Content deleted Content added
Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) Archiving case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive |
HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) moving from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71, note, close |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{SPIarchive notice|Otto4711}} |
{{SPIarchive notice|Otto4711}} |
||
{{SPI case status|close}} |
|||
=====<big>27 December 2010</big>===== |
|||
;Suspected sockpuppets |
|||
* {{checkuser|1=Screaminsista}} |
|||
<!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> |
|||
*[http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/uc?uc=DavidYork71 User compare report] <small>''Auto-generated every six hours.''</small> |
|||
<small>''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"''</small> |
|||
Standard MO for a DavidYork71 sock. This one went through great lengths to hide it, but the dead giveaway is the attempt to link Arthur C. Clarke to pedophillia and/or homosexuality. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_C._Clarke&diff=prev&oldid=404408251 this edit] and compare with a bunch of confirmed DavidYork71 stuff from late 2008 Early 2009, consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LawAndOther this one] as one example, also repeated category bombing of said article around that time period. [[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== |
|||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
|||
*{{Endorse}} - Sure, why not. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 08:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The following accounts, while {{confirmed}} with respect to each other, are {{unrelated}} to DavidYork71: |
|||
* {{checkuser|1=Screaminsista}} |
|||
* {{checkuser|1=Jetblack500}} |
|||
* {{checkuser|1=Greatsouthbay}} <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**Could I get a second opinion on how to deal with these then? I can see that they may not be related to DavidYork71, but they are obviously related to each other. I accept the checkuser result, but how should we handle this independent sock farm. I am inclined to block all three and wait for an explanation from the person who is using them. For reference, here is the wikistalk report: [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Screaminsista&user2=Jetblack500&user3=Greatsouthbay&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=] there is only 4 articles in common between them, and only a few edits therein. Any ideas on how to proceed?--[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm considering indeffing two of them, and giving the oldest account, Jetblack500, a fortnight and a last and final warning. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Courcelles's solution sounds like something I'd recommend as well. —[[User:Department of Redundancy Department|DoRD]] ([[User talk:Department of Redundancy Department|talk]]) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, indef block all of them. It is quite easy to fool checkuser. Our Checkusers should stop suggesting that they can tell two users are not equal. They do not have this capability. (For instance, what if the user moved, or started using a proxy or VPN?) Instead of "unrelated" the result should say "no technical evidence". To my eye the behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to say these are the same user as DavidYork71, or somebody who's behavior is identical. Starting three accounts is manifest bad faith. I have blocked all of them. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::May I ask if there has ever been any behavioral or technical evidence to link DavidYork71 with Otto4711? I ask because I suspected from behavioral evidence that Screaminsista was a sock of Are You The Cow Of Pain?, who was blocked as being a sock of Otto4711 (see this [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&user1=Otto4711&user2=Are+You+The+Cow+Of+Pain%3F&user3=Screaminsista&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= Wikistalk result]). [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Just a quick note- those three users are on the opposite side of the planet from DavidYork71, using a well-known ISP (that is to say, not a proxy of any kind). <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Wonderful. That proves nothing. I have a friend in Argentina who'd be happy to give me [[Remote desktop software|remote desktop access]] if I asked for it. I could edit from an Argeninian ISP any time I liked. I could also hop on a plane and be in Argentina in less than a day and edit from there. The fact is you don't know anything except that the technical evidence does not point to a connection. But the behavioral evidence does (support a block), quite strongly. So I'd appreciate if you'd stop overstating your capabilities, and stop giving cover to a user who's quite obviously acting in bad faith. Thank you. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Thanks Jehochman. While David York might enjoy the attention, it must pain him that it doesn't come with respect. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 09:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, I tend to find upon closer examination that the behavioral evidence does not match all that well, especially on the issues outside of the Arthur C. Clarke edits. It's obvious these three are not the sum total of the sockpuppets, but it also does not appear to be THAT close, behaviorally, to DavidYork71. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 16:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Repeatedly insisting that a recently deceased person is a child molester, without a good source, is grounds enough to support the block. Whether they are actually David York is immaterial. The fact is the user registered multiple account in order to engage in mischief. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::How strange. First, the behavioral evidence does [point to a connection]. But wait, then the connection is immaterial. Perhaps I can interest you in [http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/images/2070/ one of these]? <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The two assertions are consistent. (1) The idiosyncratic POV pushing at Arthur C. Clarke is very suggestive of a connection, but (2) even if it is not that particular banned user (but instead another banned user, or even somebody completely new), the behavior on its own is problematic enough to merit the blocks. Thank you for your technical input connecting the three accounts. That was an essential piece of the puzzle. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Request for closing clerk''': It appears to be quite clear that, through behavioral evidence, that all of these are actually part of the [[User:Otto4711]] sockfarm instead of this one (see Wikistalk report provided above by Beyond my Ken). Could this report be moved to Otto4711's sockpuppet file instead of DavidYork71's, just to keep things in order? Thanks! --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Jayron's request seems reasonable to me - this should go to the Otto4711 case. I had a quick look and these guys don't edit like David (and I've been aware of David's case for some 4 years.) [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Clerk note}} This case was originally listed at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71]], but based on the discussion above I've moved it here, and marked it for close. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
Revision as of 18:31, 1 January 2011
Otto4711
- Otto4711 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711/Archive.
A long-term abuse case exists at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Otto4711.
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
27 December 2010
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Screaminsista (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Standard MO for a DavidYork71 sock. This one went through great lengths to hide it, but the dead giveaway is the attempt to link Arthur C. Clarke to pedophillia and/or homosexuality. See this edit and compare with a bunch of confirmed DavidYork71 stuff from late 2008 Early 2009, consider this one as one example, also repeated category bombing of said article around that time period. Jayron32 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Clerk endorsed - Sure, why not. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 08:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Screaminsista (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Jetblack500 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Greatsouthbay (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 15:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Could I get a second opinion on how to deal with these then? I can see that they may not be related to DavidYork71, but they are obviously related to each other. I accept the checkuser result, but how should we handle this independent sock farm. I am inclined to block all three and wait for an explanation from the person who is using them. For reference, here is the wikistalk report: [1] there is only 4 articles in common between them, and only a few edits therein. Any ideas on how to proceed?--Jayron32 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm considering indeffing two of them, and giving the oldest account, Jetblack500, a fortnight and a last and final warning. Courcelles 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Courcelles's solution sounds like something I'd recommend as well. —DoRD (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, indef block all of them. It is quite easy to fool checkuser. Our Checkusers should stop suggesting that they can tell two users are not equal. They do not have this capability. (For instance, what if the user moved, or started using a proxy or VPN?) Instead of "unrelated" the result should say "no technical evidence". To my eye the behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to say these are the same user as DavidYork71, or somebody who's behavior is identical. Starting three accounts is manifest bad faith. I have blocked all of them. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask if there has ever been any behavioral or technical evidence to link DavidYork71 with Otto4711? I ask because I suspected from behavioral evidence that Screaminsista was a sock of Are You The Cow Of Pain?, who was blocked as being a sock of Otto4711 (see this Wikistalk result). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick note- those three users are on the opposite side of the planet from DavidYork71, using a well-known ISP (that is to say, not a proxy of any kind). TNXMan 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wonderful. That proves nothing. I have a friend in Argentina who'd be happy to give me remote desktop access if I asked for it. I could edit from an Argeninian ISP any time I liked. I could also hop on a plane and be in Argentina in less than a day and edit from there. The fact is you don't know anything except that the technical evidence does not point to a connection. But the behavioral evidence does (support a block), quite strongly. So I'd appreciate if you'd stop overstating your capabilities, and stop giving cover to a user who's quite obviously acting in bad faith. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick note- those three users are on the opposite side of the planet from DavidYork71, using a well-known ISP (that is to say, not a proxy of any kind). TNXMan 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask if there has ever been any behavioral or technical evidence to link DavidYork71 with Otto4711? I ask because I suspected from behavioral evidence that Screaminsista was a sock of Are You The Cow Of Pain?, who was blocked as being a sock of Otto4711 (see this Wikistalk result). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, indef block all of them. It is quite easy to fool checkuser. Our Checkusers should stop suggesting that they can tell two users are not equal. They do not have this capability. (For instance, what if the user moved, or started using a proxy or VPN?) Instead of "unrelated" the result should say "no technical evidence". To my eye the behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to say these are the same user as DavidYork71, or somebody who's behavior is identical. Starting three accounts is manifest bad faith. I have blocked all of them. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Courcelles's solution sounds like something I'd recommend as well. —DoRD (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm considering indeffing two of them, and giving the oldest account, Jetblack500, a fortnight and a last and final warning. Courcelles 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I tend to find upon closer examination that the behavioral evidence does not match all that well, especially on the issues outside of the Arthur C. Clarke edits. It's obvious these three are not the sum total of the sockpuppets, but it also does not appear to be THAT close, behaviorally, to DavidYork71. --Jayron32 16:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Repeatedly insisting that a recently deceased person is a child molester, without a good source, is grounds enough to support the block. Whether they are actually David York is immaterial. The fact is the user registered multiple account in order to engage in mischief. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- How strange. First, the behavioral evidence does [point to a connection]. But wait, then the connection is immaterial. Perhaps I can interest you in one of these? TNXMan 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- The two assertions are consistent. (1) The idiosyncratic POV pushing at Arthur C. Clarke is very suggestive of a connection, but (2) even if it is not that particular banned user (but instead another banned user, or even somebody completely new), the behavior on its own is problematic enough to merit the blocks. Thank you for your technical input connecting the three accounts. That was an essential piece of the puzzle. Jehochman Talk 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- How strange. First, the behavioral evidence does [point to a connection]. But wait, then the connection is immaterial. Perhaps I can interest you in one of these? TNXMan 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Repeatedly insisting that a recently deceased person is a child molester, without a good source, is grounds enough to support the block. Whether they are actually David York is immaterial. The fact is the user registered multiple account in order to engage in mischief. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Request for closing clerk: It appears to be quite clear that, through behavioral evidence, that all of these are actually part of the User:Otto4711 sockfarm instead of this one (see Wikistalk report provided above by Beyond my Ken). Could this report be moved to Otto4711's sockpuppet file instead of DavidYork71's, just to keep things in order? Thanks! --Jayron32 21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron's request seems reasonable to me - this should go to the Otto4711 case. I had a quick look and these guys don't edit like David (and I've been aware of David's case for some 4 years.) Orderinchaos 13:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: This case was originally listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71, but based on the discussion above I've moved it here, and marked it for close. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)