Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/?oygul/Archive

04 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New user that jumped right into a dispute after another user was topic banned from the dispute by ArbCom. Colincbn (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The SPI showed they log in from the same city, a work computer or a dynamic IP could easily explain that. Now that both ?oygul and SB have posted more is there a way to look into this further? I just have a hard time believing that immediately after an SPA was banned for advocacy another SPA with the exact same advocacy would just happen to pop up.
 * ?oyogul has stepped directly into the shoes of Sydney. I think this is a clear case of someone using a sock to get around an ArbCom ban on a page that is currently on probation to protect it from exactly this kind of thing. Remember that because they are both SPAs there will only be one or two pages that connect them. Colincbn (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The technical data indicates a connection between the two accounts. They're in the same city, but on different ISPs/computers. TN X Man 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... they only have the Tree shaping talk page in common, so I have a feeling they're offline friends or something. I'm closing with no action taken for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

23 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sockpuppet investigations/?oygul/Archive After the first investigation that came up with a possible connection ?oygul has continued to take up the role SB was playing before his ban. The original SPI showed they log in from the same city, a work computer or a dynamic IP could easily explain that. Now that both ?oygul and SB have posted more is there a way to look into this further? I just have a hard time believing that immediately after an SPA was banned for advocacy another SPA with the exact same advocacy would just happen to pop up. I think this is a clear case of someone using a sock to get around an ArbCom ban on a page that is currently on probation to protect it from exactly this kind of thing. Remember that because they are both SPAs there will only be one or two pages that connect them. I also refer to WP:DUCK. Colincbn (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Elonka, yes it was done. That is why I linked to it at the very beginning of the request. The original was marked as possible connection. There have been more posts from both accounts (almost exclusively on the same page SB was banned for being an SPA from). Also the original was closed with "no action taken for now", I assumed this means there may be some action taken in the future. This is an attempt to see if enough evidence has collected for action to be taken. ?oyogul is a new user with less than 100 edits, almost all of them related to the same topic SB was banned from. The account was created during the ArbCom debate and made almost no edits at all until the conclusion. At which point his edits per day jumped at the same time Sydney's dropped. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect a connection. Colincbn (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @HelloAnnyong I am compiling a list of evidence to be presented in a concise easy to read manner. It may take a few hours.
 * @?oygul, if you are not a sock then you have nothing to worry about and I hope you continue to contribute. I never brought this up on your user page, nor threatened you with it, because if I am wrong I did not want to cause you undue duress. Also, I never thought you sounded anything like Blackash. Colincbn (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to HelloAnnyong

My first red flag is the similarity in articles edited by Sydney Bluegum and ?oygul. Sydney Bluegum has made most of his edits to the Tree shaping talk page. as can be seen by looking through his contributions along with this toolserver page. ?oygul has had the exact same pattern. Tool server.

Sydney Bluegum has made 30.71% of his edits to "Talk pages" (Counter) ?oygul has made 39.39% of his edits to "Talk pages" (Counter)

In looking at SB's Contribs it is clear those were made to the Tree shaping talk page. (He has been topic banned by ArbCom as a Single Purpose Account) The same is true of ?oygul's Contribs.

My second red flag is the date of creation of the ?oygul account, and the amount of activity by date. The account was created April 13th, of this year. Before the topic ban of SB. However at that point editors had already begun discussions about topic bans against SB, Slowart, and Blackash (that were later enforced by the community). Between account creation and July 15th, over four months, the account edited just five articles on two occasions, April 13th and 17th. Then four months later, and only two days after Sydney Bluegum's Arbcom topic ban, the account began making edits every, or every other, day. It passed the total number of edits made in the prior four months in the first week, and soon began making large numbers of edits per day to the Tree Shaping talk page, the very page SB was topic banned from as a single purpose account that was here only for advocating.

My third red flag is the position of advocacy for User:Blackash, and against User:Slowart and User:Martin Hogbin that has been taken by both accounts. Diffs 1, 2 showing a confrontational attitude toward Martin, and Slowart, diff.

A diff showing his positive attitude towards Blacksh, similar to Sydney's, and another diff that was also confrontational towards Slowart (much like SB), until it was edited by an admin to be less so.

[Edit: Two more diffs showing ?oygul's advocacy is consistent with Syden Bluegum's 12. These comments were later removed as inappropriate by Elonka, the supervising admin.]

If more diffs showing that ?oyguls advocacy is in-line with Sydney's are called for I will provide them.

My fourth red flag is ?oygul's familiarity with a topic that even arbitrators had a hard time wading through (the ArbCom was delayed by a moth over guidelines due to the massive amount of text involved). Martin brought up the issue in his misguided SPI against Blackash (Blackash and ?oygul's writing styles are not even remotely similar). But the one that caught my attention was this, which shows ?oygul has a very good knowledge of the posts made by Sydney Bluegum, and when he made them. I could not have dug this out easily and I have been a part of this debate since very early on.

My fifth flag is that they are both located in the same city (as pointed out by Elonka below, and the first SPI), and I have a very hard time believing that an SPA with the same advocacy as an SPA banned by ArbCom would just happen to pop up in the same city right after the ban was put in place.

My sixth is the familiarity with wikimarkup/wiki-culture shown by ?oygul, an editor with only 99 posts (as of this writing) over half of which are to non-mainspace pages. Note: I do not think it is impossible for an editor with very few article edits to take the time to learn wikimarkup/wiki-culture before editing. I just think an editor like that would not jump right into the position of an editor that had just been banned.

My seventh is that the writing styles of the two editors seem very similar to me. But this is not easily quantified without software. If asked I will take the time to look through each of ?oygul's posts to find examples, but I cannot do it now as it is past midnight here in Japan and I have work tomorrow.

I think the above shows why I feel WP:DUCK (just an essay) is applicable to this situation. I will provide more evidence if requested. Colincbn (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

This is the 3rd filing of sock puppet against me. Every time I make a comment to do with tree shaping there is a couple of editors who discuss with others about me being a sock. Yet they don’t agree on who I am. Martin has just taken me to sock saying I sound exactly like Blackash. Colincbn says I stepped into Sydney Bluegum’s shoes. Both of these editors’ style of writing and editing is very different. I am a new editor on wikipedia originally started editing because I could not find information on heart shaped strawberries. There is no article about shaped fruit, square watermelons, budda pairs and other intentionally shaped fruit. I have started an article on my page until I have enough info and images to create an article. Colincbn says I am a SPA. I do not know how he can say this. I edit a variety of articles. When I started to edit pleaching, two editors tried to push me away. Stating don’t bring tree shaping argument to pleaching. I was putting up cited material. In my line of work when someone tries to chase you away from something it is time to start digging deeper. So I read all 17 archives of the talk pages at tree shaping, which took days. They say I know too much. It is all in the archives and surrounding talk pages. I feel this is bordering on harassment, to continually file for sock puppet cases and making allegations of me being a sock on multiple talk pages. I believe they are doing this so they don’t have to answer the points I raise. ?oygul (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ?oygul, thanks for the clarification, though I hope you can also understand why there are concerns, since you evidently live in the same city as Sydney Bluegum, and are participating in the same dispute as Sydney Bluegum. So just to be clear, I'll ask you directly:  Are you the same individual using both accounts?  Do you use any other accounts to edit Wikipedia?  If you are not Sydney Bluegum, do you know the individual behind the account, perhaps personally or professionally?  If so, it would be helpful to declare this.  It doesn't necessarily mean you'd be banned from the discussion, but it would be nice to see everyone's cards on the table. --Elonka 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock of anyone. I do not edit Wikipedia as anyone else. Colincbn says I know formatting. One I’ve been using wiki cheat sheet. Two Elonka has been editing my formatting. I have truly read the entire talk pages and much of the surrounds. They are all about arborsculpture. Slowart and a group of editors are chasing away any editor who has a different opinion from them. I think they are some sort of offline club or more likely they are paid editors. ?oygul (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an example of ?oyguls "anti-Slowart" stance. Which is weird as Slowart has only made a few posts since this account came to the Tree shaping page, and only one of those was to ?oygul, in response to a direct question. A question that was confrontational in spite of Slowart never having had contact with ?oygul before that. If he was directing his ire at Martin and I that would make sense as we have both begun SPIs. But he directs it at an editor he has never interacted with, and one who has made much fewer posts to the talk page and article then any other of the editors involved.
 * This was the same behaviour SB was banned for:
 * Arbcom Finding of Fact 6A) User:Sydney Bluegum is a single purpose account, whose edits to the project have been solely on this topic, and largely in opposition to User:Slowart
 * Colincbn (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ?oygul, thank you for your reply; however I note that you did not mention if you know the individual behind Sydney Bluegum. Considering that you are both in the same city, both extremely interested in the topic of tree shaping, and both highly opposed to Slowart's opinions, I think it would be reasonable to assume that you are either associates of some sort, or have interacted in some way offline. Please, your best option at this point is simply to be clear about the relationship. --Elonka 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know who Sydney Bluegum is. As for being against Richard Reames, after reading the whole talk pages it has becomes clear who is behind the 17 talk pages It is all about Arborsculpture,and he is the word.?oygul (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
A similar request was already filed at Sockpuppet investigations/?oygul/Archive, so I do not think it would be a good use of Checkuser time to repeat the check, as I doubt the results would be any different. --Elonka 06:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've merged the cases. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you noted, this case was recently evaluated. The CU came back as a possible. Can you give any more specific details as to why we should take another run at this? Some diffs or something showing how they're similar, e.g. similar viewpoints. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this case with no action taken. It's clear that none of the clerks has a strong opinion one way or the other on it, and the evidence is still largely unchaged since last time. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)