Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drameu

Drameu

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drameu/Archive.

21 January 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Drameu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ArtemisOfMars (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Christiansands (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sosgeneral (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

There seems to be one user who is an SPA with respect to Polaroid Kiss and related pages who is using sockpuppets. There are three accounts which have serially edited these pages which seem to be easy to link to one user on behavioral grounds. Christian Sands, Sosgeneral, Drameu all mark substansive edits as minor and most of their edits are marked as minor. This technique is used to insert Polaroid Kiss into other articles. See [1], [2] and [3] for examples. Their contributions are available here: Christiansands, Sosgeneral and Drameu. The Drameu account seems to not mark edits that are unlikely to be overlooked as minor.

Two of these accounts are also linked chronologically Sosgeneral stopped editing on 2013-07-26T06:47:21 while Drameu's first edit is 2013-07-26T11:02:30. Both edits to Polaroid Kiss.

The account I am concerned may be a current sock of Drameu is ArtemisOfMars.

ArtemisOfMars initially shows up after an edit war starts between Drameu and another user. Where there first Wikipedia edit is to return the article to Drameu's preferred state. On their sixth edit they are bringing the issue up at BLPN. It is interesting to note; despite multiple pings, and a talk page request Drameu never participates in the discussion.

ArtemisOfMars also edited in support of Drameu to include exactly the same text in this sequence. A user removes text Drameu reinserts - user removes - AtremisOfMars restores]. ArtemisOfMars also shows a strong apparant COI which is well documented in this freaking huge discussion at BLPN and more directly addressed in this diff from that discussion. It also rehashed much of the evidence here.

For these reasons, as well as all of the mentioned accounts being SPA's on a very minor page, I request a SPI and Checkuser on the accounts mentioned, where technically possible. JBH (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

@JBH No SP on my side. I'm not manipulated by anyone as what I say is the truth. Here is my French Wikipedia User Page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:ArtemisOfMars), so you could see that I'm not related to any of the other users you mentioned in this investigation. How can I be two different persons? I really have a bad feeling about Wikipedia now. You said that Wikipedia does not represent the truth, ok that's what I believe too. In that case, how can you decide if an information given by an official website is wrong? Do you believe you know a band better than this band itself? If an information is official... it's official to me. Oh, and you ask me to put links to articles written by NME, Billboard, Pitchfork or All Music.. do you really believe they are in possession of the truth? They write what people tell them to write, including wrong information. They are journalists. How can they be more up to date than a band itself? If Polaroid Kiss says that Steve Hewitt is a member of their band -for years now- it means he IS a member of the band. Moreover, this information was on the article for quite a lot of time and nobody changed anything before InstantSnapFeedback decided to vandalize it. I'm just wondering if you are really neutral in this issue. You don't believe the truth and support ISF in his madness. Do you know ISF personally? I don't know who the other users are. I thanked Drameu because he helped me to undo what ISF did on the article... and he thanked me back for the same reasons. There is a "thank" button on the edit page, using it is normal, isn't it? As you know we cannot communicate on Wikipedia, this is not a social media, so I never "talk" to Drameu. And about the two other users, I have no idea of who they are, really, and I honestly don't care because the only thing that I see is just that they edited the article and put right infos on it. I think that the investigation should be opened on ISF, not any of the users mentioned above. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: I opened this SPI because a) I found evidence that made me believe you are a COI SOCK; b) I accused you of being a COI SOCK in a public discussion. That is a very serious accusation and to make it without being ready, willing and able to back it up officially is a personal attack. If the investigating admin feels that I opened this SPI without sufficient grounds, I invite them to block me as they see fit because I would have indeed wronged you.

1. Do not rehash the source dispute here. It is over. The admins here do not want to hear it. You say you are a jurist then you should understand the concepts of proof and admissibility. Think of what you wanted to use as hearsay ie not evidence.
2. So you have a French Wikipedia Page. I see it has a total of 6 edits 5 of which are after 17 Jan 2015 where you want to know "Can we control the contributions of different users before they appear... ".
3. No idea who InstantSnapFeedback is, don't care. Although, when I asked them if they had used another account earlier in your dispute they acknowledged it. I had hoped to keep the drama down by not pinging them when I opened this, but now that you have mentioned them they must be notified. In the dispute they claimed to have off wiki knowledge of your account. Here they can present that through WP:OTRS kind of a 'put-up-or-shut-up' situation for them I guess.
4. As to my neutrality; I edit and participate in Wikipedia based on the rules, guidelines and norms as I understand them. When I am unsure of something I ask other editors who I have seen deal with similar problems and whose work I respect. Just like I did over at BLPN. If I find that my understanding was wrong I acknowledge it, if necessary apologize and then move on having learned something. If you think I should edit another way I invite you to discuss it with me at my talk page.

Now, I think one exchange between us is more than enough for this venue. If you have a reply to me not directly related to the evidence I have presented here re this SPI please address it to me on my talk page. JBH (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH Is it possible to open another SPI but this time on the following users because I truly believe that these ones are obviously linked or maybe the same person: RichardBrandonReed, Salivasnapshot and, of course, InstantSnapFeedback who put some nasty messages on my talk page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: Yes you can. See my talk page in a few minutes for discussion. WP:SPI is the place to start. Evidence is required (diffs). JBH (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

---