Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi/Archive

13 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Alakzi mentions a sense of entitement in a discussion, linking to an esay Webdrone created on the subject just moments before, their first edit since the two of them worked on a DYK for Joe Eula, just after Webdrone became autoconfirmed in late June. Just as suddenly, without any apparent communication between them, Alakzi creates multiple shortcuts to this brand-new essay. Similar editing histories as well. If you check their histories each user started out editing Greek-related articles before delving into yelling at people in project space. I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, and workng from a tablet with kind of crappy copy/paste abilities, will provide diffs and additional dsetails as time permits today. Givent the length of time Webdrone has been here, a CU to check for additional sleepers seems warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I do not consent to having a CU performed on my account. This is not a credible SPI; specifically, WP:SOCK requires that the alleged sockpuppets are abusively operated, and no evidence to that effect has been presented. Alakzi (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, your consent is not required, since you already consented to the site's terms of use by editing here. The TOU includes the WP:Privacy Policy, which allows limited data to be collected and used under specific circumstances.  For English Wikipedia, these are spelled out on WP:CheckUser.  A clerk will determine if the evidence is sufficient to endorse it for a CU check, regardless of your lack of consent, which will not be considered. BMK (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. I am not not consenting in any legal sense. Alakzi (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you point in making the remark was... rhetorical? BMK (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not rhetorical; it is how I feel. A person who's raped does not consent but can do very little to stop it from happening either. Alakzi (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So having your IP adress checked against another user is the equivalent to being raped? BMK (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The Joe Eula edit history is troubling, but this would be a weird interaction for a master and sock that isn't being used abusively. ~ RobTalk 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It must be terribly troubling to work with a friend on an article. Alakzi (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is troubling is how Webdrone went away after that, not editing at all. Then, right at the moment you were in the middle of a controversial situation of your own creation, he magically showed back up out of the blue and wrote an essay that seems to actually express your opinions, and which you were aware of instantly. You could be two people, doesn't matter WP:MEAT still applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, WP:MEAT does not apply. I did not ask him to write any essay; he did so on his own volition. He observed the whole debacle, which prompted him to write the essay. He showed me, and I thought the essay was quite on point, so I linked to it. Would that be all? Alakzi (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight, he just happened, on hos own, to "observe" the drama you have stirred up, and just happened to write an essay siding with you, and just happened to show it to you, (through some sort of off-wiki communication as there is no trace of that on-wiki) before anyone else. That certainly is a string of amazing coincidences. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Alakzi: Can you please point me to where on-wiki Webdrone gave you this information, i.e. that he wrote the article of his own volition, that he "observed the whole debacle, which prompted him to write the essay", and where he pointed you to the essay? I cannot seem to find it. BMK (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, I can find no talk pag entries on your talk page from Webdrone, or from you to him on his talk page, nor is their anywhere in Webdrone's contributions where this information is conveyed - although I could be overlooking something. Where did this transfer of information take place? BMK (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I initially stated a concern for this based off an edit changing a redirect, []. I discussed with USER:Samwalton9. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say that he just "happened" to stumble across it; I showed him, obviously. Discussing things that've happened in your life with a friend is not meatpuppetry. What he, in turn, may opt to do with that information isn't something that I can be held accountable for. Furthermore, meatpuppetry is only applicable to non-members of the community; for the love, he's got a DYK under his belt. Alakzi (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where you showed him, please? BMK (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MEAT applies to wiki members too. Here again reading the policy helps because the first sentence is "like-minded editors into the dispute" Your friend with the DYK is an editor. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, WP:MEAT does not apply to established editors. WP:CANVASS might, but that's not the case here, either. Alakzi (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Alakzi has been indefinitely banned blocked by . ~ RobTalk 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you mean "blocked" not "banned". Editors can only be "banned" by ArbCom or the community after discussion, but any admin can indef block an editor. BMK (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:NuclearWarfare I still think it would be wise for a sleeper sweep for caution. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed and noted, although the difference is somewhat semantical. Point is he can't edit for an indefinite period of time. ~ RobTalk 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's more than an semantical difference. Just as any admin can indef an editor, any admin can remove an indef block.  A ban however can only be overturned by ArbCom, BASC, or the community, depending on who did the banning. An individual admin cannot undo a ban. (Actually, they can physically undo the block that enforces the ban, but they're not supposed to do so.) BMK (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I work with Alakzi frequently, and I am quite willing to say that he is one of the most talented template editors we have, and certainly the best with whom I have worked personally in the past six and a half years. He is excellent at what he does, he has done yeoman's work in the eight months he has been in here, and I can direct anyone who is curious enough to ask to numerous examples of his creations and improvements.  Citing WP:NOTHERE (an essay) as justification for a block is, therefore, inappropriate.  Having said that, I also recognize that he has a demonstrated anti-authoritarian streak, and recently it has gotten him into increasing degrees of trouble as he has interacted with other editors with whom he disagrees, and with administrators in particular.  I've tried to talk to him about it, and received angry responses that put me back on my heels.  I really want to help him any way I can, but I'm just not sure how to do that when my interaction is limited to the internet and Wikipedia talk pages.
 * In short, I endorse what Floquenbeam has said in the section below: in the absence of checkuser confirmation of actual sock-puppetry, an indefinite block is simply not appropriate. What I see is an administrator angrily over-reacting to an inapt metaphor by an angry editor, and jumping the gun.  Furthermore, if Alakzi was not blocked for "sock puppetry," then NuclearWarfare owes the community a detailed explanation why he believes the indefinite block is appropriate.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC) If checkuser confirms actual sock-puppetry, I will strike this comment and let the chips fall where they may.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your grounds for carrying out a check on these accounts. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it unacceptable that there now remains doubt as to whether we're two different people. Do your fucking job properly, so that this disruptive and disparaging nonsense can be deleted. Alakzi (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Having done work similar to a CU on another site in the past, this is nothing that Mike can control. Sometimes the captured data is such that you can't conclude they're related or unrelated. For instance, two friends living in the same town but not accessing through the same connection is indistinguishable from one person accessing the site from two different locations in their town. Not sure what led to an inconclusive here, but it is what it is. ~ RobTalk 10:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is clear behaviourally, then no CU should've been conducted. It is also a staggeringly obvious case of WP:NOTFISHING. should be relieved of his CU right immediately. Alakzi (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , the only way to remove his CU right is for the Audit Subcommittee to get involved. As I told you earlier on your page, the proper place to raise this question is with them.  -- GB fan 12:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I have said to you, I do not recognise any "Audit Subcommittee". I also note that you declined WP:G10 on a page that serves no purpose other than to disparage me and Webdrone. Well done. Alakzi (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you told me that, but that doesn't change the fact that they are the only ones who can do anything about your concern. This page does not only disparage you and Webdrone, it vindicates you and says there is no sockpuppetry.  -- GB fan 12:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an everything-is-shades-of-grey person, so it's hard to convince a black-or-white-right-or-wrong person. People are allowed to use their judgement, and people are allowed to be wrong sometimes. CU can be run when there's a question, not just to confirm a certainty. Yes, in this case, I wouldn't have run a CU if it were my call.  Sometimes they run one when I don't think they should, sometimes they don't run one when I think they should, most of the time they get the balance more or less right.  I basically supervoted, and used my judgement to override NW's judgement. But only because it was a particularly light shade of grey, not because it was white. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, so it's not white? What part of anything I've been accused of here is factual? Actually, sod it; I'm wasting my time. Alakzi (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF? Three other CUs looked into my account? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? With whose fucking permission? Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked you for your grounds for doing so in this case, which you have not addressed; you have offered only the policy under which such checks may be done. You are required to have more grounds than "someone asked me to" or "someone else also checked". Please now answer my question; and do so here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked both users indefinitely. The sexual assault comment above made it abundantly clear that even if they are here with good intentions (which I strongly doubt), they are completely incapable of editing in a normal collaborative environment. I would endorse a CheckUser request to look for other sockpuppets, but I am comfortable making my block without CheckUser evidence. NW ( Talk ) 22:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike V • Talk 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the checkuser is going to come back "unrelated". I'm not really comfortable with a sock block here, it looks more like friends communicating via email (which I do all the time, and I would wager many of you do too: "Hey, check out the essay I wrote").  And I'll be a wikilawyer and argue the alternative... *if* they were the same person, where is the misuse of accounts? I'd at least strongly suggest unblocking Webdrone, and suggest reducing Alakzi's block to something more in line with being pissed off and out of control, rather than trolling and socking. That stupid RM is a train wreck with lots of people acting suboptimally; Alakzi is probably acting the most suboptimally, but still... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, look at the page history of ; that's not really feasible for one person to do (and there'd be no real benefit). Pretty sure this is just friends co-editing a page and later talking about WP by email/IRC/chat/something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are certain elements of the technical data that leads to an result. (CUs, I can elaborate privately if you have any questions.) Mike V • Talk 02:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam had already unblocked both users per their reasoning above. Marking for close, as this is apparently just two users familiar with each other.  No evidence of meat puppetry.—Bagumba (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification to anyone not familiar with SPI terminology: The CU result came back "inconclusive", as there is technically evidently no way to prove or disprove a linkage with CU data alone. However, the SPI itself is being closed as "no sockpuppetry, nor meatpuppetry", as it is clear behaviorally that neither occurred. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I began running checks for the account when the issue was brought to my attention by another user. It was done under the basis of checking for sockpuppetry. (Particularly, contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts and an issue raised on the functionary email list.) Looking at the checkuser logs shows that 3 other checkusers have independently looked into the accounts. I think it's fair to say that they too found a reasonable basis for a check. I've re-closed this case as we are done with the SPI portion here. If there are further questions about the basis of the check, you are welcome to pose them on my talk page. Mike V • Talk 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, the primary basis for the check was a concern of previous accounts with existing blocks that was raised on the functionary list. Also, the possibility of using multiple accounts to promote the same hook on the Joe Eula DYK. Mike V • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 15:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral CU here. I would have ran a check myself based on the interaction report -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alakzi has now been reblocked for misbehaviour outside of the scope of SPI or sockpuppetry (see their talk page). Any concern about the use of CheckUser should be brought up with AUSC and nowhere else. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)