Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editingoprah


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Editingoprah

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

David Fuchs 19:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

Editingoprah disagreed with some additions I made the Oprah page, saying that they were unsourced and 'negative POV'. I responded on his talk page with a rebuttal, but added references and tried to phrase the wording better. It was reverted again, and I changed it back. Liketoread, along with User:Timelist, reverted my edits using nearly the same wording. Closer inspection reveals that Timelist has been blocked for violating 3rr rule on the same pages as Editingoprah. I will put in a request for IP check... Liketoread is another possible candidate, but there is less evidence to support this possibility (although all that user's edits save those with the revert and on my talk page are for one article...)
 * Evidence


 * Comments

Huh? What exactly am I being accused of here? All I did was tried to prevent you from adding libelous information to the biography of a living person based on inadequate sourcing. Can someone please explain in plain English what rule I'm being accued of breaking? Editingoprah 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just find certain similarities and timing of edits on the Oprah page interesting.. as soon as I note on your talk page you'll be in violation of the 3rr rule, (which you've evidently broken several times, and tried to blank your talk page), another user reverts with the near-same wording. When I revert once more, yet another does... and they seem to all sound very very much like you. As I should note, those are not my web sites I bring up, they are sources. All can be found by searching with Google. Or in your "plain english"... I have strong reason to suspect you using one or more accounts to further your (obviously) pro-Oprah agenda... which is kinda sad. We'll see what an IP check brings up... David Fuchs 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what I think is sad. Violating wikipedia's living biography policy by citing unreliable sources to trash a philanthropist for throwing "extra money at poor people" as if giving a quarter of a billion dollars of one's hard earned money" is a crime one should be criticised for.  If you're really so passionate about adding petty criticism to Oprah's article, I suggest you find a reliable source from which to directly quote it, because wikipedia has very high standards for negative information placed in the biographies of living persons.  Summaries of personal attacks against Oprah from anonymous web pages is viewed as libel by wikipedia.  Quite why you would want to go to war with me over the addition of petty criticism to an Oprah article is what I consider sad.  As for Timelist popping up at the same time I did, there's a very good reason for that.  We're classmates and we both attend the same black studies class.  Our professor was the one who got us into wikipedia in the first place. Editingoprah 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes you just added "This user is a persoanl friend of user:Timelist and often posts with him in similar articles." to your profile page, good for you... I admit perhaps I should have sourced it better to begin with, but the fact remains that a) you are accused of sock-puppetry, which you have been accused of before, b) either way you are in violation of the 3rr rule, and c) the point of whether to keep the info is now moot. I'm not changing it until this is all sorted out. I try to fix things the civil way, but if you try to create edit wars, there is little I can do. I'm not going to even address your accusations (which, coincidentally, both you and the two other users said in almost exactly the same words) that I somehow benefit by promoting these sites to which I have no connection to. By the by, I've put up a request for checkuser, so if you're innocent, good for you. If you aren't...

Innocent of what. We attend the same class. We psot from the same buildings. I freely admit this, and a checkuser should confirm this. And as for alleged violation of the 3RR, you're allowed to violate it when you are removing libelous info. This is a very well established eexception to the 3 RR. Editingoprah 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets You could certainly be called guilty of that, looking through your contributions... David Fuchs 23:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Just throw as much mud as you can and hope something sticks in an attempt to divert attention from your libelous violation of wikipedia living biographies rule. Timelist 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, you and Editingoprah seem to share a lot in common- too much, which is why we're here. Think about this on my end: two people with nearly identical contributions, and the excuse is that they are chums who post from the same building? At the same time? Perhaps from the same computer, I'm guessing, if the IPs match? I'm sorry, but that seems hard to believe. If it turns out you aren't Eo, then I will owe you a personal apology as well as to the other two users. However I am not trying to downplay what I've done. I admit I should have just waited and been more thorough. But then again, I'm not the one accusing others of creating anti-oprah sites and trying to advertise them... The only two web sites I run are for school and a personal one: http://linus.yhspatriot.net/cs/at/students/Fuchs_Pessotti/ and http://pixelfox.macgui.com David Fuchs 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we post from the same IP. We are classmates and friends working on a black studies assignment together and use wikipedia as a diversion. This is EXTREMELY common.  If we were the same person we would just admit it, because the same user is allowed to have multiple accounts, and violating the 3 R rule is allowed in situations of libel. And surely you can't fault us for wanting to remove libelous inforamtion from an a wikipedia article.  You yourself now admit you were wrong, so why waste your own time (as well as ours), and why make enemies with this ridiculous crusade? Let's just be friends, it's so much less stressful. Timelist 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit I was wrong in part, but once again this whole set is too convenient for me. As for being friends, haunting my contributions so you can insinuate that I created anti-Oprah websites and am trying to profit from them? As you can check, I have none of those domains registered (do a whois, its simple) and I have never tried to advertise any site I could be affiliated with (which is really only two, but whos counting). By the way, you could tell me your school/class instructor so I could verify all that, if you really want to clear things up... David Fuchs 00:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No I wouldn't feel comfortable giving that kind of information to someone I hardly know, for obvious reasons. Surely you understand. I'm sorry if you still don't believe us, but I'm willing to take your word that you are not the author of the anti-Oprah web pages, and I apologize for accusing you.  Hopefully, you will find it in your heart to take our word too and we can put this whole entertaining (but highly time consuming) diversion behind us, because I'm sure we all have much better ways we can be spending our time. Think about all the time we're consuming! Let's just get along. Timelist 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this user appears to have about 7 or more sockpuppets: and has been causing editwars on black people for months and months. The viewpoints are always the same and always extreme. The arguments are always the same. Multiple sockpuppets make it appear that there is stronger opposition to group consensus than actually exists.--Ken Stevens 14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:64.230.72.185
 * User:Aquadaqua
 * User:Cardriver
 * User:Kittykash
 * User:Kobrakid
 * User:Timelist
 * User:Vexel
 * I suspect this is one as well:


 * User:Whatdoyou--Filll 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then... I suggest a checkuser. The checkuser for Editingprah and timelist came up positive, but he swears they are in the same class. Either way, they could be two differetn people circumventing the 3rr rule. I'm going to request a checkuser for these guys too... Kobrakid, I believe, was already checked and came up in the same area. David Fuchs 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatdoyou said the same thing that Editingoprah said above - that they attend the same class, and that they edit from the same IP (see diff 1 & diff 2). A checkuser is not needed. --Ezeu 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Either way, there's some serious meat-puppetry or at the very least swaying of articles going on because of these guys. Even if they are all different people, they are acting as a bloc to enforce an agenda, and that would violate WP. David Fuchs 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are acting in cohorts to gain leverage to promote a particular POV, and they are either the same person, or persons that habour the same POV and have united to promote that POV. That is inherently contrary to the rules, or at least the traditions of Wikipedia. --Ezeu 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

What a big case. Took me a long time to research.

While it is theoretically possible for that to be one person logging out and in again, it's not likely. Also note that in Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-08_Black_people, Editingoprah has made a reasoned, intelligent argument for his point, rather than just resting on weight of numbers. None of that individually is completely conclusive, of course - someone can be well written and malicious - but all that taken together, leads me to exonerate them as well.
 * Liketoread primarily edits one article, that has not been edited by any of the other accused, and was not mentioned in Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Editingoprah, implying strongly that he is on a different IP than the other two. Exonerated.
 * User:Editingoprah and User:Timelist admit to editing from the same school, being friends, and have posted as much on their user pages. They are highly unlikely to be one person - they have each made over 500 contributions. These including patterns which don't completely exonerate them, but do indicate they are different such as
 * 20:23, October 22, 2006 Timelist
 * 20:30, October 22, 2006 Editingoprah
 * 20:35, October 22, 2006 Timelist
 * The addition of the others are just seriously over-egging the pudding. If the first three were more likely to be puppets, I'd be looking into the others more seriously, as it is, I am not looking into them very much at all.

The main argument for sock puppetry seems to be who is or is not "black". Well, no offense intended to the accusers, but even at this late date someone's racial identity is still a big deal to a lot of people. It is quite possible that several different people can feel quite strongly about it, one way or the other. And, frankly, when well written editors provide strong evidence on each side of an issue, that is a strong argument that the article can't pick a side, and needs to devote serious space to both sides of the question. Compromise, folks, stop warring.

No administrative action.

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)