Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WLU/Archive

12 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This series of New Zealand DSL IPs first appeared when WLU was at 3RR in 14 hrs with a version other than his own up, and having filed a frivolous 3RR report. The IP made the fourth revert at 25 hrs 33 min. The IPs have commented twice since, both support WLU broadly. (eg "...everything WLU has said is absolutely right and that everything Bitter[G]rey has said is absolutely wrong."). One of the suspected identities for WLU blogged about his flight down to New Zealand, which would have been during two days when WLU's editing was particularly light. He might still be down there. BitterGrey (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A sidenote: Before the two IP comments on the talk page, WLU claimed that he wouldn't edit the talk page anymore. Blocks were being discussed at AN/I. BitterGrey (talk) 14:33, 14 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

 * - Per the Privacy policy, we do not publicly link IP addresses to named accounts. This will have to be handled via the "usual means." Tiptoety  talk 06:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely were socks. They are editing from a /24. If we need a rangeblock on this later, the range is 203.118.187.0/24 NativeForeigner Talk 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification Probably actually not socks. All IPs highly disruptive, but editing habits inconsistent. I should have checked more thoroughly. NativeForeigner Talk 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

20 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The fourth of four New Zealand IPs to aid WLU in the same edit conflict, within 203.118.187.x.

Edit warring: This fourth IP first edited when WLU was at 3RR in 5 hours. Like ..187.167 last time, this IP arrived promptly to make the fourth revert for WLU. No IP in this range has edited the article except when WLU was at 3RR in 24 hours and in need of a fourth revert, and then only to provide that revert.

Excessive support for one's cause: The IPs comments continue to include vague statements of support for WLU:"WLU has been doing a good job of editing this article. You have been a nuisance.". No IP in this range has ever discussed content; just support for WLU, opposition to me, and not being a sockpuppet.

Fictitious personality: Unlike the others, this IP claims to have edited before, giving 2011 edits to Nilo-Saharan languages as an example. However, the lingist was particular about signatures, even to the point of updating timestamps when modifying comments (eg ) while the current ..187.226 has omitted signatures on all four comments. Additionally, the only lingual edit from this DSL service in April (as of the 20th) was from x.x.176.x, in between the two waves of edits from x.x.187.x being discussed.

Again, one of the suspected identities for WLU blogged about his flight down to New Zealand, which would have been during two days when WLU's editing was particularly light. He might still be down there.

WLU has long been careful about the traceability of his puppets(eg).

I'm tempted to re-request checkuser. WLU seemed to think he could take the previous SPI for granted when it was denied. BitterGrey (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to below: Since there is a backlog at SPI, I'd invite Slp1, Cailil, and others with longstanding relationships with WLU (eg) to help out in other cases (where they don't have a bias).
 * Re Slp1: You might want to synchronize your claim that WLU & the IPs don't edit at the same times with WLU's details of their edit times interstitching. They contradict each other.  (Or, interpreted another way, you should note that WLU does edit between 2-5AM UTC.)  Since you brought it up, I looked into it:  The variability of WLU's "morning" login times has dropped from a 5hr range of previous months to a 1h range, but this might just be a new alarm clock or skipping the morning paper.  On the other hand, it could be an attempt to give the appearance of a consistent "wake up" time that turned out to be too consistent. BitterGrey (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that the account from New Zealand is a different person. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A different person in NZ would only explain the change in the variability in WLU's wakeup/login times if they were in regular contact. BitterGrey (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Bittergrey, please read more carefully what I have written. I stated in my first sentence that I had had prior contact with WLU: what you have termed "bias" (talk about ABF) is actually the reason why my information should be more credible to you and the SPI admins.  Let me be clearer; the fact that WLU and I have gotten along in the past is the precise reason why he would likely be truthful to me about his name and location. And as I have said before, I have been able to confirm his statements to me against other independent reliable sources on the net.
 * As to your other point, I did not "claim that WLU & the IPs don't edit at the same times" as you allege. In fact, I did not mention the IP at all. You are missing my point here too, including confusing local and UTC time zones.  WLU's overall sleep/editing cycle (sleeping around 1-2 am UTC to around 10-11 UTC) has not changed from previous months and years. If, according to your theory, WLU is currently in New Zealand (which is 12 hours ahead of UTC) then he, WLU, is suddenly editing in the middle of the night NZ time.
 * Bittergrey, the use of strawman arguments, and the failure to AGF to widening circle of editors is deeply troubling.Slp1 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'll remind WLU, who decided not to contest the first SPI, (and now Slp1 too) that their comments go in the section under "Comments by other users." Unless they would like to join me in arguing that 203.118.187.226 is WLU's sockpuppet, just as 203.118.187.167, 203.118.187.43, and 203.118.187.209 are, that is.  Strangely, it wouldn't be the first time WLU's turned himself in for puppetry. BitterGrey (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re Cailil: Before you crucify me for requesting checkuser here, you might wish to note that (while tempted to) I didn't request checkuser here. I did in a previous SPI, but not here.  Please either AGF or check facts first. BitterGrey (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to WLU. To me it simply looked like a simple duck or somebody being logged out. However, upon further investigation (actually looking at more contribs of WLU than were listed...), (I should have been more diligent before) it would appear the two accounts are different based on times edited, and minor semantic differences. At the time I figured the accounts were stale, and hence it would be non-worthwhile to take any action. And then somehow I did not warn the main account. I apologize for sloppy handling: the accounts do not seem to be related, and when I was trying to cut down on the backlog, I certainly skipped some critical steps. Upon further review, the accounts do not appear to be related. (times edited etc) although the range is indeed highly disruptive.

Bittergrey linked me here in what would seeimingly be an attempt to get me to try and connect the alleged socks again. I find this somewhat frustrating: just post it at SPI, and let there be neutral investigation. Furthermore, there can definitely not be any checkuser: it is a clear violation of the CU policy to connect IP to account. NativeForeigner Talk 17:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I notified WLU about the SPI here. I'll add a comment to the AN3 discussion so it doesn't archive tonight.BitterGrey (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A new finding
While looking into the 2,417 past edits among the dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz IPs, I noticed one edit was to Ludwig II of Bavaria. User:Ludwigs2, now banned for a year, was the only editor to edit paraphilic infantilism on WLU's side since Sept 2011. (Excluding the dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz IPs, that is.) He's also quoted or cited by by WLU repeatedly, for support in the current edit conflict. He mentioned liking New Zealand, but unlike WLU, I can't place him (or at least someone with the same name) there.

There was also an edit to Benjiboi's user page. Benjiboi, who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry in 2010, has also edited paraphilic infantilism. Given how few editors have edited the article, this is most likely not coincidental. Still, not sound evidence that it is Benjiboi or Ludwigs2 who is manning the sockpuppets to dodge their blocks to aid WLU as a meatpuppet.

I realize that sharing this actually weakens my position, since it opens the possibility that it is a meatpuppet instead of a sockpuppet. Above, I offered a new alarm clock as a possible AGF explanation for what had changed the variability in WLU's wake-up/login schedule. WLU countered that it was "a different person" but didn't explain why they would be affecting eachother's schedules if they weren't in contact.

IPs 203.118.185.73, ..184.9, ..185.178, ..185.151, ..184.13, and ..185.58 also joined a May 2011 debate on the side WLU would have been on. These are also dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz IPs, mentioned here for reference. BitterGrey (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re Slp1: The variability decreased, not increased, and WLU suggested the connection between the pattern change and some other person, not me. Notifying long-term blocked or banned users seems silly.  Slp1 has chosen to overlook even clear contradictions in statements by WLU.  Presenting relevant details that weaken the sockpuppetry case shows this is not some "confirmation-bias"ed "fishing expedition" as Slp1 accuses.  BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

As Tiptoety noted in the last SPI, no CU will be done because of the link between an account and a person. In addition, as Tnxman307 noted, the IP address appears to be /24, which apparently means untrackable. Therefore, this would be a purely behavioural decision, and there's essentially no way to conclusively clear or damn me. I can say that the anon IP isn't me but as I noted previously, whether anyone believes me is more up to their own preconceptions than any objective evidence. I have a history of edit warring and 3RR blocks, but I do not have a history of socking. Again as I noted previously, I'm attempting to disengage from pointless talk page interactions with Bittergrey as they lead to lengthy discussions nobody reads. There's not much I can say here, only note that 203.'s previous edits interstitched with mine (April 2nd, 2012 - me 18:40, anon 18:59, me 19:52; April 6th, 2012 - me 17:24, anon 18:08, anon 19:42, me 19:59; April 19th, 2012 - me 21:08, anon - 21:48 through 21:55; April 20th, 2012 - me 06:48), but it's easy enough to log out of your account and log back in - so this proves nothing. The latest round of 203.'s edits were after I went to bed last night, but again, this proves nothing. So I suppose it's up to whatever the deciding admin wants to believe. The anonymous 203. isn't me, I didn't sockpuppet - but that's exactly what a sockpuppet would say, isn't it? So there's not much I can do to establish my innocence. Blocking the 203. range wouldn't affect my editing one whit and I have no issue with it. Perhaps it would spur the editor to register an account. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has occasionally asked me for copies of scholarly articles I have access to via my work, and has, as a result, trusted me with his real name. I also know where he lives and other details of his personal life. Checks indicate that these disclosures have been truthful. I can assure Bittergrey that WLU lives nowhere near New Zealand. As far as I can tell based on a search of his real name, he does not have a blog, let alone one that says he has travelled to New Zealand recently. In addition, a detailed check of his editing/not editing cycle shows a pattern (ie nighttime sleep breaks) that it is entirely consistent with my knowledge of where he lives. Very importantly, this pattern has not changed at all in the last month, when Bittergrey would have him visiting New Zealand, which is 17-18 hours ahead of the time zone concerned. Indeed, BG's suppositions would have him suddenly editing between 2-5 am, which is not WLU's pattern at all.

Bittergrey's actions here are to my mind deeply problematic. Sleuthing to try to discover the "suspected identities" of other editors is highly inappropriate, but even worse is posting vague, unproven, unsubstantiated poisoning the well-type allegations about them. As is using this edit from 5 years ago as example of having "long been careful about the traceability of his puppets", when the edit shows nothing of the sort. In fact, WLU was entirely transparent and open, if somewhat misguided; he edited from his own account to request an editor make some minor formatting edits to an article he was topic banned from; he shouldn't have done so per WP:MEATPUPPET, but nevertheless, he did so openly and took full responsibility for the request in case of any problem, which is the exact opposite of the modus operandi of a sockpuppeteer.

I should add, for clarity and transparency, that WLU did not contact me to request my intervention or comments. Slp1 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Crystal 128 babelfish.svg Checkuser is not for fishing (or for phising either). Furthermore, Bittergrey's rationale (or rather the lack of one) invalidates this call for a CU by default. However there is, as Slp1 notes, a serious problem here with Bittergrey's lack of AGF and attempt to use SPI to "win" a content dispute-- Cailil   talk 01:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my last note here - BG has made quite a spurious accusation of bias here against two sysops who while yes they have edited along side WLU have both disagreed with him, warned him etc, and in my case haven't editted alongside him for a very long time. This is neither an instance of involvement, collusion or of bias. This illustrate plainly the seriousness of BG's behaviour per my note above. As a piece of advice for BG please be cognisant that the wikipedia community take a dim view of those attempting to use dispute resolution systems to cast aspersions about others, or indeed to make somebody's real life identity discoverable. Step back. Wikipedia is a co-operative and consensus based medium for collaborative writing based on the assumption of good faith - having an attitude that presumes bad faith, and/or bias, at every turn is incompatible with working here-- Cailil  talk 13:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out, the supposedly damning evidence against me is:
 * a set of two edits ,
 * by me
 * an hour apart
 * publicly, on wikipedia, not via e-mail
 * from six years ago
 * for meatpuppeting
 * in which I acknowledged what I was doing was wrong
 * and voluntarily requested a block
 * Which seems to show that I rather quickly realized my request was inappropriate and sought a public, permanent indication of my inappropriate action (see my second block ).
 * This is apparently an indication that I am currently sockpuppeting, despite repeated blocks for edit warring (not sockpuppeting). The evidence here seems to indicate that I publicly acknowledge my mistakes and try to learn from them.  That is true, and I'm rather proud of it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As there is no indication that I am at risk of being blocked as a sockpuppet, I see no need to bother commenting further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bittergrey today adds an alternate theory, implicating a different editor as the IP (who I note has not been informed), admitting that it weakens his case against WLU.   Which it does, because he shows yet more clearly that this is a fishing expedition against opponents in content disputes, as Cailil suggested above.
 * However, despite this new theory, Bittergrey seems bound and determined to continue to find a connection with WLU, with confirmation bias clearly at work. A big deal is made of a purported increased variability in WLU's login times (though I'll note that my own comparison between login times in April 2011 and 2012 show no difference at all, and this data entirely consistent with where he lives- not NZ).  BG criticises WLU's comment that the IP could be simply "a different person", stating "it didn't explain why they would be affecting each other's schedules if they weren't in contact."  Um, why should they be affecting each other's schedules at all? That's stretching to the most convoluted hypothesis possible.  Let's use Occam's razor instead. Increased variability could be caused by a new job, baby, home, relationship, interests, internet access (or alarm clock, as BG suggested).  Indicating that somebody in NZ is the cause of the difference is about the most obscure hypothesis I can imagine.  The only clear and obvious connection between the IP and WLU (and now Ludwigs2) is that they disagree with Bittergrey and have agreed with each other. People do disagree with BG, as this very SPI page shows. The IP could indeed be "a different person" as WLU stated. In fact, given the evidence that is the simplest and most likely explanation.  That's my last here.  I hope that somebody will be able to close this out soon. --Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * At this point I'm not going to say much except: 1) were closing this 2) this looks like a non-checkuser fishing expedition against a range that has hundreds of thousands of people on it. I know Wikipedians that live in NZ, so it could be anyone at this point. Were done here. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)