Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yopienso/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Yopienso


Yopienso

Yopienso (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18 August 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The newly created User:Gise-354x account seems to be a SPA dedicated to editing Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I warned this account about possible violations of 1RR sanctions and 3RR rules in that article, which were so egrerious that I will only diff a small representative example, [1][2][3][4] and User:Yopienso attacked me for it. User:Yopienso has repeatedly launched personal attacks and made WP:OWN comments due to my recent involvenment (rather than "long time" involvement), but what raised my spidey sense is that in contrast to the rather obnoxious treatment of me, s/he seems to welcome this new user and ever congratulate the new user on the 1RR and 3RR, denying it happened. Further investigation finds a commonality of edits, and more talk page banter, typical of multiple-browser-talking-to-your-self amateur hour socks. As I will probably be forced to seek further DR, I want to make sure this is in good faith, and that there is not socking involved. Cerejota (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence requested.

[5] Shows that there is commonality of edits. The suspicion starts here: In talk, Yopienso disaggres with an edit, but cant do anything about it because of 1RR,Here is the edit I did(the previous edit too). Gise, already well beyond 3RR in a 1RR article, does this [6], in accordance to Yopienso's position. Then in talk we get this interesting exchange [7], of Yopienso praising Gise. Then I warn Gise (instead of going to a noticeboard) of the 1RR/3RR issue, and this defense of gise ensues: [8]. Even tho the 1RR had happened. This shows the possibility that Yopienso is the puppetmaster of a sock intended to circumvent 1RR. This is only after in a 1RR article significant edits and reversions were made by Gise and one by Yopienso This reinforces the clear motive for puppetry, which is to avoid 1RR block to the puppetmaster account.

Even after clear 1RR and 3RR warnings, Yopienso doesn't see it, but acts like its not a sock: [9]. It is typical of puppetmasters that interact with their sock to do so in a "correcting" fashion in order to poison the well.

Puppet-like behavior:

  1. Similar edit patterns (the bulk of Gise's total wikipedia edits have overlap with Yopienso) - while this can be a coincidence, it is a requirement for a malicious puppet. If there were no overlap, AGF would suggest an undeclared alternate.
  2. Gise edits in a disruptive fashion, whereas Yopienso doesn't (althought I could argue she has been uncivil, that is irrelevant to this discussion, and is not bad enough right now for any administrative action) - this shows that if Gise is a sock, the idea is to allow the puppetmaster behavior that would put its account at risk, but that can allow its POV to prevail or at least provide disruption.
  3. The editors edit in mutually reinforcing fashion - shows additional motive
  4. The accounts edit at the same times of the day, and often consecutively - usual for socks
  5. Most damning, the public attitude from Yopienso towards Gise changed significantly after the SPI was raised. This could be a belated attempt at distancing

I can provide more diffs of the specific conversation threads, but the diffs provided are in the approximate timeframe as any relevant ones, so hitting "next" or "previous" might be better.--Cerejota (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Yopienso is a user in good standing. I would like to see some actual evidence connecting the two accounts. I agree that there is something strange going on here with the new SPA which might merit a check, but I don't see a relationship between the two acounts. I could be wrong, of course. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Viriditas. My first communication with Gise (I think) was Gise, whoever you are--apparently a vet--thanks for all your work. Yopienso (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) By "vet" I didn't mean serviceman, of course, but experienced editor. I assume he has or had another account, or maybe was a long-time IP user, or, just possibly, he actually is someone's sock. Not mine! He seems to have turned rogue very quickly, and we're going to have to examine that blitz of work I was praising without really having assessed.
I've never been involved in an SPI before and wonder why this is just sitting here. Yopienso (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I a bit baffled by this accusation and have to note that i only found out about this reporting by coincidence. I'm on my own i only have this account here. No. i'm not a sockpuppet. Gise-354x (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you, Gise, just suggesting it as one of three possibilities. A fourth is that you're a brand new editor with lots of experience elsewhere with wikis. I wonder why no clerk has cleared us yet of Cerejota's suspicions. Yopienso (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here Cerejota today starts with removal of a link from the CRU email incident without informing me or giving explanation, beside this there is a dispute going on about this very link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=445657657&oldid=445628950 I have to add that he has no motivation to engage in any sort of consensus, and does not bother repeatedly to even inform other editors of his involvements. I find that the investigation involving me and his repeated actions without informing editors affected insulting. Maybe he believes im someone else, i have no other explanation for his actions involving me and my wiki additions. He obviously has an agenda. Gise-354x (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend deletion of this SPI to preserve the good name of Yopienso. CU is not for fishing and there is not a single piece of evidence linking these two accounts. Reading the above discussion, one is forced to conclude that Cerejota misunderstood comments from Yopienso and filed this SPI accidentally. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems he was misusing the SPI for his agenda. Aren't there no penalties for starting unfounded accusations? Today Cerejota commented on at least 3 topics he had nothing to do with personally and did not provide any sort of input for the topic at hand, only put out more accusations about me. Gise-354x (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gise, we have WP:AGF for a reason. Please read and understand it. I assume good faith that this SPI was started as an error of judgment, an accident. Let us leave it at that. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Veriditas is threatening me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gise-354x#Last_message and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gise-354x#Recommendation recommends i should limit myself to 1 revert per day]]. Here he ask to assume good faith with what he calls an accident but from me he requires to limit myself and starts threats.Gise-354x (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am not fishing, the change of heart for Yopienso regarding Gise-354x coincides with this SPI, and so does Gise-354x going off to other articles. It smells like a sacrificial sock geared towards destroying the purpose of 1RR at "CRU email controversy". If I am wrong, I will apologize, but we should get to the bottom of this, because the edit compare report is damming and the evidence is compelling enough in my view. Perhaps Yopienso would learn to be less quick to accept a disruptive user who did indeed 1RR and 3RR, instead of congratulating them in spite of the overwhelming evidence. As I mentioned, as I felt that DR might be needed, it helps the AGF process to know someone is not a sock. It is simply impossible to AGF when significant suspicion of puppetry exists, as puppetry is the very definition of bad faith. --Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, you misread and misinterpreted something Yopienso said. She explained the problem but you refuse to accept that you made a mistake? SPI is not the place to continue a content dispute. If you don't see that you made a mistake, then we have a serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know SPI is not a place for a content dispute, I am not disputing content here. I am trying to get the evidence of puppetry examined, as I already explained.. A clerk opined this might be a case of meatpuppetry, and I concur, so even if Gise and Yopienso have never communicated and this is all a big coincidence, the SPI itself was not a mistake. WP:HORSEMEAT seems in order. --Cerejota (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


CLERK, PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE UNTIL I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND. I WANT THIS SETTLED THAT GISE IS NOT MY SOCK. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the results? It did not conclude that Gise was your sock. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are two different things. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 11:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I read the results.
In the overall scheme of Everything, this SPI is of almost no importance, but there are some principles here to be addressed. As you continue to voluntarily give your time in the future to this project, please keep the following in mind:
  • Your attitude seems to be that you are dealing with "cases," not with WP editors. Behind every anonymous editor is a real human being.
  • You seem to put insufficient importance on making the right decisions: "If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. . ." I wonder if it were decided you were a meatpuppet or in cahoots with one, if you would be so blithe.
  • You said "no punitive action was taken." I thought WP never took punitive action. Blocks. Sanctions. Please review these principles.
  • As Viriditas points out, the result of this SPI seems to be an enablement of Cerejota's disruptiveness. He simply had a bee in his bonnet.
  • In any given minute, from 50-200 edits are made in WP. How does the fact two of us were editing at the same time and in the same place show we are socks? I have experienced many edit conflicts even though I have made only some 2000 edits. Sometimes discussions are almost like live chat.
  • You must not have examined Gise's speed and style to compare them with mine. I am technically incapable of producing a blitz of edits like he did. I wish I could work faster, but I can't.
That said, thank you for your work, and please consider how to improve it. I have certainly made many blunders myself. A recent small one was seeing your user name as "Annyong" instead of "HelloAnnyong." For this I apologize.
I will not be commenting more on this case unless requested to by an administrator. I had appealed to DeltaQuad and SirFozzie but they seem to be taking the weekend off. If either sees this, be aware I'm now happy to let the SPI go. Yopienso (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved with Gise too. I agree with Yopienso. It's careless to throw out comments suggesting that there is meatpuppetry as if it isn't important. Looking again at Gise's edits (in particular the descent into error-strewn non-native English as he "found his voice" and the melodramatic farewell) it very much looks to me like the user was a manufactured personality. Gise pissed a lot of people off, and it doesn't help to suggest that the meat/sockpuppeteer is still among us.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • I can't see how your connecting the users at all...and i'm not sifting through 3200 edits to do it. Provide some diffs that comapre the users behavoir and we can look into it. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Clerk note: Just to pile onto this a bit, there is some justification to thinking they're the same. Based on the speed, frequency, and similar times to their edits, I'd say they're friends editing in collusion. Consider: on Aug 18, Gise edited at 5:25; a minute later, Yopienso edits; six minutes later, Gise edits again. They're editing basically at the same time and are constantly switching back and forth, which seems more meatpuppet. Anyway, Gise is blocked so we can let this go for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Unnecessary No evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. That two editors edit the same topic is not evidence of meatpuppetry, it is evidence of collaboration, one of the cornerstones of this project. These two editors are not editing from the same continent, and there is no evidence of inappropriate collusion. Risker (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yopienso/Archive&oldid=1038392268"