Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19

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:Lukas19

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lukas19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thulean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Lukas19's former account (also banned)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Alun 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Lukas19 was banned for a period of one year for tendentious editing by the arbitration commitee. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM#Lukas19_banned There is an editor to the White people who I believe to be a Lukas19 sockpuppet, it's really blatant. I have had numerous dealings with Lukas19 and am very familiar with him. The user is User:KarenAE contribs I am suspicious because:

1. his edits,[1] [2] including info that Lukas19 contributed. No one else seems to want to include this info, only KarenAE and Lukas19
2. claims that other editors are acting "unilaterally" and starts to edit tendentiously [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] just like Lukas19, untill I point out that the only editor that is acting unilaterally is KarenAE andf that his edits are suspiciously similar to Lukas19's [9] [10] at which time at least the tendentious editing stops, though the similarities in talk page discussion continue.
3. style of writing, [11] [12] (note the mistakes in English, Lukas19 was not a native speaker (though had an excellent grasp of English), similar mistake here with a preposition missing "add yourself". Also note here the term "counter argument", Lukas19 used this term a lot)
4. turn of phrase,[13] (use of the term "counter argument" by KarenAE this time), I have been struck by how similar their language is and could probably provide more evidence if you think it is necessary.
5. arguing style, (see any talk page discussion for either of these editors)
6. use of wikipedia procedures (he has just started an RfC imediatelly someone disagrees with him rather than have a proper discussion), [14] so there is no attempt at resolving the dispute by talk page discussion, but imediately wants to go for an RfC, this is like Lukas19 as well
7. appeals to the talk pages of people he thinks have authority [15] [16] [17] (this mediation involved Lukas19 on the one hand and all other editors on the other, now KarenAE seems to want to resurect it after two months)
8. Interest exclusively with thw White people article, this was Lukas19's "favourite" article, though he did later "branch out" into other "race" related articles. [18] [19]
9. Making comments about other's edits, especially derogatory comments. [20] [21]
10. Seems to have a very detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures for a "newbie", discussing RfC's in their very first few edits. [22] this was KarenAE's fourth edit.
11. Belligerent attitude, both these users prefer to make demands and order other users around rather than make requests. [23] [24] [25] [26] [

This user may be editing from California, [27] [28] whereas Lukas19 claims to have edited from Nova Scotia. [29] So it may be that these IP addresses are different, though this does not mean that these are not the same person. Anyone can move from one end of continental America to the other for work etc. Alun 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think this is strong evidence for suspected sockpuppetry whenever a new user gets right into the thick of things. In have noticed similarities in the reintroduction of materials in the genetics sections of the article that were removed after Lukas19 was banned.Muntuwandi 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does quite look as it could be him. I would have actually been quite surprised if Thulean/Lukas19 would have "accepted defeat" so easily. He is just way too stubborn and obsessed with the idea that Wikipedia can be made a political platform for his ideas via determination and strong will (as he will naturally consider all discrepant editors as adversaries but also somewhat "inferior", due to the complex of superiority that his racist ideas imply). It's quite indicative that "she" gets directly into the heat, editing massively with no doubts, using terminology not typical of newbies, appealing to "authority" and harshly discounting those that oppose "her" - exactly as Thulean/Lukas19 did. The only thing "she" has not done yet seems to be trashing "her" opponents with PA warnings and denounces. "She" is not probably just a mere correligionary of the same political organization or with similar ideas, the behaviour is too similar to that of Thulean/Lukas19. If is not Thulean himself then is a meatpuppet intensely trained by him... so (Occam's razor): it's he again. --Sugaar 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Karen's editing pattern looks very much like Thulean/Lukas19's; I think it's safe to say she is a sockpuppet. By the way, was Karen's talk page deleted? Because you say "the similarities in talk page discussion continue", but there isn't anything. · AndonicO ^Talk 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant the Talk:White people talk page. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Alun 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here by Alun. I find that there are some curious similarities; in addition to the focus on the same material, viewpoints and others mentioned above, both use "for ex" to mean "for example", and other idiomatic expressions are likewise in tune. KarenAE's first action directly after creating their account on Apr 23 was to question the deletion of a section in the article that Thulean/Lukas19 had earlier been interested in, an action which had taken place some 10 days before and was long since buried in the accumulated edit history. I suppose it's possible they had been monitoring the article for some time before committing to any edits, or maybe had waded through the talk page to find where the action had been mentioned; but it's hard to see a genuinely new user following up on this in that way. I note that KarenAE's account was set up a bare 3hrs after an earlier anon ip (130.94.107.217 (talk · contribs)) edit had questioned the same action; this anon ip's other edit was to revert a change made two days earlier to info on Statistics Norway in the article (and Lukas19's self-professed interest and heritage included Norway). By another remarkable coincidence, 6 hours after Alun posted notification at Lukas19's talkpg of this SSP, a different, seemingly unassociated, anon ip placed an {unblock} tag on the talkpg [30]. All in all, isolated occurrences might be only coincidence, but taken together there's at least a reasonable circumstancial case to be considered here. KarenAE has denied being a sock, and yet goes on to appear unconcerned and challenge editors to prove otherwise [31] -again, at least an unusual position for a new editor to adopt under these circumstances, particulary given the single-purpose nature of their contributions thus far.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As you mention IP address activity there was also an IP address that is apparently unrelated that vandalised AndonicO's User page and talk page shortly after he left a comment here. It seems to be related to this case. [32] Alun 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to say one more time (and for the last time) that I'm not Lukas19. I dont really know what else to say. Most of the information here seems to be non evidence. Perhaps this was done deliberately to make the page look longer so that there would be at least an illusion of a real case here.

For ex, (Yes, not for example) I'm guessing millions use "for ex" instead of "for example". This is not really an evidence. Another example is that it is clear that I'm 130.94.107.217. No need to play a 4th rate Sherlock Holmes there. It is self evident in talk page [[33]], where I follow up my own (and 130.94.107.217's) arguments.

The only semi credible claim here is that Lukas19's and my edit histories are similar. I have less than 50 edits in my account so I note how quickly people jump to conclusions. I dont think I have enough edits for my editing style or interests to be analysed. I dont have time to edit more than one article so when I'm done or bored with white people artice, you may see the divergence. (If I'm not banned.) But, you may ask, why did I jump directly to this particular article?

I found white people page while I was doing homework and after reading it, I considered it to be poor. Then I looked into its history. At this point, I should say that I have indeed edited Wikipedia before, but I didnt get an account and my edits are probably less than 200. Anyway, when I looked at the history, I spotted the first vandalism [34] and corrected it [35]. Then, looking at the history futher, I noticed that more than half of the article has been deleted [36]. I was amazed that light skin section of the white people article was deleted. cjllw says this was 10 days before I questioned it and that it is unusual for a new editor to go that far back. What he (convienently?) forgot to mention is that, due to low levels of activity, that 10 day edit was quite "recent". I just had to go one page backward in the history.

Anyway, I also noticed other blatant displays of bias such as [37] in which Wobble deleted Europe but not Middle East among other "selective" deletions. These are kinda what motivated me to get an account here and edit this article.

Talking about bias, taking a look at Wobble's edit history, it is clear that he has some sort of an agenda, which is to make all race related articles to say that race doesnt really exist. He may think whatever, but encyclopedia articles should be neutral. His biased approach is clear in his edits in Race article. [38] I have also given another example of his selective deletion of links in See also section. Other examples include the ones explained here [39].

Of course, the case here is not Wobble's bias, I know that, but I'm just noting it so that you, Seraphimblade, would double check and double think about the claims made by him and his acquaintances. I also want to say I consider this case may be an attempt to keep the page in its current biased state, rather than a genuine concern. Wobble claimed I was Lukas19 after my 3rd post in talk page. I'd assume it should have taken longer for him to claim such a thing. How can he claim that a person whose 3rd post s/he has read is same as another person s/he has known online only? KarenAE 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Checkuser request has been filed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser comes up unrelated, and I can't find anything conclusive enough to conclude that these are socks regardless. It's certainly conceivable that more than one person could have a contentious view on this particular topic. However, as I've stated to KarenAE, having it noted that one's editing patterns are pretty close to a user who wound up banned should be cautionary in itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---