Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:46, 10 July 2010 editEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits Reverted good faith edits by Betacommand; Per conversation/explanation/understanding w/spi clerk, on spi clerk's page. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 05:55, 10 July 2010 edit undoEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Comments by other users: clarify for those not reading the entire threadNext edit →
Line 90: Line 90:
::I suggest that this thread be terminated at the closer's earliest convenience, given the level of accusations, so as not to use up any editors' time that might otherwise be spent in more fruitful pursuits.--] (]) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC) ::I suggest that this thread be terminated at the closer's earliest convenience, given the level of accusations, so as not to use up any editors' time that might otherwise be spent in more fruitful pursuits.--] (]) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


::*I've just taken an initial look at the author, characterized by the nom here as "little-known". ]. As it turns out, Stevens has published '''19 books''', and by mid-career (two decades ago) had already been published in '''400 magazines'''. And '''the United States ] contains a special collection of his works'''. This would seem to perhaps suggest the possibility of his being known outside of what the nom suggests is only "very specific circles in mining in Maine". I wonder whether it is possible that nom has exaggerated ever so slightly.--] (]) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC) ::*I've just taken a look at the author whose article the nom describes as the "smoking gun" at the very core of the nom's now-circumstantial SPI case. The nom in making his case describes the author, ], as "little-known". And known only in "very specific circles in mining in Maine". Nom asserts that the fact that the two editors edited such a "little known" author is a "smoking gun" proving that the editors are one and the same person. As it turns out, however, Stevens has '''published 19 books''', and by mid-career (two decades ago) had already been published in '''400 magazines'''. And '''the United States ] contains a special collection of his works'''. This may well undermine the nom's characterization, and therefore bears directly on the legitimacy of his smoking gun argument.--] (]) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


;Comment by Jiujitsuguy ;Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Revision as of 05:55, 10 July 2010

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Dajudem

Dajudem (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem/Archive.


08 July 2010


Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by George

I'll try to keep this as short as possible. A few days ago, Nableezy asked Stellarkid if they had a previous account, after Stellarkid mentioned voting for deletion of an article which hadn't been nominated for deletion since well before Stellarkid's account was created. Stellarkid replied that they had confused a time they had mentioned that the article should be deleted on the article talk page with a vote for deletion. It seemed like a very reasonable explanation, but I had already started looking into the matter before seeing it, and based on certain editing patterns that seemed suspiciously similar between Stellarkid and a banned editor that had been involved in the previous deletion discussion, I'm not sure if it's true.

The banned editor in question is Tundrabuggy, a known sockpuppet of Dajudem, who was banned for their involvement in the CAMERA 'Isra-pedia Wikilobbying' fiasco.

There is significant behavioral and circumstantial evidence that indicates to me that Stellarkid is Tundrabuggy:

  • Stellarkid's account was created about a month after Tundrabuggy was banned, similar to how Tundrabuggy was created about a month after Dajudem was banned.
  • All three accounts were active editing articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I think it's fair to describe them as having a 'pro-Israel' slant in that topic space.
  • A 'smoking gun' (or the closest thing to it when dealing with socks attempting to avoid detection) is a particular article on an little-known author from Maine, C. J. Stevens. Tundrabuggy made a handful of edits to the article in October 2008. Not a single editor touched the article for nine months, until Stellarkid edited it in July 2009. It seems exceedingly unlikely that two independent, random editors, who share a prevalence for editing I-P conflict articles, would find the same out of the way article, about a little-known Maine author who writes about mining gemstones and some poetry.
  • They both have the unusual inclination to use consecutive hyphens ("--") at the end of their edit summaries (I've only reviewed each editors last 500 edits, but here are some examples from that sample set):
  • Dajudem stated that they lived with another editor, Judadem, and shared the same IP address. Similarly, Eyesockett has stated that they live with Stellarkid, and shared the same IP address. Judadem was blocked at some point for meat puppetry, but is not currently, so I see no reason to investigate either Judadem or Eyesockett, but I find it to be another "unlikely coincidence". ← George 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll add additional information when I have time. ← George 18:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties

Using the wikistalk tool I see that Tundrabuggy and I have a full six pages similar to each other, 5 of which are major articles in the I-P conflict area which would not be unexpected for anyone interested in the area. I have many times more articles in common with Nableezy and George, even some obscure ones. Some 15 others besides myself have edited this "little known" author. I can argue that he is not little known in Maine, or even outside Maine in the areas of his scholarship. I did a copy-edit and added a category. On that day I also edited Carolyn Chute, another Maine author, and wrote a note to User:Bocajpj regarding his article on Carlo Pittore, a Maine artist. I did not follow up on any of these articles, unlike Tundrabuggy who apparently knew considerably more about Mr Stevens than I do. I simply added the category of Maine writer and made an insignificant change in wording . I have to be out for a bit but will be back in a few hours to comment on the rest of this behavioral evidence, if the fates make it available. Stellarkid (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes George think that it is an unlikely coincidence that people on Misplaced Pages share IP addresses? I would ask George what percentage of couples edit Misplaced Pages? I think this is all rather thin gruel, and wish that there still was some IP evidence to compare. Stellarkid (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stellarkid, feel free to move this reply to the section above if you prefer. By itself, its just a coincidence. As more and more coincidences stack up, the chances that you are not Tundrabuggy becomes more and more unlikely. You ask what percentage of Misplaced Pages editors have partners that also edit Misplaced Pages, and I would ask how many editors have partners that also edit articles on the I-P conflict, have similar grammar and phrasing, and have an interest in little known authors from Maine? I would think not many. An administrator had requested that IP evidence be saved after Tundrabuggy was found to be Dajudem, and I believe someone is looking for that information now. For whatever it's worth, I hope I'm wrong about you, but the more I look, the more likely it seems to me that you are a sock puppet. ← George 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you hope you are wrong about me George. I really believe that.  ;) The hyphen business is a bit thin. You can check other people's contributions and find similarities. Epeefleche uses the double hypen some 13 times in 500 edit summaries. .ZScarpia does about 25 times. I assure you I am not a sockpuppet of either one of them either. The three instances that you call a "tendency", ie that "tend to use consecutive hyphens at the end of their edit summaries" -- in my case comes to 3/500 or 6/10ths of 1%. Hardly a tendency. I do hope they find that information, as it will exonerate me. Stellarkid (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If the two choices are being wrong about an editor being a sock puppet, and having to root through a sockpuppet's year-long edit history to figure out what nefarious edits they've made, I will absolutely choose the first. I actually don't consider my own views so different from your own, but I am a stickler on Misplaced Pages policy. Regarding the use of double hyphens, Epeefleche used the double hyphen 4 times in their last 500 edits; never at the end of an edit summary (no, I don't count their sarcastic edit summaries to this very SPI case). ZScarpia uses the double hyphen often, but always at the beginning of their edit summaries - never in the middle, or at the end. If I saw another editor with a tendency to use double or triple hyphens like ZScarpia, and other editing similarities, I might very well suspect them of being ZScarpia. There are other similarities in your and Tundrabuggy's editing styles, grammar, and sentence structure which I also based my conclusion on, but those are more nuanced, so I'm hoping they don't have to be brought up in this case (not to mention that the best way for a sockpuppet to avoid detection next time is for us to tell them how we discovered that they're a sockpuppet). ← George 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Quickly before I stop this for the evening. Israel is known as the "motherland" and is always a "she." It is typical in scholarly work to so refer to her. I just found one reference here "Liberation from reaction means putting an end to reaction, and liberation from Zionism, therefore, means, not to exert such an influence on Israel that she will cease to be Zionist, but to put an end to Israel, which is the expression of Zionism." This is standard usage and does not serve to tie me to any other editor. Stellarkid (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

to add: to referring to the country of Israel as "her", consider the lyrics to America the Beautiful:
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Stellarkid (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with referring to a country as a "she", but it is unusual. Combined with other circumstantial evidence, it may say something. There's also nothing wrong with wearing Bruno Magli shoes, though it isn't common, and when combined with other circumstantial evidence may indicate something. ← George 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Seanhoyland. I do agree that looking at the CJ Stevens article that it looks like an improbable coincidence. But it is an improbable coincidence along the lines of Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable" that is, if you have enough events occasionally you are going to have coincidences that seem highly improbable. Possiblities that I considered is that Tundrabuggy is from Maine, knows Mr Stevens personally, or has some other interest that he shares with him. Sean's suggesting that I was following Tundrabuggy's edits is even a remote possibility, since I find that sometimes I read my edits later and I do not remember making them, and they do not even sound like me to myself, and I certainly don't remember everywhere I have surfed! Stellarkid (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

This is going to be too stale for a CU, it is going to need to be based off behavioral evidence (although when Tundrabuggy was discovered to be a sock, Future Perfect at Sunrise requested that a CU store the relevant data. I dont know if that was done or not) nableezy - 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

George, it is stale because CU data is only available for a set period of time. As the other accounts have presumably not logged in since then there is nothing to compare SK's data with. nableezy - 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional behavioral evidence submitted by Nableezy

Both Tundrabuggy and Stellarkid had actively campaigned to remove the term "Gaza massacre" from the Gaza War page. They both made the same arguments, specifically harping on whether or not "Gaza massacre" is a proper noun based on the capitalization of massacre:

They both regularly refer to Israel as "she" or "her"

nableezy - 21:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your beliefs as to what my motives are incorrect and irrelevant. The only thing that matters here is whether or not Stellarkid is a sockpuppet of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy. There are a number of reasons why I think that they are the same person and as I have time I will be adding more. And I grew up in Chicago and English is my first language. Kindly desist from commenting on me and if you are unable to comment about the issue at hand do not comment at all. nableezy - 23:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Epeefleche

The "key evidence" supporting George's accusations ranges from non-existent to wholly unconvincing.-- --Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Israel is certainly a "she". Both in the English language, as well as on English wikipedia. I'm not sure where Nableezy studied English (which may explain his error). Or if it is his first language. But I would refer him to the wikipedia entry for "she". Which says, inter alia, "She refers to ... a country."
Nableezy's "WOWEEEEE -- I GOT HIM/HER -- CAN'T WAIT TO SHARE THIS 'EVIDENCE'" contribution to this discussion may, perhaps, be more illuminating as to Nableezy's desire to reach a result here that accords with his personal POV, than to anything else. Then again, it may simply relate to his command of the language; it's difficult to know. .
Also agree that the inflammatory "massacre" effort was ill-advised POV-pushing.
This seems to be more of the "non-existent to wholly unconvincing" effort. Now, if two editors were to refer to Yassir Arafat as a "she", that would be of interest. This, in contrast, is beyond baseless. This meritless effort -- She is a waste of time.-- --Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
@Nab--As I said above, it is difficult to know what your error relates to. I have close friends for whom English is not their native tongue, and who studied English in non-Western countries, who refer to their home country as "watan" But I gather from your response that that is not, in your case, the reason for your error. Had that been the case, it would of course have gone a long way to explaining how such an error could be understandable, as having been made in complete good faith.
Beyond that, I again refer you back to my comments on the issue at hand. I think your accusations, for the reasons stated above, are without merit. Again, responding to the gravamen of your complaint, "she" is the common English phrase used vis-a-vis a country. The quickest wikipedia check shows as much, if one were to have any doubt. Good faith and civility might be thought by some to require such a check, where there could be any doubt, before making such a negative and public accusation against another editor. Accusations that lack merit could, in some peoples' eyes, be viewed as possibly lacking in good faith and civility.
I suggest that this thread be terminated at the closer's earliest convenience, given the level of accusations, so as not to use up any editors' time that might otherwise be spent in more fruitful pursuits.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just taken a look at the author whose article the nom describes as the "smoking gun" at the very core of the nom's now-circumstantial SPI case. The nom in making his case describes the author, CJ Stevens, as "little-known". And known only in "very specific circles in mining in Maine". Nom asserts that the fact that the two editors edited such a "little known" author is a "smoking gun" proving that the editors are one and the same person. As it turns out, however, Stevens has published 19 books, and by mid-career (two decades ago) had already been published in 400 magazines. And the United States Library of Congress contains a special collection of his works. This may well undermine the nom's characterization, and therefore bears directly on the legitimacy of his smoking gun argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Concur with Epeefleche. Hey Nab are you now going to accuse me of being a sock of Epeefleche?-- Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nableezy's "evidence." I also "campaigned" to have the term "massacre" removed and using the female pro-noun to refer to a country is grammatically correct. Golly gee! I guess I must be a sock of Stellarkid as well. In fact, we must be all socks of each other! Get a grip--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoyland

Here is some data about the C. J. Stevens article.

So, on average, the article is viewed once or twice a day and therefore Stallarkid's assertion that the author is 'not little known' isn't evident from the data. The viewing figures indicate that it's highly improbable that both Stellarkid and Tundrabuggy would even view the article, let alone edit it by coincidence. Improbable things happen all the time though. He could have said that he was going through the edits of a like minded editor, saw the C. J. Stevens article and had a look just out of interest. That would be a plausible explanation for such a highly improbable intersection. However, he didn't say that. If Stellarkid were a sockpuppet and if he were to acknowledge such a thing I'm curious whether and under what circumstances and constraints an opportunity for a clean start could be offered ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a good point, and something I've been considering. If Stellarkid is Tundrabuggy, then they've gotten quite good at the sockpuppet game, and will be even harder to find in their next incarnation, so an outright block is unlikely to be effective long term. ← George 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined All accounts except the unblocked one are  Stale --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Enough bickering. If you have evidence to show, please show it. If you do not, I kindly ask that you do not use this case as a battleground for an ongoing content dispute. Anyone who cannot remain civil and contribute properly to this case will be removed by force. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 Clerk note: Redacted some content on this page which was entirely non-constructive. Because I don't appear to have made myself clear, I have also posted an edit notice for this page. There will be no further warnings to users that are disrupting this investigation. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: