Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drolz09/Archive

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
Please note the similarity, in both colors, and basic style. Both are bold, italic, and have a combination of the colors Black and Red, in that order.
 * Signature


 * -- The Pimp Hand  ''   
 *  Drolz 09 


 * Edited pages

Excluding their own user talk pages, they both found their way to List of cabals, User talk:A Quest For Knowledge, and Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident.


 * Editing similarities


 * This edit by Drolz @User talk:A Quest For Knowledge. Note that this is Drolz' first edit to this user talk page.
 * and this edit by Pimp, again at the above talk page. Note the assertion of the existence of a cabal.  Also note that this is also the user's first contribution to this talk page.


 * This edit by Pimp, note that this is the user's third contribution.
 * and this edit by Drolz, note that this is this user's 324th contribution. Note that this occurs on December 12th, UTC.
 * What is wrong with these two edits is that Pimp never told anyone about his edits to the 'list of cabals', and yet, Drolz, a seemingly new user, found it, in about 4 days since becoming active.

Further, in regards to the 2 above this post, please see:
 * This edit by Pimp. Note that it takes place on December 15th.  Per Pimp's edit warring on WP:LOC, I find it hard to believe that he didn't have the page watched, and therefore, I find it hard to believe he left that message on Drolz' talk in order to alert him to said edit, when he quite obviously(somehow) already knew about it.  It almost seems as if the edit above, made by Pimp, is trying to discredit any linking that might occur in regards to the LOC edit, however, this fails with regards to the timestamp.


 * Suspicious edits


 * This edit by Drolz, note that this is the user's 12th edit. All previous edits were minor things, such as deleting unreferenced information, or spelling and grammar fixes.  Also note that the user's previous 11 contributions are seemingly unrelated, so how he found the article to begin with comes into question, especially given that not a single of the previous 11 edits had any links to this exact page.

This is all for now, there may be more later.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 09:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I do believe I've seen other signatures of the same nature in some discussion areas... I'll look through my contributions in the past week and see if anything stands out. At least it's easy to see on a quick page browse. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This concerns me, given my defense of Drolz09 following his recent block. As far as finding the pages (in particular List of cabals), I was going to say Drolz may have looked at TPH's contributions after the latter commented on Drolz' user talk page on December 15.  But the edit to WP:LOC by Drolz was on December 12, by which time TPH had not edited any page also edited by Drolz.  This justifies CU, in my view.  I do see |The%20Pimp%20Hand&lang=en&family=wikipedia&limit=1000 here that a couple of their edits come at nearly the same moment (red and yellow).  If CU is inconclusive, it is possible this has to do with off-wiki communication.  Actually I see now that Drolz was importing a monoscript on his second day back to editing (December 9), which he took from another blocked account, User:Supadawg.  That's certainly strange, and makes me wonder what CU may turn up.  Mackan79 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:The Pimp Hand is a dead giveaway on their 3rd edit being a new cabal section. Would probably suit meatpuppet per WP:DUCK if a CU doesn't hit. IMO it might hit 1 static and 1 dynamic of a standard connection and a 2nd PC on a dynamic wi-fi... might have been sneaky enough to use a 3G wi-fi but could still get same city. I saw TPH's edits to Drolz09's talk page with such fanboy statements like Maybe someone as skilled as yourself and find a NPOV on this section and it got a laugh out of me. This is a theory I like to call (an essay I should get to writing) WP:DORM where any roomates or persons on the same floor or same building on a shared wi-fi, same res hall on IM, etc., can very easily detail every edit word-for-word to the second they want it posted, or the master can sit around giggling about how they can paste in exact text for their friend slave. Like most other decisions made in dorms, they're done in haste without consideration of future consequences... in this case not gapping edits or even pretending like the puppet was doing any constructive editing past some additions to Talk:Pimp. ...Ha?
 * Wasn't specifically able to find any other users with a similar pattern after a lot of Wikistalk searching. WP:GHBH I think would be glorifying its purpose a bit much. This make me realize how much simpler SPI research is with even 1 IP to geolocate as help. Last comment-- I remember Drolz09 at ANI basically begging for a CU, which made me theorize a separate service (like the 3G wi-fi) and might even have been editing from the same place on 2 PCs separated like that.  ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, could someone briefly state what deception or disruption is supposed to have occurred, assuming these are the same user? Secondly, "wonder what CU may turn up" sounds like fishing to me.  Thirdly, I'm disturbed by attempts to explain away in advance the possibility that the evidence might not support the allegations.  I think this user deserves as fair a consideration as anyone else.  Rhomb (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Use of good-hand/bad-hand accounts are not allowed, per our policy on alternate accounts, thanks.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. Rhomb (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Given Gordon's newest comment, I would say that this case is no longer stale then, given that he hasn't checked for any relations between Pimp and Drolz.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that should be noted is that Pimp's first edits were to his user space (I suspect there were more but his user page was deleted), but his third edit was to project space, and it consists of an attack on User:William_M._Connolley New users don't go straight to project space and attack long-term editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To Jpgordon, I think what some of us would like to know is if any of this comes back to Drolz09. The Pimp Hand wasn't involved in much, but the majority of his edits were to WP:List of cabals, where along with Drolz he was trying to add a section on a "Climate Cabal."  I believe the point raised above is this: certainly it could be that Pimp saw Drolz at WP:LOC, was impressed, but then forgot that that was where their interaction had been, and so invited Drolz to look at the page even though Drolz had somehow already found it.  From Drolz's perspective, it could be that he coincidentally found the same paragraph as someone who looks a bit like Drolz, takes an interest in Drolz, and has now been blocked for disruptive evasion of scrutiny.  It isn't beyond comprehension, but it seems coincidental.   Considering that one has been indefblocked, and the other has been engaged in a heated dispute, it seems fair to ask for CU and to know whether or not it's conclusive. Mackan79 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say this one is somewhat the equivalent of "stale"; not enough usable data to say anything one way or another regarding any relationship between Drolz and The Pimp Hand. Technical evidence will not be helpful in this analysis; behavioral evidence will have to suffice, and I've no opinion on that at all. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think then my view is to let it go, at least for the time being.  I don't think the behavioral things are conclusive.  If he follows the rules, then presumably we assume good faith.  Mackan79 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it is possible for a "conclusive" behavioral comparison. Even checkuser isn't conclusive.  In addition to the material provided by Dædαlus, I believe there is more evidence at our disposal.  For example, both Drolz and Pimp have some kind of interest in the southeastern region of the United States.  Is this another coincidence?  And look who just showed up on the CRU talk page, arguing that we should change the name to "Climategate":, another editor interested in issues related to the southeastern region of the U.S.  And guess which editor they attacked on their seventh edit? Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are more IPs like this, I suggest emailing them to Jpgordon who may be willing to keep looking into it. Otherwise, I'm just trying to look at it from a practical perspective.  I'm not sure if you're suggesting a community ban on Drolz, but even with such a ban it may not accomplish anything (and there's always that possibility we've misread things).  If Drolz continues editing, I think he should probably need to have some satisfactory explanation for the above coincidences. Mackan79 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I'm wondering if anyone else sees any similarity between 71.125.130.14 and The Pimp, and possibly Drolz09? If not, then we should probably move to close this. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (I do. Others?) Mackan79 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at this: The following IP's all seem to be the same editor:
 * What do you make of this? Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It might help Jpgordon if you explained why you think these are the same. The first and third look similar, based on the CRU email issue and the hockeystick graph issue.  The middle one matches the interest in Thesis statement, but then so does anyone else who has edited that article. Mackan79 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 71.125.130.14 and 98.216.84.34 both edited Thesis statement.  98.232.27.135 edited CRU along with 71.125.130.14, but 98.216.84.34 did not.  Now, 98.216.84.34 and 98.232.27.135 both resolve to Comcast (98.192.0.0 - 98.255.255.255).  Now guess what article 98.216.84.34 edited in addition to Thesis statement?  American horror and gothic writer, Shirley Jackson, known for her supernatural themes. Guess who else likes that genre?  Note, both edits by The Pimp were related to author Charlaine Harris.  It gets better.  In multiple interviews, Charlaine Harris is on record calling Shirley Jackson one of her primary influences.  In an interview, Harris says: "I think Shirley Jackson's technique was the finest of all, and I can never hope to emulate her wonderful ability to invoke creeping fear." If that's a coincidence, then I need a vacation. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny. I saw Shirley Jackson, thought of someone else, and didn't look at the page.  I'm still not sure how you found these though, which may be part of my confusion.  They seem to geolocate all over the place.  Just some feedback, till someone else comes along. Mackan79 (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell for certain, and I'm sure someone will chime in with a more expert opinion, but 71.125.130.14 appears to be posting from some kind of wireless connection (cell phone?), 98.232.27.135 from a cable modem in Washington, and 98.216.84.34 from a cable modem in Massachusetts. One could argue that 71.125.130.14 is mobile, while looking at the dates alone, the editor using 98.232.27.135 in Washington traveled home for the holidays to Massachusetts.  That's pure speculation, however, and there could be another, simpler explanation.  Now, I could be reading this wrong, but it looks like the 71.125.130.14 cell phone/wireless connection originates back east, which could lend weight to my theory.  And, before anyone dismisses this as too complex or unlikely, consider how many IP's the average Wikipedian might use in the course of a day. I don't want to delve into WP:BEANS territory, but suffice it to say, that on an average day, I myself use, at the very least, four unique IP's, three of which are dynamic.  As far as I know, three of these IP's originate in my general vicinity (give or take a couple hundred miles), but one of them does not. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough Drolz09 vanished into thin air on December 18, having disrupted wikipedia for a week, even involving himself in Mackan79's short-lived RfAr. Extraordinary behaviour for a new user. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidence or not, another Massachusetts IP has taken center stage, namely 216.153.214.89. This account has twice been linked with User:Rex071404. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell for certain, and I'm sure someone will chime in with a more expert opinion, but 71.125.130.14 appears to be posting from some kind of wireless connection (cell phone?), 98.232.27.135 from a cable modem in Washington, and 98.216.84.34 from a cable modem in Massachusetts. One could argue that 71.125.130.14 is mobile, while looking at the dates alone, the editor using 98.232.27.135 in Washington traveled home for the holidays to Massachusetts.  That's pure speculation, however, and there could be another, simpler explanation.  Now, I could be reading this wrong, but it looks like the 71.125.130.14 cell phone/wireless connection originates back east, which could lend weight to my theory.  And, before anyone dismisses this as too complex or unlikely, consider how many IP's the average Wikipedian might use in the course of a day. I don't want to delve into WP:BEANS territory, but suffice it to say, that on an average day, I myself use, at the very least, four unique IP's, three of which are dynamic.  As far as I know, three of these IP's originate in my general vicinity (give or take a couple hundred miles), but one of them does not. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Curiously enough Drolz09 vanished into thin air on December 18, having disrupted wikipedia for a week, even involving himself in Mackan79's short-lived RfAr. Extraordinary behaviour for a new user. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidence or not, another Massachusetts IP has taken center stage, namely 216.153.214.89. This account has twice been linked with User:Rex071404. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Hey, hang on. I never declared that sockpuppetry was going on here. What I stated was that "Checkuser evidence shows you are employing methods to evade scrutiny; this in itself is sufficient to sustain the block, as there are no reasons to use such methods that are to the benefit of Wikipedia." I have no idea if there's any relationship between Drolz09 and The Pimp Hand; I stopped looking as soon as I found what Pimp Hand was doing. (I'm not going to discuss the details openly.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Change of plan. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Marking as closed. I don't think anything else is going to happen here, as it's now been about a week without any developments. –MuZemike 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)