Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Enemesis

Enemesis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



In the midst of another content dispute at Neuro-linguistic programming there have been numerous accusations of sock puppetry and COI. Various past episodes of socking, blocks and general bickering. All three are SPAs.

Enemesis edited until 4:22 on 20 November.

58 arrives at 8:06 and edits through 9:12.

Enemesis returns at 9:15 for one edit (blanking talk page).

On 21 November, 58 edits through 1:23.

Enemesis returns at 2:22 to 3:30.

58 returns for one edit at 4:55.

Enemesis is back at 5:07 trough 5:28.

58 returns 5:55 through 6:55.

At 7:23 99 edits through 7:41.

8:08 Enemesis is back.

58 has refused to answer whether ze is an editor who failed to log in[1] and believes asking for other IPs/user names is harassment.[2][3] 99 claims to be a new user.[4] Enemesis claims to not know how to edit without logging in and to be "always logged in" (essentially disclaiming the IPs).[5][6] Requesting check user due to extensive history of socking on this article. SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Comment by OtterSmith (htom)

It's interesting to compare the current state of the NLP article with the state around the time of the arbitration case. One article seems to describe NLP, one seems to denounce it. There currently seems to be a group of editors who want to maintain the status quo of the article, while there are others (including me) who think that the denunciation should be a part, not the lede, of the article. Which, if any, of the editors are meat or sock puppets, I have no clue (although I'll claim I'm neither.) htom (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing whether or not the indicated editor(s) is/are sock and/or meat puppets, not for discussing the article in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accused too many times of being one or the other in that discussion. I'm not going to dig through the talk pages to find the references, you'd have seen them over the years. Happy Thanksgiving! (Why did I bother to come here today?) htom (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Snowded

There is a long history of meat puppetry on this article. It does silent for a long time then there a sudden flood of new SPA editors and IPs. I've got the material assembled from last February and will summarise it here when I get a chance ----Snowded TALK 15:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Enemesis, but 58 is the former 211.31.25.27 who was Action Potential who was Comaze. The editor concerned runs an NLP web site and is clearly linked with meat puppets such as Brenda Lo (now banned). There are some other IPs as well, but the ones linked to Comaze all locate to New South Wales. The style of their edits and the the way they refuse to say if they have edited before are identical. Backup for this and other links are here. The evidence was all put together back in February, but as soon as it looked like a formal case would be produced the then crop of editors all stopped trying to change the article. In a different guise they are back again, a repeating pattern.

Its not technically sock puppetry as the editors I name above never edit in parallel, but it is a clear attempt to deceive. There are also several web sites that give guidance to NLP supporters on how to edit this article, and which also make the headleydown accusations repeated by Enemesis. Those have been made by a range of editors, dismissed when they are investigated, but they keep coming back. Its pretty obvious that they are all taking their cue from those sites.

So, in my opinion its not sock, but meat puppetry. Its also a repeating patter - swarm the article with new editors to see if it can be changed. As the community starts to act, stop all activity then wait some months and start again. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this or not, but we could do with semi-protection for a start.----Snowded TALK 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the article is obviously slanted toward NPOV. This action would only add power to a negative article. Enemesis (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing whether or not the indicated editor(s) is/are sock and/or meat puppets, not for discussing the article in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot establish whether someone is a meat puppet without looking at the content of the article. If you look at the meat in the article, it is slanted. That will help identify where there is meat of the same cut. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Enemesis

OK, I will grant a checkuser the right to check my ip address for starters. also if I was to disappear for a minute and then reappear as this other account with a new IP I would have to go to a library which is a fair walk from here to start up the new account, I could quickly run to my neighbour's house but that's very unlikely. but then lets look at the time zones as well. What time zone is Summer going by and what is the likelihood of an extra available ip at those times? In fact I'm pretty sure I was editing a section when the co-accused sock puppet had also edited, there was a clash between the edits and I had to resubmit my changes. The only way I can change my ip is if I restart my modem router which will give me a new random ip everytime. because I have not done this you will see that my ip address is consistent. I have had one other account about 8 years ago when we encountered Headleydown editing the NLP page and we we're succesful in having him removed as a sock and a major disruption to the article. I found several years later the article in dissaray and being editted in very much that same way and with snowded at the helm. I decided to start this account to help clarify the article. I have declared the old account in the past to several users although I have not been sure of the username. If you have further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me about what time zone I am in or any other details until you are satisfied of a result. Regards Enemesis (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am looking at some other evidence, I see 58's profile page he seems new and has gone straight to the NLP article to start his editing career. Now that is strange. I'm going to suggest either meat puppetry or sock puppetry on snowded or summerphd's behalf as also being an option in this matter to get me ousted. That would be an entirely stupid move for anyone to make if they were going to use a sock puppet in such a way and a sure fire way to get kicked from wikipedia. I wouldn't take such a risk. If this is not the case then 58 has a lot to answer for. Enemesis (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User Lam Kin Keung

Recent edits and comments on the talk page of the NLP article appear to be part of a long term meat puppetry or meat recruitment case.

This continuing pattern appears to be mostly about commercial promotion. The majority of edits and promotional NLP material seem to be relating to company Inspiritive and the Australian NLP Knowledge Center e.g. long term edits: [7][8][9][10][11] [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Also [20][21][22]. This pattern is consistent with activities shown in case highlighted by the User Snowded[23].


This group all appear to be promoting a “New Code” version of NLP, for example as mentioned here. One giveaway is that a New Code argument says that eye accessing does not work for lie detection, but calibration skills do (eye accessing is part of calibration though).[24], also proposed by IP 58.107.228.205 [25] and User Enemesis [26]. The recommendations on editing on the recruitment site appear to be consistent with the activities of the current group [27]. That includes the recommendation to “keep reiterating that research on NLP is still ongoing” [28][29][30].

Please offer queries for any clarification if needed. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go on trying to kill two birds with one stone. I first learnt NLP from a school friend over 20 years ago, his teachings were congruent with what I had put forth in the talk section. "lie detection" was not really mentioned, I was cautioned about using eye accessing cues and told that such applications have sketchy results and aren't very useful in the the results for change work. It depends when the new code started Because I don't follow that and don't know much about it, although as I said above there was never a focus on lie detection. That would be presuming I had learnt the old code. Later I went to an NLP school that was believe it or not, was not inspiritive. Although inspiritive is one of the most popular Australian NLP pages and I have been on them amongst other NLP pages. I do not know anyone from Inspiritive and do not support a new code of NLP. Which also presupposes that the old code of NLP supports Lie detection of which it does not. In any case I went to an NLP school which once again did not support lie detection. You would have to show where in the old code lie detection was a popular application for eye accessing cues promoted by the main stream and the creators of NLP for your claim to be worthy of truth. And if that's not true, if you're trying to justify edits in the article that are only seemingly justified, then what can we say about your claims of Meat Puppetry? You are actually taking a really big gamble to get everything that you want. Enemesis (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never talked about any research that is ongoing with NLP. Enemesis (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 99.249.47.79
Please can some one help me? First off I don't know how to make a new section in this page. I am the one who made several anonymous posts. I am new to Wikipedia. I cant tell if i am "involved" in this sock puppet case. I can assure you that I have acted completely independently. I first came here to find information about NLP and it's research. If you can check where I'm from you'll see I live in Canada. I have no idea where the other editor lives or who they are except that when I clicked on the whois section it looked like they lived in Australia. If I am being accused I have some comments to make after I Find out. Please lets work together to make Wikipedia a friendly place to newcomers even if you disagree with their point(s) of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.47.79 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by 58.107.228.205/Reconsolidation

I recently suggested[31] add a summary and reference to a recent article investigating NLP by Professor Richard Wiseman (University of Hertfordshire, UK) and Dr Caroline Watt (University of Edinburgh, UK). This was almost instantly rejected by an Enemesis even though it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, I suggested we add a discussion of the NLP rewind techniqe (VKD) which has been the subject of recent research. This was also immediately rejected by another editor, Snowded suggesting it would be synthesis. I ask him to clarify how specifically it was synthesis and what wikipedia policy he was referring to be he has not responded yet. I was not implying any new conclusions not already in the sources. Unfortunately, the discussion for NLP-related topics is mostly polarized. It seems nobody is willing to compromise or collaborate. Clearly I have edited wikipedia before and I know the policies and guidelines well. I'm not prepared to edit under my own name or account. In fact I was just passing. I may wish to create a single purpose account for editing controversial NLP and related topics such as Anthony Robbins. You can see that whatever proposal is quickly dismissed by the skeptics and/or proponents of NLP. The editors need to be reminded of wikipedia policy. I am not associated with 99.249.47.79, Enemesis, Lam Kin Keung or Snowded. Enemesis is far too promotional and needs to base his or her edits on the available literature. Lam Kin Keung or Snowded are strongly skeptical of NLP - there needs to be some balance. Accusing everyone of being sock or meat puppets is really not helping. Any new editor who arrives is quickly accused of being a sockpuppet and steered away rather than teaching them about wikipedia policy and aiming for collaboration. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not prepared to edit under my own name or account." is more or less exactly the same statement as was made by the various successors of Comaze. Given that those accounts are linked to the owner of an NLP promotional web site and have been involved in recruiting other editors (meat puppetry) the behaviour is dubious to say the least. Also typical is the long content related posts whenever the behavioural issues are raised here or ANI. The intention is clearly to give any admin or other editor the idea that this is just a content issue to avoid a proper investigation of what has been a long term, periodic disruption.----Snowded TALK 05:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Before I post, I always think: how can I promote a reasoned discussion?." If you think there is a problem with my editing behaviour or discussion behaviour then give me feedback - you don't need to open an ANI case or sockpuppet case to get me to adjust my behaviour if you convince me by reason. I cannot comment on the other two accounts but from my point of view this sockpuppet case has no merit because I am unconnected to those accounts, have not canvassed anyone to support me and have suggested research papers both for and against the NLP. I am only interested in the facts and NPOV. I have never been rude. For the NLP article, I aim to adhere closely to the wikipedia guidelines related to WP:FRINGE topics. In the current article there is a major problem with WP:SYN slanted towards . We should be aiming to weight sources based on parity of reliable sources and WP:NPOV, not promotion or pseudoskepticism. I have always sought an independent point of view when writing for wikipedia. This is most important for topics related to pseudoscience, questionable science and related practices. On the whole my edits and discussion have been dispassionate and independent. I have suggested peer-reviewed research that is both supportive and unsupportive. The only content objection Snowded had was that you thought it was an attempt at synthesis. When I asked for clarification Snowded did not respond but instead jumped into a sockpuppet investigation here without even trying to work things out or assuming good faith. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC) --Reconsolidation (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ 58 I like your idea of collaborating . If you did recommend the Wiseman article I doubt that would make you a meat puppet conspirator. I am of the belief that NLP is largely unproven either way,and it is gray at best regarding the evidence within the psychology community . Unfortunately, as soon as you get into the talk section it's like you get polarized into taking a side. There must be a solution where people can collaborate to satisfy this predicament. It is now beginning to seem like the anti NLP contingent are using bully tactics to deter people who are innocent, or at least they don't care about having people taken out as collateral damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.47.79 (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.47.79 (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

I've no interest in the article-in-question & therefore I'm a neutral here. The patterns of edits mentioned above, do indeed suggest either sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this at Comment left at the 'British, England, United Kingdom, England' post on the following page User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_32#Mediation_case_update
Quote: "GoodDay, that last sentence is beyond the pale. I suggest you strike it-immediately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which do you rather? Have the newbie get into endless argument that he can't win (and thus get himself into alot of drama) or would you rather have the newbie 'walk away' from it entirely. I rather the newbie 'walk away'. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)"

Can I ask GoodDay, Is this attitude general in nature toward new editors? Enemesis (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On those that I suspect of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. If you're innocent? then why the big defensive posture? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Clerk or Patrolling Admin

Is meat puppetry handled here, or does it need to go to ANI? ----Snowded TALK 06:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to mediation and/or third party comment for content issues. I spoke to a third party about this who is very good at dispute resolution - she has some experience at wikipedia - she suggested that there would be more appropriate noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Enemesis/Archive&oldid=1138670330"