Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festermunk/Archive

14 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Behavioral evidence - e.g. remaking same edit to CREW as Festermunk, who was previously blocked for editwarring/IDHT. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


-- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All blocked so closing. Rschen7754 06:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

10 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Behavioural evidence is strong for a match based on similar patterns of past accounts. Both users have the same interest in military history, media outlets and journalists, and the same obsession with left-wingers/Democrats/liberals/progressives.

Festermunk requested an unblock on April 10, 2013, admitting to the reviewing admin, "I have issues with sock-puppetry". The unblock was denied and discussion ceased on April 11.

Gobbleygook was created on April 28, 2013. It seems probable that in this short time period that a checkuser would identify a match between the last edits on April 11 and the newest edits on April 28, possibly based on IP, location, browser headers, and/or other identifying information.

Checkuser requested due to possible block evasion, edit warring, and possible undetected sockpuppets. I'm hoping the CU can determine if there is any connection beyond behavioural evidence listed on this page.

User compare shows one match on New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct with Festermunk calling Counterpunch a "left-wing" newsletter. On the same article, Gobbleygook called Democracy Now! "progressive".

One additional article match exists on the subject of NATO bombing of civilians spread out across two different articles with the same topic that user compare would not catch.

I maintain that it would strain credulity to believe these patterns are all coincidences. See below for selected diffs. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As User:Festermunk (primary sock master)
 * Festermunk is repeatedly told to stop adding "left-wing" and "progressive" to lead sections by multiple users. He refuses to recognize any of the criticism or any of the points made in the discussion. See this discussion as only one example.  He is told by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff: "the descriptions like progressive and left-wing are too much politically engaged to be thought of as the real descriptions...they should be considered too weasel for the lead."


 * As User:Gobbleygook (suspected sockpuppet)
 * Gobbleygook is repeatedly told to stop adding "left-wing" and "progressive" to lead sections by multiple users. He refuses to recognize any of the criticism or any of the points made in the discussion. See this, this, and and this discussion.  Gobbleygook is told by AzureCitizen: "Adding "politically leftist" or "politically right-wing" or similar partisan descriptors before an organization in this fashion inappropriately introduces political POV labels. We should instead strive to be neutral in this regard...It's a form of editor POV introduced labeling and should probably be avoided under the general auspices of WP:NPOV".


 * As User:Festermunk (primary sock master)
 * Lists two disputes at Third opinion for comment. One of the two disputes involves "Asking for a third opinion regarding the lead section of the article".  The dispute specifically involves Festermunk adding "left-wing" to the lead section of Institute for Policy Studies against consensus.


 * As User:Gobbleygook (suspected sockpuppet)
 * Lists five disputes at Third opinion for comment. Four of the five disputes involve disputes over Gobbleygook adding material to the lead section against consensus. Three of these disputes involve  Gobbleygook's desire to add "left-wing" to the lead section of Peace and Freedom Party; and his desire to call Jeremy Scahill "progressive" against consensus.


 * As User:Festermunk (primary sock master)
 * Makes nine edits to the "NATO bombing timeline" section of the Kosovo War article.
 * Requests a source for criticism of civilian casualties from bombing
 * Creates "Criticism of the case for war" section to remove and isolate criticism from relevant sections against WP:NPOV
 * Writes, "NATO admitted its mistake five days later, but the Serbs accused NATO of deliberately attacking the refugees; however, a later report conducted by the ICTY entitled Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia opined that, "civilians were not deliberately attacked in this incident" and that "neither the aircrew nor their commanders displayed the degree of recklessness in failing to take precautionary measures which would sustain criminal charges."


 * As User:Gobbleygook (suspected sockpuppet)
 * Removes criticism from the lead section of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
 * Removes criticism of civilian casualties from bombing in the lead against WP:NPOV
 * Writes "Reports by some alleged that NATO forces deliberately targeted civilians, but these allegations contravened the findings of Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, who told the UN Security Council that her investigation found no basis for charging NATO or its leaders with war crimes."


 * As User:M1921 (proven sockpuppet of Festermunk)
 * Adds "progressive" to the political parameter of an infobox on the news website Mondoweiss
 * Cites "about" page as a source and chooses ref name "about" parameter


 * As User:Gobbleygook (suspected sockpuppet)
 * Adds "progressive" to the political parameter of an infobox for the news program The Young Turks
 * Adds "left-wing" to Peace and Freedom Party and cites Fox News
 * Cites "about" page as a source and chooses ref name "About" parameter

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' You are kidding right? Literally every political entity mentioned in a politically-related article has this a political tag attached to it, so by your logic, I must be responsible for all of that too. But of course there's no way I could be...at least not in Festermunk's case; if you look at that user's history, that user kept reverting (and in a rude manner) material that was disputed which is fortunately an approach that I haven't taken. I can't see how using words like "proper" and "put" in edit summaries are "unusual" or "unique" but maybe your 8 years on Wikipedia will tell you something you know about this that I don't. All in all, there's no case for sockpuppetry and I'm confident this silly and politically-motivated charge will be dismissed. Gobbleygook (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * while Gobbleygook added virtually identical content to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.[7] I maintain that it would strain credulity to believe that this is a coincidence But it's not the same content. In fact, it's not even talking about the same thing!Gobbleygook (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * " He refuses to recognize any of the criticism or any of the points made in the discussion." The point about this: "if you look at that user's history, that user kept reverting (and in a rude manner) material that was disputed which is fortunately an approach that I haven't taken." You missed it.Gobbleygook (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Festermunk and I have tried to work with Gobbleygook on the presumption that he is acting in good faith and trying to improve The Young Turks article. Gobbleygook does seem to have tunnel vision on the "progressive" issue, is to quick to re-add content that has been previously removed, and I have found myself repeating my points multiple times - however none of that is anything I haven't seen in new(ish) legitimate editors in the past. I agree with that nothing screams WP:DUCK but there is enough to justify a checkuser. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There are significant similarities in editing but nothing that screams "guilty", so CU would be good here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌, entirely different continent. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Behavioral evidence alone is insufficient, so closing with no action. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)