Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RRJ


 * 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:RRJ

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by: Jhamez84 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this is a case of ongoing sockpuppetry. The evidence relates to the contribution history (and seemingly instantly found co-operation) of these accounts, and insistance that uncited, biased, unhelpful comments be included on the Altrincham article.
 * Evidence

Inline with WP:REF, WP:V and particularly WP:NOR, I've asked for citation regarding comments, which I veiw as an effort to POV fork an obscure and dis-used system of British geography (which further goes against the Naming conventions (places)).

The comments relate to how they believe this system is common place in large numbers in one particular settlement - which I, and others, find objectionable. And the accounts seem to be created to add weight to this view.

I've left warnings and messages of policy support at User Talk:137.205.8.2 which promptly provoked the creation of User:Bob74 (which recieved a very similar message from myself) whom in turn left both this and this incivility.

I've also tried to outline Wikipedia's position on this here, which just lead to lately recieving this unhelpful threat.

A swift investigation would help before this spirals further. Thank you, Jhamez84 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

I am cosmopolitancats and have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this. I am not a sock puppet of RRJ or any of the other people mentioned. I am extremely surprised to find this accusation as a response to view is expressed in good faith, with reference to wikipedia guidance found on the site and with expert knowledge.

'''I should like it noted that I happened on this accusation of sock puppetry completely by chance. In the message to me on my talk page jhavez84 makes no reference whatsoever to this accusation of sock puppetry. I didn't find this very helpful or constructive and suspect this may have influenced my response below. '''

To refute the accusation:

1) I really don't understand the accusation of "seemingly instantly found co-operation". I happened upon the page because I used to live there and happened to check it out one day - and walked into what seemed to be a big row about naming conventions.  So far as subsequent contributions are concerned, presumably the accuser is aware that a page can be watched and that although my main contributions are in other areas I returned to check this page out any changes or comments made which led to further comments.  Isn't this the way wikipedia works?  How can this provide evidence of and lead to an accusation of sock puppetry?

2) My account was not created as an instantaneous response to points being made on the page about the locality in question. The accuser has not identified specifically how the various accounts identified have a related contribution history so it is difficult to refute what he has in mind.

3) I have an established record of contributions in other areas of wikipedia - including identifying articles which were sub-standard (completely unrelated to geography and naming conventions) well in advance of commenting on the page in question. According to my contribution history my earliest contribution is May 2006 - on a completely unrelated matter (ie my account was not created to comment on the page in dispute. I only started contributing to the page in dispute on 9 December 2006.

4) I commented on the page in question as a view was being taken by Jhavez84 about a common practice relating to naming in a locality (repeated in his accusation) - which I know to be true and he was stating his belief was untrue. In addition to local knowledge I have a degree in geography from Cambridge and my dissertation was on local government reorganisation and the perceptual geography of boundaries (ie where boundaries are in people's heads as opposed to current administrative boundaries) which took as its subject the metropolitan borough of Trafford in which Altrincham is located hence I have some considerable expert knowledge of the issue in question and is why I commented.  I understood at the time that expert knowledge was accepted. The talk header has been added since the dispute started and it would have been most advantageous in averting the dispute if that header had been inserted at a much earlier stage as it points to policy on original research.

5) I did comment on the multiple accounts to the effect that if you lose your password you have to create another account to continue contributing to wikiedpia and that should be borne in mind before making assertions about the use of multiple accounts. As it is I have had only one account since I started.

6) I edited the page once not realising that I was not logged in and subsequently logged in and tried to remedy the record. I'm not quite sure whether what I did was right or not but I was certainly never trying to hide my identity other than completely unintentionally.

6) I did agree with the accuser that the article needed to be improved and pointed to the guidance which existed that I could find.

I now understand that my original research is not acceptable however I can dig out the references for the perceptual geography issues which relate to this area - which are published documents. If I need to provide citations then I would expect somebody with a remit to improve an article and with more knowledge of wikipedia policy to provide guidance on the type of citation required. This did not happen. What I got was somebody stating what their belief was.

I would comment that I do find it very odd that wikipedia appears to accept items from newspapers which are notorious for getting facts wrong and does not for a piece of research done for a Cambridge degree. My agreement with others of a view that the accuser does not agree should not generate an accusation of sock puppetry. I would suggest there is a disagreement - which may, in part, be due to people not understanding all aspects of wikipedia policy. I would expect those with greater knowledge to exhibit that knowledge on discussion pages - as to rights and wrongs of content - rather than to resort to accusing people of sock puppetry.

I think the reason why people may be getting agitated is that those with local knowledge of a specific area feel that they are being accused of being liers (ie their statements as current local practice is not believed). There must be a way in which wikipedia can record both fact as to current naming according to wikipedia conventions and administrative process and fact as to current naming conventions in use within a locality (ie as a result of perceptual geography and local cultural issues which should be respected). I have been looking for guidance on how this might be done. I have no dispute whatsoever with the fact that Altrincham is not in Cheshire. I'm at a loss to know how one validates local practices. I'm minded to refer the article in question to the pages of the local newspaper to see what sort of response it generates.

I find the comments about 'whacking the traditional county activitists' on the accusers talk pages to be most concerning - although I do recognise that the comments were not personally made by the accuser. It suggests to me that there is a group taking an apparently 'aggressive' stance on a naming matter which fails to accept that there maybe needs to be some more debate about finding a way of respecting local cultural issues at the same time as correctly reporting administrative naming conventions. Or does Wikipedia omit all references to culture when it has a narrative about a place? For the record I am not a traditional county activist in any way shape or form - but I do like to see recognition of a form of geography which is just as real as postal districts. This is especially important when administrative boundaries change so often. It's also particularly pertinent to much wider issues concerning boundary issue and disputes and cultures within the world as a whole and I would have thought both wikipedia and individual contributors need to be mindful of behaving in a very sensitive and respectful way in relation to such matters. Would it not be more helpful to point to the place where these debates about wikipedia policy and naming conventions are being held so that we can all contribute?

I would very much welcome a swift investigation of this as I know I'm not a sock puppet and I am very saddened by the behaviour of the person reporting me. I questioned his views on the basis on a wikipedia article extant at the time - which has interestingly been changed since I expressed my views. I can only rely on wikipedia policy guidelines that I find. Check the version of the one I quoted at the time I quoted it.

An approach which involves levelling accusations at people as to sock puppetry and trolling on the basis of the evidence presented:
 * is not likely to generate active and constructive contributions from people interested in improving an article.
 * does not seem to me to accord with the wikipedia policy of accepting what people say in good faith
 * appears to seek to exclude debate and discussion in an appropriate form.
 * does not seem to be the ideal first step towards a constructive resolution of the dispute and/or arbitration.

It seems to me that the dispute in question may well need arbitration - and guidance as to how to do that.

I suggest jhavez84 in particular needs to consider the following notions:
 * all the people he has identified as sock puppets are in fact separate individuals (ie I know I'm not one and suspect the others aren't either)
 * they may have a point worthy of further exploration in a civilised and constructive way
 * accepting what people say in good faith is a basic tenet - the question should be how to cooperate to find a way to express in an article in a way which conforms to wikipedia guidance - which may need to be revisited from time to time

What saddens me the most is that the most amount of effort is going into a very small aspect of what this article should be about. It's effectively distracting time attention and effort from the improvement of the article to a good standard. Witness the time I have had to take to respond to this wrongful accusation. Cosmopolitancats 11:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Cosmopolitancats had an extensive contribution history on Pastel, Pencil, Sketch, and similar art articles for months before getting involved in this issue. Clearly not a sockpuppet.

Chiving and Bob74 are closer to Single purpose accounts, but haven't contributed since November, and that, with the combination of Jhamez84 stopping contributing soon after making the accusation, the false accusation above, and the apparent triviality of the dispute (which I intend to nominate for Lamest edit wars) leads me to leave them alone also.

Closing with no action. Apologies to Cosmopolitancats for taking so long to close and it had nothing to do with how mice feel about cats. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

,