Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 15 October 2013 (→Comments by other users: add diffs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tumbleman

Tumbleman (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/Tumbleman/Archive.

13 October 2013

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Oh boy chicken again (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

New editor appeared with an awareness of wikipedia policies , and on his second edit jumps into a controversial debate to agree with The Tumbleman and advance his arguments. Most telling of all is that the only person to call Sheldrake by "sheldrake" lower case, consistently, is Tumbleman (ctrl+f through ), something this "new" editor is repeating . Checkuser needed to confirm and look for potential sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Just my opinion, but if it is Tumbleman, then this is far below his normal standard of operation when trolling. He is much better at it than that. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I share IRWolfie's concerns, for the following reasons:

• Tumbleman's logged-out posts give a Los Angeles IP
• Tumbleman announces he'll be gone for 2 days
• Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) shows up with a Palm Springs IP
• Both say they find disputes "interesting", use the same phrases "a small group of skeptic editors" and "create a more balanced and neutral POV"

Given that Tumbleman has created the socks KateGompert (talk · contribs) and KemRP (talk · contribs) it's not unreasonable to suspect that Tumbleman may have socked as Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) while on his "2 days off" in Palm Springs, a popular weekend destination for Los Angelinos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are socks on both sides of this Sheldrake debate. There are other accounts that popped up just to participate in this discussion who seem to know a fair amount about WP practices (see Dan_skeptic). I've suggested this to other Editors and an Admin and received agreement that this was likely but was also told that CU would not connect an IP account to a registered account. Also, no one wanted to take this on, to sort it all out as it's been a complicated discussion with many accounts taking part.
As for Tumbleman, the evidence below seems completely non-conclusive and it could be used to argue against this account as a sock puppet as much as for it being a sock puppet. It defines "borderline" and appears to me to be punitive as this Editor has clearly irritated others over the course of discussing this article.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you go looking for socks in the Sheldrake debate (for the past month), you'll find them and there will be much more convincing connections than in this example. Liz 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You are saying the evidence of Technically indistinguishable by the checkuser is non-conclusive? Are you kidding? He got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, by having an account appear that just happens to register just to agree with him from the same IP and then claimed on his user page that it was because he went to a Misplaced Pages consultancy company and got someone else there to use his account and then create their own : " I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office.", and then mysteriously dhe decided to edit wikipedia and by chance edited the same article, and by chance agreed with Tumbleman. A "professional" who doesn't even have a wikipedia account of their own that they use at their own work. How convenient. How did this professional get their experience? Then for some reason this professional also set up an account expressing how they've been lurking since 2010 and just decided now to take part in the debate. And then there is how this sock uses the exact same language as Oh boy chicken again on its user page and was active for roughly the same sort of short period before disappearing.

"As far as I can tell, there are socks on both sides of this Sheldrake debate." Present your evidence at SPI or retract the accusation. Accusations without evidence to try and make a false parity and tar everyone with the same brush help no one. Also, I severely doubt Dan skeptic is a sock, the only evidence being he is new (WP:BITE) and competent generally (although he doesn't appear that aware of our policies and guidelines beyond what I would expect of a new editor), but can you please not try and de-rail this SPI with accusations against someone else, take that to a new filing. (Also referring to anonymous admins you have talked to off wiki is hardly a something to mention, some admins I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's assertions "I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office. I only requested them to use my account and no other. I asked for help regarding references because I wanted to make sure I am editing with proper WP protocols regarding references and needed help. This professional works in public relations in an office setting so it is likely their office has WP activity since they do online public relations and outreach support for many social sites in general. " (emph added) and "However, I do work in media and technology, and many companies do have to manage or create accounts, usually for the purposes of compliancy, and they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS a platform has. There is nothing alarming happening with that, it's standard practice and occurs on any large platform online." (emph added) when taken with the self outing that he did previously, is a very troubling, particularly when taken with the "Technically indistinguishable" from other accounts.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As ever, people get hung up about sockpuppetry when the real problem here was not the socks but the extremely bizarre and creative interpretation of policy. That this was designed to soften criticism of Rupert Sheldrake, while acting as some kind of devil's advocate in order to further some social experiment, or something, is actually more of a concern because it diverts editors from writing about people who actually achieved things in their careers to Rupert who wouldn't be fit to lace most scientist's shoelaces. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two issues going on. One is socks, particularly potential socking by/via PR agencies; and the other is the WP:TE. But perhaps a thorough removal of the socks would remove those who are responsible for the TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Technically, it's somewhat  Unlikely that they are related. However, Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is  Technically indistinguishable from KateGompert (talk · contribs) and the zero-edit KemRP (talk · contribs), whose account was created less than 15 minutes before Kate's. Be aware that this is not a  Confirmed, since the IP all three are on is extremely dynamic. You'll have to rely mainly on behavior. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked KateGompert (talk · contribs) and KemRP (talk · contribs) indef as suspected sock puppets, and blocked Tumbleman (talk · contribs) for one week for sockpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases CU complete