Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PalestineRemembered/Archive

16 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Templar98 presents a WP:DUCK sockpuppet, the question is only of which editor. Recent circumstantial evidence points strongly toward Sol Goldstone.

Templar98's very first edit on July 2008, a !vote at an AFD, indicated a prior history with Wikipedia. His seventh edit was a multi-paragraph addition with near-perfect references format. By his eleventh edit he was citing an ARBCOM ruling in his criticism of another long-time user.

Templar98's 200+ live edits are spread out over the last two and half years so we are most likely dealing with a sleeper account, an account used to avoid the user's main IP, or both.

The link to Templar98's contribution history reveals that his editing history on the Templar98 account can be broken down into two categories: Julian Assange and anything anti-Israel. He has edited nothing outside of these two subjects.

Recent history points to his being a sockpuppet of Sol Goldstone.

Somewhat similar to Templar98, Sol Goldstone is an SPA account. As his contribution history reveals, in his 1,000+ edits in the last 7 months since opening his account, no more then a handful were not of the anti-Israel nature.

In queries to Sol Goldstone regarding previous accounts, his responses where strange - “I did used to have an AOL account back in 7th grade” and suspicious - “if people come to yell at me they look at my userboxes and say "Ooooh, that explains a lot." No editors has yelled at him-let alone criticized him-any in any way-on the talkpage of this account prior to that comment.

The likely connection between Sol Goldstone and Templar98 has become evident recently as Templar98 reverts to Sol Goldstone’s version when Sol Goldstone cannot revert due to 1rr restriction applied to Arab-Israeli articles.

The most recent and strongest evidence is at the history of the very obscure Civilian casualty ratio.

In the last few weeks, Sol Goldstone has deleted the same content 7 times , his only seven edits to the article. After one of Sol Goldstone’s recent deletion of content was reverted by a third editor Templar98 appeared out of nowhere to revert back to Sol Goldstone’s version. Due to WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles, Sol Goldstone was not able to revert for 24 hours. Thus, outside help was needed for a 24 hour period. When another editor brought the issue to to Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Sol Goldstone came to argue his position, Very soon thereafter, Templar98 was there in support.

The same exact thing happened today. Sol Goldstone removes said information again. It is re-added by another editor. Sol Goldstone cannot revert again for 24 hours. Instead Templar98 comes in for the revert.

The same exact type of behavior appeared today at 1948 Palestinian exodus. Sol Goldstone reverts (with a false edit summary). His revert is reverted. He cannot revert again for 24 hours. Within 24 hours Templar98 reverts to Sol Goldstone’s version.

In conclusion, Templar89 is a WP:DUCK sock and the most recent circumstantial evidence points Sol Goldstone being his sockpuppet.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Sol. My intent was not to have a whole back and forth yelling-fest at each other, so I'll just add one more comment in response to your comment and I'll let the evidence speak for itself.
 * Wikipedia is flush with SPA editors whose sole purpose is finding things wrong with Israel and/or Jews. I am not filing SPI's on all of them and I have no personal feelings either which way on any of them. If they are not sockpuppets let them be. Eventually Wikipedia's basic policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS will stymie their attempts to push their POV's all over the place.
 * That being said, when I first started seeing your edits, I noticed the quick grasp of WP policy, the fast pick-up of WP-slang, your funny username, and the huge number of initial edits. These factors led me to conclude that you are most likely a reincarnated editor. An editor that will break some sockpuppetry rules will break all sockpuppetry rules, thus I was on the look out for any more suspicious behavior. The constant support Templar98 gave specifically to your edit-wars let me to conclude that you two are most likely meatpuppeting, if not sockpuppeting.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Reading Templar98's talkpage, I'd say that the personality that comes across is different from Sol's and that the use of English, meaning sentence structure (the way clauses are used) and the general style, is also different. As far as Sol's supposedly suspicious replies are concerned, the humour intended obviously hasn't been appreciated. As far as anyone's edits being anti-Israeli is concerned, obviously any judgements made are relative. I'm sure that many editors would regard Sol's as being among the more neutral ones. My experience has been that he is the kind of editor who is prepared to sit back and discuss things rather than try and militantly push his preferred version. Using sockpuppets would seem out of character.    ←   ZScarpia  18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Differences in personality may be more of a good hand/bad hand type of trick used to avoid detection. Like lots of editors that get blocked in the A-I conflict, his sudden jump into editing (1k+ edits since he opened his account a few months ago), his quick grasp of Wikipedia policy and lingo, his suspicious responses to questions regarding previous accounts, indicate that he is most likely the reincarnation of a previous editor. "Reincarted" editors will tweak their personality to avoid detection.
 * In regard to your claim that Sol is one of the more neutral and reasonable of the bunch, I would be quite surprised if that can be backed up by anyone. His edit-warring tendencies outlined above certainly rebuts that claim.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean my tendency to revert obvious sockpuppets and contentious editors who are not interested in the talk page or what the community thinks. I apologize if my quick grasp of policy is upsetting but you may have noticed I've a bit of a legal background and understand why rules are important, not least because they are how you improve WP and defend against vendettas like this one. Sol (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Templar98 has commented on this case on Sol's talk page.    ←   ZScarpia  00:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, would you care to comment on why this one instance which, if true, would be the most stupidly blatant sock/meat puppeteering imaginable (which seems unlikely, according to your description of my amazing mastery of deceit), is actionable while your collaboration with multiple known sockpuppets across multiple articles and long periods of time, including the ones in this article, are not? Sol (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by the accused
I can't say I'm surprised this has come up, although a little disappointed. Yes, the accusation is baseless. No, Templar98 is neither my sock nor meat puppet. I'm sure brew may find this hard to believe but I'm not actually interested in "winning" wikipedia through backhanded means. Templar's writing style is not similar to mine, neither are his arguments, nor do I use the Emiliy Dickinson-esque dash. In this case, we wouldn't even be here if brewcrewer and a host of pretty obvious sockpuppets would just accept the consensus from talk and the RSN board. I'm reverting obvious sockpuppets and an editor who won't read the talk page. I probably should have just taken it to AE a long time ago but I don't like filing reports and I wanted the RSN to play out. Here's one sock, here's [|another], and here's first sock filing the RSN notice that I'd requested brewcrewer file (and the promise of a full admittance of stupidity if the RSN decided I was in the wrong). And here's another sock who showed up to defend brewcrewer's case. And wow, both socks have a history of coming to brewcrewer's rescue (around Novemeber 4th) when he's running into opposition (wikistalk gives it a 9/15 and sometimes he rescues them. And that's just these two. If you'd like to see brewcrewer's long collaboration with various sockpuppets, there's more. It's no secret brewcrewer doesn't like me. He's made it perfectly clear. My first talk page message? Brewcrewer wanting to know about possible prior accounts, something that totally confused me then as that question means nothing to a new editor. My responses were silly because I had no idea why this guy was here or what I was supposed to do with him. I'd looked at some I-P editors talk page which was filled with the usual threats and assumed thats what talk pages were used for. Perhaps he's accusing me of sockpuppetry during an investigation of one of his collaborative socks. Maybe he's asking creepy questions about me in an unrelated AE or perhaps he's implying I'm an anti-Semite. It's always something new and interesting. And now I'm anti-Israeli. Fantastic. All of these accusations share the same thing; they are baseless accusations from someone with a bone to pick. I edit in contentious categories, yes. That's my area of study and my religion. I'm not apologizing for that. I am insulted, sure, but I'm an adult; brewcrewer doesn't have to like me as long as we can deal fairly. That seems no longer possible.
 * There's no validity to this claim. If anyone would like to look over the talk page and the RSN linked above they'll find that there would be no point to any backhanded dealing on my part. This is a flimsy, last ditch attempt to keep in something that brewcrewer has no consensus for and failed defending in legitimate venues. I'd have filed an SPI against the three socks that interfered but I figured I'd give brewcrewer the benefit of the doubt and that maybe it was NoCal100. And I also didn't want to look like I was trying to use administrative means to silence people during the midst of a dispute. I've been really, really patient with brewcrewer but this is getting crazy. I assume this isn't a venue to ask for a BOOMERANG repercussion so I'll continue on. Sol (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Brewcrewer: I'm sure it's deeply disappointing to you that I get to reply and I apologize for the inconvenience. Not to cast my fellow defendant under the bus, but Templar does look like they are pretty familiar with policy for a new editor ... maybe they aren't. Is that allowed or do you have to edit under the same name forever? You might also think of another explanation; maybe Templar is being 100% honest in their appraisal and has the article watchlisted. You'll notice I I don't agree with Templar's reasoning for the removal; this either makes me the smartest sockmaster for disagreeing with myself or the dumbest for using the same account multiple times. I'm told the best use rotating sockpuppets, much like the ones helping you. I'm not anti-Israeli, nor an anti-Semite, nor a sock or meatpuppet master (but please start the investigation into my anti-Semitism, I'll cancel my ADL membership if you are correct). There are difficult topics; they deserve equal treatment even if we wish they didn't exist. This may be really hard to believe but I'm actually trying to play by the rules and resolve things amicably. You are the one who refuses to accept the consensus of the talk page and RSN. You are refusing to join the discussion. If you prefer I just take you to AE for tendentiousness next time, let me know. I don't like being smeared as a bigot but I trust that most people are going to realize that I'm not. In fact, there's only one person who's ever called me that. You. If anyone wants to look at the backstory to the case, your irrational fixation on me, your habit of baseless administrative investigations against people who disagree with you, then this starts to look like what it is: a very sad little witch hunt. As is, I invite any questions from HelloAnnyong if there's something I can do to clear my name but I'm responding to the cyber Inquisitor is yielding nothing. Thanks. P.S.: Did you really call my name "funny"? Why does my name matter? Sol (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based on a cursory glance, I'd venture that we're looking at meatpuppetry here. I'm curious what either of the accused editors has to say, though. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Templar98 and Sol Goldstone are ❌. However, these are the same:
 * I'm surprised to see TomRawlinson here, since that's a sockpuppet of the banned
 * Blocking and tagging needed --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see TomRawlinson here, since that's a sockpuppet of the banned
 * Blocking and tagging needed --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking and tagging needed --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking and tagging needed --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * CUs please remember to mark these as checked. Thanks! -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged all the confirmed socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This case should be merged with the PalestineRemembered case. NW ( Talk ) 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. I've moved this over to PalestineRemembered (there was actually no case before). —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

21 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User:MalcolmMcDonald had argued against the inclusion of what he believed to be trivial and poorly-sourced information into the article Flat-twin engine. Shortly afterward, when it appeared consensus was not going his way, User:32cj posted his only two posts: one being a long, unverified, and only slightly relevant addition to the "Flat-twin engine" article, and the other in the middle of the "Flat-twin engine" talk page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flat-twin_engine&diff=prev&oldid=404874403 being the line ''I'm entirely new to this and apologise if I do this wrong! Here goes ..........'', followed by the same entry to the aricle.] Despite my suspicion that MalcolmMcDonald was using a sockpuppet to make a point, I decided to treat 32cj as if he were a new editor acting in good faith. However, I now see that MalcolmMcDonald is himself one of several confirmed sockpuppets of User:PalestineRemembered, so I am reporting this incident to alert you to another likely sockpuppet of his. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2011 (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

 * - Hmm.. it's possible, I suppose, but two edits from an editor nearly a month ago isn't really enough to justify a CU. I'm declining for now (and am actually considering closing this altogether) until the account becomes more active again. If another clerk has an opinion on this, though, I'll defer to them. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kay, it's been nine days. No new edits from the suspected sock, so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

19 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The most recent sock of PalestineRemembered, User:Templar98, was very keen on removing specific content from Civilian casualty ratio. IP 212 removes the same content three times (his only three edits). IP 212's gelocation is strikingly similar to PR's IP sockpuppets listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PalestineRemembered. At the very least, IP's edit history exemplifies a WP:DUCK of an editor using an IP to edit-warr, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thanks,  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (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

 * IP blocked 2 weeks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

02 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

He is behavior is similar to his socks on one hand all the automotive stuff is similar to his sock USER:MalcolmMcDonald and on other hand going straight to WP:ARBPIA articles to start a revert war with good knowledge of wiki markup.There is also posting on WP:RSN which new users usually don't do.Also please check if there any sleepers.Thank you Shrike (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2012 (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
I'm sorry, but all of the accounts in the archive are. TN X Man 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While looking at another SPI, I found evidence that Jew not Zionist is evading a block. I've blocked them and marked this case for close. TN X Man  14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

05 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

220.101.81.78 and 124.169.22.78 are the most current IPs being used to evade the block. This is the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Jew not Zionist. I want to close that one and keep this one, since PalestineRemembered is the actual sockmaster, and Jew not Zionist is one of the puppets. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (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
Where is the evidence that links to all this? Otherwise I don't see any other reason that warrants a check. Elockid  ( Talk ) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That one has been inactive for a while. I included it for the sake of completeness. This person is a persistent sock-puppeteer. The first two IPs IPs 220.101.81.78 and 124.169.22.78 are the ones that have been active recently, following the block of the sock Jew not Zionist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you've stated, M-72 is and CUs don't generally make connections to IPs publicly. There isn't really anything CU can do. So at this time, I'll have to decline the request for CU. Elockid   ( Talk ) 16:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close -I don't see enough activity here to take any action on the IPs. TN X Man  14:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)