Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.183.128.206 (talk) at 23:10, 15 February 2013 (→‎Comments by other users: WTF?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DeFacto

DeFacto (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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive.


11 February 2013

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

Suspected sockpuppets


I believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. Like many of Defacto’s Sockpuppets, an apparently new user exhibits a remarkable understanding of Wikipedia, creates a few “random” edits to build up a cover, but very quickly starts disrupting articles on which I have been working.


Firstly, User:Bill le Conquérant appears to be highly conversant with Wikipedia processes:

  • In his 6th edit he successfully inserted an image into a Wikipedia article.
  • In his 7th edit, he correctly used the {{lang-fr| xxx}} construction .
  • In his 35th edit he knew how to lodge a complaint on the ANI. He was also aware that he had to leave a message on my talk page about the complaint.
Given this very rapid learning curve, he is either a wünderkind, or he has been on Wikipedia before. I believe the latter and that he is a sockpuppet.


Secondly, both User:DeFacto and User:Bill le Conquérant made small changes to the article Kilogram.

  • The changes were Bill le Conquérant's 2nd edit. User:Bill le Conquérant disagreed with the detailed wording of a piece of text in the article, but he removed the entire sentence together with its citation.
  • User:DeFacto spent a considerable time on the same article trying to justify this change. The discussion, which lasted from 7th November 2011 until 20th November 2011 can be viewed at Talk:Kilogram#Is "kg" also the symbol for "kilo"?.
Is it just coincidence that both User:DeFacto and Bill le Conquérant both tried to disrupt the same article?


Thirdly - both have a habit of disruption by the removal of text that does not meet with their views when slight change of wording would be appropriate.

User:Bill le Conquérant in the artcile Kilogram (above) and User:DeFacto here. (The actual document that was cited in this case has now been archived).


Fourthly, both User:Bill le Conquérant and User:DeFacto seems to attack or belittle anything to do with the metric system or organisations associated with the metric system.

  • User:Bill le Conquérant's handling of the article Legal metrology is a good example of this.
  • In the opening line he wrote "Legal metrology is … delivering measurements that are credible and…". According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the word "credible" means "believable". Legal metrology is concerned with "accuracy", rather than "credibility" – a much stronger term. I believe that this was a deliberate belittling of the role of legal metrology.
  • Furthermore, he summarised the phrase "and, in some countries, customary units", taken from page 66 of the book Metrology in Industry - The Key for Quality to read "In some countries, traditional units such as the United States customary units or the British imperial units are used." Where did the bit about the United Kingdom and the United States come from? I believe that his failure to give either the page number or the URL from which the book can be downloaded to be a deliberate attempt at obfustication so that he could misquote the source in order to emphasise non-metric units.


Fifthly the creation of many stub articles that he never develops. Stubs are created in user space rather than in a sandbox and show that very little research has gone into the identification of suitable citations.


Sixthly Like many of DeFacto's other sockpuppets, article created by User:Bill le Conquérant have a look and feel that the the person concerned does not really know much about the subject, but is trying to create an image:

  • I believe this to be the case in all of User:Bill le Conquérant artciles (see above). Apart from one citation in Legal metrology, none of his artciles contained any information that could not be gleaned from the home page of the topic concerned.
  • Other articles created or edited by DeFacto's sockpuppets included
  • This series of ten edits by User:Ornaith did not really anything new to the artcile, it only sought to give the sockpuppet (posing as being Irish) an interest in something Irish. I believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is doing the same with Château de Beaumesnil.
  • The first ten edits of Portas Pilot Areas were made by User:Stevengriffiths to try and create an identity sepoarte from DeFacto's or any of hius sockpuppets, but the editong style has the same look and feel as the new articles by made by User:Bill le Conquérant and User:DeFacto.


Finally I do not believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is from Normandy. I believe that this is just a cover to justify the username which he is trying (in a very amateurish manner) to justify by the creation of the article Château de Beaumesnil. If User:Bill le Conquérant were from Normandy, he would almost certainly have used or at least linked to fr:Château_de_Beaumesnil. Martinvl (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I had asked Martinvl several days ago when he was going to start the SPI process. Having dealt with a couple iterations of Defacto sock puppets (although not nearly as many as Martinvl) this one was particularly easy to spot. I think this instantiation can be blocked on behavior evidence alone, although at CU report might be useful for the next time around. GaramondLethe 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also similar contributions (all contribs on 10 and 11 February) from:

--Boson (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar in what way? Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Martinvl or Garamond Lethe must be a sockpuppet? 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For behavioural evidence of anti-metrication editing by same person using different IP addresses, see also edits on 15 February from

--Boson (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-metrication? Where? Show us your evidence showing anything other than an editor trying to improve the neutrality and verifiability of those articles. 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection. There's the beginning of an IP account edit war at Metric system and the same user has an interest in International System of Units. The behavior fits Defacto. Would it be appropriate to semi-protect those pages? I'd suggest a week, but even 48 hours would be helpful. Garamond Lethet
c 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the editor you are accusing of the mortal sin of disagreeing with you has already stated that they have no intention of edit warring. Were you hoping nobody would notice, and that your POV would get locked into the article if you came trolling here? 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The account is not editing from the same range as previous socks, but its range is very dynamic, and it is likely to be a mobile range. From a checkuser standpoint, I'm going to have to call this  Inconclusive. J.delanoygabsadds 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto&oldid=538480645"