Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/January 2007
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Fensteren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
BenBurch 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Self-evident sock already blocked by admin User:JzG as a sock of User:BryanFromPalatine. I believe this was misattributed, and the account was really a sock of the putative "brother" of BryanFromPalatine, User:DeanHinnen. Dean says that he is representing to the en-unblock-l that User:Fensteren is not a sock puppet, so I feel it is necessary to get this complaint formally on the record.
Please seen the rationale used for the original block at User_talk:JzG#User:Fensteren.
However, as User:DeanHinnen is representing Fensteren before en-unblock-l I think that block was in error as it should have referenced DeanHinnen and not BryanFromPalatine, his putative "brother".
This case is contentious, and has a long history, mostly involving User:BryanFromPalatine;
- Several checkuser requests all to be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine
- Here are his SSP investigations;
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalantine_%28new%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%283rd%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%284th%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArlingtonTX
- The revenge Checkuser his suspected sock filed against me (and which his confirmed sock RE-filed);
- Comments
To the admin performing this check, please be especially careful. The archives at unblock-en-l catalogue the issues related to whether or not DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalantine were sockpuppets, the result being that DeanHinnen was unblocked by consensus. It is also worth noting that DeanHinnen was exceptionally polite during that particular investigation. I believe in this case, it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to be more diligent than usual in the checkuser investigation and to be sure of the conclusion. This should not be taken to be a criticism of standard checkuser investigations, only a call to be extra careful this time around. --Yamla 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yamla? I'd really like some insight into what is going on here. We see all these users appear and make the same class of edits, expressing the same concerns, and pushing the same agenda. Under all other circumstances they would absolutely be considered either sock puppets or meat puppets, but somehow DeanHinnen (who has been mega-disruptive and mega-abusive since you unblocked him, including filing a frivolous RfC against me which got thrown out) got himself unblocked in spite of all of the evidence that he was AT LEAST a meat puppet here dancing to the tune played by BryanFromPalatine. He even went so far as to act explicitly as agent for Bryan in that RfC where he made Bryan the co-certifying editor and included text explicitly provided by Bryan. So, what was he able to show you that proved to you that he ought not be blocked? He is using that finding you had at en-unblock-l as a shield against all manner of his bad behaviours. --BenBurch 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- The unblock-en-l list is public and I strongly urge you and other editors to check out the archives at this location. I believe you have to subscribe in order to access the list. This will be more accurate than me trying to summarise here. --Yamla 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
RFCU has already been filed and declined. ":
- NOTE - jpgordon did not sign the above or make the above comment on this page. This was an attempt to sway the issue with a confusingly-signed post by Dean. --BenBurch 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
J.Alonso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Diegou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
AlexCovarrubias 
- Evidence
1.- The account User:Diegou was created on "18:24, 27 November 2006" and his first edit was not an article, but an already started discussion in the Mexico talk page [37].
2.- User:Diegou always "supported" and "voted" in favour of User:J.Alonso's proposal of deleting a sentence in the article Mexico. Wikipedia policy states that "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists". Also states, a sockpuppet is an account created to support the puppetmaster POV in a certain matter.
3.- Take a look at User:Diegou pattern of edits. [38] It seems he only edit articles in which J.Alonso is also involved. Specially controversial articles. Also his edit pattern is very narrow and specific.
4.- Recently and very wisely Diegou reverted the article Latin America 3 times only in order to avoid a block. The 4th time the article was conveniently reverted by J.Alonso. [39]
5.- Both "users" left a "vandalism warning" on my user talk page with very similar words, very similar style of writing. [40], [41].
6.- Finally it was me and "user" Diegou who orignally had an edit war over the Latin America article. However, it is interesting how User:J.Alonso was the one that reported me in the Wikiquette page, instead of Diegou [42], who originally "warned me" about the 3RR rule.
It seems that J.Alonso is the puppetmaster of Diegou account. Their IPs should be investigated in order to prove if the evidence presented above is right. That is the only way to check this case.
- Comments
Most of the articles (if not the great, great majority) in which I have participated are related to Mexico, my country of birth (I now live in the US). Mr. Covarrubias is accusing me of using the Digeou account to "vote" on controversial issues. He told Hari Seldon that I was an Argentine trying to prove that Argentina is "better". Ridiculous. I have been participating mainly on a discussion about Guadalajara and Monterrey for the last two weeks. After reviewing Diegou's contribution he was participating in Argentina's article, an article I haven't touched.
The "controversial" issue he is talking about was a single sentence that stated that it was Mexico's higher standard of living the reason that was driving Argentine immigration to this country. Diegou first found this argument wrong (it wasn't me who first started the discussion) yet I supported his argument since Mexico's HDI and GDP PPP per capita [quantitative measures of standard of living] are both in fact, lower than Argentina's, and therefore, no plausible causation could be determined between standard of living and immigration [the statement was an obvious contradiction if Argentina's standard of living, measured quantitatively was higher]. I changed the sentence (since it had been proven wrong, by ample evidence) and Mr. Covarrubias reverted it immediately. All the participants in the debate asked Mr. Covarrubias to provide evidence for this claim (standard of living causing immigration, which had been proven false) and to tone down his interventions (bordering on ad hominem attacks). He ignored our petitions and simply reverted our edits without participating in the debate except to accuse us of "vandalism" and "sockpuppeting". His accusations are false, since it wasn't only Diegou and me who voted for eliminating this false assumption from the article. In fact the following users voted for its deletion: User:J.Alonso, User:Diegou, User:Titoxd, User:Wikidrian, User:Hseldon10 and User:SqueakBox.
I kindly asked Mr. Covarrubias on several occasions to provide sources for his claim and to participate in the debate constructively. Not only did he ignore me, he even deleted my petitions from his talk page [43] (so as to erase "evidence" that we had politely asked him to provide sources for a false statement that he kept on reinserting even though it had been proved wrong by all the data that was being presented in the talk page).
In the Latin America article I expanded the Economy section with information from the World Bank and created a table which presented statistical information on all countries (GDP, GNI, Gini index, GDP per capita and GNI per capita). I sorted the countries by GNI (Mexico at the top). A week later Diegou erased one of the paragraphs that I had written and added more text with data from UN's CEPAL. He created a new table with historical GDP growth rates. He also added another column with HDI to the table I had created, and sorted all countries alphabetically, claiming that this "sorting" was "neutral" since sorting countries by GNI was arbitrary (why not HDI?). I agreed with this reasoning. Even though I opposed Diego's deletion of my paragraph (and I wrote it back, and asked him not to delete paragraphs without first discussing it on the talk page), I found his new chart, and the new data he provided, extremely valuable.
A few days later Mr. Covarrubias deleted all changes made by Diegou (that is, he deleted his new chart with GDP growth, the new column of HDI and also re-sorted the information by GNI instead of alphabetically). I opposed this, since he was deleting information from the article without explaining why. I reverted his deletion. He erased it again, and Diegou reverted it, and on and on. I asked him in the Talk page of Latin America to please stop deleting and to provide reasons why he believed deleting HDI and GDP growth rates was important. HDI and GDP data is not a controversial issue, it is a fact!. Why delete it without providing a reasonable justification? Why delete it without providing any reason at all?? Finally me, Diegou and SqueakBox warned him to stop deleting the information. He, conveniently deleted our several warnings from his talk page too [44]. He then, accused me of sockpuppeting, even though it wasn't only me and Diego that asked him to stop, but SqueakBox as well.
To summarize: This is not a matter of controversial issues, these are HDI and GDP figures! Some users added this figures. Mr. Covarrubias deleted them. These users re-added the deleted information and kindly asked Mr. Covarrubias to provide a reason for his deletion. Mr. Covarribuias continued to delete text from the article 5 consecutive times without ever providing a single reason whatsoever and ignoring our petitions. This is not even 3RRR. This is vandalism. If this was a controversial issue in which two opposing versions were being discussed, then he would have engaged in 3RRR. But these are simple data. Numbers. Statistics he simply desires to erase from the article for no reason at all. Why does Mr. Covarrubias finds it surprising that three users find his actions inappropriate and accuses them of sockpuppting when he deletes non-controversial information from an article?
Finally, I have nothing to hide at all. In fact, I invite administrators with privileges to verify my IP addresses from the two sites from which I have contributed: my university and my home (and I live in the US, not in Argentina as my IP address will confirm it). I also ask administrators to review Mr. Covarrubias contributions and ad hominem attacks.
--Alonso 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- You were suppoused to defend yourself from the accusation of sockpuppetry, and to provide evidence of the contrary. You only explained a case of edit war. That proves nothing. Some of the things you said are wrong, but this isn't the place for me to write another huge explanation. AlexCovarrubias
( Let's talk! ) 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I explained the above to show that Alex's reasons for accusing me of sockpuppetry are not his "abundant evidence" or "proves" (sic) but his lack of Wikipedian etiquette, his unwillingness to participate constructively and his low quality as a debater. My "sockpuppetry" for him is not based on evidence, but a last-minute resort to "win" an edit war in which he has been unwilling to participate constructively, or should I say, his unwillingness to even participate at all, except by the deleting the work of others. Hari Seldon has even confirmed this. Like I said, please check the IP address I have nothing to hide. I also invite all administrators to check my history of contributions. And I ask administrators to take notice of Alex vandalic contributions and his lack of Wikipedian etiquette and act accordingly. --Alonso 14:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, I contested some of his evidence in my defense, but I guess he didn't read it thoroughly, so I will repeat myself, since I suppose he needs help in figuring out my defense:
- Evidence 1: An anonymous user started the discussion, not me, and later on Diegou appeared continuing the anonymous thread of thoughts. I suppose it was him. So you can see his IP address from his first participation. He started the discussion not me. In other words, Diegou did not come after the discussion between Alex and me had started. Diegou started the discussion and I backed him up since I found evidence that he was right. If you check my IP address you will see I am not him.
- Evidence 2: Two users voting in favor of a proposal means nothing. In fact, it was 5 users that voted in favor. And we are not all the same person. Only Alex insisted on deleting our proposal without ever participating constructively.
- Evidence 3: I debunked Alex's idea that we are participating in controversial issues. Writing a list of GDP growth is not controversial, is valuable. Deleting it is vandalic. By the way, Alex, check my history of contributions, my scope of work has never been "narrow". At least take some time to review your accusations.
- Evicence 4: That proves nothing, it only proves that Diegou, if he knows 3RR, is not stupid and he stopped. Hours later, I came and reverted his vandalism again. So what? But I insist, this is not 3RR, but an exception (please read WP:3RR). This was never a controversial issue (Latin America), it was vandalism. He was deleting a chart and information just for the sake of it. Alex, in spite of knowing 3RR, reverted the article 5 consecutive times.
- Evidence 5: The vandalism warning that we both left in his talk page wasn't similar, it was identical because we both used the template suggested by Wikipedia to ask people to stop vandalism. It seems we both considered his deletion of "uncontroversial" information vandalic and not simply a matter of disagreeing. Who can ever disagree with real numbers from the UN or the World Bank? By the way, it wasn't only Diego and I that asked him to stop his deletions. User:SqueakBox also asked him to stop. That makes three users, not two. Alex, never answered back, never provided a reason for his repeated deletion of information. Alex deleted our petitions from his talk page to "hide" or good-will in warning him and asking him to discuss the matter.
- Evidence 6:I guess it was me who reported Alex because I have been here longer, I am an administrator at the Catalan wikipedia, and I know how things work. But again, his "proof" is weak.
- Alex so wants to prove in all articles (developed nations, BRIC, newly industrialized nation, Mexico, etc.) that Mexico is far superior to all Latin American nations that he has to erase compromising "evidence", like HDI. He has been engaged in similar discussions in the articles aforementioned suggesting ridiculous things against Brazil and Argentina. If any user ever suggests saying anything about Mexico's economic situation, he immediately fires back saying that we are Brazilians, Argentines or whatever, and that we have to realize that "Mexico is better than Mexico" (see: Talk:Mexico). His motives are not academical nor encyclopedical. Please review his history of contributions and you will see. In the same way his motive behind his accusation of sockpuppetry is his lack of Etiquette, he only wants to win an edit-war.
- I hope I had been clearer this time. --Alonso 15:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- You were suppoused to defend yourself from the accusation of sockpuppetry, and to provide evidence of the contrary. You only explained a case of edit war. That proves nothing. Some of the things you said are wrong, but this isn't the place for me to write another huge explanation. AlexCovarrubias
- Conclusions
It seems that J.Alonso is the puppetmaster of Diegou account. Their IPs should be investigated in order to prove if the evidence presented above is right. That is the only way to check this case. AlexCovarrubias
- Hey, what kind of conclusion is this? It is only the opinion of the accuser. But I agree on performing an IP investigation so Alex can sleep well and free of a world plagued by sockpuppets. For additional comments and my defense against the undefeasible, imaginative and terrible "evidence" of Alex, please go below.--Diegou 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Further comments...
Well, my name came up, and J Alonso asked me to participate. I only "know" him recently, after an intense debate in the article Second City. Indeed, I agreed with him on this controversial comment that has provoked this case of sockpuppetry. However, I have never had any experience with user Diegou. I don't know if there was or wasn't sockpuppetry involved, but I do know that J Alonso's arguments where widely backed by independent users, and that AlexCovarrubias did not participate constructively in the article discussion, did not assume good faith, and did not source its claims.
In any case, it is true that, despite Covarrubias's behavior is not the best for wikipedia, I have no evidence in favor or against J Alonso's sockpuppetry, and I think that an investigation will clear the matter and reveal the truth. Hari Seldon 07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Alex finally fulfilled his threat and filed a sockpuppetry case.
I agree with many things that have been said here.
First, I agree with Alex in the sense that an IP investigation will clear this matter. So please, anybody who can do it, please do so we can concentrate in more important things.
Second, I agree with Hari Seldon in the sense that Covarrubia's behavior is not the best for Wikipedia. A good example is the discussion "Mexico's standard of living as compared with Argentina's" in the talk page of Mexico, where in spite of the efforts of other participants to show their arguments, Alex (first) made attacks with words like "bias", "nationalistic", "sockpuppetry" and the like, and (second) he began to modify the article in spite that no consensus had been reached about it, and exactly as he has done yesterday in the Latin America article. Finally, on December 5, Alex gave up when he realized that so many people was against of his behavior.
Third, I agree with Alonso regarding how we ended up here. In effect, first Alex engaged in an edit war in the Mexico article showing no reasons at all (only personal attacks) and where he was against everybody's opinion, and then engaged in an edit war in the Latin America repeating exactly the same pattern.
And contrary to Alex's opinion, I think it is relevant to know the story of how we ended up here to know the character of the accuser. I think Alex is resorting to this method only as another tool to challenge the work of so many people here in Wikipedia, without demonostrating any effort to at least show a single argument.
So, if the only manner of finishing this thing is an IP investigation, please do it. I am in Argentina, and certainly my IP will show that. In case any administrator needs of my help to do the investigation, please let me know and I will be glad to do whatever is necessary.--Diegou 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, I just reread the "evidence" shown by Alex, and what I have to say is the following:
"Evidence" 1: That is not evidence at all. Why having the first intervention on a ongoing discussion is strange? I just think the opposite: I read the discussion and seemed me interesting enough to participate.
"Evidence" 2: Being in favor of anyone does not imply that you are the same person. In fact, many people were in favor my position and against yours in the discussion in the Mexico page, and that does not imply that all of them are the same person. Secondly, Alonso has been in some ocasions against some things I have written, as you can see in the Mexico talk page and my talk page. Unless you think that we are faking discussions to conceal that we are the same person, in which case: wouldn't be little paranoid that?
"Evidence" 3: The evidence is wrong, since I participate in articles where Alonso does not participate, and viceversa. Unless you think that we are partcipating in different articles to conceal that we are the same person, in which case, and again: wouldn't be a little paranoid that?
"Evidence" 4: Well, it is true that two persons have reverted your changes in the Latin America article, but that does not imply that we are the same person. In fact, in the Mexico article, where you did exactly the same things and had the same behavior as in the Latin America article, not two but FOUR people reverted your (unjustified) edits, and that does not imply that all those four people are one.
"Evidence" 5: This one is the funniest. It is the same language because it is the template suggested by Wikipedia.
"Evidence" 6: I am not surprised if many different persons have similar reactions against Alex. In fact, you can read what Hari Seldon has just written here, and trace how people react to Alex in the many talk pages where he has intervention.
I think this debunks the purported "evidence" filed by Alex, but in any case, please do the IP investigation so that everybody will convince themselves that there is no sockpuppetry here. Who knows, maybe Alex really thinks what he meant here, so please do it.--Diegou 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by SqueakBox
I think the fact that Alex ignored the 3RR rule in spite of being told at Latin America in a conflict with these 2 editors explains these entirely spurious allegations. The editor who needs investigating is AlexCovarrubias and admins would be better off blocking Alex for his premeditated repeated 3RR violations rather than investigating these trollish claims. Alex's statement above that "Recently and very wisely Diegou reverted the article Latin America 3 times only in order to avoid a block. The 4th time the article was conveniently reverted by J.Alonso." indicates Alex knew very well about 3RR and was deliberately breaking it, ie playing the system, SqueakBox 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Response by AlexCovarrubias
To you too my friend. You assume I care a lot about this particular case. I'm sorry to tell you're wrong. I simply reported, that's it. And "trollish claims"? You better take a look to see who the real "troll" is. I have a life you know. AlexCovarrubias
No soy un amigo suyo, oye! I have studied this case enought to draw the simple and correct conclusion which is that you created this page after losing a revert war. If every editor made spurious claims every time more than one editor opposed them in an edit war there would be hundredsd of cases weekly, SqueakBox 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Alex made it again
Well, yet another embarrassment for Alex Covarrubias. Alex, you made waste the time to three ... oops, no, four people here (d'oh!). I sincerely hope that this new failure makes you rethink your behavior here at Wikipedia, and encourage you to participate constructively and without personal attacks, vandalism and the like, in the many different talk pages. Thanks to Hari Seldon and SqueakBox.--Diegou 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well you surely have no life my friend. You assume I care a lot about this issue, wrong. I simply reported what to me is a possible case of sockpuppetry, period. Embarrassment? What are you talking about? Again, you think Wikipedia is my life or something. And yeah, like this case I filed is a super spotlight that will bring "embarrassment" to my real life. You and J.Alonso are the ones that are truly very affected with this issue. It seems that it is to both of you like a matter of life or dead. The story is I reported, somebody else has to check this, and whatever the conclusion (and I'm sorry to tell you this), my real life won't be affected as it is not affected now. AlexCovarrubias
- "You and J.Alonso are the ones that are truly very affected with this issue. It seems that it is to both of you like a matter of life or dead."
- Well, I am glad that you finally acknowledged that there was no sockpuppetry here.
- I hope to meet you again in the future at Wikipedia, within any fruiful and constructive debate. Best regards. --Diegou 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported. AlexCovarrubias
- No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported. AlexCovarrubias
- Ah, yes, yes, of course, it was just a technical need. Interesting that you believe in things that you admit yourself that are not verified. Not very rigorous, really? Well, I wish you good luck and happy holidays.--Diegou 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Should we expect an admin to be involved in this issue any time soon?
Unfortunately, Mr. Covarrubias, like he had done in our discussions, prefers to ignore the evidence provided which proves him wrong. He has not countered our arguments at all, but simply insists that he is right against all evidence. I have to admit that now, finally, he "toned down" his language. Now he says it "is a possible case of sockpuppetry" and even though on Talk:Mexico he "refused to talk to us as different persons" now he acknowledges the fact that he needs to "refer to both" and not to one. I guess that is a small, but significant improvement in his Wikipedian etiquette.
Now I ask two things of admins, if they ever get to be involved in this:
- Check our IP addresses, so that we can end this matter as soon as possible. Alex is not willing to accept any other evidence except that our IP addresses be confirmed. So be it. At the same time, and for the sake of judging all with the same measure, check User:AlexCovarrubias and User:Dr.Kerr IP addresses.
- Please take note of Alex's history of ad hominem attacks, lack of willingness to contribute constructively, his unjustified deletion of articles (vandalism), and his violation of 3RR policy. Please act accordingly. I also acknowledge that his contributions as a designer have been valuable for our Wikipedian community, (especially his maps), but he needs to learn how to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks, how to participate constructively, and how to obey the rules and not to play with them, like he did with the 3RR policy.
--Alonso 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is not "me" the one that need to accept or to dismiss the evidence that I provided. That's the evidence I can provide, period. It is an admin duty to check them. Not me, not you, not SqueakBox not anyother editor. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias
Mr. Covarrubias has just put his fake sockpuppet accusation back on User:Diegou 's page, I strongly recommend other editors also revert this nasty piece of vandalism. Admins are busy people and I can see nothing on this page that warrants investigation other than perhaps Mr. Covarrubias premeditated 3RR violation. Certainly I would say an IP check is absolutely not necessary on the basis that we shouldnt feed the trolls. If Alonso or others feel frustrated I suggest an attempt at mediation, and if that fails take this user to the arbcom and see what they make of his behaviour, SqueakBox 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Again, it is not your duty to judge over the acussation. It has to be checked or dismissed by an admin. AlexCovarrubias
Not true, all the editors who have looked at this case have reached the same conclusion, that it is entirely spurious. You are only doing this because you knowingly violated 3RR. We should not feed the trolls is policy, SqueakBox 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Alex, you filed some "evidence" here, and Alonso and I replied extensively and thoroughly to your "evidence". If we assume that you are acting in good faith, the least you can do is facing our answers.
Your attitude in your latest posts is: "I do not have the least idea if I am right, but I am going ahead anyway". After all the things that have been said here by FOUR people, please try to make the effort to show us at least any single idea from you part.
Alex, you have already made waste valuable time of four people here. If you insist, you will be wasting also the time of an administrator. Come on, accept that you were wrong, apologize with Alonso and me, and go on with more important things. Only brave people have the guts to acknowledge that they were wrong and apologize. Please, show us your bravery.--Diegou 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, you are very uppish. I have nothing to apologize about nor I will. I do believe this is a case of sockpuppetry and I still can't see any evidence proving me wrong. I'm not a close minded person, if I already had seen any indicator that I was wrong, I personally would have delete this page. And I don't know what you mean by "waste the time of people", since I am not the one that drag them to this case. AlexCovarrubias
- Wow, you are very uppish. I have nothing to apologize about nor I will. I do believe this is a case of sockpuppetry and I still can't see any evidence proving me wrong. I'm not a close minded person, if I already had seen any indicator that I was wrong, I personally would have delete this page. And I don't know what you mean by "waste the time of people", since I am not the one that drag them to this case. AlexCovarrubias
- I am sorry to confirm that I could not expect any other answer from you. Oh, BTW, I thought you had dragged Alonso, me and at least one administrator here. Maybe it was another person.--Diegou 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Alex, we are not in a court house, and admins are not appointed judges. Admins, like me on ca:wiki, are users who have the ability to block users, and just a few have the system privileges to perform an IP address verification. That is why evidence has to be provided first by all parties. If evidence is weak, the case is dismissed without further verification. We have presented a rebuttal, and provided strong arguments against all your "evidence". You have not replied; you simply say "no, because I say so", just like you have done on all the discussions in which you have participated: you present your subjective opinion as the absolute truth, you do not participate in the debate that ensues except by criticizing your opponents with ad hominem attacks and sarcasm; when consensus is reached by those who did participate and might have proved you wrong, you delete their editions claiming that "consensus was not reached" and accuse all users who change the text according to the consensus of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Who knows, maybe even if our IP address are verified and proved to be from different countries and continents, you might still be unwilling to accept the truth, like you did when HDI and GDP were brought forth as measurements of standard of living.
- Like I said before, some of your contributions, like the images you have provided, have been extremely valuable to Wikipedia. Do not risk yourself to the point of being blocked by your stubbornness and unwillingness to abide by wikipedia's rules (i.e. your clear violation of 3RR) and by attacking users and vandalizing the editions of users who not only happen to have different opinions, but who provide the evidence to sustain them. I am willing to continue with this process to the point of IP address verification. In fact, I have asked admins to do so; I have nothing to hide. But this whole incident will have been just a headache for all of us if you don't use it to think things over and to change your attitude towards other users. If, after this incident is over, you have learned to assume good faith, to respect others, to debate constructively, to present good sources for your claims, and to accept the evidence that is shown against your arguments, and are willing to reach a consensus without reverting the work of others, then all this headache will have a positive outcome both for you and for Wikipedia. It is entirely up to you.
- --Alonso 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I love how you generalize my position (not talking to you or Diegou since I always believed you were sockpuppets) about the discussion on the Mexico article in order to, what it seems to me, give a bad image of my person. Well, you continue to do that, since it really does not hurt me, not in WP nor in my real life. And I also love how you talk about me like a super rule breaker. I mean c'mon what rules have I broke? 3RR? Yet you talk about "my unwillingness to abide by WP rules". The one that thinks has the absolute truth is you, judging my "behaviour" and generalizing it. You certainly care a lot about this. =) AlexCovarrubias
- I love how you generalize my position (not talking to you or Diegou since I always believed you were sockpuppets) about the discussion on the Mexico article in order to, what it seems to me, give a bad image of my person. Well, you continue to do that, since it really does not hurt me, not in WP nor in my real life. And I also love how you talk about me like a super rule breaker. I mean c'mon what rules have I broke? 3RR? Yet you talk about "my unwillingness to abide by WP rules". The one that thinks has the absolute truth is you, judging my "behaviour" and generalizing it. You certainly care a lot about this. =) AlexCovarrubias
You broke WP:AGF with this spurious page, SqueakBox 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I guess your comments here are another proof to our arguments. No, I don't have the absolute truth, yet four users have found your accusations spurious. That is called consensus. I honestly do not understand why you insist on saying "you guys care a lot about this, I don't". Yes, I care about Wikipedia, because I believe in this project, I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't believe in it. Yes, I believe any personal attack and false accusation whether it is Wikipedia or real life has to be dealt with accordingly. (Besides, I don't see why wikipedia is not "real" life, unless your contributions here are not honest). Please, take my advise, which I guess you didn't read. Learn from this experience, change your attitude. Do not risk yourself to the point of being blocked. --Alonso 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Alex, what you did in the Latin America page was not only 3RR, but pure and simple VANDALISM. I am a new Wikipedian, but as far as I understand the policy, you cannot delete sourced information without discussing in the correponding talk page, or at least without any single justification. I sent you not one but TWO vandalism warnings, which you conveniently and immediately deleted from your user page. So that it is clear what we are discussing here, I will transcribe here your reply to my first vandalism warning:
- "Editing an article is not vandalism. The same claim can be made of your recent deletion of economic information by J.Alonso. However nobody accused you of "vandalism", right? I will not let you edit information to demerit Mexico as you have proven to do. Just take a loot (sic) at your contribution page. You are surely an anti-Mexican. Revert as many times you want, I will do the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
- Alex, you said "Revert as many times you want, I will do the same". You are self incriminating!!! For the record, this what I replied as my SECOND vandalism warning:
- "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Latin America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diegou 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (please stop)
- You just wrote in my talk page the following: "Editing an article is not vandalism. The same claim can be made of your recent deletion of economic information by J.Alonso. However nobody accused you of "vandalism", right? I will not let you edit information to demerit Mexico as you have proven to do. Just take a loot at your contribution page. You are surely an anti-Mexican. Revert as many times you want, I will do the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
- First of all, I am glad that you do not think anymore that Alonso and I are the same person. I recall that you said in the talk page of the Mexico article the following: "I have strong evidence showing J.Alonso and Diegou are the same person (WP:Sockpuppet) so I'm reporting this". You never reported it, so apparently your evidence was not very strong, and never apologized with Alonso and me.
- Second, you are not editing but DELETING. More specifically, you are deleting: (i) the GDP growth table and (ii) the HDI indices. You cannot delete sourced information unless you have sources that demostrate that the source I provided is wrong.
- Third, I already explained Alonso that I did not intend to delete anything but only to reorganize. In any case, Alonso already put back the information he thought was missing, and I am OK with that.
- Fourth, I am not trying to demerit Mexico (or any other country). Please explain in what Mexico is demerited by (i) adding a GDP growth table, (ii) adding the HDI index and (iii) rearranging a table in alphabetical order.
- I kindly invite you to participate in the talk page.--Diegou 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)--Diegou 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
- As you can see, I gave you a new chance to participate in a civilized manner on the debate, and I even asked you kindly to do so. What was your reply? You again deleted the information without any justification (VANDALISM again), and filed this sockpuppetry accusation ...
- Alex, as this process is advancing and evidence of your behavior in Wikipedia is coming to surface, you are embarrassing even more and more. Come on, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You've lost your discussions in the Mexico article on the standard of living issue, you've lost again when you vandalized the Latin America article, and you're losing here. Please stop and don't make a fool of yourself. Please accept that you were wrong and apologize with Alonso and me.
- And one comment to SqueakBox: I appreciate very much your intervention, but I think that it would be convenient to keep record of this process and not to delete it, as a proof that the accusation was fake. As you know, Alex made first his accusation of sockpuppetry in the Mexico talk page, so I would like to have a record showing (i) that Alex finally filed the case and (ii) that it was shown that he was wrong.--Diegou 11:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wow you and your uppish attitude. You say you "gave me the change to debate" (like you're entitled to do that) and then you said "I lost" (lost what? I mean this is only a sockpuppetry claim not yet solved). In the Mexico article, I decided not to "debate" with two accounts that to me were the same user, that's it. And finally, I don't have anything to apoligize for nor I will. Have a nice day. Perhaps I should recommend you to do something interesting in your real life? I don't know. AlexCovarrubias
- Wow you and your uppish attitude. You say you "gave me the change to debate" (like you're entitled to do that) and then you said "I lost" (lost what? I mean this is only a sockpuppetry claim not yet solved). In the Mexico article, I decided not to "debate" with two accounts that to me were the same user, that's it. And finally, I don't have anything to apoligize for nor I will. Have a nice day. Perhaps I should recommend you to do something interesting in your real life? I don't know. AlexCovarrubias
- I am not sure whether "uppish" is a compliment, but thank you just in case.
- Regarding what happened in the Mexico page, you are not telling the truth. I am transcribing the history page:
- (cur) (last) 22:47, 5 December 2006 Titoxd (Talk | contribs) (um, no - read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence; it stays on the talk page until a source is found, or it is gone)
- (cur) (last) 22:41, 5 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m (→Standard of living - Restoring sentence, while "debate" is still going on it should not be removed)
- (cur) (last) 20:00, 5 December 2006 Beagel (Talk | contribs) (Although Mexico is an OECD member, this category doesn't include member countries)
- (cur) (last) 16:17, 5 December 2006 SqueakBox (Talk | contribs) (→Standard of living - rm controversy)
- (cur) (last) 13:11, 5 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m (Do not delete the sentence until "consensus" is reached.)
- (cur) (last) 12:12, 5 December 2006 Diegou (Talk | contribs) (Deleted sentence until consensus is reached on the talk page on this controversial issue.)
- (cur) (last) 18:37, 4 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m
- (cur) (last) 13:06, 4 December 2006 Diegou (Talk | contribs) (Deleted until consensus is reached on this sentece in the talk page. Currently there are three people (i.e.: the majority) in favor of deleting it and two in favor of keeping it.)
- That is, you withdrew when Titoxd (an administrator) told you not to insist on your continuous reversions. Do you recognize a pattern? It is exactly the same thing you did in the Latin America article!! But in the last case the matter was even more serious because you committed VANDALISM, which you tried to conceal by means of this fake sockpuppetry case.--Diegou 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Alex, if for you Wikipedia is not "real life" and you make fun of us for taking this seriously, then why are you here? Do you honestly believe in this project? Your attitude only confirms that your vandalism is justified because you actually don't seriously believe in this project, and you wouldn't care less about the outcome of this even if it is your account that gets blocked for 3RR and vandalism. I have asked you to change your attitude; we all win if you simply learn from your mistakes and if you start to debate in a civilized manner. I believe (and I hope it hasn't been naïvely), that you can be a good contributor. I care less if you apologize to me or not. But if you change your attitude and start thinking about what you are doing, and begin to actually believe in this project (which happens to be as real as it can be in this internet-based era of communications) then this whole headache will have at least one positive outcome. But I will insist no more. I am willing to go all the way through with this process. --Alonso 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Again with your uppish attitude. You are no one to "judge" if I am a good or a bad contributor. That only shows how arrogant you are. Who do you think you are!? I'm not changing anything in my attitude, because what YOU want me to change is not my attitude in general (which is very different) but my attitude towards YOU. I have no respect for people that that use sockpuppets. As I already said, I ignored YOU (J.Alonso/Diegou) because I always suspected you were sockpuppeting. Period. Can't you read? AlexCovarrubias
People have a problem with your spurious sockpuppet allegations not your edits, SqueakBox 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Alex, how come you are treating Alonso and me as only one person? You said above: "No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported." So, where did the "technical need" go now? And what about my comment to your post: "Interesting that you believe in things that you admit yourself that are not verified. Not very rigorous, really?". You never replied. It is difficult to follow your logic, Alex. Or maybe, and I think that's the case, it is too simple.--Diegou 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Who's got the uppish attitude? A user who offers mediation and encourages other users to participate? or a user that refuses to participate constructively and attacks other users, never assumes good faith, shows no respect for anyone, and ignores others? You have violated several wikipedia rules, and yet we have offered mediation and treated you with respect. I am not judging you, but do you have the "right" you to judge my [purported] uppish attitude? You are guilty of the same things you are accusing others of doing.
Besides you have not only had this attitude towards me and Diegou: you have history of ad hominem attacks and allegations with other users as well in several articles related to Mexico, Brazil, Latin America, BRIC, etc. --Alonso 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- We need the attention of an administrator
Administrators: We have tried by all possible means to establish a civilized and constructive dialogue with AlexCovarrubias but he has refused to participate and has reaffirmed his destructive attitude and his unwillingness to cooperate in a respectful manner. Four users have responded to Alex's allegations and have provided evidence of his vandalism, his violation of the rules of our community and his unwillingness to cooperate and treat others respectfully.
We have tried to mediate and asked him to stop his destructive attitude so that we could get back to working as a team. He is unwilling to accept evidence that has proved him wrong which has been provided not only by us, Diegou and me, but by external users as well. This debate will never end, and he will not stop until he gets what he has been asking for.
I ask of an administrator:
- Check my and Diegou's IP addresses. I do not have anything to hide. Moreover, that would be the clearest proof that his accusations were spurious.
- Take note of Alex's:
- Vandalism in Latin America. I do not think this is a violation of 3RR, since there was no dispute between two different versions. This is pure vandalism. He repeatedly deleted valuable information and the work of other users (a table of GDP data and HDI). While no reasons were given for his actions, I assume based on his comments in Talk:Mexico, that he thought this "compromising data would demerit (sic) Mexico". These repeated deletions were a personal attack to all work done by either Diegou or me (presumably since we had opposed his arguments in Talk:Mexico) and not a valid reversion of a controversial issue (there was no controversy and no discussion at all). While Diegou, SqueakBox and me asked him to stop his reiterated deletions and to provide a reason behind his silent vandalism, he ignored us, deleted our petitions from his talk page and continued reverting. This accusation of sockpuppetry was his last minute resort to win an edit war.
- His history of deletions and reversions, as well as ad hominem and sarcastic verbal attacks towards all users that disagree with his vision of Mexico as a superior nation in the following articles Latin America, Newly industrialized countries (his vehement opposition to Argentina being considered as such), Developing nations, Mexico, BRICS, BRIC, Argentina, Brazil (and his vehement opposition to the claims made in it and to its candidacy as a featured article), Regional power, BRIMC as well the pattern of reversions and voting of a new user who happened to be participating in the exact the same articles and decision making votes: User:Dr.Kerr. If he knew and played with 3RR rules he might well know and play with sockpuppetry.
- Given his lack of commitment to teamwork, his vision of wikipedia as "unreal" and "unimportant" (based on his comments above) and his unwillingness to cooperate even though we offered a pacific solution to this discussion, I ask that his case be treated according to all prescribed actions for violators of 3RR and vandalism to the fullest extent.
--Alonso 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[Sound of crickets]
10 days have elapsed since the filing of this case, and not one admin has considered that there was evidence here to justify an IP investigation, let alone to block anybody's account.
Conclusions:
- (i) The sockpuppetry accusation is false.
- (ii) Alonso and Diegou win.
- (iii) Alex Covarrubias loses.
--Diegou 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- No this case isn't closed unless an admin explicitly gives an indication it's closed. And there's a huge backlog on SSP, so things are out the window. MER-C 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- MER-C, I believe there are plenty of administrators at the English Wikipedia, and not a single one has paid attention to the recent sockpuppetry cases. This particular debate has been going on for over 11 days. We have asked administrators to check IPs and also to take not of Alex's violations of rules and vanadalism, yet he have recieved no response whatsoever from any administrator at all. Unless action is taken, this will just become a headache and a useless debate. --Alonso 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed by refusing to close it the structure is just feeding the trolls, and not for the first time on wikipedia unfortunately. Encouraging trollish users and discouraging honest editors will have a detrimental effect on wikipedia, SqueakBox 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Per the future policy of unified login across wiki projects and for privacy concerns, I have requested my user name to be changed to Dúnadan. This, however, does not change any of my contributions. All of the contributions done by J.Alonso have been transferred to the new user account, and the action has been registered at Special:Log/renameuser. Since the change in name has not hidden any of my conttributions (nor the IP addresses), please continue the process of evaluating this case, to the point of verifying the IP addresses that I used as J.Alonso, like I had requested. --Dúnadan Alonso 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Sorry this took so long, as MER-C mentions the backlog here is horrendous. Anyway, Dunadan/J. Alonso are clearly not the same person as Diegou. They have each made substantial contributions, often to different areas, with different styles (including their warning styles - the only thing their warnings have in common is that they use warning templates - well, that is what the templates are for), and, for just one more example, on Dec 5, 2006, Diegou edited at 10:48, 10:58, and 11:08, while Alonso edited at 11:00 twice and 11:01 once - to different articles on different subjects. Complete exoneration (como se dice en Espanol?). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected meatpuppeteer
BenBurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected meatpuppet
Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
These two users have a meatpuppet relationship. Wherever one goes, the other follows. They are constantly pushing a left-wing POV on politically related articles, particularly Free Republic, Protest Warrior and Democratic Underground. They routinely violate WP:RS in the process of their campaign against WP:NPOV in these articles. Anyone who attempts to defend NPOV in these articles is targeted for ridicule and personal attacks, in violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and may end up a target of sockpuppet allegations which give rise to little yellow notices being plastered on their User and Talk pages, and on the article Talk pages. The sockpuppet investigations are used for days as an excuse to proceed with even more virulent WP:NPA and WP:CIV violations.
- Comments
Revenge nomination from a confirmed sock puppet of User:BryanFromPalatine. I need say no more. --BenBurch 00:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th) for recently completed proceeding against this sock puppet making this revenge request. --BenBurch 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should say more, Ben. I'm assembling the evidence against you now. There's going to be a lot of it. - ClemsonTiger 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here's some evidence of their personal attacks and ridicule. [153] Here's some more. [154] Here's just one of many examples of their ridicule and personal attacks during a sockpuppet investigation. [155] Notice how, whenever one of them starts a sockpuppet investigation, the other is piling on within a few minutes. Each and every time. Conclusive and damning evidence of their meatpuppet relationship. - ClemsonTiger 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence of their collaborative violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIV and WP:NPA are far too voluminous to list here. I refer admins to their Talk pages and the archives of their Talk pages for the many warnings that they have received. I also refer admins to the articles I've previously cited, and the many warnings they've received there as well. - ClemsonTiger 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't forget the archives from his talk page that BenBurch has tried to conceal, by not linking them on his Talk page: Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006 Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006 - ClemsonTiger 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's also the previous account used by F.A.A.F.A., entitled NBGPWS, which stands for "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warrior Sucks," and its archives. Under that name, F.A.A.F.A. was blocked for a month. - ClemsonTiger 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then, of course, there's this little gem: [156] - ClemsonTiger 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: Requesting sock puppet and the sockpuppeteer have been permanently blocked. BenBurch 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
While I believe that (a) this is a revenge posting and (b) neither Ben or FAAFA is a sock puppet or that either uses sockpuppets, the rest of CT's post is pretty accurate. Jinxmchue 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have had very unpleasant dealings--shouts and threats--from BenBurch in the last day or so, He rejects the notion that all statements have to be based on reliable sources and demands all sorts of nonsense re Henry Ford. (He says that a deletion of incorrect information has to be proven false to his satisfaction or it stays, even without a reliable source.) I've made hundreds of editos to that article over the last year and resent his un-Wiki behaviour. Rjensen 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ahem... You were five reverts into your 3RR limit, and I was nice enough not to report that. And you were deleting properly sourced information from the article to defend Henry Ford against charges that he was complicit with Hitler. You provided NO sources to back up your claim that the cite for that material was unreliable, and instead decided to make fun of my grandparents. I demanded, and the other editors in that article demanded, that you provide a Reliable Source to back up your extraordinary claim that the source we had was a liar. You claimed that The International Jew never existed, or was not authored by Ford, and was never translated into German, both untrue. All we asked was a Reliable Source for your claims and your refused to provide it. So, yes, you will continue to have "very unpleasant dealings" with me and the other editors of the Henry Ford article if you intend to bully your way through to deleting information to rehabilitate Ford. --BenBurch 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and my only "threat" was to turn you in for 3RR if you made a Sixth Revert to this article. I see that you were subsequently blocked for edit warring on yet another article, and you have MANY such blocks in your block log. --BenBurch 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- See how BenBurch responds to claims that he has threatened someone. He responds with more bullying. Since joining Wikipedia I've tried to learn how the website works: the interpersonal dynamics and hierarchies. I haven't done much editing, just reading and learning about the sociology of the site. I looked at the Protest Warrior, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground articles since I suspected that they would be flashpoints for conflict and this was immediately confirmed. I quickly learned about diffs, talk pages, archives and about contribution histories. What they're doing is not right. I looked at the Free Republic talk page and the Democratic Underground talk page, and archives of both. They are like dogfights. But every fight has a history. I looked for the cause of this fight in the archives of the fighters. I found this edit war (9-10 January) and this edit war (31 December - 1 January) (both on BryanFromPalatine's talk page while he was blocked) and this foul remark (5 December). I've learned that a user has the unlimited right to edit his own Talk page. Any edit war there is the fault of the visitor. Many, many other edit wars and foul remarks in the archives. They're still harassing Bryan here and here and here. There's also this, where BenBurch is using IP address 69.81.140.136 as a sock puppet. The presence of such people is the reason why I have not continued to participate on Wikipedia to a greater degree. Careful review of the diffs and contrib histories confirms that BenBurch and FAAFA have formed a street gang. Whenever one of them gets into a disagreement, the other one shows up, probably in response to a phone call or e-mail. BenBurch and FAAFA always baited BryanFromPalatine. Administrators blamed the victim, because he always took the bait and reacted in the wrong way. BenBurch and FAAFA should share his fate. Fensteren 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and my only "threat" was to turn you in for 3RR if you made a Sixth Revert to this article. I see that you were subsequently blocked for edit warring on yet another article, and you have MANY such blocks in your block log. --BenBurch 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ahem... You were five reverts into your 3RR limit, and I was nice enough not to report that. And you were deleting properly sourced information from the article to defend Henry Ford against charges that he was complicit with Hitler. You provided NO sources to back up your claim that the cite for that material was unreliable, and instead decided to make fun of my grandparents. I demanded, and the other editors in that article demanded, that you provide a Reliable Source to back up your extraordinary claim that the source we had was a liar. You claimed that The International Jew never existed, or was not authored by Ford, and was never translated into German, both untrue. All we asked was a Reliable Source for your claims and your refused to provide it. So, yes, you will continue to have "very unpleasant dealings" with me and the other editors of the Henry Ford article if you intend to bully your way through to deleting information to rehabilitate Ford. --BenBurch 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have had very unpleasant dealings--shouts and threats--from BenBurch in the last day or so, He rejects the notion that all statements have to be based on reliable sources and demands all sorts of nonsense re Henry Ford. (He says that a deletion of incorrect information has to be proven false to his satisfaction or it stays, even without a reliable source.) I've made hundreds of editos to that article over the last year and resent his un-Wiki behaviour. Rjensen 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Clemson Tiger is Nit Picking...it appears.
Sounds like the Republicans are just nit picking because Ben Burch and the other guy are holding down very strong arguements and they have similar opinions. This guy just wants someone who is not Pro-Bush or super conservative banned. Nit Picking - previous unsigned comment by User:69.81.140.136
- Speaking of sockpuppets... Jinxmchue 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate upon that comment, Jinxie? Or to retract it? --BenBurch 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pretty obvious that this was a single-use sockpuppet. They show up, put up some snarky comments about Republicans on this one page, and then vanish. Jinxmchue 05:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- A sock puppet of whom do you think? That is a cablemodem user in TN. More than likely this user edits all the time, but being on a cablemodem has a different IP every day or so. You are in my opinion far too ready to point the finger without cause here. --BenBurch 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, sure. Whatever, Ben. Maybe they should get a username and password. Then it won't matter about having different IPs every day. Jinxmchue 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not everybody wants the abuse that comes with having a user name here. --BenBurch 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Then they shouldn't be surprised when they're suspected of being sockpuppets, should they? Gosh, but you're defending this person an awful lot. One must wonder why you aren't approaching this issue with the same level of suspicion, incredulity and enthusiasm as you are with other suspected sockpuppets. Jinxmchue 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Methinks next time they should try filing a WP:CABAL case ! LOL ! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- There may not be a WP:CABAL, but there is a meatpuppet relationship. They haven't even tried to deny it, although they immediately removed templates from their User pages in violation of Wikipedia policy. Jinxmchue, Fensteren and Rjensen agree that it is an abusive relationship in various ways. What is the remedy? Dino 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you just organically incapable of understanding the Wikipedia term of art "MeatPuppet"? A Meatpuppet is a single purpose account created to sway a particular vote or a particular article. FAAFA and I are two separate individuals who happen to agree on things when we find them here on Wikipedia. Unlike your sock puppets which were focused like a laser beam on the Free Republic article. Of all the people I have met here you are probably the least intelligent. --BenBurch 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- But you keep referring to Bryan as "smart kid." Ironclad evidence that I am not a sockpuppet. Dino 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I submitted a couple of paragraphs on the Free Republic website on Jan. 21, 2007, to include biographical information on founder Jim Robinson. It was very basic and noncontroversial material. Yet Ben deleted them and said that the statements did not belong on the Free Republic site. I am in the process of preparing a separate article on Mr. Robinson. I hope that Ben will not challenge this article on the grounds that it should be included in the Free Republic site.
When I started routine editing of the Free Republic site a few weeks ago, I found that it was mostly in passive voice. I switched it to active voice where I could. I found that a lot of terms were not included in the [[ ]], so I made those changes too. I found sentences that made little sense or were at best unclear. I tried to write all the sentences again so that one could read them without having to guess at what the reader was saying.
When I made routine changes, Ben was constantly monitoring the site, which I found odd.
I also noted the part about death threats. I don't know anything about that, but it sound potentially libelous to me.
Billy Hathorn 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Created by sockpuppet of blocked user. MER-C 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ME!
- NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user has not made an edit since 17Oct2006, and only made 2 edits on Bridgestone, 1 was a link and the other a spelling correction. Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry.
- → This is hardly "a spelling correction." Athænara ✉ 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- LucaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Probable employee of Bridgestone in Ohio.
- 211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledges probably her
- 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledges probably her
- 211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
- 211.29.3.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (211.29.3.61 overlooked in original list, added 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
- 211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
- 211.29.13.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
- 211.29.2.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Mobile 01 acknowledged probably her
No conflicting edits, no illigitimate use, no coercion, no vote rigging. Dont think this rates as sock puppetry, just not logging on properly.
- 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)This user formatted a table and fixed up spelling on the bridgestone article. Made 3 edits to dicussion page on firestone article to answer some questions. No conflict, No edit reverting, no illigitimate usage apart from some misunderstanding when they first became an editor about over linking and not understanding why edits kept vanishing. Even if that was me it doesnt rate as sock puppetry.
All of the above editors, anons and myself have done nothing that warrants a sock puppet enquiry. While I have made a few errors due to lack of understanding on content forking that is all. The rest of this page is just a witch hunt by a user who I am in conflict with over the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. Mobile 01Talk 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
At the bottom of this page you will find a new user User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All possibly a sockpuppet of User:Travb has started to add unsupported accusations, sarcasm and abuse towards me and the integrity of this pages purpose. I have also been threatened by another associate of User:Travb on my talk page. Mobile 01Talk 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I welcome you too file Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Travb. All the other baseless accusations have nothing to do with the suspected sock puppets of User:Mobile 01. Travb (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
New evidence
New evidence after User:Mobile 01 acknowledged multiple anon accounts. (see above)[166] Travb (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dont twist my words Travb, I aknowledged that I had inadvertently not logged on and thus my edit to an admin page was signed as an ANON. I did not say that I had used ANON accounts to edit the Firestone Page. You are twisting the facts to suit your own motives and it is a further example of how far you will go to attack my credibility. As all edits by me do not overlap nor do they attempt to gain support for a POV or attempt to rig a vote or violate any illigitimacy rules covered by sockpuppetry, your continued vendetta against me is starting to look very personal.Mobile 01Talk 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Mobile 01 I am not User:203.49.235.50
|
User:Mobile 01 denies being User:203.49.235.50:
Edit history of User:Mobile 01 and User:203.49.235.50:
Block history of 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
Block on User talk:203.49.235.50: [175] Complaint on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism:
Later partial mea culpa by User:Mobile 01 in regards to 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):
|
User:Mobile 01 I am not User:NeilinOz1
|
User:Mobile 01: "As for NeilinOz1 and LucaZ you will have to ask them." [178] User:Mobile 01 Acknowledges that 211 numbers are hers [179] 211.29.2.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs comment on Talk:Smallville (season 6) as: NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[180] User:Mobile 01 again first denies this is her:
Then User:Mobile 01 admits:
Signed, Travb (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
- FYI, My ISP is OPTUSNET, Optus is the second biggest ISP in Australia next to Telstra. Every account holder of Optusnet has an IP address that starts with 211.29.??.??. Mobile 01Talk 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Refers to herself in the third person
As per Bobblehead below:
- The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01.[184] However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that.[185] The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.-- Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the rest of this message, I see the explanation has been deleted.Mobile 01Talk 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments on abuse
| “ | It looks to me like his evidence is the editing pattern, which we do accept here as evidence of sockpuppetry...if Travb is right, then we have a major (not to mention newsworthy) conflict of interest here, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. | ” |
Signed: Travb (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also quite possibly true, but what does two anon edits by employees of Bridgestone in Nashville USA have to do with me here in Australia. It seems to me that the user Travb is indeed trying to use the Chewbacca Defence.Mobile 01Talk 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
| “ | Very interesting. The pattern suggests not simply one-off edits by an individual employee, but a coordinated effort. Raymond Arritt 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Signed: Travb (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree with you on that point especially if I lived in Nashville USA. But unfortunately as I live on the other side of the world it would be hard to be a sockpuppet of those Bridgestone Employee Editors.Mobile 01Talk 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Mobile 01 quoted User:LucaZ for backing up her version of the edits [188]:
| “ | The reasons for deletion were explained to you by Lucaz | ” |
| “ | LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006. Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006. |
” |
| “ | Regarding LucaZ and Mobile 01: My own third opinion is that those two, or that one in (so far) two guises, should be prevented from editing the article and good editors [should be] allowed to retrieve the encyclopedic material from the debris. I hope Robdurbar, wangi, perhaps others, continue to assist. | ” |
Edits by Bridgestone on Firestone and Bridgestone
See: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone
Factual inconsistencies of User:Mobile 01 and her intentions on wikipedia
|
See also #Another opinion below. States there are no Firestones in AustraliaYou may also note that I spell Tyre differently to the American spelling Tire. This should indicate to you that I am not from the USA. I am actually from Australia. We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand.[191] But later states that she was aware that Bridgestone was in AustraliaExplaining how she started to edit these pages: 05:44, 11 January 2007 "One day I got shunted to the Bridgestone page and noticed that the information was way out of date and had nothing about the Australian factories. being an old time tyre fan from way back I did some research on the plants and updated the article."[192] Response of Mobile 01In response, Mobile 01 wrote:
Firestone was bought out by Bridgestone in as per: Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company#Sale_to_Bridgestone Keep in mind: Bridgestone and Firestone are the same company now. So what Mobile 01 is writing is this:
In other words, what User:Mobile 01 appears to be saying is that Bridgestone tire company does not actually make Bridgestone tires. And the repeated New Zealand claim? Type in "new zealand firestone" in google, and what comes up first? www.bridgestone.co.nz/ On the New Zealand Bridgestone page, the article says:
Actually there are several Bridgestones in AustraliaMobile 01: "We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand."[[196] List of Bridgestones headquarters in Australia: http://www.bridgestone.com.au/contact/
Mobile 01 is from Adelaide, the same city with the Bridgestone head office.[197] |
- On the side of the tyre in Big letters is the word BRIDGESTONE. You can tell that this does not say firestone as it starts with a B. Now still with our glasses on we will go look at a Firestone tyre. Note the different arrangement of letters. F.I.R.E.S.T.O.N.E, this does not spell Bridgestone. So what Mobile01 is saying is exactly what she originally said and not the newly edited version. Let me reiterate that Bridgestone Australia is a company listed on the Australian stock exchange. This means that is not owned by Bridgestone but by shareholders. If Bridgestone owns Firestone then that has no relevance to BSAL (Bridgestone Australia Ltd) which brands its tyres as BRIDGESTONE under licence. This is primarily why I edit the article and the start of this edit was by Travb over my trying to include separation between Firestone USA subsidiary of Bridgestone, and Firestone International such as Europe and New Zealand. The negative comments that the edit war is about all relate to Firestone USA, I have been trying to show that these do not apply to the rest of the Firestone organisation nor to Bridgestone Corporate Japan and especially not to Australia which isnt even owned by Bridgestone Copr Japan. Mobile 01Talk 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mobile 01, true or false, did Bridgestone buy out Firestone in 1988? Therefore, Firestone ceased to be Firestone, it became Bridgestone.
- Lets look at the web, type "firestone" in google what is the first entry?: www.bridgestone-firestone.com/ click on the link, what do you find, a big Bridgestone emblem. Your misreprestations of simple, easily confirmed facts is troubling.
- With one of your anon accounts, on the Bridgestone talk page, in response to the Ford scandal and the largest tire recall in history, you wrote:
- This topic is well covered in its own article as well as in the Firestone Tire and Rubber article.[198]
- So why are you yourself refering to Firestone on the Bridgestone page? Yet in other locations you say they are different companies. Why?
- Again, Mobile 01, true or false, did Bridgestone buy out Firestone in 1988? Travb (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Travb, I'm not sure if your dilliberately playing dumb or what your problem is with understanding simple english. So one again I will explain it to you. It's getting a little tedious as it's been explained in so many ways and you still seem to be having difficulty with such a simple concept.
My statement was "We dont have Firestone in Australia, the closest is in New Zealand" end of quote.
Bridgestone Australia is a publicly listed company on the Australia stock exchange, it is not owned by Bridgestone.
Bridgestone Australia does not manufacture Firestone Tyres in it's plant.
Firestone New Zealand also a publicly listed company until 2003 was bought by Bridgestone. Tyres manufactured at teh New Zealand plant are badged as FIRESTONE. As far as I can find out, they do not manufacture Bridgestone branded tyres.
While Bridgestone may well have bought Firestone, the article in question Firestone Tire and Rubber Company is predominantly about the companies origins in the USA before they were bought by Bridgestone. My reference on the Bridgestone page explain that the topics mentioned were already covered on the firestone article and do not belong on the Bridgestone page. If we were to merge the two articles so as to have one big Bridgestone article, a lot of this information would get lost. Firestone problems before Bridgestone bought them out would become irrelevant and so it is better to keep the articles separate so these topics can be fully explored from a NPOV.
While the parent company is Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone still operates it's subsidieries as seperate companies for tax reasons and to abide by international law and the laws of the countries it operates in. The American subsidiary operates under the title of "Bridgestone/Firestone North America Holdings".
Your logic appears to imply that we should not have separate articles for companies if they are owned by a parent. KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut are all owned by Yum yet we have separate articles for them.
Please dont ask me to explain this to you anymore. 
Rebuttal
- Believes a sock puppet exists because two editors in Australia both like watching the TV program Smallville.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- So: Re: "Postings from IP starting 211.29.*.* are probably all mine. Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007" 211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are all yours. In addition, we have a Bridgestone employee in Ohio deleting the same sections as you are. (See below).
- This was when I used my brothers computer to send a message to an admin. I corrected to signature next time I logged in from home. he uses the same ISP, hence the same starting numbers.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Postings from IP starting 211.29.*.* are probably all mine.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 211.29.13.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 211.29.2.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 211.29.3.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 211.29.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
These are probably all me, my PC is supposed to log me on automatically but sometimes it doesn't. I don't always notice I am not logged in and this causes my edits to appear as ANON.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user is from the other side of the country. They have made a few edits on the same pages, probably linked to what I was editing via the history of Smallville edits. I do the same myself when I check the history of a page and see an issue going on, I often go check out other things that user edits.
Mobile 01 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As for NeilinOz1 and LucaZ you will have to ask them.
I notice in the rules for sock puppets that an account is not considered a sock puppet unless used for illigitamate purposes. While my unfortunate mistakes with ANON editing are annoying, there was nothing illigitimate about any of my edits while using the ANON signin.
Mobile 01 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company. I started this page by copying the content of the protected page and began editing it to remove USA Specific content and adding International content. I never got to finish it because when I went back the next day, user Travb had initiated a complaint to have it deleted.
I also found an old article Firestone which was a redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, as The word Firestone relates to more than just tires, I edited this article to show the many articles within Wiki that are about Firestone, including Firestone High School, Firestone Golf Club, plus numerous people named Firestone. I have now been informed that this is also incorrect and that a Firestone Disambiguation page is where that belongs. Unfortunately there is not a lot on that page and you cant edit it to add more. I found many instances throughout Wiki where key words for Firestone had been redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Even Bridgestone Firestone was redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company rather than to the Bridgestone article. I fixed up all the articles I could find thus leaving Firestone Tire and Rubber Company as a semi orphan that was reachable by direct entry of the name, or by link from the parent topic of Firestone rather than every firestone keyword redirecting the user to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I have now been told by an Admin that this was also not allowed. I have tried in good faith to fix these problems with the articles and am now being personally attacked at every corner by user Travb. See his personal vendetta page at User talk:Travb/m Frankly if this is how an editor of Wiki is treated then what's the point of trying to improve the articles if another user just reverts all your work and then gets Admins to protect his version of an article while he sets about a personal attack of you on all fronts.
Mobile 01 11:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion
While it is apparent that all the accounts and anon's provided are run by the same person (similar editing patterns and interests), I'm only seeing two "minor" instances where there's a violation of WP:SOCK and one definite violation, so I'm not sure an indefinite block is warranted, perhaps a good hand slap and a promise not to do it again. There isn't any overlap in editing periods between Mobile, LucaZ, and NeilinOZ1 and the only questionable edit between accounts is where Mobile 01 added a comment to a comment string LucaZ also commented in. As for the anon's there are overlaps in editing periods, but the questionable edits is when Mobile reverted Firestone after Woohookitty sprot'd the page, but I'm not sure content forking was a valid reason to protect this page as it does appear Mobile was setting up a dab page and not a fork.[199] The clear violation is where Mobile commented on Woohookitty's talk page as an anon, referred to himself in the third person and then signed as Mobile 01.[200] However Mobile did go back and correct that prior to anyone telling him to, so perhaps give him some credit for that.[201] The other anon edits do not appear to be disruptive and it is plausible that Mobile failed to log in during those edits.--Bobblehead 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I tried to explain earlier, the message to User_talk:Woohookitty was written at my brothers house and I was not logged in, I deliberatley used the third person so as not to appear as an impersonator. I corrected this immediately when I got home and logged in as me. I do not believe that I have done anything wrong here and have only been acting in good faith to try and stop a Wiki Bully from ruining what could be a good article. I don't know who user LucaZ or NeilinOz1 are and they both seem to have stopped editing in Wiki anyway. I have admitted that the ANONs are all mine and have redirected those talk pages to my own. Not sure what else I can do. I have done nothing illigitimate nor disruptive in any of my edits to warrant this personal attack. Mobile 01 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also posted:
- Section removed, as it had nothing to do with the merits of this case. Thatcher131 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Obsessive Hounding of Mobile 01 by Travb
The pursuit here, and more troubling at User:Travb/m is becoming a bit over-the-top, and frankly, a little scary. Here's what was said at the AN/I board about the issue:
". . . You're really reaching if that's the worst you can find from him. And frankly, I think you should back off on the whole sockpuppet hunt. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)" (excerpted in part)
"Could someone else take a look at this? Travb left an NPA warning on mobile 01 (talk • contribs)'s talk page, with links to diffs that aren't attacks at all, and he seems set on proving that Mobile 01's really a sock puppet with some flimsy evidence. It seems like the wrong party is getting warned here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"
"I'm getting a bit concerned about this - I think we got into WP:STALK territory a while back - isn't this the 3rd "outing" of Mobile 01 that Travb has performed in the last 3 or 4 days. If he's a sock or there is a COI that's one thing but the frankly obsessive manner in which he's been hounded by a single editor is not helpful. --Larry laptop 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"
The full text can be found here. The amount of time this user has poured into compiling his "evidence" at User:Travb/m is deeply troubling. Perhaps a cooling-off period is warranted. Morton DevonshireYo 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is an unfortunate and inaccurate characterisation (which supports User:Mobile 01's eager descents to the argumentum ad hominem in attempting to discredit those who question violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines in the spotlight here) of a hard-working Wikipedian who has been working alone to protect an article in which few editors have been interested. Athænara ✉ 17:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Two other editors, not involved with examination of this sock puppet ordeal, have adopted a position entirely in league with this characterization. The whole reason, I, an outsider got pulled into this affair was discovering the aggressive nature which TravB has pursued this business, and as I learned, poorly characterized Mobile 01's attempts to engage in a discussion on his talk page, which lead to the above. This whole article would be better served by both parties admitting to mistakes, and seeking to forgive each other, rather than waste time and energy to attack. In essence, this represents the very worse of Wikipedia, not an attempt to establish the very best. As is, the whole Firestone issue probably could have been settled in a better way, through mediation, rather than one editor resorting to attempting to kick out another. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- In light of Mobil01's unilateral actions such as "The liberian controvesy while interesting does not belong on this page. This is a page about Firestone, what it does, and it's history in the USA. I have created a new article Liberian Controvesy which has been placed in the correct WIKI area for such a topic." and Mobile01's attempts to scuttle valid sourced criticism of the company, Trav's conduct, while not exemplary, is not unusual either. IMHO, the article should go to mediation. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please also read Mobil01's admissions above - that section staring with : "I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company.". Firestone International is an accounting (?) firm Firestone International. There is no corporate tire entity called 'Firestone International'. This and other redirects were such flagrant violations of WP, and (IMHO) blatant attempts to hide crticism under names NO ONE would look for them under, that I actually applaud Trav for showing the good faith and restraint that he did. - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor's Diamond Mines 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is also no corporate entity called Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which is an old name from before this company in the USA was purchased by Bridgestone Corporation. From my research I have found that the company is now called Bridgestone Firestone North America Holdings. My article titled Firestone International was supposed to encapsulate the International divisions of this company. Firestone have plants in Europe and New Zealand plus land holdings and plantations including Liberia. If thats not interational I dont know what is.
- Please also read Mobil01's admissions above - that section staring with : "I did make an error in inadvertently doing something called a Content Fork, While a page was under protected mode, I made a new Page called Firestone International which I was going to make about the international company rather than purely focusing on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is about the USA company.". Firestone International is an accounting (?) firm Firestone International. There is no corporate tire entity called 'Firestone International'. This and other redirects were such flagrant violations of WP, and (IMHO) blatant attempts to hide crticism under names NO ONE would look for them under, that I actually applaud Trav for showing the good faith and restraint that he did. - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor's Diamond Mines 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your point seem to be that my edits and creation of the page would take information away and hide it where no one would look for it, which in fact is the exact opposite of what I achieved. I actually changed a parent article Firestone which originally was a redirect to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and changed it to include all firestone related articles. This included the article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and the newly created Firestone International as well as links to the founder of firestone, firestone High school, firestone golf club, firestone radio show etc etc. My point was that if anyone looked or searched for Firestone all they got directed to was Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I even added further links to the liberian controvesy and ford rollover criticisms on the Firestone page. Go check it out and then continue your diatribe. Some have called it content forking, a term which I do not believe is appropriate in this case. If anything my new articles and Firestone page was actually Un-Content Forking and provided the wiki user with a greater ability to find information than before. My comment about my edits effectively orphaning the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company are taken out of context. My implication with that comment is that instead of everything currently redirecting to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company regardless of whether it should or not, my edit prevented that article from a monopoly of "Firestone" the word, and made access to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company come directly from the parent Firestone article, this being a choice the wiki searcher had made rather than had forced upon them. I dont belive what I did was wrong but have appologised many times already for it none the less. I have tried to enter ito discussion with this Travb, I have nicely requested he cease his vendetta, I have tried to answer all points raised by him and other editors. I have tried to remain courteous at all times. While my comments may appear to Travb as NPA they are not, they have been about his editing style and POV content. I do not know what else I can do to end this, the page is still protected and as Travb refuses to enter into discussion on it, will probably remain so indefinately. Mobile 01Talk 06:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Firestone Tire and Rubber Company no longer exists as a independent and distinct corporate entity is not germaine to the fact that the DID exist, and the Firestone 'brand name' is still used. Pan_Am_World_Airways doesn't exist AT ALL and Wiki still has an article on them. Just curious - why would you choose to create the article 'Firestone International', a non existent entity, rather than the very real Firestone Natural Rubber? I look forward to working with you and Trav after he gets back from Wikivacation, and encourage you to seek mediation. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 07:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note - I do feel the article is quite unbalanced. Firestone was one the more important brands PERIOD, in the USA up until they had the problems with the 500, and the section from the founding up until this date, should be greatly expanded. To cover 1900 - 1975 in two short paragraphs (especially the first) is nothing less than a travesty. Lots of good info here 100 Years of Firestone - Fairness And Accuracy For Firestone Historians 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Morton, please see this comment on your archived talk page: [202], asking you to stop your involvment with this case, which you have never been involved with before this checkuser. You have read this message[203].
- Unfortunatly, you have ignored this request, so I had to ask two admins, who have came to your defense and User:NuclearUmpf defense when we have argued before, to intervene.
- Troublingly, both have thus far declined, one states he is too busy and gave me a list of admins who may help, the other has not intervened.
- Now User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:Tbeatty have joined this debate.
- Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
====The Bridgestone company has been anonymously editing the Firestone page====
Careful Travb, that statement could almost be libellous.
An unidentified editor using an ISP traced to Bridgestone has been editing wikipedia.
See: User talk:199.48.25.10 User talk:199.48.25.11 This employee has deleted the same sections as User:Mobile 01. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're connecting an employee in Ohio, who made four edits on November 16, 2006, to a person who lives in Australia, and did not start making edits until December 6, 2006. A quick comparison of edits did not seem to indicate any type of exact similarity between the two. If anything, it appears as if User 199.48.25.10 was just a Bridgestone employee who was accessing the page, just like User talk:199.48.24.11, who accessed the page the same day (and also of Bridgestone). A glance at the edit history of the page indicates that you have a different interpretation of what belongs on the Firestone page versus what Mobile 01 had in mind. The regrettable thing is that from an outsider's perspective, a good article could be created by the combination of what you both want for the page, but instead it descended into a useless edit war and drove you to find some means to remove Mobile 01 from the picture. I say drop this nonsense and cooperate on merging both of these visions of Firestone.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- from what I just read here, my assumption would be that user LucaZ was an employee of Bridgestone USA who had earlier tried to edit the firestone page and then came back 5 minutes later under his own login. So that would mean that I jumped on a plane and moved to Australia just so I could sockpuppet myself away from LucaZ and edit a Bridgestone article that LucaZ never edited at all. I put my user page up to clarify a few things to Travb about where I live and why I edit Bridgestone and Firestone. Bridgestones head office is in the same city as me, so what. My father used to work for them. so what. User Travb edits articles about America, a quick check on the net shows that user Travb lives in America. Oh No Conspiracy. Mobile 01Talk 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence thus far simply shows that employees of Bridgestone edited this disputed page. Travb (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- So why did you connect Mobile 01 to these edits, if they're Bridgestone employees?~ (The Rebel At) ~ 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your question RebelAt as to why user Travb would try to connect an employee of Bridgestone in Nashville USA with me in Australia, see Chewbacca Defence.
- Mobile 01Talk 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I have stated several times to you, "WP:NPA: Comment on the editor, not the edit." Please start abiding by wikirules. Travb (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- So why did you connect Mobile 01 to these edits, if they're Bridgestone employees?~ (The Rebel At) ~ 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence thus far simply shows that employees of Bridgestone edited this disputed page. Travb (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- from what I just read here, my assumption would be that user LucaZ was an employee of Bridgestone USA who had earlier tried to edit the firestone page and then came back 5 minutes later under his own login. So that would mean that I jumped on a plane and moved to Australia just so I could sockpuppet myself away from LucaZ and edit a Bridgestone article that LucaZ never edited at all. I put my user page up to clarify a few things to Travb about where I live and why I edit Bridgestone and Firestone. Bridgestones head office is in the same city as me, so what. My father used to work for them. so what. User Travb edits articles about America, a quick check on the net shows that user Travb lives in America. Oh No Conspiracy. Mobile 01Talk 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Another opinion
I am just starting to look into these charges and allegations, but IMHO Mobile1's contibutions do not jibe with someone who has only a casual, non affiliated interest in Bridgestone and Firestone, because her father worked for the factory. Use the 'reasonable man' (or woman) theory. Would someone who only had a casual relationship with a company ( a 'fan' if you will) upload nine images of an obscure Bridgestone product to Wikipedia, and write a PR-sounding puff piece on the product ? Bridgestone Rubber Dams M1 uploads 9 corporate images It just doesn't wash. Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE : Rubber dam is 100% copyvio pilfered from Bridgestone, and the article itself a redirect from the more usual 'rubber dam' as used to describe a dental product. Fishy..... Very Fishy. Fairness And Accuracy For Copy Writers 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you check the original version of that page it was very boring and outdated. I started editing it to make it more interesting. I went to the bridgestone site and found out about a whole new product I had never heard of so I thought it would be a good piece to put in the article. I also added about Bridgestone Golf products and bicycles which were not mentioned on the article either. I also found some pictures over on the Bridgestone Web site too and some generic ones around the web which I thought would make the article more appealing and generally pretty it up, to make sure it was OK, I emailed Bridgestone in Japan to ask permission to use their images, unfortunately I never got a reply, I changed the images to low res which I belive meets with the upload image policy, if that is not correct I can remove them.
Are you Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers contending that every editor of wikipedia must have some direct link to the topic they edit or else they wouldnt bother?. Your argument seems to be that because I edit a page I must therefore have some hidden adgenda. Following your logic of the 'reasonable man' theory, would any editor in wikipedia spend hours working on articles that was only a fan. I would ask the writers of Movie and TV show articles if being a fan of something is a valid reason to want to improve it. I am sure 95% of article editors do so because they are a fan or have an interest in the topic they wrote about. For that matter, your user name suggests you have a direct interest in the specific edit being questioned by Travb on the firestone page, one could surmise then that you must have more than a casual interest in placing your comments here.
User Fairness And Accuracy For Copy Writers If you have a problem with my edit on the Rubber damn product because it is too close to the text on the bridgestone site, then I am quite happy to rewrite it in my own new words. Its been there for a while and no one has complained about any edits I have made to that page that I am aware of. Mobile 01Talk 12:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, cause people feel the same way about tyres (tires) and corporate entities as they do.... say... about Johnny Depp or Cameron Diaz. Righto! Fairness And Accuracy For Vegimite Lovers 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Update : Mobile1's Rubber Dam (made by Bridgestone no less) article was deleted for violating Bridgestone copyright. M1, I apologize for accusing you of 'pilfering' the text from Bridgestone. As you are quite likely a Bridgestone employee, you are probably authorized to use their text. Posting Bridgestone PR and puffery to Wikipedian might even be part of your job description! (by the way....I need new tires, can you get me a discount? None of those crappy exploding 500's tho! - I want Potenzas!) Fairness And Accuracy For Firestone 500 Victims 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to this article that was deleted for copywrite, I cant find any trace of the article you are referring too. My edit was to a section on the Bridgestone Article to a sub section called diversified products. As far as I know it is still there. Be careful with your accusations too, Travb would say you are close to a WP:NPA
- Mobile 01Talk 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you denying the multiple contributions, using Bridgestone written text, you made to the now-deleted Rubber dam article? That seems to be the case. Are you saying that you made no such edits, and your edits concerning Bridgestone Rubber Dams were only to the main Bridgestone article? I want to be clear on this. Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, Mobile 01 accuses us of being sock puppets above Fair :)[204] I am rather offended, because I think I am a much better editor. ;-) You are probably offended for the same exact reason :)
- Also, if you look at Firestone all of User:Mobile 01, her one confirmed sock, and her several anons, all major additions, to my knowledge, have been corporate websites she links too. Travb (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hrm. I went over Mobile 01's edits from the start to finish and found no article entitled Rubber Dam. Are deleted articles removed from the contribution list? If not, then why is this article been thrown at their feet? A second point of interest, this new accuser has a visible interest in child labor in Liberia, hence the name Fairness And Accuracy For Liberian Child Slave Laborers. At the same time, Travb, has shown a strong interest in the topic, as it has been a subject he has sought to include in the main Firestone page. While certainly not a case of sock puppetry, this opinion is certainly slighted to favor Travb in this situation.
- Furthermore, any criticism towards an individual for having "odd" or "unusual" interests, such as interests in a corporation, is completely unacceptable. No one has any position to dictate what is and what isn't acceptable in terms of personal interests, especially on Wikipedia where thousands of articles would not exist if not for the specific interest of one or two individuals on certain topics. What I find most dismaying about this case is the amazing aggressiveness to prosecute it, almost an eagerness to make this the final salvo of a vendetta that began in an editing war. Then now with this recent inclusion, veritable name calling, just makes the business all the more rotten. I have no personal attachment to Mobile 01, but the nature of this attack certainly has established a sympathy for them. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you denying the multiple contributions, using Bridgestone written text, you made to the now-deleted Rubber dam article? That seems to be the case. Are you saying that you made no such edits, and your edits concerning Bridgestone Rubber Dams were only to the main Bridgestone article? I want to be clear on this. Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- One of the points you're missing here: User:Fairness And Accuracy For All frequently varies the text through which his user ident is piped. Just another creative Wikipedian keeping things interesting while also keeping the focus on what this procedural discussion is actually about: principles, policies, and guidelines, not personalities and conspiracies. Athænara ✉ 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't miss that point. Since I had to replicate the code he used for his signature, I clearly saw that he altered his signature depending on his mind set. Which, in this point, obviously shows support for Travb's position. If there was any attempt at neutral assertion, it would have been wiser not to select a topic which was one of the flame points for this whole mess between the two editors. This, by no means, neither dismisses his accusations and childish comments towards Mobile 01, concerning her entirely speculated employment at the corporation in question.
- Truly, what is at fault here are two editors who approach an article with earnest intentions, and simply failed to find common ground. It turned into an edit war that dissolved into this fracas. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I alter my signature purely for entertaiment value (mostly mine), and sometime will even add a sig opposite of my true feelings - I've used 'Fairness And Accuracy For Randy 'Duke' Cunningham' a few times lately, for instance. Pay no regard to what my sig says, as it might mean what it says, or mean the opposite! - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for levity, but perhaps it was not the best choice of title for this situation! :)
- Addressing the deletion log, I'm still confused. I'm not debating if the article existed or not, but Mobile 01's relationship to it. I checked her contributions for any edits to it and found none. Are edits to an article on a contribution list removed when that article is deleted? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes they are, I'n trying to find out how they can be retrieved though. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. For the most part, I've spent my time on WP quietly working on articles, so there are some technical details I'm still unfamiliar with. However, with all due regard, I'm not sure what the Rubber Dam article indicates other than someone extending their fascination from a topic into a poorly created article. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes they are, I'n trying to find out how they can be retrieved though. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I alter my signature purely for entertaiment value (mostly mine), and sometime will even add a sig opposite of my true feelings - I've used 'Fairness And Accuracy For Randy 'Duke' Cunningham' a few times lately, for instance. Pay no regard to what my sig says, as it might mean what it says, or mean the opposite! - Fairness And Accuracy For Charles Taylor 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion afresh
I first became aware of this situation when a request for a third opinion was posted on WP:3O (diff) five days ago. Aside from checkuser details above, three aspects are particularly striking. The following three subsections excerpt key Wikipedia guidelines:
Advertising (1)
"What about advertisers?"
There are basically three forms: adding excessive external links to one's company, outright replacing of legitimate articles with advertising, and writing glowing articles on one's own company.
The first and second forms are treated as pure vandalism and the articles are reverted. Most Wikipedians loathe spam, and spammers are dealt with especially severely.
The third form is normally dealt with by editing the article for a neutral point of view or by deleting the article.
Conflict of interest (2)
A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article.
This includes promotion of oneself or other individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for, and their products, as well as suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors.
If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
- avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality
- avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Definition of disruptive editing (3)
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
- Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
In addition, such editors may:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
Sources: (1) Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertising, (2) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, (3) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Contributed by Athænara ✉ 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- The emphasis added above is intended to help the unrepentant sockpuppeteer understand just one thing: the discussion on this page is not about the character or personality of any individual editor or administrator who opposes certain activities. It is about the mission of the encyclopedia, and the policies and guidelines which preserve and protect that mission. —Æ. ✉ 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No Firestone in Australia?
Mobile01 wrote: "We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand" here
Odd. That's not what Bridgestone AU says:
- "Bridgestone Australia Ltd is a leading tyre manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer, with an advanced range of products that leads the field for safety and performance."
- "We produce and distribute the Bridgestone, Firestone and Bandag brands, which provide a wide choice of tyre solutions for passenger and light commercial vehicles, and trucks and buses." Bridgestone AU
What's going on? Why the denial of the facts? Curiouser and Curiouser. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 08:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Going off Mobile 01's statement above, it'd appear she may have been referencing plants, not corporate or retail presence. According to this link from Bridgestone tires are produced in New Zealand for sale in Australia. I haven't been able to find any direct evidence of plants in Australia, yet. Just general corporate descriptive statements which pop up on every bridgestone site without regard to geography. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay - thanks for explaining. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 18:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please pardon my impatience, but all this amateur-defense-counsel pettifoggery continually leads away from the actual behaviors, actual evidence, actual motivations. The old MMO formula: Means, Motive, Opportunity.
- Are you, User: RebelAt, promoting the mission of writing a neutral encyclopedia? Or are you playing trivial social games and taking sides as if these administrative procedures and discussions are merely sport?
- While it is argued that one must assume good faith with regard to the defendant's disingenuous attempts to rewrite edit histories and contribs records, and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them, it is also vital to assume the good faith of those who are not deceived by that. — Athænara ✉ 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- "and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them," - — Athænara
- That right there is one reason, I've been posting. Despite assurance of adopting an attitude that Mobile 01 acted more out of ignorance to Wikipedian policy, you have already decided that Mobile 01 has acted in a malicious and knowingly intentional manner. I, and three other individuals, have recognized that TravB has over reacted in his response to Mobile 01's attempts at discussion. I was personally taken back by his aggressive nature to, in your supportive words, "preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia." Neutrality is great, and it is important, but Wikipedia stands for nothing if people waste more energy on attempting to remove those who they feel are harmful, rather than counsel a mediative solution. That is, rather than attempt to build a case for Mobile 01's removal, which has quite certainly had its ups and downs in terms of success, why has there been no attempt to have an honest discussion and seek a resolution that keeps two active and energetic editors working towards a better product?
- I do believe in a better encyclopedia, and I honestly believe that this rampant aggressive behavior does nothing to contribute to it. Thus, influenced by mostly by TravB's actions, I have found myself reluctantly playing a defense under the belief "presumed innocent." A lot of people are always ready to take the most forceful and permanent solutions to end a disagreement. I say shame on them for not offering to seek a less harsh resolution, because this is a wiki, based upon the principle of mutual agreement and mediation. Damn me, then as some juvenile attempting to ruin the encyclopedia under the appearances of sport, fun, and games, but I'd rather collaborate than obliterate on any day of the week. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Need a new hobby
Travb needs to find a new hobby that doesn't include harassing editors he disagrees with phony Sock puppetry cases. This isn't the first time and I hope it is the last. Please close this out and move on. Nothing to see here. --Tbeatty 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- User:Tbeatty you have been actively advising USer:Mobile 01 on User:Morton devonshires talk page under a section mocking me: User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Travb_and_his_Pursuit_of_HappYness.
As an admin, instead of telling User:Morton devonshire and User:Mobile 01 that their WP:NPA personal attacks are inappropriate, you are actively helping them.- But when you say "Nothing to see here" and mock me with the title "Travb needs to find a new hobby" despite the overwhelming evidence that something definetly has happened, it deeply troubles me.
I am also troubled that you are not pursuing this sockpuppet case as zealously as you did User:XP.Travb (talk)- I don't recall advising Mobile01 on MD's talk page. I did show her that your attack page was not deleted but I did not comment on it[205]. Nor do I recall ever commenting on user XP. Diff's would be good to help understand where you are coming from. It seems ironic that you felt like an ass for defending him but seem to continue to do so even when you are confusing editors. But as it stands, your evidence against Mobile01 appears to be Users and IPs that like the serial Smallville. There is no violation of the sockpuppet rules. Having two (or more) accounts is not a violation in and of itself. Your argument does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. Move along. --Tbeatty 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tbeatty is an Admin now???!!! Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Travb (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank god we got people like Beatty around to defend multinational corporations aginst scurrilous baseless unfounded charges! Maybe he can help on the upcoming Firestone Liberian Child & Slave Labor Controversy article and talk about their dental plan or somethin' ;-) Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where have I defended a multi-national corporation? Do you guys just make stuff up? --Tbeatty 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tbeatty, again, I sugges you delete the personal attack on me, "Travb needs to find a new hobby". If you were not invovled in the User:XP case, my apologies. Several of those editors who you actively work with User:Morton Devonshire were involved with User:XP
- My condemnation of User:XP stands, along with my condemnation of all sockpuppets. My stance on sockpuppets is consistent.
- "Do you guys just make stuff up?" Please don't link my statments to User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, he often says things which I do not support.
- As I have to repeat again and again, their is enough evidence here, which no one has argued, showing that:
- User:Mobile 01 has been using a sock puppet account, and
- that User:Mobile 01 has refered to herself in the third person while using anon accounts.
- Please see Bobble's comments above. Personal attacks on me, which have nothing to do with these facts, are irrelevant and personally offensive.Travb (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where have I defended a multi-national corporation? Do you guys just make stuff up? --Tbeatty 14:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank god we got people like Beatty around to defend multinational corporations aginst scurrilous baseless unfounded charges! Maybe he can help on the upcoming Firestone Liberian Child & Slave Labor Controversy article and talk about their dental plan or somethin' ;-) Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Travb (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Tbeatty is an Admin now???!!! Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets all keep in mind
- Mobile 01 has been caught in some large factually inaccuracies. #Factual_inconsistencies_of_User:Mobile_01_and_her_intentions_on_wikipedia #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz #Refers to herself in the third person
- Mobile 01 has a sock, #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz
- Mobile 01 refered to herself in the third person twice. #User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz, #Refers to herself in the third person
- Bridgestone, Belgium, Ohio, Nashville, has been editing Firestone and Bridgestone.
Travb (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets all keep in mind - Continued
Supposed factual Inaccuracies.
- First link provided by Travb does not show any innaccuracy. ANd my statement has been explained to Travb on numerours occasions which he fails to include.
- Second link merely tries to link an IP address with the first two number sets to another editor. I have already stated that edits with these beginning number sets are probably mine, but have also pointd out that these numnber sets are shared among all users of this ISP. I have tried to point out that user NeilinOZ has not edited in a long time and therefor would not rate as sock puppetry in this case whether that user was or was not me.
- I have explained that I deliberatley spoke in the third person so as not to appear as a immitator until such time as I could log in as myself, at which time I corrected the text and signed it properly.
- Not sure what Belgium, Nashville and Ohio Bridgestone edits have to do with tihs case, I also notice from user talk:Travb/m that Michelin also edited the Firestone page. It seems to me that many editors have edited this page for a variety of reasons.
As I have stated repeatedly, This whole case is being used to shift the spotlight from the actual issue at hand and that is user Travb and his pushing for inclusion of POV information in the Firestone Article and my push to edit that information to make it NPOV. As for you the reader of this page, I leave it to you to decide. As far as I understand, as the checkuser has been denied and therfor no proof of these allegations will be forthcoming, I am allowed to delete this Sockpuppet case and remove the tag from my userpage after 10 days. Please someone correct me if I am misunderstanding this. Mobile 01Talk 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Leave this debate
It is a bit upsetting when I see this statement included here, where user Travb asks another editor to stay out of this debate because he does not support Travb's position. Travb cites that the user was not invloved in the article before so should not be involved now.
- Morton, please see this comment on your archived talk page: [206], asking you to stop your involvment with this case, which you have never been involved with before this checkuser. You have read this message[207].
- Unfortunatly, you have ignored this request, so I had to ask two admins, who have came to your defense and User:NuclearUmpf defense when we have argued before, to intervene.
- Troublingly, both have thus far declined, one states he is too busy and gave me a list of admins who may help, the other has not intervened.
- Now User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:Tbeatty have joined this debate.
- Thank you. Travb (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What I find even more distressing is the lack of a similar request for user Athaenara to do the same. Also not invloved in the article before and yet no request is made to cease involvement as this particular user obviously takes Travb's side. I am not sure it is appropriate to attempt to quash the opinions of those that oppose your point of view and yet to imbellish those that support it especially awarding each other Barnstar awards.
The comments by User Athaenara are also disturbing especially the way in which they try to appear to be neutral in the opening few words. The sentence is a huge contradiction of itself. "We must assume good faith" - but before we do that we must first point out that there was no good faith".
- While it is argued that one must assume good faith with regard to the defendant's disingenuous attempts to rewrite edit histories and contribs records, and utterly shameless vilification of those who articulately and sincerely question the actions recorded in them, it is also vital to assume the good faith of those who are not deceived by that. — Athænara ✉ 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would liken this to a prosecutor opening an address to the jury with "We must assume the defendant is innocent in regards to him brutally murdering the victim and then calously robbing that same victim of her personal possesions and setting her body on fire"; I would be calling "OBJECTION"...
The only "Utterly Shameless" thing I see there, is the users own statement, which has been vendictively worded in such a way as to impune me personally and attempt to portray the user Travb as a shining light for wiki policy. Frankly as an obvious supporter and Barnstar giver to user Travb, this editor shows a reluctance to remain neutral in this case.
I think those other editors being criticised by User Athaenara are doing a far better job at remaining neutral and offer constructive advice towards a resolution of this case, rather than User Athaenara's attempts to shift the focus away from Travb and his personal vendetta by a diatribe of words from their pocket thesaurus.
As stated above, the request for checkuser has been denied, the sockpuppet allegations are about edits made long ago by users that have not edited these articles since. This sockpuppet enquiry is finished and unproven and should be closed. Continued debate here is pointless and I would much rather shift the discussion to where it should have been all along and that is on the Discussion page for the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article which user Travb refuses to do even after repeated requests from myself and other editors and Admins.
Mobile 01Talk 06:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- ..."finished and unproven"? False. Unfinished & largely substantiated? True. — Æ. ✉ 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from above..
- "But as it stands, your evidence against Mobile01 appears to be Users and IPs that like the serial Smallville. There is no violation of the sockpuppet rules. Having two (or more) accounts is not a violation in and of itself. Your argument does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. Move along. --Tbeatty 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)"
- Why don't we talk about the article over on the article talk page? I'll post some thoughts later tonight. - Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- If this debate has come to a conclusion, I would happily offer my abilities for work on the Firestone article. While it is not a topic of much interest to me, I would be more than happy to work towards creating an article that, in hopeful contradiction to Mr. Lincoln's words, might please all of the people all of the time. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Mobile 01Talk
- User:Mobile 01, you have been using socks, User:NeilinOz, which you have refered to in the third person. You have used anon accounts, which in one case you refered to yourself, User:Mobile 01 in the third person. You have denied using anon accounts (203 IP) then when I showed that this 203 IP is you, you only then admit it.
- In addition, there are other rules which you have broken repeatedly, which is not relevant to this sockpuppet case. We have repeatedly attemtpted to work with you within the frameword of wikipedia policy and wikipedia rules, you have refused, repeatedly. It is only after the evidence is overwhelming against you, that you now want to comprimise, in what I see as an attempt to avoid the normal punishment given to all of those who user who use sockpuppets. After your weeks of disruption of wikipedia, I think your sudden change of heart comes too little, too late.
- None of those who support you (User:Crockspot, User:Morton devonshire, User:Tbeatty who I have actively debated on opposite sides in other debates) have attempted to argue the evidence against you, instead they actively attack with WP:NPA violations those who bring forward this evidence. Travb (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Trav, you have yet to PROVE that NeilinOz is a sock of Mobile 01. I haven't argued against your "evidence", because you don't have any. Mobile 01's statement that "even if it was" is a hypothetical, not an admission. And you cannot claim that all edits with the same class B address are all the same person. All you have is some vague circumstantial evidence, and a lot of persistence. Give it up. - Crockspot 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- If this debate has come to a conclusion, I would happily offer my abilities for work on the Firestone article. While it is not a topic of much interest to me, I would be more than happy to work towards creating an article that, in hopeful contradiction to Mr. Lincoln's words, might please all of the people all of the time. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Mobile 01Talk
- Ditto to that, move along Travb you lost your battle, you proved nothing and wasted everyones time once again. Whats that now 2 or 3 unproven sockpuppet cases youve brought now. Still waiting for that apology. If you want to talk about breaking rules, we could discuss your block log. And stop twisting the facts as it doesnt help your case. You pointed out nothing about my IP, I told you that they probably were all me.
- You claim I am NeilinOZ who hasnt edited for ages and never did when I did. Dont see how you make a case of sock puppetry when no offence has been commited.
- Your attempt to link me to an American editor of LucaZ also proved to have no merit. You introduce assertions that Bridgestone editors are editing articles and try to link that to me, You state some argument a ANON from the other side of the country had with another user on a TV series page and try to link that to me. I am sure you would have me blamed for the war in Iraq if you could only find an IP to match.
- And dont use my words as if they were yours. "We have repeatedly attemtpted to work with you within the frameword of wikipedia policy and wikipedia rules, you have refused" are the same words I have been saying to you for weeks. I think everyone who can read has seen my many attempts to get you to discussion and compromise. I have left messages on your talk page which you ignored or deleted. I have tried to discuss on the article but you refuse there too. If there was a normal punishment then I am sure at least one admin would have dealt it by now. Your comments above are your last ditch effort to escape from here without once again looking like an ass. Thats a quote of yours talking about yourself from your last sockpuppet fiasco.
- Your checkuser was denied, you have no evidence accept your own assumptions based on the first few numbers in an IP address used by over 100,000 customers. You seem to have this thing about NPA and I have seen you leave this warning on many editors talk pages. I have also seen you do your fair share of personal attacking so I have no sympathy for you on that score. One only has to look up and down this page to see the multitude of NPA against me.
- You have been indef blocked, reinstated and then blocked again for uncivility. Sounds like massive NPA probelms to me. Give it up and either get involved with fixing the article or move along to something more productive. I think you have exausted your legal banter and sculduggery supply for now, and certainly exausted the patience of the wiki public. Like another editor said before. Move Along - Nothing to see here.
Mobile 01Talk 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Olive Branch Extended
The following was left for user Travb on his talk page.
Invitation
Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were one of the major editors of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.
Mobile 01Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Pertinent quote
| It's entirely plausible that an editor can plow blithely on, unaware of certain guidelines. |
| Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that. |
| Perhaps we need a corollary to Assume Good Faith called Assume No Clue, meaning that editors have no clue that they have gone astray of the guidelines until being warned (or demonstrate understanding by using guidelines against their competitors!) |
Originally posted by JonHarder on WikiProject Spam talk. — Athænara ✉ 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hanlon's razor pretty much covers it. - Crockspot 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Assume no clue" addresses the combination of ignorance and opportunism, as in this discussion of several accounts which were used for conflict of interest edits which persistently obstructed NPOV. Hanlon's razor is more often applied to mere stupidity. — Athænara ✉ 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Montparnasse
Another well-crafted, water-tight case, I see, Mr. Prosecutor. Morton DevonshireYo 02:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Closing
I'm going to try hard to save myself a tremendous amount of heartache by restricting the scope of this closing to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry charge. This decision should not be read to either endorse or criticise any editor's actions on the Firestone article - that is a whole different kettle of fish, barrel of monkeys, can of worms, and container of other mixed metaphors, that you all can feel free to continue there, hopefully under some other administrator's firm but fair oversight. I'm closing this particular page, to keep the WP:SSP page down to a ... OK, completely unreasonable backlog... and to save my talk page.
Note that this is not a vote, even less so than WP:AFD, WP:RFA, or WP:DRV. So how many people support each side of this conflict is not relevant, only the evidence they present. Even whether or not they are admins is not very relevant, except to the extent that this status allows them to take related admin action. I was tempted to list the people supporting each side here, but let's just leave it that each has multiple dedicated supporters.
I'll group the decision into 4 sections.
- NeilinOz1 edited noticeably before Mobile01, on 2 days in two articles, Oct 17 and Oct 21 only, to Smallville (season 6) and Bridgestone only. The contributions NeilinOz1 made to the Bridgestone page were perfectly reasonable, and not contentious. They could have been cited better but that is something hard for new editors. The contributions they made to the Smallville (season 6) page were more contentious, but the conflict was resolved calmly through reasoned discussion on the article talk page - all as it should be. Therefore there is no reason to take any negative action against NeilinOz1 whoever they may be. Though I won't be nominating them for adminship any time soon, they seem to have been a perfectly fine new editor. If they did chose to become a different identity later that would be their undisputed right - they would have nothing bad to hide. Exonerated.
- LucaZ edited on Nov 16-18, solely in the article Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Their edits were more contentious, basically an edit war with Travb. Mobile 01 started editing Nov 19, and though she did not edit FTRC until Dec 6, there were not many intervening edits to that article in that time. Mobile 01 does seem to edit from the same point of view as LucaZ, but that is not conclusive proof. It might seem reasonable to ask for a CheckUser here, but it was denied. LucaZ has not edited since then, so there is clearly no ongoing disruption with a sock puppet. Between insufficient evidence, and blocks being preventative, not punitive, no action will be taken.
- The unsigned-in edits are apparently carelessness, rather than malice. Mobile01 admits to most of them, and they did not try to pretend to be someone else. The "referring to self in third person" edit, which could be seen as troubling, was clearly "signed" "Mobile1" at the end, and was quickly acknowledged by a signed-in edit. I understand Charles DeGaulle had the same issue with referring to himself in the third person? I would caution Mobile 01 to be more careful, and to try very hard to sign in while editing related to this contentious issue. It's not that hard, and it's important. If it becomes a repeated issue, it could become an issue for administrative action. User cautioned.
- Note again this decision does not address the substance of the edit war, or the content of the Firestone article or whether there should be one or multiple articles, or the behaviour of the parties being civil or not, or otherwise truthful or not. I did not look at that issue, other than to compare edits of various users for the sock puppetry charge. That was more than enough, thanks.
- 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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Devalover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
KyndFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.5.116.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Def Trojan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
edgarde 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence
Prior to 2006-11-29T20:59:48, User:KyndFellow and User:68.5.116.235 always used the unlinked text signature "Daniel E. Knodel, M.A." Mr. Knodel (logged in as KyndFellow) has acknowleged that both these accounts are his.
KyndFellow is edit-warring heavily to reinstate pro-sex-tourism POV edits to Sex tourism. Recently User:Devalover joined the Discussion page making sycophantic comments. KyndFellow can effectively call & response with Devalover, as demonstrated in this interaction, essentially a conversation with himself demonstrating a consensus of puppet editors that certain changes are merited.
Scroll upward from there to see User:Def Trojan's history on that page. Puppetry is evident but not so clearly apparent as in the abovelinked section.
Note the contribs for these 4 users, especially in their overlap with 68.5.116.235. In addition to editing a similarly limited set of pages, 3 of these users put "See also" links to Sex tourism in other sex-related topics (all but one too tangential to merit a "See also").
KyndFellow has recently taken to using the phrase "majority of editors" (meaning him, Devalover & Def Trojan) in disputes. As Mr. Knodel is currently warring against two other editors, Def Trojan was needed to quickly create this majority.
User:Def_Trojan started editing about 3 days ago and entered the discussion using a combination of KyndFellow's language and language from prior comments directed at KyndFellow. Def Trojan is similarly sycophantic.
Def Trojan is also supportive in KyndFellow's campaign to insert his personal website in the article's External links. Neither will accept the more notable link of World Sex Archives as a compromise. (Mr. Knodel's bottom-line insistence on particularly his site is an obvious COI; Def Trojan's enthusiasm would have no such apparent motivation.) However, Devalover is the first to add that link.
Devalover was also first to advance one of KyndFellow's hobbyhorses -- removing references to "Child sex tourism" from the Sex tourism article.
Kyndfellow is the dominant character in this team on Sex tourism. However, Devalover is the older account, KyndFellow only having begun editing on October 28, so I'm labeling Devalover as the puppetmaster.
Interestingly, Mr. Knodel has deleted 2 comments referencing sockpuppetry on Talk:Sex_tourism, the 1st restored by him, the 2nd restored by me. The 2nd was deleted shortly after his AMA advocate announced he would be reviewing Talk:Sex_tourism, which is suspicious timing, circumstantial tho it may be.
Warning: Mr. Knodel deletes[215][216][217] other editors' Discussion page comments cagily, including warning templates — check page histories to be sure.
About a month ago, Mr. Knodel was asked about editing as User:68.5.116.235. He explained he forgot to log in (as if needing to do so before every edit). This hasn't happened in a while, and might have not been deliberate — I didn't think so at the time. — edgarde 06:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
IP of interest (possible alternate IP addresses): 205.178.145.65 — Mr. Knodel's website.
- Comments
Edgarde, do I understand the frustration of dealing with sockpuppets, multiple accounts.
And, I wish you had asked me first instead of taking this action... and... here we are!
So, what happens next? Devalover 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The only response I have is to please notice the date of the first edit of this account.Devalover 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems I cast too wide a net. This would make User:KyndFellow the puppeteer. — edgarde 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Closing without block. As above, Checkuser cleared Devalover. As for DefTrojan and KyndFellow, let me cite Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Puppets: "Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans." Since DefTrojan last edited Nov 20, and 68... last edited Nov 3, they can hardly be considered "aggressive socks". More details on the arbcom decision page, above. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Islami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Truthpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.17.231.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) See this edit. Cuñado 
- Probably it is one of your meat puppets. The first edit and the third edit proves that. --Truthpedia 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Report submission by
- Proabivouac 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence
- Truthpedia answers for Islami on Template talk:Islam18:44, 30 October 2006 then changes the section header to obscure his slip-up.23:06, 30 October 2006
- The discussion should be open to everyone who is involved. --Truthpedia
- Both have taken interest in several of the same articles, including Salafism, Template:Islam, Jizya, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ma'bad al-Juhani, and a large number of similarly obscure articles, in many or most instances advancing the very same edits (e.g. [218], [219])
- That interest is limited to very few articles of the total contribution of both editros. Template:Islam is a very visible article that is included in most Islam-related articles. The dispute in it was over the Salafism article. And through the last I came to Ibn Taymiyyah's article (my only edit has nothing to do with Islami's). As for the Jizya article, I have received an email from an active Muslim member asking me to help other Muslims against references removal.--Truthpedia
- Both have advanced identical highly idiosyncratic viewpoints, such as the notion that Islam may be usefully divided into Salafism and Sufism, and that Salafism dates from the time of Muhammad’s companions:[220], [221], [222], [223], [224]
- So?? This is the same view that is shared by millions of Salafis around the world. Check any Salafi web site on that. Add to that they both believe the sun sets in the west :) Common facts cannot be called "advanced identical highly idiosyncratic viewpoints" --Truthpedia
- Both use idiosyncratic four hyphens to sign into mediation regarding images of Muhammad:[225], [226].
- What a great evidence!!! By the way, they are different :) --Truthpedia
- Truthpedia’s very first edits were reverts, with summaries indicating a familiarity with Wikipedia and with specific ongoing disputes on Salafism [227].
No, my fisrt edit was a link removal. However, that (first edit on the Salafism article is a revert) clearly applies on Proabivouac, a person who is known to be a sock puppet (see his/her talk page). --Truthpedia
- Truthpedia’s edit times are consistent with an account only available during working (or school) hours M-F in one prominent western country. Islami sometimes edits during this time, but also and most often until the expected bedtime of the real-world user, and during weekends.
- Despite what appears to be a significant level of coordination, neither has found occasion to edit the other’s talk page.
- There is no coordination between me and any other member, except the one that asked for my help in Jizya (he is not Islami), and it was one email too.--Truthpedia
- If the same user, he has recently violated the three revert rule on at least Salafism:
- version reverted to:01:50, 6 November 2006
- first revert:20:02, 6 November 2006
- second revert:22:44, 6 November 2006
- third revert:05:07, 7 November 2006
- fourth revert:05:26, 7 November 2006
- and Jizya:
- version reverted to:22:28, 25 October 2006
- first revert:19:27, 27 October 2006
- second revert:20:19, 27 October 2006
- third revert:20:25, 27 October 2006
- fourth revert:00:15, 28 October 2006
- fifth revert:05:52, 28 October 2006
- Comments
No attempt has been made to drag up old 3RR or other violations.Proabivouac 11:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The accusers are organized meat puppets. See this:
- Striver offering a blind revert
- Cunado19 offering reverting services to any page
- He ran out of reverts so he ask his friends to revert for him
- Here, he is asking for a blind revert as a type of friendship
- A blind revert a pleasure to Striver
--Truthpedia 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note - the outcome of this may be relevant to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, where both users have signed up as indicated above and the potential exists for meatpuppetry. Neither user has commented at the mediation, only signed up. --Aguerriero (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this makes sense, i did feel some kind of surge of like minded editors, but did not think more about it.... --Striver 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was just on the verge of investigating the same possibility before Proabivouac did this. I have been reverting Salafism and Template:Islam almost daily for more than 20 days. The edits and comments of the two editors are almost identical, and they conveniently allow one of the users to avoid 3RR every day. Cuñado
- Talk 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- They are different and not 'identical'. They only thing that both users share on Islam Template is the inclusion of Salafism. As for the Salafism article, you were trying to revert a well-written article (was written by different users over a long time) by your own biased version without even addressing that on the talk page. Many users have reverted your changes, not only me.
- Conclusions
Sending to CheckUser on 3RR grounds. Interests and contributions logs are suggestive, but not sufficient proof by themselves. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Closing without action. Truthpedia and Islami have each made many contributions to the Wikipedia, so could be considered safe under the "100 edit" rule of thumb, but that is not a firm rule. They do end to edit Islam-related subjects, but then so do many other editors. Their edit times don't overlap, but that doesn't prove or exclude anything. They don't edit each others' talk pages, but then they don't edit many user talk pages at all - total of about 2 other user talk page edits for Truthpedia, about 5 for Islami. Truthpedia clearly was not a novice at the time of their early edits, they were already familiar with Wikipedia methods - but that doesn't necessarily make them a sockpuppet. The hottest debate seems to be on Salafism, and, frankly, there the issues are too arcane for me to understand. I tried to send this to CheckUser, but it (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Islami) was denied as too long in the past. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ran
- 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 talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:BryanFromPalatine (new)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
12ptHelvetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) banned for sockpuppetry - 28 Dec
ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User BryanFromPalatine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was confirmed as a sockpuppet and puppeteer of DP1976 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
| “ | Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is  Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
|
” |
Note that 12ptHelvetica (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was suspected of also being a sockpuppet of the main puppeteer BryanFromPalatine
EVIDENCE
BryanFromPalatine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At 17:49, on 9 December 2006 Puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was 3rr 24 HR blocked for excessive edits to Free Republic.
12ptHelvetica (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) banned for sockpuppetry 28 Dec.
At 22:10 on 9 December 2006 user 12ptHelvetica was created. His first edit was to Free Republic agreeing with 208.250.137.2 who is in fact 12ptHelvetica as documented in the sockpuppetry findings. His next post was a vote in a consensus agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of the sock crew. His next 4 edits were to Free Republic - all within the 24 hour block period of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine . Since these actions were so blatant and obvious, BenBurch warned him that he was a suspected sock puppet of BryanFromPalatine within an hour of his first post. After being accused of sockpuppetry, 12ptHelevetica did not post for the next 48 hours. 90%+ of his posts have been to Free Republic.
DP1976 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At 22:32 on 10 December 2006 user DP1976, a confirmed sockpuppet of puppeteer BryanFromPalatine was created. His first post (other than creating his user page) was a vote in a consensus, of course agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. Over 90% of DP1976's edits have been to Free Republic.
ArlingtonTX (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
At 21:07 on 10 December 2006 user ArlingtonTX was created.This was barely 24 hours after BryanFromPalatine was blocked for 3RR. His first post was responding to sockpuppetry charges by Ben Burch against puppeteer BryanFromPalatine. His second post was a vote in a consensus, agreeing with his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine and other members of BryanFromPalatine's sock crew. Every post of this user has been to Free Republic or to sock puppet cases related to his puppeteer BryanFromPalatine.
I am confident that an investigation will show that users ArlingtonTX and 12ptHelevetica are additional sockpuppets of the confirmed sockpuppeteer BryanFromPalatine who was shown to be the puppeteer of confirmed sockpuppet DP1976.
This blatant sockpuppetry mandates blocking of all the members of BryanFromPalatine's sock puppet army, all the related IP's, and especially puppeteer BryanFromPalatine himself. F.A.A.F.A. 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Conclusions
All sockpuppets blocked. MER-C 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)