Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7/Archive

Report date May 28 2009, 09:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Karelin7 is a Single purpose account (who might also be employed by the subject of the article according to the article talk page) who only edits the David Copperfield (illusionist). When tackled about their COI, he/she stopped (yesterday) editing the page and another SPA Emely1219 popped up and started making similar edits with similar intent to the article. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Cameron Scott (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

It's Karelin7. The accusation is ill-conceived and baseless. After Cameron sent me a message yesterday, I think it was, about his decision to change the sequence and layout of Copperfield's page so that it no longer conformed to the generally accepted format for celebrity pages, in order to try to underscore negative allegations about Copperfield, I explained in detail on the talk page for Copperfield's page exactly what my position is--the page should adhere to the same format as that used for other celebrities, including those who have been accused of bad behavior, e.g., Kobe Bryant, James Brown, Rob Lowe, Bill Cosby, etc.. As of late last night I received no response. Rather than engage in edit wars, I asked whether there is a way to resolve the dispute within wiki guidelines. That's why I made no further edits. Anyway, I suggest that wiki do its investigation and publish the results. I do agree with Flowanda that there appears to be some basis for investigating a link between Ratel and Cameron, but I certainly want to avoid a "tit for tat" kind of thing. A wait and see attitude seems preferable. In any event, it would be interesting to see the history of conduct for Ratel and Cameron, the number of other accusations they have made against other editors, etc., and I think that would be a worthwhile question for whoever is investigating. Anyway, I welcome the investigation's results. Karelin7 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * It appears everyone except for two editors is a sock puppet, meat puppet, SPA, fanboy, COI, wikibureaucrat, gopher etc.   You likely should also see if those two editors are separate User:Cameron Scott and User:Ratel as they are the only two making repeated accusations against just about every other person there including User:Flowanda and User:Amicaveritas among others. Collect (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And CS used an interesting edit summary for David Copperfield (illusionist) "toot toot! All aboard the sockpuppet express, next stop sockville!"  so it is clear he well may not be whom he claims to be. Collect (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never made any accusations of sockpuppetary against either User:Flowanda (who I've never heard of) or User:Amicaveritas. As for me being Ratal, that's fairly unlikely As for my comment in edit summary - that was in regards to an edit by the sock I've reported here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true - CS has not made any such accusations against me; although I have objected to the tone and vernacular used on occasion by certain editors. The suggestion that Ratel might be CS is not just fairly unlikely - it is simply not credible.  Karelin7's COI is public and not itself an issue; I actually agree that the order should mirror other articles and I personally think that in general Karelin7 handles editing with a COI well.  That said - I think it's clear there are two opposing POV on this article - I believe the article would be best served if these were argued on the talk page to achieve consensus - prior to any further editing.  Both POV have valid points to make.  Perhaps both sides could relax a bit and refrain from direct edits and allow an NPV editor making agreed changes?  I not convinced this "sock it and see" approach is fruitful, although timingwise the appearance of a new single topic editor is probably a reasonable cause for at least questions being asked; but I don't see any conclusive proof of sock or meat puppetry. Amicaveritas (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was that absent any real evidence of Emely being a sock, any accusation is quite premature. Is that better? Collect (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Karelin7, I think you're referring to Collect's statement, but I think he was only making a point about the rationale of filing this complaint, not actually making a connection. While I agree that a checkuser would help remove this one tool from the toolbox, the introduction of the term meatpuppet at Talk: David Copperfield will just replace it. Flowanda | Talk 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * material moved from wrong section where it was a response to EdJohnston's remarks Mayalld (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point that both accounts are SPAs and at least one of them, Karelin7, is clearly far more than just a fan, since he has detailed knowledge of unpublished lawsuits involving Copperfield, has claimed to know Copperfield, and also knows about the minutiae of apologies issued privately to Copperfield by journalists who published details of his childrens' whereabouts. If Emely1219 can likewise be found to have any unusual knowledge of the subject, an IP check should proceed. I have not looked at Emely1219's history. ► RATEL ◄ 03:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although this is probably not the right place to post this, but because this another example of the relentless baseless accusations made by Ratel, I request that Ratel provide the diffs to prove each of the above accusations from the 120ish edits from Karelin7 and the 10ish from Emely1219, along with how that knowledge has impacted the article -- please provide specif edits, not just commentary. I see no indication of "detailed knowledge of unpublished lawsuits", claims of knowing Copperfield and "minutiae of apologies" that these editors have tried to use (much less expressed or been proven to possess) to manipulate or skew edits on the main article or even try to influence or dominate talk page discussion. Editors can say and claim anything they want, and you can claim anything you want, but in this case, you need to prove it. Flowanda | Talk 05:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently Flawanda is not prepared to find these items out for himself, but prefers to attack me with the phrase "baseless accusations". I expect him to apologise for that attack as I provide the proof below:


 * Karelin7 directly quotes from unpublished court papers concerning Copperfield
 * Karelin7, when directly asked if he has a COI, declares that he does: "In fact, I am an interested party...." and then reveals that he has privileged information: "Even where I have information that plainly disproves some of the stories--the story about Michael Jackson and David having a "row" over money being a prime example--I am waiting until the information finds it way to publication.".
 * Karelin7 reveals information only Copperfield or his lawyers would know (underlined): "People can trace the location [of Copperfield's female companion and his children by her] by searching public records for the [Copperfield] corporation and its holdings; people familiar with Las Vegas, as Ratel well knows as a Las Vegas resident, can readily infer the home's location. The proof of the pudding is the spate of intrusions that occurred after the National Enquirer piece came out, which led the author of the piece to apologize to Copperfield, and led to legitimate papers declining to reprint the article -- a chief reason it has not been republished ." ► RATEL ◄ 07:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no business with anyone here, I don't even like Copperfield as illusionist, but claiming that she "directly quotes from unpublished court papers concerning Copperfield" may not be true. The quote's publishing date is Nov 8th 2007 http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/08/copperfield-to-promoters-this-was-your-fault-not-mine/ That quote is not unpublished or hidden I assume. Kasaalan (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am satisfied that your accusations are based only on your conclusions, not by any real facts. However, any further comments or discussion I have on this subject will be made at the article's talk page per the clerk's comments. Flowanda | Talk 16:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the logic of this complaint. Both Karelin7 and Emely1219 seem to focus entirely on topics related to David Copperfield (illusionist). Both of them occasionally make 'insiderish' edits suggesting that they might have some connection to the topic, for example this edit by Emely1219, with the edit summary The patent owned by John Gaughan was justifiably removed and there is no longer any link between John Gaughan and this illusion. There is a possibility that Karelin7 and Emely1219 are both fans of Copperfield, but it's hard to go beyond that. It is fair to remind both editors of our WP:Conflict of interest rules, but I don't see a valid sockpuppet case here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Neither the reporter, nor Ratel, present any compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. Rather we have compelling evidence of two editors who are broadly pro-Copperfield, one of whom may have a COI, both opposing moves to give WP:UNDUE weight to certain negative, poorly sourced information. It is clear that they have become embroiled in an edit war with Ratel, over his excessively robust attitude to WP:BLP, which has recently resulted in a block. Without any real evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, this case must as a matter of assuming good faith be closed. Whilst I am sure that the reporter filed it in good faith, it seems to me highly likely that Copperfield has at least two fans who would be prepared to defend his bio against undue weight. Further, it seems to me that we would do well to remember that WP:BLP is a policy that tells us to err on the side of being nice to living people. If we have something negative to say about a living person, it needs to be well sourced, and that means a clear consensus. If opinion is divided as to whether a source of a negative BLP fact is reliable, we should assume that it is not reliable. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a news site, and we don't give prominence to the juciest bits! I would urge both Ratel and the reporter to accept that where an editor is attempting to add negative biographical material, the article will often attract the attention of new editors to remove the negative material, and ask that they seriously consider whether an assumption of sockpuppetry is compatible with WP:AGF. Mayalld (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I've removed some comments that aren't from patrolling admins or clerks to the "other users" section. Some of those comments have started to stray from evidence about the case towards a bit of general name calling. That must cease, or the offenders will be asked to cease posting to the case. Mayalld (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions