Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 334332461 by Wildhartlivie (talk)
m Reverted edits by Betty Logan (talk) to last version by Beyond My Ken
Line 107: Line 107:


[[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'd suggest the evidence presented here is far more compelling than your knee-jerk additions of [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] to the specious sock puppet case against me in which you commented, inanely, and added every name of every editor that came across your bow. As for "rude", that is your interpretation only, no one supported your assertion nor backed you up. The administrator comment was that dropping an edit warring template wasn't appropriate, but you continue to ignore the fact that ''no'' edit warring template was "dropped". Please stop misrepresenting the comments of the administrator on [[WP:AN/I]], when it is obvious he didn't bother to go look at what was said and did not bother to follow up his comments. You seriously need to learn what these forums are for and how to operate on them, because they do not represent "official investigations" into anyone's conduct. Well, except for filing sock puppet cases. Your whiny complaint to [[WP:AN/I]] was basically ignored. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>======

Revision as of 19:25, 27 December 2009

WalterMitty

WalterMitty (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected


Report date December 25 2009, 04:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence

The following report was rejected by a checkuser in August 2009, because the data was stale, but the report does not seem to have been relisted for consideration on behavioral evidence alone:

Evidence submitted by TheRetroGuy

User:Betty Logan appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked user Melody Perkins, itself a sockpuppet of User:WalterMitty, both of whom were indef blocked for block evasion. Not only do Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common,[1] [2] but Betty Logan has embroiled herself in the Jenny Agutter nudity debate, seeking a similar outcome (see these two discussions for a comparison [3] [4]). Betty Logan registered on 7 November 2008 [5] and began editing within a few days [6], a couple of weeks after Melody/Walter's block. The Betty Logan account was registered shortly after activity from these suspected socks ceased. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Melody Perkins was blocked on 20 October 2008 [15] as a block evading sockpuppet of WalterMitty, itself blocked for 6 months in May 2008. [16] WalterMitty's block was reset, then changed to an indef block after the user later went on to engage in harassment (see suspected socks above, links 7 to 14). Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common with each other. Some examples include:

There are others, but these appear to be the most significant. I know we all have articles in common, but the diversity of these subjects lead me to believe it is possible that Betty Logan and Melody Perkins are one and the same person. Please see also this checkuser report for further details. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see this comment from Betty Logan regarding the addition of this video to the article by Melody Perkins, which was subsequently deleted. I find it strange that Betty can recall a video which was included in the article for less than an hour over a year ago and can give directions to it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Update by User:Beyond My Ken

The commonality between the edits of these three accounts remains striking:

Since both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins are blocked, if Betty Logan is, as it appears, a sock of the WalterMitty editor, all of Betty Logan's edits are in furtherance of avoiding a block. Note that the Betty Logan account was created on 7 November 2008, just 17 days after both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins were blocked on 20 Octobert 2008. [35][36] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Betty Logan's contention below, that their editing on Avatar (2009 film) was all sweetness and light, as a result of a conflict with User:Erik and User:Wildhartlivie, Betty Logan filed a complaint on AN/I, and joined in to expand what appears to be a frivolous and scattershot SPI complaint against Wildhartlivie and other editors who disagreed with her. These actions appear on their face to be retaliatory, and, if so, are not the behavior of an editor dedicated to consensus as Betty Logan wishes to protray her- or himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Betty Logan's scattershot counter-accusations below to his or her behavior here, with the intent to muddy the waters and to use every possible means of deflecting yet another block. It would have been nice if Betty Logan had provided even one diff to support her allegation, but in any event, I state categorically that I am not User:Ethelh, who I am not familiar with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some investigation, I see that User:Ethelh was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Epeefleche. According to this and this, my account has no overlap whatsoever with Ethelh, and a trivial 3 overlaps with Epeefleche, 2 of them user talk pages. It doesn't seem on the face of it likely that I am them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if someone would ask Betty Logan to stop refactoring my edits. My understanding is as the person who brought this case, my remarks should go here, not in the "comment by other users" section. Betty Logan has moved them to that section a number of times now, and I don't wish to violate 3RR by continuing to move them back to where I believe they belong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the investigating admin should take a look at this, where Betty Logan made the same unsupported accusations as he or she does below. The "common editing history" that is supposed to exist between Epeefleche and myself consists of a single edit I made on Erik's talk page to inform him, as an uninvolved editor, of the complaint that Betty Logan had posted on ANI. Erik is the lead coordinator of WikiProject Film, and therefore is known to many people who edit film articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while for the convenience of the investigating admin I have commented above on Betty Logan's unsupported allegation concerning me, I am under no obligation to defend myself, as I am not the subject of this investigation, Betty Logan is. Rather than throwing around charges left and right, apparently with the intent of muddying the waters and deflecting attention from the evidence presented above, he or she would be better advised to provide any information they feel would mitigate against that evidence, as they did in their initial comment. That evidence shows that at least 479 edits made by Betty Logan to 14 articles where Melody Perkins had previously made 72 edits and WalterMitty had made 76 edits, before they were indef blocked for abusive use of mltiple accounts. If Betty Logan has nothing more to say on that subject, they should perhaps withdraw from the discussion and allow the process to continue without the further disruption of unfounded and unsupported accusations against others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the 14 articles listed above are not Betty Logan's only overlap with the two blocked accounts, WalterMitty and Melody Perkins. Betty Logan and WalterMitty have 26 articles in common, and with Melody Perkins (who was editing at the same time as WalterMitty), Betty Logan's overlap is 16 articles.

Below, Betty Logan suggests that the overlap between his or her edits and those of WalterMitty and Melody Perkins is a coincidence, and suggests that comparison between her edits and those of User:Armbrust will show a similar coincidence. Indeed, Betty Logan and Armbrust do indeed have a significant overlap, with 153 pages in common, but there is a significant difference between this overlap between two snooker-oriented editors and the overlap between Betty Logan and the two blocked accounts: as far as I can determine, all of the articles involved in the Betty Logan/Armbrust overlap are snooker-related. In the case of WalterMitty/Melody Perkins/Betty Logan, it's the common interest in non-snooker related articles – Bikini waxing, Jenny Agutter (an Australian actress), Audrey Tautou (a French actress), Don't Look Now (an Italian horror film) and List of most expensive films – which is most telling. It's highly unlikely that three randomly selected snooker enthusiasts would have these very specific non-snooker interests in common. The evidence is compelling because of the totality of the pattern of editing, not just because of the common interest in snooker. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

This has only just come to my attention through an investigation into another user, and I am perplexed I was not notified about this. If a checkuser is run on me it there will be no IP match since mine is static. In addition to that the cross-editing looks considerable but you have to take into account the area where most of this cross-editing takes place. I often edit the snooker articles and I often encountered edits by Melody Perkins. She seemed to be a good editor for the most part, but there aren't many snooker articles so two people who share an interest will often cross edit. The only other article we cross-edited was the bikini waxing article. The claim that the video was only on there for an hour is a lie, it was present for weeks if not months, so it was hard to miss if you were a regular vistor to the article, and it is one of the firt videos up if you google "bikini wax". The only reason I became involved in that article was because my boyfriend refused to perform oral sex on me unless I had a bikini wax. I tried shaving but it leaves stubble, so I came across that article while I was researching bikini waxing. I don't feel too comfortable revealing aspects of my sex life here on Wikipedia, but if it helps to clear this up then I will oblige.

When Melody Perkins stopped posting on the snooker articles I looked her up to see she was banned for being a sock. She had always been effective editor on the snooker articles, but since she admitted to being a sock I guess she left the admins with no choice. I bookmarked 3/4 of the articles outside of the snooker which she regularly edited and had been targetted for vandalism because I was worried there would be no-one around to protect them. I realise it looks like a pattern of cross-editing, but when you take the snooker out of the equation where the articles are not independent that only amounts to a handful of articles. I am sure there are plenty of articles in other areas which we have edited independently.

If I am going to go under 'behavioral analysis' I hope this take into account our MO on the articles we have in common, rather than just a judgment based on a small amount of circumstantial evidence. If you take the Jenny Agutter article for instance where it is suggested I argued for the same outcome as MelodyPerkins, this simply isn't true. Melody Perkins argued for a list of the nude scenes to be included. I argued for the mention of the scenes to be incorporated into the text and for their notability to be established through reliable sources. That resulted in the nude scenes only being mentioned in relation to Jenny Agutter's own comments about them. I resisted their total removal because I felt that would be censorship, but I also recognised that their inclusion had to be consistent with Wikipedia policy.

Another article Melody Perkins and I have in common beyond the snooker project is the List of most expensive films. I'm not sure what Melody did there apart from remove erroneously charted films, but I have personally proceeded to work through that article and source every entry. If you compare the article to how it was at the start of the year to how it is now you will notice it is a very well sourced article as opposed to being completely unsourced. In the next few days I will have it completely sourced.

Another article for you take a look at is the List of snooker player nicknames. At the start of the year completely unsourced with false entries, and now I have completely sourced it.

Similarly with List of vegetarians and Pescetarianism - both completely unsourced this time last year and now completely sourced! The Vegetarian list was some undertaking.

My main focus in these articles has to been provide complete verifiable and reliable sourcing for the claims within. I think you will find these articles inparticular are in a much better state due to my involvement. Although I've only looked through several of Melody's edits, it seemed she had no interest in sourcing. Our behavior on the common articles is completely different, and I doubt you will find any articles where the point of my edits have been to perpetuate her edits. Our functions and our MO on the common articles are different to such an extent that we look like separate editors - because we are!

Even if I haven't quite convinced you here then at least look at the articles I have highlighted and ask if I have ever vandalised an article as Betty Logan, and consider the improvements these articles have undergone with my involvement. It is very obvious that the bulk of my editing is in sourcing articles, so the question is am I good for Wikipedia or not? I have never been blocked, and while I have been involved in the odd dispute they have always been resolved usually through my own edits by reasoning with the other editor. With the American-British debate on Avatar (2009 film) I deferred to consensus and no edit-warring took place apart from the odd revert in establishing the ground. I would very much like to be able to stay on Wikipedia and continue with my main function of adding sources to poorly sourced articles. Even if you ultimately decide to suspend my account I would appreciate it if you could give me 48 hours notice so I can wrap up the sourcing on List of most expensive films since it is almost complete, although I would very much prefer to stay.

Obviously I can't prove I am not Melody Perkins, so I hope my record as a good editor will at leats earn me the benefit of the doubt. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in to that complaint (re Beyond My Ken below in respect to the Avatar/ANI) you will see that that my conduct on "Avatar" was exemplary. There was a disagreement between myself and User:Erik, which was ultimately resolved (see talk page). There was a small dispute between Erik and myself in how the dispute was listed after he removed some of my comments in respons eto his on anothe rtalk page which I restored but that was resolved once he reworded his own comments. User:Wildhartlivie left extremely unpleasant comments on my talk page which I complained about at ANI. An administrator pointed out in that dispute that Erik 'canvassed' and Wildhartlivie should not have left the comments he did. The upshot was I did not edit-war as Wilhartlivie accused me of doing so I was justfified in filing a complaint about it.Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suspicions that User: Beyond My Ken is a sock of User:Epeefleche who has made similar allegations in the past. I was involved in a dispute with User:Erik at Avatar (2009 film). The dispute was eventually resolved amicably, but User:Wildhartlivie left some unpleasant messages on my User talk page: [37]. I felt they were completely unwarranted so reported them at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice. The admin agreed that Wildhartlivie was out of order: [38]. Editor User:Beyond My Ken who had been on Wikipedia less than a month who is very informed about Wikipedia protocol and is already instigating sock investigations launches a sock investigation into me. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history on the talk page of User:Erik (the aforementioned editor above) with User:Epeefleche:[39] User:Epeefleche was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh: [40]. User:Ethelh conducted a campaign of harrassment against me after I removed an unsourced contribution. She accused me of creating socks (seeing a pattern?) and waging a campaign of harrassment against her: User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. This came to nothing in the end because User:Ethelh was blocked for being a sock. I find it very suspicious that User:Beyond My Ken and User:Epeefleche have a common editing history on the talk page of a user I was in a dispute with, and now here is an editor with less than a month's experience on Wikipedia already filing sock invetsigations. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the refactoring comment above, I moved the comments to the section below because User:Beyond My Ken's defence that he is not a sock are hardly evidence in the case against me. The above section is for evidence, not for his own personal comments about who he is or isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to these 14 common articles ken cites above, you can run my name against any number of editors and you will get a similar match level. Yes, we have a lot of common edits, but I also have a lot of common edits with User:Armbrust. If User:Beyond My Ken can't provide anything beyond circumstantial evidence I don't really see that there is a case to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see that I made a mistake when I said the video had been up for less than an hour. It was added to the article on 23 July 2008 [41] and removed and deleted on 21 August 2008 [42]. On 23 July it was moved rather than deleted. I guess the longer timeframe makes it possible that she would have seen and remembered it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your main beef with me seems to be in regards to the Jenny Agutter article. Do you not think the article reads a lot better now the material is integrated into the text and sourced through Jenny Agutter's own comments? Instead of reeling off a list of nude scenes, we now have a textual commentary by Jenny Agutter from an interview with a respected journalist about their impact on audiences. Would you not say my edits were constructive and positive? Do you think I adopted the same uncompromising approach as Melody Perkins? Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you proposed adding the information to the Jenny Agutter article I was concerned about how it was going to play out, mainly because of the trouble I had during my previous involvement in that particular debate. But I have to agree that it does read better. I can't really comment on any of the other stuff, but if you have been making constructive edits and you're not WalterMitty/Melody Perkins I guess there shouldn't be a problem. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I think these are the main points:

  • I have lots of snooker edits in common with Melody Perkins and I liked her as an editor. I also knew her from the Bikini Waxing article too.
  • After she was banned for admitting she was a sock, I took on some of her articles beyond the snooker project that were regularly targetted for vandalism because I worried about them. This just amounts to circumstantial evidence at best, the question is has melody used a secondary account to perpetuate her edits?
  • The most controversial one, the Jenny Agutter article, the opposing editor agreed that that by integrating some of the material and sourcing it I have improved it. A completely different MO to Melody Perkins.
  • Another article we have in common was List of most expensive films. Melody just removed the odd erroneous entry, I have systematically worked through the list sourcing every film. This is also the case with List of snooker player nicknames.
  • With the Audrey Tautou article there was a debate over the birth date. Melody Perkins favoured the earlier once. Many times I have restored the later date to the article following its removal, primarily because while both dates are sourced neither should be removed.
  • With respect to the comments below by User:Wildhartlivie. I was involved in a dispute on the talkpage of another article with User:Erik. We were attempting to resolve an issue, which is the opposite of edit-warring. Erik invited input at WT:FILM which I felt was more than just a notification because it summarised his half of the argument and not mine:[43] I responded to this, he removed my comments so I restored them. Erik then adapted his comments to address my concerns [44], but following this User:Wildhartlivie violate WP:AGF and left rude messages on my talk page:[45]. I tried resolving this with user:Wildhartlivie but he removed my comments: [46]. I felt his comments were inappropriate so I took them to ANI were an administrator found that Erik had canvassed, and that Wildhartlivie should not have left the messages on my talk page: ===>[47] <===. When another editor launched a separate official investigation into the conduct of Wildhartlivie, I dropped a note informing her of the current ongoing one.

Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the evidence presented here is far more compelling than your knee-jerk additions of Beyond My Ken to the specious sock puppet case against me in which you commented, inanely, and added every name of every editor that came across your bow. As for "rude", that is your interpretation only, no one supported your assertion nor backed you up. The administrator comment was that dropping an edit warring template wasn't appropriate, but you continue to ignore the fact that no edit warring template was "dropped". Please stop misrepresenting the comments of the administrator on WP:AN/I, when it is obvious he didn't bother to go look at what was said and did not bother to follow up his comments. You seriously need to learn what these forums are for and how to operate on them, because they do not represent "official investigations" into anyone's conduct. Well, except for filing sock puppet cases. Your whiny complaint to WP:AN/I was basically ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

I want to respond to the misrepresentations made by Betty Logan regarding her silly complaint to WP:AN/I. I posted to her talk page that the actions by Erik were the same as what any other editor would do and I mentioned that edit warring wasn't acceptable. In fact, she did revert the movement of her post to the WT:FILM page more than one time, which I did mention to her. She responded to me by making veiled threats to take it to WP:AN/I, which she proceeded to do, lamenting at one point that I don't seem to accept that my behavior was at fault. My comments to her at that time were in no way "extremely unpleasant", even when she removed my comments from her page as "vandalism". At least until she threatened to go to WP:AN/I, after which I told her not to post to my talk page. She was taken to task for soliciting the response of another editor, who filed a baseless and unwarranted sock puppet investigation complaint against me, telling her "There is an investigation into [my] conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators". Betty Logan trotted over to that sock investigation to add, unwarranted, names of persons with whom she has a beef, claiming they are socks of mine, too. This user has no basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies and sees nothing wrong with dropping unfounded accusations against other editors in a manner which serves to stir up problems. The admininstrator at WP:AN/I did not "agree" I was out of order, the adminstrator said that if I dropped edit war notices on her talk page, I would be wrong. I did not leave a warning template for her, so the comments were pointless. I have no doubt whatsoever that an editor who has participated in this level of disruption in my life would violate sock puppet guidelines. She should be banned if she is not yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WalterMitty&oldid=334338042"