Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Figment1

User:Figment1

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * The Figment1 account was created here, and shortly thereafter made this addition to the Ruslana Korshunova, and first reverted its deletion here. The link was removed by more than one editor, noting that it appeared to be a blog. Figment1 then returned the link here, here, here, here, and here


 * When the link was questioned on the talk page, IP 66.231.128.196 removed one comment which said the site material was stolen from elsewhere, then posted a comment about the website, asserting that it was a legitimate news source, and insinuating that questioning it could be a legal issue here.


 * Eight minutes later, the Gators855 account was created, removed, then re-added the comment here. I responded to the comment, observing that the material on the diaday website appeared to come from another website (Tactical News Service). Gators855 posted a notice that the Tactical News Service had an agreement with diaday.com here, which was posted to the Tactical News Service at 7/5/2008 11:31 AM.


 * To clarify, the IP 66.231.128.196 posted the diaday/Tactical News Service connection defense here, immediately thereafter, Figment1 returned the material here. Immediately thereafter, Gators855 removed the IP talk page addition here and returned it under his/her own account here. The question regarding copyrights was raised, the material removed, and the following day, Gators855 posted the notice about the connection between the two websites here, made a correction here, and two minutes later, Figment1 returned the diaday link here.

This is clearly a case of two single-purpose accounts created and only used to make and defend a link addition to this article. Figment1 makes the addition, and Gators855 defends the change on the talk page. That the last two days, one account acts within in a very few minutes of the other is clearly a case of sock puppetry. The link is to what appears to be a newsblog and was questioned by 3 separate editors. When the point was made that the material on the diaday page was from something called "Tactical News Service", a notice was then posted on the Tactical News Service front page, asserting that diaday is an official licensee of TNS. The two websites appear linked as do these accounts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Not knowing what a sockpuppeteer is, I looked it up in Wikipedia and did not find a definition for the word. I think it is only right that if I am accused of something then the word being used for the accusation be defined in it, or a link to the word’s definition should be provided. I did not find a specific definition for sockpuppeteer. However, I did find the term, “sock puppet” in the section labeled WP:SOCK. If they are the same, I deny the allegation. The box at the top of the article in WP:SOCK says: “This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account.” The first sentence of the first paragraph in WP:SOCK says: “A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. “ I am one editor using one account.
 * Response to Accusation

I did find something called Template:Sockpuppeteer. It has a box saying, “It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.” I have not used one or more accounts abusively.

Response to Evidence Response to Paragraph 1: Wildhartlivie links to the User creation log. It says: 15:06, 30 June 2008 Figment1. Then there is the addition. I began participating because I disagreed with the link being taken down. I don’t view it as a link to a blog. I don’t agree with that. The website has audio with someone at the scene. The person being interviewed at the scene is a person quoted about the incident in well known newspapers. There is a section in the article about her death, so I see it as relevant.

Response to Paragraph 2: This paragraph does not relate to the accusation against me. Response to Paragraph 3: This paragraph does not relate to the accusation against me. Response to Paragraph 4: If somebody is using Wikipedia as a research tool they could spend a lot of time looking at an article. One of the good features here is that things are constantly updated. I imagine lots of people look at a page at the same time, or edit based on things they see in a discussion, without joining the discussion, and do it out of wanting to do what makes most sense for an article. I found an entry on Wikipedia that says Be Bold in editing. It’s at WP:BOLD. I was not trying to be bold, even though that’s encouraged. I was trying to do what I think is right and restore the link. Wildhartlivie’s accusation is inconsistent. Wildhartlivie claims in his/her Comments that I (Figment1) make the addition and then somebody else makes the defense on the talk page. Yet, in his/her fourth paragraph of supposed evidence Wildhartlivie starts by saying, “to clarify” and goes on to make the opposite claim saying that I am returning the link after entries to the talk page. The contradiction is obvious.

As to the rest of the comments, I do not see how they apply to this accusation.

After I received this accusation I went and checked Wildhartlivie’s user page. It says that Wildhartlivie has made over 10,000 contributions to Wikipedia. It says he/she has been a user for 1 year, 11 months and 14 days. That’s roughly 14 contributions a day, or more. With so much experience why not contact me or write something in the talk section to me rather than accuse me of something without knowing?

Wildhartlivie has claimed that the link I posted was questioned by three separate editors. It appears from Wildhartlivie’s page that at least one of those editors has some form of pre-existing relationship with him/her. The one editor I refer to is Pinkadelica. Pinkadelica made arguments against the addition of the link I reposted. It might be interpreted that Wildhartlivie came in specifically to support Pinkadelica’s position.

A review of Wildhartlivie’s user page and Pinkadelica’s user page show that they have given each other various awards. This goes back as far as December of 2007. Included is an award to Pinkadelica, by Wildhartlivie called, “The Outlaw Halo Award”. It says, “Presented because I simply couldn't find an award that had someone driving a nail into the overtly loquacious tongue of a lesser being with an oversized, wooden hammer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)”

I wonder why a person would give out an award with that kind of language. The language in that award makes me wonder about the level of bias these two editors might have in approaching an issue, particularly this one. It does not seem to speak of people looking to build consensus.

As far as the talk page of the Ruslana Korshunova article, it has a statement by an editor named robomod making a claim about the link I posted. It says, “… everything on that site is stolen from somewhere else. ► robomod 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)” That kind of claim seems irresponsible and wrong. Why didn’t Wildhartlivie take robomod to task for that statement? Why did he/she take no action? Why falsely accuse me and not do something about a statement like that?

Response: As long time contributors to Wikipedia, Pinkadelica and I have worked together on individual articles, and as colleagues in WP Projects. Because we respect one another's opinion and judgment, we often asked one another to look at issues that arise in our individual editing, as advised in WP:DR and specifically WP:DR. There is nothing suspicious or questionable about this practice, which is in the spirit of collaboration, good faith and cooperation. I will not respond to particulars about an award that was given following a formal dispute resolution case, nor am I required to defend or explain about the case. That is not relevant to this case, it is not against policy, and was the response to an extremely problematic issue last winter. However, I don't always agree with Pinkadelica and do tell her so when I don't agree. There is no collusion there. Further, these issues are not personal issues with either Figment1 nor Gators855, but content and policy issues. To allege otherwise, and turn the case in that direction, is irresponsible and contentious.

Pinkadelica and Robomod were dealing with an issue that arose regarding this link and I was asked to provide an opinion on the matter. I looked over the article, the link, and the pattern of contributions in respect to that site and did advise Gators855 to please take the question to the appropriate noticeboard for opinions on the website link. That was not done, and instead, the Tactical News Service posted its notice that it now had an agreement with diaday.com, after which the link was returned to the article. Pinkadelica, Robomod, and myself all agreed that the page was questionable, and further, that previously determined reliable sources were available for the article, which rendered the diaday.com external link posting redundant. Consensus was that it not be included. However, Figment1 returned the link against consensus.

The issues in each paragraph of the sock puppet case, the wikilink to the definition of which is, in fact, in the posting on the talk page of all three accounts in this case, are outlined to establish the connection from one account to the other and are therefore germane to the entire case. That Robomod expressed an opinion on the content on the posted website diaday.com, is neither against policy nor questionable. I don't take other editors to task, however I did notify Figment1 that he/she was in danger of violating WP:3RR, which is according to policy. Links to basic Wikipedia tenets were posted on Figment1's talk page by an editor on 30 June 2008. That he/she read, or didn't read, those pages are not relevant to policy violation questions.

Figment1 misread paragraph 4. I stated that Gators855 posted the diaday/Tactical News Service connection defense to the Talk:Ruslana Korshunova here, and seven minutes later, Figment1 returned the diaday.com link to the Ruslana Korshunova article here. Two minutes later, Gators855 removed the talk page comment by Robomod here and returned it under his/her own account here. The time frames and joint sole purpose of both accounts (which no other editor of all the ones who have posted to the Korshunova page since her death has supported or added), are clear indications of sock puppetry or meat puppetry, between which Wikipedia policy does not distinguish. No other editors approached this link issue, nor were there other editors contributing during that time frame. This is why sock puppet cases are opened. There is nothing contentious about this question and I'm sorry Figment1 sees it as such. There also seems to be a conflict of interest issue with this website and its addition and promotion by these accounts.

Finally, please sign your talk page posts, Figment1, by typing ~ (four tildes) each time you post. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm certain that asking for another long standing editor's opinion on any Wikipedia matter is not out of line with policy. In fact, it is encouraged and I myself am a third opinion Wikipedian. As Wildhartlivie stated, we have worked together on several articles, been involved in several disputes together, and I respect her opinion tremendously. We don't do bidding for each other and we certainly wouldn't violate Wikipedia policy to support each other. If there is clear evidence of any kind of violation of Wikipedia's core policies, please provide anything supporting those accusations. If you have none (aside from some silly Barnstars that are unrelated), I suggest the accusations be retracted. For the record, I contacted Wildhartlivie after it became clear that Figment1 decided to ignore what User:Robomod and I had agreed upon on the Ruslana talk page regarding the diaday.com link. I asked Wildhartlivie to check the link out to make sure I wasn't being unreasonable or was perhaps missing something. Turns out both Robomod and I were correct and the link shouldn't be included according to WP:EL because it is a blog. I stated those feelings on the talk page to which Figment1 ignored and repeatedly reinstated the link. Wildhartlivie did a little more digging than I ever cared to do and found out more info regarding the link and the users associated with the inclusion of it. Truth be told, I didn't even realize two separate users were adding the link back until after this case was opened. If I had realized that multiple users were adding the link back, I certainly would have taken the matter to an admin or opened this case myself. The hints of vote stacking or some sort of conspiracy against Figment1 are all in the user's head. I have asked several other users for help on several different articles (and vice versa), but I suppose Figment1 was too busy counting Wildhartlivie's contributions and perusing my user page to realize that. If Figment1 isn't related to User:Gators855, Figment1 should just state that and move on. However, their use of ad hominem arguments and questioning other user's comments seem to point to this user avoiding the real issue. Pinkadelica  23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Figment1, for clarity's sake, please respond under the person who posted last. Please read Talk page to familiarize yourself with how to format talk page responses. The reason I am here responding is simple, I was alerted that someone was banting my name about on this case which has nothing do with me. It's simple Wikipedia etiquette to tell someone when they are being accused of things so they can respond to said accusations. Now you have a concrete reason as to why I'm here defending something that isn't the issue. Having said that, you NEVER responded on the Ruslana article talk page regarding both User:Robomod's and my concerns regarding the link. Curiously, User:Gators855 responded on the talk page in the same manner that you communicate and also didn't sign their comments which, again, you do not do. Perhaps these are coincidences and there are two people who just happened to create accounts around the same time, only edit the Ruslana Korshunova page, and both want the same link included. The link is pretty much a secondary concern right now, and whether you like it or not, two people (not including Wildhartlive) had some problems with that link. Two people actually do count as a consensus considering only two people left concerns about the link being included. If you had issue with its removal, you should have expressed yourself on the talk page before adding it back as I suggest in an edit summary when I removed the link for the second time. Instead, a new, seemingly unrelated user popped up, gave some explanation and added the link back - twice. Still, that's two against one because, again, you never voiced your opinion on the talk page, you just kept adding the link back. However you wanna slice this, you didn't speak up and if you want to talk about unfair, I think it's more than unfair that a new user would create another account to create the illusion of support. That is exactly what this case is about and believe it or not, the evidence points to such until you can prove the accounts are unrelated. As for your concern over libel about Robomod's comment regarding the diaday website, I will kindly refer you to Wikilawyering. Nothing Robomod said is libel and s/he is certainly entitled to his/her opinion. I have also taken the liberty of alerting Robomod about this case so they too can come here to defend the accusations and concern over their supposed slanderous comments about a website.  Pinkadelica  04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I posted what I did in the interest of the article and the truth. Some people make thousands of posts. Should they be suspected of having an agenda? If someone is new does that mean they have an agenda? Why did this editor Wildhartlivie not make any comment to robomod about his comment? With 10,000 plus contributions it makes me wonder.

If Wikipedia is about finding the truth on subjects then we should focus on quality not quantity. Being new or posting seldomly should not be punished. The facts should be all important. Please remove this accusation against me.


 * Figment1:Answer to Wildhartlivie’s and Pinkadelica’s Responses

Wildhartlivie has made an accusation against me. I deny the accusation. Wildhartlivie’s actions are his/hers and should be reasonably subject to inquiry by a person being accused by him/her. An editor who memorializes a sentiment on a user page saying that a person is a “lesser being” along with an average of roughly 14 contributions a day over a two year period (based on information displayed on their user page) might have a certain mindset and outlook that is not wholly consonant with Wikipedia being a civil, open source encyclopedia that is readily accessible to all. Presumably, someone of Wildhartlivie’s vast experience should have attempted to treat me in a collegial manner rather than the adversarial approach he/she may have appeared to have taken. I do not have the same command of Wikipedia Policies and editing process that Wildhartlivie has. That does not mean that Wildhartlivie has a franchise on the truth, or that he/she is correct in this matter. In fact his/her sock puppet allegation is incorrect. After this accusation I took the time to read as much as I could of the policies and rules. There is quite a lot to read. What I read about consensus leads me to believe that Wildhartlivie is misapplying that term here. Nothing I read gave me the impression that one person can make what is apparently, at very best, an irresponsible comment. Then have a second person agree to the removal of a link. Then have a friend of the third person come in and support them. This does not seem like consensus. It seems like edict. robomod, on the Talk page posted the following, “… everything on that site is stolen from somewhere else. ► robomod 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)” Wildhartlivie says, referring to that comment, “That Robomod expressed an opinion on the content on the posted website diaday.com, is neither against policy nor questionable.” It seems here that Wildhartlivie is not familiar with WP: LIBEL which clearly states, “For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.” “It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous (sic) material when it has been identified.”  Is Wildhartlivie not part of “all contributors”? It seems that Wildhartlivie is applying portions of rules in a context and manner that suits his/her point of view in order to prevail rather than to do what is in the best interest of the article. Wildhartlivie is making an allegation based on the timing of edits to an article. Is a person supposed to wait a certain amount of time before they agree with someone by editing a link? Is being new a disability to posting? Isn’t Wikipedia dynamic? Can’t a person edit something in real time if they see an argument that they agree with? How are they supposed to know the timing of an edit in relation to what someone else is doing? Pinkadelica claims that “Turns out both Robomod and I were correct and the link shouldn't be included according to WP:EL because it is a blog.” Calling something a blog, claiming that there is consensus, citing all kinds of rules and regulations, etc. does not make a person right because they say so. Making a claim is not the same as proving a claim is correct. And if I make an inquiry, an inquiry is not an allegation.

Pinkadelica said, “If Figment1 isn't related to User:Gators855, Figment1 should just state that and move on. However, their use of ad hominem arguments and questioning other user's comments seem to point to this user avoiding the real issue. Pinkadelica 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)” I clearly stated at the beginning of my response that I deny the allegation. I made no ad hominem attacks. To the contrary, I am answering on point, on the issues. If accusations can be made against me attempting to weave together information to quash dissent, then I should be able to seek out information to defend myself.

Why has Pinkadelica come to this page at all? Wildhartlivie made an accusation, I responded and denied it. Pinkadelica being here seems to back up what I am saying. It might be interpreted that they are working together to support each other for the sake of argument, but not in the spirit of Wikipedia as an open source encyclopedia.

The award that Wildhartlivie gave to Pinkadelica claiming someone to be a “lesser being” is quite relevant here because it might tend to indicate a certain shared mindset by these two editors. Wildhartlivie’s over 10,000 posts in a bit less than two years is relevant as well. How many people could spend that much time editing Wikipedia? How many people can match Wildhartlivie’s subject matter mastery when it comes to policies here? The issue though is that being able to cite rules to a person’s convenience does not make their points substantial, their edits merit worthy, or their accusations correct. This is particularly true in what is supposed to be an open source encyclopedia.

Wildhartlivie’s volume of edits, which calculates out to approximately 14 per day for a period of a bit less than two years is relevant. Isn’t there something in the Wikipedia policies, suggestions or rules saying that it makes sense to take time away from Wikipedia to put things in perspective?

Coupled with a mindset that allows for awarding, “The Outlaw Halo Award” “Presented because I simply couldn't find an award that had someone driving a nail into the overtly loquacious tongue of a lesser being with an oversized, wooden hammer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)” might suggest that Wildhartlivie is missing the forest for the trees in what is supposed to be an open source encyclopedia that encourages new people to contribute.

In fact, all this back and forth makes me not want to contribute again. Perhaps that is Wildhartlivie’s objective. Maybe what is at stake here is some people winning, rather than what makes the most sense for an article.

I deny the allegation. I would prefer not to constantly go back and forth about this. Figment1 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This case was opened in order to determine the validity of a possible sock puppet situation. There has been at no time in this inquiry a personal tone in the case I presented here, nor is it acceptable and within guidelines for what amounts to a personal attack from Figment1 upon me based on the totally irrelevant award given to a fellow editor following the resolution of a difficult issue on Wikipedia. To state that there is a problem with my mindset regarding other editors based on that award is unacceptable, and to further imply that based on the number of contributions I've made, I spend too much time on Wikipedia and should take a break is totally out of line. I work on projects that includes assessment of hundreds of biographical articles, which includes over 2000 from March until June 2008 on one project alone. A very small number of editors assessed over 40,000 articles in that period of time, some of them doing over 6000. It is poor logic and bad faith to assume I spend inordinate amounts of time editing based on an edit count. Account statistics from the user history clarifies what a person spends time doing on Wikipedia, and I can assure you, 10,000 in 2 years, or 14 per day when one is involved in assessing several thousand articles, isn't all that much. Beyond that, there are a large number of editors who have far greater edit counts than I do. The circumstances surrounding that award are, first of all, none of your business, and secondly, were not related to this, or you, Figment1. It requires no explanation, none will be forthcoming, and it is totally irrelevant to this sock puppet inquiry. To make is so is casting a smokescreen from the relatively simple question, opened per WP policy, based on the case outlined above and is certainly an ad hominem argument directed towards me. I certainly hope that Figment1 will also spend some time perusing WP:Civil, WP:Etiquette and WP:NPA. This is a sock puppet inquiry, it is not a personal attack upon Figment1, and to turn it into a personal issue is against Wikipedia policies regarding user behavior.
 * Response

Robomod committed no libel as outlined in Wikipedia policy in stating his opinion of content on a website, and it is unacceptable for Figment1 to make that accusation, and to further state that I am violating policy because I what? Didn't "admonish" him? Beyond that, I have to wonder why this is an issue for Figment1, when he or she isn't the person who was involved in the discussion on the talk page, and supposedly wasn't the editor who removed the statement made by Robomod. Just as a reminder, it was Gators855 who removed the comment left by Robomod, in a discussion regarding the webpage in question. Also, to clarify, the fact that two persons objected to an addition by a third person, and the opinion of another editor was requested, who also agreed that the addition didn't belong, is exactly what consensus is. Consensus was determined that the website didn't belong. However, this case is not about page content, it is solely and totally about whether or not Figment1 and Gators855 are accounts belonging to the same person (sock puppets), or one person acting as an agent of the other with a single purpose in mind (meat puppet).

Further, it is certainly within the rights of Pinkadelica to respond to this case, when her integrity has also been called into question because she objected to the inclusion of the website link and requested a third party opinion. To claim that she had me come in to back her up is a serious charge of vote stacking and absolutely it is her right to dispute that accusation. This isn't a personal issue, Figment1. Please stop making it one.

One final point that I want to make. WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." That has been the objection to the diaday.com inclusion all along. It is not possible to tell from either that page, nor the Tactical News site, whether these are reliable sources, and was the sole reason it was suggested that an inquiry at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard be done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for using the word "stolen", instead it should say "retrieved". The fact is that the link has been re-added several times and bearing in mind that the behavior pattern was inopportune, I used that verbum but I didn't mean to offend diaday.com ( or Figment1/Gators855). As for the topic I agree to Wildhartlivie, everything has been said. ► robomod 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Robomod:Answer to Figment1

I originally put this on my discussion page. I deny being a sock puppet. I am Gator855. I created the nick after historically using my IP. My intention was to use Gator855 from now on because it is more private. I am not Figment1.

Nobody does my thinking for me or tells me what to do when it comes to discussing or editing here or anywhere.

There is so much to read here, that if I have time to go through it all I will give a longer answer.

Gators855 (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)