Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I doubt this user somewhere somehow have connection with these new accounts because this user removing Speedy tag just after someone tag it for speedy from poorly sourced, unsourced and even from those articles which previously deleted. The user has done the same thing on all pages where he removed the speedy. 1) He removed speedy (2) He start adding more information (where he got that information when its not available on internet?) (3) voting as keep in afd after another user took it to afd. Here are some of the pages he removed speedy from [1] [2] [3] [4] (afd keep vote) [5]. Even if check user fail to confirm please compare his behavior. Thomas jes (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

In each case, he declined the speedy because the article made a credible claim of significance. Plenty of users do this (I.e. Decline a speedy and then work to improve an article) and it is by no means an indication of socking in itself. Heck, I declined a speedy yesterday, and it had nothing to do with socking. In this case, they actually reverted the alleged sock to restore the AFD tag. I am suspicious of the OP, a single-edit "newbie" who decided to file a CU request against an editor in good standing. CU may be helpful, indeed... GABgab 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and kind words here today GAB and Bbb23. There is an editor trying to cause a dispute with me today regarding a vote I made at an AFD today. I truly suspect this one edit sock person was made by him/her just to try and get me in trouble. I will gather the evidence, evaluate it, and see about filing an SPI against the sockmaster editor of today. Hahaha your evil little plan did not work, and I am happy about that! Thanks. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 19:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There's nothing disruptive about removing speedy tags and improving articles to make them notable. There's no evidence these accounts are related. The filer, whose sole edit to Wikipedia is the creation of this case, is more suspicious than any other user. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  1. An informal investigation by The Wordsmith at ANI resulted in him blocking Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant as a sock of banned user Carriearchdale. Diff here.
  2. Editor Maybeparaphrased was named in the same diff as someone who had likely collaborated off-wiki with Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant.
  3. In this earlier diff for a 3rr report, Maybeparaphrased pastes in an email by accident. A little Googling connects that email with banned user Carriearchdale.
  4. While the conclusions of the informal report are most useful, a CU was not run on any of the users. I suggest it may be appropriate to CU the two users above. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm adding blocked user Wordseventeen and Wordseventeen sock JilllyJo. Will add evidence later today when I am at my computer at home. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added Gubnitv. When I see a new editor starting to edit an article created by a blocked sockpuppet (now deleted) hours after the block of that puppet, it seems very likely that it's another sock. Huon (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As soon as I saw Maybeparaphrased's fisrt post to the first ANI thread, I was convinced that it was Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant without any other evidence. As I said at that ANI, there was insifficient supporting evidence to pursue a case. As this debacle has unfolded, I am now more convinced than ever.
Although Bbb23 has found Carriearchdale stale, it should be noted that Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant has already been blocked as a sock of Carriearchdale on behavioural evidence. --Elektrik Fanne 18:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: I'd like to request that sleepers be checked for, if that wasn't done when the CU was done. There is abundant circumstantial evidence that Carriearchdale (aka Fouette) created sleeper accounts; for instance Carriearchdale (talk · contribs) was created in November 2007 but did not begin editing until January 2014. Softlavender (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the 2607 IP address. No prior edits, they post on my talkpage [6] heaving a rather ominous warning (bordering on a threat) that I will be subject to real life harassment for my block. The IP geolocates to Washington state, and Carriearchdale identifies themself as being from the Pacific time zone. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is embarrassing... I previously defended Fouetté against clearly bogus charges of socking. Oh, well. GABgab 20:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The direct threat against an admin (see above) is very concerning. This is a wiki for god's sake. Threatening people like that is serious nutjob/crazy person territory. I hope this gets reported through proper channels. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I didn't have time to follow up with evidence to hopefully prod toward a CU being done. If the history of this sockmaster tells us anything, though, there will be more socks and more SPIs in the future. Thanks for the temporary on-hold consideration, Bbb23. I just didn't have time to get-er-done as I hoped. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wordsmith and GAB: I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone or excuse possible threatening behavior, but, was that actually a threat or was it an editor in good standing who logged out in order to give you a warning of what they, themselves have experienced at the hand of Carriearchdale? It actually reads in a manner that could go either way, don't you think? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could be interpreted that way, but the geolocation indicates that it Carrie/Fouette. I'm about to forward to you an email that is relevant to this issue. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (Redacted) ... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Similar to what HVE posted above, but a bit more detailed. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, though, I only know about this case from what I read on ANI... And I never got the time to even review evidence. So I may not be the best to ask in this case, sorry. GABgab 22:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect, shouldn't Fouette be unblocked immediately now? Perhaps with an apology, too?

I'm a latecomer here, and I previously followed only some of two ANI items that went on, but I see no valid evidence at all here of any sockpuppeting involving Fouette. I do see validity in checkuser User:Bbb23's skeptical comments below about the "free for all". The purported evidence includes no actual evidence, IMHO. The purported evidence includes:

  • mention that Wordsmith conducted an informal investigation, with this diff that contains no evidence. But that is just a diff where Wordsmith states their conclusion, without evidence!
  • Editor User:Elektrik Fanne above states they were immediately convinced by seeing Maybeparaphrased's first posting somewhere that they must be the same person as Fouette, but Elekrik Fanne provides no diffs at all for anyone else to compare. And in fact Elektrik Fanne gives no explanation why they are convinced. This is not evidence.
  • Editor user:The Wordsmith mentions "a rather ominous warning (bordering on a threat)" with a diff, but Wordsmith themself has used administrative revdel tool to eliminate the purported near-threat, so I for one cannot see that.
  • Editor user:Winkelvi, who did see the purported near-threat, comments above that it could be interpreted differently, not as a threat, and even Wordsmith agrees.
  • Editor User:Softlavender asserts "There is abundant circumstantial evidence that Carriearchdale (aka Fouette) created sleeper accounts" but their evidence is non-sensical. Their "evidence" is that Carriearchdale's account was created in November 2007 but Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014. I will believe without checking that Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014, but a) so what and b) where is any shred of evidence that Carriearchdale created any other accounts?

Please understand, I don't mean to criticize anyone, really, for thinking what they think, because each of us have our own personal experiences which inform us differently in how to interpret anything we see. But as for me, with my different experience, I don't see anything here. Given that Bbb23 points out there's poor reasoning about geography in the free-for-all, and so on, I don't understand why Bbb23 did perform the checkuser check or whatever you call it. But they did, and they found no association. I have participated at SPI only a few times, and maybe I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. Am I wrong that accusers are supposed to provide diffs, to provide actual evidence? (I certainly thought diffs were required when I opened an SPI, myself. In edit mode here, there is warning Do not make accusations without providing evidence.) And given that the checkuser check was done, and no connection was found, shouldn't this be closed with some consensus judgment that the allegations were false, or at least found to be completely unsupported? And shouldn't the block be reversed, by Wordsmith preferably or by some other administrator? I do apologize if I am merely piling on in some unfair way, or if I should be making a request at Wordsmith's Talk page or commenting at Fouette's instead. sincerely, --doncram 01:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, you wrote, "Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect". How did you come to that conclusion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That it has been found to be incorrect is my summary view, based on what I explain: I see no evidence, and purported evidence is not evidence, and if I understand correctly the checkuser check found no association (maybe just because the Carriearchdale account is stale). I should add that I used the Editor interaction utility for a while to look for similarities of their edits when they edited the same page, and I saw no similarity of the edits. Also the interactions showed nearest time of editing the same place was one year, I think. The bad kind of sockpuppeting is when an editor creates false support of their position in a discussion by having an apparently independent editor agree with them. That cannot ever have occurred because they never edited the same discussion.
Your point may be that technically it is a logical leap that I am making to go from "no evidence" to "assertion is incorrect", but I happen to think that is the conclusion we should reach. Along the lines of "A person is innocent until proven guilty", which is how the criminal justice system in my country (the U.S.) is supposed to work, and then "Innocent" follows from "not proven guilty".
BTW, I also meant to say I have no association with Fouette at all that I know of until a few days ago, and then it is only minimal association. (I was pinged when they quoted me at ANI about an AFD, then we had minimal interaction clarifying about that, and I noticed Fouette did me a small favor of approving an article at AFC for me. The AFC would have been approved soon anyhow. I suppose they browsed my contributions and saw that the article was obviously approvable. Likewise I browsed a bit more about Fouette's activity, and the block, and found my way to this SPI.) I am an independent observer looking at this SPI, and I just see nothing here. --doncram 02:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram: Please see Bbb23's comments below regarding Fouette and Carriearchdale and whether or not there is a sock connection in relation to this SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Replying to WV and to Bbb23, what I said is the checkuser found no association. In fact they did not find any association. I fully understand that the checkuser did not prove independence (they did not positively find that there is no association), which sometimes they can do. Again, no evidence given above + no association found by checkuser -> IMO the block should be removed and IMO further there should be some apologies. Tha's my opinion, which I have supported. --doncram 02:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Your mistake is that it wasn't proven wrong. Fouette is indeed a sockpuppet, the behavioral evidence, grammatical quirks, Userpages, and the way their offwiki accounts link to the same email address is conclusive. Everything of relevance is on ANI. Checkuser didn't disprove it, Checkuser says nothing because Carriearchdale was blocked over a year ago and Checkuser only contains 90 days worth of IP logs. As far as the IP, it geolocates to King County, Washington. (Redacted) It would be difficult for Fouette to quack any louder than they already are. Also, you can block sockpuppets without an SPI. This one was filed because it was suspected that more accounts were linked to it. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No checkuser was run. See Bbb23's statements, and the decline at the top of the page. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the post to which I was referring (that convinced me that Maybeparaphrased was the same editor as Fouette) was this one. I had not posted the diff as I considered that the contributors at that point were aware of it. However, this has turned into a real can of worms and so many more eyes are now on it that I realise that perhaps I should have done. --Elektrik Fanne 10:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The following accounts are Red X Unrelated to Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant:
    • Maybeparaphrased
    • Gubnitv
  • The following accounts are  Stale:
    • Carriearchdale
    • WordSeventeen
    • Jilllyjo
  • --Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: Please wait for Winkelvi to add their evidence. After that, you can take whatever action you deem appropriate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've declined the CU request. At the moment, there's nothing to check.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doncram: I tried to be clear in my findings. I made many. I also criticized certain technical inferences drawn by editors on this page. However, at no time did I find that Fouette and Carriearchdale were technically unrelated. As I stated at the outset, Carriearchdale is stale. Therefore, I couldn't make such a finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing more to do here. If a clerk wants to merge this case with the Carrie case, that's fine. If not, that's fine, too. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant/Archive&oldid=1138670970"