Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi

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:Martinphi

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Myriam Tobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by --Milo H Minderbinder 14: 01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Crop circle: Martinphi makes three reverts: 18:53, 11 March 2007 20:59, 11 March 2007 21:41, 11 March 2007. Seven minutes after Martin's third revert (and Myriam's first edit in hours), Myriam arrives, first edit ever to the article 21:49, 11 March 2007, removes text 21:52, 11 March 2007 that had been previously fact tagged by Martin 17:02, 7 February 2007, then after a few intermediate edits, made an edit to a wording similar to the version Martinphi had previously reverting to 00:14, 12 March 2007, inserting both "many" and an attribution for the second part of the sentence.

Remote viewing: Martinphi edits the intro 01:12, 6 March 2007, twice reverts to that version 16:47, 10 March 2007 19:10, 10 March 2007 (which had been reverted by two different editors). Myriam does the next revert to Martinphi's version 15:23, 11 March 2007 and later removes "purported" 21:47, 11 March 2007, as Martinphi has done a number of times at Psychic for similar reasons16:33, 9 March 2007 16:51, 10 March 2007.

Psychic: Martinphi has made many edits taking out phrases such as "purported", "profess to be" etc for example 20:30, 2 March 2007 with the edit summary (" 'psychic' doesn't mean people who say they are psychic- it only means people who are psychic. If they aren't when they claim to be, they aren't psychic.") also 15:36, 3 March 2007, 20:50, 3 March 2007. Then, Martinphi reverted the inclusion of the disputed nature in the definition 15:28, 4 March 2007, edit summary: "(Let's leave the sentence concerning the use of the word as a noun seperate from whether or not the phenomena exists. One topic per sentence)"

Myriam arrives (after Martinphi has made three reverts to the article) 21:08, 5 March 2007 and after a few minor edits, splits the sentence as Martinphi had earlier 23:47, 6 March 2007 summary: (I gave it better sentence structure). Next day, reversions by Martinphi 17:05, 7 March 2007 (It's a good change. It sounds like the definition of the word. Then the next centence says that some don't believe in it. End of story, totally NPOV), Myriam 30 minutes later 17:35, 7 March 2007 (I saw your change but I don't understand how a person can be just any person who says they are psychic?), then Martinphi 20:45, 7 March 2007 (Don't give in to bad writing and POV-pushing.). March 8, same revert by Myriam 13:44, 8 March 2007 (I think this way of wording it is OK, but it needs to be two sentences, otherwise it isn't good writing.), Martinphi 14:40, 8 March 2007, Martin again 16:38, 8 March 2007, Myriam to a version with wording similar to earlier Martinphi versions from days and many edits earlier (and non-mainstream wording that I haven't seen anyone else propose on this article) 18:33, 8 March 2007 (I think this is better, because it just defines what the word "psychic" means, and then it gives both sides of the debate, so then people can make up their own minds. This said "Edit conflict") (earlier version 16:04, 5 March 2007), Martinphi revert again 18:56, 8 March 2007.

On Talk:Psychic, Myriam says "the skeptical part should have its own paragraph" 18:17, 8 March 2007, a repeat of Martin's earlier suggestions 20:43, 7 March 2007, 16:42, 8 March 2007. A comment about "edit conflict" 18:37, 8 March 2007 which frankly seems like an attempt to make the editor seem like a newbie considering the use of edit summaries and reverts from the beginning. Comments from Martinphi (echoing what Myriam said above): "I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real." 19:04, 8 March 2007. A couple editors agree with Martinphi, and no posts on the talk page from Myriam for a couple days. When I start a new thread of discussion, Myriam makes an "I agree with Martin" post within an hour of Martinphi's response 17:39, 10 March 2007.

Similar patterns at Electronic Voice Phenomenon and talk page, I can add diffs if there is interest.

Here's the diffs only version of potential 3RR reverts (from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi)

Crop circle: Martinphi reverts:

18:53, 11 March 2007
20:59, 11 March 2007
21:41, 11 March 2007

Myriam Tobias revert: 00:14, 12 March 2007

Psychic:

Martinphi: 17:05, 7 March 2007
Myriam: 17:35, 7 March 2007
Martinphi: 20:45, 7 March 2007
Myriam: 13:44, 8 March 2007
Martinphi: 14:40, 8 March 2007
Martinphi: 16:38, 8 March 2007
Myriam: 18:33, 8 March 2007
Martinphi: 18:56, 8 March 2007

Comments

Myriam Tobias has edited a total of ten pages by my count (plus talk pages for those articles) since the account was created on March 5, and every single one is a page Martinphi has also edited. Many of these are pages on which Martinphi is involved in content disputes and has approached or exceeded 3RR. His edits and talk page comments consistently agree with Martinphi's, and he often appears within minutes of Martin's edits to back him up, often only when Martin has made three reverts or when it is pointed out that a majority of editors disagree with him. The editing patterns and online appearances are just too improbable to be coincidence (particularly when those ten pages include obscure ones like Ganzfeld experiment and Odic force). The use of edit summaries and reversions seems to indicate an experienced wiki user as opposed to a new editor who has only been here about a week.

It appears that this sockpuppet is being used to bolster "consensus" and avoid 3RR. While it's possible that it isn't a sockpuppet, if it isn't it seems almost certainly to be a meatpuppet, which should also be looked into by admins. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since filing this I have requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the WP:RFCU page on "Martinphi", on which the result was confirmed. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo H Minderbinder is quite correct in most of the things he says (and I congratulate him for his perception). But he has come to several incorrect conclusions. First, Myriam is a she, not a he. Second, Myriam is not a sock puppet.

Milo is however right in that a pattern is detectable. Myriam and I share the same computer. We often talk about the pages in question. I have urged Myriam to create a Wikipedia account, as we share the same interests. I have discussed the pages in question with her, and in light of our discussions, she has agreed with me, and I with her.

There is nothing more suspicious in this than there is in the fact that Dreadlocke and Davkal and I nearly always agree on things and support each other's edits, except that Myriam and I are sharing the same computer (we use different accounts, and we have set up different browsers to keep our bookmarks separate). I doubt there is a way to prove to Wikipedia that we are not the same person; however, there must also be a dispensation for two people who share (and have to share) the same computer.

As far as being a meat puppet, Myriam has a right to agree with me if she wants to; she has a right to support me if she so desires; and she has a right to edit Wikipedia as would any other user. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to say except that- I agree with Martin. Why couldn't you just have asked us? Myriam Tobias 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just pasted this in from my talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on who is a sockpuppet of whom, just want to procedurally note that I blocked User:Michaelbusch for 18 hours for 3RR on Crop circle. I also checked Martinphi at that time and found 3 reverts, but not a 4th. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation is that these accounts are being used jointly to violate 3RR. Since the users have stated that they use the same computer but are different people who discuss matters off-wikipedia, agree with each other, and edit in a similar way, the relevant policy is WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Akhilleus. Michaelbusch 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. By his own admission Martinphi asked his roommate, Myriam Tobias, to sign up. Myriam Tobias has supported Martinphi's edits and only edited on articles Martinphi has edited. That is meatpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry by self-confession; likely sockpuppetry. "My roommate did it" (or brother, girlfriend, whatever) is the canonical response to charges of sockpuppetry notwithstanding that it may on occasion be true. Raymond Arritt 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear case of meatpuppetry, the editor admits to it and checkuser confirms it. I assume at some point an admin will close this and take action on the meatpuppetry and multiple instances of 3RR evasion? --Minderbinder 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed relation of accounts, Myriam Tobias blocked. Martinphi is warned that if a (roommate/girlfriend/etc.) also wishes to edit, the two of them should refrain from agreeing with one another or reverting on the same articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]