Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi

User:Unomi

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

Report date March 12 2009, 04:10 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

1. All three users seem to edit only Aspartame controversy as single purpose accounts
2. User:Karloff stopped editing the article when Verbal made this accusation on 28 February 2009.
3. User:Unomi edited the article starting on 8 March 2008.
4. All three editors have pushed the same POV on the article, that is that Aspartame is dangerous. They use the same sources for their POV. They also use Talk:Aspartame controversy in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP.
5. Just so this doesn't sound like fishing, please note the similarities of indentation patterns and spelling for Unomi and for Karloff.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I support checking me for sock puppetry, I am confident that it will clear me, I have addressed it previously here. As for WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP this is clearly not the place to bring it up, but it is addressed by me here and in this. Please also see this AN/I. Unomi (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We are now bringing in a host of other issues to this. I categorically deny WP:MEAT, I have had no contact with *ANY* WP editor *OR* interest group prior to randomly coming to wikipedia to find something to read. This is not the place for it but since WP:MEAT has been brought up I would like to know where issues of WP:TEAM can be raised. It is true that i tend not to capitalize 'I', it has been a conscious decision (the philosophy behind this is not really germane to this investigation) but i generally try to capitalize 'I' when it is necessary for deliverables (rarely) or I want to 'seem smart'(irony). As for broken English, I can only apologize and affirm that English is not my native language.

I believe that immortale was not referring to me, certainly he did not 'bring me in'.

I also want to vehemently deny that I am pushing for a POV, merely for accuracy.

The article in question was brought for an AfD and the consensus was KEEP with points being made regarding the historical nature of the controversy. Please bear in mind the article is not about *Is aspartame dangerous* it is about the controversy that has surrounded aspartame.

I have tried to answer the allegations of POV pushing repeatedly and anyone who cares to look will find my desire for NPOV evident. Unomi (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it absolutely clear: At no point have I had any contact in any way, shape or form with any of the involved editors or any interested parties inside or outside WP, regarding this (or anything else). Unomi (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in overly long point by point explanations here, the parties investigating this may contact me via my talk page or direct me to come here to explain myself, should it be necessary.

UNINDENT- Btw, It *is* fishing. Like most apes I learn by imitation, I must have noticed that a user used that method and applied it, honestly, I took it as the 'right way'. I don't like deeply indented sections and at the same time it should be made clear it is not an unintentional failure to indent. Unomi (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What a time some people have, to play ridiculous games here. Just because someone else has joined the discussion that aspartame is not safe, doesn't mean that he or she is a friend of mine. There are millions of people in the world who believe aspartame is dangerous. When I wrote that I brought in the help of Neutral editors, it was according to Wikipedia policy, which anyone would know if they actually READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Archive_2#Third_opinion I've edited other articles before and during aspartame. I have limited time and I prefer taking one article at the time. Aspartame Controversy isn't a balanced, neutral article, so why would I devote my energy to another article? When it comes to POV, OrangeMarlin, Verbal, Keepcalmandcarryon and a few others have pushed their own agenda that aspartame dangers are fringe. Not surprisingly because this mob is often present in numerous pseudo-scientific articles. Immortale (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Support this request for checkuser. (If there is still such a thing as others also endorsing a request.) The tone of the comments of the users do seem similar, at the very least. And if not socks, meat puppetry could be possible as well. - jc37 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a vote, and the requesting user has not supplied a reason why a checkuser should look (simply putting "F" for Other is not really enough). —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  Wasn't suggesting that this was a "vote". My apologies if this page is somehow limited to not include consensual or supportive (or oppositive, for that matter) comments.

  As for the criteria, "F" would seem to be a justified "letter", based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters. Or are you saying that you feel that his "brief summary" wasn't clear enough? If so, he also posted a short summary to WP:AN/I, which may help.

  That aside, considering the user's tendentious editing, and violations of WP:3RR, if these are also socks, then "D" may apply. There's also the question of "C" applying due to the talk page discussion of inclusion and how to present certain information. - jc37 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• No what I am saying is that the reporter needs to make clear why they think a checkuser is required and not simply an admin looking through the diffs and blocking based on evidence. This statement has been done below. BTW you are free to comment, I just wanted to make clear that this was not a vote. —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• There is also the broken English, lack of capitalization of some words, including the personal pronoun "I", and other oddities that Unomi and Karloff share in common. Immortale even talked about "Fact is that only when I brought in NEUTRAL editors,...", and they must have been these two (no others appeared), so they are most likely socks of each other and acting as meatpuppets for Immortale. They didn't just appear, since Immortale "brought" them in. They are the only ones who fight for inclusion of exactly the same edits and unneeded inclusion of large amounts of information from the GAO document, which is already summarized and only of historical interest. If it looks like a DUCK .... They should be blocked as socks and Immortale indeffed for deliberately doing this. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• In addition to Fyslee's evidence, there is the same idiosyncratic use of parenthesis in the signature of (Karloff and (Immortale, which was my original tip after the same poor English and pushing of exactly the same fringe POV. I fully agree with Fyslee and OM etc. Verbal chat 09:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Besides my comments above, I want to emphasize that Fyslee hasn't presented any evidence and that Verbal seems to act like a meatpuppet when he wants to "add to Fyslee's evidence". The ( I used to have before my name is because when I signed up, it was mentioned as the way to do it, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Immortale I have mentioned this before to Verbal but he refuses to understand things. And my English isn't poor at all, but if that would be used as evidence, than 95 percent of all wikipedia editors are in trouble. You guys are grabbing at straws when your arguments in the article aren't valid anymore. Immortale (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I chose F, because the other code letters did not apply. Clearly these are three editors that have pushed the same issue in Aspartame controversy over 2-3 months. There wasn't a code letter for "Pushing POV, getting accused of sockpuppetry, shutting down one account, setting up another one, to push the same POV." Unomi, Karloff, and Immortale should be indefinitely banned for abusing the good faith of the community. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(wandering admin)

I just did a walkthrough on their contributions... I am not convinced Karloff has anything to do with the other two. A distinct different non-aspartame interest in his oldest edits, the account is very old (pre account creation logs) though it's been inactive nearly all that time.

Edit and source focus on Immortale and Unomi line up well for duck test comparisons. They have some shared focus on Alex Constantine related info sources. Unomi is brand new - March 8th - and leapt directly in to support Immortale with advanced edit knowledge. I think it's hard to avoid concluding that Unomi is an experienced returning user and/or sock of existing user, and highly likely on a behavioral basis that the user is Immortale.

I am continuing to examine Immortale and Unomi for a duck test decision. If they're checkusered, I recommend that Karloff be compared as well to rule out a deeper link, but I doubt there's on there based on an hour's looking at it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on behavioral review, I am concluding that Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Unomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and used it to abusively sockpuppet, backing each other up in discussions on Talk:Aspartame controversy and related article edits. I have blocked Immortale for a week for sockpuppeting and Unomi indefinitely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question. Why not indef both? Immortale is the perpetrator, IOW the most guilty, or rather, the only guilty party, since we're talking about the same person. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

---