Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate

discussion
moved here from main page Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So User:EllenMcGill's first edit was on 3/25/2016 and in 2 weeks she's here using the analytical tools and requesting Sock investigations? Ellen, do you perhaps have a sock of your own? THAT seems worthy of investigation in and of itself.CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been quite a few weeks. But given the way sockpuppet LesbianAdvocate was behaving, I didn't have many choices but to watch and learn how to fight back. Luckily, after checking in at about eight boards and a lot of Googling and talking to other editors, we were able to put together the proof. It doesn't take a genius to see what Jytdog and Brianhe did above and in the previous thread, including using these tools, and follow their examples. (Do you think that they're sockpuppets too?)
 * If I'm wrong about you (and I do hope I am!), I apologize in advance. My paranoia is certainly running high after my first sockpuppet experience. But I did talk to an experienced user in this area who agreed it was worth checking. So let's check. Cheers, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, given your comments above, you seem to be engaged in a politically-motivated witchhunt.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * CFredkin please don't personalize this. Ellen is just following the behavior and FP1's client list.  If a CU shows nothing, we'll move on to the behavioral piece of this, and see what the community finds and determines. There is advice above about what to do if you are subject of an SPI, and attacking others is not in there, for good reason. Making this personal isn't helpful to anyone. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, I have little to no overlapping editing history with any of the editors above, except CS. So really, it looks to me like Ellen (and perhaps you all) have a theory and you're now looking for evidence to back it up. (Basically anyone who has extensively edited a bio of a political candidate who is a known client of the firm in question is deserving of an SPI?) It seems like the process should work the other way around (evidence drives theory).CFredkin (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  So, using your investigative paradigm, would an editor be justified in filing an SPI against all editors who have edited the bios of political candidates known to interact with David Axelrod or David Plouffe?CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the reasoning here. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, then what's the rationale for including CS and myself in this SPI?CFredkin (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has already been laid out above. I get it that you are upset/unhappy but please just read that, and relax.  Right now we are just at the CU stage and if that shows nothing, then we'll turn to the behavioral analysis.  That would be an opportunity for people to provide more diffs showing a likely sock or meat relationship and for you to provide diffs showing why any relationship between you and other editors here via FP1 is unlikely or impossible.  Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You indicated above that my characterization of the rationale for including me here was incorrect. Please tell me specifically how it's incorrect (because it looks to me like you just confirmed it in the last sentence of your post above).CFredkin (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)  Also, I'm not sure why you keep saying that behavioral evidence is provided after a CU.  My understanding of the process is the exact opposite.  And given, the statements made about me above, please don't tell me not to personalize the situation.CFredkin (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And now it's clear... Since David Jolly's spokesperson got busted for scrubbing his WP bio and then accused CS and myself of being paid operatives because we resisted her efforts, User:Jytdog and User:EllenMcGill put their heads together and through some crackerjack analysis ("Hey, these 2 guys edit some of the same articles...") decide to put us through the wringer. It doesn't matter that none of the behavioral patterns indicated here have been exhibited between us and the other editors in this SPI.  And Ellen adds insult to injury by making personal attacks against us in the process. Nice work.CFredkin (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

all you are doing here is adding drama, which does nothing to help anything. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and do a check user to clear me of these bizarre charges ASAP. Let me also correct several major inaccuracies in EllenMcGill's account above. She says I've been "been warned over and over about edit warring and conservative POV-pushing." That is simply not true. Can you provide a single diff? I've never been warned or blocked for anything. I've never even been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Ever. "At one point they were in an arbitration and received some kind of sanctions..." that is also inaccurate. I've never received any sanctions. "All four have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard for edit-warring in US Congressional articles..." Diff please? Again, I've never even been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Champaign Supernova, I sincerely apologize. I saw that you had been to the edit warring board several times but misunderstood the reason—I see now it was about the behavior of other editors. I also should have verified the final outcome of this arbitration more carefully; I only saw CF’s appeal that you be exempted from the sanctions (the diff above). You’re also right that the specific complaints against you were not for edit warring—I saw POV pushing (e.g.), BLP violations, adding unsourced information, and marking changes to political articles as “minor”, but I shouldn’t have conflated those. (I hasten to add I’m in no position to judge if any of these accusations are fair; you work in a contentious area so I’m sure some of it’s inevitable.) All three mistakes were sloppy and dumb.


 * But thanks for being willing to volunteer for the checkuser anyway. It seems like there’s at minimum a lot of coincidences here (as noted above). It would great to confirm that they are indeed coincidences, and that you’re just unlucky enough to be caught up several times in the same content area as the FP1 sock puppets, working from a similar (but not unusual) ideology, and to be publicly accused by a befuddled political campaign. I really hope that's the case, and if it is, I apologize in advance for my concerns. Since CF is worried this is some kind of political witch-hunt on my part--though for what it's worth, I'm actually a Republican, and the first sockpuppet spent a week accusing me of POV-pushing for conservatives!--I will bow out after this point and let others judge if there’s any merit to my concerns. I’m the first to admit that after having the very first person I talked to on Wikipedia turn out to most likely be a PR firm sockpuppet, I’m prone to see them everywhere. Hope to run into you again on an article under better circumstances. Best, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ellen, I appreciate your corrections above. I also see it's likely you've stumbled upon a pretty major nest of COI/SPI editors, and I can understand why you're feeling suspicious. You're casting a wide net, and it's true that I often edit contentious U.S. Congress articles. Although I'm not involved in the aforementioned web of apparent COI editors, I can see you've opened this investigation in good faith. We can let the investigation run its course and meet again in greener pastures. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think what CFredkin is getting at is that in order to provide evidence for why a check user should be requested, it generally requires behavioral evidence such as accounts editing at the same time of day, accounts having a similar tone/style, accounts using similar edit summaries, etc. Those types of things aren't usually coincidental. The fact that accounts edit the pages of members of Congress or have been warned for edit warring aren't really behavioral similarities, because thousands of accounts do both of those things. It would be more interesting if you could build a case that in addition to editing members of Congress (and the client list of this consulting firm), the accused editors also edit at the same time of day using similar edit summaries and similar language in talk page comments, etc. Edit warring in and of itself is not a sign of sock puppetry. Many users edit war. It may be an indication of sign of sock puppetry if editors seems to edit war on other editors' behalves. Just a thought. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I've spent five or six hours or now looking through the edit histories of known FP1 clients and rivals, I don't think there are thousands of writers who have worked this much on this many FP1-related articles, or even dozens of writers who have. CS and CF were the only names I saw recur often enough for me to get suspicious--especially given the high frequency with which both show up in the same discussions, even small ones, and their tendency to edit in similar ways and in alignment with FP1's apparent position. This is why I was looking into their edits and found my way to that Jolly story in the first place. (Now that I've met him/her, though, CFredkin's aggressive policy drama--"You're a sock!" "You're on an anti-conservative witch hunt!" "You're making personal attacks!"--is definitely behavior reminiscent of LA and IG when they've been confronted.)
 * I'm not trying to claim it's conclusive, and I'm definitely not trying to give offense. If the evidence doesn't make other editors curious, I totally understand. To put it another way, I thought it was enough to raise the question, but I'd love for the answer to be--as it so often is--"Ellen, you’re a bonehead." Thanks, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)