Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark/Archive

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 1 January 2012 (→‎Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Report date April 9 2010, 13:45 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Loosmark (talk · contribs) ostensibly retired on 26 March, after fighting a POV fight against Varsovian (talk · contribs) on London Victory Parade of 1946 and related articles for many months [1]. Less than a week later, a new single-purpose revert-warring account User:Howelseornotso is created. The new account is suspiciously familiar with Wikipedia policies, his opponent's edit history ([2]) shares with Loosmark the same style in expressing his opposition to Varsovian [3], [4]); same obsession with berating Varsovian because he once used the word "bastard" in a discussion of Chopin ([5], [6]). The IPs are used only for revert-warring in concert with the new account and seem clearly related.

The dispute is part of the EEML-related Eastern European conflict area, both Loosmark and his opponent have previously been warned and/or sanctioned under the DIGWUREN rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the redefinition of this case by Shirik: a "right to a fresh start" could not be invoked for Loosmark, because the new account was used to immediately jump back into the same disputes where he had previously been editing disruptively, and because he is under an ongoing Arbitration enforcement sanction (revert limitation) and multiple related warnings under WP:DIGWUREN regarding the same set of conflicts. If he is the sockmaster, he is not only breaking that sanction, but also abusing a sock to avoid legitimate scrutiny. I would ask to keep him within the scope of this CU case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Two more to add to the list:

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: D  + A (3RR using socks and arbcom ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: Were the question regarding whether or not solely Loosmark and Howelseornotso were related, this would be no Declined, as the right to a clean start has no indication for being avoided here, and I see no interleaving edits between the two resulting in a violation of 3RR. Accordingly, the question becomes whether or not Howeslseornotso has violated WP:SOCK through the use of anonymous accounts. As such, I am moving this case page to indicate Howelseornotso as the master and dropping Loosmark from the report. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Despite the fact that the editing times are separated by times, I see clear evidence of common editing patterns between the IPs and Howelseornotso which, if confirmed, would indicate an attempt to avoid 3RR through the use of alternate accounts. Furthermore, all the IPs listed are from the same ISP, including the ones that appear to match content patterns with Howelseornotso. I do not endorse a checkuser of Loosmark for the reason above and have struck that account from this case. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed With the clarification about the arbcom sanction, I see sufficient behavioral evidence to endorse a check of the original reported Loosmark as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All accounts are Red X Unrelated; the accounts are also Red X Unrelated to the listed IPs. I did not look any further than that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
28 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Submitted to checkusers. This filing is for the record. Avi (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

-- Avi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All users blocked, closing. Nakon 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loosmark blocked under WP:DIGWUREN for one year by Jehochman (talk · contribs), and then indefinitely by me. The community ban discussion on AN should take care of the rest. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask Avi on what based the above list is suppose to be Loosmark? Is it simple an IP match, is a cookie check involved (to identify the computer) or something more advanced? Thanks Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A combination of IP address, other technical information, and behavioral information that was checked by three other non-arbcom, non-candidate checkusers. -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

User:Raczko made his first edit on September 10, 2010 and edits only Poland related articles. Here he followed User:Volunteer Marek (formerly User:Radeksz), as User:Loosmark often did in the past. One of the first edits he made was to create a redirect to his userpage, rather unlikely for a newcomer. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history here: [7] and for the related ip: [8].

The pattern of these new accounts with blocked sockpuppets of loosmark is that they are all single-issue accounts devoted to removing historical information that involves something negative about Poland. In the case of User:Hallersarmy, it is the issue of Józef Haller and his actions. Two of loosmark's other socks, whch I have interacted with, each followed this pattern. User:23Michal was devoted to removing referenced info from the article about the Carmelite Church, Przemyśl (see his edit history here: [9]) and User:J.kunikowski was devoted to removing referenced info concerning the Massacre of Lviv professors (see his edit history here: [10]).

Also, one of loosmark's already-blocked sockpuppets, User:Agoodhistorian, edited on the same topic as User:Hallersarmy:[11]. Faustian (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the sockpupper's actions above are not only about the same topic but also involved doing the same thing that user:Hallersarmy did - blanking referenced information. Both Hallersarmy and confirmed sockpuppet agoodhistorian show the same pattern of deleting referenced info on the exact same subject area.Faustian (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to the latest comment about the inconclusive result): in the case of User:Hallersarmy the behavioral evidence seems strong.Faustian (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

I have no idea if Hallersarmy or any of the other accounts are related to Loosmark. Both Raczko and Hallersarmy have not made enough edits for me to be able to see any similarities with Loosmark. One thing though, the personalities are slightly different; Loosmark was somewhat abrasive whereas at least Hallersarmy seems merely inexperienced in Wikipedia etiquette (hence revert warring) and more polite in his comments. But who knows. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/loosmark --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending review with other CheckUsers in this manner. –MuZemike 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged other report, which was (inadvertently) destroyed by the new one. Please note that the CU investigation is still ongoing. –MuZemike 06:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is about a different user account I had assumed it would be a different investigation. It is possible that the account I asked to be investigated (along with the IP) may be a sock of loosmark while the other account is not. Or they both are.Faustian (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: It's more practical to do the checks simultaneously as if they were the same case; if there's one related account and one unrelated account, or two groups of socks that are unrelated to each other, then that information will present itself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After checking with a couple other CUs on this, I am going to say this is  Inconclusive. However, note that it does not rule out the behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Loosmark has created dozens of sockpuppets (partial list is here:[12]). They tend to get involved in issues concerning Polish nationalism and in disrupting pages involving Polish history. Typically they feign naivety and pretend to not understand wiki procedures while referring to them with knowledge that is atypical for a novice. Here is an example of one of the previous, proven sockpuppets deleting referenced info and referring to its original addition as "shocking manipulation": [13] and similar wording and behavior on the talk pages of this article: [14] where the seemingly naive FoliesTrévise knows to emntion the importance of content rather than person and using the term "gaming the system.". Given the huge number of sockpuppets it would make sense to check this out (similarly, another banned Polish nationalist edit-warrior, User:Jacurek, engages ins uch behavior and an investigation concerning that possibility ought to be explored as well). Faustian (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

On hold for the time being. TNXMan 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I thought this was just Loosmark as usual, and was through blocking more than half of them, before I saw Poeticbent (talk · contribs) in that list. Is this one certain? Because then Poeticbent is the sockmaster, distinct from Loosmark; he's an old and established account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I have to second that. How certain is the claim that Poeticbent is related to Loosmark? They had very distinct edit patterns; and edited relatively consecutively for years, without triggering any kind of flag. Poeticbent never shown interested in naval issues (loosmark's primary area of specialization), Loosmark never thouched subjects dear to Poeticbent (such as Polish literature or Kraków). Poeticbent was a very estabilished account, yet after Loosmark was blocked, it did not return to being active. This just doesn't make much sense. This is a very serious claim and it requires very serious proof. Likely is good enough for SPP accounts and such, but not when connecting two established editors with very different editing history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is pretty solid- they are operating on the same range that Loosmark used previously. TNXMan 16:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How narrow exactly is this range? They could just live in the same area, especially if it happens to be a metropolitan area with a large ex-pat/immigrant population. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm inclined to think Loosmark is indeed unrelated; however, Poeticbent admits the other accounts here are his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts, hmmm. Well, the big question is - where they used disruptively? A quick rereading of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry suggests it is the key factor here. As VM notes, Pb. left because of heavy harassment, and WP:CLEANSTART is a valid reason to create a new account. At the same time, accounts, that is a bit puzzling. If no malicious activity has occurred, I'd suggest strongly that Poeticbent agrees to edit under one account, which he does not have to disclose to anybody, perhaps save the admins/clerks involved in this investigation. Then we can move on. PS. A quick review of the accounts above suggests high, but uncontroversial levels of activity, up to and including DYK creations. At the same time, I see I wasted some time talking welcoming, advising and talking to separate accounts; I am all for cleanstart and such, but please, Pb., don't waste my and others time by suggesting multiple editors exist where there is only one, and furthermore, leading to discussions like this (I could instead be creating a new article...). Create a new account, sure, but can you stick to one, please? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worth remember here why Poeticbent left Wikipedia - some very odious harassment. So I can completely understand if he wanted to comeback under a new anonymous account, which I believe he is perfectly within his rights to do. Also, AFAICR he was not under any kind of sanction at the time, so the only reason I can see for him to use a new account would be exactly to avoid what happened to him last time - this is a legitimate reason. Volunteer Marek  17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not idealize this editor. This is hardly good behavior on wikipedia: [15]. And here is similar Polish nationalist behavior by Poetic Bent: [16]. My suspicions of sockpuppetry seem to be confirmed, although it may be a different Polish nationalist editor than the one I assumed it was (or not). Faustian (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the first time Poeticbent has operated sock farms. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Poeticbent
  • Poeticbent knew that it isn't allowed, and had been warned: [17]
  • Poeticbent has a long history of disruption. In 2008, he wasn't very far away from an one-year block. [18][19]
  • The current massive sock farm (which has now been in operation for 1½ years), was created after Poeticbent was found to be a member of the EEML. Even during the arbitration, he couldn't stop being disruptive (see here and here).
  • It seems that after the EEML arbitration, Poeticbent decided that creating a sock farm again was the best way to continue disruption and avoid getting sanctioned. As can be seen from their edit histories, the main purpose of these socks is clearly patriotic/nationalistic advocacy. Nanobear (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case, I don't think there's much left to be done here, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist or not from what I gather 99% of his work is excellent. I say give him another chance and we can monitor his edits to ensure he is not carrying a seirous agenda.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Loosmark/Archive&oldid=468926455"