Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect/Archive

Report date March 9 2009, 20:31 (UTC)

 * Alleged sockpuppet

I have been maliciously falsely accused of sock-puppetry by User:Ikip and User:Tyrenius at WP:ANI; other users are using the fact of a false accusation to further slander me. Their only evidence is the circumstantial evidence that we are in the same time zone, and thus have similar editing schedules, and that we have occasionally agreed with each other (as well as several other editors) when contesting policy-violative edits by cranks. I would like a definitive ruling through RFCU to clear my name.
 * Evidence submitted by THF (talk)

In addition, I would like to note the following physical evidence disproving sock-puppetry. On 16 October, Collect was making edits to Wikipedia simultaneously with my publicly speaking to an audience of over 100 students at the University of Chicago Law School, the podcast of which is available on line. On 23 October, Collect was making edits to Wikipedia simultaneously with my publicly speaking to an audience of over 100 students at Stetson University College of Law. On 3 March, I am editing at the same that Collect is briefly blocked. Finally, please compare our edits on 7 February, when there were multiple edit conflicts as we were both furiously editing Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination) on opposite sides of the issue. If the admin ruling on the case is unfamiliar with my real-life identity, please feel-free to email me, and I will send supporting URLs.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by THF (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

CU's do not accept request to prove innocence. I am also requesting this be closed.  Syn  ergy 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Report date April 17 2009, 08:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by neon white talk

This relates to a WQA Wikiquette alerts submitted by User:Scramblecase. Although the editor denies being a sock of another editor and asserts he/she is brand new to wikipedia, initial edits demonstrate familiarity not only with policies and guidelines including some not so common ones such as WP:BURO, Talk page guidelines and WP:SPA but also with the discussion and and WQA process (the editor even notfied the accused, something which 90% of experienced editors don't realise they should do). A particular phrase that jumps out as being strange from a new use is the references to SPAs such "please refrain from lobbing WP:SPA at me". I find it very unusual that a supposed new editor is ready to defend themselves from SPA accusations in their very first post. Considering that the editor has only made around six or seven edits, the 4th of which was to file a WQA report suggests to be this is not a new editor. I think it is necessary in order to progress with the WQA or mediation to establish whether this is a sock of an editor that has previous been involved in long term dispute with the 'accused' in the WQA. --neon white talk 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the question of Transity, i don't think there's any direct evidence linking the two users other than the fact that all seem to be involved somewhat in a dispute with Ratel and if Scramblecase is a sock of another editor, Transity would be the second most likely after Collect. This is being done without prejudice with the sole purpose of figuring this mess out. --neon white talk 21:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Please go right ahead - I have nothing at all to hide. Let me know how I can assist so we can get back to the WQA on User:Ratel. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seconded - go right ahead, with the expansion that, as I've already stated, I am perfectly willing to engage in a live telephone conversation with an admin and any/all parties I am accused of "being." To reiterate: this is not some ridiculous type of bluff.  Set it up, and I'll be there.  Unlike Ratel, I do not bluster and intimidate; this claim is an offer, not a threat.

Neon, no offense taken. I can certainly understand that you may find my ability to read before I write unusual - I'm unfortunately not employing sarcasm, here, as I'm instead finally realizing that, apparently, that is, indeed, a rare habit. I will point out the obvious fact: Ratel himself made reference to WP:SPA - quite irrelevantly, in my opinion, as I see WP:SPA as overall irrelevant in the first place - and the reference was esoteric and specific enough, in an unwarranted attack on Transity, for me to look it up. (See ) Seeing further references by both Transity and Ratel to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV made it quite natural to start looking through the policies and guidelines. Being a member of the human race, with an inherent curiosity, and an educated person with enough knowledge of information technology (professionally), library sciences (hard to avoid in my generation), and social compacts (we all live in at least one of them), it wasn't hard to surmise that policies such as WP:BURO existed, and, in fact, I specifically sought out a policy with such content in order to make my point (that Ratel was, aside from being abusive, being needlessly pedantic and stringent to the detriment of the article). I hope that at least some reading this can see the irony in the idea that I am being taken to task for thorough research and preparedness on a site dedicated to the maintenance of an encyclopedia. Should I apologize for not jumping in without making sure I knew how to contribute and make my points?

I read the IC article, I read the Talk section of the IC article, and it piqued my interest. In fact, one of the first things I did was click on Ratel's SPA reference, out of curiosity. When I realized what an accusation of SPA implied, I rolled my eyes; how can any community thrive if new members are denigrated out of hand? Why was Ratel, on a site for encyclopedic information, behaving as if "fragging the noobs" was his motivation for being here? (I don't frequent MMORPGs for similar reasons - to avoid miscreants like Ratel.) Arming myself with the knowledge of what a SPA was, and the immediate admonishment for Ratel not to use that irrelevant red herring to dismiss my contributions, I joined the discussion. Again, this only seems like being thorough, to me. I can see how it might appear otherwise to an outside observer; what I cannot see is why it would be the "default" assumption, especially in light of WP's guidelines regarding good faith and civility.

The speed with which I filed a WQA subsequent to the creation of my account is no mystery, either. At the moment, I am most certainly a WP:SPA. I do not, and have not denied this fact, ever - I have only said that it is irrelevant, and requested that it not be used to dismiss the merit of my contributions. I note that, of course, this is precisely what has been happening. As I indicated, I saw Ratel's abusive and dismissive behavior, and was not interested in letting his dismissal of the topic stand. This is my personality, both online and offline - if I see irrational, irrelevant, abusive behavior getting in the way of progress or accord, I act to counter it. Once again, note that my first contribution was to observe that Ratel was quoting policies as red herrings; whether or not his accusations are ever true, he continues to ignore other users' arguments and abuse them. Unlike Colonel Warden (on the current WP:WQA regarding Ratel, which one hopes will not be lost in the shuffle), I do not find this attitude to be merely "brusque" - I find it to be uncooperative and non-constructive. As soon as Ratel's behavior was directed at me, I again suggested that he rectify it, or I was willing to simply go to the next level. This is, to me, precisely the same pattern as trying to peacefully break up a fist-fight between strangers (which I have done - as I said, that's part of my personality), being punched in the face by the aggressor, and calling the police in response. The difference here is that, with the "slow motion" model of written interlocution that the Internet provides, I had plenty of time to "read up" on what was going on and be prepared, rather than march in blindly. (Also, I would normally use more humor with the pugilists, but WP seems, to me, to be a place to observe a little more formality, at least in issues like these.)

I also observe that Colonel Warden seems to be in agreement with Ratel in the original IC/PBS Talk that started this mess. Should I now begin proceedings against him because he both: a) agrees with Ratel; and b) defends Ratel's outrageous behavior? Of course not. The entire problem here is that Ratel's assessment of another user, and his treatment of that user, is far too often entirely based on the user's agreement or disagreement with him. A valid question is: if I made precisely the same points, calling out Ratel's behavior, but then disagreed with Transity and agreed with Ratel, would I have ever been accused of being a sockpuppet? I would certainly have been abused by Ratel for calling attention to his obnoxious behavior; but the only reason he suspects sockpuppetry, when you boil it down, is because I agreed with someone who he disagreed with. This seems like abuse itself, of an otherwise useful policy. His accusation severely loses merit, in that light.

As I said, I am now quite certainly a WP:SPA, out of necessity - I have only just joined WP, and I find myself defending my actions in observing another user's inappropriate actions. Yet, how am I to ever be anything other than a SPA upon first creating an account? I have plenty of information and assistance I'd be happy to contribute to WP (yes, all my claims to do this or that or the other professionally are quite true; and, like any human being, I have plenty of experiences, hobbies, interests, and skills to draw on). I have, however, been derailed in that goal. My "single purpose," at this point, is to make someone with some kind of authority take a long, hard look at Ratel's behavior. Feel free to investigate me for sockpuppetry, for my own behavior, and so forth; but, to reiterate, because apparently the point continues to be dismissed:

1) Whatever or whoever I may be, Ratel's behavior remains inappropriate.

2) Whether I have an account or not, Ratel's behavior remains inappropriate.

3) Whether I exist or not, Ratel's behavior remains inappropriate.

As I said, continue to investigate me. You may even end up banning me - I'd be quite annoyed, as the only reason to finally sign up for an account here was to see if I could contribute anything (and, as I've noted, the impetus for signing up was my opinion that I had something specific to contribute to - namely, Ratel's and Transity's dispute). But that is all utterly beside the point (not of this page - it's quite on point here - but of the larger issue). The point is, and will remain, that Ratel continues to exhibit abusive and dismissive behavior which is not aimed at the improvement of this site, any useful contributions he may have made aside. Not to carelessly skirt Godwin's Law, but this analogy is on point: making the trains run on time does not excuse fascism. Similarly, providing some good or even excellent articles and information on WP does not excuse obsessive, abusive WP:OWNership tendencies.

Ask me what questions you would like, neon. Ask them privately, ask them publicly, do the same with Collect, Transity, or any others you feel would be appropriate. And, as I said, my offer of a live conference call still stands, and is thoroughly genuine. The fact that this has come so far is quite ludicrous, but again, I have absolutely nothing to hide.

But meanwhile, whatever proceedings may be afoot regarding my account: users and admins alike, please do not be fooled by the supposition that my own status - sockpuppet, SPA, dictator-for-life of an oppressive third world country, all of the above or none of the above - in any way alleviates Ratel's requirement to behave appropriately and civilly toward others on this site. He is not brusque; he is a detriment to civil discussion and consensus.

Please continue to further discuss the WQA regarding his behavior on the appropriate page. Scramblecase (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

FWIW, see Requests for comment/Collect. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link, Colonel Warden. Perhaps the word "tendentious" is a specific WP colloquialism (I'm quite finished looking this stuff up, as my foresight to prepare for conversation is apparently pointless on this site), but I wonder if any others have noticed that both User:Ratel and User:Phoenix_of9 seem to use that word quite a bit.  And both seem to have a problem with Collect.  And both use that word to refer to Collect, or (in Ratel's case, at least) people they might think are Collect.  I find that certainly worth something.


 * Barely over 7000 hits for the word itself, in appropriate Talk and User pages, and nearly 30 each (at least) for Ratel and Phoenix. "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  WP's advanced search feature is excellent, by the way. Scramblecase (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * This is not a forum for continuing a dispute. Since no significant evidence of a link between the accounts listed has been presented, and by all appearances this case is being used as a weapon in a content dispute, I'm closing this case and asking its filer and participants to utilize the dispute resolution processes available to them on Wikipedia. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Collect is an experienced editor and I am not posting here lightly, but I've noticed a suspicious pattern of behavior involving these three accounts which I think bears checking out.

Some important context first: Collect has recently been involved in a huge dispute over the article Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in which he has exhibited a rather combative editing pattern, and been particularly concerned with adding/removing specific stuff from the article. Some diffs for example:
 * Diff1 - removing a wikilink to Reagan's page from the lede on the word "Reaganite."
 * Diff2 - removing a table from the article which he charges is SYNTH.
 * Diff3 - same concern again
 * Diff4 - removing this passage/source about the connections people have drawn between the Bush administration and PNAC from the lede.

An additional piece of context here - Collect is currently blocked for edit warring on this article, and has been involved in a lengthy dispute with the user Ubikwit over it. He was himself blocked for edit warring after reporting Ubikwit for same. On his talk page, he recently outlined the dispute between himself and Ubikwit as part of his unblock request. Note in particular that he claims Ubikwit has been drawing undue attention to or falsely labeling conservative political figures as Jewish.

I had just finished reading that when I noticed that User:Dear ODear ODear had started editing the article on PNAC. Note that the account has been a sleeper since 2012, but suddenly sprang into action on the article that Collect was recently blocked for edit warring on. I think the diffs speak for themselves here: Dear ODear has only made 10-12 edits to the article so far, but they are displaying the same kind of combative edit pattern and edit summaries that Collect often does (see the admin's comments on the edit warring noticeboard, linked above for examples of that), and like Collect, they are particularly concerned with ensuring that certain information is labelled as opinion. Examples: Odear ODear and Collect have also been active at the same time. Today, for example, ODear made these three edits: one, two, three between 19:03 and 19:12. Then Collect made this edit at 19:26, and then ODear made this edit at 19:56.
 * Diff1 - removing the wikilink on Reagan, same as Diff 1 for Collect.
 * Diff2 - removing the same passage/source from the lede as Diff 4 for Collect. Also note, here, the edit summary, alleging that the source is somehow anti-semitic. This is consistent with Collect's rationale for his editing the article and his interactions with Ubikwit.
 * Diff1(Dear ODear ODear) - insisting that since there's only 1 RS, it should be phrased as opinion
 * Diff2(Collect) - this is a post he made on my talk page, but it shows his insistence that "opinions must be cited as opinions." For context, that was a response to my post on the PNAC talk page. That conversation was (again) centered on the statements in the lede of the article about the connections that critics have drawn between PNAC and the Bush Administration. This diff shows both that Dear ODear and Collect are both very determined to excise that sentence, and (as I explained in the talk post Collect was replying to) that no one else seems to have had a problem with it and it had been in the lede for many years.

As for Vertrag: He also is/was a sleeper account, created in 2006 but with a huge gap in edits from 2007-2015. When he returned to wikipedia, made a number of edits on the BLP/N noticeboard (which a glance at Collect's user page and editing history will show is his main haunt). He jumped into editing the PNAC article at a critical point in the debate between Ubikwit and Collect, with this being his very first edit. Note the removal of the Reagan wikilink, the bush admin-PNAC connections, and the table that Collect had sought to remove as SYNTH. That revert was also what prompted Ubikwit to make the final revert in the edit war between him and Collect, and which allowed Collect to report Ubikwit for edit warring. Collect linked it as Link 22 there, dated 16:28 2 March.

Finally, here is a Diff of Vertag arguing on the talk page of the PNAC article for removal of the table Collect had wanted removed as SYNTH. It's important to note here that no one else has been able to make much sense of Collect's argument that the table is SYNTH and should be removed. I'm not the only editor who thinks that - see JBH's reply to Collect here as evidence that his concerns haven't made much sense to others as well. He posted about it at BLP/N, for example, but no one was able to figure out his argument that it was SYNTH and should be removed. So it's odd that another user (who seems to be a sleeper account, and intervened at a critical moment in the edit war between Collect and Ubikwit) is now also insisting that it is.

As the editor interaction utility shows, these three accounts have made edits to the PNAC talk page within 5 minutes of each other, and to the article within 3 hours of each other. Vertrag and Collect also made edits to The Cowsills, making back to back edits within an hour of each other, and BLP/N, where both have multiple posts also within an hour of each other.

If you made it through all that, thanks for reading! Sorry for the wall-of-text but since Collect is such an experienced and active user and will almost certainly accuse me of being biased here, I wanted to make my case as clearly as I could. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Just a note - I was working on a restatement of my case and more diffs per 's request, below, when I saw MastCell's comment (also below) with the "unrelated" tag and noting that Dear ODear is a known alternate account of Is Not A. I immediately hit "cancel" on my post and put an apology/retraction on all three accounts' talk pages. I assume this investigation will be closed shortly but let me know if you need something else from me.

One last thing I'll note in my defense is that Vertag did admit to being a sock for someone - as I noted in my apology to Collect, given the recent edit warring on the article and the fact that Dear ODear did turn out to be a stand in for someone else as well, I don't think it was wholly off-base of me to suspect/report sockpuppetry in this case, even if I was off-base in pointing the finger at Collect. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Collect's response, copied from his talk page Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My actual name and address are known to Jimbo, and about a dozen or more admins. I have used this handle now for over thirty years, and have never "socked" at all -- this accusation is apparently about as ill-faith as I can conceive of, and timed so that I cannot respond. I would have no rational reason to sock, but accusations of this type are so routinely made now sans any actual evidence that I suggest SPI enforce the rule requiring some actual evidence of some sort, beyond "someone came into the article, and even though their edits are, in fact, contrary to the edits of the editor I wish to accuse, this is a good way to annoy the hell out of them." Collect (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Cowsills "evidence" - the edits were absolutely and totally unrelated to each other -- anyone saying I would use a sock for such edits is NCM.

Re: An accusation that I used a sock in order to force Ubikwit to edit war - that is a remarkably obtuse and ill-founded charge - noting that I suggested that Ubikwit self-revert.

Re: We both used BLP/N -- I have about four hundred edits on that noticeboard. Odds are pretty high that anyone posting there will show some sort of overlap. And the overlap? I saw Vertrag's post about a Cowsill! That is the one and only BLP/N thread we have an overlap on at all. Period.

Please someone - put the horrid SPI complaint out of its misery? Collect (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Clerk, please strike through your "certain evidence" that I and the Vertrag are the same person. Perhaps you meant that something struck you as similar? Dear ODear ODear (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did disclose my accounts to by email. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Please note,, that the policies you cite do allow editors to maintain another account for (e.g.) privacy reasons. A review of my edits demonstrates no intention to deceive. Furthermore, MastCell explicitly welcomed me to resume using my earlier account after I had abandoned the new user:Is not  a account. MastCell may wish to review the policy, because he mis-stated a "recommendation" that editors label other accounts with an explicit box as a "requirement" (sic.). Please note that I have not reverted MastCell's placing such a box in my user-space, although I do wish he'd asked me to place it myself or at least stated that he was doing it for me as a courtesy, following the recommendation (welcoming me to remove it if I wished, per policy on user pages).
 * Of course an administrator is welcome to merge the contribution history of the two accounts, if that is possible. I do not know how to. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, merging accounts isn't technically possible. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The prosecution of non-liberal editors on Wikipedia continues. -sigh- --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please strike your off-topic comment about the politics of contributors, even though it may have been done in the spirit of trying to ensure a spirit of NPOV. I am unaware of any evidence of any of the editors being "non-liberal" or of any being prosecuted [sic.] for being non-liberal. Please focus on behavior and WP policies. (That last goes for everybody! *smile*) Dear ODear ODear (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I need some clarification here. You cited this diff and claimed that is shows "removing the wikilink on Reagan", while in fact it does not. You also cited this and claimed that it represents "removing the same passage/source from the lede as Diff 4 for Collect", while in fact it does not. I don't see any strong evidence to connect Dear ODear ODear to Collect. After reading your post, I came to believe that there is certain evidence to accuse Dear ODear ODear and Vertrag of being the same person, but I can't see their connection to Collect. Please, cite more evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, it's possible I made a mistake with the diffs - putting my kid to bed then I will look them over and re-state my case more clearly for you.Fyddlestix (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't Collect. First of all, I don't think that sockpuppetry is Collect's style. More to the point, is an alternate account of . A lot of trouble would have been saved if the editor had disclosed this upfront, in the spirit of WP:SCRUTINY and so on, but I've declared it now. This report can be closed. MastCell Talk 01:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing per Fyddlestix. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)