Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Valerius Tygart

Valerius Tygart (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date November 13 2009, 08:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Xenophrenic

The user page User:Valerius Tygart has an impressive list of articles created or edited by this editor. All accounts listed above that are marked "Self-confirmed" have confirmed themselves as puppet accounts of this editor by logging their editing efforts on this main user page. The edit history of this page reads like a who's who list of many of the accounts this editor uses to edit Wikipedia. The few remaining accounts listed above that are not marked "Self-confirmed" were added because they pick up the same talk-page conversations and edits where the confirmed socks leave off; they are in the same IP range, on the very same span of articles and use the identical edit summary notations. Many of these accounts are dynamic and/or have gone stale, but have been included for record-keeping and pattern establishment because they 100% pass the duck test. The list is from a brief first-pass review and is nowhere near all inclusive.

All of the above accounts can be confirmed as socks through either checkuser or behavior analysis, but is the puppetry abusive? At first glance, the following examples stand out:

Xenophrenic (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

Great work! Lots of digging has uncovered..... what exactly? Many edits as an anon over the years (OMG!). A half dozen dead user accounts abandoned 3 to 4 years ago. A couple of active alternate user accounts (legitimate per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for security [internet cafes] & privacy [workplace], etc). Also: that I have edited Wikipedia from .... Turkey (huh?). What was NOT uncovered: (1) deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts; (2) use to avoid scrutiny; (3) use to mislead or deceive other editors; (4) use to edit project discussions; (5) use to disrupt edits with one account and normal edits with another; (6) use to distort consensus; (7) use to stir up controversy; (8) use to circumvent sanctions or policy. Also not found: (9) use to pose as more than one person (no, not even the one purported example is accurate). In other words: no sockpuppetry, as defined in policy. The so-called "who's who" edit list of my contributions as Valerius Tygart (which easily reveals alternate accounts) is good evidence that I have tried to hide nothing... Now, why not move on to more productive (& less predatory) work ... and leave a legitimate Wikipedia editor be?Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by all that you mean you will never again use sockpuppet accounts to evade blocks and deceive editors, as detailed and confirmed in the four examples above, then this is a good thing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Comment: I'd like to second this checkuser request. I was the admin who had blocked 96.231.137.242 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring at Bill Maher and found the subsequent appearance of User:DyadTriad to be suspicious (though not conclusive, by itself). The fact that the main account Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) too recently edited the article and all the evidence compiled above makes socking even more likely. Note that though the IPs listed above geolocate to different US states and some to Turkey, that does not rule out socking in this case, if one looks at the User:Valerius Tygart's editing history and article interest. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: D  + F (3RR using socks and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Xenophrenic (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Checkuser required to determine extent of apparent sock-farm and to verify the abusive uses of socks outlined above.

  •  Clerk endorsed per Abcedare. Despite the fact that none of these accounts are blocked, it would be nice to find which accounts he has used that aren't listed above as self-confirmed to compare editing histories. NW (Talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

SlateGrey (talk · contribs), HamStation (talk · contribs), ParkerDrive (talk · contribs), JohnKillbuckSr (talk · contribs), and Mwithers (talk · contribs) are  Stale.

Valerius Tygart (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed as being related to DyadTriad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Dogwood123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). 140... and 96... are him. The others, I'm not sure. J.delanoygabsadds 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

information Administrator note Confirmed socks indeffed. Main account blocked for 31 hours. Stale accounts and IPS not blocked, since they are inactive currently. Abecedare (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through the evidence. Marking for archiving, which will be done as soon as the bot comes back up. NW (Talk) 03:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

27 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK edits to The Shining (film) and Fenugreek. Reasonable suspicion of stalking on the latter. Both editors show a resistance to engaging in discussion at article Talk pages despite repeated requests to do so and edit-warring notices. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Well, I can give a full & complete account of myself: I am user Valerius Tygart. Unlogged-in, I appear as 143.85.18.18. I have not used any other "alias". No sockpuppetry here. Also no edit warring (more than one revert within 24 hours) by me. I am not Usernameistoosimilar. I have recently edited at The Shining (film), but not at Fenugreek. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has indeed edit-warred at The Shining (film). In fact, they most recently did so today:
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
I am curious as to why you would be editing not logged in if you already have a user account. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edit warred. Instance #1 was 24 August, a first edit. An editor (you, Doniago) reverted my edit & so I restored it with #2 (24 August), my first revert. #3 is 25 August, after Doniago again reverted my edit. #4 is 26 August, ditto in response to Doniago's behavior. #5 is today after another editor's revert of my original edit. Who is edit warring again?

Why was I editing not logged in? This userbox has been posted on my userpage for many years...

AnonA majority of this user's edits have been (& continue to be) anonymous.



Problem with that? Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that IP is not me. But, I guess people already know that.Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @Valerius Tygart: You were in fact edit-warring on the article. Whether someone else was is irrelevant. You must comply with policy regardless of what others do. I don't much care about your userbox. Habitually editing without being logged in is a dangerous practice. There's a strong chance that you will be found to be socking when doing so because it doesn't take much to conclude that you are doing so to avoid scrutiny, and your userbox won't count for anything. I strongly urge you to remove the userbox and stop editing without logging in.
  • Usernameistoosimilar (talk · contribs · count) and Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs · count) are Red X Unrelated. There should be no action against Usernameistoosimilar.
  • I will not confirm whether the IP is in fact Valerius Tygart. However, for the purpose of any sanction against Valerius Tygart in addition to my warning, assume that the editor's admission is true.
  • @Doniago: In the future, whenever you open an SPI where there is a mix of named accounts and IPs, the IP should never be named as the master. It should always be the oldest-created named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I do not concur with Bbb23. I was not edit-warring. Not by any definition I know of. And certainly no more than the editor who repeatedly reverted me. I did not make any claims as to whether anyone else was. "Habitually editing without being logged in is a dangerous practice." No. It is a choice & if it were a "dangerous practice" it would be forbidden by the wikipedia community. I am under no obligation to do so. Your assertion is your opinion only. I disagree. "There's a strong chance that you will be found to be socking when doing so"? How so, when the IP address is the only ID I edited The Shining (film) under until I was provoked into defending myself? Which I did promptly. How is that sockpupperty? "You are doing so to avoid scrutiny"? Never. Here I am. Do your worst. You "strongly urge" me "to remove the userbox and stop editing without logging in"? I will do so when official wikipolicy requires it. (Better get to work.) Until then, I will continue to do what I always do: edit responsibly, edit consistently, and edit in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. Now, get down off your high horse & go find something productive to do. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valerius Tygart: Edit warring is not "more than one revert in 24 hours", it's the repeated reversion of another editor's edits. Admins will review allegations of edit warring according to Wikipedia policy, not how you personally interpret the definition of the policy. What you are doing here is edit warring. You can make all the snide comments you want, but you won't be able to say that you weren't warned that your interpretation of edit warring is incorrect and that a mix of logged in and IP edits can be viewed as a violation of WP:SOCK if misused in a dispute. You should be aware of this as you've been blocked for edit warring and socking in the past. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Thunder and lightning!! Threats, scoldings, and innuendos!!! Your description of "repeated reversion of another editor's edits" fits exactly with Doniago, but because he's such a teacher's pet, the opprobrium falls on me, not him. Oh, and thanks for ignoring (missing?) my point that "a mix of logged in and IP edits" is exactly what I was not doing. Now here's a warning for you: Take the bug out from up your ass before you make yourself completely ludicrous and irrelevant. I have done nothing wrong here: not edit warring, not sock puppetry, and not failing to point out the vast waste of time that this whole discussion has degenerated into! Do you remember what started all this? I edited "Plot" to "Plot summary" on a movie article for crissake! ...and one or two habitual lurkers on that page could not abide the change and decided to call the police. Come on people! Is this really how you want to be spending your life for crying out loud?? Behold: Wikipedia at its persnickety worst! Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single threat in my message to you. You stated unequivocally that "I was not edit-warring", and I explained that that statement was untrue according to policy, regardless of your belief otherwise. I also noted the fact that you admit to a mix of logged in and IP edits, which runs the risk of running afoul of WP:SOCK. I never said they were on the same article. Given the level of dramatics and hyperbole in your note above it's clear that this discussion is over, at least as far as I'm concerned. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AValerius_Tygart&diff=655208815&oldid=654800327 Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Valerius+Tygart&users=143.85.18.26&users=&startdate=01%2F01%2F2015&enddate=&ns= Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Mkdw: Why don't you give him a warning and close the case? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: admins have the option of either administrative action or case input. Considering the master has a lengthy history including the use of sock puppet accounts and other clerks in the past have endorsed a check, I wanted to leave this to the clerking team to make a decision if they felt only a warning was appropriate. Other clerks and check users more familiar with the previous history of this master may have additional information to include. Now that you're here, why don't you give him a warning and close the case unless you disagree? Mkdwtalk 00:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: I don't know what you mean when you say that admins have the option of either administrative action or case input. Per WP:SPI/AI, admins may change the case status to "close" if they think everything is done. Also, every user may issue warnings to other users if those warnings are appropriate. So, you are perfectly allowed to issue a warning and close the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Yes, I'm well aware of it. I highlighted that part of the policy to indicate that I have a choice of not performing actions, such as changing the status to close or to issue warnings, and opted instead to simply case input (without action). I've done many of those others things before as I'm sure you've clearly seen me do before. Mkdwtalk 18:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

At Tygart Dam, this editor appears to edit war using both Valerius Tygart and the IP:

  • [6] I removed an image
  • [7] IP restored image
  • [8] I removed the image again
  • [9] Valerius Tygart restored the image

This seems contrary to the spirit of WP:LOGOUT, and this editor has been cautioned about this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments. I cautioned Valerius Tygart here about editing while logged out. Valerius Tygart responded by noting that there is a template on their user page stating that "A majority of this user's edits have been (& continue to be) anonymous." As well, "I never intentionally make the same series of edits on the same article both logged in & logged out". This does not appear to be true. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Valerius_Tygart/Archive&oldid=1079535146"