Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skipsievert/Archive

Report date April 30 2009, 11:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Travelplanner (talk)

User: AdenR’s first edits were on 19 April. He has made 10 edits so far to articles, including four edits to date on the Sustainability page (three of which are on issues of concern to skipsievert), and one to Technocracy (bureaucratic), a page on which SkipSievert is the main contributor.

I think that a Checkuser is required as SkipSievert may be using AdenR to get around the 1RR placed on him in regard to the Sustainability page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability/Archive_19#Restrictions:_1RR).

I am personally more concerned that AdenR is using the Talk:Sustainability page to support skipsievert in his criticisms of other editors, when it seems extremely unlikely that, as a new user, AdenR has had time to form the specific opinions he is expressing. The best example of this is that AdenR professes very strong views on using, as a reference, a book written by one of the editors of this article –   This very long and dull saga has played out once before and skipsievert did not agree with the outcome. 

Skipsievert is on many occasions disruptive and discouraging to User:Granitethighs as evidenced throughout the talk:sustainability page. The first interaction between AdenR and Granitethighs looks to me more like a continuation of this disagreement than a genuine new user - AdenR says to Granitethighs "Thanks for the "input" and "lecture" GT." 

AdenR also reacts in a manner identical to skipsievert, in simultaneously attacking other editors and being super-sensitive to any perceived attack on himself. Skipsievert to me: “Talk pages are for arguing issues on articles... not your opinion of others personalities[...] Also I do not not like your general tone of conversation here”     AdenR to User:Sunray: “Why are you attacking the character of editors here? This is supposed to be about the article. You are right Sunray I am not liking what I am seeing on this team here, specifically you.”

In support of the Checkuser component of this request:

Three of AdenR’s four edits on the Sustainability page are to parts of the article which Skipsievert has strong views on (the fourth was very minor).

One of AdenR’s edits was on 26 April to delete the whole end section of the article which was in the process of being rewritten:

Skipsievert had stated on 8 April that “The ending was more of a lecturing pov than neutral”

AdenR’s edit was then reverted by Sunray, and then Skip came in on the same day (26 April) editing the same section:

Another AdenR contribution was rewriting the first sentence of the article:

Skip sievert has raised issues with this one sentence here

Another was on 24 April to delete a quote

which Skipsievert had criticised on 14 April “Please do not make Winston Churchhill, into a zombie speaker for something that is totally unrelated to him and his time period”

Accusations on this page are "bad faith"...Travelplanner is making a false case and "attack". This is an attack by a disgruntled editor that has no basis in reality. A self professed team of three active editors that back each other in most pov, is trying to control the article Sustainability against wiki guidelines Travelplanner is one of those editors. They revert anyone that does not agree with their pov. Plain and simple this is a false allegation in a revenge attack by a spiteful editor, with no basis of 'truth'. Very unseemly. skip sievert (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

That was fast! The report was posted on April 30 and closed one day later. No one but Travelplanner and Skipsievert has commented. Looking at it, I would say that whether it is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, the two accounts do seem to be acting in concert. Is it still possible to present evidence? 70.78.83.223 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Travelplanner (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

per evidence of using socks to evade 1RR limit. Mayalld (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * parties notified. Mayalld (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

whilst there is a suggestion of Meatpuppetry, and it does appear possible that the two know each other off wiki, there is no unambiguous evidence at present that one is directing the edits of the other> If more evidence appears, we can re-open this. Mayalld (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given currently available technical evidence, it appears the two accounts are ❌. – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about meatpuppetry? (Note: I'm commenting not in the capacity of a clerk, but just as a general member) OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, you are commenting as a member of the editing team on the article and you have wiki hounded my edits because of your friendship with people involved in this case. Travelplanner posted on your talk page recently. Please do not get involved here. The charge is false. This is a bad faith attempt to get involved here. You are a member of the editing team on the article. You signed up on the talk page months ago at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Sign-up and edit with Travelplanner. You have constantly been antagonistic toward me as my talk page shows. I am not involved with this other person AdenR at all. skip sievert (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't deny I signed up as part of the editing team, but so were you! (until you withdrawn from the team later on because of disagreements) And I stumbled upon this page out of sheer luck, as I'm a clerk at SPI, so you can drop your conspiracy allegations right now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 12 2009, 09:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Sunray (talk)

From April 23 to May 3, 2009 there was tandem editing between Skipsievert and AdenR. It only ceased when a sockpuppet investigation was initiated. The remarkable correspondence of points of view suggest that AdenR is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Skipsievert. A possible motive for this is the 1RR placed on Skipsievert and Sunray on March 20. The sockpuppet Investigation was initiated by Travelplanner on April 30, but it was found that the two accounts were unrelated. Nevertheless the clerk noted that if evidence of meatpuppetry were presented the SPI could be re-opened. That evidence is herewith submitted.


 * Skipsievert: “Also this whole idea of neutrality is breached again by your addition of the info above…”


 * Skipsievert: “… state it in a neutral way with as little preaching as possible.”


 * AdenR: “Thanks for the "input" and "lecture" GT… My conclusion is that this article is NOT neutral."
 * Note: The tone of this reply is surprising. Why is AdenR, a new user, taking offense at GT’s civil and welcoming response?


 * AdenR: I have to agree with skip on this one… The principle and concepts are Not needed… Why is there a "Transformation" Section????


 * Skipsievert: Principles and concepts: This is original research. The article is not an advocacy platform. More discussion is needed on that aspect.


 * Skipsievert: “It falls under O.R. in general and synthesis…”


 * Skipsievert: Please do not make Winston Churchhill, into a zombie speaker for something that is totally unrelated to him and his time period.


 * AdenR: The Winston Churchill quote has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.
 * Note: Skipsievert’s comment on this predates AdenR’s first edit and was archived, yet AdenR takes up the refrain.


 * AdenR: “Rewriting it? I don't understand how the solution for TRANSFORMATION is to rewrite it… This section is not neutral and very pov pushing. It talks about steps for change...and even goes far to quote Winston Churchill, which has nothing to do with this subject.
 * Note: It is interesting that a new user uses the term “pov pushing” (first use on the talk page).


 * Skipsievert: “I think it would be good idea for Granitethighs, who introduced his book onto the Sustainability article himself… to take his book off the Sustainability article. The two other editors that have formed a team here do not like this suggestion…”


 * AdenR: I agree. This information can cause problems for GT. It is more reasonable to use refs not connected to the editing team.


 * Skipsievert: “… How is it that a three member active team is using one of the three members recently published and possibly non notable book to source the article? ... surely not a Wikipedia reliable source … please stop lecturing. Ownership of articles by a team… Closed pov is not going to improve the article… Would you please read this page Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.


 * AdenR: “… the source in General is unreliable and open to debate as skip has pointed out.”
 * Note: As this is a brand new book, not yet in general circulation, it is highly unlikely that AdenR would just happen to have seen it. Skipsievert has a copy of the book, which he received from Granitethighs.


 * Skipsievert: “I will let others judge if that very expensive and unknown book is a conflict of interest.”

- Evasion of 1RR?
 * AdenR: “Transformation section is not a well written section..”
 * AdenR (edit summary): Transformation: Post-environmentalism section was not needed because it discussed solutions for change, which is open to debate.


 * Skipsievert (edit summary): I would agree. Original research. Not appropriate. Was discussed Undid revision 286184751 by Sunray (talk)


 * Skipsievert (edit summary): Transformation: rewrite for neutrallity.
 * Note: If AdenR is a meatpuppet, Skipsievert is evading 1RR.

-
 * Skipsievert: “… It is a political diatribe… an endorsement of politics and a political pov… Wikipedia is not an essay or personal journal… It uses the U.N. as a focal point. the U.N. is over sourced and over used through out the entire article…This would never hold up as a neutral or balanced presentation.”


 * AdenR: “I agree with skip. This is not a essay or personal journal we are writing. We need to start over. This is not a neutral presentation… It still involves politics, political povs and introduces yet more unneeded refs… U.N. sourcing should Not be allowed on this article as it is political and partisan…This section should only be a scientific and neutral summary of what is needed to attain human sustainability…”


 * Skipsievert: “The U.N. is a source that can be used but it is used overtly in an over the top manner… and the bias of political orientation shows.”


 * Skipsievert (edit summary): Environmental management: Recently published non notable book by team member. See talk


 * Skipsievert: “It is oversourced to old U.N. information or over weighted in that political direction… there is much better information out there mostly by science groups that are not political in nature… creates a problem as to neutrality of presentation.”


 * AdenR: “Skip and I agree that the U.N. Material presented in the Tranformation section is Unneeded and We should use other more scientific groups than U.N. stuff.


 * AdenR: “… negates the neutrality of the article. Presenting what is scientifically needed for human sustainability.

Summary: From April 23 to May 3, AdenR made a total of 21 edits, of which three are to his talk page and 18 are to the Sustainability article and its talk pages. As the above examples demonstrate, the vast majority of these edits take up the identical themes as those of Skipsievert. Sunray (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is an accusation on this page in "bad faith", an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing or their teams editing from being examined possibly. There is a self described sign up team editing the article of three or four active people that has assumed ownership like status of the article and strike out at new people if they disagree. Mostly they seem to edit with a mono sort of pov. Thats included biting a newby that apparently was trying to edit neutrally. I am not connected with the other editor.

Sunray and several people in the team controlling the article have many characteristics of a Tag team including bringing other people in their team into discussions like this one. The person bringing up this issue originally is also a member of their team... TravelPlanner and OhanaUnited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Sign-up - I feel like I am being subject to Harassment now by these people... only because I am editing the article in an attempt in my view at neutrality or in disagreement to their mono pov. The talk page is full of personal derogatory communication by their other team members. It appears that they effectively bit the other Newby in question enough to cease editing.

Sunray has a history of calling me a troll, and in a mediation it was suggested that a group does not own the Sustainability article and other editors can also edit. I am a serious editor on Wikipedia and have tried to do good work. This link is to a low level attempt by myself to open up the article more to others. - I am finding what Sunray is doing here is making an attack. I have no meat puppet or sockpuppet and never have had one or the other.

Skip, I for one resent being lumped into the "editing team" and being accused of derogatory comments, attacks, accusations, etc. I attempted to make contact with you on your talk page a while ago, extending a hand of transperency, honesty and friendship in an effort to gain better knowledge of how you contribute to WP, in the hope that we might work through discussions on the Sustainability article better. But you subsequently deleted my comments and questions in very brisk and short fashion. You gave me the impression that you didn't want to partake in an honest and transperent conversation.
 * Comments by other users

New editors to the Sustainability article are welcomed with open arms as you yourself are. The reason the number of current contributors is so small is because of a number of factors such as the lack of general public interest in the subject matter and the lack of experts or those knowledgable in the field having time to devote to contributions on WP. I am one example of that, initially I could devote a decent ammount of time (over 1000 edits a month) but more recently I've had other commitments (100 edits a month). The fact that 4, 5 or 6 people are actively contributing is fantastic in itself.

Sunray once asked you if you were trolling in the past, and has since treated you with kindness and respect and partaken in honest discussion with you. This is hardly a personal attack and branding it a "history" is misconstruing the truth.

Skip, the comment "The talk page is full of personal derogatory communication by their other team members" is an ill-founded accusation that is easily disproven. No one attacked or "bit" AdenR in any way, he was in fact welcomed with open arms as are all new editors to a FA/rewrite project. I don't believe that is a valid reason as to why AdenR has stopped editing, it is suspicious to say the least. If you believe your innocent in this matter, work with us to establish what the case is either way. Nick carson (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * My read on this (taking into account the past CU result of unrelated on these users) is that what is described in evidence constitutes tandem editing, or editing in concert with a similar point of view. This is not really evidence of meatpuppetry, and there really does not seem to be any evidence of sockpuppetry or coordinated editing on other topics. Given that, unless further evidence of a link can be presented, I suggest this case be closed with no action. Behavioral issues unrelated to puppetry can be addressed in a different forum, either by user conduct RfC or administrator intervention on a noticeboard. Nathan  T 00:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Nathan above. Lack of strong evidence, coupled with prior CheckUser results coming back unrelated does not warrant any type of action being taken. Tiptoety talk 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

03 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A few years ago, there was an extremely disruptive editor,, who strongly pushed a pro-technocracy POV, inserting references to this long forgotten movement (which had it's heyday in the 1930s) in many articles throughout Wikipedia, tendentiously pushing his POV and causing widespread disruption that affected many wikiprojects. (See this, and this Arbcom request for an overview of the long sad story.) Skipsievert was indefinitely blocked by User:Moreschi in November 2009 during discussion of the Arbcom request.

During this time, Skip was aided in his disruption by, who always took Skip's side in arguments, supported him in edit wars, and edited only to slant articles with exactly the same POV that Skip was pushing - all the while loudly protesting that he was a new editor who just wanted to see the right thing done. AdenR disappeared after Skip was banned.

In February 2011, two users showed up pushing the same Technocracy POV again, and. Just like Skipsievert and AdenR's Batman-Robin relationship, FidelDrumbo took the lead and Googlesalot backed him on the talk page and in edit wars, all the while protesting that he was a new innocent editor who just wanted to see the right thing done. See this ANI report filed by User:Johnfos at that time about this incident. After the ANI report was posted, FidelDrumbo stopped editing Technocracy and Googlesalot stopped editing completely.

Then, in mid-September FidelDrumbo started editing Technocracy again, and soon got into an edit war. Googlesalot fortuitously showed up again to support FidelDrumbo in his arguments, except that he had changed his user name to 'Googlesalot2'. When queried about this, he provided the rather strange reason that he liked the number 2.

They are once again engaged in the same behavior that Skipsievert and AdenR were engaged in. Behaviorally, they pass the Duck test with flying colors. For example, Skipsievert used to insinuate that editors he was edit warring against were 'under investigation' by Wikipedia for bad behavior, just as FidelDrumbo did here. And here, FidelDrumbo goes to Skipsievert's talk page to remove an ANI notice. Googlesalot also shows amazingly good knowledge of Wikipedia's workings and terms for a supposedly new editor that has made a total of 43 edits in both accounts (including edits to his own talk page, ANI edits, and reverts). Other editors (including Johnfos, Epipelagic, and EdJohnston) have also recognized their behavioral similarity to Skipsievert and AdenR.

I have tagged and reverted FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot as socks based on the behavioral evidence. I seek an independent review of this issue so that the community can know clearly what is the appropriate action to take. LK (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just add that AdenR was twice investigated as a sockpuppet of Skipsievert, and CheckUser always came back negative (so the negative checkuser report below actually confirms FidelDrumbo & Googlesalot's similarity to Skip & Aden). However, the consensus of users was that AdenR was a meatpuppet of Skipsievert's. The clerk noted that they edited in concert, and that their behavior constitutes tandem editing (see here). LK (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The issue from a checkuser point of view is not whether FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot/Googlesalot2 are related to each other, as someone seems to think below, but whether FidelDrumbo and Skipsievert are related, and whether AdenR and Googlesalot/Googlesalot2 are related. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC) FidelDrumbo is currently active, not "stale". --Epipelagic (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
FidelDrumbo and Googlesalot/Googlesalot2 are ❌ to each other, while Skipsievert is obviously. Aside from that, any other connection to Skipsievert must be made on behavioral evidence alone. –MuZemike 04:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Listed AdenR for behaviour consideration. (Yes, I do remember this user even though it's more than 2 years ago.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the behavioral profiles of both users, including their language and style, I am finding this a convincing case (Skip=Fidel, Googles=Aden), and have blocked both users accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * AdenR hasn't edited in two years, so I think we can close this for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

01 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

v/r - TP 00:46, 1 January 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
Account blocked. Report is for historical purposes only. Please archive.--v/r - TP 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)