www.golden-road.net website (an admin can confirm by looking at the deleted talk page of
WP:SALTed
.)
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 06:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence:
Compare the well-hidden
disruptive editing
. NB: It is no suprise that the puppetmaster is attempting to change indefblock procedure - it would make disruptive behavior like this by all of this person's puppets easier to get away with, at the cost of only temporary blocks. It takes time to build up a sockpuppet and make it look like a real user, so indefblocks (the
chief concern of both Honda Pilot and Jeff Defender, remember) are very painful for sockpuppeteers.
Note also that User talk:Jeff Defender has never once been responded to by Jeff Defender. The account is clearly on auto-pilot with no regard for resolving issues raised, but simply activated by the puppetmaster to go add a !vote here and there when he wants to stack a vote.
Further note that Honda Pilot very unconvincingly fakes innocence and ignorance diff, but note that is is H.P.'s comments inside a refactoring note by an admin, e.g. of
WP:V requirements that sources be cited, or of what might constitute blocking offenses, but meanwhile is a strong arguer with regard to blocking policy at AN/I and RFA, and even recommends specific block times for offenses!
diff1 diff2. Compare this ridiculous "huh? But I'm new here!" act with the comments Jeff Defender has left on people's talk pages, and smiliar implausible noob-acting by more of these "users".
Similarly, Uninsured Driver went immediately to RFA upon being created. Then went dormant for over 8 months, only to reactivate and go straight to RFA again. Regardless who it is a puppet of, it is a blatant puppet. As noted elsewhere, these socks have an obsession with indefinite block policy. Uninsured Driver created the page
User:Willy on Wheels
is behind all of this.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 06:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence with regard to the other usernames:
- Special:Contributions/68.237.229.68 Note the overlap with Jeff Defender and Karim Prince on game show articles and the Golden-Road.net AFD/DRV; admittedly, it could be a meatpuppet. Note however the similarity of the article-space editing pattern: Pushing of unsourced and/or POV nonsense edits, and mysterious, unexplained minor deletions seemingly intended to annoy or confound, interspersed with a few effortless little legit edits, so as to give an "I'm acting in good faith, I'm just goofy" air to the overall pattern.
- Special:Contributions/Jbl1975 Note the non-standard No Delete !votes of both 68.237.229.68 and Jbl1975 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden-Road.net; admittedly, it could be a meatpuppet. But I believe this user was the author of or otherwise heavily involved in Golden-Road.net; as this has been deleted, an admin will be required for further investigation.
- Special:Contributions/Karim Prince More gameshow article tagteaming. Possible meat- but probable sockpuppet participated out of nowhere in joining Jeff Defender in seeking Golden-Road.net's reinstatement at DRV [95]. This user was the recreator of the Golden-Road.net article, and/or involved in that recreation diff discussion why he did it. Like so many of these "users", this one went dormant immediately after the failure of the DRV on that article, only to reactivate at the beginning of this month and head directly for RFA diff. And note the similar username juggling that is going on with this user and with Uninsured Driver (and U.D. seems inordinately concerned even for a non-newbie about tightening of username change policy.[96]) As with Honda Pilot, went straight into RFA and other deeply wikigeeky process the day the account was created.
Non-socks: The very last post at
WP:POINT
, demonstrating prior knowledge of the AFD and WP in general, not just the DRV that was canvassed).
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quotes from the RFA (the suspicions that led to Wooyi's filing; evidentiary quotes and diffs are above)
- Honda Pilot (talk · contribs) ("HP" above) is almost certainly a sockpuppet. The account has existed for less than one day, yet headed straight for: a) RfA, b) AN/I (with edit summaries like 'don't condone initial indefblocks' - this is no newbie!), and c) various articles in which he/she has caused trouble (see the blowback on his talk page, cited just above). I believe this user to be a sockpuppet of Uninsured Driver (talk · contribs) (or rather, that both are socks controlled by the same party; see more information below about Jeff Defender being another related puppet)... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is strong evidence that ]
- ..."harassment" doesn't apply to sockpuppets anyway. If anything it is Dgies who is being harassed. (Cf. my own RfA for User:Uninsured Driver - same person as User:Honda Pilot - actually successfully sabotaging my RfA because I outed his other User:Jeff Defender sockpuppet. Don't let that happen to Dgies.) If someone adds another ranty oppose vote here (or in any RfA for that matter) actually investigate to see if the allegations are valid and the user (like Xiner) is a real one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also myself (Wooyi) find this that indicates the Uninsured Driver started editing RFA shortly after the account creation, which indicates he might be a sockpuppet.
- Comments
Procedural report, I am neutral but leans to believe they are sockpuppets.
]
I have a strong opinion that these are all socks, and of the same person, or vaguely possibly one or another may be a meatpuppet called up to defend the GoldenRoad.net spam article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see how the cards fall. Less active guys can be "socked" Jeff Defender 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge you to mount more of a defense than that. If you're not a sockpuppet or an intermediary account that the ultimate puppeteer uses for sockpuppetry (i.e., a "metapuppet"), then I genuinely look forward to apologizing to you. I think there's a lot of ground to cover before we get to that point. Judging from your sparse activities to date, you are utterly clearly not a newbie but masquerading as one, and are a prime candidate for a {{uw-longterm}} tag. Lying dormant for a while doesn't make month-old but systematically problematic behavior vanish from anyone's notice. If you mean to imply by "less active guys can be 'socked'" that anything I've said or relied upon in any way indicates that your account has been usurped by a hacker, or that "bad stuff" has gone on in your absence, that is emphatically not the case. It is because your account became active again, out of the blue, and zoomed straight for RfA to support the starkly blatant sockpuppetry of Honda Pilot, in freakily specific terms ("tolerance attitude", "indefblock", etc.); meanwhile Uninsured Driver (who is certainly the same personage as Honda Pilot, without any doubt whatsoever), leapt to User:Jeff Defender's defense (no pun intended), in very Wikieducated terms, in widely disparate parts of WP, all while pretending to be a newbie, back when you were first accused of being a sockpuppet. Care to comment? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment
- User:HondaPilot !voted "oppose" on my RfA ([97]) so I shouldn't take any admin actions on this case. There's definitely some sockpuppetry going on here, but you might want to send this to Checkuser to sort this out. If any of these accounts have affected an AfD or RfA that's code "D". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've filed a checkuser on ]
- It may ultimately be more effective to do this with User:Uninsured Driver (and aliases) and User:Honda Pilot which are coming out as the more problematic pseudousers. I added U.D. to the checkuser mentioned above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Honda Pilot was confirmed as a sock by Checkuser and has accordingly been blocked indefinitely. Other suspected puppets to be investigated normally. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note): NoInsurance is a legitimately-marked doppelganger and has never edited. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right; it's just the nym that User:Uninsured Driver uses when posting. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest may be meat or sockpuppets, but I just can't find any type of smoking gun to indicate that they are for sure, and Checkuser turned up nothing on any but JD/Honda Pilot, so closing on up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bear and Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yossiea (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Bear and Dragon is editting the same pages as user Daniel575. In addition, both live in Jerusalem, both are orginally from Zutphen in the Netherlands and both speak the same languages. Furthermore, both use the same style in editting and getting their point across. Here is the link the Daniel575's userpage with the relevant information: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel575&direction=next&oldid=64251914 In addition, on B&D's userpage he states "I have previously edited on Wikipedia" that is an open admission of violating one-username policy.
- Comments
Daniel575 has been banned several times already, this is the 5th case submitted. Yossiea (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not made a single edit anywhere which was in any way disruptive to Wikipedia. I have done an awful lot of work (just check what I did yesterday on
List of hospitals in Netherlands
, for example), reverted vandalism, participated in some useful discussions, and have only had a positive role on Wikipedia. A careful look at my contributions will show this. I also refer to my user page. I am here to have a positive role on Wikipedia. I do not care about 'blocks'. I will remain on Wikipedia, not to disturb it but to improve it. And nobody will prevent me from removing incorrect information from Wikipedia.
- I wish that other users, such as Yossiea, would also focus on improving Wikipedia rather than launching witch-hunts against other users. Even other editors have used the term 'witch-hunt' to refer to Yossiea's behavior against me.
- None of my edits under this name, nor under my previous username, nor under the username before that and nor under the username before that, warranted even a warning, let alone a block. It is merely Yossiea's witch-hunt which keeps me from getting blocked. I am currently - again - on Wikipedia with the silent approval of multiple unnamed administrators, who are aware of who I am, aware of the fact that my main username -Daniel575- has been blocked in the past. I intend to use this account to show that I am in no way disruptive to Wikipedia and merely wish to have a positive influence here, making useful contributions. I maintain all guidelines of
WP:ATT, have not ever disturbed another user, and am monitoring several frequently vandalized pages to revert vandalism and maintain NPOV there (mainly
Israel
- Yossiea's reason for hating me and launching continuous witch-hunts against me is my involvement with fiercely anti-Zionist
Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish groups such as
Dushinsky and
Satmar. Yossiea himself identifies with
Kach, a fanatical Zionist group. He intends to punish me for not being Zionist. Regarding this, I must mention that despite the fact that I myself am anti-Zionist, I
do maintain NPOV and continuously defend the
Israel article from anti-Israel bias, as other users involved with that page - mainly
User:Amoruso and
User:Okedem
- Since there is no place where I can complain (after all, I cannot even contact the ArbCom), I will probably end up getting banned into eternity. However, this does not bother me in any way. I am not looking for fame, just for ways to improve Wikipedia. After writing the largest part of the above, I edited the
Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)
article to remove tens of typos and small mistakes there.
- Next, I would like to refer to some highly insulting comments Yossiea made about me before my main account was blocked. See [129] where he accuses me of 'Jerusalem syndrome'. Basically he is calling me a psycho, there.
- I refer also to this: [130],
- When I previously complained about this (at a point where, due to Yossiea, I was intending to forever abandon Wikipedia since I got sick of his stalking me): [131].
- In this case, Yossiea intentionally inserted plainly incorrect information (which constitutes vandalism) merely because *I* had correct the previously incorrect verson: [132] (moreover, Hasidim are *by definition* Haredim, since Hasidism is a subgroup of Haredim, just like Georgians are a subgroup of Americans and just like Parisians are a subgroup of the French).
- I request that this case be transferred to the ArbCom before I get blocked again. The reason why I got blocked had nothing to do with the fight between me and Yossiea. I was blocked because I had written a very untactical and impolite comment - and had written and confirmed it multiple times - about Messianic 'Jews' being subject to the death penalty. (Even though this is a merely theoretical thing, since the Jewish death penalty has not existed for about 2000 years, people mistook me for calling for actual violence against them here.) I regret that comment and the entire situation and would not repeat that mistake. My comment was not intended to incite to violence and I regret the fact that it caused such a severe misunderstanding. I apologize for that, and point to the fact that with all of my subsequent accounts - 5 by now - I have only made normal, regular, positive contributions to Wikipedia - and I also refer to the fact that each time, it was Yossiea who 'found' me and came pressing for me to be blocked again.
- That is all I have to say. --Bear and Dragon 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, he admits that he is the same user, and that he obviously doesn't care about Wikipedia policies. What is also disturbing is that he has confirmed that there are some administrators that also don't care about policies. I haven't read the rest of his manifesto because I see no reason to. He is a sockpuppet, he admitted as such and anything short of banning him will just show that his bullying tactics is a way to get around Wiki policies. In addition, the person who called this a witch hunt is a rogue administrator, secondly, I don't identify myself with Kach. Thirdly, over the past couple of weeks I have made over a hundred edits reverting vandalism, so his claim that all I'm here for is to witch-hunt him is laughable, but again, regardless of claims or defenses, he admitted to being a banned user. That is against the rules. Yossiea (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yossiea, both you and Meshulam attacked me and Daniel for not being zionists, (see ]
- Where did I attack anyone for not being a Zionist? Secondly, I don't need to Assume Good Faith with a sockpuppet account. Yossiea (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have anything to do with this conversation, and yet I've been dragged in by some editor with a taste for POV, and a bone to pick. I'm only responding because I have been attacked.
- With respect to the sock-puppet claim, Daniel575 has admitted what anyone who was paying attention could have figured out: that he and "Bear_and_Dragon" ("Bear") are one and the same. That's a violation of Wikipedia policy that immediately results in a permanant ban. Nothing else needs to be said regarding that issue. Daniel has made what he imagines is a good case for reinstatement. Of course, he should know that he can be reinstated after a year of his original ban if the admins deem it appropriate. He also should know that the fact that he has now made four or five sockpuppets demonstrates that he has no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, though he does seem intent on "improving" Wikipedia according to his definition of the word. This lack of regard for policy should be taken into consideration when the time comes. That time is not now. He is still within the year, and should be banned in accordance Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, why have rules?
- The main reason why I'm responding here is because "Shuli" has attacked me. I mention Daniel only because he is the subject of this page. I looked at the page that Shuli pointed to (Haredim and Zionism). There is nothing there that I wrote that could even remotely qualify as an attack. In fact, on several instances, I was the sole defender, or one of very few defenders, of the Satmar position, and the Neturei Karta position. My qualms with Daniel and with Shaul Avrom (Shuli) were with their pushing of a narrow POV, to the exclusion of everything else. In numerous places throughout the talk-page in question, I stated emphatically that my opinion (and theirs) was irrelevant, and that only verifiability and NPOV was relevant. They responded by asserting that (despite the lack of evidence) their position was True (with Big-T). I took exception with that position because it is against Wikipedia's policy. I ask Shuli to point out a single instance where I attacked him. I assure the one or two people reading this fun little page that he will not be able to do so. I'll further comment that I have shown what I believe to be incredible restraint given that Daniel575 on a few occasions said I should perish for me deeds and that I'm "worse than [basically every bad thing in Daniel's world]." Rather than attack me without cause, perhaps Shuli should give credit where it is due.
- If it helps, I think Daniel was pretty corrosive to Wikipedia's atmosphere. And I frankly believe that it is beyond his ability to change that fact, even if he wanted to (which he clearly doesn't). I hope that Admins terminate this new incarnation quickly.--Meshulam 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is nothing being done about this? If you check out his userpage, he is openly mocking Wikipedia policies. This CANNOT continue. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a bully pulpit. His defenses are irrelevant, he is a sockpuppet, he admits to such and he needs to be banned. He will never learn his lesson. There is a reason why we're up to report #5. According to WikiPolicy: "The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended." Yossiea (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Report submission by
Historian2 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
It is obvious that Bear and Dragon is the same as Daniel575. He claims as much and is proud of it. The worse part is that he is continuing in his previous editing practices: He does not seem concerned with improving the quality of the page, but rather that through brute force editing to force his particular agenda is the pages.
- Another example is insisting that in introducing his own
- Additional comments
Regarding the original report, there is no such thing as a "one username policy". Individuals are allowed to have multiple accounts as long as they are not using them abusively. I'd say that per Bear and Dragon's own statements here, it is fairly obvious this is the same individual who previously edited as Daniel575, which would make this account an sockpuppet evading an indefinite block. Because of this I've blocked [[User:Bear and Dragon for the time being. What is less clear is if this individual is actually banned. There is a ban template on Daniel575's userpage, but I can't find evidence of a ban discussion. I'm following up on this because if the individual is indef blocked, I am open to hearing from the individual to determine what should be done next. If banned, this situation is resolved with the indef block.--Isotope23 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that would be on Daniel's deleted talk page. He most certainly was banned, IIRC, he was threatening other users, and ElC put the indef block on him.Yossiea (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was Daniel banned originally? looking at the last argument he was getting into, he didn't seem so irrational... --Yodamace1 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He expressed an unpopular religious position that involved the death penalty. This case does not belong at RFCU. There's nothing to check. He's being open and obvious. -- Y not? 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where can I find the records of conversations relating to his ban records and, if need be, dispute the ban? --Yodamace1 07:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive151#Daniel575_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 -- Y not? 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Bear and Dragon has already been blocked for block evasion. In the future, if another SSP report is filed, please keep the report short. There is no need to get involved in long discussions with a sockpuppet. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Inetpup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppet
WikiFlyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
dcandeto 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There has been a discussion at WikiProject Airports about whether to remove former destination cities from the various articles on airports (and also about a month ago). The consensus there appears to me to be to omit them, due to the fact that they are unencyclopedic and difficult to verify without original research, and that given the age of some airports, the lists could grow to be quite large. Inetpup was the lone dissenter.
Despite this, Inetpup began reverting edits of anyone who removed the section on former routes, even when the relevant discussion was put in the edit summary. [167] [168] After Inetpup's second revert, and right at the end of a spate of edits by Inetpup,
the account WikiFlyer was created.
Tonight, Inetpup reverted the removal of that section three times (here, here, and here), at which point I placed a 3RR warning on Inetpup's talk page. Soon thereafter, WikiFlyer made two edits to that page here and here; these two edits are currently the only two edits that WikiFlyer has made. (I believe that WikiFlyer did not realize that someone had already reverted to Inetpup's version, and thus accidentally reverted it to my version before reverting it back to Inetpup's.)
Given the fact that the reverts in question were all done with the "undo" feature, the similar writing style in the edit summaries, and the coincidences in the creation time of the WikiFlyer account and its sudden appearance after a 3RR warning on Inetpup's talk page, I believe that WikiFlyer is a sockpuppet of Inetpup, created in an attempt to circumvent the three-revert rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcandeto (talk • contribs).
]
- Checkuser ]
- Comments
I just did the sockpuppet notice to
]
CheckUser might help here. dcandeto 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your allegation is false. Additionally, all of the following people supported the former routes section:
- We know they supported this section because they contributed content to this section or they reverted the page to ensure that the section was reinstated.--Inetpup 03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But none of them have the same pattern of being created right before you got to the 3 revert rule. It's also not true that someone who contributes to a section necessarily believes it should exist. I edit grammar on sections I believe should be deleted, or add more data to attempt to make them complete in case a deletion fails. --]
- 63.202.190.242 never reverted any edits involving that section. Petri Krohn did so because he changed his mind as to which fork of the list to remove, not because he believed it should exist. Bucs2004 never reverted any edits involving that section. Jordanhatch did so only because they did not read my edit summary. 70.134.86.166 never reverted any edits involving that section. I stand by my "lone dissenter" comment. dcandeto 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dcandeto, your presumptions border on arrogance. Your "lone dissenter" comment is false. Please reread my statement (which is in plain English) and try to understand it. It is evident from the following history log that those three users you claim to deny having supported the section, actually added content to it:
- Also, your dishonesty is evident because you posted a complaint on my talk page after Jordanhatch reverted your edits, which he identified as vandalism (which incidentally is also a non-trivial allegation against your conduct). This implies that you had some level of frustration that at least two users were reverting your edits and I became a convenient outlet for your frustrations.--Inetpup 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to shift blame. This is the place to discuss sockpuppetry. I don't know what the proper way to move forward here is - does dcandeto have to request a checkuser now? --]
- I am not being dishonest at all. The complaint on your talk page was placed before Jordanhatch reverted my edits, not after, and Jordanhatch reverted the edits only because he did not read the edit summary. Other than Jordanhatch, no one "reverted the page to ensure that the section was reinstated," as you claim. dcandeto 05:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Carfiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Gravitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by ScienceApologist 01
- 25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
These two users act in tandem to avoid 3RR and have single purpose accounts for articles related to Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations.
I do not make this accusation lightly. I am often involved in contentious articles and see many people with similar ideas promote similar causes. Take for example the disputes at Electronic voice phenomenon. There are a number of editors there who support each other but are very different in style, tactic, and range of contributions. I would never accuse any of them of puppetry. This particular case is striking because of how similar the commentary coming from the two users is. They often parrot exactly what the other says and seem to show up at exactly the point where the other one has been losing ground. For example, I haven't worked on moon hoax articles for some time, but the first few interactions I had with User:Gravitor (ostensibly a user I've never interacted with before yesterday) were uncannily similar to those with I've had with User:Carfiend. The similarities are too much to be left up to coincidence, I've been at Wikipedia for years and I have never seen something as striking as this except in the case of Christopher Michael Langan and his wife and Jonathan Sarfati and his wife. That is why we need an administrator to go through and carefully check the histories of these two users, perhaps side-by-side. When you have two users with such single-purpose accounts who essentially parrot their ways past editorial defenses of Wikipedia, action needs to be taken.
--ScienceApologist 11:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of tag teaming to keep
Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations
Associated editting pattern on
Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
Note that the timing of both these editorial maneuvers is completely coincident. Carfiend stops editting at exactly the point where he would be violating 3RR and Gravitor comes in and starts making edits that follow Carfiend's patterns in an uncanny way.
On Talk:Apollo missions tracked by independent parties#Merge with evidence article Note that Carfiend and Gravitor use almost identical arguments in the discussion and then criticize User:Branson03's statement where he measures the consensus against merging to another article -- as if to claim that because they are in agreement with each other they somehow affect consensus. As editors are beginning to treat them de facto as meatpuppets, it may be time for the community to act de jure.
--ScienceApologist 11:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
They often act together (and remain silent during the same time periods), their attitude and writing styles are identical, they are both contrary and disruptive, they both accuse everyone else of what they do (i.e. making significant changes without consensus and ignoring requests for useful discussion), and they both write on only one subject, namely the alleged Apollo "hoax".
]
- This tired accusation has been made before. A checkuser was performed, and the admin confirmed what I originally knew, which is that I am not the same user as Carfiend. It is true that we seem to share an interest in the Moon landing hoax, and that I often find myself agreeing with Carfiend, and reverting attempts by a bunch of users who act in tamdem to insert their POV into that series of articles. This is the latest of a series of administrative harassment activities that have not been upheld by admins. Gravitor 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the edit history of the two: Carfiend Gravitor. Carfiend made 25 edits in 6/06 and then hundreds of edits 7/06 through 9/06. Gravitor also made edits 7/06 through 9/06. Then both stopped editing (after the RfC for one of them, I think) until 2/07, when both of them started editing again. Their POV seems to be the same. Bubba73 (talk), 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The editing periods you refer to, iirc, correspond to particularly egregious attacks on the neutrality of the articles in question by one or more of the SA/Wahkeenah/Branson/Lunahkod/Numbskull sock/meatpuppets that act in concert and have very similar editing styles. The fact is, that when two or more users are interested in a topic, and share an agenda to make the article neutral, their edits are going to resemble each other somewhat. Take the edits of Wahkeenah and Bubba, for example, and you will find very many identical edits. Gravitor 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The editing periods you refer to, iirc, correspond to particularly egregious attacks on the neutrality of the articles in question by one or more of the SA/Wahkeenah/Branson/Lunahkod/Numbskull sock/meatpuppets that act in concert and have very similar editing styles. --> This is a very problematic statement as I can plainly attest that I was not editting the article at this time (except perhaps on a very limited basis). I happened to come back to the article only recently and found this troubling behavior. I think that Gravitor makes a good point here, ironically. Compare the edit histories of the users cited and compare that to the edit histories of Gravitor and Carfiend. The similarities between Gravitor and Carfiend are striking. The differences between the users Gravitor cites are equally as striking in context. --ScienceApologist 12:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider (these are slow) Wahkeenah and me, you will see that he has 20,000 edits on 4,000 pages and I have 10,000 edits on 2,000 pages, and the only ones that overlap are a few dealing with the landing hoax accusation articles. Both of us are far from ]
- But that does not prove you are different users, does it? All that seems to be needed here is a grudge, and an angry mob! No evidence needed. Gravitor 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes it highly unlikely. Do a checkuser on us. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I try to set a higher standard, just because someone disagrees with me, I don't start a vendetta against them and try to drag them through witch hunt after witch hunt. A checkuser has already been done on me, and shown me to be innocent. Gravitor 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone reading the histories in depth would learn that Gravitor and/or Carfiend do not adhere to any kind of standard other than disruption. ]
- A checkuser is irrelevant when the editting style is so similar and the ability to get two different IPs on two different computers is so easy. I encourage everyone to look into the editting history of these two users. They are nearly identical and they share striking commonalities in tone. Meatpuppetry is worse than sockpuppetry often. --ScienceApologist 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As appealing as it would be to be able to block users simply for disagreeing with you, that's not how Wikipedia works. Gravitor 01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For your convenience, here are the results of the previous "If you disagree with me, you must be committing a crime" accusations. [171], [172]. Both, of course, were thrown out, because they are false. People who disagree with you, will often agree with each other. That does not mean they are the same person. Gravitor 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that they are sockpuppets, but I think they might communicate outside of Wikipedia (email, im, etc.). Branson03 03:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ScienceApologist, it would be helpful if the you could provide diffs of the 3RR violation. Gravitor, please don't mischaracterize the Checkuser requests;
no judgement was made whether they were true or false, they simply weren't run because the requests didn't have a code letter. The checkuser could now be refiled under code "E". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I need to read more carefully. One checkuser was declined because no code letter was given, but the second request showed no evident IP or geographic relationship. That creates a strong presumption that there's no sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about meatpuppets? Bubba73 (talk), 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked through the users' contributions yet, so I can't say for sure. In general, though, meatpuppets are people who are closely connected and use the same computer or the same network--so checkuser finds them also. You would need very strong evidence to show that these users are connected. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still communicate with the other if you don't live in the same country, all you need is their phone number or email. A checkuser would not find that. Branson03 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why conduct is more important than checkuserdom. The two arbitration cases I cite above deal with the actions of users as they pertain to editting articles (single-purpose accounts and the like). The issue is that when you have two users who act the same without breadth of contributions and show evidence of railroading article edits, this is the definition of meatpuppetry. Precedent is to apply sanctions to users equally who are meatpuppets. We need to take action in order to ensure that this kind of behavior is discouraged at Wikipedia lest other users take it upon themselves to behave in such a manner. --ScienceApologist 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You need action to be taken against people who disagree with you, you mean. This case is so far from what is meant my sock or meat puppetry that it would be comic if it were not the latest in a long series of inappropriate harassment. The only thing that you seem to be complaining about is that there are users who share a point of view, and it is not yours! There are many people on these pages who share your point of view, edit in the same time frames, support each other in edit wars - the only reason you are not pursuing them is that you share their POV! Carfiend is a different person to me. I don't know who he/she is. It is apparent from their edits that I agree substantially with them, and when they are under fire from revert-warriors, I tend to get pulled in. Stop your witch-hunts! If you put as much effort into trying to reach consensus as you do in trying to contort the rules to ban people who disagree with you, the Wiki would be a better place. Gravitor 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The action to be taken has to do with disruption, not points of view. The accusation of witch-hunting is both a deflection from the issue of disruption and also squares with a conspiracist world view. But that's not a problem. It's Gravitor/Carfiend's disruptive behavior that's the problem. ]
- If there were disruption, then the two frivilous RFC's that were brought would have made some finding? Or perhaps that' part of a conspiracy by all the admins to ignore your vexatious accusations? Wake up! If you have a complaint about 'disruption' then make that claim through the appropriate channel. You're taking the "They are the same user! (Oh, it's obvious that they are not?) Ok then, well, they must know each other! (Oh, there's no evidence for that, and anyway, that's not a crime?) Well - they're disruptive! (No admins agree with me?) Well - they disagree with me, and I'm not able to convince people of my point of view! (That's not an offense?)" Honestly. It's a problem you need to deal with like everyone else. Use the talk page. Discuss the content issues. Gravitor 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gravitor/Carfiend have not demonstrated any willingness themselves to use the talk page to try to reach consensus. ]
- Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with the current vexatious sock-puppet accusations. This is transparently not about accusations of sock-puppetry, it is about your content disputes. Gravitor 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone looking at the history would see that I had already concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove the sockpuppet question. I was asked to comment here, so I have given my observations of Gravitor/Carfiend's behavior. They need to be dealt with as if they were sockpuppets, as their behavior matches sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, i.e. single-subject users whose editing time periods and absences correspond, and whose disruptive style is very similar. The disruption is the problem, not their points of view nor even the other facts about their editing patterns. ]
- Ha ha! I love these little insights into your mind! "I know there is no evidence to support this accusation, but we need to deal with it as if there was!" Erm. Great. Your accusations of disruption have been rejected by admins. Again, no evidence. You're on a fishing trip, trying again and again to get someone to listen to your tired tales, for which you have no support. I've done nothing wrong, but, because you can't get your way and won't collaborate constructively I have to suffer this harassment? Hmmm... Gravitor 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The history shows that the accusations of disruption have never been rejected by admins, only that no action was taken, especially once Gravitor/Carfiend disappeared (both times). And as Gravitor/Carfiend admit, they are basically here for one subject, and come back when they feel like it. ]
- Riiight. So basically, when admins commented, it was to say that you did not make your case, and nobody even bothered to close it. Sounds like your really made a great case. Please, focus more on trying to edit constructively, and less time making frivilous complaints - we'll get further. Gravitor 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The admins chided Carfiend/Gravitor for their disruption, and the rest of us for taking their bait. No action was taken because Gravitor/Carfiend disappeared both times when the heat got too high. In short, both cases remain open. ]
- That's not my interpretation of those cases. Nobody ever 'chided' me as a result of that case. The admin basically couldn't be bothered to deal with it because it was obviously trivial. In fact, the admin specically said "In addition, I think this RFC was filed to gain an upper hand in the dispute by the majority side, for which would also be a violation of several policies." Opening repeated cases against innocent users and constantly using inappropriate methods to cause is dealt with under Wikipedia:Harassment. Gravitor 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For refernece, here is the old checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gravitor. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is the old RfC for Gravitor Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is the old RfC for Carfiend. Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notably, not one of these witch-hunts resulted in any findings against myself or Carfiend. And yet these vexatious and capricious accusations and abuses of process continue. Rather than use the talk pages to try to establish consensus, these users continue to hope that if they bring enough frivolous accusations, sooner or later one of them might result in people who disagree with them either quitting in disgust, or being wrongly blocked. Gravitor 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note that this kind of statement is extremely similar to those made by User:Carfiend who is very fond of telling people that they haven't used the talk pages to try to establish consensus. For example [173]. The evidence keeps piling up. --ScienceApologist 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the real world, when a lot of different people keep telling you to use the talk page, it's because you don't use the talk page. If a user keeps reverting without comment, it's odd to accuse the users who tell him to comment, and not revert of being the same person. The thing in common here is a habit among a small group of users of beginning edit wars, then blaming anyone who objects of being sock-puppets. The evidence of this being a futile witch-hunt has already piled up. What you are doing is slinging mud. That's not the same as evidence. Gravitor 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's evident from anyone reading the history are two things: (1) on the Apollo subject, Gravitor and Carfiend are the most flagrant abusers of doing what they themselves gripe about, namely reverting without consensus; and (2) wikipedia admins are often unwilling to do their jobs, i.e. they are unwilling to do anything about disruptive users, which is one of the primary criticisms of the wikipedia website in general. ]
- So it's a conspiracy involving all the users who you don't agree with, and all the admins? Funny! What's evident is that you have a content dispute with a group of users, and rather than dealing with that, you would rather pursue administrative harassment and unjustified accusations in the hope that they will be driven off in disgust or wrongly blocked. Gravitor 14:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some items to note:
- Carfiend's edits are mostly to the hoax articles and their talk pages - 87.6%. Gravitor's edits are 79% to the same pages. These are percentages of all edits, including user talk pages, etc. Of Carfiend's mainspace edits, 89.5% of them are to the Apollo "hoax". Of article talk pages, 99% are to Apollo "hoax". Of Gravotor's mainspace edits, 90% are about the Apollo "hoax". Of article talk pages, 99% are on Apollo "hoax".
- Carfiend started editing on June 7, 06 and made 25 edits to various articles, none of which related to Apollo. Then on July 10, 06 Carfiend started editing the Apollo "hoax" article almost exclusively. Gravitor started editing seven days later. His first edits were to the same pages. His edits were numerous and almost exclusively to those same pages.
- In August 06, there was an RfC concerning Carfiend, which continued into September. Carfiend left and made no edits in October, November, December, or January. Gravitor also made no edits these same four months. Both returned in Feb. 07. Bubba73 (talk), 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spooky. IIRC, these dates correspond to what I beleive are particularly egregious attacks on the NPOV of these pages. I can't speak for other users, but I was absent from the pages during those periods because they were stable, and came back when POV-pushing was again stepped up. Yes, I have a narrow focus of interest, and tend to edit these pages only when a high level of POV-pushing occurs by others. I am busy, and have to focus. Sue me. Really. I don't have all day to spend twiddling with you about these articles, and my efforts are focussed on trying to keep them neutral when they are most under attack. If that's a crime, I'm guilty. Is it really any surprise that full-scale attacks on the NPOV principle causes people to register and oppose that? Gravitor 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have all day, as I'm on vacation. But enough of this for now. I'm heading off to the beach, to collect some moon rocks. ]
- Enjoy your vacation - try to get some perspective. Gravitor 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The history would indicate that Gravitor/Carfiend would leave temporarily, not when the pages were "stable", but when the RFC pressure began to mount and/or the pages were locked down from their wholesale and non-consensus reversions. ]
- That is simply not true. I have edited these pages when their NPOV has been under attack, and left well enough alone when they have not. As the admin on the (failed) RFC against me pointed out "I think this RFC was filed to gain an upper hand in the dispute by the majority side, for which would also be a violation of several policies." Gravitor 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most recently, Carfiend/Gravitor left when the one page was locked down and it was clear they would not get their way with it. They returned once the page was unlocked. The RFC's remain open for further discussion. My assumption would be that the admin thought the subject matter (the alleged "Apollo hoax") was too trivial to spend very much of his time on. ]
- Thankfully, you do not have to assume, since the admin says what they thought "I think this RFC was filed to gain an upper hand in the dispute by the majority side, for which would also be a violation of several policies." The same is true of this sockpuppet accusation - a disturbing trend in your behavior is becoming evident. Gravitor 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was being charitable to the admin, as it is clear he either did not read the history in depth or didn't want to be bothered with this subject. But the last time I checked, RFC's remained open and could still be acted upon, especially as Gravitor/Carfiend have shown no indications of being willing to change their disruptive methods. ]
- So the admin is also part of the conspiracy by everyone to ignore your frivilous abuse of process whenever content debates don't go your way too? Great. I think everyone can see what is going on here. Gravitor 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they can. ]
- Conclusions
- After evaluation of both users' contributions, I find it likely that these users are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and that the accounts have been used in tandem to violate the 3RR on .
- In my opinion, the similarities between these users are very strong, and we can conclude that they are sockpuppets in spite of the "unrelated" Checkuser result [187]. As has been said many times, "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust." The most important criterion is similarity of editing behavior; IP matches are simply extra evidence. In this case, the similarity of the users' edits is too strong to ignore.
- In addition, I find it likely that these users have previously edited as User:For_great_justice., who is indef blocked.
- Both users are indef blocked for violations of ]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Teabing-Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
YLH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.163.67.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Kjartan8 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
multiple "users" coordinate attack-revert on Direct Action Day with simultaneous reverts
[252]
[253]
[254]
[255]
[256]
[257]
[258]
to avoid 3rr violation, then attack me all at once in my page [259] and talk page of article [260][261]
[262][263]
[264][265] All use same language and YLH even admits to being a puppet [266]. YLH suddenly makes edits just while Teabingh-Leigh starts to revert? Uses same language, same incivility, same kind of remarks? Suspicious!
More proof that Teabing-Leign and the ip address are the same person who has violated 3rr regulation:
- statement made by Teabing-Leigh[267]"Clearly you haven't seen the new changes I have made". The changes to which he refers were made by the anonymous ip address[268]
- Teabing Leigh says: "Since I have made several changes and improvements, please remove the "deletion" message from the said article"[269] just before anonymous ip says "I am afraid it is not a point of view. You should not delete it if you even have an iota ofintegrity"[270]. Note the similarity in grammar, tone and polemic.
- Both anonymous ip and teabing-Leigh make cartoonish analogies with George Orwell's 1984 and wikipedia. Teabing-Leigh says"Also... on second thought .... the more I read such pages where certain ethnic and national groups gang up to cover up facts of history, I begin to question whether Wikipedia is all I thought it was... instead of being a bastion of all points of view coming together to create objective truth... it is more like George Orwell's "1984" with its newspeak and editing and rewriting and ofcourse DELETING " [271].Also, anonymous ip says "Mr Kinslayer whats that- some sort of Orwellian newspeak from 1984? The whole masquerade seems increasingly like a scene out of 1984 and "Ingsoc"[272] (for background, I suggest the excellently written wikipedia articles Nineteen Eighty-Four and George Orwell).
- So it is obvious that anonymous is sock puppet of Teabing-Leigh, and he logged on-and-off to try to mask his trail and violate the 3rr regulation on Direct Action Day (for which he has not been blocked)
A diff of 3RR warning provided by me:[273]
Proof that Teabing-Leigh and YLH are either the same person or two people coordinating wiki-attacks physically and electronically (that's what meat puppetry means)
YLH has many edits to
that are in perfect lock step with those of 202.163.67.241 and Teabing-Leigh
- YLH's edits 11:34, 20 February 2007
- Anonymous ip 202.163.67.241's edits to the same article immediately afterwards 14:20, 20 February 2007
- Edits of YLH immediately afterwards in lock-step 14:27, 20 February 2007
- Edits of Teabing-Leigh to the same article one month later 15:59, 27 March 2007 all the time YLH remains inactive.
- immediately after 1 month, YLH starts to revert in lock-step with Teabing-Leigh on Direct Action Day. Teabing-Leigh[274][275] YLH immediately afterwards [276][277]
- All of the three edit exactly the same articles, )
- Comments
Please forgive me if the text looks messed up. I am a new user and am still trying to understand wiki interface. Kjartan8 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a run-in with teabing-leigh and YLH and I also believe them to be the same person. The incivilty, baiting, edit patterns and metohds, and usage of words in conversations are 99.9% identical. The Kinslayer 08:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YLH and myself are not sock puppets. Sharing ideas is not the same as being sock puppets. Furthermore, Kinslayer is one to talk. He was cited for personal abuses against me and my family by Edivorce on the AFD for Gandhi's views on race. Teabing-Leigh 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's funny because on the Talk:Direct Action Day page YLH clearly states that you both use the same computer, per this diff: [278] As for my incivility, if you are still sore about it, file a seperate complaint about it in the appropriate place. The Kinslayer 09:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So two people can't use the same computer? Take out the IP records and see what other computers YLH logs in through. As far as I know Wikipedia policy even allows for Multiple accounts let alone Multiple Users on the same IP address. I can see that facts and sources have disoriented you to take personal action against me. Teabing-Leigh 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are using two accounts from the same computer to byapss reversion policies on articles. The Kinslayer 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As with your other claims, this one is also personally motivated. If a family or room mates share the same computer, it does NOT fall under the purview of "Sock-puppetry" especially when the comments are completely valid. Teabing-Leigh 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure this whole thing can be settled quite simply. Just get YLH to prove he's someone who just says stuff that is remarkably similar to stuff you say, and not, in fact, you. The Kinslayer 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the three revert rule: I had absolutely no idea about the three revert rule nor was I aware that I had made more than 3 reverts under the IP address. This is unrelated to the issue of sock puppetry. Teabing-Leigh 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were warned for 3rr before your reverts [279].Kjartan8 10:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more discussion since you were proven wrong on the issue. Teabing-Leigh 10:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was he proven wrong? Besides, that wouldn't negate discussion. Leebo T/C 11:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- The IP is clearly used by User:Teabing-Leigh, as this diff shows: [280].
- In the discussion above Teabing-Leigh indicates that he and User:YLH share a computer. It's not against policy for two users to share a computer, but they should not cooperate in edit wars or violations of policy like 3RR.
- These accounts have been used in conjunction to violate the 3RR on Direct Action Day.
YLH is indef blocked. Teabing-Leigh and the IP are blocked for violations of
]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
)
- Suspected sockpuppets
GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NovaNova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
—KingIvan 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This user has been disrupting numerous articles for quite a long time now. I believe that
Talk:Francesco_Patrizi, this page can also be observed for striking similarity in argumentation of these supposedly two people (it is in fact identical). Recently it seems he introduced another sockpuppet at
Giulio Clovio named NovaNova, this article is also where GiorgioOrsini is involved in a edit-war for very long time and now he obviously introduced another sock to help himself. In short due to long-term disruption, vandalism, incivility and extremly striking similarity in edit style, argumentation and exactly the same interests I am forced to request an indefinite block or ban of this user and all of his accounts.
It is certain to assume that Giovanni Giove is the master account, as it is the oldest account out of the three. This person then created his other two accounts in a short amount of time - during November 2006. GiorgioOrsini and NovaNova are his two accounts which are used for rampant edit warring, and personal attacks, and they are also used to create the illusion that their is more than one person who holds these opinions. To get a taste of this report, please see that
after a user gave him a legitimate warning, Orsini removed it and was uncivil. Also take a look at this threat/attack.
Looking at each user's contributions, it is highly likely that GiorgioOrisni was created by Giovanni Giove to create the illusion of support for his views on the article "
Andrea Meldolla (
edit |
talk |
history | protect | delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) and other articles of famous Croatian/Italian figures. Both account seem to have the single purpose of removing all references to Croatia or Croats on articles of famous historical figures, and claiming them as exclusively "Italian", while calling all other views "pseudo-historical". Both account use the same style of language in talk pages and edit summaries. The account GiorgioOrsini is also guilty of vandalism, by removing people from article lists and then adding words such as "falsifier" to describe someone
[284]. It can clearly be seen that these users are in fact the same person.
Name changes/removals
All three users constantly move pages from Croatian names to Italian ones. All three remove sections of articles regarding name controversies and such - and always use the same or similar "reasoning" (e.g, "removed name nonsense", or "pseudo-historical nonsense".
- Diffs:
- Giovanni Giove - [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290].
- GiorgioOrsini - [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301].
- NovaNova - [302], [303].
Neo-Nazism
In "their" mad fanaticism, "they" frequent the articles
Neo-Nazism in Croatia
, and try to insert inflammatory POV, and more lies and falsifications.
- Diffs:
- GiorgioOrsini - [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320].
- NovaNova - [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339].
Giulio Clovio
The Giulio Clovio article is a frequent target of this one user's heavy POV edit warring. He frequently removes references and text referring to the man as a Croat. On the talk page, and in edit summaries they are always uncivil, and usually use personal attacks.
- Diffs:
- Giovanni Giove - [340], [341], [342].
- GiorgioOrsini - [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350], [351], [352], [353], [354], [355], [356], [357], [358].
- NovaNova - [359], [360], [361], [362], [363], [364], [365], [366].
Blocks
All three have been blocked at least once for disruption, personal attacks, edit warring etc. Giove obviously has the most blocks as this is the master account. [367], [368], [369].
Please look into this
And block the accounts accordingly. Thank You.
- Comments
Here I will answer these claims made by AnonEMouse
- User bringing the charge is:
I created a legitimate sock puppet account because I was under the impression that if I used this account, my report would be treated differently. Instead, my legitimate sock (to keep my privacy) was blocked as a sock of some other user (Oh the irony;)).
Legitimate sock, to keep issues in one place, and to keep privacy.
Well, of course it seems that way. I created this account for the purposes of defeating disruptive sockpuppets.
No, in fact there was no strong evidence found against it; rather, there was (and IS) strong evidence in support of it. The editor who closed the case was inexperienced, was not an administrator, and did not look hard at the evidence - talking to each other is no evidence of them being two people; it is the editor who owns the sock trying to create the illusion of more than one person. There also was a bias in that previous case, as the writer of teh report had recently been "convicted" of a sock charge. Another thing is, on the page
WP:SOCK
it says that you can tell a sock if they jump straight into heated debates/edit wars - which is exactly what the sock account have done.
- All that said, the charge deserves looking into, but, sheesh. I'd appreciate if someone else did it this time, so he doesn't think it's just me persecuting him. I'll do it if no one else does. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn straight the case needs looking into. I am requesting that the person who investigates this case not be AnonEMouse or Khoikhoi, they must be an administrator, must not be from (or have heritage/ancestry from) the Balkans or Italy, to prevent any biases.
P.S - Based on the evidence on this page alone, If they are found not to be socks (but they all certainly are) they most definitely are meatpuppets, and
]
- Conclusions
- Thanks for using your normal username when you recreated this case, but you seem to be unaware of a few things.
- User:AnonEMouse, who closed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove, is an administrator.
- Forum shopping is frowned upon.
- Your request that the investigator not have Balkan or Italian ancestry assumes that editors and administrators cannot see beyond their own ethnic, racial, or national origins, an attitude that's deeply corrosive to this project.
- As for the evidence you've provided, I find it inconclusive. AnonEMouse turned up evidence that suggests Giovanni Giove and GiorgioOrsini are separate people in the previous case, and nothing you've told us here overturns that. NovaNova has similar interests to Giovanni Giove and GiorgioOrsini, but there's enough difference in their edit summaries, etc. that I find this inconclusive. I'm going to close this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
I m dude2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
LimerickLimerickson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— George Saliba [talk] 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Their edits almost never overlap temporally, but often line up sequentially (by as little as 3 minutes between the last edit of one, and the first edit of the other). This means that they don't ever appear to edit at the same time - one stops editting, then the other starts.
- LimerickLimerickson appears to predominantly join into discussions that I m dude2002 is already involved in, and seems to always agree with I m dude2002's position. This wouldn't be so unusual if not for the very few edits that LimerickLimerickson has.
- LimerickLimerickson's short edit history can be view here. The following diffs cover all of LimerickLimerickson's edit history, and the sections of I m dude2002's edit history that overlaps.
- My primary contention is that I m dude2002 may be using the LimerickLimerickson sock puppet to try to build false consensus with himself in discussions and RfCs.
March 27, 2007 – LimerickLimerickson makes no edits for four days, and neither does I m dude2002. Then, they both make edits to the same article 3 minutes apart. Four days of inactivity, followed by a three minute gap in their edits, to the same article. These are the only edits either editor makes for the next 16+ hours.
03:33 (I m dude2002): 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (←Undid revision 118147980 by 24.16.63.33 (talk))
03:30 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (→Request for Comment: How to Define the Israeli Cabinet's Decision of July 12, 2006)
March 23, 2007 – LimerickLimerickson joins an RfC I m dude2002 has started. LimerickLimerickson makes no edits after 14:34 on this day, and I m dude2002 makes no edits before 14:43 - a 9 minute difference between when one stops and the other starts.
15:31 (I m dude2002): 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (→Position of Lebanon)
15:29 (I m dude2002): 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (→Beginning of conflict)
14:43 (I m dude2002): Arab-Israeli conflict (→2000-present - 7 --> seven)
14:34 (LimerickLimerickson): Palestine Liberation Organization (Grammatical correction, deletion of dead & commented link.)
14:29 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (→Request for Comment: How to Define the Israeli Cabinet's Decision of July 12, 2006)
14:26 (LimerickLimerickson): 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (→Background)
February 26, 2007 – LimerickLimerickson decides on a concensus by no one replying to I m dude2002's suggested edits from the previous day.[370]
21:50 (LimerickLimerickson): War of Attrition (→Timeline)
21:50 (LimerickLimerickson): War of Attrition (→Jordan and the PLO)
21:48 (LimerickLimerickson): Arab-Israeli conflict (→History of the conflict)
21:22 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→Concensus)
February 25, 2007 – I m dude2002 is discussing in the same sections as LimerickLimerickson yet again.
16:56 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→2000-)
16:36 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1974-2000)
16:18 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→Lebanon)
16:17 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1974-2000)
15:48 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-June 11, 1967)
15:40 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→Beginning-1948)
February 21, 2007 – LimerickLimerickson is discussing in the same sections as I m dude2002 again.
13:11 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→June 12, 1967-1973)
13:08 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-June 11, 1967)
02:38 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→June 12, 1967-1973)
01:45 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-June 11, 1967)
00:08 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-June 11, 1967)
February 20, 2007 – LimerickLimerickson is discussing in the same sections as I m dude2002.
20:21 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-June 11, 1967)
20:20 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-June 11, 1967)
19:08 (I m dude2002): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→June 12, 1967-1973)
18:59 (I m dude2002): Arab-Israeli conflict (→History of the conflict)
18:57 (I m dude2002): Arab-Israeli conflict
18:55 (I m dude2002): Arab-Israeli conflict
17:12 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→June 12, 1967-1973)
17:12 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→June 12, 1967-1973)
17:12 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1968-1973)
16:54 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→1949-1967)
16:43 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict (→Beginning-1948)
February 13, 2007
18:10 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Lebanon (→Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War")
18:01 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Lebanon (→Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War")
February 12, 2007 – These are LimerickLimerickson's first edits, joining an RfC on Talk:Lebanon that I m dude2002 is involved in. His first edit seems advanced for a brand new user.
21:31 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Lebanon (→Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War")
20:46 (LimerickLimerickson): Talk:Lebanon (→Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War")
February 11, 2007
16:35 (I m dude2002): Talk:Lebanon (Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War")
16:33 (I m dude2002): Talk:Lebanon
16:30 (I m dude2002): Talk:Lebanon (Request for Comment: Parties to the "Open War")
16:13 (I m dude2002): Talk:Lebanon (→"Open War")
16:08 (I m dude2002): Lebanon (→Major events - Reverted this part of the editting without reverting the entire edit. I really like the rest of the edit.)
06:30 (I m dude2002): Talk:Lebanon (→"Open War")
06:17 (I m dude2002): Talk:Lebanon (→"Open War")
- In my defense
I appreciate George Saliba's desire to arrive at the truth of matters and get to the bottom of things. Unfortunately, however, his good intentions turned into him not assuming good faith.
I will certainly admit that the record of editing that Limerick and I have is somewhat odd. But this is not the product of sock puppetting. We are both part of an organization dedicated to better education regarding the Middle East. Specifically, we are both part part of the same department: the Israel department. Big brother is always watching is our third colleague. We often work off of the same computer at the same time, when we meet to discuss matters and research new information. This is why we often have to take turns within short intervals of time. Recently, I turned Limerick's and Big brother's attention to Wikipedia. I've made it a personal project, and they have joined more recently, and comment less frequently. But they certainly are their own independently thinking people.
Limerick was very upset today, and told me to look at Wikipedia. When I did this I noticed that I had been accused of sock puppetting. Afford me two rhetorical questions: Do our edit records seem odd? Yes. Are they malicious? No. The reason they seem odd is precisely because we are dedicated to better public information about the Middle East, not because we are against it.
I am highly disappointed in George Saliba. I thought he was a very well-mannered man whose primary goal in editing was to make Wikipedia more accurate and objective. I may have been wrong. A fair word of warning to anyone reading: disagree with George Saliba at your own risk. I m dude2002 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to clarify the above comment, since George Saliba has said that he considers me a meatpuppet master. I didn't encourage Limerick to write anything on Wikipedia. On several occasions I vented my frustrations as to how difficult it is to get wording truly neutral on wikipedia (if there are editors whose desired wording is POV). I told him I had essentially written a 10- or 20-page book in the
2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict articles in debating whether Israel was fighting against Hezbollah or Lebanon. He decided to check things out, and made a few comments. He is certainly not my meatpuppet.
I m dude2002 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
- Comments
I have examined the "evidence" of the March 27, 2007 entries. I find them not disruptive, not vandalism, and not indicative of sockpuppetry. My opinion based on that data is that the accused are NOT sockpuppets. I further certify that I do not know the accused and have never heard of the accused name before. To the all parties of this complaint, I ask that you try to peacefully coexist!Dereks1x 23:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear that the editors themselves may disagree with you, but good luck on your own sock puppetry case. — George Saliba [talk] 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two editors (three apparently, including
]
And the answer is no. There is nothing wrong with knowing another editor personally, as long as you do not specifically encourage, coerce, engage, etc. them into making edits. If I vent to my colleague on how hard it is to get wikipedia straight on the Lebanon article and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict article, and my colleague then decides that he's going to check it out, that isn't meat puppetry. Even if we use the same computer, so he can only log on after I log off, that doesn't mean that I'm using him as a puppet. I m dude2002 03:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the
meat puppet policy page:
"[Meatpuppets] may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda."
Even if you didn't "encourage, coerce, or engage" them into making their edits, your colleagues may still be considered meat puppets. Through the very isolated, targetted edits made by
LimerickLimerickson, I would call him a "single-purpose account... with one agenda." I wouldn't consider him to be "active on a range of articles." He made edits on 9 days total over a 7 week period, every single time to articles you yourself were editting or involved in discussing, by as little as 3 minutes after your own edits. —
George Saliba [talk] 06:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
- Clearly this is a sockpuppet using its two accounts to create fake consensus. Where is the confusion here? Ban it already.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The user above claims in effect that the accounts are meat puppets, which still would be unacceptable. However, given editing histories and times, typing and prose style, and misspellings the accounts have in common, these are sock puppets, and appear all to be operated by I m dude2002. Indef for the socks, 24 hours for the puppetmaster (will give the puppetmaster a bit of a break for owning up to Big brother on his own.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
82.15.17.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Terminator III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Juan dela Cruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Akal Purakh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Hamsacharya dan 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Similarity in Diffs:
- Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs): [381],[382],[383],[384]
- NoToFrauds (talk · contribs):[385],[386],[387],[388],[389]
- Terminator III (talk · contribs):[390],|(scroll down to "Sidhoji Rao Shitole"), [391],[392],[393],
- RFCUs confirming Hamsacharya duh (talk · contribs), Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs),Juan dela Cruz (talk · contribs),Akal Purakh (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Terminator III:[394],[395]
- 82.15.17.152 (talk · contribs):[396],[397],[398],[399]
- Comments
User Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs) is a very new editor who jumps into harrassing me, naming me by my personal identity, wikistalking. All behaviors very similar to previously confirmed sockpuppets, most of which have been connected with eachother, and all of which have been indefinitely blocked. His language is very similar between all the sockpuppets: use of the words "cult", "cult leader" "ordained preacher", "bogus", "fanatical", and generally degrading and libelous speech. Taken together, this has been going on for over a year now.
RFCU didn't work because it was more than 30 days between edits from the last sock, and I didn't provide the requested evidence (I didn't understand what they wanted...)
comment by uninterested party
I agree with Hmsacharya Dan that the similarities in editing are similar, and the fact that the user would jump to criticizing his edits and initiating a COI filing is suspicious to say the least. There is a case here, since this is an ongoing problem, with the aforementioned sockpuppets making disruptive edits, being banned, creating new accounts and starting again, ad infinitum. A simple checkuser will clear the issue once and for all. If Watchtower Sentinel has nothing to hide - why then so much fuss over a request for checkuser? I therefore second Hamsacharya Dan's request that this matter be clarified in the interest of both the articles and the editor's peace of mind. Sfacets 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to User:Sfacets, another COI editor on a different article with an impressive history of being blocked 3 times for 3RR and disruption, I am making "so much fuss over a checkuser." This is simply not true and I am going to prove it here. The irreversible and undeniable fact is that the checkuser case filed by User:Hamsacharya dan has long been over. It was declined (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Watchtower_Sentinel). What is there to make "so much fuss over"? This part of User:Sfacets's comment is complete nonsense. My edit history proves that throughout the checkuser process I never wrote a single word of opposition. This is a point of clarification, I do not and will never oppose anything as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
- Please note that User:Hamsacharya dan and User:Sfacets has been collaborating with this harrassment from the very beginning (evidence [400]). Note also that User:Sfacets' coming here and making a comment was not of his direct initiative but solicited by User:Hamsacharya dan (evidence [401]). These makes his comment one coming from an interested party and most certainly not from an uninterested party. Thank you. - Watchtower Sentinel 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I would think banning is in order at this point.
- Refutation
- The entire case does not even make sense because according to how he tagged me I am being accused of being a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Watchtower Sentinel. I am Watchtower Sentinel for goodness sake, how can I be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Watchtower Sentinel? It seems that the accuser is very confused about the situation.
- Upon examining this refutation User:Hamsacharya dan has changed the tagging mentioned above to "sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of NoToFrauds." According to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets before creating a report the complainant must make sure that "there is a current problem", in fact it clearly states that "cases older than one week are useless." NoToFrauds' last edit was on 22:19, 20 March 2006 making this entire report useless. - Watchtower Sentinel 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The
WP:SOCK/S a case such as this goes side-by-side with and requires confirmation by way of
checkuser then the verdict for this case already came when the
request for checkuser
I humbly request the speedy dismissal of this case due to complete lack of merit. - Watchtower Sentinel 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the above is probably valid, but should be viewed in context of the edit war between ]
- Comment:I never really knew about the COI policy until this year. I think I deserve
WP:AGF here considering that I've never tried to hide behind any sockpuppets. Feel free to investigate my editing activities, but let's stay to the point of this page. Tearlach, I know you're not intending on
Poisoning_the_well here, but I think it's fair to bring that up here, since you did the same previously. We already have a page for COI investigations. I've been a very forthright editor here despite what you want to say. --
Hamsacharya dan 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
- Poisoning_the_well
- Certainly not my intention. I definitely support the investigation of sockpuppetry on this topic. But the issue is being worsened by a mess of canvassing and forum-shopping on both sides. Tearlach 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Possible but not conclusive. Most accounts listed have already been blocked after causing disruption or being confirmed by Checkuser. Watchtower Sentinel, the exception, doesn't display a lot of the behaviors of the others. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Landau7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
81.224.220.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
uaasun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lil'dummy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.211.170.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by Drumpler 16
- 38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
I think most of the evidence is evident on the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon talk page itself, but here are a few major points. IP 81.224.220.232 (the group's known compound -- their Internet service is Telianet, a Swedish IP) made several heavy edits to the article and I mistook another user for the group's leader because he used language similar to an initial article on apostates posted by an IP (to which I later apologized for). Then Landau7 made a few comments, trying to contextually pose as an admin to discount my comments (I didn't know how to check the history until shortly thereafter and that's where I learned Landau's identity -- he also tried to unlink a forward the redirect from Mishpachah lev-tsiyon to Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon Drumpler 13:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)). I looked into Landau's log file and learned he made his account that day. After some debating, uaasun made some biased edits (uaasun is a member of the religion's online group [one would have to search to find some of his posts, but two I immediately found were here and here]). Uaasun made some biased comments about my shunt in the article text itself (I'd like to add that I know uaasun is a seperate person and I am categorizing him as a meat puppet). Landau pretended to be a neutral observer, but released documents from a "secret archive" about my mother and my former landlord and made threats about this secret archive (by pretending to be a "neutral observer", he made it look like the group had more support than it really did). I finally agreed to not edit the article only so far as a few points were addressed (namely a key paragraph).[reply]
A few days later, I noticed Landau7 had made a user page. I checked it out and a positive link to the group's leader (Christopher C. Warren) was identified, the major one being that both are graduates of Oxford University (the article itself includes this in its text and even when Landau changed much of it, he included this fact, demonstrating he agreed with it). I didn't touch the text of the article itself, per my agreement, but threw up two tags and pointed this fact out on the talk page (I probably should have left it alone), both live/lived/have visited Sweden (the group's HQ) and know the language, etc. A few days later, Lil'dummy started making attacks against me on the talk page -- their account was only a few days old and the talk page was the only one they contributed to (could be Landau7 or another meatpuppet -- the group has two modems in their home). They have recently contributed to one other article (only two words at that -- see the diff).
Landau7 has contributed to a few others, but if one views his contributions in light of an old page on his site at http://web.archive.org/web/20050301123756/www.nccg.org/ezion_geber/, they will see both are avid lovers of history (Landau likewise lied and said that Stanislaw Krolewiec and Christopher Warren aren't one and the same -- the proof is in the e-mail address. If one joins MLT Reception Group and chooses to receive an e-mail every time a post goes up, eventually they will receive one from "Community Moderator" [Christopher C. Warren] and the e-mail address will be "[email protected]". If one analyzes the archived link I posted, they will find this is the "nick name" for "Stanislaw Krolewiec". When the polygamy group use to exist, "Community Moderator" was the same user name for all NCCG-related groups. I have archived a screen capture of an e-mail here [the file is 435 K because I didn't compress it -- I did this intentionally so I wouldn't be accused of editing it -- I will likewise forward the original e-mail itself to those investigating this on the condition my e-mail address is not disclosed]. The reason I mention this is not for the sake of random "trivia", but to show one case of bias on Landau's own part and why he'd go to extremes to defend this article -- he doesn't want anything unauthorized going up about himself and so has lied in order to make himself look like a "distant, neutral contributor".)
I think this is all I will write for now. Some people may think I have an axe to grind, but I will not touch the text of the article itself (most of my recent posts surrounding this have been to the talk page -- I have likewise contributed to other several unrelated topics). If a mod wants, they can even ban me from even touching the article. What I really want is the article to be neutral. I knew it wasn't and I only settled for the current edit initially because it did include SOME critical information. However, I think the restriction should be extended to the leader himself. He thinks its "reasonable" that I not touch it, but its okay for him? Just giving my two cents.
I'd also like to add that this group does have a documented history of lying and fraud outside of Wikipedia and if it is needed, I or my associate (the co-writer of the nccg.info site) can prepare documentation regarding this.
- Comments
I think this proves my point. Just shortly after I posted this, Landau7 undid an edit by another member who removed a link the religion's group (the website itself should suffice). He likewise added a new criticism under the controversy section (I do not remember this article being on the group -- I think what Landau is doing is just making up articles left and right and placing them on the article -- a thing I fear may occur if he still has power over it -- and yet, he'd throw a conniption if I did the same thing). Here's the diff. Drumpler 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once more, point proven. CM made a post on his group at http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=566 advertising the new section he added (I have this documented in e-mail in the event it is deleted to hide the facts). Landau7's edits on the Wiki article announcing this new section were posted up at 16:26 GMT (diff). The post announcing his new section on his group was up at 4:34 PM GMT. When GMT is converted into military time, this makes it 16:34 GMT. What does this mean? It means Landau knew of the document a few minutes before CM posted it up to the MLT Reception Group. This is evident because it was here first and the "newness" of the section can be accounted for by the new post advertising it. Once more, he exposed himself and his contributions to the article are anything but neutral. He has lied several times to make himself look like a disconnected observer and, it would seem, ultimately about the "anonymous IP" (which the evidence seems to suggest is none other than him). Drumpler 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If one views the talk page, Landau also tried to restore this "anonymous edit" because it was more "neutral". This is against Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppeting for it can be interpreted as a bid to gain favour for a position by pretending to be someone or something he is not. Drumpler 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I look at Lil'dummy's remarks, the more I think they are the same as Uaasun -- the same biting sarcasm is evident. This would probably characterise Lil'dummy as a meatpuppet and not a sockpuppet. Drumpler 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was significant: Landau's latest "discovery". I was speaking hyperbolic on my site, but really its no matter, because I don't regret the word usage I used on my private blog (maybe I should've used manslaughter instead?). I have no desire to discuss this on the talk page, but here, through the proper channels.
- To be honest, if one researches the entry in question that he posted here, I think he's more peed off that I exposed another false prophecy and is making Wikipedia his stomping grounds. Religiouis apostates are unreliable? Then so are religious group leaders. If he is so adamant about putting the article back up, then the Rick Ross link needs to go back up. I believe I significantly proved his identity. Read my notes above. Drumpler 10:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also compare these diffs: 12. He fenced my words into a new section called "Paranoia" (I did something similar earlier, but removed it when I calmed down) plus added his "discovery" (noted in the archive above). The intent was to make a section deeming me paranoid. I
reverted the edit removed the section header manually, but posted nothing else on the talk page. Drumpler 10:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered the group's leader bragging to me sometime back about removing "NCCG Concern's" link. Look at this diff. When I did a RIPE query, another TeliaNet IP came up for this address. The editing history is similar to Landau7 above, who likewise added the link to this group in just after an admin's bot removed it (diff -- not to mention mentioning an additional article here on Wikipedia just before CM did so, as noted above). The other TeliaNet IP did the same thing to the MLT article itself. Drumpler 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to be the first to say (before I receive accusations later of hiding evidence) that I made a few entries on my http://blog.nccg.info site from a course spanning over the last month private because they pointed to this debate. I am primarily interested in
exit counselling first and foremost and so posted them up without understanding Wikipedia's policy regarding this. They were source material meant for those recovering from the group (which, according to my understanding of the
Rick Ross
- I will either post them back up if it is needed for the moderators to make a decision or send a copy to the mods themselves if they want them. I just want this to be fair and balanced.
- Thank you. Drumpler 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, here are the entries cached from Google. I think this may be considered safe, since the average person won't think to access them this way anyway:
- http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ppo11QrTGLgJ:blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/10/2723913.html+Surprise!+Surprise!+Warren+Lies+Again!&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
- http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_j4748ZdXgMJ:blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/21/2752584.html+This+Is+Why+I+Love+NCCG!&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
- http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GnBewlohkV0J:blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/19/2748799.html+02-19-2007:+This+Time,+Warren+is+The+One+Caught+Lying&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
- Something missing from the cached copy of the latter two is a disclaimer stating my correction on one of the people in question. I still have the original article archived if the disclaimer is relevant.
- I realize that admittance to such could lead to my username being banned, but I just want this article to be neutral and am willing to "rat myself out" if that's what it ends up. I do highly suspect, however, all of those in the list above and I recommend that the case still be checked into as neutrality has always been my intent, even after I got over some of my more emotionally charged entries. ;) Drumpler 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have information I can make available to admins regarding the sock and meat puppets in question, but I am only able to make it available offsite because of the sensitive nature of the material. If this is acceptable, e-mail me at [email protected]. Drumpler 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to need verification from here first, though, before I make it available. Drumpler 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Documented Meat Puppeting -- Long Story Short
I'm curious as to whether this counts as meat puppeting (diff)? I can find no record of these two exchanging messagess, plus Landau7 mentions "several" who agree with him, making me think the exchange occured offsite. Drumpler 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
First, let me apologize if I missed something, but the amount of writing presented for what should be a relatively simple case seems to be large. I did my best to dig through it, and can't find anything that shows conclusive evidence of sock puppet abuse. Not proven. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requested a checkuser (sorry about that, seems we crossed wires there), but I have my doubts as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final note: Checkuser showed users not to be related, and there's not convincing evidence here to override that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Politicalwatchmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Political Avenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Funpika 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I believe this puppetmaster is using his sockpuppet for supporting the Paul Uppal AFD (the puppetmaster nominated the article for deletion). The beginning of the user names are similar (both start with "Political"). User:Political Avenger had voted to delete Paul Uppal 11 minutes after creating his account. The chances of being able to conveniently find he page, notice the AFD, and vote within 11 minutes of account creation seems impossible without being aware of the AFD before account creation. Funpika 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I can say that I am not Political Avnger but will admit that he is a friend of mine and I e-mailed him the link to the Paul Uppal page and asked for his thoughts, the fact that the user account was created and the vote occured quickly does not mean that Political Avenger could not have read the page before registering, although admittedly he registered so as not to vote anonymously through an IP address but rather with an account. I asked my friend to look at this page a number of days ago and we were in agreement that the page had no merit and should be deleted and indeed asked me to apply for the AFD as he was unaware of how to do the process. Obviously registering to do a specific thing may look suspect, but it is surely better to do that rather than have many IP entries on and AFD page. I understand Funpika's view on this, however he is mistaken. Politicalwatchmen 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be within policy and guidelines to indef block Political Avenger as a meatpuppet account. Asking another to create an account to support edits/agenda is the very definition of meatpuppet. Meatpuppets are treated as sockpuppets under Wikipedia guidelines as noted at the top of this page. Vassyana 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by uninvolved party
I have examined the "evidence". I strongly conclude that this is NOT a case of sockpuppetry. It is true that both accounts have the same first few letters (Political---). However, it's quite possible that the accused sockpuppet is a friend of the sockpuppeteer (as noted above). The behavior wasn't disruptive or argumentative. Furthermore, there haven't been any more instances of "funny" behavior. I suspect that since the article is about a politician, some people are out to get blood and attack those with politically different viewpoints. This kind of attack is savage and un-wikipedia-like. NPOV is one of wikipedia's ideals.Dereks1x 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Politicalwatchmen essentially admits the charge of recruiting a friend who has no other Wikipedia contributions to vote in an AFD.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Meatpuppets calls this highly inappropriate. Ironically, it wasn't even necessary, as the AdD was almost unanimous. Of course Politicalwatchmen is relatively new here, so can be forgiven not knowing all the details of our policies, and I will take no action against him, but I would ask that this not be done again. The Political Avenger account has not been used before or since the AfD, so blocking it may be unnecessary, but I will do so anyway out of principle. If the off-Wiki friend really wants to participate in Wikipedia, and really wants to do so using this account, he can request an unblock. However that seems unlikely. --
AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Jachin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
211.30.75.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ChazBeckett 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I believe that User:Jachin used an anonymous IP sockpuppet to advance his position on Par Avion, including evading the 3RR. A majority (~80%) of the IP's 25 edits are to subjects and specific articles edited by Jachin. Below is the interaction that seems to leave little doubt about the sockpuppetry.
- 211.30.75.123 (talk · contribs)
- Jachin (talk · contribs)
- Articles in common
- Choice of words
- IP: [414] "...otherwise it'll just be nerfed under COI."
- Jachin [415] "...By where your argument is going we'd have to nerf every trivia section..."
- Comments
Before initiating this case, I asked Jachin to explain the indentical editing patterns. His reply was that "The IP is an open proxy located at an alternate campus of my University..." However, the IP only has 25 edits over a short period of time (13 days) and the edits are concentrated on articles which Jachin also edits. The editing style is remarkable similar and the timing often coincides within minutes. ChazBeckett 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jachin has confirmed with this edit that he edits with the IP in question. The only remaining defense would be that he's not the only person to use this IP. But as I mentioned above, the "open proxy" argument makes no sense due to the fact that the IP's editing style and choice of articles is identical to Jachin's. Whether the IP is indeed an open proxy is irrelevant, as it's quite obvious that's used been only by Jachin.
Also, the "harassment" and "victimization" diffs listed by Jachin refer to an ArbCom case brought by a (now) blocked user against every single editor (dozens) who commented on his community ban. The case was unanimously rejected by the ArbCom, but anyone who's interested can see the details here (warning: it's quite lengthy). This seems to be little more than ad hominem attacks and grasping at straws by Jachin. ChazBeckett 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jachin has confirmed with this edit that he edits with the IP in question. The only remaining defense
- Apart from the flaw of an out of context quote, or
biased sample, the act in question was to negate your claim it wasn't a proxy
[416]
- Two articles in common does not a sockpuppet make. Jachin 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the IP and Jochin are sockpuppets. While I believe the "choice of words" does not matter, as it's regional slang and therefore easily dismissed, it seems that the IP user and Jachin are sockpuppets. 211.30.75.123 starts off editing commenting about Freemasonry, one of Jachin's areas of expertise. Jachin also edits Wicca and Talk:Wicca during the same time period, albeit on a differant topic. Next, 211.30.75.123 comments on Talk:Cave Clan very shortly after Jachin edits Caving, Urban exploration and The Tunnel Rats. It should be especially noted that 211.30.75.123 called himself a "long time wikipedian".[417] I disregard their edits to the Lost article, despite the fact they both advocated for torrent linking, because they are seperated by months, Lost is a popular show and torrents are a popular download method. The butterfly knife edits are more damning than the diffs above would make it appear. The IP user states they will redirect the balisong article.[418] Jachin one minute later takes action on this.[419] 211.30.75.123 edits Par Avion and its talk page a bit. After the last edit, Jachin welcomes the IP user two minutes later,[420] and proceed to edit Par Avion one minute after that.[421] Beyond the damning "coincidental" edits, the evidence that the IP user openly claimed to be a "long time wikipedian" and that Jachin immediately took action on something the IP user said they would do seems to put any doubts regarding sockpuppetry to rest. Vassyana 09:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jachin, do not move or alter the comments of other editors. Vassyana 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Jachin keeps moving user comments from the comments section. Please note that he used the IP address in question to do so.[422] Vassyana 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you may not have noticed, but the 'response' section is NOT a default section of SSP listings, it is my comment, my response, to the allegations that after five years of wiki editing I am magically using sock puppets of insecure proxies to astro-turf a friggen trivia edit on an episode of Lost. *rolls eyes* Jachin 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
The above user was victimising another editor by arbitrarily deleting their posts, even after the editor had requested they cessate. On my stepping in to validate the editors posts, ChazBeckett realised he would break the 3RR and thus decided to take to nitpicking over
WP:OR
, et cetera. The situation was reasonably resolved, although Chaz seemed persistant that it was his way or the highway.
If the only common feature between both accounts is one or two articles and the word 'nerf', I'm highly amused. Perhaps Chaz should familiarise himself with common Australian vernacular. Furthermore, I cite: -
- [jachin]# nmap -sS 211.30.75.123
- Starting Nmap 4.01 at 2007-21-03 17:23 GMT
- Interesting ports on chaos (211.30.75.123):
- (The 1668 ports scanned but not shown below are in state:
- closed)
- PORT STATE SERVICE
- 21/tcp open ftp
- 22/tcp open ssh
- 80/tcp open http
- 631/tcp open ipp
- Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 28.207
- seconds
Oooh, what's that on port 80? HTTP into it and lo and behold, it's not a HTTPD. Hrm, maybe it's a [gasp] proxy.
To further humour these claims, this is me behind my proxy. Jachin 06:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And me not behind the proxy. 203.221.88.80 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behind. Jachin 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not behind. 203.221.88.80 06:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And finally behind, yet not logged in. 211.30.75.123 06:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But given that Chaz has a record of harassment and victimisation[423][424] I have no doubt this will not suffice. Jachin 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Pretty clear duck test, right down to words the two misspell in exactly the same way (and the slip on "my proxy" instead of "the proxy"). 24 hours for the puppetmaster. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Justbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by Feeeshboy 14
- 55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence -
The only
User:Natster237
in various ways, first by deleting the merger tags
then, after I put them back, by defending
:
who appears just in time to back up
User:Natster237's exact point that
the leaner needs to have its own page because it is "unique" and too important to simply be mentioned on
Slam dunk. Notice also the identical language, repeated from this earlier Natster237 comment:
- [429] which also uses the phrase "basketball lore" and the same reverential (POV) language to discuss Michael Jordan.
Neither
User:Natster237's talk page:
[430] in the hopes of calming him down. The suspected sock then parrots back my own words from the suspected puppeteer's talk page in a very hostile note:
after which the suspected puppeteer conveniently tries to play his "good hand":
In all, the only
The leaner, and the disparaging remarks
here, the last of which add evidence that the nonconfrontational tone taken by the suspected puppeteer on the other pages is in fact a passive-aggressive façade. Lastly, the user forgets to sign his posts (under both names), a weaker coincidence, but another coincidence, nonetheless.
- Comments
What proof do I have to provide that my account is legitimate? I'm a real person, a college grad, a Miami native, a current Houstonian, an upstanding citizen and netizen. Further, I am a distinct individual from Natster237.
It is true that my first contribution was in discussion of the leaner. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ONLY TIME I HAVE EVER POSTED, FEESHYBOY SUMMARILY DISMISSED MY CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT EVER ADDRESSING ANY OF MY CONTENT. This has to be the worst violation of any on Wikipedia as it stifles new input and turns users off from the site. Imagine: you make your first post to the site and immediately the veracity of your identity is thrown out the window. For me, this has hastily soured my experience on the site.
What is the correct forum to lodge a complaint about an overzealous hater such as feeshy?
--Justbc
- Even if I am wrong (which I'm not), I can't feel too bad because your only contributions have been pretty antagonistic so far. Note that Natster237 also refers to me as "feeeshy", here:
- [433] (thanks for providing more evidence!)
and also in previously cited posts apparently can't tell the difference between "summarily dismissing contributions" and simply disagreeing with him.
Feeeshboy 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's a very bad sign when someone leads off with "Even if I am wrong (which I'm not)." At that point you are forcibly taking the discussion to an impasse. Nonetheless you are indeed wrong. If you want proof, next time I'm in New York it shall be provided you.
You should feel bad however, because my first post, to which you responded antagonistically, was very much unantagonizing. With regards to misspelling your name, the concrete commonality is your name, not the imagined (by you) shared identity between me and Natster237. Your name is strange -- what's it mean anyway? -- so there is a likelihood I'll misspell it. Similarly, Natster237 might misspell such an odd name.
Last, are you insinuating that I incorrectly identified your summary dismissal of my contribution? If so, you are clearly in error. Now then, where do I lodge my complaint about that?
--Justbc
Wow. I poke my head in to Wikipedia to see if anything is resolved and I'm awakened by a storm of controversy. Feeeshboy, I'm not a "sockpuppeteer", although I don't think any amount of "evidence" is going to be enough to convince you otherwise. What am I supposed to reference in a wikitrial like this? Seems to me to be more of a witchhunt than an actual trial, truthfully. Also, the note I made in Victor de Leon's entry is a valid point (not simply disparaging as you've tried to make it seem). I'm involved in the gaming industry and this individual (a famous gamer) was in fact disqualified from a competition for cheating (specifically, for modding a controller). I didn't see any discussion of this topic in his article so I brought it up in the discussion, which is where I thought I was supposed to. If I've made a mistake in that regard, please let me know where I should have brought up the topic because I'm baffled.
Also, is it standard Wikipedia protocol to nominate articles for deletion simply because you dislike the author? Somehow we went from a merge discussion between
]
- The disparaging comment I referred to was "Hes not very good (sic)." This was NOT authored by Natster237, I now realize, a mistake I made in part because neither Natster237 nor the other poster signed their posts. I withdraw that point.
- Please refer to the wording of the PROD warning on
The leaner. I invited you to contest the prod by posting on your talk page, I DID merge the content, I did NOT nominate the deletion based on any personal feelings (I alluded to merging the page from the start), and
this is not the proper forum for this discussion. Please contest the prod on the article's
talk page.
Feeeshboy 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
It seems Feeshboy is now trying to intimidate me, a new user, from using this forum:
- It is inappropriate to continue any back and forth conversation on a sock puppet report. If you have anything to say to me, please use my talk page. As for your question, I invite you to review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation, although if you read the policies, you will see that they state very clearly that such measures are intended only for cases in which all alternatives have been exhausted. That is clearly not the case here. There is a simple alternative: stop posting insults and threats. The only thing I ever did to you was to accuse you of being a sock puppet, and I have evidence to back that up. Even if I am not correct, I have taken the correct steps by filing an official report and putting this in the hands of administrators. So that leaves my only supposed "antagonism" toward you as one comment, accusing you of being a sock puppet (before I filed a formal report; it took some time to read up on proper sock puppet reporting). If that was a mistake, it was still nowhere nearly as egregious an offense as your overtly hostile and threatening comments. So here's how this gets resolved: you can stop posting insults and threats, as I have not said anything that could be regarded as hostile since initially accusing you of being a sock puppet, so there is no provocation and certainly no justification for your continued hostility. I think this is a fair request. If you accept it, then we should have no reason for further problem. If you ignore it, I will be forced to report you to administrators. In the meantime, the sock puppet case is in the hands of admins, who know what they're doing better than I do. Feeeshboy 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I will not be silenced thus. I don't have anything to say to you, but I have a vested interest in protecting my credibility. Threats and insults? There has been no semblance of a threat and the only insult was a 1-for-1 trade because ON MY FIRST POST EVER TO WIKIPEDIA, YOU IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED MY POST BY PROCLAIMING TO THE WORLD THAT I WAS A "SOCK PUPPET." As I have said before, this a truly sick introduction to the site. I would argue that anyone doing this is harming the site and that his credibility should be in question.
I am just a new user with a clean slate.
--Justbc
- That "forum" was your talk page. Asking for a cessation of hostilities is an attempt to intimidate you? Surely you're joking. Here's the potential threat I referred to (the language is ambiguous, so it's not necessarily an overt threat, but could be taken as one):
- If you want proof, next time I'm in New York it shall be provided you.
- Furthermore, you're not helping your credibility any by ranting and raving. Wikipedia editors, like all other people, make mistakes. There's your welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think I made a mistake, but that's for others to decide at this point. This is just a report of my suspicion, and if no conclusion is reached, it won't affect your further. You will have a clean slate, and that will be that. But in the meantime, you seriously need to calm down. I've had bad experiences with socks before, and your contribution seemed a bit too convenient, timely, and similarly worded to be a different person. If I jumped to conclusions too hastily, I can't take it back now. Your repeated name-calling, which, if you forgot, spills over into this page as well, is not going to accomplish anything. Feeeshboy 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's inappropriate to continue a back and forth conversation on this page then why do you keep responding? May the admins be fully aware that you're not even following your own made-up rules. You just use them conveniently to eliminate resistance to the games you like to play on this site.
Admins take note: I am a 100% real person. My contribution to the leaner discussion was earnest and legitimate. I enjoy this site and would like to contribute in the future, but users like Feeeshboy who use guerilla tactics repeatedly on new users are a liability, not an asset, to the site. For whatever reason he feels his contributions and opinions are more important to the site than mine and that is patently false. I will happily provide picture ID, or any other proof, as well as phone or in-person interviews to show you how far out of control he is.
If he chooses to respond again that will only add further proof that he wants to make rules for others but not himself.
--Justbc 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Okay, I've had quite enough of this crap. It's become apparent that Justbc is belligerent, obnoxious, and incapable of getting over my admittedly hasty accusation, whereas Natster237 is a good-faith editor trying to make positive contributions to this site, despite a few bumps in the road. In my defense, there were a number of coincidences that corroborated my suspicions, but it's clear to me that this entire process has no possible good result. No one is monitoring the suspected sock page, and I was simply hoping for an official warning to the suspected sockpuppeteer for something that's not nearly as damaging as this conversation, the way it's headed. I am a good-faith editor with a long history of positive contributions to this site, as well as some mistakes, and I refuse to have my name dragged through the mud with these ridiculous accusations any longer. Justbc deserves a clean slate, and I deserve not to be repeatedly insulted and maligned without any provocation following my initial accusation of sockpuppetry. Admins, please close this debate and let us all move on. Feeeshboy 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Case withdrawn by accuser, closing up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed WikiFlyer is confirmed as a sockpuppet of Inetpup via CheckUser. Not much else to do (can't really block unless they're further disruption). —210physicq (c) 06:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
United Nations - I believe these two statements cancel each other out. Main article already clearly states that they crossed into Israel.)
![[128]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Cathedral_of_the_Incarnation.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
