Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digwuren/Archive

Report date January 27 2009, 10:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

There is a complaint on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that accuses two IPs of being a disruptive sockpuppets of Digwuren. I will copy the complaint:
 * Evidence submitted by Alex Bakharev (talk)
 * There is a current AfD running at Articles for deletion/ESStonia. An IP editor has placed this keep comment; note the edit summary of *keep* (with the stars). User:Digwuren has then removed the IP's comments with Okay, let's cut the crap. Out this IP's vote goes. He then immediately leaves a delete comment further down the page; note the edit summary of *delete* (again with the stars). Given the Special:Contributions/62.65.239.167 IP's contributions and they are all things on which User:Digwuren is involved, there is a great chance that Digwuren has used the IP as a sockpuppet to be disruptive. Another IP that this user has used is Special:Contributions/62.65.238.142; note this diff, and compare it to the first diff above, and one can notice the way that encyclopædic is spelt. The articles edited by the 2nd IP are also articles on which Digwuren has edited. It should be noted that Digwuren was found by the Arbcom to have engaged in disruptive behaviour such as this, which resulting in him being banned for a year, from which he has only just returned, and he is aware there are sanctions in place. Additionally, Digwuren has himself recalled that Arbcom in this very AfD, when he accused another editor of being in violation of the very Arbcom decision he has breached. I think there is more than enough evidence for a checkuser to be done into Digwuren's sockpuppetry and action taken for his disruptive editing. User:Beatle Fab Four has also undone Digwuren's removal of the IP comment. --Russavia Dialogue 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The complaint seems to be credible as the IP edits in the same style and on the same topics as Digwuren. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Thanks for the credit, Luna Santin.

The report is invalid, as there is no abuse here. (Which might have something to do with the fact that there appear no code letters to be attached to this filing.)

Let me emphasise: Even if I had deliberately neglected to log in to cast the first vote, there would be no violation here. At no point did I double-vote; indeed, Russavia's complaint started at his actions to restore the withdrawn vote, which would have led to a double vote. Fortunately, that has not happened; the withdrawn vote has stayed withdrawn.

Of course, the WP:BATTLE tactic of spurious accusations is not new; only a few weeks after I first appeared on Wikipedia, Petri Krohn filed this. It took a few days to get sorted out, and the only result was a lot of wikidramu.

I doubt there is more to say on this matter, but feel free to ask if I've missed anything. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not moot Luna. He has been caught red-handed engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry in order to avoid scrutiny.
 * Comments by other users


 * His initial keep comment (with the IP) made at 05:30, 24 January 2009 (all times are my local +9GMT) with "as long as it is encyclopædic. Wikipedia can and should discuss interesting examples of propaganda -- and without this specimen, Wikipedia's overview of Putinist Russia would be incomplete."
 * The next edit (as Digwuren) 24 hours later at 2:05, 25 January 2009 with an edit summary of "Catching that elusive notability ..." in which he is clearly arguing that the term is not notable due to "Which notable person has gone on record with a speech or article using eSStonia as a catchphrase?" He has not stricken his IP sockpuppet keep comment. "Voting" to keep, yet arguing that its not notable, is in itself disruptive.
 * 24 hours later at 02:48, 26 January 2009, Digwuren (logged in) removes the IP comments with the edit summary "Okay, let's cut the crap. Out this IP's vote goes." He at no stage stated that the IP was him.
 * 2 minutes later he adds his delete comment (logged in under Digwuren). The standard for changing your mind is to strike the initial comments and replace it. This was not done. *Another 2 minutes later he adds comments going back to his deletionist notability comment.
 * 40 minutes later he accuses another editor of breaching general provisions in his own Arbcom (which as noted above he was banned for a year and has only just returned).
 * At 18:18, 26 January 2009 Digwuren makes anothe edit.
 * At 06:35, 27 January 2009, User:Beatle Fab Four Adds back the IP edit as Digwuren can't remove others comments and has not made it known that the IP editor is indeed himself.
 * At 16:58, 27 January 2009, I post the report on ANI.
 * At 17:33, 27 January 2009, Digwuren again removes the IP comments (along with another editors comments, with edit summary "The bot may be stupid, but this vote does not belong here." He then undoes the edit. He then immediately removes the IP vote with the edit summary, "Take III: removing vote of a disgruntled IP." He still does not state that the IP is him, instead makes out it is someone else.
 * At 17:43, 27 January 2009, I post this repeat removal to ANI.
 * At 17:49, 27 January 2009, User:Martintg reverts Digwuren with an edit summary of "It is not a well know fact, but IP votes are permitted." It is obvious that even Martintg had no idea it was Digwuren.
 * At 17:53, Martintg responds on ANI, and it is evident from the comments that he did not know the IP was Digwuren. A few minutes later Martintg post this on Digwuren's talk page.
 * At 18:01, I post a message on the AfD advising that I suspect sockpuppetry.
 * At 18:12, I repost on the ANI, advising that IP votes are not allowed if they are sockpuppets. 22 minutes later Martintg, still obviously oblivious to the sockpuppetry, posts on the ANI that the IP is in Tallinn and he knows for a fact that Digwuren is in Tartu and that my accusations are baseless.
 * At 19:12, I post on the ANI details confirming the IPs are in Tartu, the same location as Digwuren.
 * 5 minutes after I provided pretty solid evidence that Digwuren did indeed engage in sockpuppetry, he changes the the IP to his username on the AfD.
 * A minute later, logged out of his account, the IP removes the now signed Digwuren comments.
 * 7 minutes later Digwuren posts this, in which he claims he forgot to login and that he removed the IP vote in order to avoid double voting.
 * However, he used edit summaries, prior to the evidence of him being in Tartu and his IP address being in Tartu being presented, which clearly indicate in the eyes of other editors that he was simply removing the vote of an IP user on the mistaken belief that IP "votes" don't count, and the a disgruntled IP user. At no stage did he say this was his vote and he was removing it due to him changing his mind as he "claims".
 * It was not until after it was clearly shown that both he and the IP are in Tartu, that he has confessed, albeit with reasoning that does not add up when one looks at the edits and their summaries. Given that he had 3 days from the initial sockpuppetry to make known that he was indeed the IP editor, and it wasn't until there was pretty convincing evidence that he was indeed the IP editor that he "confessed", the nature of the initial IP comments, and also that other editors were apparently obliviously to the IP edits being Digwuren's, one can only draw the conclusion that it is indeed a case of disruptive sockpuppetry which was done to avoid scrutiny by other editors. Given Digwuren's history, only back after a year ban for constant disruptive editing, this is of course actionable, and under the very Arbcom case that has invoked on another editor in the same AfD. --Russavia Dialogue 12:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment “He has been caught red-handed engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry in order to avoid scrutiny.″ Honestly, I don't believe he edited it both anonymously as IP and later with his account for the sake of creating confusion. It's still more like an accident. He seems to edit unlogged once in a while (yes, I don't like this practice either), he has even commented on my talk as IP, so the connection with those various Estonian IP adresses and User:Digwuren is IMO simply too obvious for anyone to engage in intentional sock puppetry. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 12:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is no sock puppetry here. Digwuren initially voted as an IP in an AfD, then later logged in and removed his initial vote and when he changed his vote. An assuption of good faith is required here. It is easy enough to inadvertently edit unlogged, I've done it in the past as I have a number of laptops and desktop PCs at home and in the office. I am surprised that Alex Bakharev should bring this here (Alex and Rssavia being compatriots not withstanding), as it only encourages this kind of Wikidramu by Russavia. I really think Alex should instead counsel Russavia, as another admin has already warned Russiavia "please don't troll, you may be blocked for disruption of wikipedia", then warned again not to persist with his disruptive behaviour. Martintg (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Further comment and question for Martintg :The links you provided Miacek are interesting. He edited some time ago as you say as. One of the contributions of that IP was in Articles for deletion/Serban Marin, which if you look at the history he edited as the IP then immediately afterwards he logged in and used his username to sign his name properly. As the above IP is in a completely different range, it is not obvious. However, if you say it is obvious, one need then only look at the contributions of (noted above in original report), in which this IP and User:Martintg have engaged in discussion with both myself and between themselves at Talk:Aftermath_of_the_Bronze_Night. If given "those various Estonian IP adresses and User:Digwuren is IMO simply too obvious for anyone to engage in intentional sock puppetry" then surely Martintg would have known it was Digwuren he was discussing issues with? Given Martintg's response to Beatle Fab Four on the AfD in relation to BF4's comment and his comments on the ANI here, then one could reasonably come to the conclusion that Martintg is part of the "disruptive avoiding of scrutiny" part of the sockpuppetry if he knew that the IP editor was Digwuren, and if he didn't know a case of no good faith at the ANI. So it surely has to come down to what a reasonable person would think if shown the evidence as clearly set out. If Martintg was not aware, and perhaps he can confirm one way or another whether he was or not (that is a good faith question which needs to be answered), then the IP edits by Digwuren were clearly disruptive because 1) in the AfD by the IP you noted, he corrected his mistake immediately 2) on both occasions that he removed the IP comments, he didn't claim ownership of the comment, but rather a) "Okay, let's cut the crap. Out this IP's vote goes" was the comment in the first removal. He had opportunity to claim ownership of the comments there, but didn't. Instead asserts ownership of belong to an "IP". b) the second time he removed it he used the edit summary "Take III: removing vote of a disgruntled IP." Again he doesn't claim ownership, but asserts it to belong to "a disgruntled IP". 3) the lack of ownership of the IP comments (which didn't come until after it was established without a shadow of a doubt that the IP was him) and him having the keep vote whilst actually arguing for deletion with the notability being the issue; a reasonable person would likely reach the decision that it was an intentional act of disruption on his part. In relation to Martintg's comments, both myself and Alex are in Australia, however, I am Australian born and bred and with British heritage; Alex is Russian born and bred and a welcome immigrant to this country. We are no more compatriots than you and I are (if you are in Australia, which you state you are). As to the comments I left in the AfD, of course it was meant as humour, and the admin removed because he didn't like them. If my humourous comments are disruptive, then unlike some it seems, I stand by all of my edits on WP and take ownership of every single thing I do, so if a neutral admin, such as User:Luna Santin sees fit to block or ban me, or whatever they consider a fit punishment, if they consider it to be disruptive editing on my part, then I will cop it on the chin. That's the difference between myself and some others it seems in that I allow myself to be scrutinised. The question is, does Digwuren? Or yourself? (as per questions to you above). --Russavia Dialogue 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * I actually saw this, earlier, and didn't want to comment until Dig had a chance to respond. Given Dig's recent comments, this request might be moot. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

removed L2 heading from subpage to prevent it messing up the page Mayalld (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the IPs and the user are clearly, and admitted to be the same, but many yards of prose have failed to demonstrate any malicious intent in editing as an IP. Mayalld (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets

 * - probably created for impersonation of Petri Krohn
 * Various IPs from the EEML mailing list not mentioned here.
 * - probably created for impersonation of Petri Krohn
 * Various IPs from the EEML mailing list not mentioned here.
 * Various IPs from the EEML mailing list not mentioned here.

Evidence forwarded to CheckUsers
The evidence contains plenty of personal and off-wiki information. The listed IPs were noticed to belong to Digwuren in IRC, mailing lists and other places. The evidence has been forwarded to the checkuser. The following are only the suspected IPs and ranges.

IP ranges:
 * 62.65.X.X
 * 82.131.X.X.

Known to belong to Digwuren from off-wiki activity:

IRC:

likely:

The following edits from the same range are not Digwuren, but User Kendall from the Estonian wikipedia. http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasutaja:Kendall



Evidence submitted by Dojarca
Digwuren already has been banned from Wikipedia for a year and there is ongoing arbcom case about Eastrn European Mailing List which was established by Digwuren with proposed remedies against him. He is also under restriction from previous case. Digwuren disappeared from Wikipedia in June, shortly after AmateurEditor joined. There is evidence from the discovered mailing list that Digwuren anticipated an ArbCom against him and planned to abandon his account and create a new one to avoid ArbCom's sanctions which tactic he said to be "effective". After a few edits on non-political topics, AmateurEditor's edits currently almost completely consist of edit-wars on Soviet history, an area of interest of Digwuren.

The first involvement of AmateurEditor in a political topic happened when a Eastern European Mailing List member Martintg added a section to Communist genocide, he has been reverted , then Termer (a user mentioned in the EEML as being their fellow) arrived and re-added the section , has been reverted , AmauterEditor arrived and reverted again. This was his first edit not only in this article but on Eastern European topic overall.

Former Digwuren's user page (before he asked to delete it) also inluded a list of favorite quotes just as AmateurEditor's userpage does.

About Dugwuren it is known that he is geographically based in Estonia.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Comment The user's deliberate use of the name "Amateur Editor" is not convincing.  Triplestop  x3  02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Põhja Konn is very likely to be Digwuren. Konn only edits in articles where Digwuren edits, and mostly only does reverts, helping Digwuren in edit wars. See the evidence I presented here. Offliner (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Two points:
 * 1) Digwuren isn't actually under sanction at the moment, the EEML case has not closed, nor had he been subject to any sanctions throughout 2009, apart from a five day block earlier this year. So I don't know if the code letter "A" is really applicable, since there wasn't any ban to evade.
 * 2) Tartu is a university town, so there are likely many foreign and domestic students that may edit Wikepedia.
 * --Martin (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seems, that Dojarca and Petri Krohn are simply listing all Starman IP's who have ever edited Wikipedia or which they have acquired by other means (and have never edited Wikipedia). I am curious what is the purpose of this fishing expedition, as the original claim (that Digwuren is AmateurEditor) has been proven false already. Given that Starman is the second largest ISP in Estonia (heck, even I have been their client for two years now) and uses dynamic IP's, I fail to see relevance in this query to Digwuren. Petri Krohn has attempted this witch-hunt before with a complete failure. Also, like Martin pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a reason for checkuser, as they have failed to show any policy violations. -- Sander Säde  16:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Põhja Konn has already responded elsewhere regarding the circumstances of their involvement. This is just dredging up another witch-hunt. At this rate Digwuren will eventually be a sockpuppet master of every Estonian IP address and I trust he will have the good sense to not even respond to this.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, It appears Dojarca has retracted one of his accusations here yet has not rescinded his evidence regarding same, nor has Triplestop rescinded their comment below regarding same.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Dojarca (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * . Unfortunately, any checkuser evidence would be . This case will have to be decided on behavioral evidence only. NW ( Talk ) 20:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * per discussion on my talk page. NW ( Talk ) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * and are ❌ with Digwuren. The IPs are . Other results forwarded to ArbCom. Brandon (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Remainder forwarded to arbcom; no further action needed on this page for now. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)