Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:27, 20 October 2024

Grandpallama

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

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

20 October 2024

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Grandpallama (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• M.Bitton (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

• Writing style similarity checking tools were used to analyse dozens of edits and messages sampled from the two accounts concerned.
  • In a Language Style Matching (LSM) check powered by the TLSP, it showed an LSM score of 0.86, which is above average (0.84)
  • In another LSM check powered by the UTPsyc, it also showed an LSM score of 0.86, above average as well
• In a similarity check powered by the Go Transcript, it returned with a rough figure of 88% similarity
• Editor Interaction Analyser assessment seems to show a considerable overlap of their editing activities for the past 12 years
• Here is also the Interaction Timeline of the two accounts concerned since 2008.
  • M.Bitton appears to have been reported several times by different editors on suspicion of edit-warring-related sockpuppeting, while here is their Block log FYI

May I ask if a CheckUser can be performed to have a look for anomalies? Steven1991 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I don't think I've seen LSM results used as evidence in a sockpuppet investigation before, and I'd have to suggest that if it is being used as such, it is entirely inappropriate, since that isn't the intended purpose of the metric. It is a tool for analysing how groups use language, it is in no way intended to compare texts to determine if they have the same author. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Steven1991, these are two long-time editors who've been working on this project much, much longer than you have. The fact that you keep filing SPI reports and other complaints on noticeboards gives the impression that you are trying to get editors you are in a dispute with blocked. It's hard to see these as neutral investigations, they seem targeted. You also should have evidence in the form of specific diffs that show a relationship between the suspected sockpuppet editors which you haven't offered.

But what I'm most concerned about is the backlog at SPI and the fact that Checkusers are asked to spend time on these frivolous filings. Should I now expect to see me listed in your next SPI filing? Liz 05:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This would be the last time. is only the second time. I do not understand the word choice “keep”. I am sure that I have made much fewer complaints than many other users on the platform. Since there is a certain degree of suspicion, I am bringing it to the attention of relevant personnel by making this filing. I am not sure how these things would be handled. Steven1991 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I was previously told that sockpuppets were not always owned by the same person but could be owned by a small group with certain intentions. The previous cases of some Chinese/Croatian Misplaced Pages disinformation sockpuppeteers being stripped of their privileges may still be vivid in the memory of a substantial proportion of users. It is hard to rule out certain possibilities entirely. Steven1991 (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've got nothing to fear from any sockpuppet investigation, nor (I suspect) does M. Bitton, but this is laughably ridiculous and so clearly retaliatory that a block for Steven1991 is now warranted. Grandpallama (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an investigation into a regulatory matter is both a user right and an ordinary procedure. It is not an act of accusation when a person perceives the existence of suspicions warranting attention. I would appreciate if no mischaracterisation is done. Steven1991 (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an investigation into a regulatory matter is both a user right and an ordinary procedure. However, frivolous filings on noticeboards, with the specific intent to weaponize them, is a blockable offense. At some point, perhaps you'll do a quick count of how many editors have now weighed in at AN, ANI, and the two SPIs you filed, and realize the number that have supported your actions is...zero. Grandpallama (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

frivolous fillings

Hard to tell, unless investigated. I personally got accused frivolously of sockpuppetry twice and had to present my IP evidence to prove my own innocence, which I succeed, as well. So...are you open to an investigation to prove that everything is alright? Steven1991 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because the number of users commenting in opposition to a proposition, it does not make it inherently wrong. There are millions upon millions of folks surfing Misplaced Pages on a daily basis. They might have viewed any of the fillings but not voiced themselves. By what can you assume that they are all in agreement with you rather than me? Anyway, truth is not decided by head count. We would not say a certain man responsible for the WWII was “right” simply because he was at some point popular in his country. This is a very dangerous idea. If you have nothing to fear, I believe that you should support the investigation instead. Steven1991 (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Butterscotch Beluga

• This is the second time now you've accused people of sockpuppetry on no evidence. These similarities you're describing between @Grandpallama & @M.Bitton are them talking on noticeboards & other user's talk pages. This is purely petty retaliation & I'm disappointed in your continued battleground behavior. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Requesting an investigation into a regulatory matter is both a user right and an ordinary procedure. It is not an act of accusation when a person perceives the existence of suspicions warranting attention. I would appreciate if no mischaracterisation is done. If LSM analysis results are not sufficient to justify a request for an investigation, which may not always be granted, then I am not sure what would. Steven1991 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is your right to do so, but it is, by all meaning of the term, an accusation & one that is intrinsically negative.

  It is saying that you believe these users are editing in bad faith & have been purposefully breaking the rules for ~a decade.

  I think you should stop filing sockpuppet reports as there's much more that goes into these investigations then having a .02 above average similarity in language style. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I understand why you view that way. Thank you for sharing. Steven1991 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  by all meaning of the term, an accusation

  Unfortunately, no. Steven1991 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are accusing them of potential sockpuppetry, that's what a sockpuppet investigation is. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are accusing them

  Raising suspicion is not an accusation. I would appreciate if you can assume good faith and avoid mischaractisation due to some differences on certain issues. I have never judged you the same way when we collaborated in the editing of a particular article.Steven1991 (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review