Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:13, 16 October 2013

Tumbleman

Tumbleman (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/Tumbleman/Archive.

13 October 2013

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Oh boy chicken again (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

New editor appeared with an awareness of wikipedia policies , and on his second edit jumps into a controversial debate to agree with The Tumbleman and advance his arguments. Most telling of all is that the only person to call Sheldrake by "sheldrake" lower case, consistently, is Tumbleman (ctrl+f through ), something this "new" editor is repeating . Checkuser needed to confirm and look for potential sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Just my opinion, but if it is Tumbleman, then this is far below his normal standard of operation when trolling. He is much better at it than that. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I share IRWolfie's concerns, for the following reasons:

• Tumbleman's logged-out posts give a Los Angeles IP
• Tumbleman announces he'll be gone for 2 days
• Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) shows up with a Palm Springs IP
• Both say they find disputes "interesting", use the same phrases "a small group of skeptic editors" and "create a more balanced and neutral POV"

Given that Tumbleman has created the socks KateGompert (talk · contribs) and KemRP (talk · contribs) it's not unreasonable to suspect that Tumbleman may have socked as Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) while on his "2 days off" in Palm Springs, a popular weekend destination for Los Angelinos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are socks on both sides of this Sheldrake debate. There are other accounts that popped up just to participate in this discussion who seem to know a fair amount about WP practices (see Dan_skeptic). I've suggested this to other Editors and an Admin and received agreement that this was likely but was also told that CU would not connect an IP account to a registered account. Also, no one wanted to take this on, to sort it all out as it's been a complicated discussion with many accounts taking part.
As for Tumbleman, the evidence below seems completely non-conclusive and it could be used to argue against this account as a sock puppet as much as for it being a sock puppet. It defines "borderline" and appears to me to be punitive as this Editor has clearly irritated others over the course of discussing this article.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you go looking for socks in the Sheldrake debate (for the past month), you'll find them and there will be much more convincing connections than in this example. Liz 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You are saying the evidence of Technically indistinguishable by the checkuser is non-conclusive? Are you kidding? He got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, by having an account appear that just happens to register just to agree with him from the same IP and then claimed on his user page that it was because he went to a Misplaced Pages consultancy company and got someone else there to use his account and then create their own : " I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office.", and then mysteriously dhe decided to edit wikipedia and by chance edited the same article, and by chance agreed with Tumbleman. A "professional" who doesn't even have a wikipedia account of their own that they use at their own work. How convenient. How did this professional get their experience? Then for some reason this professional also set up an account expressing how they've been lurking since 2010 and just decided now to take part in the debate. And then there is how this sock uses the exact same language as Oh boy chicken again on its user page and was active for roughly the same sort of short period before disappearing.

"As far as I can tell, there are socks on both sides of this Sheldrake debate." Present your evidence at SPI or retract the accusation. Accusations without evidence to try and make a false parity and tar everyone with the same brush help no one. Also, I severely doubt Dan skeptic is a sock, the only evidence being he is new (WP:BITE) and competent generally (although he doesn't appear that aware of our policies and guidelines beyond what I would expect of a new editor), but can you please not try and de-rail this SPI with accusations against someone else, take that to a new filing. (Also referring to anonymous admins you have talked to off wiki is hardly a something to mention, some admins I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's assertions "I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office. I only requested them to use my account and no other. I asked for help regarding references because I wanted to make sure I am editing with proper WP protocols regarding references and needed help. This professional works in public relations in an office setting so it is likely their office has WP activity since they do online public relations and outreach support for many social sites in general. " (emph added) and "However, I do work in media and technology, and many companies do have to manage or create accounts, usually for the purposes of compliancy, and they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS a platform has. There is nothing alarming happening with that, it's standard practice and occurs on any large platform online." (emph added) when taken with the self outing that he did previously, is a very troubling, particularly when taken with the "Technically indistinguishable" from other accounts.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As ever, people get hung up about sockpuppetry when the real problem here was not the socks but the extremely bizarre and creative interpretation of policy. That this was designed to soften criticism of Rupert Sheldrake, while acting as some kind of devil's advocate in order to further some social experiment, or something, is actually more of a concern because it diverts editors from writing about people who actually achieved things in their careers to Rupert who wouldn't be fit to lace most scientist's shoelaces. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two issues going on. One is socks, particularly potential socking by/via PR agencies; and the other is the WP:TE. But perhaps a thorough removal of the socks would remove those who are responsible for the TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it more likely that the story about the PR firm was invented to explain the checkuser results -- that he just edited WP from another location. In any case I assume such a story couldn't get his block lifted, as any socker could say the same thing. In addition to the evidence already presented, I would like to point out:

• Tumbleman was very frustrated the day before the socking, claiming "editors with a clear bias are making changes with no clear consensus" He may have broken the 3RR. This was his first time shouting in ALL CAPS in edit comments and in the talk page.

• KateGompert's very first edit was to her user page, announcing "there's been a lively debate happening at Rupert Sheldrake's talk page, and I want to take part in it". chicken-boy announces the same interest, "I created an account because of the controversy on the Rupert sheldrake article. I wanted to lend a voice to the page and want to be neutral". After being away for four years, the first thing Tumbleman did was edit his user page to say "I enjoy engaging in the 'talk' debates". How many users do this kind of "announcing" of wanting to debate on talk pages?

• KateGompert and chicken-boy both begin a sentence "I've been lurking" as their first or second edit.

• chicken-boy starts off his support for Tumbleman with "I want to jump in". "Jumping in" is a phrase used by Tumbleman three times prior on the talk page ( ) . (This is not strong in itself, but in the context here it is odd.)

• chicken-boy introduces himself with "I like the idea of helping create a more balanced and neutral POV". Similar phrasings by Tumbleman include "the middle, the center, the neutral POV" "the reasonable and neutral POV" "without bias and with a neutral POV" "in a neutral POV" It is characteristic of Tumbleman to say "neutral POV" instead of "NPOV" like everyone else.

• chicken-boy and nobody else uses lower case "sheldrake", as pointed out by others.

• chicken-boy's lumbering, hazy prose is a distinct fingerprint of Tumbleman. This is a cumulative judgment built over time; I could give hundreds of diffs, but it would be easier to look at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. I concede that evaluating this piece of evidence would be the time-consuming and ultimately subjective, but I offer my opinion anyway.

• chicken-boy and Tumbleman exhibit exactly the same misunderstanding regarding unfalsifiability and pseudoscience, which is a unique misunderstanding in itself. chicken-boy's only conversation is about falsifiability, making three posts on it: . Tumbleman is hung up on falsifiability on a huge way: .

• As that long list of links in the previous point may already indicate, Tumbleman is an antisocial individual on the Internet. He has gleefully trolled many websites in the past. Here is one site that banned him, where he is shown bragging about trolling, e.g. "I should be able to create a rather large discussion that will just continue to grow until mass or close to mass consensus...Now, by ‘staging’ I mean in the theatrical sense. I employed a personality that was designed to talk about world peace and rational thinking that was a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks." As the link says, "OS 012" is some kind of trolling recipe, and this ties him to WP here. More info here. While this stuff may be more appropriate in a separate ANI, I think it bears directly on this sockpuppeting behavior since it is consonant with previous behavior.

vzaak (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I ever got involved in this. I am not Tumbleman. I also do not live in Palm Springs, but do agree it's a popular weekend retreat for people like myself who live in Irvine, CA. I think this is nuts. Yes I jumped in and supported an argument. One of my teachers encourages us to help wikipedia and we go to various message boards to find articles that are being contested. I found the Sheldrake page from there. I was following it for a number of days, so was familiar with the discussion. I wanted to jump in because many of the editors seemed highly biased and were making ridiculous arguments and the Sheldrake page itself is a monstrosity. As a journalism major, I was shocked at the bias of editors who were abusing the page and edit warring. Tumbleman seemed to be pretty neutral, his arguments made sense and a number of other editors were supporting them too. And they were being ignored so I wanted to address it. Worst. Mistake. Ever. Thanks for genuinely turning me off of this whole process. I'm out.Oh boy chicken again (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Technically, it's somewhat  Unlikely that they are related. However, Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is  Technically indistinguishable from KateGompert (talk · contribs) and the zero-edit KemRP (talk · contribs), whose account was created less than 15 minutes before Kate's. Be aware that this is not a  Confirmed, since the IP all three are on is extremely dynamic. You'll have to rely mainly on behavior. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked KateGompert (talk · contribs) and KemRP (talk · contribs) indef as suspected sock puppets, and blocked Tumbleman (talk · contribs) for one week for sockpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases CU complete