Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth
I am frigging sick of this bs by Obama apologists to go after anyone who tries to put information that they don't like on the Obama entry, and the slavish attitude of admitted left-wing Wikipedia administrators who support them.
If you think I'm a sock puppet, then look at my IP address, which is NOT the same as K4T's. Specifically, it is 64.45.236.60, which is static.
By definition, if K4T's account is IP blocked, then if I were a sock puppet of his, then I would be blocked as well, as I would have the same IP.
What I would like to see is some integrity on the part of ≈ jossi ≈ (God forbid), and some penalty for the non-stop harassment that K4T, Andyvphil and I receive from talk and other Obama apologists.Fovean Author (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject - Kossack4Truth was created on 14:42, 15 March 2008 [5]
- I've been through this crap myself. An IP picked up reverting a POV atrocity after I left off and we were both blocked, along with the 6RR violator, as sockpuppets of each other. When it turned out that we were 700 miles apart the admin, nothing fazed by that or a lack of any evidence for his hypothesis, asserted that I might have recruited a meatpuppet. And that block on bogus grounds is repeatedly advanced as an argument as to why I ought to think it true that I'm a bad editor. What it's really evidence for is of course the existance of a plethora of bad, arrogant, admins. Anyway, 64.45.236.60 (Fovean) is in or near Sebring, FL. 68.31.80.187 is in Indianapolis. Kossack? Andyvphil (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that even as I was adding the above comment, Wikidemo was further abusing process by adding my name to the list of sockpuppets. As I said, I've experienced this form of admin abuse before [6] and am absolutlely unrepentant about sharing Fovean Author's views on arrogant admins and editors acting as Obama campaign volunteers. I long since stated, however, that I am in Pacifica, CA, which is a long way from either Indiana or Florida, and the accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so void of any plausible excuse for belief that AGF cannot possibly requre that I write as ifbelieve Wikidema an imbecile rather than a liar. He's abusing process for the purposes of harassment. What rebuke will you administer to him? Well... I have no doubt admin solidarity will trump any other consideration, so I'm not expecting anything. Andyvphil (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
My account was created before 00:45, 29 June 2007 [7]
So, I guess when he created my account as a sock puppet, he employed Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine? Fovean Author (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking Fovean Author because he agrees with Kossak4Truth in reverting the deletions performed by the Obama fans is an arrogant abuse of admin power. As usual with those for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego by making unaccountable decisions, Jossi is uninterested in any evidence that he has fallen into error, and is prone to careless falsification of the record. As to the former, [8],[9] -- Fovean is clearly not a sockpuppet of Kossack. And as to the latter, although Fovean was reported as a potential sock and Jossi says above that that was the reason he blocked him ("the block was made on the basis of what seems a block evasion attempt... the block is warranted as the Fovean Author was making the exact same edit reversions, while the other user was blocked") he is unwilling to put such a disprovable assertion into the block log, but instead falls back on the all-purpose unprovable and undisprovable "edit warring without actually violating 3RR", ignoring the requirement in policy, apparently a dead letter, that if editors are to be blocked "even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period" it is to be done only "if their behavior is clearly disruptive"(emphasis added). Arrogant and unaccountable admins have taken this language allowing exceptional action and converted it to a licence for arbitrary intervention in content disputes being carried on within the rules. If Fovean "edit warred" without 4/24 reverts then the editors who have deleted the material from the page and repeatedly reverted its restoration have also "edit warred". Yet only Fovean's block log has been stained, and it will be used against him in the future by admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is my beef right there - the admins are clearly not neutral. They're going to let the Obama apologists break whatever rules they want to with no consequence, then create a new standard for the rest of us. This article should ALREADY be listed as 'solved' and in fact there needs to be repercussion against LuluOftheLotusEaters Fovean Author (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Suspected sock puppetry is reasonable on the face. Certainly a community of users may share some POV and pick up, from each other, similar language, so without checkuser, it's true that the users might be independent. But cooperating in edit warring may be treated similarly to sock puppetry, and gross incivility is displayed above and in Andyvphil's edit record, and is blockable on its own. My summary: the admin block above, even if in error -- I'm not judging that --, was reasonable, and the above attacks on administrators who reasonably block and who protect articles against edit warring (as was done with Bill Moyers due to Andyvphil edit warring, demonstrates an ability to assume good faith that indicates he is not yet prepared to participate in editing the encyclopedia. Given that he has been warned many times and blocked four times, it's time for more serious remedies. From the behavior, Andvyvphil, I would conclude, is likely a throwaway account, essentially daring Wikipedia to ban him. This is one desire we should satisfy, and if he ever decides to contribute constructively to the project, his path is clear and easy. After a decent pause, start a new account, don't attack other editors, seek consensus, and don't edit war. Treating 3RR as if it were a permission to revert three times simply based on personal opinion is, again, another sign he is unsuitable for the editorial privilege. This has nothing to do with his political position, nor with mine or that of administrators who, in good faith, enforce, ad hoc, Wikipedia policy subject to review. If Andyvphil disagrees, he has available to himself the full range of dispute resolution process. Except that it would probably be a waste of time, and he probably knows that.
Meanwhile, checkuser may be appropriate and useful.(Checkuser has been done with other two accounts, not Andyvphil, "unrelated." Probably not worth doing just for Andyvphil.)
- Suspected sock puppetry is reasonable on the face. Certainly a community of users may share some POV and pick up, from each other, similar language, so without checkuser, it's true that the users might be independent. But cooperating in edit warring may be treated similarly to sock puppetry, and gross incivility is displayed above and in Andyvphil's edit record, and is blockable on its own. My summary: the admin block above, even if in error -- I'm not judging that --, was reasonable, and the above attacks on administrators who reasonably block and who protect articles against edit warring (as was done with Bill Moyers due to Andyvphil edit warring, demonstrates an ability to assume good faith that indicates he is not yet prepared to participate in editing the encyclopedia. Given that he has been warned many times and blocked four times, it's time for more serious remedies. From the behavior, Andvyvphil, I would conclude, is likely a throwaway account, essentially daring Wikipedia to ban him. This is one desire we should satisfy, and if he ever decides to contribute constructively to the project, his path is clear and easy. After a decent pause, start a new account, don't attack other editors, seek consensus, and don't edit war. Treating 3RR as if it were a permission to revert three times simply based on personal opinion is, again, another sign he is unsuitable for the editorial privilege. This has nothing to do with his political position, nor with mine or that of administrators who, in good faith, enforce, ad hoc, Wikipedia policy subject to review. If Andyvphil disagrees, he has available to himself the full range of dispute resolution process. Except that it would probably be a waste of time, and he probably knows that.
- Advice for any innocent user who might have been tossed into this SSP report: don't take an SSP report as an attack. I've been reported and checkusered and, honestly, it doesn't hurt, and the possibility of a false positive from it is remote. Very remote, I've not heard of it happening. More likely, it turns up negative or inconclusive even if editors are connected, if precautions have been taken, and, of course, it cannot detect meat puppetry. --Abd (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I take it as an attack. Not a very welcoming bunch here. I heard on the news that Obama is the nominee, I come to Wikipedia and look him up, I click on the tab across the top of the page that says "Discussion" (duh), and I see that there are a couple of surveys inviting input on the article content. If you don't want any new users like me showing up, restrict access and don't make it so user friendly. Scjessey and Wikidemo are two of the most hostile people I've ever encountered on any Internet site that is allegedly moderated, and I've been surfing the web for 10 years. Fovean Author, Kossack and Andy are no doubt reacting out of frustration from having had to deal with these jerks on a long-term basis. Scjessey and Wikidemo could use a long cooling off period. About a week or two. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Throwaway acount" here. 1,000 edit a year for 2.5 years.[10] IP70.9 (Battle Creek, MI, btw) has it exactly right: The Jeremiah Wright story received four times as much news coverage as as any other story in the primary campaign[11] and the obvious relevance to Obama's life that his church was, as reported in the New York Times, "Afrocentric" and "unusually political" caused me to add an anodyne note to that effect six months ago. It was promptly and repeatedly edit warred off the page by the resident clique with AGF-eviscerating arguments like "You can't use the NYTimes -- sites where you have to register are discouraged" and "This article is about Obama, not his church", eventually culminating in my being called a racist, and reporting it[12], without garnering any admin admonishment of the jerk who said it. Said jerk then displayed great chutzpah by dumping an undigested list of my edits on the 3RR Noticeboard immediately after he, not for the first time, actually committed 4 reverts in 24 hours, and I logged on to find I'd been blocked for a week. My pointing out that I'd actually only made two reverts in 24 hours was met with admin dismissals as "wikilawyering" (I'd been accused of breaking a rule, for crying out loud). Andyvphil (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect that is an absurd comment and your personal attack invalidates your point. If you have ten years of experience on the Internet then surely you can take a look in the mirror and realize that your personal beliefs about politics can distort your perception of people. At the Obama article we have a small group - those who were accused of sockpuppetry here - ganging up to taunt, call names, and ignore process to try to force in a biased political point they wanted to make. That's standard operating procedure on most unmoderated Internet forums, but we have stronger rules here. It is frustrating for everybody here, particularly the ones who want to honor the encyclopedia's rules and purpose and resist partisanship. But we all must agree to follow the rules and not bash each other. Insulting volunteer administrators isn't any worse tan insulting anyone else, and in fact they are expected to have thick skins, but it's not going to win anyone to your position.Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, it seems to me that it's yourself and your friends that you're describing, not me. The surveys say you're in the minority. I've clicked on the links and read the policies you've cited, and you're misinterpreting them to serve your agenda. Because we voted against you, you're trying to get us banned for some fictitious offense. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and you are the ones who should be banned for your false accusations and your misrepresentations of website policy. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec with below) Wikipedia is not run by survey. At this point you're simply siding with problem editors and taking up their behavior. If you're truly new to Wikipedia you're getting off to an awfully fast bad start, antagonizing people and calling them names in your first days here. As you may note, the person you think you're defending has just called me an "imbecile" and a "liar", and accused administrators of more or less the same. That's awfully silly over an issue so trivial as wanting to tag a political candidate's biography with another instance of a minor campaign controversy that's already covered at least two other places in the encyclopedia. You would do well to concentrate your energies for constructive contributions to articles, not choosing sides to take. Wikidemo (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- IP editors don't get banned, they get blocked temporarily. Register an account, after the block expires, and a blocked IP experiences very little consequence. When IP editors cooperate with abusive editors, who are being blocked, it's common that the IP gets blocked too. Sometimes, I'm sure, this is a bit unfair. But it is temporary, and surely, if this IP editor had a shred of ability to look at things from a community project perspective, he or she would see the necessity of it;. This assumption that everyone is involved here vindictively is highly offensive, and itself violates Wikipedia policy, assume good faith. I'm pretty familiar with policy and guidelines, and I haven't seen one violated here, but, surely, I could miss something. However, as Wikidemo points out, attacking just about everyone in sight isn't going to win friends and influence people. Someone who has been here long enough and has been active enough to become an administrator has seen it all, and, ultimately, has only so much time to devote to answering contentious editors. There is administrative abuse, sometimes, but it's not going to be fixed by attacking the administrators. Rather, point out the alleged abuse, following dispute resolution process. It is quite possible to point to abuse without violating WP:AGF, because abuse describes the effect, not the intention. Got proof of bad intention? It better be much stronger than a bunch of unsubstantiated personal attacks.--Abd (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- From what I see, the IPs listed have not been blocked, so that when 70.9 refers to getting "us" banned, my suspicion increases that this is IP for one of the blocked users. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about Andy and Fovean, but based on the edits Kossack4Truth is clearly an SPA. I can see Kossack being a sock of one of them, though I doubt both. Wizardman 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Another note, the 3 IPs seem to clearly be coming from the same area, possibly the same computer even. Granted, I don't think it matters where the IPs are from since they've made to few edits, and only to the talk page. Wizardman 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- The two 70.9's are both Sprint dial-ups, one in Battle Creek, MI and one in Lebanon, In. Lebanon is near Indianapolis and could be the same individual as 68.31.80.187. But have they cast separate votes in the same poll or done anything else to indicate that not identifying as one individual would constitute misrepresentation, even were it true? 69.181.166.177 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ...Oh, and that was an accidental demonstration that 69.181.166.177 is me. Which is a change. Last time this bogus accusation came up I was 24.23.229.223 which was somewhat mysteriously reported to be located in Pinole, not Pacifica. Daly City is even further from Florida, Michigan and Indiana, tho. Andyvphil (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, they both voted in this poll, for the exact same option...[13]
- No. 4 is the only appropriate choice .... 68.31.80.187 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- No. 4 is closest to acceptable, .... Andyvphil (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- No. 4. ... 70.9.18.59 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean, you stopped reading anything on the Talk page after you posted? Stop wasting our time. The total number of IP's that voted in that particular poll is 3. What an amazing coincidence that they all voted for the exact same choice--out of four different possibilities.
- No. 4. A good and concise list of choices. ... 70.9.72.38 (first edit by this IP address)
- No. 4 is the only appropriate choice .... 68.31.80.187 (only contribution by editor is vote in polls on this page)
- No. 4. ... 70.9.18.59 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
And in an other poll, again that amazing coincidence, so specific that both even specified a preference beginning with opinion #5 [14]
- No. 7. Anything less than No. 5 is a whitewash.... 68.31.80.187 (has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
- No. 5, No. 6 or No. 7. 70.9.18.59 (has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
Life.temp (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's this whole allegation of sockpuppetry that's a waste of time, as well as the cause of an act of administrative arrogance against Fovean_Author. No, it's not surprising that all three IPs voted for one of the four options. Were the votes randomly distributed the probability would be 1/64. But they weren't. 8 of the 14 votes were for #4, #3 got no votes, #1 got 1 vote and #2 got five. And it's the precise problem of this article that its editors contain an unusual concentration of Obama hagiographers, resulting in overrepresentation of #1/#2. It's not at all surprising that the random visitor would select the only reasonable option, #4. Andyvphil (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
One of them is in Lebanon, Indiana. The other one is in Battle Creek, Michigan. Mapquest.com tells us that the two cities are 237 miles apart. I live far, far away from either one of them, and the previous RFCU proves it. Fovean Author doesn't live in either one of them or in the same city as me, and the previous RFCU proves it. Andyvphil has just proven that he lives about 2,000 miles away from either one of those two cities. Aside from the fact that there are several people (spread all over the United States) who disagree with your efforts to whitewash the article, you've got nothing except speculation. Speculation is not evidence. You're beating a dead horse. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it should be noted to all those who are arguing the IP's are diffrent, that it is quite possible to mask and change ip addresses. Various users have been doing it for a long time to get around account blocks on a myriad of forums/wiki's/games/etc. Also, another easy way to change an ip, is to log into some where completely diffrent and then continue the edit war. There are also various programs that can mask or change IP addresses. For some quick and interesting reading here is an interesting article IP address spoofing. Brothejr (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Andyvphil has been blocked by Mastcell for a month: [15]. The checkuser request filed was for the other two editors, but if there is a puppet master here, it would more likely be Andyvphil. I'm not sufficiently exercised to file another checkuser request myself at the moment, I've got a real life, but it would make sense to do it now, rather than wait for Andyvphil's block to expire, because then the CU evidence would be gone. If a checkuser request involving Andyvphil comes up negative, that would complete and close this case. (The block did not depend on sock allegations at all, though Andyvphil's behavior here was apparently part of the cause.) --Abd (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are enough seasoned administrators watching the issue that if a checkuser is warranted they'll run one with or without a rcfu. I'm a little confused as to what was done, and whether Andyvphil would have been picked up as an account linked to Workerbee74, ForveanAuthor, and Kossack4truth if a checkuser were run on the three of them. There is usually no hurry to do a checkuser because if there is sockpuppetry, any delay just gives them more time to do their deeds and thereby leave evidence.Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The RFCU was filed before Andyvphil was added to this SSP report. I am also unclear whether or not the report would have found an Andyvphil connection, if one existed. Sometimes CU reports pick up socks not previously seen as connected, but I don't know that this is reliable, i.e., if the checkuser always looks for those. Given that the other two accounts are not blocked, it might be appropriate to check now; and it could slip through the cracks, everybody is busy. But no biggie. If I thought it was very important, I'd file the request myself. One thing is strange and should be noticed. Andyvphil's behavior was so outrageous lately that it seems he was trolling to be blocked. That could mean he's got other accounts. --Abd (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are enough seasoned administrators watching the issue that if a checkuser is warranted they'll run one with or without a rcfu. I'm a little confused as to what was done, and whether Andyvphil would have been picked up as an account linked to Workerbee74, ForveanAuthor, and Kossack4truth if a checkuser were run on the three of them. There is usually no hurry to do a checkuser because if there is sockpuppetry, any delay just gives them more time to do their deeds and thereby leave evidence.Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Andyvphil has been blocked by Mastcell for a month: [15]. The checkuser request filed was for the other two editors, but if there is a puppet master here, it would more likely be Andyvphil. I'm not sufficiently exercised to file another checkuser request myself at the moment, I've got a real life, but it would make sense to do it now, rather than wait for Andyvphil's block to expire, because then the CU evidence would be gone. If a checkuser request involving Andyvphil comes up negative, that would complete and close this case. (The block did not depend on sock allegations at all, though Andyvphil's behavior here was apparently part of the cause.) --Abd (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The RFCU said they're unrelated technically, but it also talks about behaviorial issues. I feel there are serious meatpuppeting issues. Advise the named parties to be wary of meatpuppeting, tag-team editing, etc and other parties to report future problems to the appropriate board. I have posted a linked to this diff on the talk pages of named parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)