Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Newport


 * 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:Newport

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

Past SSPs of
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Bulldog123 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence

Prior documentation
According to documentation above, User:Newport is a likely reincarnation of User:RachelBrown, a user accused of gross sockpuppetry over a year ago. Four sockpuppets were blocked. The sockpuppetry charges were later dropped due to "lack of evidence" and the sockpuppets unblocked. However it seems that the gross sockpuppetry continues to this day but under different usernames, with the previous usernames only showing up once in a while to continue vote fraud and consensus faking. Details are as follows:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive58 (December 2005)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive59 (December 2005)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive21 (December 2005)

CFD/AFD
I cite the following 15 AFDs/CFDs/DRs. To the best of my knowledge, this is every Afd/CfD within the last year ever participated in by two or more of the users By doing this, it shows the high frequency of the overlap of these users' votes.

If the usernames share the same opinion on the RFA, the chart below will have a by the username. If they voted differently, there will be a.

Most CfDs/AfDs are closed as "no concensus", where this result defaults to the outcome these users wanted. Please see any archived history of these categories/articles for detailed responses.


 * Case #1: Categories for deletion, May 20, 2006 - "All ethnicity category pages"
 * Case #2: Categories for deletion, September 10, 2006 - Jewish Sportspeople
 * Case #3: Categories for deletion, September 12, 2006 - Jewish Mathematicians
 * Case #4: Categories for deletion, November 12, 2006 - Anti-Semitic people
 * Case #5: Categories for deletion, November 12, 2006 - Anti-Semitic canards
 * Case #6: Categories for deletion, November 23, 2006 - Anti-Semitic people
 * Case #7: Articles for deletion, December 10, 2006 - Zsa Zsa Riordan
 * Case #8: Categories for deletion, December 27, 2006 - Actors by Religion
 * Case #9: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish Fencers
 * Case #10: Articles for deletion, 2007 - List of Peruvian Jews
 * Case #11: Deletion Review, 2007 - List of Peruvian Jews
 * Case #12: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish Scientists
 * Case #13: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish figure skaters
 * Case #14: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish musicians
 * Case #15: Deletion Review, 2007 - Jewish figure skaters

Three or four more categories and articles they have vote stacked are missing.

RFAs
The following are examples of oppose or support stacking on RFAs. If the usernames share the same opinion on the RFA, the chart below will have a by the username. If they voted differently, there will be a.


 * Case #1: Requests_for_adminship/Shirahadasha
 * Case #2: Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3
 * Case #3: Requests_for_adminship/Amarkov
 * Case #4: Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2
 * Case #6: Requests_for_adminship/Marskell
 * Case #7: Requests for adminship/Moreschi
 * Case #8: Requests for adminship/FT2 2
 * Case #9: Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade 2

Several more probably on Votes for Bureacracy/Other Administration

Most Recent Examples of Faking Consensus

 * TALK:Albert Einstein - voting to include "Jewish" categories and exclude "German" categories
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco - User:R613vlu, anon IP, and User:Newport faking consensus against User:Daizus
 * For examples of past faking consensus- please see the EDIT WARRING section.

Articles
All three registered users make articles for British scientists, and almost exclusively for British-Jewish scientists. If you take a look at Newport's userpage it says "Currently, my main project is to write short biographical articles on eminent scientists, mostly British, where there is currently no Wikipedia article or a very poor one."

On Newport's talk page, a user commented that Newport writes British scientist/professor articles like a resume and that he/she shouldn't do that because this is an encyclopedia. It can be read at User talk:Newport.

The "resume format" looks awkward and un-wiki-like and Newport seems to do it on most of the articles he/she makes for British(-Jewish) academics.

Brownlee and R613vlu make British scientist/professor articles in the exact same way... the "resume" format. I cite following articles done by the three users:


 * David Malcolm Lewis, created by Newport (note that the extended biograpy was added by someone else)
 * Norman Bentwich, created by Brownlee
 * Barry Supple, created by User:R613vlu (their first edit)

All three articles are British Jewish academics/scientists/professors. All three articles are written in Newport's strange resume-looking format, often copied from Who's Who. Just taking a test sample, we can see pretty much all British professors articles are not written like that if they are done by different users.

Edit Summaries
The point of this section is to show similarities in wording in edit summaries. These alone would not be "sufficient" enough but together with everything else they paint a clearer picture.

Below are a few examples of similarities in wording of edit summaries. This is NOT to say all these edit summaries are unique only to the users. It IS here to show the like-mindedness and similar thinking pattern of the users, in addition to wording. The contributions go back so far that providing diffs for these is very burdensome so I give only a few examples in areas where they are necessary.


 * "delete/remove refs" - "because you don't like what they say"/"them"
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * "We have [number] good sources that say that he was Jewish"
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * "violates [policy] and [policy]" || "anything else violates [policy]" || "please do not violate [policy]" etc..
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * "reports what reliable sources say" || "reporting"
 * 
 * 


 * "remove nonsense" || "preposterous!" || "nonsense!" etc..
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * "POV to ___" etc
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * "undoubted Jew(s)" || "undoubtedly Jewish"
 * 
 * 


 * "lets stick to"
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * "____ to deny ___" || violates WP:NOR to deny - to go beyond ||
 * 
 * 
 * 

This goes on and on, with many more examples.

Note, that due to past blocks the user is probably more experienced with making it appear like the users are different.

Edit Warring
User:Newport, User:Brownlee, and the anon IP repeat the same arguments during edit wars, often using very similar edit summaries (diffs are above). All users misunderstand WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and frequently use both in their arguments on talk pages.

Examples of this can be found historically at TALK:List of German Jews, TALK:List of Hungarian Jews,TALK:List of Iberian Jews, TALK:List of Czech Jews (archive #1), TALK:List of Polish Jews, TALK:List of Jewish scientists and philosophers and nearly every list of Jews article has some history of an edit war where all three users participated and agreed with eachother.

Articles where users have faked consensus include TALK:Georg Cantor, TALK:Otto Lilienthal, TALK:Albert Einstein, TALK:Alexander Grothendieck, TALK:Grigori Perelman, TALK:Peter Sarnak many many more...

RFA habits
Users often vote on the same RFAs. It was once mentioned on wikipedia that sockpuppets frequently indulge in RFA votes because this is an attempt at trying to make themselves appear more inclusive with the community.

All users vote "Oppose" to RFA candidates who disagree in some way with their editing styles...frequently their reasonings are very similar with wordings such as "oppose with regret" and "oppose with a heavy heart."

See Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha for made by Newport and  made by R613vlu, including an edit made by Brownlee where the resemblance between the above two votes are stark, in wording, tone and general theme.

User:Brownlee once voted to support AND oppose an RFA on User:Daniel_Bryant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brownlee#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006.2FVote.2FDaniel.Bryant) This is evidence that the user sometimes pays no attention to how or why they're voting on an RFA, but simply votes either for the sake of bringing up their edit count or for the sake of looking like strong community participants.

Checkuser
Checkuser reveals that User:Brownlee and User:R613vlu use open proxies to edit (and have shared about half a dozen proxies between them). Therefore, it can be suggested that the sockpuppets Brownlee and R613vlu are used via open proxies by Newport. The individual IP editor on the other hand is apparently a very public IP used by other valid editors on wikipedia.

Note that the IP address has a very high edit count but refuses to get a username. A possible reason why the IP editor refuses to get a username is because the sockpuppeteer is aware the the IP is held by other VALID users on wikipedia and thus uses it only to **appear** like another editor.

Note that the Newport account has been accused of sockpuppetry in the past. Given this, it is probable that Newport sockpuppeteer has become more adept at making sockpuppets look like different people by using proxies to edit.

Same Resources at Disposal
All four users have direct and immediate access to The Jewish Chronicle newspaper and the Encyclopedia Judaica. The Jewish Chronicle requires a paid subscription and is targetting a specific audience, so it is not a household newspaper everyone can be expected to have. Encyclopedia Judaica is very expensive too and not accessible online except through payment. That all four users have paid memberships to both of these resources is indicative, along with everything else, that they are NOT separate people. To see examples of each user using information from these sources see the recent talk page history at TALK:Otto Lilienthal and TALK:Georg Cantor.

Connecting Newport and the anon 20.138.246.89


A slip-up made by Newport confirms that Newport is the same user as the anonymous IP address (20.138.246.89).

User:Newport, User:Brownlee, User:R613vlu, and User:20.138.246.89 were all edit warring with User:LeszekB over measures taken on List of Polish Jews. They were arguing in TALK:List of Polish Jews. At one point, after LeszekB's argument, the IP address 20.138.246.89 writes the following:

This is clearly just a dispute about whether the scope of the article should be changed. Shouldn't we just take a poll of editors? That's what's normally done in these circumstances.--20.138.246.89 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LeszekB responds with:

A poll to *rename* the list would be acceptable, but there's no negotiating someone's identity. "I think he's German." "Well, I think he's English. Let's take a poll." That doesn't work. You can't take a poll on whether wormholes exist, you need citations that say they do. You can't take a poll on if people like Adrien Brody and Scarlett Johansson are Polish, you need citations that say they are. LeszekB 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediately after this, Newport responds to the comment INSTEAD of 20.138.246.89 and writes:

That isn't what I am proposing. I am proposing a vote on whether to change the scope of the article, which is clearly laid out in the introduction. There is no Wikipedia policy whatsoever that says that the scope of an article is determined solely by one editor's over-literal interpretation of the article title.--Newport 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a slip up. Newport made no proposal for a poll, that was 20.138.246.89, but Newport is responding as if s/he made the comment that was made by 20.138.246.89.

In addition to this, in the Eugene Ionesco Mediation Cabal, Newport writes

"I am in contact with the anon."

In contact with an anon who never revealed their email address on wikipedia or left a message on Newport's talk page? How can somebody be *in contact* with an anon any other way?

Connecting Newport and R613vlu


This is the only time in history any user has left a message on eachother's talk page and it was done on purpose. The message suggests R613vlu "accidently" started finishing an article initiated by Newport. This suggests Newport lost track of which username account s/he used to make those edits and ended up editing like Newport on the R613vlu account. In order to cover his/her tracks, R613vlu left a message on Newport's User talk page asking if it is "OK" that R613vlu finished Newport's edits. This seems suspicious, especially since Newport responded promptly "I'm delighted to welcome a new collaborator" - possibly covering up for future mistakes.

Connecting Newport and Brownlee (via old username: Poetlister)


User:Brownlee brought up an example of an article dispute on the Seamus Heaney article concerning his birthplace. However, if you look at the talk page of Seamus Heaney, User:Brownlee never participated in these discussions. Rather, it was User:Poetlister. In fact, the original discussions for the Seamus Heaney dispute took place on October 2005, User:Brownlee was only an editor since March 2006. How would s/he know about that discussion when s/he never made an edit on that article talk page and registered almost half a year after the discussions took place?

It is likely Brownlee is confusing her time editing as Poetlister, who was a suspected sockpuppet of Newport. This would suggest a connection between Newport and Brownlee. In addition, the username Brownlee also sounds suspiciously like Rachel Brown. The latter is obviously not evidence, per se, but it is note-worthy.

No Overlap in Editing found
According to a sorting algorithm which sorts editing times in ascending order, for the three registered usernames, no overlap in editing times could be found since their first edits on wikipedia. If proof of this is needed it will be given, but considering the output is over 2000 lines long, it won't be put on this SSP.


 * Comments

My only contribution to the above SSP was the analysis of editing times, and I will be glad to comment on that if needed. The rest of the SSP was sent to me through email after suspicions of meatpuppetry, WP:CANVASSing, and sockpuppetry on recent Cfds, the last three listed above. If anyone has any questions regarding some of the evidence on this SSP, you will likely have to refer to users who have dealt with these people personally. I also analyzed the contribution summaries for the previously blocked sockpuppets, which I will link to if anyone wants. Bulldog123 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
I'm currently looking at this with CheckUser. The other results will take a while longer to look through, but I can say right now that is clearly, and I only reveal that because it is a WP:SOCK violation based on some of the double-voting, at least. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one month each, per double-"voting" on at least two CfD's and DRV's, and edit warring with the IP on controversial pages the account frequents, in contradiction to WP:SOCK.  Daniel  07:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See . --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)