Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive

Report date May 5 2009, 09:28 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Skäpperöd (talk)


 * Evidence submitted by Sciurinæ

See http://toolserver.org/~eagle/molobo1.txt for a comparison of edits and timestamps between molobo and Gwinndeith. One should note that at no time do the two accounts ever edit any closer then about 1 hour and 10 minutes apart and frequently edit on different days. Take what you will from it but most users have edits closer then that, especially if they edit the same topics. (And these are from the same country as established by CU). ——  nix eagle email me 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence by User:nixeagle


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Comment
 * Principled objection by Digwuren


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I'm analyzing this case. AdjustShift (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have generated a report to assist in analysis.  Syn  ergy 12:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked AdjustShift for an update on his analysis. Nathan  T 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm analyzing the Sciurinæ's evidence. The evidence is strong. AdjustShift (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I'll be closing this case on 24 May 2009 . I'm analyzing this case very carefully. I've analyzed Molobo's edits carefully. I've also analyzed past disputes such as Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. The evidence provided by Sciurinæ is strong, and I would like to thank him for his work. Other editors can give their input on the talk page . AdjustShift (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be closing this case on 29 May 2009. AdjustShift (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This case will be closed by a clerk, after the CUs have reviewed all the evidence. Mayalld (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've already noted on the case talk page, this case has turned into an unmitigated trainwreck, and a shining example of how badly things can go wrong in SPI if we try to mess around with the system.
 * The evidence (or in some cases opinion masquerading as evidence) has been voluminous in the extreme, as have the extensive rebutals, and counter-rebutals (and so on ad-infinitum). If ever there was a case of quantity over quality!!
 * Attempts to drag the case off into a tit-for-tat mudslinging contest were met with take it to the case talk page instead of this isn't remotely relevant, please feel free to vent to your cat/dog/gerbil instead of on-wiki
 * Having filled the talk page full of utter dross, we then started hiving off some of the evidence there as well, fragmenting the case, and making it into a positive nightmare to deal with.
 * Then we have various people alluding to some "sooper sekrit" evidence that may have been seen by a CU or somebody on arbcom, but "anyway, the details aren't important, it's secret, and very convincing, so that's that". Well, no, sorry that isn't that. If a case contains secret evidence, then frankly it will not do to have various people "in the know" commenting about the quality of the unseen evidence (I haven't seen the supposed evidence, and I don't wish to). If there is evidence that must remain secret, then that evidence can be presented to arbcom/CU and we go with their view of the evidence, not the assurance of some arbitrary subset of "in-the know" editors. Unless and until somebody points to a CU/arbcom member who will give a definitive view of what the secret evidence says, it isn't evidence at all.
 * I have collapsed huge amounts of stuff from the talk page as irrelevant. If I have collapsed anything that is actually evidence, any user is welcome to bring it to this page as evidence. Be warned, however, that any user who continues the mudslinging either here or on the talk page will be asked to cease contributing to this case per SPI procedures. Mayalld (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pasting up a checkuser request and endorsing to see if we can't get this case moving along. It's not clear if a CU wasn't requested because there is reason to believe it wouldn't be effective, but given how this case has progressed (please see the talkpage also for additional argumentation and discussion of evidence) a CU result should attach to the outcome either way. Nathan  T 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be useful to establish if puppetry is not implausible. The unpublished evidence makes it highly likely that Molobo and the now unCUable Koretek were the same user, and I'm assuming someone did a CU check during the Piotrus 2 ArbCom hearing. As no action was taken on Molobo then, the CU evidence must have fallen short of proof. Because of the problems publishing this evidence, I think Adjustshift or Sciurinae should forward the evidence to the CU that takes this and the latter can use his own judgment based upon both. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Based strictly on technical evidence:
 * Conclusions
 * ❌ - Peterlewis is in a different country than the other two users.
 * - Molobo & Gwinndeith are in the same country but consistently access from different ISP pools, thus I would say it's unlikely they are socks.  -- Versa  geek  03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asked to look into this, and I confirm Versageek's technical findings regarding Peterlewis. Regarding the other two, I would slightly upgrade the findings to as although they different IP pools, they geolocate to the same region in the country and one provider seems to be exclusively a mobile provider and the other seems to be a regular provider (I don't know Polish), which may be exploited by the same person. However, there is no technical evidence indicating that it is likely; any connection would have to be determined based on a behavioral analysis. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AdjustShift asked me took at GW and MO and technically they are not related. But of course it's easy to stitch up the system  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Versageek/Avraham. Based on the technical evidence, and the behavioural evidence made public, there is no case at present, but waiting on CU review of other evidence. Mayalld (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mayalld, have you seen the off-wiki evidences? If not you are not in a position to make the above comment. AdjustShift (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not seen the evidence, and have no wish to do so. I stand by my comment that based on the technical evidence from CU, and the behavioural evidence made public there is no case. That is a perfectly valid comment, and explicitly allows for the fact that the secret evidence may affect that view. The case has been deferred to the CUs to reach a determination on whether the "secret" evidence makes a case. Their decision on that matter will be what matters. Mayalld (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with mayalld, based on what is here and the cu results, there is not much of a case here. Of course the other evidence can change that, but that is best forwarded to functionaries-l or somewhere where the CUs can handle. This is the first case in the history of WP:SPI that depends on secret behavior evidence, and I think that is partly why this case has gone off track so much. SPI functions in a way that everything is reviewable by every other interested party (with exception of actual CU evidnece, for privacy reasons), the secret behavior evidence hinders that and is partly why this case has gone off the rails. ——  nix eagle email me 15:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think at this stage bureaucratic niceties are not too important. The unpublished evidence is very strong, so the best thing now is to allow Avraham or another admin who can see both the CU results AND the unpublished evidence to deal with the case and finish it off. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, at this point, the evidence simply needs to be sent to functionaries-l and a cu/admin should deal with the case. Re-reading the public evidence above does give some plausibility the two are related, especially the bit about the two accounts having a tendency to double post. Double posting is very rare on wikipedia, only time I have seen it is when a bot goes in a loop somewhere ;). ——  nix eagle email me 15:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that behavior evidence being reviewable by anyone who wishes to is not a bureaucratic nicety, but something that is fundamental to accountability. We do strive to remain as open as possible on wikipedia. ——  nix eagle email me 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Has the evidence been sent to the functionaries? Yes or no will do here. Sy n 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been sent to me, and I have forwarded it to the functionaries with permission. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on behavioral evidence provided above and to the functionaries list including both topical and chronological editing patterns, confirmed by the geolocation of the IPs used, I have blocked Gwinndeith indefinitely as a sock of Molobo, and have blocked Molobo for a year for abusing sockpuppets. Should this be felt by the project to be worthy of the reinstatement of Molobo's indef block, I suggest it be taken to WP:ANI or the like. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions part II

-- Avi (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)