Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129/Archive

Evidence submitted by Deskford
Each of these users has been involved mainly or exclusively in editing the article Kobi Arad or in adding inappropriate links to this article from other pages. Only one of the above accounts seems to be active at any one time.

See for example:


 * Revision history of 21st-century classical music
 * Revision history of Polystylism
 * Revision history of Electronic music

--Deskford (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kobi Arad's ID on Twitter is kobiarad129 &mdash; that number 129 again. Is this significant? --Deskford (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and on YouTube he appears to be greenpath129. --Deskford (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that User:Greenpath129 got blocked and Kobi arad got speedily deleted on 10 August 2009, then User:Knoblauch129 came into existence on the following day, re-creating the current Kobi arad article (which someone later renamed Kobi Arad). The promotional editing continued under various anonymous IP addresses before continuing as User:Schoenberg129 from 12 November 2009. --Deskford (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Jubileeclipman
Please look at the edit window of this revision and notice the weird line breaks. Possible evidence of Copyvio lifting from other websites. Also click on the links: few of them lead to any English website. Also notice the vain attempt to make this an FA-class article.
 * Kobi Arad Revision as of 00:18, 31 December 2009

Also notice the edit/revert cycles in the history. Well-respected editors are already tiring of the process:


 * Revision history of "Kobi Arad"

--Jubilee♫ clipman 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also notice that many of these have been involved (exclusively in most cases) in adding links from other articles to Kobi Arad. --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I already said I used a previous username Knoblauch - the other above usernames I'm not familiar with - I personally stayed away from editting for a week (pl see you logs),

similar grammatical mistakes, language - as u claim, is not conclusive evidence, overlaps in IP #s are conclusive - have there been overlaps?!

I would ask to keep the page, and help improve it, since I feel Kobi Arad is a notable musician although I may have done a lousy work as an editor,

Pl. take this into consideration,

J.--Schoenberg129 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition - in case the sock - puppetry is proven - this does not detract / affect the article's standing. I suggest you block users - and relate towards article in and of itself.--Schoenberg129 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the accusation of several accounts. I openned Shlomo99 and 909 - and dont know about the other editors, and never made any edit in Kobi Arad article. apologize for harm done by wanting to push Arad's name into other articles,

Shlomo--Shlomo909 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

one of the editors mentioned all acused parties are in new york - that's where Arad is active, they may have gone to the same shows I went Shlomo--Shlomo909 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Appears to be an attempt at self-promotion, or at best WP:COI, pretending to be lots of people, but it's obviously one (note, for example, the characteristic and identical misspellings and ungrammatical formations used by all accounts, and the habitual use of "edit" or "editing" as an edit summary.) Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Call me a dupe, but I'm inclined to trust Schoenberg129's statement that he's only been one other editor. It's possible more than one person is involved, here. Sockpuppet accounts? Hmm. Perhaps meatpuppets. A group of associates playing fast-and-loose with the Wikipedia rules? One person giving up, and their good friend taking up the crusade? Unusual, but not quite implausible. However, whether we're catching the lizard, or the tail of the lizard, this abusive editing needs to stop. Deskford has listed accounts working toward the same end, but I'd add other editors on Kobi Arad... 67.243.147.245, 68.161.94.64, 74.72.122.244, 24.39.156.23, and 208.125.2.58. Where are they? All in New York. A coincidence? In my experience with thousands of vandals? Never happens. This is a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Deleted contributions of Greenpath129 are extremely interesting indeed. They are all massive promotion of Kobi arad (lower case), with all of the creations speedy deleted.  Non-admins can see the links on his talk page -- and he got blocked for persistent inappropriate page creation.  Folks, don't kid yourselves, this is one extremely persistent self-promoter on an astroturfing campaign, and there's no way it's more than one person.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be an admin: I cannot access deleted edits. However, User talk:Greenpath129 tells you everything you might need to know...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My vision may have been clouded by the realization that an (unrelated) editor I struggled with for ages changed over the last months and has become an exceptional, model editor. The editing on Kobi Arad *has* changed in quality, but again, whether it's one or two people acting in consort (on alternate days, whatever), the nub is the same. Not only does the activity on Kobi Arad need to stop, but Wikipedia needs to find a reasonable way to identify and stop other editors using this same technique. I read somewhere that 1-in-10 people in jail is actually innocent of the crime for which they are accused. In the same light, we don't need to absolutely prove that an editor is guilty of all perceived misdeeds. There comes a time when "society" just "needs them off the streets". If a few rough diamonds get lost in the process, well, Wikipedia isn't (solely) a gentle and kind mechanism for socialization. We are trying to create a usable, reputable encyclopedia; that is the stated goal. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woah! Any criminal court in any of the liberal democracies will always seek to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of each crime before sentencing for each.  In that same light, we need to give all these people a fair trial rather than just drag them off the streets because they might be bad apples...  I hope I misunderstood you, however! --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (Smile) Nope, you understood me correctly. Wikipedia is not a self-appointed justice department. Its goal, loosely, is to produce an important, public encyclopedia. It is not seeking to provide shelter and council for every self-promoting, partisan, uninformed, mentally compromised individual on the face of the planet. Statistically, Wikipedia could accomplish its goal by arbitrarily and permanently banning anyone, who, let's say ... has ever been blocked ... whose edits are reverted more than 10% of the time ... or whose name begins with "Q". There's an important distinction, here. Are we seeking to implement the core values as established by the Wikimedia Foundation, or is this, in a larger sense a project for social reform. If you answered "both", then you would agree with me. But the goals of the social reform need to be stipulated, they can't be taken as given. With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the article has been deleted makes this investigation rather academic now, I suspect, though those editors may well attempt to revive the article or to create similar articles. Piano non troppo's comments are rather alarming though: unless I misunderstood, she is proposing that WP ignore direct evidence and simply accept circumstantial evidence to prove any case de facto in order to remove possible (but unproven) self-promoting, partisan, uninformed, mentally compromised individual[s] from WP. Those people are not helpful, certainly, but they need to be dealt with fairly. WP itself may not be a self-appointed justice department but it has appointed certain admins to review investigations (like this present one) according to strict rules. I don't feel we should shortcut these processes. She also claimed that WP is some sort of social reform project that is attempting to change society by creating an encyclopedia. As I understand it, we are simply a project trying to create an encyclopedia. --Jubilee♫ clipman 02:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Who recreated the Kobi Arad article on 4 January? Does anyone know? -- Klein zach  14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would need an admin to tell for sure, but I suspect it was Schoenberg129 &mdash; see for example the speedy deletion notification on his talk page here and the message he left for Gwen Gale here. --Deskford (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Schoenberg129. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Just purely looking at the contributions, User:Knoblauch129 only made one edit on 11 August 2009 here. User:Schoenberg129's first edit was on 12 November 2009, as shown here. Just looking at those two accounts, it's possible that the former was abandoned and the newer one created, and I don't see any "good hand, bad hand" activity with these two. –MuZemike 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-endorsing for CheckUser on all accounts that don't end in "129" (as the three "129" accounts I believe are ; I'm also going to handle those myself). Using edit summaries of "(Ee)dit" are common, though the range of articles are a cause of concern; in other words I'm not totally convinced of WP:DUCK here. –MuZemike 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely softblocked User:Knoblauch129 and User:Greenpath129. (Sorry, Schoenberg129, I accidentally blocked your account ; I got confused amongst the "129"s.) This is just a precautionary measure to ensure those accounts won't be used again. I have also done the same with User:Shlomo99 with regards to User:Shlomo909. Aside from the stale "129" accounts, I'll leave it to CheckUser to see what technical evidence there is. –MuZemike 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * <-- Used same static underlying IP as the above two (the above two using forwarding}
 * <-- shares IPs with Schoenberg and no one else besides those two.
 * <-- Used same static underlying IP as the above two (the above two using forwarding}
 * <-- shares IPs with Schoenberg and no one else besides those two.
 * <-- shares IPs with Schoenberg and no one else besides those two.

-- Avi (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of Shlomo909 (who hasn't edited since December), all confirmed accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged (autoblock disabled). –MuZemike 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hairhorn

 * Latest sock of this user, recreated the page Kobi arad. Hairhorn (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked and tagged. Kobi Arad and Kobi arad both salted. –MuZemike 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)