Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Smith's

User:John Smith&

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:John Smith's has been arguing for WP to use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP. There are other pages as well, but I won't list them all here. Then along came User:Foula, who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC. The template was an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD. The new account then inserted the template into several articles. Then John Smith's proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits.  John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.
 * Evidence
 * Talk:Jesus
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China
 * Talk:Japan

Note that Foula has so far only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. Normally this is perfectly acceptable usage of a sock. However, there is possible vote fraud going on.
 * First there was the Template for Deletion vote on Template:History of China - BC.
 * Now there is a poll on the MoS for China-related articles.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I think that Hong is rather jumping to conclusions just because there were only two people that wanted to keep the template - I do wonder if he is too quick to "cry wolf" over sockpuppetry, given I have never been shown to indulge in that. I would like to believe he would stop making these reports when this comes back negative (as previous ones have), but I have a feeling he will continue doing so. John Smith&#39;s 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I filed this because someone else requested it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The observations made by User:PHG here does appear to lend much weight to his suspicions, so I doubt Hong Qi Gong has overstepped himself in this regard. Even if the IP addresses were proven different, meatpuppetry remains likely.--Huaiwei 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, just allege something you can't prove. You just said that because you're not happy you didn't get to take part in the Nanking Massacre RfC. John Smith&#39;s 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can if I wish to, so you need not worry. Meanwhile, perhaps you may do better keeping comments such as the above out of the picture, especially at a time like this.--Huaiwei 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to ensure everyone knows why you're here, that's all. John Smith&#39;s 17:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually read the dispute in the Manual of Style and posted the link to this page before noticing the issue over at Nanking Massacre, but that's besides the point. I have made my point here about your allegations against Hong's "over ehthusiasm", and that comment still holds.--Huaiwei 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like John Smith's Hungarian friend is back. How convenient.  There are certainly a lot of IP editors from Hungary who agree with John Smith's.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You really do have it in for me, don't you Hong? John Smith&#39;s 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is John Smith's Other Hungarian friend who supported his edit a while ago. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow this clear and blantant sockpuppetry at its best, for a case this strong you could probably contact an admin directly. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  09:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do. Then we can close this silly thing. John Smith&#39;s 09:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just briefly, I think the allegations of meatpuppetry (as certainly any IP check would come back negative) are baseless. Foula starting editing a month ago on articles I had no interest in until recently, so it's not possible that account was set up to support me. I was agreeing with Foula (so does that mean I set my account up in anticipation of the dispute over the template?). In other cases Foula has disagreed with me such as here. I'm just sorry to see that Foula's user page now only consists of a suspected sockpuppet template! John Smith&#39;s 10:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In more detail, it appears that the deleted template in question was created either on or before 15th July - Foula added it to about 4 articles. It was not until nearly three weeks later that I found the template and tried to use it to create consistency between the article content and the template. However, Hong has left that rather important fact out, as well as that I never edited Naval history of China despite the fact that was one article Foula added the deleted template to (yet was removed by Hong without complaint) and edited more than once.
 * I did take part in two discussions with Foula. However, during the first one over the deletion of the template I was not the only other user apart from Foula to vote to keep it - User:Septentrionalis also argued for it for it not to be deleted. On another related vote here at the China Project, Foula did not take part in the discussion. This is in addition to Foula's comment here that was in opposition to what I had said/agreed with. Also on the WP:MOS talk page here, Foula did not take sides with me, only asking whether myself and PHG should be arguing over the point that was in dispute.
 * As I mentioned earlier, it's not logical to imply that I would have created a sock to carry on some work weeks before I'd taken any interest in the use of BC/AD on wikipedia. Indeed during this point (mid July) I was going through a phase of checking fair-use images for deletion, as well as editing other articles. Given that edit history (showing no interest in Chinese history or date terms at the time Foula was editing), the allegation of sockpuppeting Foula doesn't make sense. John Smith&#39;s 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the strongest part of this case are the mysterious "Hungarian friends" not Foula although her tempering with the template is quite suspicious. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. All I can say is that I don't believe I know this editor/these editors. I've been involved in various disputes over the last couple of months - I think the recent edit was the first time that I can remember anyone with a Hungarian IP cropping up on articles I've had a dispute on in that period. By the way, where did Foula tamper with a template? Or are you refering to the creation of the "fork"? John Smith&#39;s 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He/she created a clone of an existing template and edited it to suit his/her likes that's tempering with an existing temlate regardless of it being created somewhere else, if the user had a problem with the template as it was he could create a discussion about it on the template's talk page and would have warned the users that created and/or worked with it, the user's intention was clearly to replace the existing template with his/her own creation without any consensus first. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the "fork" as it was called. Foula's comments are here. He/she seemed to think it was a way to ensure articles could have a template that reflected their style, or some such. In retrospect I guess a better solution would have been insertion of code to make it adaptable, as has been discussed on the China Project. John Smith&#39;s 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe one of those "Hungarian friends" have been through a checkuser already and it came back negative. The matter was closed as far as I was concerned, but then another "Hungarian friend" showed up again to help John Smith's out after he made three reverts.  Really, anybody with the capability can find an unrelated IP and make a sock out of it.  We may never prove anything, but having two IPs from the same range show up only to make the same reverts that John Smith's did, after he made three reverts, is suspicious enough to warrant a bit of attention.
 * As far as Foula is concerned, the most suspicious thing is that the account was recently created and the only thing that the user has edited (so far) concerns the date issue - something that John Smith's has been involved in for a while now - and that Foula and John Smith's were the only ones to try to mass insert that duplicate template into articles. Now as I said, this is normally a perfectly allowable use of a sock (if it is indeed a sock), but Foula has also voted in two polls that John Smith's has voted in, and it would be vote fraud if Foula really is a sock of John Smith's.
 * Do I know for certain that Foula and those "Hungarian friends" are socks? Of course not, I am not privy to that information.  But I believe it does look suspicious and that's why I've filed a case here.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, there's not much I can say about this/these Hungarians, only that I have no ties to that country. If the editor(s) is/are on floating IPs that might give a reason why you'll only see them make a few edits of the same sort at one time, but that's a guess from me. The only other point is that, as I said, I was involved in other disputes where no such people appeared despite the fact I had also made a number of reverts.
 * You ignored my point about Foula and the time the account was created. Why would I have created an account to take part in an activity (date style formating) in July that was not connected to anything I was doing at that time or had done in the lead-up to July? The only reason I would have done that was to hatch some sort of complex plot - why not just have got on with it myself if I cared? It's not as if there'd been a big existing argument over it on the Chinese pages (that I can see at any rate). You also ignore those "polls" where Foula either disagreed with me or didn't back me up. John Smith&#39;s 13:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually both you and "Foula" voted the same way in the two polls that I listed. If Foula really is your sock, there could be a number of reasons why there's a time lapse and a disconnect between what you were editing and what "Foula" was editing.  Maybe you didn't want what "Foula" edited to show up on your main account's contrib history.  Maybe you wanted to "test the waters" on the edits that "Foula" did to see if there were any objections.  However, admittedly without a checkuser, arguments that you are using socks - and your counter-arguments against them - are all circumstantial.  Unfortunately, vote fraud where sock votes did not affect poll outcomes do not qualify for checkuser requests.  I don't know what else to say about this.  I think I've outlined my suspicions pretty clearly. And of course, it's only natural that you defend yourself - I think anybody would do the same.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Foula never voted with me - in an earlier post I pointed out places Foula either did not vote with me or contradicted me, even though it concerned similar discussions. I also think it's a rather shaky argument to allege that I used Foula to "test the waters" when, as I pointed out, I was showing no interest in BC/AD at that time - I was quite clearly involved in completely different areas of editing. You're essentially saying that I hatched a plot in the middle of going through uploaded fair use pictures to get involved in the use of BCE/CE and BC/AD in Chinese history articles. I have no idea how likely that seems to you, but to me it couldn't be more unlikely.
 * I also didn't try to help Foula when his/her changes were reverted in July, and Foula did not help me when my edits were reverted at any point. Additionally Foula was rather slow to revert changes back, whereas I'm much quicker if I do it at all. So unless you would claim that I deliberately waited up to a week to change back edits made with an account that I had supposedly gone to great lengths to create/activate/whatever, again this doesn't seem credible in my view.
 * On a separate matter, I would appreciate it if you could ask an admin that actions these reports (you could look on the SSP talk page) to process this case, as I have already asked on your talk page - I have no idea how long the backlog will take to clear. John Smith&#39;s


 * For what it's worth, I've had the pleasure of interacting with John Smith's for a few months now, and I must confess that I'd be shocked to hear that he would stoop to sock puppetry. I believe that while he certainly has his own opinions and zealously defends them, he has, in my opinion, always presented himself as an upright, honorable, and rule-abiding fellow, and NOT one that would tolerate sockpuppetry (see the case of User:TingMing) or resort to it.  If a checkuser must be done, I think it will quickly reveal these accusations to be baseless.  --Folic Acid 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * User:Foula looks like a sock, but this case doesn't provide strong evidence to tie it to User:John Smith's. As for the "Hungarian friends", there's no evidence that they're John Smith's either; you might want to submit them to WP:NOP to see if they're proxies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)