Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:20, 12 August 2012 edit82.132.249.194 (talk) →Added IPs: examine the evidence, not who brought it← Previous edit Revision as of 15:31, 12 August 2012 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,928 edits →Added IPs: commentNext edit →
Line 112: Line 112:
****I see that you are in fact an experienced editor of Misplaced Pages, not just a random drive-by editor. Did you ever think of creating an account? As you've already pointed out, anyone's edits can easily be tracked at Misplaced Pages. So for those really interested in the case it is easy to find mine and your interactions with Triomio. And registered accounts also come with a userpage that can be customised and is visible for others. That's why I didn't explicitely note my previous dealing with Triomio nor any of my affiliations across Misplaced Pages. Speaking of Triomio, would you mind telling us why you're so interested in the fate of this particular user that you even care to defend them in this case? ] (]) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC) ****I see that you are in fact an experienced editor of Misplaced Pages, not just a random drive-by editor. Did you ever think of creating an account? As you've already pointed out, anyone's edits can easily be tracked at Misplaced Pages. So for those really interested in the case it is easy to find mine and your interactions with Triomio. And registered accounts also come with a userpage that can be customised and is visible for others. That's why I didn't explicitely note my previous dealing with Triomio nor any of my affiliations across Misplaced Pages. Speaking of Triomio, would you mind telling us why you're so interested in the fate of this particular user that you even care to defend them in this case? ] (]) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
*****I had no knowledge of Triomio before I spotted Martinvl's "error" in his 3RR report against him. I still have no particular interest in him other than as one of the actors, both there, here and and in the consequentilal 3RR raised against Martinvl. But I am very intrigued as to why you and Garamond Lethe are apparently supporting Martinvl in these actions and opposing anyone who challenges him. Even attempting to discredit me for offering evidence of misdeeds, as if hoping that would somehow dilute that evidence that I brought! Please concentrate on the factual evidence presented, and don't worry about who brought it, or why. ] (]) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC) *****I had no knowledge of Triomio before I spotted Martinvl's "error" in his 3RR report against him. I still have no particular interest in him other than as one of the actors, both there, here and and in the consequentilal 3RR raised against Martinvl. But I am very intrigued as to why you and Garamond Lethe are apparently supporting Martinvl in these actions and opposing anyone who challenges him. Even attempting to discredit me for offering evidence of misdeeds, as if hoping that would somehow dilute that evidence that I brought! Please concentrate on the factual evidence presented, and don't worry about who brought it, or why. ] (]) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::*That's amusing for two reasons. First, this is a sock puppet investigation. It's faily normal to "worry about who brought it, or why". Second, it's pretty hard to believe that you come out of nowhere and ''this'' is what attracts your attention. I don't believe it.--] (]) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 15:31, 12 August 2012

DeFacto

DeFacto (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive.

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

08 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

The account User:Canepa was obviously set up to harass me – possibly by a banned user User:DeFacto. DeFacto was banned follows a series of event, one of which was continued disruption of an article to which I was a major contributor (Metrication in the United Kingdom). The sequence of events surrounding the current request are :

There must be very few users who have an interest in both these pages – what is the logical connection between bank account numbers and a mediaeval European kingdom? The most probable way that they were linked is that I was being WP:HOUNDed. The fact that Canepa made comments on both pages shortly after I had done so and has done nothing else on Misplaced Pages suggests to me that his/her account was set up to harass me. I believe that User:Canepa’s home page is true insofar that (s)he has spent some time on Misplaced Pages, but I have my doubts as to (s)he not having been registered before. I believe that there is sufficient evidence here to link Canepa to User:DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I will assume that the report above was made in good-faith (despite the reporter not actualcly notifying me), rather than as a dirty trick to attempt to "win" an article content dispute, and I will fully explain my actions, actions which appear to have been wholly misinterpreted by User:Martinvl. As will be seen, I had no prior interest in either of the articles mentioned, or in User:Martinvl, but a chance encounter on WT:NOR brought IBAN to my attention, and the reaction of Martinvl to my contributions there ultimately led me to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation).

I was casually browsing through Misplaced Pages as an unregistered IP user, as I have done before on numerous previous occasions, and over many years. I was skimming down the WT:NOR page, and almost choked on my coffee when I came across this entry. I couldn't believe what I was reading! I copied the phrase "It can be shown" to my clipboard then followed the link to the IBAN article and pasted it into the search box - and sure enough that phrase was there (although it has since been removed), and sure enough the cited reference was that piece of text (not an external cited source as is conventional): "This is a standard undergraduate level maths exercise"! I had to comment, who could resist on that one? As I couldn't restrain my urge, but was away from my usual base, and was using a network connection belonging to a third-party (and as I had been implored on many previous occasions to create an account rather than use an IP address) I decided to quickly register a named account, which I did at 11:54, 6 August 2012 (not at the time given in the accusation above). I then contributed to the discussion. I also went to the IBAN article and tagged the offending "ref" with a {{fact}} tag.

My suggestion that the IBAN article should conform with WP:V triggered the following events:

Upon reading the IBAN article in detail, I realised that it was woefully lacking in sources, and so I added corresponding banners to it. This triggered another sequence of events, including:

  • The use of uncivil language by User:Martinvl at Talk:International Bank Account Number#Under referenced and too much reliance on primary sources, such as:
    • "Either you know something that the rest of us don't (if so, please share it with us), or you are just being anal."
    • "If Canepa hasd the courtesy to read the rest of the paragraph before splattering it with "Citation needed flags","
    • Referring to me: "If he had one iota of intelligence,", "If he knew anything about standards,"
  • Constant reversions without reasonable explanation:
  • The expression on the talk page of poorly reasoned excuses for the failure to comply, such as:
    • "I have removed the banners again. This is an old article, and particularly the background section was written before Misplaced Pages had strict rules about in-line citations and long before I became associated with Misplaced Pages."
    • "It is extremely difficult to find the original text"
    • "Remember that on weekdays this article is accessed over 3000 time a day and you are the first person to demand a source."
    • "I will go through your objections shortly, but I do have a real life."
    • "if hundreds of banks are happy with that text, there is no need to flag it, obviously the customers are happy."
    • "I have added a reference to keep you sweet. The rest is legacy stuff from way back - probably written by a banker."

Given that I felt intimidated by the actions of Martinvl, particularly the use of immoderate language and his apparently bad-faith reversions of several attempts I made to add banners or flags to the article, to highlight its poor state of compliance with WP:V, I decided to look at his previous contributions to see if this was typical behaviour. I didn't have to look far to find a similar "reversion" war, involving Martinvl, at Friesland (disambiguation), including these reversions and changes (note the edit summaries):

This "war" resulted in (just) the other user getting a 24h block for edit-warring! Martinvl also then posted a poorly reasoned RfD, aimed at a disambiguation page that the other user had created (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation)). I contributed a comment to that discussion suggesting that a policy-based reasoning be supplied... As a result, this SPI report was then posted. Canepa (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Canepa, your user-page states "I have been editing Misplaced Pages for years and have at long last been persuaded to register. My previous contributions include:". It might help to establish your bona fides if you completed that statement. NebY (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted. The "boss" must have been on the prowl when I started that! Canepa (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Sadly "Corrections of spelling mistakes, grammar errors and formatting problems in articles, as and when spotted. Participation in numerous article talkpage discussions. Participation in various and diverse noticeboard and "Misplaced Pages talk" discussions." doesn't help to establish your bona fides after all, but at least it completes your statement. NebY (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl caused a lot of trouble, it may heavily improve the accuracy of Misplaced Pages if someone is reviewing his edits.

  • - "please don't link to external sources that deliver errors." - This project is not "I like", but deletions should be policy based
  • - "You have introduced a load of rubbish onto the page. Please ensure that information is verifiable." - all I introduced was verifiable, I obtained it from the site which is linked!
  • "Removed advertising" - well, how are facts qualified as advertising?
  • "The articles Friesland and Frisia both get about 400 hits a day. The other articles in the list Friesland (disambiguation) get maybe a dozen. Clearly the two most important articles are Friesland and Frisia which is why they do not have qualifiers." ---- Hit count does not help to establish how many people have been mislead to these pages!
  • Proposal to delete a disambiguation page for a ambiguous term: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation) - not giving any reasoning why this term should not be ambiguous. No link to any policy.

I hope people go on reviewing Martinvl's contributions like Canepa did.

Especially discouraging in his behavior is, that he wants opponents to be blocked or banned.

Not every new user would go on with editing if attacked by Martinvl in the ways shown above. Triomio (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Added Triomio to the SPI check above.
  • Triomio account created contemporaneously with Canepa, both after the most recent DeFacto sockpuppets had been banned (24 July and 6 August, respectively).
  • Both are effectively WP:SPA.
  • Both are fixated on Martinvl.
GaramondLethe 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I can confirm that, although we both seem to have ended up on trial here for similar reasons, that not only am I not DeFacto, but that I am not Triomio either. I hope that helps. Canepa (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Canepa, do you have any verifiable source for that claim? Triomio (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Apropos immediate reversion, Garamond Lethe is also doing this and is re-inserting false information in the IBAN article and undoing adjustments of terminology to what the sources give:

Triomio (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Triomio from SPI

While I added Triomio to the SPI in good faith, subsequent behavior has been well outside what has been observed for DeFacto's confirmed sock puppets: DeFacto (and most other editors) don't edit in such a way that triggers 3RR bans; Triomio hasn't picked up that knack (at least not yet). GaramondLethe 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-added

I have re-added Triomio to the SPI since I find this edit quite suspicious: "Removed advertising" - well, how are facts qualified as advertising? I wonder how it is Triomio's business to defend Canepa's edits at an article where Triomio has not edited ever before. Did they intentionally scan Martinvl's edit history for allegedly problematic edits? And how does Triomio know that "facts" have been presented? Altogether this looks to me like one and the same user trying to defend their edits by discrediting others. And I still find the reasons Garamond Lethe first stated while adding them to the SPI to be indicative of sockpuppetry. I'd like to see a checkuser result. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the re-addition. The more closely one examines the contributions of Ornaith, Pother, Triomio and Canepa the clearer it is that DeFacto takes peculiar pleasure in baiting Martinvl and puts time and effort into creating different personas for that purpose. The Triomio account was created immediately after an SPI was raised for Pother and Ornaith and the Pother account abandoned. It was seeded with edits on Indian railways and the tango, used in an attempt to provoke Martinvl with a spate of bizarre edits on ISO 639 on 06-07 August 2012 and then in a successful provocation regarding Frisia (see Talk:Friesland#Change_of_name_to_Frisia for some of that) on 07 August 2012. It was then used together with the Canepa account for a tag-team attack on Martinvl in International Bank Account Number. NebY (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Added IPs

I've added two IPS, 82.132.249.192 and 82.132.249.199, to the investigation who are involved in two edit warring reports that also concern Martinvl and Triomio. First, after Martinvl had reported Triomio for repeated edit-warring, IP 82.132.249.192 commented on this report, by defending Triomio and collecting diffs to show how also Martinvl had been involved in edit warring. Later IP 82.132.249.199 reported Martinvl in turn for edit-warring, complaining about "outrageous excuses" by Martinvl. Geolocation and IP range suggest that the two IPs are actually the same person so it would be interesting to know if they are also connected to this case. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Note. Given that User:De728631 has sided with Martinvl against User:Triomio in a discussion on Talk:International Bank Account Number and in the edit history of Friesland (disambiguation) and is a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Frisia, a subject area in which Triomio has had a few disputes recently, he may not bring an open mind to this discussion. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (I also made the edits by 82.132.249.192 and 82.132.249.199 mentioned above, my ISP issues dynamic IP addresses, but I am independent of Triomio (and of Canepa and of DeFacto)).
    • For being independent of Triomio and Canepa you are surprisingly well informed of my recent edits but you may have missed this note where I have previously announced that I may in fact not be impartial in this case. Hence I don't act administratively here but keep expressing my thoughts. By the way, have you previously been editing Misplaced Pages on a regular basis? I was just wondering about your advanced usage of Misplaced Pages templates, {{AN3|n}}, which is rather uncommon even for regular users. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • In case you weren't aware, all your edits, including your recent ones, are readily and easily visible for all to see by clicking the "contributions" link next to any of your edits in an article history. That was the first thing that I did for your contributions, when your suspicious contribution first arrived here. That note of yours is in another, archived, 3RR action that you initiated against Triomio - yes, not in "this case" though. Why didn't you add it to this case too so that readers were aware of your relationship with Trimio? I picked-up the "advanced usage of Misplaced Pages templates" (without realising just how clever I apparently was) by using the well-known (to some of us, at least) copy & paste technique. I used it on Bbb23's skilled use of that template in this contibution, to create this contribution there, and thence to here. Easy-peasy really. 82.132.249.192 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I see that you are in fact an experienced editor of Misplaced Pages, not just a random drive-by editor. Did you ever think of creating an account? As you've already pointed out, anyone's edits can easily be tracked at Misplaced Pages. So for those really interested in the case it is easy to find mine and your interactions with Triomio. And registered accounts also come with a userpage that can be customised and is visible for others. That's why I didn't explicitely note my previous dealing with Triomio nor any of my affiliations across Misplaced Pages. Speaking of Triomio, would you mind telling us why you're so interested in the fate of this particular user that you even care to defend them in this case? De728631 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I had no knowledge of Triomio before I spotted Martinvl's "error" in his 3RR report against him. I still have no particular interest in him other than as one of the actors, both there, here and and in the consequentilal 3RR raised against Martinvl. But I am very intrigued as to why you and Garamond Lethe are apparently supporting Martinvl in these actions and opposing anyone who challenges him. Even attempting to discredit me for offering evidence of misdeeds, as if hoping that would somehow dilute that evidence that I brought! Please concentrate on the factual evidence presented, and don't worry about who brought it, or why. 82.132.249.194 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's amusing for two reasons. First, this is a sock puppet investigation. It's faily normal to "worry about who brought it, or why". Second, it's pretty hard to believe that you come out of nowhere and this is what attracts your attention. I don't believe it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I just blocked Triomio for 48 hours for edit-warring on the IBAN article (he was blocked a few days ago for 24 hours). The block is not directly related to this investigation, but Triomio will not be able to contribute to the discussion here until expiration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories: