Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
copying across from WP:EN
Marking case as closed
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SPI case status}}
{{SPI case status|close}}
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
{{SPIarchive notice|Kauffner}}
{{SPIarchive notice|Kauffner}}

Revision as of 01:52, 16 August 2012

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Kauffner

Kauffner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
23 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


As the contribs of these IP editors show, pretty much their only edits were to turn on MiszaBot archiving on talk pages where Kauffner had lost an RM discussion, tuned such that the history would be archived, after which Kauffner would come back with a new RM. The evidence is most clear in the contribs of the IPs and in the histories of the affected article talk pages, rather than in individual diffs. See Talk:Black Caviar history, Talk:Praha hlavní nádraží history (where the IP had to follow up with a lower minthreadsleft to get the intended effect), Talk:Ca Mau history, Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea history, and Talk:Lady Trieu history; the ones where the second phase (Kauffner's new RM) hasn't happened yet or was interfered with include Talk:Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette history, Talk:Sooyoung history, and Talk:History of Champagne history. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I find this a rather interesting accusation. If all of the changes to the archive bot were done by someone with their main account that was involved in RMs, would they have violated any wikipedia rules? And if they would not, how would not bothering to log in to make simple adjustments to archiving bots settings in anyway violate rules? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot tweaking to hide RM results to get another shot at getting his way was bad enough, and would have been noticed much sooner if he hadn't hidden it via sock puppeting. That's where the violation comes in. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" The bot tweaking to hide RM results to get another shot at getting his way was bad enough". But is it? Based on the response below, you may be right in your suspicions about the IP... but i do not see how any of this is in any way a rule violation. If the IP edit warred over Bot settings that would be bad, if the IP was used to assist in a RM along with a main account that would be bad, but i dont get where the crime is with altering archiving bot setting? Wanting old RMs and previous conversations archived to have a reasonably clear talkpage is not against the rules as far as im aware. And im not convinced that archiving would have a massive impact on any outcome of a result, there is little to gain seen as almost all the people who took part in the previous RM would have the talkpage on their watch list anyway. People dont forget simply because something moves from the main page to a archived page. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of bad-faith edits, these are not egregious, but rather borderline, and as I mentioned below, if it happened once or twice, it should be overlooked. But again, we have what seems to be a pattern, of forgetting to log-in when making edits to a talk page that will (potentially) help one's case at RM. Regardless of whether it would actually help, since there is this pattern of edits, once can assume that he believed it would help, and potentially intended to deceive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, WP:ILLEGIT: which includes:
  • Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."
  • WP:SCRUTINY: Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
  • Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding.
There is no "forgetting to log in" here; it's a clearly premeditated scheme of deception to get an unfair chance at winning an argument that he fairly lost; repeated many times over months, to the great annoyance of a lot of editors that he argues with, during the same time period that many of us have chastised him for presenting false and misleading evidence in those same proceedings. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there are more, at least including:

As per BritishWatcher above is Miszabotpuppeting violating any WP rule? In the Can Tho IP edits there was no new RM, but RM results were archived before a G6 "uncontroversial move" request submitted counter RM result. With Ca Mau two contrary RM results were archived before a User move. Several of the cases where Miszabot hasn't clicked in yet, such as Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, Kinmen → Quemoy, Sooyoung → Choi Soo-young are listed as future RMs on User:Kauffner/RM incubator. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) (ec)[reply]

It's an interesting case indeed. I don't think that, if logged in, these particular edits would have violated any rules, although they do show some slight disrespect for other editors. However, I think we have to look at a pattern of behavior. There are other instances where Kauffner (as Kauffner) has deleted the notice of a closed move discussion from a talk page just before asking an admin to move the page (to a result different than the consensus at the move discussion). In this case, if he edited archive settings once or twice while logged out, then I wouldn't make a big issue out of it. However, as evidenced above, there seems to be a pattern here, and that pattern, especially when matched with the similarity of the edits performed and their seeming synchronicity with Kauffner's edits suggests an intent to deceive (otherwise, some of the edits would presumably be done while logged in). So, a few isolated incidents or a few edits made while logged out? No big deal. But a pattern, of the same sort of edits, performed to the same sorts of pages, in advance of the same sort of re-hashing of a lost move discussion? I think it's going too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment More evidence: Kauffner evidently doesn't like this article Xam (history: [1]); he first tried to {{db-move}} it, which was declined. He then tried to delete all contents and redirect, again declined. Then, via an IP, he tried the exact same delete-all-content-and-redirect, 5 months later, which was reverted by a bot. You'll notice the IP made edits to Champagne and Carmel-by-the-Sea talk pages as well [2]. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For several weeks now, IIO has made various accusations against me in one forum or another almost every day, and in a manner that brings to mind WP:HOUND. These accusations are often based on his research of my edit history. As I have made over 30,000 edits, reviewing this history must have involved significant time and effort. KarlB/Obi-Wan Kenobi brought another set of complaints based on IIO's research at ANI. This complaint was closed summarily on July 21. The particular edits referred to above did not come up as an issue until yesterday. So they represent pure detective work, a fishing expedition, as the lawyers put it. I recognize the account names here, I have noticed the spiteful remarks on the corresponding talk pages and elsewhere, and I am all too familiar with their various grievances. I have often frustrated IIO's desire to put additional diacritics in titles, as you can see from this RfC. Obi-Wan was distressed when I tried to make the text of the Ivory Coast article correspond to the title following a page move. As for Dicklyon, he is much invested in a particular method of counting diacritics on GBooks, the validity of which I have disputed. Kauffner (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, I actually gave you a barnstar not some time back and supported some of your RMs. The "hound" as you put it was in the form of repeatedly asking you (i) to stop editing redirects with the result, intended or not, of protecting your undiscussed moves (ii) to cease using G6 "uncontroversial" deletes/moves. The issue of (iii) deleting RM notifications, and (iv) IP activity above wasn't even on the horizon. If you hadn't deleted reference to previous RMs before requesting G6 moving articles and editing redirects then no one would have even have noticed the IP activity. You have only yourself to blame. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, this particular case (and the other brought to ANI) have nothing to do with Ivory coast, or any other past issues. In addition, I was not aware of these IP-edits at the time I brought my concern to ANI, which was more about the mass page moves you had performed (and are continuing to perform). If you think we are hounding you, another interpretation is that you made/are making changes that we don't agree with all across the wiki, and we keep running into you as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these messages tend to confirm what I saying above, that the real issues here have less to do with IPs, archive bots, and Australian race horses than with the page move issue that has already been referred to the RfC. Archive bots being reset comes under the heading de minimis non curat lex, i.e. if these edits didn't have any significant practical consequence, and I don't see how could have, there really isn't a case to bring. Like BritishWatcher, I had previously assumed that if there no issue with the edit itself, it didn't matter what account it was made from. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't think that's true at all. This case is about those particular edits by IPs. Do you admit to making those talk page archiving edits listed by IP addresses per the circumstantial evidence above? If so, the investigation part of this can stop, and we can move to what an appropriate response should be (my opinion is, the response should be rather minor, like the edits themselves)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that the pattern shown does look extremely similar and if the IPs are Kauffner it would save time to admit it to avoid the need for investigations of multiple ips. However im still struggling to see even a "minor" rule violation, in simply not bothering to sign into make alterations to archiving bot settings. I do not get how a previous RM being moved to an archive from the talkpage would have any major impact on the outcome of a new RM. It all seems a little pointless with very little benefit in terms of outcome in influencing a vote. So if it is Kauffner, admitting it and committing to not alter archiving bots settings when not signed in would seem reasonable. Its certainly not something that would warrant a block, when nobody has even questioned or challenged the actions. If an IP sets a bot to archive too quickly, anyone is able to change it to a different date. it just does not seem like a malicious act that would swing a vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an obvious pattern of intent to deceive and avoid scrutiny. The RMs that he initiated and won this way should be rolled back, and new neutral RMs referencing the old discussions should be started. I don't see how you can dismiss this chicanery as mere "not bothering to sign in". Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing RMs on the assumption that there was malicious actions and on an even bigger assumption that it seriously impacted the outcome? That is far to extreme. I dont see how altering the settings on a archiving bot is some big conspiracy worthy of undoing previous RMs or a serious rule violation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time ticks on. I perhaps have some rather old-fashioned ideas about honesty, and corny as it may sound in such a trivial context as editing a volunteer blogpedia, integrity and decency. To me it matters not only how one behaves in life, but how one owns up to things, even trivial things, when challenged. I took 4 of the IPs privately to Kauffner on 20:02, 22 July 2012, and this is where I would expect someone with the same old-fashioned ideas about honesty to say either "Yes, sorry that is me, explanation" or "No, that is not me". It is now 48 hours later, and evasion such as that de minimis non curat lex means not having to answer... well to me that is only adding to the pattern. But as I say I'm old-fashioned. I hope the next post from Kauffner is going to be a short post saying either "Yes sorry" and listing any other IP edits, or it will be "No, that wasn't me." Anything else and that makes it worse. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst im not convinced that altering archiving bots time on a main account or on an IP would be breeching the rules or in any way tip the balance and influence the outcome of an RM, i certainly agree that if the IP is Kauffner they should admit it and commit to not doing it in the future. The pattern certainly does look convincing in terms of the connection. It would be far simpler and save time to admit to it if it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BritishWatcher, but it appears that your seconding of that fell on deaf ears the only response was this edit 3 hours later, 22:58, 24 July 2012 at Talk:Ca Mau "There was no consensus in that RM and the vote was 6 to 5 in favor of non-diacritic titles. We are supposed to follow guidelines, not previous results" - which evidently means "not previous RM results" - in relation to the very archive-reset and move-counter-RM which Cuchullain and Amatulic below have highlighted as the most problematic. There's your answer... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can no longer ignore the continual bleeps of this page on my watchlist. There's quite enough evidence on this page to indicate that Kauffner needs to give a solid undertaking to stop the problematic (really, deceptive) behaviour; or perhaps it should be taken further. Tony (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at WP:SOCKPUPPET, I see that it can be interpreted to mean that any time a user intentionally fails to log in and makes edits, that is a violation. I was previously unaware that there was a rule of this kind. It does not appear to me that it is applied in any practical way. I gather from the discussion below that we have now moved past that all of that. We are back to the golden oldy that we have been discussing for as long as I can remember now, namely the post-RM page moves for the Vietnamese cities. I made these moves under my own account. So enough about sockpuppetry already. I thought this issue was issue was already dealt with at ANI and referred to the RfC. Now it’s also an RM. So what is it doing here? Anyway, here it is, so here I have to deal it. I going to pull out the old broken record and play it one more time. Those of you who have heard this one before can switch to another sock puppet investigation. Post-RM page moves are hardly anything unusual. Usually they get moved back, story over. Sometimes they don’t. Nico Hülkenberg wasn’t moved back to Nico Hulkenberg; Édouard Hambye wasn’t moved back to Edouard René Hambye; and my favorite example: No Gun Ri Massacre was not moved back to No Gun Ri. I don’t think there is any question that the people who made these moves knew about the relevant RMs. In the case of No Gun Ri, I made strenuous protests, so I am quite sure that everyone involved was aware of this. With the cities, I moved a couple of them by accident, not realizing they were on the RM. No one seemed to mind, so I moved some more. The vote in the RM was 6 to 5 in favor of the move. IIO has spent weeks complaining about these moves, going from admin to admin, forum to forum. This is just more of the same-old, same-old. It has nothing to do with sock puppets, and there is no reason for this issue to be here. Kauffner (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, I will be filing an AN/I report soon, asking for you to be banned for a year from moving articles, from participating in move discussions, from starting RMs, and from adjusting archiving on talk pages. Unless you volunteer to self-restrict that way and save us all the hassle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Kauffner "With the cities, I moved a couple of them by accident, not realizing they were on the RM." - is that a claim that you are not responsible for the IP edits? Are these your IP edits? Please answer Yes/No. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, you removed all 13x RM bot links to your own failed RM in a batch of edits on 27 August 2011, immediately prior to requesting the first batch of 5x "uncontroversial move" redirects actioned 29 August by admin Graeme Bartlett (who has confirmed that they came from you), therefore you cannot claim "by accident, not realizing they were on the RM."

All 14x of the cities were moved counter RM, and all 14x had the RM result obscured - Kauffner's own failed Can Tho RM, and Ca Mau (which had the earlier 2010 RM which Kauffner was not involved in + bot to Kauffner's failed RM2 on it) by IPs, the other 12x by logged in edits deleting the RM bot to the failed RM you yourself himself launched:

  • A. Cần Thơ → Can Tho
26 June 2012‎ admin Malik Shabazz reverts move
20 June 2012‎ Kauffner moved page Cần Thơ to Can Tho over redirect - reverting admin Malik Shabazz's restore
2 June 2012‎ admin Malik Shabazz reverts G6 requested moved Can Tho to Cần Thơ "undoing move; no consensus per Talk page archive"
2 June 2012 someone (User:Gimmetoo?) alerts admin Malik Shabazz to reverse move counter RM
2 June 2012‎ uninvolved admin Malik Shabazz actions request from Kauffner page Cần Thơ to Can Tho
24-26 Feb 2012 Series of anon IP edits to Talk:Can Tho setting up archiving, no consensus RM no longer visible
07 August 2011 admin Arbitrarily0 closes 14 cities RM at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 "no consensus"
28 July 2011‎ RM bot adds (+348)‎ (Notifying of move discussion) to other 13x cities' Talk pages
28 July 2011 Kauffner launches RM for 14 Vietnamese towns at Talk Cần Thơ
  • B. Cà Mau → Ca Mau
28 June 2012 Kauffner edits Cà Mau redirect preventing revert
21 June 2012‎ Kauffner moves Cà Mau to Ca Mau
4 June 2012‎ MiszaBot I (-3,313)‎ (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Cà Mau/Archive 1 --- but something strange here; there is no link to Talk:Cà Mau/Archive 1 left on Talk page?
2 June 2012‎ 118.69.174.139 IP inserts extra header into Talk, increasing number of threads
1 June 2012‎ 118.69.133.249 adds autoarchiving
27 August 2011‎ Kauffner (logged in) removes RM bot notice of previous RM discussion
28 July 2011‎ RM bot (+348)‎ . . (Notifying of move discussion)
14 July 2010 earlier RM Ca Mau → Cà Mau - 3 vs 1, Kauffner not present in 2010
  • C. Cao Lãnh → Cao Lanh
30 June 2012 Kauffner edits Cao Lãnh redirect preventing revert
29 August 2011 Kauffner submits G6 "uncontroversial move" actioned by uninvolved admin Graeme Bartlett
25 August 2011 Kauffner (logged in) removes notice of failed RM from Talk
  • D. Mỹ Tho → My Tho
5 Oct 2011 Kauffer edits redirect at Mỹ Tho, preventing revert
5 October 2011‎ Kauffner moved Mỹ Tho to My Tho
27 August 2011‎ Kauffner (logged in) removes RM bot notice of close discussion
07 August 2011 admin Arbitrarily0 closes 14 cities RM at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 "no consensus"
28 July 2011‎ RM bot (+348)‎ (Notifying of move discussion)
28 July 2011 Kauffner launches RM for 14 Vietnamese towns at Talk Cần Thơ
21 July 2011‎ User:MSGJ reverts My Tho to Mỹ Tho "revert for now; that discussion did not mention this particular article and does not set a precedent for mass moving of articles"
21 July 2011‎ Kauffner moved Mỹ Tho to My Tho citing RM on Chicago University mathematician and other VN bios.
  • E. Nam Định → Nam Dinh
  • F. Phan Thiết → Phan Thiet
  • G. Quảng Ngãi → Quang Ngai
  • H. Rạch Giá → Rach Gia
  • I. Thái Nguyên → Thai Nguyen
  • J. Thanh Hóa → Thanh Hoa
  • K. Thủ Dầu Một → Thu Dau Mot
  • L. Vĩnh Yên → Vinh Yen
  • M. Vũng Tàu → Vung Tau
  • N. Yên Bái → Yen Bai
Others.. no point in repeating same history another 10x - all the same as Cao Lãnh and Mỹ Tho with (i.) 28 July 2011‎ RM bot being removed (while logged in) before (ii.) req for G6 as "uncontroversial move", or own move, and then (iii.) redirect edited preventing revert. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments cont'd
  • @Amatulić wrote:
    it is not sockpuppetry in the sense of giving the appearance of multiple contributors for nefarious purposes. This is simply deliberately editing while logged out.
But WP:ILLEGIT does equate this with sockpuppetry, under Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively. How could it be otherwise? In that case, this would be an obvious loophole for anyone to evade restrictions on sockpuppets.
Suppose Kauffner had registered a sockpuppet account named Abcxyz123 and had performed the "summon MiszaBot" edits while logged in under that account. Surely this would be considered misleading and avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, with intent to prevent anyone looking at the history from making the connection. Deliberately logging out has the exact same effect, per WP:ILLEGIT. This was a systematic pattern across multiple articles over time, so the logouts were indeed deliberate. Of course it is possible that it was not him, but he needs to say so, and has not. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Miszabot IPs there is still the G6 dbmove IP Obi-WanKenobi noticed. A check user is still required here, on the case of 3rd attempt to move Xẩm to Xam by G6 dbmove and disamb redirect. 2nd (of 3) refusing admin User:EurekaLott "if you want the article moved, please talke it to WP:RM." has not been notified of this SPI, nor has the sole article creator User:Grenouille vert, a substantial article contributor whose articles have been targeted (e.g. 21 June 2012 followed by 22 June 2012) for undiscussed moves/G6 dbmoves/redirect edits and complains to Kauffner here. Until Kauffner says "Yes, the Xẩm dbmove IP is me, I forgot to log in" we still need a check user. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I failed to tick the "need a checkuser" option when I started this SPI, and I couldn't find how to fix that. Hopefully a watching admin will help... Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that this SPI has generated sufficient circumstantial evidence, coupled with no denial on the part of Kauffner, that we can simply provide him with a wet WP:TROUT for these edits and move on. I don't think we need checkusers/etc at this point, but agree it would be much easier if Kauffner just said "yes, that was me, sorry I will try to not do it again".
On the other hand, I do think a RFC/U (not AN/I) *would* be called for, not because of talk page archiving, but because of mass-moves of pages against consensus, even when he had been warned by users ([3], [4]) that such moves away from diacritics were controversial - such warnings were deleted from his talk page shortly after, and the page moves continue. There is clear guidance that such moves should not be performed if they are known to be controversial, and while one could overlook a few, the fact that he did this to over 1000 articles over the past year is worrisome. Nonetheless, as a result of such an RFC/U I would not support a ban of RMs or participation in move discussions however, as he does take time to carefully prepare RMs and they are often reasonable cases. I would support a ban on direct page moves however, or at least a self-imposed ban by Kauffner himself, to not do page moves or {{db-move}}, and to refer all page moves he wants to do to RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A wet trout = you naughty boy. It's likely to encourage a resumption of the behaviour some time in the future. Tony (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True; my point is, these particular edits probably don't merit much more. I think we should focus on opening an RFC/U re: the aforementioned page moves against consensus - that seems to be the real issue; I think the talk page archiving is a side show.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Obi-Wan actually I would agree with Tony, Dicklyon and P.T. Aufrette, the IP deception is more of an issue than the things done without IP assistance. And rather than encourage a resumption of behaviour, the behaviour is happening at this minute - i.e. refusing to give a straight answer to the question "Is this hand in the cookie jar yours, yes or no?" Would you let your child have another cookie before he'd answered that question? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a trip tomorrow, so won't start an AN/I or RFC/U now. If someone else will, great; otherwise I'll do it later. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the pilot bails out, the plane may not be going to a place you want to be. Kauffner (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is the third example of Kauffner not only avoiding "Yes the IPs are me/No, the IPs are not me" but instead mocking the process. So it looks like we're not going to get a straight admit/deny. I have no idea if this is a usual response from suspected Users when SPI are asked to check against IPs. It looks like no one here knows how to set up this SPI properly to get a check on the two worst IPs - the Ca Mau Miszabot and the Xam dbmove - but from what I can make out on the instructions page clear diffs have to be provided before activating the check template. There's a list of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks who seem to be available to help those of us who are new to this kind of thing. Would anyone object if I contact 1 of them to ask for technical help? Also, in regard to the RMs which were rigged (not that I think any need reopening and Ivory Coast looks completely legit) I notified the closing admins to unusual IP activity in the initial stages of untangling this. But I didn't understand the Xam dbmove IP until Obiwankenobi explained it - should the admin who reverted and instructed an RM on Xam be informed or not? Should the editor whose article was targeted be informed?
+ Unrelated, Kauffner complains about No Gun Ri Massacre above. I'm not familiar with this, but does I'm visiting this page in a while but very surprised to see that this article originally about geographical information was merged without "discussion" and past discussions were all gone too. The editor who did this should tell the rationale, or I will restore the original title "No Gun Ri massacre" and the discussion page.--Caspian blue 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC) appear to show a more primitive manual way of achieving an undiscussed move and obscuring past discussions? In this case IP activity does not seem to be involved, so would not have even been considered it if Kauffner hadn't himself introduced it above. How many more of these are there? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the checkuser is a must, yes. Kauffner is simply stonewalling and mocking us. This seems as good a time as any to bring up his participation in the now-deleted "WikiProject English", which was deleted as a den of battleground machination, e.g. "I can boast of moving the Vietnamese bios and geography to non-diacritic titles -- It's hundreds of titles and took me several months to do." The common thread here is a problematic attitude, whether in the form of this offputting triumphalism, or the current stonewalling and snark. To paraphrase a certain movie, we're going to need a bigger trout. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even a negative checkuser result wouldn't entirely settle the issue. In developing countries Internet use is exploding but few locals can afford to have access at home, as opposed to expatriates. As a result there is a much greater density of Internet cafés. In Hanoi there are undoubtedly several within walking distance. One could easily arrange to make IP edits at a separate location from the logged-in edits. Rather than narrowly focus on checkuser, the broader issue is that of apparent tag-team collusion between Kauffner and the IP editor (who might conceivably be a meatpuppet confederate, but the Venn diagram intersection of coincidental circumstances and editing interests would be pretty darn small). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on my trip; looking to start this, I find that both AN/I and RFC/U suggest coming here to SPI to report sockpuppet abuse. This case says it's open and awaiting administration. So I'll wait and see what they do with it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have written about matters quite sensitive in Vietnam. Although these matters are not part of the current dispute, I do not necessarily appreciate the trumpeting of where I live, or attempts to ascertain what material I am responsible for.[5] I am confident that all parties involved can take into account the need for discretion. Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, there was no sleuthing or outing involved here. Until you edited it today,[6] your userpage had Category:Wikipedians in Vietnam, so you yourself were "trumpeting" it. The anonymous IP addresses (of the alleged sockpuppet edits) trace to a Hanoi-based telecom company, per whois at http://www.apcnic.net/ , so it's germane. Your userpage also claimed credit for a certain article before your edit today — I assume that's what you're referring to, based on the diff you provide above — so reading the plain text of your userpage hardly constitutes "attempts to ascertain what material I am responsible for". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a guessing game. Do I need to explain again why I do not want people speculating about where I live or what Vietnam-related material I have written? You do not know. Please do not respond with another paragraph speculating on either issue. Kauffner (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, are the IPs you? yes or no. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, is all this still dragging on? Kauffner, you need to explain yourself to the community. Isn't that obvious? We all knew that you were heavily involved in Vietnamese issues before this investigation. Nothing secret is being revealed in any untoward way; but if you think it is, you have the option of contacting a checkuser privately by email, explaining yourself in full, and simply noting the fact here. You could report whom you approached, but give none of the details publicly here. The checkuser could then review your submission, and everything on this page, and ask any further questions deemed necessary before closing things satisfactorily.
What stops you? You are wasting everyone's time and effort. Bring the matter to a reasonable end, please. If you will not, it should not surprise you if matters are taken out of your hands and an RFC/U is issued against you. It should be broad enough to encompass your persistent misuse of evidence at RM discussions, and your refusal to answer questions about the flaws in such evidence – and to mend your ways so that participants and closing admins are not misled.
Some responsibility now, please. ☺
NoeticaTea? 07:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer came there none.
We're supposed to AGF, but it's difficult when this sudden concern for secrecy about living in Vietnam is accompanied not by saying "there's no need to check the IPs, yes they were me" but by carrying on regardless: last edit Trần Văn Cung 05:08, 31 July 2012‎ Kauffner (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat) thereby locking a proxied G6 dbmove requested to uninvolved admin Sphilbrick. I'm not sure how this is similar/different from Dolovis' redirect edits, but the intention seems to be while we're all talking to secure the legacy of undiscussed moves for posterity, if not why these 1000s of redirect edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any case where IPs edited the redirects? If not, then let's close this and get on with handling the behaviour of the named account. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the IPs listed, only the IP 3rd attempt on Xam disamb to move Xẩm traditional music article by redirecting, ignoring admin EurekaLott's instruction to take to RM. Not the same thing as a normal redirect edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the "behaviour of the named account" included logging out and using IP edits with intent to mislead and avoid scrutiny, which is a sockpuppeting violation per WP:SCRUTINY, which is one reason we're here. He has thereby completely corrupted the RM/consensus process. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, and I even think there's a "fair chance" that the IP edits are the user, but when I consider the likely censures for the unambiguous logged-in behaviour of the named account, I don't think the suspected logged-out behaviour would change anything. I can see some legitimate real-life privacy reasons (not simply to avoid wiki scrutiny) for the user not to be tied to a set of specific IP addresses. Such reasons may not really be in play here, but I don't see the wiki-value of pursuing the IP investigation (for archive manipulation) as anywhere near worth the potential real-life damage to the user if they are in play. Leave the user plausible deniability and let's get on with the clear stuff. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re comments below Cúchullain 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC), reply Dicklyon, 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC), Amatulić 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC),[reply]
(i) whatever is decided about the appropriate place, I think it'd be appropriate to note at this point that the manipulation of the archiving did in fact influence (perhaps in a minor way, but difficult to quantify) the result of some RMs. I looked again at Talk:Black Caviar, Talk:Inter Milan yesterday and saw that I myself supported both moves. In the case of Talk:Black Caviar I would probably have 'voted' the same, but in the case of Talk:Inter Milan and Talk:Lady Trieu I would have opposed if I'd seen the previous RMs - and although I suppose it's my own stupid fault for not checking the archive, since they weren't labelled "RM4" etc., you take these things on good faith, or at least have done so until now. Given that these articles Talk:Black Caviar, Talk:Inter Milan are (being realistic here) more important/more visible in the en.wp scale of things than WP:Vietnam articles whatever the next step/forum is it needs to be one that addresses RM issues rather than just the mainly (Xẩm music and Cần Thơ cities excepted) -logged in behaviour relating to VN articles.
(ii) re the 1,800 or so undiscussed (or G6 proxied) VN article moves. As far as I can see (and it's 20 years since I was in Vietnam or have used any Vietnamese so I've had to brush up) it looks like one user who despite the noise has only actually contributed 3 VN articles, appears to have really messed things up - producing all kinds of inevitable inconsistencies and ambiguities across the entire project. The most recent being the bulk renaming of the entire footballers category. In response to Obiwan's concerns a loaded RfC was set up but has had any value destroyed by stunts like canvassing WP:Conservatism with scares about Saigon being renamed "Sài Gòn". It seems impossible for this User to do the simplest tasks without gaming them. For that reason I'd suggest all 1,800 undiscussed moves being reverted to status quo - consistent with the way en.wp treats Czech or Icelandic, as most of them were created. Yes I know that SPI isn't the place for this, I'm saying it now to flag the issue of the article repairs probably needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New: the smoking gun, if that's the correct term. This edit clearly shows User:Kauffner going back 3 days later and forgetting to log out before adjusting the Ho Chi Minh IP's set up of Miszabot to archive his own RM1 (failed), before launching RM2 (succeeded). I don't know why no one spotted this before, but among a dozen tampered RMs there's a lot to look at. Is this enough to close the SPI without a CheckUser and issue SPI conclusion that the IPs are indeed User:Kauffner, and that the IP edits contravene Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on several points as above?

Sock puppetry can take on several different forms:

  • Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address...

Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse

Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

...

Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding.

It's disappointing because I've gone from supporting this editor on his drive for "English names" a few months back to being, understatement, seriously concerned, but by what is written in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry this is IP-puppetry, and if it isn't then these sections of WP:Sock puppetry need to be rewritten to allow what User:Kauffner has done on a dozen RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

In ictu oculi alerted me to this issue yesterday. By and large the problems look trifling (there is nothing wrong with either archiving or starting new move requests) but there is some evidence of problem editing if the accounts are connected. For instance In none of these move requests did Kauffner indicate previous discussions, as he should have done per the WP:RM process, though if the IPs are him he was clearly aware of them.
The Ca Mau move is more troubling. The article was moved to Cà Mau following a move request; this discussion was archived after tagging by 118.69.133.249 here. Then Kauffner moved the page to Ca Mau without discussion here. If the IP is Kauffner, if follows that (1) he was aware of the previous discussion but made an undiscussed move anyway, and (2) he was trying to skirt the process and avoid scrutiny in doing so. Kauffner was previously called out for obscuring past move discussions before initiating new moves as "uncontroversial" here. If the accounts are connected, this is a misuse of alternate accounts, compounded if it's happened elsewhere.--Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that Kauffner's RM activity has at times seemed disruptive. However, all that I see here are IP addresses adding auto-archive templates on talk pages where Kauffner happened to initiate a failed RM. This in itself is not disruptive, and it is not sockpuppetry in the sense of giving the appearance of multiple contributors for nefarious purposes. This is simply deliberately editing while logged out. (Heck, I've done that myself now and then, to take a break from sysopping and contribute anonymously like most other editors, but I tend to keep those contributions separate from areas I participate in when logged in.)
Whether Kauffner logs in or not, I don't see how adding auto-archive templates can be considered disruptive or sockpuppetry. At most, the thread expiration time is set too short (60 days for low-volume talk pages is unreasonable) and those can easily be corrected. I also fail to see what Kauffner stands to gain by "hiding" these RMs in archives, because if they are re-started anew, enough prior participants will remember the prior one and refer to it in the archive.
The incident Cuchullian refers to above is more troubling, as that does suggest an attempt at deception via not logging in. A checkuser may be able to verify an association with that single IP, but I don't see a need to check others that have not engaged in disruption. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: both these admins were notified of this SPI by In ictu oculi (as I was). Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that based on the discussion above about disregarding RM outcomes and moving articles anyway, some sort of ban might be in order. A SPI case isn't the place to discuss that, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence looks pretty convincing that the IPs are Kauffner editing while logged out. While the edits don't look very disruptive taken individually, there does seem to be a pattern of questionable tactics to influence article naming discussions. Checkusers don't generally associate IPs with named account for privacy reasons, so I'm not sure SPI is the correct venue here. As the behaviour seems to be connected with a wider issue with article titles and page moves, it would be reasonable to discuss some sort of restriction from RM and page moving. If public discussion at AN is out of the question because of Kauffner's privacy concerns, I'm sure ArbCom can be asked to look at the evidence privately. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would drop the IP investigation for privacy issues. Checkusers avoid publicly connect users and IP addresses, and frankly, even if true it's at most a minor evasion compared with the move-related behaviour from the alleged master account. Had Kauffner noted past RM results when making or requesting "uncontroversial" moves, nobody would care that IP editors had manipulated archiving. And for the record: [7] [8] [9] I originally noticed Kauffner after this move of a featured article, citing a result of a RM that was not advertised at the featured article [10] Gimmetoo (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmeto, the SPI process is not only for checkuser investigations. We also conduct investigations based purely on behavioural evidence, which is not restricted by the privacy policy in the same way as is technical evidence. AGK [•] 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we had 100% clear CU confirmation that the IPs were the user, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the logged-in behaviour, and anything less than 100% clear confirmation diminishes the drop. Is that drop in the bucket really worth the potential real-world damage to a real person, even if the "privacy policy" might allow it? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still open? We need to wrap this up and move on to the next step, whatever that may be.--Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to start a next step of AN/I or RFC/U, but the language at those pages suggest they are not the right place. I'm stumped. Advice from a knowledgeable admin about possible next steps would be appreciated. I think we need to seek a community-imposed ban on further corruption of the RM process, and possibly of any involvement at all in moves or RMs. Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:AE? After all ArbCom recently had a ruling related to disruptive RM activities. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where might I find said ruling? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only potentially related discretionary sanction I can think of is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions, but it's not directly on point. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to simply propose a ban, the correct place would be WP:AN. RFC/U would be a better venue for a more general investigation of user conduct issues, although someone would need to certify it to meet the minimum requirements. I agree that this SPI should probably be closed since it's clearly not going anywhere. Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kauffner&oldid=507621854"