Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erikeltic/Archive

Report date March 12 2009, 23:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Jayron32. talk . contribs


 * See WP:ANI for most of the evidence and discussion. To sum up: 24.115.228.121 showed up to complain about EEMIV's incivility towards himself, however EEMIV's incivility was left at 66.152.150.16.  Evidence seems clear that 66.152.150.16 is Erikeltic, from other behavior.  Pa17927 showed up to continue the debate, and his first and only edits were to the ANI thread.  Starting a SPI to ask for a checkuser to confim PA17927 and IPs as socks of Erikeltic, and given that he has made 3 attempts so far to dodge his block, to check for further such socks and IPs to possibly block and stop this.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Jayron32. talk . contribs 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

not necessary. Mayalld (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

all blocked appropriately. Mayalld (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date March 17 2009, 19:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by TheRealFennShysa (talk)

User account Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account after a long absence, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about issues related to Erikeltic's content dispute with another editor. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages.

Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA.

In this edit, Erikeltic admits to recruiting Marfoir to bolster his arguments in the AfD discussion - clear meatpuppetering. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "recruit" him. I mentioned it in passing. My exact words were, "((personal attack removed))" The next question was, "Which article?" That was it. Period. I never sent him or anyone else on any missions and I certainly don't control what he has to say. This investigation is nothing more than a means to an end for Arcayne and the goal is to silence his most vocal opposition over one issue. I would also like to point out that regarding that issue, both WP:Project Film and WP:Project Television have agreed with my position, as have many other people in the debate. Even an editor who started out agreeing with Arcayne now sees the flaws in his logic, but Arcayne refuses to give it up. Look at the history in the Kirk page and you will see months & months worth of him defending James Cawley & company. His passion is so intense that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was some how associated with them. So rather than attack the contribution they are attacking the contributor. Regardless of what you determine about me, Arcayne is a bully who thrives on divisiveness. That doesn't inspire people to contribute here and I wish somebody would tell him that. Erikeltic (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * We have no substantive evidence that your story of how you recruited Marfoir is accurate. What we do have, however is your direct quote about how you enlisted him. You do not get to reframe the question, as you have attempted time and again. Were this the first time you had puppeted, we could possibly overlook this. However, it is not. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To the clerk investigating this:

If I am going to be censured for anything, it should be for mentioning the Kirk debate in passing to somebody I know personally. I didn't ask him to get involved. I didn't tell him what to say. No matter how dire a picture that is painted of me, I had the best of motives throughout the Kirk debate. When this investigation opened I recused myself from voting in either question on the issue that sparked this investigation. I didn't want this investigation to stop the progress that was being made there. A lot of other editors (whom I don't have any contact with at all) came forward and consensus was established without me making one vote.

Based on what I read, the goal of a puppeting is to influence the outcome of consensus. If I was actually using meat puppets with the intention of being dishonest I would not have so freely stated that I knew Marfoir. Saying "I involved him in this debate" demonstrates my frustration over an editor claiming we are the same person. I should not have written that, but I would have hated to see him get punished over anything I did; which was just mentioning the debate to him because the guy is a fellow Trekkie. If I was using him to influence the vote or the discussion on Kirk, I would not have removed myself from the mediation and voting processes. All I did was mention an on-going debate to somebody, but I never conspired to be deceitful. For the former, I am sorry. Erikeltic (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the above comments above in regards to this not being your first attempt at puppetry. When you realized you could not sock yourself, you enlisted an other to act in concert with you. As they are your friend, it is unreasonable to assume that they would act in a way that did not support your view. As well, your claim about not participating in the ensuing discussion and voting is completely false. Your personal attacks and constant discussion litter the discussion, both there, in the James Cawley AfD and in the Spock article. You have attempted to game the system, were caught red-handed, and your contrition rings rather hollow. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy regarding meatpuppeting reads: ''Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets.'' ''Advertising Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate and give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. Discussions in which violations of this nature are found will have the violations stricken from the discussions and sanctions may be applied to protect the project's integrity.''

My only two mistakes were casually mentioning an online Star Trek discussion to someone else and being ignorant of the rules if he wrote anything in the talk page. My account was not setup with the sole purpose of agreeing with Marfoir. I have no control over whether or not another person creates an account and jumps into the discussion after a five minute (or less) exchange that started off discussing the new Star Trek movie. I did not ask him to do that and as soon as I was informed that even knowing him could be miscontrued as meat puppeting, I removed myself from the mediation process and I didn't vote on anything. I did not advertise Wikipedia articles to [my] friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with [me], so that they come to Wikipedia and support [my] side of a debate and give the appearance of consensus. This was not what happened in the slightest. The fact that I was so completely honest about knowing him in the first place should demonstrate my cluelessness of the rules that forbid an editor from even discussing a debate outside of Wikipedia. I was up front about my mistake after it was pointed out, and to be certain that my mistake wouldn't harm the consensus or anyone else, I recused myself from the debate to demonstrate that I was not trying to illegitmately change consensus. If it's just an unadulturated call for vengence that has to be answered and you admins must give Arcayne what he wants, then please let me fall on my sword and do not punish Marfoir for my mistake. Erikeltic (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about what "I" want; again, you treat Wikipedia like a battlefield, treating discussions as something that need to be won, and that complaints are those things that people file to attack one another. They are not. Until you grasp that very basic concept, you do not - and never will - understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Continually treating editors who disagree with you as the enemy is an effort that is going to continually cost you more than it will ever gain. The person you disagree with now is not going to be one you disagree with every single time in the millions of articles out there. You are going to find agreement; you need to make an effort to foster it, because the wiki doesn't work any other way.
 * My advice to you - if you aren't blocked indefinitely - is to take the time to learn the polices before you throw them around as shields for your bad behavior. When one fucks up, the job is to cowboy up, offer your apology and (if necessary) reasons, and then shut up and accept the consequences; your attempts to reframe your puppeteering into something innocent - when you have already been the subject of a prior puppet investigation - and subsequent lobbying for leniency doesn't demonstrate the ethical honesty required here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it clearly is. I would invite anyone seriously listening to anything you have to say to look at your history.  Just a quick gander at your talk page from the moment you got here to now demonstrates that you have a very long history of picking fights with people and then crying foul after the fact.  You keep talking about your 20,000 edits?  After looking at your contribs and your history, I can see why you have so many edits: most of them are your contributions to the flame wars you've started or just fanned for [insert reason here].  So you don't need to point out any more WP articles to me.  Doing that just shows me you know the rules.  Everything else you've done shows me you can't follow them and that you don't know how to treat others with any decency whatsoever.  Your words are hollow to me because you don't even follow the rules you espouse. I have read battlefield and like many other editors have suggested to you, you should reread it.  I also suggest you expect no more from others than you're willing to give yourself, as this seems to be one of your biggest problems.  Finally, your continued vulgarity is unnecessary.  Erikeltic (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Again, you logic is flawed. To begin with, you have openly admitted in ANI that you two know each other. Secondly, think about what you said about me seeking to silence you as "opposition". In the very next sentence, you point out how others disagree with my position. Now, are you equating dealing with a meat/sock puppeteer with going after everyone who has a different opinion than me? Please. Lastly, this isn't a content issue here. You recruited another user who ha no edits before this week to assist you in pushing an agenda. Read the definition, E. Tapdance all you want, but you are kinda busted. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is the second such SPI filed within a week regarding this user; the first one can be found here. Due to the methods by which they post, I am not convinced that they are different users; either way, Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry". As "both" users have acted in tandem to influence consensus in articles (thus violating 3RR), article discussions (good had/bad hand, and influencing consensus) and collusion in voting in at least one AfD (by Marfoir,by Erikeltic). This is expressly forbidden. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Erik mentioned the edit war in passing, but nobody, repeat nobody recruited me and I speak for myself. I've been an anonymous contributor and avid reader at Wikipedia for years.  I only got involved in this debate after watching you continue to dismiss reasonable agruments from various people, Erik included.  Marfoir (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is not what he has said in ANI - he said he knew you, and brought you into the discussion. That's called canvassing and meat-puppetry, my friend. Wikipedia treats meat puppets and sock puppets exactly the same. I am sorry you do not agree with my arguments. Life goes on. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, half of Pennsylvania is serviced by PenTeleData. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, ISPs in the state.  Please keep that in mind.  Marfoir (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure the clerk knows that. They have doubleplusgood mojo to suss out the truth. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I have to tell you though, I really resent being called Erik's "meatsock".  Marfoir (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does that mean they are from the same ISP, and are likely the same person? I aqsk because I am unfamilair with this tyoe of research, and I found the following just by using WhoIs tools.
 * Basic WhoIs IP identification designates IP:24.115.224.131 and IP:24.229.98.148 as both (from 1, 2) being part of the same cable company. That plus geolocation strongly suggests they are related.
 * Add to that the above statement by the suspect Erikeltic - Marfoir has since 'gone silent' - acknowledging that they do know each other and that the suspect personally "involved him in this debate". By definition, that is an indef blockable offense for both. Wikipedia treats meat-puppetry the same as they do sock-puppetry; it violates the idea that the wiki is created through community consensus, that a better article is created because of the debate from different corners that creates a neutral article set (usually) in the propoer place: the middle ground. Meating and socking seek to sidestep that process by unduly weighting one person's (the socking account) opinion and creating a false sentiment for it.
 * The user socked before, and was blocked for it. They then went and (at best) meatpuppeted someone else to participate on their behalf or (at worst) created a throwaway account to sock from. Either way, that behavior is unforgivable. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed myself from the mediation process and I did not vote on anything because of these allegations against me and I've already made my statements regarding these issues. Your feelings are all too clear on the subject, Arcayne.


 * Foxy, I have admitted to knowing Marfoir, but I never meant to bring him into anything that would get him (or me) into trouble. If anyone is going to be punished then it should be me.  Arcayne keeps saying I'm guilty of meat puppeting or sock puppeting, but I am not guilty of sock puppting and I certainly never intended to meat puppet.  Again, I only made an offhand comment about the Captain Kirk discussion to Marfoir and I removed myself from the mediation and voting process as soon as it was pointed out to me that even knowing another person here could be misconstrued as meat puppeting.  As far as our IPs being similar, we live 15-20 miles away from one another.  Finally, I would ask you for some patience regarding Marfoir's silence (as Arcayne put it).  He's out of town right now and I'm sure he'll reply to any questions you have when he gets back.  Erikeltic (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Both IP addresses geolocate to places that are quite geographically close to each other; Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Extending my previous statement, I would think that the two IPs are being assigned to the same home or business and the geolocation info is slightly outdated or inaccurate. I think this because both IPs are on the same range, owned by the same company and for it to be two seperate locations, so geoclose to each other, with the same user AND the same provider AND range (I would think business and residential would be on different ranges) is unlikely to be coincidence. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much else to be seen here, the checkuser tools aren't particularly good at revealing meat puppets.. Apart from confirming that the IPs identified are the ones used by the two userIDs (one per ID, no overlap), a quick look really isn't showing anymore than what has already been admitted to by User:Erikeltic. -- Versa geek  01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * another clerk to review. I am not satisfied that what has been said amounts to an admission of meatpuppetry, and would like a second opinion here. Mayalld (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Right. So, since we do not distinguish between meat- and sock-puppets, and he's clearly admitted to such here and elsewhere, what is next? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We do, however, distinguish between meatpuppets who edit to the order of the master, and editors who were encouraged to become editors by people they share an interest with. I see no admission of meatpuppetry. Mayalld (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Avruch  T 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)