Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Landau7


 * 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:Landau7

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by Drumpler 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the evidence is evident on the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon talk page itself, but here are a few major points. IP 81.224.220.232 (the group's known compound -- their Internet service is Telianet, a Swedish IP) made several heavy edits to the article and I mistook another user for the group's leader because he used language similar to an initial article on apostates posted by an IP (to which I later apologized for). Then Landau7 made a few comments, trying to contextually pose as an admin to discount my comments (I didn't know how to check the history until shortly thereafter and that's where I learned Landau's identity -- he also tried to unlink a forward the redirect from Mishpachah lev-tsiyon to Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon Drumpler 13:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)). I looked into Landau's log file and learned he made his account that day. After some debating, uaasun made some biased edits (uaasun is a member of the religion's online group [one would have to search to find some of his posts, but two I immediately found were here and here]). Uaasun made some biased comments about my shunt in the article text itself (I'd like to add that I know uaasun is a seperate person and I am categorizing him as a meat puppet). Landau pretended to be a neutral observer, but released documents from a "secret archive" about my mother and my former landlord and made threats about this secret archive (by pretending to be a "neutral observer", he made it look like the group had more support than it really did). I finally agreed to not edit the article only so far as a few points were addressed (namely a key paragraph).
 * Evidence

A few days later, I noticed Landau7 had made a user page. I checked it out and a positive link to the group's leader (Christopher C. Warren) was identified, the major one being that both are graduates of Oxford University (the article itself includes this in its text and even when Landau changed much of it, he included this fact, demonstrating he agreed with it). I didn't touch the text of the article itself, per my agreement, but threw up two tags and pointed this fact out on the talk page (I probably should have left it alone), both live/lived/have visited Sweden (the group's HQ) and know the language, etc. A few days later, Lil'dummy started making attacks against me on the talk page -- their account was only a few days old and the talk page was the only one they contributed to (could be Landau7 or another meatpuppet -- the group has two modems in their home). They have recently contributed to one other article (only two words at that -- see the diff).

Landau7 has contributed to a few others, but if one views his contributions in light of an old page on his site at http://web.archive.org/web/20050301123756/www.nccg.org/ezion_geber/, they will see both are avid lovers of history (Landau likewise lied and said that Stanislaw Krolewiec and Christopher Warren aren't one and the same -- the proof is in the e-mail address. If one joins MLT Reception Group and chooses to receive an e-mail every time a post goes up, eventually they will receive one from "Community Moderator" [Christopher C. Warren] and the e-mail address will be "ezion_geber@yahoo.com". If one analyzes the archived link I posted, they will find this is the "nick name" for "Stanislaw Krolewiec". When the polygamy group use to exist, "Community Moderator" was the same user name for all NCCG-related groups. I have archived a screen capture of an e-mail here [the file is 435 K because I didn't compress it -- I did this intentionally so I wouldn't be accused of editing it -- I will likewise forward the original e-mail itself to those investigating this on the condition my e-mail address is not disclosed]. The reason I mention this is not for the sake of random "trivia", but to show one case of bias on Landau's own part and why he'd go to extremes to defend this article -- he doesn't want anything unauthorized going up about himself and so has lied in order to make himself look like a "distant, neutral contributor".)

I think this is all I will write for now. Some people may think I have an axe to grind, but I will not touch the text of the article itself (most of my recent posts surrounding this have been to the talk page -- I have likewise contributed to other several unrelated topics). If a mod wants, they can even ban me from even touching the article. What I really want is the article to be neutral. I knew it wasn't and I only settled for the current edit initially because it did include SOME critical information. However, I think the restriction should be extended to the leader himself. He thinks its "reasonable" that I not touch it, but its okay for him? Just giving my two cents.

I'd also like to add that this group does have a documented history of lying and fraud outside of Wikipedia and if it is needed, I or my associate (the co-writer of the nccg.info site) can prepare documentation regarding this.


 * Comments

I think this proves my point. Just shortly after I posted this, Landau7 undid an edit by another member who removed a link the religion's group (the website itself should suffice). He likewise added a new criticism under the controversy section (I do not remember this article being on the group -- I think what Landau is doing is just making up articles left and right and placing them on the article -- a thing I fear may occur if he still has power over it -- and yet, he'd throw a conniption if I did the same thing). Here's the diff. Drumpler 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Once more, point proven. CM made a post on his group at http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=566 advertising the new section he added (I have this documented in e-mail in the event it is deleted to hide the facts). Landau7's edits on the Wiki article announcing this new section were posted up at 16:26 GMT (diff). The post announcing his new section on his group was up at 4:34 PM GMT. When GMT is converted into military time, this makes it 16:34 GMT. What does this mean? It means Landau knew of the document a few minutes before CM posted it up to the MLT Reception Group. This is evident because it was here first and the "newness" of the section can be accounted for by the new post advertising it. Once more, he exposed himself and his contributions to the article are anything but neutral. He has lied several times to make himself look like a disconnected observer and, it would seem, ultimately about the "anonymous IP" (which the evidence seems to suggest is none other than him). Drumpler 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If one views the talk page, Landau also tried to restore this "anonymous edit" because it was more "neutral". This is against Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppeting for it can be interpreted as a bid to gain favour for a position by pretending to be someone or something he is not. Drumpler 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at Lil'dummy's remarks, the more I think they are the same as Uaasun -- the same biting sarcasm is evident. This would probably characterise Lil'dummy as a meatpuppet and not a sockpuppet. Drumpler 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this was significant: Landau's latest "discovery". I was speaking hyperbolic on my site, but really its no matter, because I don't regret the word usage I used on my private blog (maybe I should've used manslaughter instead?). I have no desire to discuss this on the talk page, but here, through the proper channels.


 * To be honest, if one researches the entry in question that he posted here, I think he's more peed off that I exposed another false prophecy and is making Wikipedia his stomping grounds. Religiouis apostates are unreliable? Then so are religious group leaders. If he is so adamant about putting the article back up, then the Rick Ross link needs to go back up. I believe I significantly proved his identity. Read my notes above. Drumpler 10:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also compare these diffs: 12. He fenced my words into a new section called "Paranoia" (I did something similar earlier, but removed it when I calmed down) plus added his "discovery" (noted in the archive above). The intent was to make a section deeming me paranoid. I reverted the edit removed the section header manually, but posted nothing else on the talk page. Drumpler 10:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I remembered the group's leader bragging to me sometime back about removing "NCCG Concern's" link. Look at this diff. When I did a RIPE query, another TeliaNet IP came up for this address. The editing history is similar to Landau7 above, who likewise added the link to this group in just after an admin's bot removed it (diff -- not to mention mentioning an additional article here on Wikipedia just before CM did so, as noted above). The other TeliaNet IP did the same thing to the MLT article itself. Drumpler 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted to be the first to say (before I receive accusations later of hiding evidence) that I made a few entries on my http://blog.nccg.info site from a course spanning over the last month private because they pointed to this debate. I am primarily interested in exit counselling first and foremost and so posted them up without understanding Wikipedia's policy regarding this. They were source material meant for those recovering from the group (which, according to my understanding of the Rick Ross classification of a cult would deem it such -- I am not interested in using Wikipedia as a place to debate my opinion, however). So far as I can tell, no one has used my blog entries as a portal to participate anyway. This was not a bid to garner support (and if one checks the talk page, I really don't have any from the two that do post there anyway -- the group's leader and a sympathiser). The reason I made the entries private was to maintain the integrity of this discussion and once it is over and the final decision is made, I'll probably post them back up. I don't want to recruit any meat puppets of my own and I did not want to be mistook in that light.


 * I will either post them back up if it is needed for the moderators to make a decision or send a copy to the mods themselves if they want them. I just want this to be fair and balanced.


 * Thank you. Drumpler 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, here are the entries cached from Google. I think this may be considered safe, since the average person won't think to access them this way anyway:


 * http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Ppo11QrTGLgJ:blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/10/2723913.html+Surprise!+Surprise!+Warren+Lies+Again!&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


 * http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_j4748ZdXgMJ:blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/21/2752584.html+This+Is+Why+I+Love+NCCG!&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


 * http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GnBewlohkV0J:blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/19/2748799.html+02-19-2007:+This+Time,+Warren+is+The+One+Caught+Lying&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


 * Something missing from the cached copy of the latter two is a disclaimer stating my correction on one of the people in question. I still have the original article archived if the disclaimer is relevant.


 * I realize that admittance to such could lead to my username being banned, but I just want this article to be neutral and am willing to "rat myself out" if that's what it ends up. I do highly suspect, however, all of those in the list above and I recommend that the case still be checked into as neutrality has always been my intent, even after I got over some of my more emotionally charged entries. ;) Drumpler 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have information I can make available to admins regarding the sock and meat puppets in question, but I am only able to make it available offsite because of the sensitive nature of the material. If this is acceptable, e-mail me at derekrumpler@hotmail.com. Drumpler 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to need verification from here first, though, before I make it available. Drumpler 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether this counts as meat puppeting (diff)? I can find no record of these two exchanging messagess, plus Landau7 mentions "several" who agree with him, making me think the exchange occured offsite. Drumpler 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Documented Meat Puppeting -- Long Story Short

First, let me apologize if I missed something, but the amount of writing presented for what should be a relatively simple case seems to be large. I did my best to dig through it, and can't find anything that shows conclusive evidence of sock puppet abuse. Not proven. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Requested a checkuser (sorry about that, seems we crossed wires there), but I have my doubts as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Final note: Checkuser showed users not to be related, and there's not convincing evidence here to override that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)