Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Green108

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Green108[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recently Green108 has been blocked for a week for using two sockpuppets, Bkangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). After these blocks, the regular editors (I am not one, simply have been monitoring the situation) were proceeding to clean up the biases which had been introduced into the article by Green108. Shortly thereafter, Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows up and begins to reinsert the same biases.

While I am not certain that this is a case of sockpuppetry, I am sure that it is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I will continue to research and add evidence to try to determine which it is. In any case, it is Wikipedia policy to treat meatpuppetry as if it were sockpuppetry when they cannot be distinguish, so I believe there is a cause for investigation and possible action here.

In some cases the language and style of edits has a familiar ring e.g. [1] compared to [2] (removal of website figures) and [3] compared to [4] (phrase "entirely different"). The phrase "the practice" [5] re-appears also.

In addition the introductions of Faithinhumanity [6] and Shortskirtlonglegs [7] have some simularities. They both go along the lines of, "Hello, I know of a BK/the BKs, I've got some books...".

Regards Bksimonb 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to TalkAbout (talk · contribs):

18:31, 7 August 2007: blocked used Green108 begins to edit as 212.126.146.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [8]
18:49, 7 August 2007: Switched to 212.126.146.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and continues to edit [9]
19:28, 7 August 2007, Green108's block is extended [10]
03:00, 8 August 2007, Green108 is warned not to evade his block [11]
04:07, 8 August 2007 TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) starts to edit the talk page, taking up the very same issues as both Green108 and Faithinhumanity [12]
4:32, 8 August 2007 use same accusation "I see you guys are having a hayday deleting the article down to a PR JOB:-(......)" and use of ...... as Green108 [13]
01:44, 9 August 2007 212.126.143.106 Green108 responds once again on this page to defend himself. (comment placed by self User:Green108

Reply by TalkAbout to False allegations :

Stating falsehoods as facts is not a proper thing to do and I am also requesting the link to lodge a complaint against this Admin IPSOS.

I am requesting that I be removed from this allegation, made by IPSOS and request that the tag on my page be removed as well. I am not a sockpuppet and take this as grave allegation against my integrity and my many contributions here as an editor. I find this insulting, degrading and an affront as I am well aware that Admins can see where the editor is logged in from and this only ads to the caustic attitude lodged against me. TalkAbout 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am current blocked from editing while logged in but can still edit when not logged in.....I am trying to respond to this matter alone , it seems mad someone can be tried without being allowed to defend themself

I'd like to ask for evidence to support all this allegations being made against me ,(+diffs) not just for this case but also the previous one . I understand that as the one accused , I can ask for this

I really have no interesting in all this trickery , for me it is clear...the BKWSU Internet PR team are out to block , ban, revert or otherwise any informed independent voice with experience of the Bkwsu, see; [14] . The two Bkwsu followers are Bksimonb (talk · contribs) and Riveros11 (talk · contribs). I am not the sort to sit down making up accusation but if these two are not working a "team" who is!!!!!

I stand by my edits on the article which have included the addition of 30 plus references and the tidying up off them all.....once shown how. the issue is not about me , the issue is that the Bkwsu members have been resisting full exposure for months and months making just such accusations User:Green108

Comment- Much as I love him, User:IPSOS has a history of making sockpuppet pages on other users. That's a few he's done in the last week, such as Kephera795, he also did it gravely in the past to User:Coldmachine.

The pasting a 'this user is a suspected sockpuppet of' on someone's userpage is quite rude too and I would advise people that they are well within their rights to simply remove it. (I've heard of other suspected sockpuppet reports being filed and this template has never been used. Particularly mean as it seems to be only User:IPSOS who's suspecting any of these people.Merkinsmum 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following the clear instructions at WP:SSP, where step-by-step instructions are given on how to report suspected sockpuppets. I don't report sockpuppets unless I think they are rather obvious, and the according policy, the tag may not be removed for ten days while the situation is investigated. IPSOS (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2007

I would like to try and throw some light on this. There are a number of editors over the history of the BKWSU article who I believe are affiliated with a certain website forum that I documented in the arbcom case here. One trait they seem to have in common is that they repeatedly make accusations of a "team" against any editor not aligned with their POV, especially any editor they think or deduce is a BK. I originally introduced myself as being from the BK IT Team but that is an internal team, not a team of editors, as seem to be implied by the accusations. This "team" thing has been used as a stick to beat opposing editors with ever since. In fact the article history shows the exact reverse of their claims is true and this is what IPSOS and other uninvolved editors are discovering. Sockpupptry has been identified involving Green108 and the now-banned User:195.82.106.244. There may be other editors involved to a lesser extent. They can be identified by the characteristic accusations they make and that they support each other's POV edits. Hope that helps clarify. Against this background I don't consider what IPSOS is doing to be unreasonable, even if mistaken, and, as he stated, he is only following WP:SSP which unfortunately doesn't allow for much discretion. Regards Bksimonb 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any judicial system that does not allow for the accused person to defend themselves, or further accuses and punishes the individual for attempting to defend themselves, is very highly flawed and suspect. Especially one without imperial evidence. This is as much about Wikipedia standards and ethics as the topic in question and I ask IPSOS to withdraw the prejudicial and pejorative tone to his accusations.

I have been advise to sit this out but I wont for the reason above. I would like it noted that I have not attempted to edit any topic and I have instead attempted to answer this accusation, ask for advice and communicate with the admins involved to ask for their evidence.

I have not "switched" identity as I am accused nor attempted to hide my identity by sockpuppetry. I have signed each comment clearly with my user name. I have clearly document the reasons for this and the circumstances of my responding. Puppetry involves an intent to deceive. (And, no, I am not TalkAbout either, even Simon knows that !!! IPSOS lacks a history with this article).

I would not want the goodwill of the Wikipedian admins to be abused nor their time wasted. Just to clarify, the "Team" I have referred to is known as "The Internet PR Core Team" that writes "on behalf of the RCOs" (Regional Coordinators) within the BKWSU; and not the general IT team of which Simon was or is also engaged in doing server support.

The BK members working as a 'team' on the BKWSU article, which is quite different, are Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and others. Actually, in most cases we can or they have put specific names to them. Simon is engaged not just in actions such as the Wikipedia but also setting policy. He no doubt remembers that this was discussed at the the NCO (National Coordinators) meeting in February 2007 at the BKWSU headquarters in India.

As it is BKSimonb's stated intent to have me or any other informed contributor banned, he and Riveros11 continuing to work in tandem which I have therefore to interpret as an "official" policy of the BKWSU, I would ask that this is taken in consideration with these continued broad distortions and accusations; and especially remove any other user that might agree with any point I make from their firing line.User:Green108

Isn't Green108 engaging in sockpuppetry through the repeated acts of circumventing his temporary block? It shows a willingness to engage in sockpuppetry. Also, I have found IPSOS to be a careful and thorough editor and very complete in gathering evidence.

Procedural question -- is it normal for editors to know and reveal so much personal information about other editors? (e.g., above where Green108 says with regard to bksimonb "he no doubt remembers this was discussed at the the [sic] NCO (National Coordinators meeting in February 2007...") If bksimonb wanted to reveal this about himself, fine; but it seems inappropriate in terms of both privacy and safety for someone else to disclose personal information about another editor. --Renee 02:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green108 just confirmed everything I said. I rest my case. Bksimonb 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page has just ONE link to a post that TalkAbout made. If you are going to accuse someone of being a socket puppet you should provide much evidance, not just 1 post. By your logical anyone who posted next in that discussion could have been a socket puppet of green108.--Dacium 06:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that an atmosphere of fear is being created, through these persistent cases, to stop any other editor from contributing except those approved by the organisation.

Faithinhumanity 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in any particular position in the article. I've not done any significant editing on it. I am monitoring for disruption. Reverting and/or reincluding things which consensus on the talk page is against, because they are clearly against WP policies by giving minor things undue weight or using unreliable sources is disruptive. Green108 edited in a disruptive manner. I am noticing the same pattern of disruption. If editors would follow dispute resolution, discuss on the talk page first, and only make changes to the article once there is a consensus, then I would be sure that new editors appearing are not Green108. IPSOS (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Mackensen has already noted that User:TalkAbout is unlikely to be a sock of Green108 ([15]).
User:Faithinhumanity is a single-purpose account and therefore a likely candidate for a sockpuppet, but the evidence here doesn't clearly identify Green108 as the master...although things certainly look suspicious. If there are continuing problems, a new Checkuser request would be the way to go. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]