Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Topology Expert

User:Topology Expert

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Oded (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OdedSchramm&oldid=222446223
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OdedSchramm&oldid=222623996
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Expert_in_topology&oldid=222617042

The sock essentially states that the account was created to support Topology Expert and that the account will soon be terminated. Topology expert was upset that I corrected many of his edits and apparently decided to retaliate using a sock.
 * Comments

Dear Oded,

A real mathematician won't get upset just because someone corrects him. He will give a proof of his claim which is exactly what I did at several occassions. I always give a proof and I never retaliate through 'socks'. What makes you think that I will suddenly retaliate through 'socks' when my proof was right?

Topology Expert (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguably, a legit use covered by WP:SOCK (terminating anyway, as, indeed, planned before). No relation to and, BTW, no common edits ever considered/pushed. A particular "support" was provided  --just as declared-- by the nick (a wink, say). Well, I didn't like some aspects of Oded's style. We discussed it and seem to reach a common perspective. Meanwhile, with Oded we did a good work on the Hausdorff measure article. Peace and good faith. Should Oded promise he reads WP:AGF if the case is checked? ;-) Cheers Expert in topology (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the links provided by Oded and I find the evidence convincing. Some administrative action against both User:Topology Expert and User:Expert in topology is appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that there was an argument between Oded and I but it was resolved. I wasn't at all angry at Oded and until now, I couldn't even imagine that someone can create another account for sock puppetry. In fact, creating another account will not help me convince Oded that his edits are bad. In fact, what he did was perfectly OK (his edits were good) although there were some minor disputes between us. Eventually, we came to the conclusion that neither of us was wrong. I did make mistakes but so did Oded.

Even if you do believe that I am a sockpuppet, please understand that someone could do the same thing to you. They could create an account by the name Nsk95 and then have the same style of writing as you. Unless someone has concrete evidence that someone else is a sockpuppeter(which is technically impossible on the internet since IP adresses are not logged), it is not fair to come to any conclusion. Anyway, thanks for your contribution to this matter despite the fact that you don't support me.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I suggest indef-blocking Expert in Topology as either a sockpuppet or a single-use account intended to badger Oded in a content dispute: it doesn't really matter. Topology Expert should be given a firm warning but not blocked.  I am not sure that these are sockpuppets, but even if not, this response is appropriate. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shalom,

Could you please tell me why your response is appropriate even if I am not a sockpuppeter? Also, please see my above response if you want to know my input to the matter.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shalom Yechiel. I think E.i.T. was intended to badger Oded, and agree the account should be blocked indefinitely.  I've worked with T.E. for a while, and I don't think this sort of harassment is his personal style, nor is the actual language his style.  In other words, I think E.i.T. is a sock, but I am not convinced T.E. is a sock.
 * As near as I can tell, a group of people at WikiProject Mathematics have taken T.E. under wing, and are trying to get him familiar with wikipedia conventions (T.E.'s early contributions were problematic, almost to the point of being disruptive, but he has adjusted very well, and his new articles only require the typical amount of cleaning we expect from any contributor). On the other hand, E.i.T. seemed fairly familiar with wikipedia policy, and the only similarity seemed to be the common subject area interest.
 * Since E.i.T. has more or less said this is just a WP:GHBH sock, I don't think the human being in question would be hurt, but the badgering would be stopped by an indef-block. Since T.E. has spent a reasonable effort in joining and shaping consensus rather than fighting it, I think any block would be counterproductive. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I had done my last edit a few days ago but Jack's post is interesting and deserves an answer.


 * Curiously, I agree with some Jack's points and, actually, like the post. I fail to see, however, why he agrees with Shalom who required a "firm warning" to T.E. Warning for what? Both Shalom and Jack doubt TE and EiT are the same person so what's T.E.'s fault? Jack's argument justifies that a firm warning for T.E. would be inappropriate. I would like him to make it clear.


 * Not that a defense is necessary, I quit anyway, but I think I should state my point of view.
 * The question that I'd like to pose is "what was the real 'harassment' here"? The nick? Maybe two rather mild suggestions (,, a pity WP:NPA or WP:AGF weren't mentioned) after remarks issued by Oded to T.E., such as "You make many mistakes", "You're making up mathematics and posting it on WP". The person in question, T.E., was offended. Indeed, I find this personal style and easy pointing at others' errors  unacceptable per WP:AGF, see e.g. this minor incivility as well.  But, well, Oded is already "our friend" and he does  a lot of good work, so e.g. C S fails to see the problem, stating that Oded is a model of patience  (and 'no defense is needed').  Further, Jack sees positively that TE was working towards consensus (right!). But he fails to see that Oded did two unexplained reverts of EiT on Hausdorff measure -- while EiT gave a detailed justification of his own edits (which, while far from perfect, were generally accepted and rest in the text). Who actively worked towards consensus here? What do you call "badgering" or where is a real disruption in my edits? After all, IMHO, kind of informal 'consensus' was reached (curiously, just after this page was created). It was, however, a sad pleasure to watch how the community reacts to new users here (BTW, a legit reason to make a new account - but I'm not looking for an excuse).
 * So what's wrong with EiT? Taking a particular nick and saying that I want to quit? OK, maybe bad wording, indeed suggesting a formally forbidden sole purpose account. Notice that I wasn't forced to say anything and without this it would be really hard to say anything about this case, as no particular "support" was provided. You see, just a new editor joined and took his position (yet never on same issues!). The point is I didn't care too much about wording here as I don't really edit elsewhere either - and am quitting anyway (FYI, globally). So this is not that much a sock at all, even per WP:GHBH (virtually no "good hand" part, only a "bad" one, if you like). Just wanted to act in a completely independent manner.


 * Block of a non-editing user may have symbolic consequences only. Would it be positive? From another perspective, this sockpupperty case initiated by Oded can be seen as an attempt to get rid of an inconvenient opponent (T.E.) in a content dispute. An easy way to discourage T.E. so that e.g. he doesn't touch the articles Oded edits. That's gaming the system. Further, after blocking EiT, much more will be possible, e.g. to accuse virtually any annoying newcomer that wants to make a positive edit. You know, in the history there were many actions that were perfectly legal yet unacceptable for a human. So while I do not care for a (pointless) formal block, I'd rather suggest simply closing the case and moving on, if you believe there were two different persons (ET & EiT).


 * Anyway, peace and good faith. Expert in topology (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my position on two points: I think E.i.T. the account should be indef blocked, not E.i.T. the person (or the IP address or whatever). Secondly, any warning to T.E. should be firm, but should presume innocence. In both cases the point is to indicate clearly that the behavior discussed here is an unacceptable breakdown of AGF and DR, and that both (human) parties should behave differently in the future.
 * Ideally, E.i.T. would use his main account to point out any problems in the community, so that he is working to improve the community as a member of it, rather than as a masked man. T.E. has done a very good job of becoming part of the community, becoming part of the consensus rather than staying as an outsider fighting against it.  However, T.E.'s handling of E.i.T. was not ideal, and instead of Oded and T.E. working together, they allowed it to become an us versus them.  A warning is a suggestion for caution against an unexpected, harmful outcome.  T.E. should be firmly warned that the way E.i.T. was handling the problem has a number of unexpected, harmful consequences for the community, and so should be avoided in the future. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I second Jack's comments (both of the posts). I have been aware of TE since near the beginning and have watched TE and Oded's talk pages.  I believe their style and behavior are quite different.  I don't see any problems with how Oded has behaved.  Is there some higher standard of behavior he could have followed (like Gandhi, perhaps)?  Yes, certainly.  But all his comments are justified.  There have been enough mistakes by TE, which can sometimes take quite a while for him/her to acknowledge, especially since the referencing issue is ducked.  Perhaps it's a little unfair to use the term "made up", but it's an accurate way to describe math that you didn't get out of a book but just assumed was true because it sounded good.  I think TE needs to be a lot more careful in checking accuracy.  Oded has said that before, but perhaps by the (4th time, etc.) he got tired.  I believe TE is learning the Wikipedia ways and is making good progress.  There is no need for EiT to come in and call Oded uncivil, for example, for merely remarking in an edit summary that he is removing an incorrect statement!  It's good to be civil, but it's good to toughen a very thin skin too.  One last thing, EiT seems to think Oded is having ownership issues.  In reality, I think TE (not Oded) is having some trouble adjusting to the Wikipedia reality where anyone can and will edit your words.  But s/he is learning!  --C S (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jack,

Thanks for your understanding. I think that E.i.T created an account without any purpose and I agree that he should be blocked since he has not made any significant contributions nor has he shown any committment to Wikipedia.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Expert in topology (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear All,

I can't give proof that E.i.T is not me but I can say the following:


 * He doesn't have the same writing style as me. Everyone has their unique writing style; it is impossible for someone to write in two completely different styles (by 'different' I mean 'completely different')
 * He can't spell Oded's name; see ;;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OdedSchramm&oldid=222446223 for proof

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear All,

I think that it is worthless to argue about this matter but this is only my opinion. Irrespective of what the conclusion may be, I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. If I am blocked (which I hope will not happen since I am certainly innocent (I can go to any extent in proving this)), I will create another account and contribute. However, I would rather contribute through this account since I have put a lot of effort into it. However, what matters is that Wikipedia is expanded; trivial matters shouldn't get in the way of this. I think that Oded should understand that this argument is getting us nowhere and that it would be best to continue contributing as we did before. If 'expert in topology' is not going to contribute then he shouldn't even create an account. Also, why did you (expert in topology) steal my username; why didn't you make up your own? The fact that he stole my username gives evidence that his intention was to block me.

Topology Expert (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear that EiT and TE are the same person. There would be no other person who a) would care about these minor issues of disagreement between TE and me b) would want to make comments about it but still not want to reveal their own identity. If you look through the contributions, you will see the similarities. Anyway, it is clear that "they" are having fun with this game of charades with all these conversations between "them". I am most troubled by the dishonesty of TE as is exemplified in the discussion about the concept of nowhere dense. First, TE edited an article to say in effect that nowhere dense sets have zero measure. Then followed with the same reasoning. Later, TE claimed that he meant something else, but I have a hard time to believe this claim, as it does not make any sense in the context of the article edited, whereas his mistake in editing the article is a very natural misconception. When I refuted TE's alternative claim, and accused him of OR, he based his claim on a definition from a book, a definition which makes no sense. I don't have this book in my possession, but apparently User:C S checked and indeed the definition was not there. Thus, this sock pupetting incident and TE's denial of it are consistent with his other behaviour. I am not saying that TE's intentions are all bad. I'm also not advocating to ban him. But it is disconcerting that he is not open and honest about his mistakes. I also think that he was overconfident in his edits and inserted some of his misconceptions into the articles he was editing, but perhaps that has improved. Also, perhaps his editing style has improved, as Jack says. But I am much more concerned about content than style, and I think that the content in TE's recent perfect space is very problematic. I am reluctant to go and change the article significantly, since it is apparently TE's impression that I have been watching over his sholder too closely. Others will have to do this more now (otherwise accuracy of content will suffer). Oded (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will add the following as a partial explanation why I am confident that Topology Expert and Expert in topology are the same. EiT's first actual edit started with a new section titled "what about this". This does not seem like an expression someone would use when joining an existing dispute, but rather like a reply with a couterpoint by someone who is already activly arguing. Oded (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps. But if you examine the writing itself, I think there are differences...but comparing writing is like comparing tea leaves perhaps.  EiT seems to be a nosy type, so another explanation for the strange section header is that EiT already felt like s/he was involved in the conversation and just joined in.  I've seen such things before so it's not the strong indicator for me as it is for you.  As for why some uninvolved party would do this, I think EiT's comments show various resentments about Wikipedia, so I think it's quite natural such a person butt in.  It's happened before and will happen again.  --C S (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

C S's posts resume in "hey, it's our affair, you have nothing to add". Maybe that's right, but the wiki is constructed as to prevent "private affairs". In fact, it's something of a 'not open' or 'unsymmetric' attitude that gives a sad pleasure. Something was added to the debate anyway and things changed.

Now, I too suggest blocking EiT. Just to make it shorter and move on. Expert in topology (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an uninvolved user. I looked at the contributions of both editors a bit and saw nothing that looked like sockpuppet-overlap to me. User:Topology Expert, to be fair, doesn't have a complete grasp of wiki-syntax yet (and, yes, we were all that way once!), whereas User:Expert in topology is apparently a much more established user. User:Expert in topology obviously had prior knowledge of whatever situation existed between User:Topology Expert and User:OdedSchramm and chose the name deliberately, as I think he mentioned on this page.

A few people have mentioned "find User:Topology Expert innocent but give him a warning", or words to that effect &mdash; I think that needs clarification, as I don't understand it as it is written. What should he be warned about? If it's just a general comment that "sockpuppet abuse is bad, don't do it", then I am sure he has already read the policy on sockpuppets after this page was opened. If it's about incorrect edits that some people have referred to in passing, then I think maybe he just needs a hand; I think somebody commented that he was already getting advice and improving. (personally I think we should only warn people for maliciously incorrect contributions, but that's beside the point) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Grey Knight elaborated here, but I think my reply clarifies the whole incident completely. I believe that Topology Expert was initially unaware that sock puppetry is specifically prohibited. I don't think Topology Expert will repeat the offence, as his/her intentions appear to be non malicious. Oded (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Oded,

First of all (not meaning to be rude), you are a bit stubborn. It seems that no evidence will convince you that I am not expert in topology. For example you said that, 'I don't think that Topology Expert will repeat the offence'; I never even committed the offence in the first place.

Also, you reasons as to why I am 'expert in topology' seem to be very 'good' reasons. I mean that your analysis of the behaviour of both users seems to be 'too good'. I could accuse you of being 'expert in topology'.

I am not trying to accuse you but I am just outlining the hypothetical case that you had a different username. For example, if your username was 'Mathematician1' and someone created an account with the username 'Mathematician2', you would be just as liable to being accused of sockpuppetry as I am. This is because no one knows your real identity. I could give my true identity, and I may sometime in the future. Perhaps when I do give my true identity, you will believe that I am not 'expert in topology'.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Topology Expert; please try to stay calm. User:OdedSchramm: I saw the diff you mentioned earlier, but I count it insignificant with respect to my comments, as it doesn't "feel" like it conforms in the right ways.
 * Since this case has been open for 17&mdash;18 days and doesn't seem to be serious enough for CheckUser (User:Expert in topology has stopped editing from that account as promised), I propose leaving it until the janitors get this far down in the backlog, when they can use the appropriate discretion.
 * As I understand it, the "suspected sockpuppet" notices are no longer obligatory, so User:Topology Expert can take them down until the case is closed by a janitor. In the meantime I encourage you both to get on with working together to improve Category:Mathematics!  :-)  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No one knows the real identity of User:OdedSchramm? Yes, how could we ever find out who someone is knowing only that their name is Oded Schramm? This is, I think, a representative and genuine example of User:Topology Expert's wikipedic acumen and research style. I find User:Expert in topology's posts and edits to be considerably savvier, so in my opinion there is not only plenty of reasonable doubt that Topo is EiT's sockmaster, but I do not personally believe it to be the case. Since it has been suggested that there would be little or no effect even if Topo were "found guilty", I suggest that the matter be dropped. Plclark (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Plclark
 * I've already asked User:Topology Expert to strike that comment out, I think he was just upset at the time of writing. By the way, anyone can pick pretty much any username, so to be fair we don't know User:OdedSchramm is Oded Schramm (although I'm pretty sure ;-o).  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is possible, but I'm not comfortable enough to block. Grey Knight makes a good point about the wiki syntax issue. If more evidence arises, refile. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions