Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aoidh/Archive

03 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I'm a regular volunteer at Third Opinion. In this edit at 14:03 today the alleged sockmaster made a request for a 3O in reference to the dispute at Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy and the following section at the article talk page. At 19:31 today the request was removed by the alleged sockpuppet and at 21:00 today gave a third opinion supporting the sockmaster's position at the article talk page. What's curious about that 3O is that the alleged puppet only has four edits at Wikipedia, the first of which was to remove the listing from the 3O page. In addition to the sophistication of the response and the fact that it supports the sockmaster's position, I would note that the third opinion makes frequent use of quotation marks around terms:"(“software distribution”) seems to me to be much more geared towards one viewpoint than the wording previously used (“operating system”). It is true that there are conflicting definitions of the term “operating system”, and I have heard it used synonymously to “kernel”. From my subjective experience, however, it is generally considered to include the parts of the system which the kernel relies on to be able to run. For example, when referring to Windows as an “operating system”"(Emphasis added.) If you will examine a few of the alleged sockmaster's other edits on talk pages, you'll find the same frequent use of quotation marks used in the same way: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4 (in the same matter as where the 3O was given), diff 5. If, indeed, this is a sockpuppet, the attempted misuse of the dispute resolution process to manipulate the outcome of a dispute is, in my opinion as a person who works at 3O and at DRN and is a member of the Mediation Committee, an extremely serious matter and due consideration should be given to an indefinite block. TransporterMan ( TALK ) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC) PS: This editor previously edited under the username SudoGhost and that account appears to still be unused-but-active. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Just to clarify, I was previously SudoGhost until a name change (there's a single diff from when I accidentally edited when switching from Commons, which for some reason logged me on with that previous name). I do agree that it looks suspicious, a new account weighing in as a third-opinion with their first edit being to WP:3O. Honestly though, it's a little too obvious. I've filed dozens of SPIs myself, many of which weren't obvious until you looked at very minor details, all of which have resulted in some sort of action such as a confirmation that the editor was a sockpuppet.  Honestly, if I were to create a sockpuppet, it wouldn't be done in such an obvious, amateur way. At first glance it appears to be done specifically to make it look like I used a sockpuppet.  The IP that I am in disagreement with on that talk page also uses quotations in the same exact manner, so that behavioral evidence would apply to them as well, and they would certainly have cause to try to get me blocked. I don't have any problem with a checkuser, but I would suggest, given the evidence and painfully obvious manner in which the alleged sockpuppet behaved, that a checkuser compare the IP as well. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched the article or talk page since my last transparent edit, thank you. 75.170.245.101 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, for the sake of full disclosure see also Sockpuppet investigations/SudoGhost, since that was my previous account and there are reports there as well. However, TransporterMan, it's not usually a good idea to let the targets of the investigation know that you've opened a report, as doing that does more harm than good, often just spiraling into pointless arguing and distracting from the actual SPI (such as here). - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to look at syntactic structures between the talk page comments of different accounts to find out who, if anyone, this new account is a sockpuppet of, and it's worth noting that the use of quotations in the way TransporterMan is highlighting isn't uncommon enough to be a useful indicator. Aside from the IP address, even TransporterMan himself uses quotations in the same manner he's pointing out.  However, the exact character they are using is “ not ", and they are using them inside parenthesis. I know I've never used the “ version of a quotation before, and I also don't place quotations inside parenthesis that I can ever recall; one or the other, but I wouldn't use both without good reason. - Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * O-kay… So this was obviously the worst possible choice for a first contribution to Wikipedia. I created this account several years ago, long before both Aoidh and SudoGhost registered (though I'm not sure if this shows anywhere in the interface).  I did a few minor changes to the German version of Wikipedia in 2007–2010 but never came around to doing so here.  So, when I stumbled upon Third opinion, I thought this would be a good way to contribute to Wikipedia. I was shocked to find that the first (and, so far, only) reaction to my 3O is this sockpuppet investigation.  Seriously?  I spent two hours on this issue, trying to understand both participants and state a neutral opinion in a way that would be acceptable to both.  I don't know either of the participants, and I'm not involved with this or any related article.  What I stated is my subjective opinion, based on the article, the discussion, the current position of Wikipedia in this issue, as well as the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&action=history participants' discussing style].  I tried very hard to be fair to both sides—which, judging by TransporterMan's reaction, seems to have utterly failed.  Sorry. Yokokokon (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me say to both Aoidh and Yokokokon that I've merely reported the suspicious circumstncees here, due in part to the serious nature of possible misuse of dispute resolution processes if it turns out to be true. I truly hope that I'm proven to be wrong, as I have no complaint about the nature of either of your editing other than this suspicion, but this is one of those cases where the suspicion needs to be checked out. I do want to also make one reply to what Aoidh says above: It's true that many people use scare quotes around words for emphasis and, indeed, it's true that I do so myself on occasion, but I found the five diffs above in Aoidh's edit history with hardly any looking and an examination of just Aoidh's edits on the page where the 3O was given by Yokokokon shows that the use of such quotes by Aoidh is far more than just occasional, but is so common that it's characteristic of his writing style. I didn't make that clear in my initial posting and now see that I need to make sure that it is understood that the diffs I provided are examples, not 5 places where he just happens to use such quotes found after exhaustively sifting through his edits. - TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't blame you for reporting something that looks odd to you, nor would I hold ill will towards you for looking out for Wikipedia. But I didn't have to do any digging through your diffs either though. I simply looked at what appeared to be the first non-template talk page messages you posted, and each used the same quotation-emphasis you're referring to. With the IP editor I didn't even have to look for diffs, in the same discussion with me on the article talk page the IP uses quotation-emphasis. It's not that uncommon, everyone involved in this SPI thus far does the same thing. What doesn't match, however, is the specific character used, “ as opposed to ", that's a character I've personally never used that I can recall, nor is it something you or the IP have used that I can tell. The other part that doesn't match is the use of quotations within parenthesis, which again is something that doesn't match with anyone I could find. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't use quotations or parens for emphasis in normal usage. I generally capitalize (or bold on a forum that allows it, like Wikipedia.) I use quotes to escapsulate phrases or words when defining them in these edits, and parens for small tangents. 75.170.245.101 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm closing this SPI. I don't see enough evidence to run a checkuser, let alone block them. Yokokokon looks like a German Wikipedia editor, and Aoidh is a long-term editor here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)