Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davesmith33: Difference between revisions

5) Emma368's first edit (15th May 2007) was just 3 weeks after Davesmith33's block and final edit (27th April 2007) SteveBaker (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6) Very similar patterns of using boldface and/or capital letters for emphasis.

7) Too many shared editorial interests (Top Gear, Formula One, and most telling, Emma Snowsill) but very few differences. Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nonsense, it appears this Dave character and I share the same opinion. I have to say there is no evidence whatsoever to support the above accusation. Administrators - please see my talk page on why this case is both unwarranted and unfair. Emma368 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Looneyman, the patten of editing is remarkably similar.

Emma368's first edit was on 15 May 2007, less than three weeks after Davesmith33's last edit on 27 April 2007.

Both editors work in a fashion that satisifes the criteria of WP:DISRUPT. There are so many examples it's difficult to decide what to highlight here, perhaps it's best illustrated in the edit summaries: using personal insults (diff 1 diff 2), similarity of edits and edit summaries (diff3 diff4); demands that others discuss any changes on the talk page (diff5 diff6), but refuses to accept the outcome of the discussion and rejects the concept of community consensus (diff7 diff8); labelling of edits he/she disagrees with as vandalism (diff9 diff10) and use of WP:POINT (diff11 diff12).

In this diff on 29 June 2008 Emma368 says that "There used to be an exceptionally good Top Gear Dog article before Dr French started his one man crusade against any mention of TGD on this site." A check on the log file shows that article was actually deleted in February 2007, three months before Emma368 started contributing to Wikipedia, but when Davesmith33 was active. If Emma368 thought that the article was good, one would have expected him/her to comment in the AfD, even as an anon IP.

When I first suspected that Davesmith33 and Emma368 might be the same person, I asked a polite question on 23 June 2008 to give Emma368 the opportunity to either confirm or deny the fact and put the matter to rest. If they were the same person they would the have the opportunity to be open and honest about it, if they wanted a 'clean start'. Emma368 has chosen not to respond.

DrFrench (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would only add the strikingly similar styles of argumentation used by the two on the TG talk page. In addition to what is detailed above, both favor taking an argument against Top Gear Dog/Top Gear Stuntman/Sabine Schimidt/Stig as co-star, twisting it slightly and throwing it back at another editor.

Most telling is both tend to view themselves as victimized by one or more editors (DrFrench at present), and favor disruptive edits, most commonly focused on The Stig, as a means of retaliation.

--Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prima-facia evidence is pretty strong that these are the same person - the singleminded effort to get the name of a dog into the list of presenters of a TV show in the teeth of the opposition of a dozen other editors is a really WEIRD kink and it's impossible to imagine that there is more than one person on the planet who feels so strongly about something so particular and so trivial. But to be honest - even if they were not the same person, the actions that got Davesmith33 a permanent block are being acted out identically by Emma368 - so there is ample justification for blocking this user even if NOT a sock. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through diff8 and reviewed the gist of the contrib logs. I agree with everything that's been said - Emma368 is almost certainly Davesmith33, and even if not, is behaving in the same manner and should be unblocked for the same reasons. The first available administrator should please block Emma368. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 19:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Emma for 55 hours for the repeated deletion of content from this page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma368 has convienently provided more evidence against him. He recently added the text Thou shalt not post any comments here which could be construed as bullying or victimisation on these pages. Any such comments will be removed with immediate effect. Thank you. to the top of his talk page. And if you look at Davesmith33's talk page, you will find the exact same line at the top of the talk page. Looneyman (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get this wrapped up? There is more than enough evidence the accused has had a chance to reply and things are escalating in a bad direction. Emma368 has been doing a bunch more disruptive editing today (so far we have a 3RR violation, an NPA violation, blanking official notices from talk pages, maybe even a legal threat). Can we please just find an admin and slap an indefinite block on this account? SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. This has been going on for too long. Plus the way Emma was treating his talk page just mere moments ago almost perfectly mirrors Davesmith33's behaviours in the past. I'd add diffs to prove this but I don't know how to. If someone could do so for me, that would be much appreciated. Looneyman (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person is clearly just here for a wind-up, and it seems to be working. No genuine editor (even one with such a trivial but overblown point to make) would behave in this frankly peculiar way - copying Davesmith33's weirdly worded and pathetic plea for help against the "bullies" is the final straw. Let's just forget the 55 hour bans and ban permanently asap please?? Far too much time is being wasted by this joker. Halsteadk (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davesmith33 and Emma368 are clearly not the same person and merely share a similar viewpoint. Any similarities between the two appear to be totally coincidental. I would advise all users to try to get along with each other better and any cases of bullying and harassment will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Action: Case closed. Xinyu1981 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma368 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 Jul 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of this page shows clearly that the above entry was added by User:Emma368. diff I'm reporting this user to admin for vandalising after a ban expiry, as impersonating another user is not acceptable behaviour. Halsteadk (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totallly agreed. Emma368 has been blocked again for trying to do this. As you said, the edit history has given him away on this. We might as well remove the fake conclusion. Looneyman (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say leave it there, it's more evidence. Bit disappointed it's only 2 weeks to be honest. Can't see "she"'ll come back a reformed character. Halsteadk (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who banned her has just confirmed that he preferred to give a long temp ban to await the true outcome of the case - if it's proven she'll be banned permanently. And I guess if not she'll still be blocked for a couple of weeks and then be back to get herself banned again no doubt. So I'm happy with that and retract my disappointment... Halsteadk (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, oh wow. Completely aside from the sockpuppet possibilities, the feeble attempt at impersonating an admin on this page definitely warrants a permaban. It's kind of sad when this person clearly does understand how edit histories work. - Vianello (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the person that was chosen is even an administrator. If he was, it would be on his/her profile page. As it stands, the person that was chosen doesn't even have a profile page. Looneyman (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Nokezie

This one might be worth watching in conjunction with this. Interesting timing of similar edit, and account has only made that edit. Not much evidence yet, but think it's worth keeping any eye on. Halsteadk (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could give a likn to his contributions so we can compare. Looneyman (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diff - diff of 2 edits. Might be nothing as there's not a lot to go on at the moment but something tells me it's not quite right and the timing is suspicious. Halsteadk (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that User:Emma368 stepped in and restored User:Nokezie's edits a few hours after they were reverted. It's no proof - but it certainly suggests we should watch Nokezie's contributions list carefully. (Aside: The one thing sockpuppeteers never seem to understand is that while they can cover their identity in the short term, people have long memories and if they carry on doing whatever got them blocked in the first place then their behaviour gives them away immediately. So their only way to proceed is to start working on completely different articles and reform their misbehavior patterns so carefully that they end up being model Wikipedians and we don't notice that they were ever sockpuppeteers. We may never know how often that happens.) SteveBaker (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought about that. Huh. Well, sounds like a nice win/win to me, in a way! - Vianello (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Godraegpot

Well, there's a coincidence. Another new user happened to create an account on Wikipedia and as his/her first (and so far only) edit added that the bloody Top-Gear-Dog was introduced as a team member on Top Gear. You know what I'm saying folks. We're talking a twelve-pack of Walmart calf-length size 9 cotton with little goggle-eyes sewn on them. SteveBaker (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And did we note: Godraegpot in reverse is (surprise!) Topgeardog? --Drmargi (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!!!! I'm humiliated to say I didn't spot that. (/SteveBaker Quickly checks "Nokezie" and is disappointed with the result). SteveBaker (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how naive people can be; what would possess someone to think that a fresh user wouldn't draw any attention when this brouhaha has already put the article under a microscope? Dp76764 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What possesses a fairly normal editor with seven months at Wikipedia - and several hundred edits to articles about motor racing, olympic athletes and TV presenters to suddenly 'wig out' and then to struggle over and over in the face of resistance, blocks and acrimony for 14 months to add one line about a dog into an article about a TV show - and after repeated warnings and opportunites to back-down, ultimately gets a lifetime ban from an activity he evidently once enjoyed? I can't explain it - it's rather sad - but sometimes Wikipedia does that to people. SteveBaker (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with me. Godraegpot (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 :::It's amazing how naive people can be; what would possess someone to think that a fresh user wouldn't draw any attention when this brouhaha has already put the article under a microscope? [[User:Dp76764|Dp76764]] ([[User talk:Dp76764|talk]]) 00:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::::What possesses a fairly normal editor with seven months at Wikipedia - and several hundred edits to articles about motor racing, olympic athletes and TV presenters to suddenly 'wig out' and then to struggle over and over in the face of resistance, blocks and acrimony for '''14 months''' to add ''one line'' about a dog into an article about a TV show - and after repeated warnings and opportunites to back-down, ultimately gets a lifetime ban from an activity he evidently once enjoyed?  I can't explain it - it's rather sad - but sometimes Wikipedia does that to people. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
+This has nothing to do with me. [[User:Godraegpot|Godraegpot]] ([[User talk:Godraegpot|talk]]) 13:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 ----