An annonymous editor using the above IP address has started reverting my work on the article Metrication of British Transport. One of the reversions [1] has all the hallmarks of User:DeFacto who was banned a month go and who subseqently made two attempts to reenter Wikipedia via Sock Puppet accounts. The give-aways are rewording the reference to the Railway Group Standards body (who are the authortity on the matter) to "one British website" implying that it has no authority. He also demanded a citation that a difference of 0.1 mm which was noted as being "well within engineering tolerances". Anybody who has an iota of knowledge about engineering tolerances will know that such a request is pure pedantry. Both these activities are typical of his previous behaviour.
I have checked activity on this IP address and it appears that no editor has used this address in the past.
As I write this, I see that this annonymous editor is now plastering the article with many more "corrections" of the type that I assocate with DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Martinvl ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
May also be using:
-- Boson ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
DeFacto is a banned user. He has created an account which was not properly blocked and is now taunting everybody as an annonymous user, using one of many IP addresses allocated to a large ISP: here, here, here and here. Martinvl ( talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
94.197.49.214 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has admitted at User:94.197.n1.n2 to being that blocked user, as well as to being 94.197.146.76 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.197.182.81 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.197.100.97 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 94.197.41.200 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), and similarly has admitted to deliberately using the ip to avoid the block, hence is a self-confessed sock. - David Biddulph ( talk) 16:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Blocked the most recent IP. They're on a large active range, so I'd like to try blocking individual IPs and/or semi-protection before moving on to rangeblocks. Marking for close for now. TN X Man 18:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Extended argument by filer Martinvl
|
---|
User:DeFacto was banned from Wikipedia after he caused considerable disruption, much of which occurred in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom, an article to which I was a major contributor. He is believed to have created a number of , most of which were fairly obvious. We cannot rule out the possibility that DeFacto is playing the WP:GHBH game using User:Pother and [[User:Ornaith] as his Good Hands and that some of his other sock puppets were "bad hands". I believe that he is using his "Good Hands" account to disrupt my editing . The evidence pointing to this possibility includes:
Martinvl ( talk) 04:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC) / 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC) / 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments about notification
|
---|
|
Extended reply from Ornaith
|
---|
It was only by a chance encounter that I found out that this was going on behind my back! Is this how Wikipedia allows long established editors to deal with irritating newbies who are threatening their pet soap-boxes with neutrality and sound, source-based content? "Stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally" the linked advice says! I'm livid, how can I stay calm! It also says "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly,..." It IS in bad faith, and precisely for the reason suggested. I'm not sure I'll be brief though. I hope you (whoever "you" might be) can see that Martinvl is making this allegation precisely to hide, or protect, his own editing practices. "DeFacto" disappeared off the scene before I arrived here. I came to look at some articles about subjects close to my heart, but got sucked into the turmoil of Kilometres per hour and Stone (unit) as I mentioned in an early question to the teahouse service for new editors, and an excellent service it is too (see here). A quick look into Martinvl's past reveals numerous long and bitter disputes over the way he is trying to manipulate the Wikipedia articles, through the use of liberal helping of his own personal POV, and he doesn't seem interested in letting the fact that there are no reliable sources to support his synthesis of the primary sources get in his way. Take a look at these, which I've found just by looking at his own contribution history: Talk:Metrication of British transport (from "Cleanup" onwards) (I see Pother is involved there, and also charged here, as I am), Talk:Stone (unit) (from "Reinstatement of the lede" onwards), Talk:2012 Olympic Marathon Course (almost all of it). He seems to have an uncompromising and ruthless intent to promote the metric measurement system and belittle the traditional Irish/British measurement systems at all costs. His contribution history and own talk page is a testament to that. Let me reassure you that I am not "DeFacto", and that I do not know "DeFacto" and that I'd never heard of "DeFacto" until after I started trying to improve the kilometres per hour and stone articles. Ornaith ( talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Timestamp related hypothesizing
|
---|
Summary for Ornaith: the time of day you edit wikipedia is very similar to the time of day DeFacto edited wikipedia, but without a lot more data that I don't have easy access to I'm not able to say how significant that similarity is.] I've been playing around with Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests on timestamp data. The confounding problem is that edits are bursty (and so not independent). So, for example, just a simple summary of the hour+minute (in fractional hours) portion of the timestamp of the most recent 252 edits by Ornaith and DeFacto: > summary( ornaith$t ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.05 11.90 15.73 15.36 19.15 23.15 > summary( defacto$t ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.1501 11.6900 17.0800 16.1500 20.0100 23.8500 But only counting every fifth edit (as a quick hack around burstiness) makes the numbers line up a bit better. > summary( ornaith$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.45 12.83 16.28 15.80 19.33 23.15 > summary( defacto$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 7.383 11.280 16.620 15.630 19.680 23.450 So I think I can conclude that both of these editors are in the same timezone and have similar editing patterns (and the patterns are much more similar to each other than they are to the handful of users I had as controls). The KS test on that particular pair of samples reinforces this: > ks.test( defacto$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ], ornaith$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] ) Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test data: defacto$t[seq(from = 1, to = 252, by = 5)] and ornaith$t[seq(from = 1, to = 252, by = 5)] D = 0.1373, p-value = 0.728 alternative hypothesis: two-sided (The p-value is the probability that you would see these samples be drawn together if they were indeed drawn from an identical distribution.) What I don't have is any sense of how common this particular edit pattern is. If 80% of wikipedia editors in that timezone look exactly like the above, then none of this is particularly useful. If there's an admin who is reading this who would be interested in doing some large-scale data analysis to see if this kind of work might be helpful, definitely drop me a line. Garamond Lethe 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
|
On hold - AGK [•] 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Cross-checking 94.197.n1.n2 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), both seem Likely. The results from FF84 were not very clear, and apologies for the flawed set of first results. (Of course, the correct response to an 'unrelated' result is always to have it clarified, not to ignore it!) AGK [•] 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to help resolve a dispute between Ornaith and Martinvl (started at WP:DRN but moved to the article talk page by mutual agreement) and thus am quite interested in finding out whether Ornaith is likely or unlikely to be a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Please post a summary when you believe that all evidence (including behavioral) has been considered. In the meantime, I am following WP:AGF in dealing with the dispute. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The account User:Canepa was obviously set up to harass me – possibly by a banned user User:DeFacto. DeFacto was banned follows a series of event, one of which was continued disruption of an article to which I was a major contributor ( Metrication in the United Kingdom). The sequence of events surrounding the current request are :
There must be very few users who have an interest in both these pages – what is the logical connection between bank account numbers and a mediaeval European kingdom? The most probable way that they were linked is that I was being WP:HOUNDed. The fact that Canepa made comments on both pages shortly after I had done so and has done nothing else on Wikipedia suggests to me that his/her account was set up to harass me. I believe that User:Canepa’s home page is true insofar that (s)he has spent some time on Wikipedia, but I have my doubts as to (s)he not having been registered before. I believe that there is sufficient evidence here to link Canepa to User:DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I will assume that the report above was made in good-faith (despite the reporter not actualcly notifying me), rather than as a dirty trick to attempt to "win" an article content dispute, and I will fully explain my actions, actions which appear to have been wholly misinterpreted by User:Martinvl. As will be seen, I had no prior interest in either of the articles mentioned, or in User:Martinvl, but a chance encounter on WT:NOR brought IBAN to my attention, and the reaction of Martinvl to my contributions there ultimately led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation).
I was casually browsing through Wikipedia as an unregistered IP user, as I have done before on numerous previous occasions, and over many years. I was skimming down the WT:NOR page, and almost choked on my coffee when I came across this entry. I couldn't believe what I was reading! I copied the phrase "It can be shown" to my clipboard then followed the link to the IBAN article and pasted it into the search box - and sure enough that phrase was there (although it has since been removed), and sure enough the cited reference was that piece of text (not an external cited source as is conventional): "This is a standard undergraduate level maths exercise"! I had to comment, who could resist on that one? As I couldn't restrain my urge, but was away from my usual base, and was using a network connection belonging to a third-party (and as I had been implored on many previous occasions to create an account rather than use an IP address) I decided to quickly register a named account, which I did at 11:54, 6 August 2012 (not at the time given in the accusation above). I then contributed to the discussion. I also went to the IBAN article and tagged the offending "ref" with a {{ fact}} tag.
My suggestion that the IBAN article should conform with WP:V triggered the following events:
Upon reading the IBAN article in detail, I realised that it was woefully lacking in sources, and so I added corresponding banners to it. This triggered another sequence of events, including:
Given that I felt intimidated by the actions of Martinvl, particularly the use of immoderate language and his apparently bad-faith reversions of several attempts I made to add banners or flags to the article, to highlight its poor state of compliance with WP:V, I decided to look at his previous contributions to see if this was typical behaviour. I didn't have to look far to find a similar "reversion" war, involving Martinvl, at Friesland (disambiguation), including these reversions and changes (note the edit summaries):
This "war" resulted in (just) the other user getting a 24h block for edit-warring! Martinvl also then posted a poorly reasoned RfD, aimed at a disambiguation page that the other user had created ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation)). I contributed a comment to that discussion suggesting that a policy-based reasoning be supplied... As a result, this SPI report was then posted. Canepa ( talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl caused a lot of trouble, it may heavily improve the accuracy of Wikipedia if someone is reviewing his edits.
I hope people go on reviewing Martinvl's contributions like Canepa did.
Especially discouraging in his behavior is, that he wants opponents to be blocked or banned.
Not every new user would go on with editing if attacked by Martinvl in the ways shown above. Triomio ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Apropos immediate reversion, Garamond Lethe is also doing this and is re-inserting false information in the IBAN article and undoing adjustments of terminology to what the sources give:
Triomio ( talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
While I added Triomio to the SPI in good faith, subsequent behavior has been well outside what has been observed for DeFacto's confirmed sock puppets: DeFacto (and most other editors) don't edit in such a way that triggers 3RR bans; Triomio hasn't picked up that knack (at least not yet). Garamond Lethe 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have re-added Triomio to the SPI since I find this edit quite suspicious: [14] "Removed advertising" - well, how are facts qualified as advertising? I wonder how it is Triomio's business to defend Canepa's edits at an article where Triomio has not edited ever before. Did they intentionally scan Martinvl's edit history for allegedly problematic edits? And how does Triomio know that "facts" have been presented? Altogether this looks to me like one and the same user trying to defend their edits by discrediting others. And I still find the reasons Garamond Lethe first stated while adding them to the SPI to be indicative of sockpuppetry. I'd like to see a checkuser result. De728631 ( talk) 12:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the re-addition. The more closely one examines the contributions of Ornaith, Pother, Triomio and Canepa the clearer it is that DeFacto takes peculiar pleasure in baiting Martinvl and puts time and effort into creating different personas for that purpose. The Triomio account was created immediately after an SPI was raised for Pother and Ornaith and the Pother account abandoned. It was seeded with edits on Indian railways and the tango, used in an attempt to provoke Martinvl with a spate of bizarre edits on ISO 639 on 06-07 August 2012 [15] and then in a successful provocation regarding Frisia (see Talk:Friesland#Change_of_name_to_Frisia for some of that) on 07 August 2012. It was then used together with the Canepa account for a tag-team attack on Martinvl in International Bank Account Number. NebY ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added two IPS, 82.132.249.192 and 82.132.249.199, to the investigation who are involved in two edit warring reports that also concern Martinvl and Triomio. First, after Martinvl had reported Triomio for repeated edit-warring, IP 82.132.249.192 commented on this report, by defending Triomio and collecting diffs to show how also Martinvl had been involved in edit warring. Later IP 82.132.249.199 reported Martinvl in turn for edit-warring, complaining about "outrageous excuses" by Martinvl. Geolocation and IP range suggest that the two IPs are actually the same person so it would be interesting to know if they are also connected to this case. De728631 ( talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Taking the most recent socking first,
MeasureIT has returned to the same practices (pursuing
[16]
[17]
Martinvl and seeking to complicate and over qualify
[18] mentions of the metric system while resisting any suggestion that it is anything but an invention of revolutionaries and French ones at that
[19]
[20]), just as DeFacto and Defacto's already-blocked socks
Ornaith,
Pother,
Canepa and
Dkr1d9fs. Stylistic similarities are hard to show with just a few diffs; it was only after engaging with Ornaith for some time that I recognised the stringing-out of negotiations and repeated returns to square one from our trouble with DeFacto, and I find the same here. But another aspect is clearer. MeasureIT has edited in bursts: 29th May 2012, 25th August - 1st September, 30th September and 30th December 2012 onwards. The August burst overlaps with the active period of blocked puppet
Dkr1d9fs, 19th - 31st August. To take 27th August, MeasureIT edited 18:32-20:59 (UK times), Dkr1d9fs 21:19-22:00, and MeasureIT at 22:02. The times never overlap though sometimes the gaps are wider; I do wonder if there are other socks.
Curatrice edited from 13th - 21st December. She took the needling method of meddling with image sizes
[21]
[22] that User:Eff Won had just found effective in baiting
Prisonermonkeys and other old opponents of Lucy-marie in
Wikiproject Formula One articles and applied it to needling Martinvl in metric-system articles. She continued (see the comments with
[23] and
[24] and pursued Martinvl to a brief edit-war at
United Kingdom
[25]. She stopped editing almost immediately after that; she may have noticed that I had alerted
[26] the admin that had first conditionally unblocked and finally re-blocked Eff Won.
Eff Won edited up to 4th December, when she was blocked for flagrant breaches of her unblocking conditions, particularly disruption and refusal to accept consensus. She was first blocked as a sock of Lucy-marie but there was some confusion as to whether she might instead be a sock of Defacto, which she had played on in her earlier appeals.
The simple and very stale answer is that
Lucy-marie was a sock of DeFacto all along. They were, as far as I can tell, mere dual accounts at first, editing in different spheres, though I gather both did become embroiled in articles under the
WP:F1 project. After both accounts were blocked, the editor became more blatant in using multiple accounts in the same fights (e.g. Ornaith and Pother), with perfunctory attempts to provide a little track record for each before "discovering" her opponents. It was her behaviour then - attempting to provide different personae without realising how similar her voices and approaches were, usually switching from one account to the other in short bursts in a single evening but staying with one account for days if it was involved in a "successful" campaign (for example 12-21st July for each
[27]
[28] - that alerted me to the earlier Defacto/Lucy-Marie socking, which showed exactly the same pattern. I'm adding this just to avoid any future attempts to exploit confusion about which editor a sock should be ascribed to.
I know that Checkuser may have difficulties with this editor (see AGK's several edits on 24th July at
[29]) but have requested it anyway. I hope that's appropriate.
NebY (
talk) 21:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ornaith (sock of DeFacto) finding an article on which to engage Martinvl 4 hours after first edit
[30], MeasureIT on second day of editing
[31] (immediately after Martinvl's edit comment " Map - Restoring earlier text that was removed by Defacto")
DeFacto re origins of metric system
[32]
DeFacto v Martinvl and his use of UKMA as a source:
[33]
[34], MeasureIT
[35]
[36]
Canepa (sock of DeFacto) delivering strictures
[37], MeasureIT ditto
[38]
[39]
Eff Won (blocked as sock of Lucy-marie) resizing/rearranging images - leading to awful arguments
[40] but persisting
[41]
[42], Curatrice reducing clutter and tidying
[43] (this, her fourth edit, found Martinvl) and
[44] which sadly came to arguments in comments
[45] and talk.
Ornaith (blocked sock of DeFacto) on the duck test
[46], Curatrice ditto
[47]
I'm not sure I can show the Lucy-Marie / DeFacto connection this way; I convinced myself by examining dates and times. Should I try? NebY ( talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Can anyone explain for me what exactly is going on here, and why I am implicated - and in what? I found out about this discussion from reading a puzzling off-the-cuff remark in another forum, and following a link from there. Am I supposed to understand this, or take any action myself? MeasureIT ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I has suspicions about this myself and was preparing to request an SPI investigation. Thank you for pre-empting this one for me. Editing in bursts might well be an attempt to cover up their identity by editing when they are away on holiday/business etc and using "random" IP addresses. I for one have used a large number of computers on Wikipedia - in the last two years I have used my home computer, my computer at lunch times when working for a well-know London company (until March 2011), my computer at lunch-times when working for a well-known Frankfurt-based company (January 2012 - June 2012), an internet-cafe in Frankfurt (Jan-Feb 2012), my temporary accomodation in Frankfurt (March - June 2012) as well as internet cafes in Paris and in Florence when I have been in those cities on holiday. Martinvl ( talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
To begin I must say that I find it quite appealing that this claim has be made and that it will, presumably, be considered without me having been formally informed that it had been made. I must thank my co-defendant User:MeasureIT for alerting me to this situation. I do however take comfort from the advice given on defending yourself against claims in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims (kindly supplied by User:Ged UK). It states very boldly at the start "If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding." I'll try not to take the claim too personally and hope it is true that the finding will reflect the fact that I have not "abused multiple accounts or IPs" and have not "breached the policy on meat-puppetry". The advice then goes on to recommend that "if there is a good reason for the evidence provided" then to point it out in your own section. Frankly, I don't see any evidence, as such, provided against me. What I do see are the following statements, with my comments and observations beneath each:
The advice then continues: "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed." I am not going to suggest bad faith, but I would suggest that none of Martinvl's comments are evidence of anything (nothing to do with this claim anyway), so should be struck out, and that nothing that Bretonbanquet wrote is evidence, and none of it applies to me so should also be struck out, and finally nothing that Atlan wrote is evidence either - it's just unsubstantiated opinion. Let us hope that the guidelines are correct in their prophecies. Curatrice ( talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Addendum: I hadn't seen Bretonbanquet's most recent comment when I wrote the above, and that I do believe to be in bad faith, and should not be considered. Curatrice ( talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Can I just remind everyone of the guidance for contributions here. It states "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.". That means that only evidence based claims, and not pure baseless personal opinion and personal attacks, will be considered by whoever judges this. Curatrice ( talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) As documented here: " Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims". MeasureIT ( talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Following the example and pattern set by User:Curatrice above, here follows my position on this action. I realize that I should be taking it seriously, but I am struggling to imagine how such a flimsy, seriously flawed and apparently scurrilous report could possibly be taken as such by anyone! I must say too up front that I am completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and refute absolutely the claim that I am a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Now let's look at the claims, one by one, and with reference to the [[|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|guidance]] kindly provided for us to refer to by Curatrice, give the "good reason for the evidence provided".
1. " MeasureIT has returned to the same practices"
2. "(pursuing [62] [63] Martinvl"
3. Was I "seeking to complicate and over qualify [64] mentions of the metric system"?
4. As for "resisting any suggestion that it is anything but an invention of revolutionaries and French ones at that [65] [66])"
5. We see "just as DeFacto and Defacto's already-blocked socks Ornaith, Pother, Canepa and Dkr1d9fs."
6. "Stylistic similarities are hard to show with just a few diffs;"
7. "it was only after engaging with Ornaith for some time that I recognised the stringing-out of negotiations and repeated returns to square one from our trouble with DeFacto, and I find the same here."
8. "But another aspect is clearer. MeasureIT has edited in bursts: 29th May 2012, 25th August - 1st September, 30th September and 30th December 2012 onwards."
9. "The August burst overlaps with the active period of blocked puppet Dkr1d9fs, 19th - 31st August."
10. "To take 27th August, MeasureIT edited 18:32-20:59 (UK times), Dkr1d9fs 21:19-22:00, and MeasureIT at 22:02."
11. "The times never overlap though sometimes the gaps are wider; I do wonder if there are other socks."
MeasureIT ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that these items, when looked at alongside the evidence posted at the opening of this SPI by User:NebY on 1 January 2013 demonstrate that DeFacto and MeasureIT are one and the same person. Martinvl ( talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Strange how Curatrice [71] and Eff Won [72] are the only two editors ever to accuse me of confirmation bias (handily wikilinked by "both" users), on both occasions when accused of sockpuppetry. There's a behavioural diff for you. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that "Likely" based just on "technical data"? If so, does that data include iris scans or fingerprint images (or some other biometric data)? Because if it doesn't, there is no way that any conclusion other than "theoretically possible" could be deduced from IP numbers and whatever other data from the browser is captured. Any given computer and IP address could be used by any number of different people, and the browser would provide exactly the same data. So please explain exactly what assumptions have been used (as there must clearly be some) to arrive at that conclusion as there will evidently be innocent explanations which render them incorrect. Curatrice ( talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Both Stevengriffiths and MeasureIT show a surprising similarity – the accounts were opened within three days of each other with a small amount of activity on each. Apart from one edit by Stevengriffiths in June and a flurry of edits by MeasureIT in late August, both account remained inactive until recently. On 30 December, MeasureIT "launched an attack on John Wilkins", which resulted in him being exposed as a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Two days after MeasureIT was banned, Stevengriffiths’ account became active and it appears to be a continuation of MeasureIT’s account.
I am convinced that MeasureIT and Stevengriffiths are one and the same person - there is just too much similarity between them for it to be otherwise. This makes Stevengriffiths a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 17:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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:
Secondly, both User:DeFacto and User:Bill le Conquérant made small changes to the article
Kilogram.
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.
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.
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:
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)
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. Garamond Lethe 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
There are also similar contributions (all contribs on 10 and 11 February) from:
-- Boson ( talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 Lethe
t
c 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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.delanoy gabs adds 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for these two obvious socks:
It's under 200 IP addresses in total. I've also closed the related thread on ANI. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The IP is already blocked as a DeFacto sock. Same UK anti-metric trolling on the same pages. Hans Adler 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed Woo-ton is a self-declared (allegedly legitimate) sockpuppet [82]. His immediate edits though (basically his entire contributions history) is immediately contentious, so requesting checkuser to see whether this sockpuppetry is disruptive in nature, which is probably the case. Someguy1221 ( talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a similarity between User:WeeFreel and User:DeFacto (or his Sockpuppets). The chronology is:
DeFacto uses poor definitions of words
DeFacto blocked
DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel created.
Another DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel activated, then goes dormant.
Another DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel reactivated and targets sockpuppet's work.
User:WeeFreel made no additions to Wikipedia other than one or two to his user page and those summarised above. To me, he is saying WP:QUACK. Martinvl ( talk) 11:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
A new editor User:Our other kid appears to be a trouble-maker. His very first edit was to place this banner on an article with the comment "what's this table telling the reader, and where is it sourced from?" While this comment might be true, he continued in a belligerent manner. This, and subsequent posting such as this edit warring notice on User:Gareth_Griffith-Jones's talk page suggests that (s)he is familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. Moreover, when he placed the same edit warring note on my talk page here in response to me placing an explanation of the table confirms that he is a trouble-maker further backed up by the utterly stupid objections that he raised Talk:M4 motorway#Unclear timeline table here in the article M4 motorway.
At this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that he is the banned user USer:DeFacto who, over the last year has been launching one sockpuppet attack after the other against me. Since 1-January 2013 these include User: Curatrice (B locked 9 January 2013), User: MeasureIT (blocked 9 January 2013), User:Stevengriffiths (blocked 19 January 2013]], User:Bill le Conquérant (blocked 22 February 2013]], User: Woo-ton-woo (blocked 20 February 2013), User:WeeFreel (Blocked 23 February 2013]]. In addition User:DeFacto has been using IP addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.*. Martinvl ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The opening sentence above is a weak attempt to set the scene and to influence the frame of mind of the reader to be negative. This looks like the work of a sore loser to me. His attempts to defend a poor quality addition have been thoroughly rejected by those who care about the quality of the article. Above is is sequence of scandalous misrepresentations, designed to attempt to get me reprimanded. Instead he should be looking at how the timeline can be improved and possibly become meaningful.
The banner was a reflection of the appalling timeline that confronted the reader. A timeline with no caption and no key. A timeline that looked like a bar chart, but without meaning. In parallel a discussion had been started on the talkpage. Within minutes of that banner being placed, and described, another editor removed it with the comment: "Rm template. Nothing confusing about it. If you cannot understand it, that is your problem ... work it out!". Clearly designed to inflame and infuriate, and without regard for the poor timeline reader. The banner was true, and nothing had been done to clarify the timeline, so I restored immediately. The rude editor of apparent long standing removed it again without a fix, accompanied by an inflamatory and unacceptable reply on the talkpage. So I restored the banner again - and he removed it again. At this point (3 reverts each), the rude editor issued an edit-war warning, which was countered by a similar warning. Then another editor (Martinvl) waded in, removing banners and generally inflaming the situation, and he too received an edit-war warning (the one he has come here to complain about). Then Gareth Griffith-Jones had erased both his and Martinvl's edit-war warnings (but not mine). In the meantime other editors joined in, including The Rambling Man who supported the case that the timeline was very poor.
I reject the charge of making "utterly stupid objections" - the timeline was useless and pointless, and needed fixing.
And what's all that arrogant nonsense at the bottom about "At this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that he is the banned user USer:DeFacto who, over the last year has been launching one sockpuppet attack after the other against me."? A smokescreen to hide behind I think. The timeline is crap - end of.
I'm out now for a few days, so don't assume that silence is acceptance of any further ill-conceived threats or allegations - as it is not.
Note too that no notification of this report was given to me - a clear sign that it is a stealth attempt to avoid counter-claims. Our other kid ( talk) 10:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Cap-Saint-Martin is obviously an experience editor
Did he really not know what "ANI" stood for, or was he trying to create the image of being a new user?
Is he American or is he British? It should not matter, but a few interesting things emerged from Cap-Saint-Martin’s various edits
The above clearly shows that he is trying to hide behind a false image. So who is he? I believe that he is
User:DeFacto. The following backs up my belief that Cap-Saint-Martin and DeFacto are one and the same:
Attempts to link DeFacto and Cap-Saint-Martin geographically could run into problems. It is believed that DeFacto changed his ISP earlier this year and was able to use dynamically allocated IP addresses in the range 212.183.*.* to avoid being blocked. In light of this, I cannot dismiss his "confession" to having used a particular IP address before registering his user name as being a way of saying "I am really DeFacto, but I have found a proxy IP address from which I can disguise myself".
In short, I believe that User:Cap-Saint-Martin is User:DeFacto is trying to disguise himself, but his disguise fails the WP:QUACK test. Martinvl ( talk) 14:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I can't see any evidence of an editor called User:DeFacto being involved in any of the edits or discussions I've been involved in, so I don't see where the sockpuppet theory comes from.
Surely you need at the very minimum evidence showing that:
What we actually have here is:
Let me add that this isn't the only place that Martinvl is making trouble and wasting people's time because when I recently asked an administrator for advice in tackling his obtuse and disruptive behaviour, I was told that "This editor [User:Martinvl] has been systemically doing things across all of UKRD, one of the reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. I think at some point a more large-scale discussion needs to be held, and if that fails, a WP:RFC/U."
Another question worth examining is why he went behind my back like this (I don't see any message about this anywhere else). If he wasn't sure where I came from, or why, why didn't he simply ask me first? Perhaps the reason was that he didn't really care about the real reasons - why spoil another chance to make trouble with the actual facts. Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 22:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Blocked but awaiting tags As an admin who has more than a little experience with DeFacto and his drawer full of socks, this is a fairly easy one and I've blocked the account indefinitely. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
CheckUser requested Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention Given DeFacto's socking history, I think a sleeper check would be reasonable here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe that User:AnnieLess is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto.
My view is that these points, when considered together, say WP:QUACK. Martinvl ( talk) 11:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
1. The account User:Up and in was created at 06:16, 1 May 2013 - about 24 hours after a sockpuppet of Defacto was banned. The account remained dormant until 26 May 2013.
2. User:Up and in is obviously familiar with Wikipedia as is shown by this change. (This change was his seventh change) User:Up and in has contributed to five articles in three totally unrelated areas:
3. Although both DeFacto and User:Up and in made a few minor improvements to articles, both have the same clumsy style of asserting themselves when trying to prove a point:
4. Both DeFacto and Up and in have the same style of detracting from statements:
I believe it beyond reasonable doubt that User:Up and in has been WP:HOUNDING me. Moreover the evidence suggest that User:Up and in is not the new editor that (s)he appears to be. Given the similarity between User:Up and in and User:DeFacto given above is sufficient to pass the WP:QUACK test - in other words, that User:Up and in is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Additional notes by proposer
Since filing the SPI request, further evidence has come to light.
In his incarnation as User:Cap-Saint-Martin, (SPI filed 20 March 2013) DeFacto appeared to have changed Service Providers - his new Service Provider allocates IP addresses dynamically every time a user logs on. It is therefore not easy to identify DeFacto from an IP address. In trying to build up a profile of DeFacto, I came across a few interesting items:
These points are, in my opinion WP:QUACKs. Martinvl ( talk) 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Topic, interaction, and other editing behaviour (see contribs) indicate that these are socks of a banned user evading a block. The claim to be an existing user (at User:Dissimilar name) looks like a preemptive explanation of the user's familiarity with concepts like edit-warring. Checkuser action could be used to look for confirmation of the apparent sockpuppet's claim to be a long-term ip editor (rather than a sockpuppet). Boson ( talk) 15:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I believe that User:Cobulator is a sock-puppet of the banned user User:DeFacto, operating from a sleeper account set up before DeFacto was banned. User:DeFacto was banned as a result of his continued disruption to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. Cobulator has shown signs of becoming disruptive to the article History of the metric system
Disruption to article History of the metric system
Cobulator is clearly attacking the same pages as did DeFacto's proven sockpuppets.
Creating and abandoning stubs
Both Cobulator and DeFacto have a track record of creating stubs and then abandoning them.
Anti-metric editing
Both DeFacto and Cobulator have taken a strong anti-metric stance.
These three similarities appear to me to be shouting WP:QUACK. Martinvl ( talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a ridiculous and unfounded attack. Martinvl seems to resort to this tactic each time his will is challenged - he recently tried a similarly weakly argued attack against 'Up and in' when challenged over his attempts to force a point in another article. The trouble is, mud sticks, and the false-accuser is not held to account. The comparisons he makes above, between myself and DeFacto are ludicrous. I was editing concurrently with DeFacto for a long while before he was banned - I started in November 2011 and DeFacto wasn't banned until April 2012 - why would I do that if I was DeFacto? Does Martinvl suppose that DeFacto foresaw his demise, 7 months ahead of time, and invented me to carry on in his footsteps? And if that is his assumption, why does Martinvl think that I waited so long, more than a year after DeFacto's ban, to continue his work?
Please examine Martinvl's behaviour, his edits and his arguments, both here and in numerous other places, then look at the only edit I made to History of the metric system and its talkpage and tell us who is being disruptive here. Martinvl is trying to get me removed so that he doesn't have to answer the points I have raised on Talk:History of the metric system, which simply challenge an aspect of his interpretation of the history.
It is also indicative of his desperation here that Martinvl describes my challenge of the weight he gave to just one sentence from a 480 page book (he reinterprets it and puts it as the first sentence in the article lead) as me having taken "a strong anti-metric stance". What is he up to? Cobulator ( talk) 08:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the above IP accounts are sockpuppets of User:DeFacto.
Case against User:212.183.140.15
Case against 78.46.43.39
Case against 212.183.128.167
Since these accounts are all dynamic accounts no action can be taken against them other than to note that they are probable sockpuppets. Their existance is however holding up a DYK nomination, so a statement that these are all sockpuppet accounts will allow me to strike out the text added from these accounts and progress the nomination. Martinvl ( talk) 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(Addition 20:38 18 July 2013)
Case against 212.183.128.138, 212.183.140.41, 212.183.140.38 and 212.183.128.138
Putting this together we have a very loud WP:QUACK. There is no point in blocking these accounts, but if this collection of sockpuppets is confirmed, I will be requesting protection for articles that are being targeted by DeFacto.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This diff and the preceding and following discussion is typical of DeFacto's debating style, coupled with simultaneous edit warring. To those who have interacted with DeFacto on this topic, it is quite apparent that banned úser DeFacto is ignoring his/her ban and continuing the same pattern of edit warring and WP:IDHT "debates" on metrication topics, now using a mobile device. DeFacto long ago made the editing experience on the topic of metrication so unpleasant that other editors were driven away. I think the best solution would be a long period of semi-protection for articles this user has focused on, in particular
if necessary extending that to similar articles to which the socketmaster might turn his/her attention (e.g. Kilogram, Stone (unit)), together with increased vigilance regarding the creation of further sockpuppet accounts. In time, that might even encourage a return of more collaborative and knowledgeable editors. -- Boson ( talk) 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There are no dynamic accounts. There are dynamic IPs. An IP user is the opposite to an account, Martinvl. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yet another sock recently blocked. IMHO it is the time to soft-block 212.183.140.0/26 and 212.183.128.128/26 due to persistency and scale of the abuse. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't allow the actions of one user to taint ALL the users of one ISP. I've been told by a Wikipedia administrator today that customers of the ISP issuing the 212.183 IPs are no longer allowed to edit articles related to the metric system. Is that correct, and if so, where is that policy documented?
Why can't edits be judged on their individual merit, rather than being judged by what the IP address is? This is nothing more than downright, unsupportable, discrimination.
Comments I've received today lead me to believe that, in general, Wikipedia administrators do not understand how dynamic IP addresses are allocated. I have been called a deliberate IP hopper and a sock puppet by administrators today. Are administrators trained? Are the mechanisms used by mobile broadband suppliers explained to them? Do they know that tthis ISP issues IP addresses dynamically? Do they know that a customer is allocated an IP address randomly and that IP addresses can change, even during a single uninterrupted editing session - without the customer even knowing about it? Do they know that he same IP ranges are available throughout the whole of the UK - publicly, to a huge, potentially unregistered, customer base? I think not. 212.183.140.21 ( talk) 12:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I get it now. All these false accusations of sock-puppetry arise from here. Presumably, the idea is to report suspects here, and they are investigated by someone who knows what they are doing. What we currently have is a mass of allegations, based purely on the IP address and article being editd, and undisciplined admins jumping to absurd and unsupportable conclusions based purly on the fact that someone (anyone) has made a report. Let's clam down now, retract the allegations made that have not been proven, and let us all get on with our lives. I came only to correct an article, yet seemed to have spent days going around in circles trying to preserve my changes. And I see now, that those changes that I've tried to make, have been undone, not because they were wrong, but because of the absurd allegations being made here. Dynamic IP addresses are just that. There is not a relationship between the editor and the address.
All of this has an air of irrationality and panic about it, which can do nothing but bring the role of Wikipedia administrator into disrepute. These allegations have not been supported by showing that any harm has been done to Wikipedia, in fact they have not been supported at all. They all rely on the ridiculous assumption that all editors using this IP and editing these articles must be harassed, tirelessly until they cease. Is that how wikipedia treats its volunteers now? If there is no harm done, then, for God's sake, please drop this blunt stick. 212.183.140.21 ( talk) 13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Standard DeFacto MO, Vodafone IPs as normal, standard "it's not me, Wikipedia is broken, everyone picks on me for no reason" attempt at defence. Quack times eleventy thousand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that both User:An old feller and User:EzEdit are sockpuppets of DeFacto. The rationale is as follows:
Late addition
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As usual: The MO fits DeFacto, and we know they were active at that point with other socks. Quacking is prevalent here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The first indication of potential sockpuppetry is that FishGF looks like a new user but immediately starts doing a GA review of an article on the metric system by MartinGL, implicitly claiming to be an uninvolved editor. One pattern of DeFacto's behaviour was to find fault with things written by Martinvl and to object to statements about the metric system - remaining civil, but endlessly debating minutiae and points of editorial judgement long after all the arguments had been presented and discussed and general consensus reached, until other editors lost their temper or lost interest (if not the will to live). This became an enormous waste of everyone's time. Ironically, this behaviour can actually be helpful in the early stages since it helps to identify errors and inadequacies, but in the long term it is unconstructive and drives other editors away. So far, FishGF's behaviour seems to be consistent with this. On the basis of behaviour, it looks as if this account is controlled by the banned user DeFacto. A particular problem with this account is that it is being used to conduct two GA reviews
and we should not feel happy about an article being given (or refused) a GA classification by a banned user. This is obviously a problem with the GA review but it may not be appropriate to discuss the sockpuppetry issue there. -- Boson ( talk) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: I just range blocked 212.183.128.0/24 again following this. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
EzEdit: New user (Registered 7/13/2013; 131 edits;), began almost immediately interacting with Martinvl on a template page [84] and elsewhere [85] [86] [87]. Article space edits are all measurement related and tend towards tendentious [88].
Credibility gap: New user (Registered 1/10/2013; 50 edits;), began almost immediately editing at WP:MOSNUM [89] then to Martinvl's just-GA'd History of the metric system [90]. Edits have tended towards tendentious. [91]
I don't expect a CU to be useful; Defacto has done this often enough to know what s/he is doing. In this case, I think behavioral evidence suffices.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I refute this allegation emphatically and have raised at report on WP:ANI in relation to the behaviour of the reporting user account. Credibility gap ( talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy here a little I've posted to that ANI discussion: DeFacto's habits include creating accounts with a few edits and leaving them in the sock drawer for months while playing with other puppets, sometimes in back-to-back sessions editing first with one account, then with another (eg Ornaith and Pother, Curatrice and MeasureIT). Credibility gap's contribution history fits this pattern closely enough that an SPI request cannot be regarded as a breach of WP:AGF. Though most contributions date from 17 October 2013, the account was created on 11 January 2013 [92] with 11 edits creating a user page that is a detailed pre-emptive refutation of any future accusations of socking. Minutes later [93] DeFacto created a user page for hir sock Stevengriffiths, an account created in May 2012 but left in the drawer since then. The next day Credibility edited hir own talk page and made one other edit but no more in January while DeFacto carried on using the revived Stevengriffiths account vigorously until it was blocked as a sock on January 20th and talk-page blocked on 21st after the usual protestations. NebY ( talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe Freimütig to be a sock of DeFacto following his behaviour in the past 48 hours on the Red Bull RB10 article:
These are all classic signs of DeFacto's behaviour, particularly the demands for a consensus to be established, the refusal to allow any edits but his own preferred version to the page, and his habit of sitting on the page and immediately reverting any edits he does not like. Another user, Bretonbanquet, has noted that Freimütig is likely to be a sockpuppet of DeFacto here. Freimütig is yet to display some of DeFacto's more disruptive behaviours, but my experience with him has taught me that his behaviour follows a pattern and that what he is urrently showing on the page is only the first stage.
I therefore conclude that it is highly likely that Freimütig is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Given the sheer number of sockpuppet investigations into accounts that may be DeFacto (over sixty since May 2012, including registered edits and IP addresses), I feel that if Freimütig is demonstrated to be a sock of DeFacto, then there is a case to take to long-term abuse. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Account created 6 Dec 2012 [112] with three userspace edits on 1 Feb 2013. Account lay idle until 4 Dec 2013, then began advancing a argument [113] [114] at Kilometers per hour that bears an uncanny resemblance to the argument made by the DeFacto sock Ornaith (e.g., [115]).
Given DeFacto's persistent socking in this area, I think the above is sufficient to justify a block on behavioral grounds alone. I've request a CU as well.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 01:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The username "Béal Orna" can be roughly translated as "Voice of Ornaith". "Béal" is an Irish word meaning "mouth" and "Orna" is a common abbreviation of the Irish forename "Ornaith" that was used (see above) for lengthy socking on this peculiarly lame detail, even going to DRN, and for little else. NebY ( talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks as if DeFacto has created numerous accounts and is using each of them for a restricted set of topics.
QuiteWry is another user to check for block evasion by banned user DeFacto. Their edits look to me like a destructive attack on the article Realisation (metrology), which was created by the main user targeted by DeFacto. The ostensibly new editor first removed most of the content, then PRODed the article on the basis of lack of content, with this edit – with no edit summary. User AnnieLess, a sockpuppet of DeFacto, who clearly doesn't know much about the use and importance of realisation in the context of metrology, already clashed with his target on the topic of realisation of metric units (e.g. at Talk:Metric system#Realisability and replicable prototypes(!)). I think the behavioural evidence is enough, but it might be worth checking for others using the same block-evasion method. -- Boson ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe Joetri10 to be a sock of DeFacto based on some of his behaviour at Talk:2014 Formula One season (and these archives).
The problem with catching a DeFacto sock is that he has displayed such a wide variety of disruptive behaviours over so many accounts that any difficult or obstinate editor probably displayed some of his behaviours at some point. However, he always did have one favourite tactic: stalling discussions on talk pages when the debate did not go his way. As soon as other editors started making progress that he did not like, he would step in and try to restart the debate, forcing everyone to go back over scorched earth and explain their positions again. A single slip-up or inconsistency would be taken as proof that the editor's argument was invalid, which would only embolden him. Joetri has been doing exactly this on the abovelisted talk page.
The issue in question relates to the best way to arrange the team and driver table on the 2014 Formula One season article. The system of allocating numbers to cars has changed for 2014, leaving the editors uncertain as to the best way to present that information. Joetri10 has taken a very particular position in this debate:
Like I said, DeFacto displayed a wide range of behaviours that were disruptive to say the least, so it is possible that Joetri10 is not DeFacto at all, but just a stubborn editor. However, forcing debates to go in circles when he felt they were not reaching the resolution he wanted was always DeFacto's favourite tactic, and the one he displayed more often than any other. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I've interacted with a number of DeFacto socks and I'm certainly sympathetic to the frustrations they cause. However, I'm not certain this user's history matches up well with DeFacto. The first SPI here was from 06May2012; Joetri10's account started editing on 4Jan2011. Joetri10 makes a number of newbie errors (citing youtube, not signing talk page posts, etc.) while DeFacto was editing with a high level of familiarity. I could believe that DeFacto would set up a sock by making lots of errors, but having the foresight to do so several months before getting banned is unlikely. That said, a CU wouldn't hurt.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 04:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that Passy2 may be a sockpuppet of the banned user, DeFacto, who was known to be an enthusiastic campaigner for imperial measures [ [130]] and who has a long history of sock puppetry. [ [131]]
Passy 2 joined Wikipedia on 25 November 2013 [ [132]], However, his/her first edit on 27 November was “to better comply with MOSNUM” [ [133]] The edit used the disp=flip function - remarkable for a Newbie’s first edit but more consistent with a sockpuppet who wants to put imperial measures first .
Passy2 seems to go round after Archon2488 , flipping the displays to be imperial first[ [134]] [ [135]] [ [136]] Once again this is out of character for a new editor but very characteristic of a sockpuppet who wants to put the Imperial system first..
Edits by Passy2 appear to be focused on putting imperial measures first whether justifiable or not. [
[137]] [
[138]] [
[139]]
Passy2 won’t accept being outvoted [ [140]] Even an RFC on units didn’t stop him. [ [141]]
This pattern of editing is troublesome in itself and suggests that the account was created to fight the good fight for imperial measures. The tactic of endless argumentation is also consistent with DeFacto’s modus operandi. [ [142]] [ [143]] and [ [144]]
Please check this user. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Michael Glass ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Suspected sockpuppets “Chose another name” and “Eddystone Bill”
I think that both may be sockpuppets of DeFacto, the banned user
[145] and sockpuppeteer
[146] who continually campaigns for imperial measures.
‘’Chose another name’’ joined Wikipedia on 19 February 2014, the date that the previous sockpuppet case against DeFacto was opened. [147]
Since then, ‘’Chose another name’’ has made more than 40 edits, the vast majority of which have been to put miles first in a variety of articles [148]
“Chose another name’s editing practice shows the following patterns which suggests that it is a sockpuppet.
Please check on these users. I believe that they are sockpuppets of DeFacto. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Michael Glass ( talk) 04:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Based on a review of the edits and extensive experience with this sockmaster, I'd say the SPI is warranted and a block of both accounts could be made on the edit pattern alone.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 02:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the above assessments. The pattern matches DeFacto's MO well enough to make checkuser superfluous. -- Boson ( talk) 14:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There's some behaviour we'd miss by looking at this Wikipedia alone. Two days after Chose another name was created here, DeFacto pursued hir anti-metric campaign and vendetta against
Martinvl by following him to the Simple English Wikipedia as Centaur
[162], where s/he ultimately succeeded in having both of them blocked. (The admin's block log comment for Centaur was Reciprocal block: Violating the "one-strike" rule: Continuing problems that had him banned as DeFacto on en.wiki
. As Martinvl shows no sign of socking once blocked but DeFacto is happy to create more socks, this probably counted as a 'win' in DeFacto's eyes.) As Centaur, DeFacto edited often on Simple until 2 April 2014 and returned to appealing hir block there from 18 April to 21 April 2014. Chose another name began hir "miles-first" campaign here on 22 April.
I haven't examined other Wikipedias. I do have the impression that DeFacto's socking on this Wikipedia has become deliberately single-minded with socks which are increasingly SPAs, perhaps in the hope that identification will be harder if fewer tells are provided. NebY ( talk) 15:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting NebY's point on DeFacto's behaviour, but ultimately we don't need to take it into account. I agree with others that the case is obvious enough that no checkuser is required - just block and be done with it. Kahastok talk 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me — Darkwind ( talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
New user account created June 24, 2014. Three of first five edits (
[170],
[171],
[172]) are edit-warring at
Human scale consistent with DeFacto's previous efforts to de-emphasize metric measurement, e.g., "The
metric system, which is based on precisely reproducible and measurable physical quantities"
is changed to "The
metric system, which is based on other more reproducible physical quantities"
. With the exception of creating their userpage, all other edits have focused on metrication at
Human scale.
This remark left on
Archon 2488's
talk page is, to my ear, very much in keeping with the tone and obsessions of DeFacto. I don't usually reopen this SPI unless the sock has several dozen edits, but given the nature of the evidence and the long history of this user, 14 edits is sufficient. Note that CU hasn't been useful the last several times, so I'm requesting a block based on behavioral evidence only.
Lesser Cartographies (
talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The user has not done much editing since this was filed, so probably best to close this as stale. Will refile if the disruptive behavior resumes. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I should point out that his very first edit was to revert some edits that I had made to the article on human scale because he considered that they constituted "undiscussed metrification" or some such. Strange behaviour for a new editor. He then insisted several times that the edits in question "needed more discussion", despite being flatly contradicted by several editors. I explained the MoS to him more than once, but he ignored this. He seemed to apologise and drop the stick but then brought the issue up again on my talk page. All this is a classic DeFacto performance. I was previously harassed by another DeFacto SP in a similar way. Archon 2488 ( talk) 22:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
DeFacto has a long history of emphasizing imperial units over metric in UK-related articles, and an extensive history of socking to do this. Initial edits of new account ProProbly focused on emphasizing metric over imperial for French articles (e.g., [173], [174]) with the novel rationale "to comply with the French tradition". Subsequent edits used that rationale to de-emphasize metric units at UK articles (e.g., [175], [176]), using advanced template options. These edits were reverted, which led to classic DeFacto complaints on user pages ( [177], [178]), a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ( [179]) and a trip to ANI ( [180], compare to [181]). Not bad for an account with all of 75 edits. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 03:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I have suspected Jaggee of being a DeFacto SP since he started reverting my edits with the pretense of "restoring the English variety" (four such reverts in August). In fact, many of these reversions also had the effect of removing unit conversions (in one in particular case, the
Unruh Effect, I had not actually changed any spellings because I replaced some unit names with symbols). This account’s only contribution since then has been to weigh in to the latest dispute with ProProbly, by reverting the attempts by Lesser Cartographies to undo ProProbly's reverts of my edits.
Archon 2488 (
talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Baaarny has the metrication obsession [182] and came in swinging in defense of DeFacto below, all within their first 12 edits. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baaarny; that should probably be closed, as DeFacto is the master. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Agreed. The previous complaint against ProProbly ended with this comment: "Closing for now...if the case can be bolstered with new evidence then please refile." The edit history shows an obsession with putting imperial units first in British articles. Examples include this and this and this. I think that ProProbly has now provided enough evidence to cook his goose. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Admission by Jaggee
OK, I confess to it all, I am the DeFacto SP. How could I refute such skilfully assembled evidence against me. It was the way the filer so expertly juxtaposed the diffs of my work as Defacto with my work as Jaggee that clinched it I think. I realise it would be futile to try to argue with that. Damn my naiveness in believing I could go under the radar and get away with criticising the filer's expert edits and succinct edit summaries here and here correcting the ignorant spellings of a previous editor. Worse still, I made, what with hindsight was, the fatal error of criticising this edit, I should have been more respectful of the editor's right to drive a coach and horses through the WP:UNITS guidance to use miles for such distances in UK articles. The evidence against me is impeccable, Nice work!
Evidence request from ProProbly
For the benefit of those of us who are not familiar with the works of DeFacto can you provide some diffs of his work too, ones which you believe shows the accounts to be related. Also as your vaguely worded submission shows no reason to suspect any connection between them, can you actually explain why you believe your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. ProProbly ( talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Baaarny
Wow, the metricate-Wikipedia-at-all-costs-brigade are getting very twitchy now. Their cover is being slowly, but surely, eroded. Their desperation has now led to me, the messenger, being simultaneously accused by one of them as being the sock-master of DeFato and by another as being a sock-puppet of DeFacto. Clearly they can't both be right!
I came here to urge caution when reading Michael Glass's affected and unconvincing contribution to this investigation, and Lesser Cartographies has now taken the opportunity to use my presence as an excuse to imply that I came to defend DeFacto. How incredibly transparent his feigned indignity and incredulity is!
I'll repeat here my comment from the other SPI against me. I'll explain exactly who I am, why I am here with this account, and explain how this account is a legitimate alternate account fully complying with current Wikipedia policy.
I can confirm that this is not my only Wikipedia account. However, this is a legitimate and authorised use of an alternate account as I will explain below.
I created this account solely to protect my privacy. In real life, I, like Michael Glass (the filer of the first SPI against me), am a member of, associate of or participant in the discussion forums of several pro-metrication advocacy groups, including the UK Metric Association, Metrication Matters and the US Metric Association. My real life identity is readily discernible from my main account name, however, unlike Michael, and at least 2 [possibly at least 4 now as others have emerged here] other similarly active Wikipedia editors that I am aware of, I do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to further the agenda of these metrication organisations. In fact I deliberately only edit articles which are NOT in any way related to units of measurement, and so I am not personally recognisable from my editing work here. If I were to use my main account name in relation to units of measurement edits, I would almost certainly be identified. And, in case it isn't clear from what I write above, I am NOT the sock-master [or now sock-puppet] of "DeFacto", "Chose Another Name", "Eddystone Bill", "There is another possibility", or of any other account for that matter.
It goes without saying, that Michael's motives in raising that [, and supporting this, ] SPI are clear, he wants to save his own skin, and has chosen to try to get me blocked, by fair means or foul, so that he can continue to use Wikipedia to promote the goals of these advocacy groups unchallenged. Baaarny ( talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Baaarny and ProProbly may be actually the same person.
I believe that Baaarny is a sockpuppet. The evidence can be found here. Baaarny's history demonstrates that this sockpuppet is just a one-purpose account.
We now have incontrovertible evidence - incontrovertible because it is by Baaarny's own admission:
This sounds like DeFacto. However, "there is another possibility". Could it be another editor using the DeFacto franchise for his own ends?
In either case the sockpuppets should be banned. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Retaliatory SPI
A bad-faith retaliatory SPI has been filed here. I'd appreciate it if the closing admin took care of both. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 12:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I opened an AN/I thread on this matter, but I suppose I ought take it here. Take a look at the SPI archive for DeFacto. IPs from the same ISP were associated with DeFacto and blocked way back in 2012. Specifically, the connection is quite clear in these accounts created by DeFacto. These IPs have been causing disruption, one has followed me around, and have both annoyed me and obfuscated various things. This follows the usual trend from DeFacto. Drmies suggested at the AN/I thread that a range block is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I believe that these IPs are acting as strawman socks for another user. It does not, in various ways, match the pattern of DeFacto's previous socks, and his comments on MOSNUM talk in particular are a caricature of DeFacto's style, designed to be knocked down. This, for example, appears to me to be inviting ridicule for the position it appears on first sight to advocate. The editor probably feels that he get away with whatever he wants because he assumes that it will be blamed on DeFacto. And FWIW I do have a name in mind.
Regardless of all that, I do not dispute the obvious fact that these IPs are acting as disruptive sockpuppets for a named user with close knowledge of the discussions on this topic over the past few years, and therefore meets the standard under WP:ILLEGIT. Kahastok talk 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@ JamesBWatson: At this stage we have an IP sock that has made no known edits in over two weeks (since 21 October). Both suspected editors are already indeffed and the one I suspected is already subject to a separate SPI. We know the IP hopped over the space of less than 24 hours, so there's nothing to say he'll use any of these ever again. May I suggest that we would be better off keeping our collective powder dry on the basis that there's no administrative action that can possibly be taken at this point? Kahastok talk 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
As can clearly be seen in the list of contributions from the first of these IP addresses, someone is using the new general sanctions as a pretext for reverting any change to how units are presented in UK articles. Clearly this is someone who has been following the recent developments at WT:MOSNUM and has an axe to grind. This is all, of course, classic DeFacto behaviour, and it would appear to be a continuation of the disruptive IP address sockpuppeting from last month. Archon 2488 ( talk) 01:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
These edits [196], and their summaries, are clear evidence of someone editing with an anti-metric agenda. There are derogatory and silly comments in the edit summaries such as "this is the English version, not the French - and the majority here primarily speak UK/US units", which is classic DeFacto stuff. I have left clear notification on his talk page [197] of why his edits are not appropriate. For a brand-new account, this behaviour is extremely suspicious, and many of us have seen it several times before. Archon 2488 ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Archon 2488 ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is clearly intimidation by Archon 2488. I have foiled his attempt to systematically and stealthily (note his misleading edit summaries) metricate large quantities of articles without first discussing his plans with the community. What I have done is unflip his undiscussed an unnecessary flipping of primary units to be metric. That restorative action of mine should be applauded, and he should be sanctioned, not only for making false accusations of sockpuppetting, but for maliciously disrupting Wikipedia with his mass flips and conversions. Ceipt ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I am disturbed by the reaction to my edits here, it appears to me that I have stumbled into the middle of a witch hunt of some sort, and become the chief suspect. Where did all these contributors pop out from? I haven't seen them around any of the articles I have been involved in. And why do they imagine that their unevidenced pontifications should be listened to?
Shall I explain where I have come from, and why, and my interest in Archon 2488's edits and why I felt compelled to try to halt his systematic execution of his self-confessed "opposition to the preferential use of medieval units" and his attempts to "Renounce ignorance and support science"/ Or will that be commented out as "irrelevant discussion" too? Ceipt ( talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In one important sense it's not totally irrelevant: DeFacto has a long history of going on the offensive as soon as he is called into question. He knows perfectly well what the standard WP measurement policy is, of course, but he likes to feign ignorance. One important commonality is the obsession with edit summaries: here [200] ProProbly (a previous sock of DeFacto) criticised my edit summaries and accused me of hiding "undiscussed metrification". His angle is usually that switching unit order to metric-first "needs community discussion" or some such – compare this [201] edit summary of Ceipt with examples such as [202] and [203] by ProProbly (also complaining about edit summaries, which started the discussion on my talk page). The pattern of following one particular other editor (in this case, me), reverting his edits and starting pointless discussions is also there – compare the pattern of ProProbly's edits [204] and Jaggee's edits [205] (in the period just before he was blocked) with Ceipt's: [206]. Archon 2488 ( talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Timpace is a sockpuppet of the banned editor DeFacto. My reasons are as follows:
[208] The addition of a disp=flip is quite sophisticated for a new editor.
Information on Hugh8 is added below. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Hugh8 is a sockpuppet of the banned user DeFacto.
According to Hugh8’s edit history, he made his first edit on 14 March 2015 [212] and yet on 31 March he wrote about me: “His edit history is also full of ducks and dives aimed at 100% metrication. He's relentlessly substituting existing references with metric references in 100s of articles, then coming back later and metricating them on the pretence that the references give metric! Crafty, eh? And his name is all over numerous disputes about that.” [213]
These are the words of an anti-metric campaigner who has been around Wikipedia for a long time. This mixture of malice, exaggeration and invention is not the work of someone who came to Wikipedia at the beginning of March 2015. It is more characteristic of a seasoned sockpuppet. But Hugh8 did not target me before making this comment.
Hugh8’s edit history makes it clear that he largely concentrated on reversing the edits of Archon2488 and MetricStronk.
His first edit was to remove the flipping of a measurement so that the display was miles first (about Hatra in Syria) with the edit summary “Not allowed” [214]
Edits 2, and 3 were to reverse edits by MetricStronk. [215] [216]
Hugh8’s next two edits reveal a knowledge of how to edit, beyond what one would expect of a new editor. (A two stage operation to get rid of the second last - and last - edit of Archon2488.) [217] [218]
Hugh8’s next edit removed MetricStronk’s edit without disturbing an intermediate edit. Again, this is a remarkable edit for a newbie, but unsurprising in an experienced sockpuppet. [219]
After a stint of copy editing, Hugh8 went round and modified Archon2488’s edits, as shown in these diffs: [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225]
Hugh8, like Timpace, occasionally forgets to sign his comments on the talk page.
I believe that the sockmaster is using different sockpuppets for different editors: Hugh8 for MetricStronk and Archon2488; Timpace and another suspected sock for me. This is yet another ruse to make it harder to join the dots.
Another suspected sock is, LowlandLaddie. He fixed on an edit and citation of mine to Bournemouth. Just Like Timpace and Hugh8, he occasionally forgets to sign his comments on the talk page. [229] This editor also bears other hallmarks of a DeFacto sock, as I will document later. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
In just 12 edits, LowlandLaddie’s edit history shows quite striking resemblances to the characteristics revealed especially by Timpace but also by Hugh8.
Forgetting to sign his comments:
LowlandLaddie [230] [231] [232].
Reversing edits when he has made a mistake.
LowlandLaddie: [237] (mistake with a URL)
Timpace: [238] (“didn't give summary, so will do it again”)
Reversing citations when websites cited have metric information:
LowlandLaddie: [239]
Timpace: [240]
Intemperate comments
LowlandLaddie: “…Michael Glass using a false statement…. the original … is NOT a travel brochure, but is the authoritative website of the body charged with managing the coastal site.
Davey 2010: "It is a travel brochure pure and simple…."
LowlandLaddie: "Whoops, I just realised I was using the wrong url… Sorry for my confusion." [241] or [242]
Timpace: When an editor pointed out – politely – that an edit of his was out of line with MOSNUM, Timpace’s response: “MOSUNIT doesn't support this sort of defiance.” (This diff gives the discussion in context.)
[243]
Hugh8: “It's clear now where your loyalties lie, and I'm sorry I wasted my time coming to you for help in trying to reverse "MetricStronk"'s work, and "Archon 2488"'s support of it. Now we have you, "Metric Stronk", "Archon 2488" and "Michael Glass" all apparently working to the same barely hidden agenda.” (Part of a rant to be found at this diff: [244]
Conclusion
I think these diffs point out the striking similarities between LowlandLaddie, Timpace and Hugh8. It should also be borne in mind that LowlandLaddie and Timpace were targeted on my edits while almost all of Hugh8's edits were directed at Archon2488, MetricStronk and others. The exception, and it is significant, was his rant here: [245] . This last edit is the capstone that demonstrates beyond doubt the close relationship between Hugh8 and the other two editors.
The use of multiple sockpuppets is typical of Defacto, as may be seen from [246]. The example from 30 April 2014 is particularly relevant [247]. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
No doubt about it; the edit patterns are the same as ProProbly, Ceipt and the rest of them. His ongoing warring over units on the Cerne Abbas Giant page is a clear violation of the terms laid out in the General Sanctions for UK units. Archon 2488 ( talk) 13:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The behavioral evidence Michael has assembled is convincing (and depressing). Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Editied for clarification. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 11:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, definitely typical DeFacto behaviour pattern. The investigation should be extended to include:
who exhibits similar behaviour. The targeting of Archon 2488, the single-minded anti-metric, pro-Imperial agenda, and the violation or "creative" interpretation of WP:METRIC are typical of the numerous socks of DeFacto. Confirmation of behavioural patterns should probably also be based on the users and diffs in the archived sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive (q.v.), taking account of DeFacto's block evasion tactics, which should by now be well-known to those involved in these sockpuppet investigations. Is this enormous time sink a candidate for the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse? -- Boson ( talk) 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has happened for three weeks. Is there an issue that still needs to be addressed? Michael Glass ( talk) 00:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Michael, you were editing against WP:MOSNUM and were edit warring to impose it. This is a classic tactic I've seen you repeat on other articles, you edit against the recommendation of WP:MOSNUM then demand its never changed unless its discussed ad nauseum first. And in discussing you'll never agree to change. You were being disruptive here not Timpace, whose edits were constructive and to improve the article. The so-called behavioural evidence is weak and the Checkuser evidence shows this wasn't the same person. I note that the comments are now descending into personal abuse, I am not a de facto defending sockpuppets, merely someone who commented that once again new editors were being accused of being sockpuppters on very flimsy evidence. Neither am I an "anti-metric" crusader just an editor tired of being in the middle of two intransigent groups conducting agenda based editing. I pity anyone who closes this, as they're bound to be similarly accused. W C M email 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a shame, though not entirely surprising, that so much of the above has descended into abuse and name-calling.
I am not saying definitively that none of these editors is DeFacto. My view is that I do not believe that the case is proven, and that it should be proven before we take action. I also believe that there is a history of routinely accusing people of being DeFacto and that the standard of evidence risks slipping to a point where anyone who suggests actually following MOSNUM (as at Westminster Bridge) or takes a pro-imperial position (unlike MOSNUM) is assumed to be DeFacto. That is not a good place to be.
In terms of the general sanctions, I will note that this is not the place for the discussion. But it is perhaps relevant to remind Archon and Michael that nobody has ever sought to prevent them from dealing with breaches of the sanctions in an appropriate manner. Kahastok talk 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Health_Service_Journal&oldid=954518695 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Health_Service_Journal&oldid=954501363 Rathfelder ( talk) 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
An annonymous editor using the above IP address has started reverting my work on the article Metrication of British Transport. One of the reversions [1] has all the hallmarks of User:DeFacto who was banned a month go and who subseqently made two attempts to reenter Wikipedia via Sock Puppet accounts. The give-aways are rewording the reference to the Railway Group Standards body (who are the authortity on the matter) to "one British website" implying that it has no authority. He also demanded a citation that a difference of 0.1 mm which was noted as being "well within engineering tolerances". Anybody who has an iota of knowledge about engineering tolerances will know that such a request is pure pedantry. Both these activities are typical of his previous behaviour.
I have checked activity on this IP address and it appears that no editor has used this address in the past.
As I write this, I see that this annonymous editor is now plastering the article with many more "corrections" of the type that I assocate with DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Martinvl ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
May also be using:
-- Boson ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
DeFacto is a banned user. He has created an account which was not properly blocked and is now taunting everybody as an annonymous user, using one of many IP addresses allocated to a large ISP: here, here, here and here. Martinvl ( talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
94.197.49.214 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has admitted at User:94.197.n1.n2 to being that blocked user, as well as to being 94.197.146.76 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.197.182.81 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 94.197.100.97 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 94.197.41.200 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), and similarly has admitted to deliberately using the ip to avoid the block, hence is a self-confessed sock. - David Biddulph ( talk) 16:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Blocked the most recent IP. They're on a large active range, so I'd like to try blocking individual IPs and/or semi-protection before moving on to rangeblocks. Marking for close for now. TN X Man 18:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Extended argument by filer Martinvl
|
---|
User:DeFacto was banned from Wikipedia after he caused considerable disruption, much of which occurred in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom, an article to which I was a major contributor. He is believed to have created a number of , most of which were fairly obvious. We cannot rule out the possibility that DeFacto is playing the WP:GHBH game using User:Pother and [[User:Ornaith] as his Good Hands and that some of his other sock puppets were "bad hands". I believe that he is using his "Good Hands" account to disrupt my editing . The evidence pointing to this possibility includes:
Martinvl ( talk) 04:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC) / 13:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC) / 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments about notification
|
---|
|
Extended reply from Ornaith
|
---|
It was only by a chance encounter that I found out that this was going on behind my back! Is this how Wikipedia allows long established editors to deal with irritating newbies who are threatening their pet soap-boxes with neutrality and sound, source-based content? "Stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally" the linked advice says! I'm livid, how can I stay calm! It also says "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly,..." It IS in bad faith, and precisely for the reason suggested. I'm not sure I'll be brief though. I hope you (whoever "you" might be) can see that Martinvl is making this allegation precisely to hide, or protect, his own editing practices. "DeFacto" disappeared off the scene before I arrived here. I came to look at some articles about subjects close to my heart, but got sucked into the turmoil of Kilometres per hour and Stone (unit) as I mentioned in an early question to the teahouse service for new editors, and an excellent service it is too (see here). A quick look into Martinvl's past reveals numerous long and bitter disputes over the way he is trying to manipulate the Wikipedia articles, through the use of liberal helping of his own personal POV, and he doesn't seem interested in letting the fact that there are no reliable sources to support his synthesis of the primary sources get in his way. Take a look at these, which I've found just by looking at his own contribution history: Talk:Metrication of British transport (from "Cleanup" onwards) (I see Pother is involved there, and also charged here, as I am), Talk:Stone (unit) (from "Reinstatement of the lede" onwards), Talk:2012 Olympic Marathon Course (almost all of it). He seems to have an uncompromising and ruthless intent to promote the metric measurement system and belittle the traditional Irish/British measurement systems at all costs. His contribution history and own talk page is a testament to that. Let me reassure you that I am not "DeFacto", and that I do not know "DeFacto" and that I'd never heard of "DeFacto" until after I started trying to improve the kilometres per hour and stone articles. Ornaith ( talk) 22:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Timestamp related hypothesizing
|
---|
Summary for Ornaith: the time of day you edit wikipedia is very similar to the time of day DeFacto edited wikipedia, but without a lot more data that I don't have easy access to I'm not able to say how significant that similarity is.] I've been playing around with Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests on timestamp data. The confounding problem is that edits are bursty (and so not independent). So, for example, just a simple summary of the hour+minute (in fractional hours) portion of the timestamp of the most recent 252 edits by Ornaith and DeFacto: > summary( ornaith$t ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.05 11.90 15.73 15.36 19.15 23.15 > summary( defacto$t ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 0.1501 11.6900 17.0800 16.1500 20.0100 23.8500 But only counting every fifth edit (as a quick hack around burstiness) makes the numbers line up a bit better. > summary( ornaith$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 6.45 12.83 16.28 15.80 19.33 23.15 > summary( defacto$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] ) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 7.383 11.280 16.620 15.630 19.680 23.450 So I think I can conclude that both of these editors are in the same timezone and have similar editing patterns (and the patterns are much more similar to each other than they are to the handful of users I had as controls). The KS test on that particular pair of samples reinforces this: > ks.test( defacto$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ], ornaith$t[ seq(from=1, to=252, by=5) ] ) Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test data: defacto$t[seq(from = 1, to = 252, by = 5)] and ornaith$t[seq(from = 1, to = 252, by = 5)] D = 0.1373, p-value = 0.728 alternative hypothesis: two-sided (The p-value is the probability that you would see these samples be drawn together if they were indeed drawn from an identical distribution.) What I don't have is any sense of how common this particular edit pattern is. If 80% of wikipedia editors in that timezone look exactly like the above, then none of this is particularly useful. If there's an admin who is reading this who would be interested in doing some large-scale data analysis to see if this kind of work might be helpful, definitely drop me a line. Garamond Lethe 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
|
On hold - AGK [•] 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Cross-checking 94.197.n1.n2 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), both seem Likely. The results from FF84 were not very clear, and apologies for the flawed set of first results. (Of course, the correct response to an 'unrelated' result is always to have it clarified, not to ignore it!) AGK [•] 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to help resolve a dispute between Ornaith and Martinvl (started at WP:DRN but moved to the article talk page by mutual agreement) and thus am quite interested in finding out whether Ornaith is likely or unlikely to be a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Please post a summary when you believe that all evidence (including behavioral) has been considered. In the meantime, I am following WP:AGF in dealing with the dispute. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The account User:Canepa was obviously set up to harass me – possibly by a banned user User:DeFacto. DeFacto was banned follows a series of event, one of which was continued disruption of an article to which I was a major contributor ( Metrication in the United Kingdom). The sequence of events surrounding the current request are :
There must be very few users who have an interest in both these pages – what is the logical connection between bank account numbers and a mediaeval European kingdom? The most probable way that they were linked is that I was being WP:HOUNDed. The fact that Canepa made comments on both pages shortly after I had done so and has done nothing else on Wikipedia suggests to me that his/her account was set up to harass me. I believe that User:Canepa’s home page is true insofar that (s)he has spent some time on Wikipedia, but I have my doubts as to (s)he not having been registered before. I believe that there is sufficient evidence here to link Canepa to User:DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I will assume that the report above was made in good-faith (despite the reporter not actualcly notifying me), rather than as a dirty trick to attempt to "win" an article content dispute, and I will fully explain my actions, actions which appear to have been wholly misinterpreted by User:Martinvl. As will be seen, I had no prior interest in either of the articles mentioned, or in User:Martinvl, but a chance encounter on WT:NOR brought IBAN to my attention, and the reaction of Martinvl to my contributions there ultimately led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation).
I was casually browsing through Wikipedia as an unregistered IP user, as I have done before on numerous previous occasions, and over many years. I was skimming down the WT:NOR page, and almost choked on my coffee when I came across this entry. I couldn't believe what I was reading! I copied the phrase "It can be shown" to my clipboard then followed the link to the IBAN article and pasted it into the search box - and sure enough that phrase was there (although it has since been removed), and sure enough the cited reference was that piece of text (not an external cited source as is conventional): "This is a standard undergraduate level maths exercise"! I had to comment, who could resist on that one? As I couldn't restrain my urge, but was away from my usual base, and was using a network connection belonging to a third-party (and as I had been implored on many previous occasions to create an account rather than use an IP address) I decided to quickly register a named account, which I did at 11:54, 6 August 2012 (not at the time given in the accusation above). I then contributed to the discussion. I also went to the IBAN article and tagged the offending "ref" with a {{ fact}} tag.
My suggestion that the IBAN article should conform with WP:V triggered the following events:
Upon reading the IBAN article in detail, I realised that it was woefully lacking in sources, and so I added corresponding banners to it. This triggered another sequence of events, including:
Given that I felt intimidated by the actions of Martinvl, particularly the use of immoderate language and his apparently bad-faith reversions of several attempts I made to add banners or flags to the article, to highlight its poor state of compliance with WP:V, I decided to look at his previous contributions to see if this was typical behaviour. I didn't have to look far to find a similar "reversion" war, involving Martinvl, at Friesland (disambiguation), including these reversions and changes (note the edit summaries):
This "war" resulted in (just) the other user getting a 24h block for edit-warring! Martinvl also then posted a poorly reasoned RfD, aimed at a disambiguation page that the other user had created ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisia (disambiguation)). I contributed a comment to that discussion suggesting that a policy-based reasoning be supplied... As a result, this SPI report was then posted. Canepa ( talk) 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl caused a lot of trouble, it may heavily improve the accuracy of Wikipedia if someone is reviewing his edits.
I hope people go on reviewing Martinvl's contributions like Canepa did.
Especially discouraging in his behavior is, that he wants opponents to be blocked or banned.
Not every new user would go on with editing if attacked by Martinvl in the ways shown above. Triomio ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Apropos immediate reversion, Garamond Lethe is also doing this and is re-inserting false information in the IBAN article and undoing adjustments of terminology to what the sources give:
Triomio ( talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
While I added Triomio to the SPI in good faith, subsequent behavior has been well outside what has been observed for DeFacto's confirmed sock puppets: DeFacto (and most other editors) don't edit in such a way that triggers 3RR bans; Triomio hasn't picked up that knack (at least not yet). Garamond Lethe 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have re-added Triomio to the SPI since I find this edit quite suspicious: [14] "Removed advertising" - well, how are facts qualified as advertising? I wonder how it is Triomio's business to defend Canepa's edits at an article where Triomio has not edited ever before. Did they intentionally scan Martinvl's edit history for allegedly problematic edits? And how does Triomio know that "facts" have been presented? Altogether this looks to me like one and the same user trying to defend their edits by discrediting others. And I still find the reasons Garamond Lethe first stated while adding them to the SPI to be indicative of sockpuppetry. I'd like to see a checkuser result. De728631 ( talk) 12:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the re-addition. The more closely one examines the contributions of Ornaith, Pother, Triomio and Canepa the clearer it is that DeFacto takes peculiar pleasure in baiting Martinvl and puts time and effort into creating different personas for that purpose. The Triomio account was created immediately after an SPI was raised for Pother and Ornaith and the Pother account abandoned. It was seeded with edits on Indian railways and the tango, used in an attempt to provoke Martinvl with a spate of bizarre edits on ISO 639 on 06-07 August 2012 [15] and then in a successful provocation regarding Frisia (see Talk:Friesland#Change_of_name_to_Frisia for some of that) on 07 August 2012. It was then used together with the Canepa account for a tag-team attack on Martinvl in International Bank Account Number. NebY ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added two IPS, 82.132.249.192 and 82.132.249.199, to the investigation who are involved in two edit warring reports that also concern Martinvl and Triomio. First, after Martinvl had reported Triomio for repeated edit-warring, IP 82.132.249.192 commented on this report, by defending Triomio and collecting diffs to show how also Martinvl had been involved in edit warring. Later IP 82.132.249.199 reported Martinvl in turn for edit-warring, complaining about "outrageous excuses" by Martinvl. Geolocation and IP range suggest that the two IPs are actually the same person so it would be interesting to know if they are also connected to this case. De728631 ( talk) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Taking the most recent socking first,
MeasureIT has returned to the same practices (pursuing
[16]
[17]
Martinvl and seeking to complicate and over qualify
[18] mentions of the metric system while resisting any suggestion that it is anything but an invention of revolutionaries and French ones at that
[19]
[20]), just as DeFacto and Defacto's already-blocked socks
Ornaith,
Pother,
Canepa and
Dkr1d9fs. Stylistic similarities are hard to show with just a few diffs; it was only after engaging with Ornaith for some time that I recognised the stringing-out of negotiations and repeated returns to square one from our trouble with DeFacto, and I find the same here. But another aspect is clearer. MeasureIT has edited in bursts: 29th May 2012, 25th August - 1st September, 30th September and 30th December 2012 onwards. The August burst overlaps with the active period of blocked puppet
Dkr1d9fs, 19th - 31st August. To take 27th August, MeasureIT edited 18:32-20:59 (UK times), Dkr1d9fs 21:19-22:00, and MeasureIT at 22:02. The times never overlap though sometimes the gaps are wider; I do wonder if there are other socks.
Curatrice edited from 13th - 21st December. She took the needling method of meddling with image sizes
[21]
[22] that User:Eff Won had just found effective in baiting
Prisonermonkeys and other old opponents of Lucy-marie in
Wikiproject Formula One articles and applied it to needling Martinvl in metric-system articles. She continued (see the comments with
[23] and
[24] and pursued Martinvl to a brief edit-war at
United Kingdom
[25]. She stopped editing almost immediately after that; she may have noticed that I had alerted
[26] the admin that had first conditionally unblocked and finally re-blocked Eff Won.
Eff Won edited up to 4th December, when she was blocked for flagrant breaches of her unblocking conditions, particularly disruption and refusal to accept consensus. She was first blocked as a sock of Lucy-marie but there was some confusion as to whether she might instead be a sock of Defacto, which she had played on in her earlier appeals.
The simple and very stale answer is that
Lucy-marie was a sock of DeFacto all along. They were, as far as I can tell, mere dual accounts at first, editing in different spheres, though I gather both did become embroiled in articles under the
WP:F1 project. After both accounts were blocked, the editor became more blatant in using multiple accounts in the same fights (e.g. Ornaith and Pother), with perfunctory attempts to provide a little track record for each before "discovering" her opponents. It was her behaviour then - attempting to provide different personae without realising how similar her voices and approaches were, usually switching from one account to the other in short bursts in a single evening but staying with one account for days if it was involved in a "successful" campaign (for example 12-21st July for each
[27]
[28] - that alerted me to the earlier Defacto/Lucy-Marie socking, which showed exactly the same pattern. I'm adding this just to avoid any future attempts to exploit confusion about which editor a sock should be ascribed to.
I know that Checkuser may have difficulties with this editor (see AGK's several edits on 24th July at
[29]) but have requested it anyway. I hope that's appropriate.
NebY (
talk) 21:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ornaith (sock of DeFacto) finding an article on which to engage Martinvl 4 hours after first edit
[30], MeasureIT on second day of editing
[31] (immediately after Martinvl's edit comment " Map - Restoring earlier text that was removed by Defacto")
DeFacto re origins of metric system
[32]
DeFacto v Martinvl and his use of UKMA as a source:
[33]
[34], MeasureIT
[35]
[36]
Canepa (sock of DeFacto) delivering strictures
[37], MeasureIT ditto
[38]
[39]
Eff Won (blocked as sock of Lucy-marie) resizing/rearranging images - leading to awful arguments
[40] but persisting
[41]
[42], Curatrice reducing clutter and tidying
[43] (this, her fourth edit, found Martinvl) and
[44] which sadly came to arguments in comments
[45] and talk.
Ornaith (blocked sock of DeFacto) on the duck test
[46], Curatrice ditto
[47]
I'm not sure I can show the Lucy-Marie / DeFacto connection this way; I convinced myself by examining dates and times. Should I try? NebY ( talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Can anyone explain for me what exactly is going on here, and why I am implicated - and in what? I found out about this discussion from reading a puzzling off-the-cuff remark in another forum, and following a link from there. Am I supposed to understand this, or take any action myself? MeasureIT ( talk) 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I has suspicions about this myself and was preparing to request an SPI investigation. Thank you for pre-empting this one for me. Editing in bursts might well be an attempt to cover up their identity by editing when they are away on holiday/business etc and using "random" IP addresses. I for one have used a large number of computers on Wikipedia - in the last two years I have used my home computer, my computer at lunch times when working for a well-know London company (until March 2011), my computer at lunch-times when working for a well-known Frankfurt-based company (January 2012 - June 2012), an internet-cafe in Frankfurt (Jan-Feb 2012), my temporary accomodation in Frankfurt (March - June 2012) as well as internet cafes in Paris and in Florence when I have been in those cities on holiday. Martinvl ( talk) 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
To begin I must say that I find it quite appealing that this claim has be made and that it will, presumably, be considered without me having been formally informed that it had been made. I must thank my co-defendant User:MeasureIT for alerting me to this situation. I do however take comfort from the advice given on defending yourself against claims in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims (kindly supplied by User:Ged UK). It states very boldly at the start "If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding." I'll try not to take the claim too personally and hope it is true that the finding will reflect the fact that I have not "abused multiple accounts or IPs" and have not "breached the policy on meat-puppetry". The advice then goes on to recommend that "if there is a good reason for the evidence provided" then to point it out in your own section. Frankly, I don't see any evidence, as such, provided against me. What I do see are the following statements, with my comments and observations beneath each:
The advice then continues: "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed." I am not going to suggest bad faith, but I would suggest that none of Martinvl's comments are evidence of anything (nothing to do with this claim anyway), so should be struck out, and that nothing that Bretonbanquet wrote is evidence, and none of it applies to me so should also be struck out, and finally nothing that Atlan wrote is evidence either - it's just unsubstantiated opinion. Let us hope that the guidelines are correct in their prophecies. Curatrice ( talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Addendum: I hadn't seen Bretonbanquet's most recent comment when I wrote the above, and that I do believe to be in bad faith, and should not be considered. Curatrice ( talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Can I just remind everyone of the guidance for contributions here. It states "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.". That means that only evidence based claims, and not pure baseless personal opinion and personal attacks, will be considered by whoever judges this. Curatrice ( talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) As documented here: " Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims". MeasureIT ( talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Following the example and pattern set by User:Curatrice above, here follows my position on this action. I realize that I should be taking it seriously, but I am struggling to imagine how such a flimsy, seriously flawed and apparently scurrilous report could possibly be taken as such by anyone! I must say too up front that I am completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and refute absolutely the claim that I am a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Now let's look at the claims, one by one, and with reference to the [[|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|guidance]] kindly provided for us to refer to by Curatrice, give the "good reason for the evidence provided".
1. " MeasureIT has returned to the same practices"
2. "(pursuing [62] [63] Martinvl"
3. Was I "seeking to complicate and over qualify [64] mentions of the metric system"?
4. As for "resisting any suggestion that it is anything but an invention of revolutionaries and French ones at that [65] [66])"
5. We see "just as DeFacto and Defacto's already-blocked socks Ornaith, Pother, Canepa and Dkr1d9fs."
6. "Stylistic similarities are hard to show with just a few diffs;"
7. "it was only after engaging with Ornaith for some time that I recognised the stringing-out of negotiations and repeated returns to square one from our trouble with DeFacto, and I find the same here."
8. "But another aspect is clearer. MeasureIT has edited in bursts: 29th May 2012, 25th August - 1st September, 30th September and 30th December 2012 onwards."
9. "The August burst overlaps with the active period of blocked puppet Dkr1d9fs, 19th - 31st August."
10. "To take 27th August, MeasureIT edited 18:32-20:59 (UK times), Dkr1d9fs 21:19-22:00, and MeasureIT at 22:02."
11. "The times never overlap though sometimes the gaps are wider; I do wonder if there are other socks."
MeasureIT ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that these items, when looked at alongside the evidence posted at the opening of this SPI by User:NebY on 1 January 2013 demonstrate that DeFacto and MeasureIT are one and the same person. Martinvl ( talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Strange how Curatrice [71] and Eff Won [72] are the only two editors ever to accuse me of confirmation bias (handily wikilinked by "both" users), on both occasions when accused of sockpuppetry. There's a behavioural diff for you. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is that "Likely" based just on "technical data"? If so, does that data include iris scans or fingerprint images (or some other biometric data)? Because if it doesn't, there is no way that any conclusion other than "theoretically possible" could be deduced from IP numbers and whatever other data from the browser is captured. Any given computer and IP address could be used by any number of different people, and the browser would provide exactly the same data. So please explain exactly what assumptions have been used (as there must clearly be some) to arrive at that conclusion as there will evidently be innocent explanations which render them incorrect. Curatrice ( talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Both Stevengriffiths and MeasureIT show a surprising similarity – the accounts were opened within three days of each other with a small amount of activity on each. Apart from one edit by Stevengriffiths in June and a flurry of edits by MeasureIT in late August, both account remained inactive until recently. On 30 December, MeasureIT "launched an attack on John Wilkins", which resulted in him being exposed as a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Two days after MeasureIT was banned, Stevengriffiths’ account became active and it appears to be a continuation of MeasureIT’s account.
I am convinced that MeasureIT and Stevengriffiths are one and the same person - there is just too much similarity between them for it to be otherwise. This makes Stevengriffiths a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 17:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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:
Secondly, both User:DeFacto and User:Bill le Conquérant made small changes to the article
Kilogram.
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.
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.
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:
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)
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. Garamond Lethe 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
There are also similar contributions (all contribs on 10 and 11 February) from:
-- Boson ( talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 Lethe
t
c 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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.delanoy gabs adds 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for these two obvious socks:
It's under 200 IP addresses in total. I've also closed the related thread on ANI. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The IP is already blocked as a DeFacto sock. Same UK anti-metric trolling on the same pages. Hans Adler 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed Woo-ton is a self-declared (allegedly legitimate) sockpuppet [82]. His immediate edits though (basically his entire contributions history) is immediately contentious, so requesting checkuser to see whether this sockpuppetry is disruptive in nature, which is probably the case. Someguy1221 ( talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a similarity between User:WeeFreel and User:DeFacto (or his Sockpuppets). The chronology is:
DeFacto uses poor definitions of words
DeFacto blocked
DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel created.
Another DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel activated, then goes dormant.
Another DeFacto sockpuppet blocked, WeeFreel reactivated and targets sockpuppet's work.
User:WeeFreel made no additions to Wikipedia other than one or two to his user page and those summarised above. To me, he is saying WP:QUACK. Martinvl ( talk) 11:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
A new editor User:Our other kid appears to be a trouble-maker. His very first edit was to place this banner on an article with the comment "what's this table telling the reader, and where is it sourced from?" While this comment might be true, he continued in a belligerent manner. This, and subsequent posting such as this edit warring notice on User:Gareth_Griffith-Jones's talk page suggests that (s)he is familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. Moreover, when he placed the same edit warring note on my talk page here in response to me placing an explanation of the table confirms that he is a trouble-maker further backed up by the utterly stupid objections that he raised Talk:M4 motorway#Unclear timeline table here in the article M4 motorway.
At this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that he is the banned user USer:DeFacto who, over the last year has been launching one sockpuppet attack after the other against me. Since 1-January 2013 these include User: Curatrice (B locked 9 January 2013), User: MeasureIT (blocked 9 January 2013), User:Stevengriffiths (blocked 19 January 2013]], User:Bill le Conquérant (blocked 22 February 2013]], User: Woo-ton-woo (blocked 20 February 2013), User:WeeFreel (Blocked 23 February 2013]]. In addition User:DeFacto has been using IP addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.*. Martinvl ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The opening sentence above is a weak attempt to set the scene and to influence the frame of mind of the reader to be negative. This looks like the work of a sore loser to me. His attempts to defend a poor quality addition have been thoroughly rejected by those who care about the quality of the article. Above is is sequence of scandalous misrepresentations, designed to attempt to get me reprimanded. Instead he should be looking at how the timeline can be improved and possibly become meaningful.
The banner was a reflection of the appalling timeline that confronted the reader. A timeline with no caption and no key. A timeline that looked like a bar chart, but without meaning. In parallel a discussion had been started on the talkpage. Within minutes of that banner being placed, and described, another editor removed it with the comment: "Rm template. Nothing confusing about it. If you cannot understand it, that is your problem ... work it out!". Clearly designed to inflame and infuriate, and without regard for the poor timeline reader. The banner was true, and nothing had been done to clarify the timeline, so I restored immediately. The rude editor of apparent long standing removed it again without a fix, accompanied by an inflamatory and unacceptable reply on the talkpage. So I restored the banner again - and he removed it again. At this point (3 reverts each), the rude editor issued an edit-war warning, which was countered by a similar warning. Then another editor (Martinvl) waded in, removing banners and generally inflaming the situation, and he too received an edit-war warning (the one he has come here to complain about). Then Gareth Griffith-Jones had erased both his and Martinvl's edit-war warnings (but not mine). In the meantime other editors joined in, including The Rambling Man who supported the case that the timeline was very poor.
I reject the charge of making "utterly stupid objections" - the timeline was useless and pointless, and needed fixing.
And what's all that arrogant nonsense at the bottom about "At this stage I cannot rule out the possibility that he is the banned user USer:DeFacto who, over the last year has been launching one sockpuppet attack after the other against me."? A smokescreen to hide behind I think. The timeline is crap - end of.
I'm out now for a few days, so don't assume that silence is acceptance of any further ill-conceived threats or allegations - as it is not.
Note too that no notification of this report was given to me - a clear sign that it is a stealth attempt to avoid counter-claims. Our other kid ( talk) 10:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Cap-Saint-Martin is obviously an experience editor
Did he really not know what "ANI" stood for, or was he trying to create the image of being a new user?
Is he American or is he British? It should not matter, but a few interesting things emerged from Cap-Saint-Martin’s various edits
The above clearly shows that he is trying to hide behind a false image. So who is he? I believe that he is
User:DeFacto. The following backs up my belief that Cap-Saint-Martin and DeFacto are one and the same:
Attempts to link DeFacto and Cap-Saint-Martin geographically could run into problems. It is believed that DeFacto changed his ISP earlier this year and was able to use dynamically allocated IP addresses in the range 212.183.*.* to avoid being blocked. In light of this, I cannot dismiss his "confession" to having used a particular IP address before registering his user name as being a way of saying "I am really DeFacto, but I have found a proxy IP address from which I can disguise myself".
In short, I believe that User:Cap-Saint-Martin is User:DeFacto is trying to disguise himself, but his disguise fails the WP:QUACK test. Martinvl ( talk) 14:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I can't see any evidence of an editor called User:DeFacto being involved in any of the edits or discussions I've been involved in, so I don't see where the sockpuppet theory comes from.
Surely you need at the very minimum evidence showing that:
What we actually have here is:
Let me add that this isn't the only place that Martinvl is making trouble and wasting people's time because when I recently asked an administrator for advice in tackling his obtuse and disruptive behaviour, I was told that "This editor [User:Martinvl] has been systemically doing things across all of UKRD, one of the reasons why the project has been far behind the United States and Canada projects. I think at some point a more large-scale discussion needs to be held, and if that fails, a WP:RFC/U."
Another question worth examining is why he went behind my back like this (I don't see any message about this anywhere else). If he wasn't sure where I came from, or why, why didn't he simply ask me first? Perhaps the reason was that he didn't really care about the real reasons - why spoil another chance to make trouble with the actual facts. Cap-Saint-Martin ( talk) 22:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Blocked but awaiting tags As an admin who has more than a little experience with DeFacto and his drawer full of socks, this is a fairly easy one and I've blocked the account indefinitely. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
CheckUser requested Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention Given DeFacto's socking history, I think a sleeper check would be reasonable here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe that User:AnnieLess is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto.
My view is that these points, when considered together, say WP:QUACK. Martinvl ( talk) 11:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
1. The account User:Up and in was created at 06:16, 1 May 2013 - about 24 hours after a sockpuppet of Defacto was banned. The account remained dormant until 26 May 2013.
2. User:Up and in is obviously familiar with Wikipedia as is shown by this change. (This change was his seventh change) User:Up and in has contributed to five articles in three totally unrelated areas:
3. Although both DeFacto and User:Up and in made a few minor improvements to articles, both have the same clumsy style of asserting themselves when trying to prove a point:
4. Both DeFacto and Up and in have the same style of detracting from statements:
I believe it beyond reasonable doubt that User:Up and in has been WP:HOUNDING me. Moreover the evidence suggest that User:Up and in is not the new editor that (s)he appears to be. Given the similarity between User:Up and in and User:DeFacto given above is sufficient to pass the WP:QUACK test - in other words, that User:Up and in is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl ( talk) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Additional notes by proposer
Since filing the SPI request, further evidence has come to light.
In his incarnation as User:Cap-Saint-Martin, (SPI filed 20 March 2013) DeFacto appeared to have changed Service Providers - his new Service Provider allocates IP addresses dynamically every time a user logs on. It is therefore not easy to identify DeFacto from an IP address. In trying to build up a profile of DeFacto, I came across a few interesting items:
These points are, in my opinion WP:QUACKs. Martinvl ( talk) 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Topic, interaction, and other editing behaviour (see contribs) indicate that these are socks of a banned user evading a block. The claim to be an existing user (at User:Dissimilar name) looks like a preemptive explanation of the user's familiarity with concepts like edit-warring. Checkuser action could be used to look for confirmation of the apparent sockpuppet's claim to be a long-term ip editor (rather than a sockpuppet). Boson ( talk) 15:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I believe that User:Cobulator is a sock-puppet of the banned user User:DeFacto, operating from a sleeper account set up before DeFacto was banned. User:DeFacto was banned as a result of his continued disruption to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. Cobulator has shown signs of becoming disruptive to the article History of the metric system
Disruption to article History of the metric system
Cobulator is clearly attacking the same pages as did DeFacto's proven sockpuppets.
Creating and abandoning stubs
Both Cobulator and DeFacto have a track record of creating stubs and then abandoning them.
Anti-metric editing
Both DeFacto and Cobulator have taken a strong anti-metric stance.
These three similarities appear to me to be shouting WP:QUACK. Martinvl ( talk) 15:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a ridiculous and unfounded attack. Martinvl seems to resort to this tactic each time his will is challenged - he recently tried a similarly weakly argued attack against 'Up and in' when challenged over his attempts to force a point in another article. The trouble is, mud sticks, and the false-accuser is not held to account. The comparisons he makes above, between myself and DeFacto are ludicrous. I was editing concurrently with DeFacto for a long while before he was banned - I started in November 2011 and DeFacto wasn't banned until April 2012 - why would I do that if I was DeFacto? Does Martinvl suppose that DeFacto foresaw his demise, 7 months ahead of time, and invented me to carry on in his footsteps? And if that is his assumption, why does Martinvl think that I waited so long, more than a year after DeFacto's ban, to continue his work?
Please examine Martinvl's behaviour, his edits and his arguments, both here and in numerous other places, then look at the only edit I made to History of the metric system and its talkpage and tell us who is being disruptive here. Martinvl is trying to get me removed so that he doesn't have to answer the points I have raised on Talk:History of the metric system, which simply challenge an aspect of his interpretation of the history.
It is also indicative of his desperation here that Martinvl describes my challenge of the weight he gave to just one sentence from a 480 page book (he reinterprets it and puts it as the first sentence in the article lead) as me having taken "a strong anti-metric stance". What is he up to? Cobulator ( talk) 08:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the above IP accounts are sockpuppets of User:DeFacto.
Case against User:212.183.140.15
Case against 78.46.43.39
Case against 212.183.128.167
Since these accounts are all dynamic accounts no action can be taken against them other than to note that they are probable sockpuppets. Their existance is however holding up a DYK nomination, so a statement that these are all sockpuppet accounts will allow me to strike out the text added from these accounts and progress the nomination. Martinvl ( talk) 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(Addition 20:38 18 July 2013)
Case against 212.183.128.138, 212.183.140.41, 212.183.140.38 and 212.183.128.138
Putting this together we have a very loud WP:QUACK. There is no point in blocking these accounts, but if this collection of sockpuppets is confirmed, I will be requesting protection for articles that are being targeted by DeFacto.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This diff and the preceding and following discussion is typical of DeFacto's debating style, coupled with simultaneous edit warring. To those who have interacted with DeFacto on this topic, it is quite apparent that banned úser DeFacto is ignoring his/her ban and continuing the same pattern of edit warring and WP:IDHT "debates" on metrication topics, now using a mobile device. DeFacto long ago made the editing experience on the topic of metrication so unpleasant that other editors were driven away. I think the best solution would be a long period of semi-protection for articles this user has focused on, in particular
if necessary extending that to similar articles to which the socketmaster might turn his/her attention (e.g. Kilogram, Stone (unit)), together with increased vigilance regarding the creation of further sockpuppet accounts. In time, that might even encourage a return of more collaborative and knowledgeable editors. -- Boson ( talk) 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There are no dynamic accounts. There are dynamic IPs. An IP user is the opposite to an account, Martinvl. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yet another sock recently blocked. IMHO it is the time to soft-block 212.183.140.0/26 and 212.183.128.128/26 due to persistency and scale of the abuse. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't allow the actions of one user to taint ALL the users of one ISP. I've been told by a Wikipedia administrator today that customers of the ISP issuing the 212.183 IPs are no longer allowed to edit articles related to the metric system. Is that correct, and if so, where is that policy documented?
Why can't edits be judged on their individual merit, rather than being judged by what the IP address is? This is nothing more than downright, unsupportable, discrimination.
Comments I've received today lead me to believe that, in general, Wikipedia administrators do not understand how dynamic IP addresses are allocated. I have been called a deliberate IP hopper and a sock puppet by administrators today. Are administrators trained? Are the mechanisms used by mobile broadband suppliers explained to them? Do they know that tthis ISP issues IP addresses dynamically? Do they know that a customer is allocated an IP address randomly and that IP addresses can change, even during a single uninterrupted editing session - without the customer even knowing about it? Do they know that he same IP ranges are available throughout the whole of the UK - publicly, to a huge, potentially unregistered, customer base? I think not. 212.183.140.21 ( talk) 12:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I get it now. All these false accusations of sock-puppetry arise from here. Presumably, the idea is to report suspects here, and they are investigated by someone who knows what they are doing. What we currently have is a mass of allegations, based purely on the IP address and article being editd, and undisciplined admins jumping to absurd and unsupportable conclusions based purly on the fact that someone (anyone) has made a report. Let's clam down now, retract the allegations made that have not been proven, and let us all get on with our lives. I came only to correct an article, yet seemed to have spent days going around in circles trying to preserve my changes. And I see now, that those changes that I've tried to make, have been undone, not because they were wrong, but because of the absurd allegations being made here. Dynamic IP addresses are just that. There is not a relationship between the editor and the address.
All of this has an air of irrationality and panic about it, which can do nothing but bring the role of Wikipedia administrator into disrepute. These allegations have not been supported by showing that any harm has been done to Wikipedia, in fact they have not been supported at all. They all rely on the ridiculous assumption that all editors using this IP and editing these articles must be harassed, tirelessly until they cease. Is that how wikipedia treats its volunteers now? If there is no harm done, then, for God's sake, please drop this blunt stick. 212.183.140.21 ( talk) 13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Standard DeFacto MO, Vodafone IPs as normal, standard "it's not me, Wikipedia is broken, everyone picks on me for no reason" attempt at defence. Quack times eleventy thousand. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that both User:An old feller and User:EzEdit are sockpuppets of DeFacto. The rationale is as follows:
Late addition
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As usual: The MO fits DeFacto, and we know they were active at that point with other socks. Quacking is prevalent here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The first indication of potential sockpuppetry is that FishGF looks like a new user but immediately starts doing a GA review of an article on the metric system by MartinGL, implicitly claiming to be an uninvolved editor. One pattern of DeFacto's behaviour was to find fault with things written by Martinvl and to object to statements about the metric system - remaining civil, but endlessly debating minutiae and points of editorial judgement long after all the arguments had been presented and discussed and general consensus reached, until other editors lost their temper or lost interest (if not the will to live). This became an enormous waste of everyone's time. Ironically, this behaviour can actually be helpful in the early stages since it helps to identify errors and inadequacies, but in the long term it is unconstructive and drives other editors away. So far, FishGF's behaviour seems to be consistent with this. On the basis of behaviour, it looks as if this account is controlled by the banned user DeFacto. A particular problem with this account is that it is being used to conduct two GA reviews
and we should not feel happy about an article being given (or refused) a GA classification by a banned user. This is obviously a problem with the GA review but it may not be appropriate to discuss the sockpuppetry issue there. -- Boson ( talk) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: I just range blocked 212.183.128.0/24 again following this. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
EzEdit: New user (Registered 7/13/2013; 131 edits;), began almost immediately interacting with Martinvl on a template page [84] and elsewhere [85] [86] [87]. Article space edits are all measurement related and tend towards tendentious [88].
Credibility gap: New user (Registered 1/10/2013; 50 edits;), began almost immediately editing at WP:MOSNUM [89] then to Martinvl's just-GA'd History of the metric system [90]. Edits have tended towards tendentious. [91]
I don't expect a CU to be useful; Defacto has done this often enough to know what s/he is doing. In this case, I think behavioral evidence suffices.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I refute this allegation emphatically and have raised at report on WP:ANI in relation to the behaviour of the reporting user account. Credibility gap ( talk) 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy here a little I've posted to that ANI discussion: DeFacto's habits include creating accounts with a few edits and leaving them in the sock drawer for months while playing with other puppets, sometimes in back-to-back sessions editing first with one account, then with another (eg Ornaith and Pother, Curatrice and MeasureIT). Credibility gap's contribution history fits this pattern closely enough that an SPI request cannot be regarded as a breach of WP:AGF. Though most contributions date from 17 October 2013, the account was created on 11 January 2013 [92] with 11 edits creating a user page that is a detailed pre-emptive refutation of any future accusations of socking. Minutes later [93] DeFacto created a user page for hir sock Stevengriffiths, an account created in May 2012 but left in the drawer since then. The next day Credibility edited hir own talk page and made one other edit but no more in January while DeFacto carried on using the revived Stevengriffiths account vigorously until it was blocked as a sock on January 20th and talk-page blocked on 21st after the usual protestations. NebY ( talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe Freimütig to be a sock of DeFacto following his behaviour in the past 48 hours on the Red Bull RB10 article:
These are all classic signs of DeFacto's behaviour, particularly the demands for a consensus to be established, the refusal to allow any edits but his own preferred version to the page, and his habit of sitting on the page and immediately reverting any edits he does not like. Another user, Bretonbanquet, has noted that Freimütig is likely to be a sockpuppet of DeFacto here. Freimütig is yet to display some of DeFacto's more disruptive behaviours, but my experience with him has taught me that his behaviour follows a pattern and that what he is urrently showing on the page is only the first stage.
I therefore conclude that it is highly likely that Freimütig is a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Given the sheer number of sockpuppet investigations into accounts that may be DeFacto (over sixty since May 2012, including registered edits and IP addresses), I feel that if Freimütig is demonstrated to be a sock of DeFacto, then there is a case to take to long-term abuse. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Account created 6 Dec 2012 [112] with three userspace edits on 1 Feb 2013. Account lay idle until 4 Dec 2013, then began advancing a argument [113] [114] at Kilometers per hour that bears an uncanny resemblance to the argument made by the DeFacto sock Ornaith (e.g., [115]).
Given DeFacto's persistent socking in this area, I think the above is sufficient to justify a block on behavioral grounds alone. I've request a CU as well.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 01:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The username "Béal Orna" can be roughly translated as "Voice of Ornaith". "Béal" is an Irish word meaning "mouth" and "Orna" is a common abbreviation of the Irish forename "Ornaith" that was used (see above) for lengthy socking on this peculiarly lame detail, even going to DRN, and for little else. NebY ( talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks as if DeFacto has created numerous accounts and is using each of them for a restricted set of topics.
QuiteWry is another user to check for block evasion by banned user DeFacto. Their edits look to me like a destructive attack on the article Realisation (metrology), which was created by the main user targeted by DeFacto. The ostensibly new editor first removed most of the content, then PRODed the article on the basis of lack of content, with this edit – with no edit summary. User AnnieLess, a sockpuppet of DeFacto, who clearly doesn't know much about the use and importance of realisation in the context of metrology, already clashed with his target on the topic of realisation of metric units (e.g. at Talk:Metric system#Realisability and replicable prototypes(!)). I think the behavioural evidence is enough, but it might be worth checking for others using the same block-evasion method. -- Boson ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe Joetri10 to be a sock of DeFacto based on some of his behaviour at Talk:2014 Formula One season (and these archives).
The problem with catching a DeFacto sock is that he has displayed such a wide variety of disruptive behaviours over so many accounts that any difficult or obstinate editor probably displayed some of his behaviours at some point. However, he always did have one favourite tactic: stalling discussions on talk pages when the debate did not go his way. As soon as other editors started making progress that he did not like, he would step in and try to restart the debate, forcing everyone to go back over scorched earth and explain their positions again. A single slip-up or inconsistency would be taken as proof that the editor's argument was invalid, which would only embolden him. Joetri has been doing exactly this on the abovelisted talk page.
The issue in question relates to the best way to arrange the team and driver table on the 2014 Formula One season article. The system of allocating numbers to cars has changed for 2014, leaving the editors uncertain as to the best way to present that information. Joetri10 has taken a very particular position in this debate:
Like I said, DeFacto displayed a wide range of behaviours that were disruptive to say the least, so it is possible that Joetri10 is not DeFacto at all, but just a stubborn editor. However, forcing debates to go in circles when he felt they were not reaching the resolution he wanted was always DeFacto's favourite tactic, and the one he displayed more often than any other. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I've interacted with a number of DeFacto socks and I'm certainly sympathetic to the frustrations they cause. However, I'm not certain this user's history matches up well with DeFacto. The first SPI here was from 06May2012; Joetri10's account started editing on 4Jan2011. Joetri10 makes a number of newbie errors (citing youtube, not signing talk page posts, etc.) while DeFacto was editing with a high level of familiarity. I could believe that DeFacto would set up a sock by making lots of errors, but having the foresight to do so several months before getting banned is unlikely. That said, a CU wouldn't hurt.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 04:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that Passy2 may be a sockpuppet of the banned user, DeFacto, who was known to be an enthusiastic campaigner for imperial measures [ [130]] and who has a long history of sock puppetry. [ [131]]
Passy 2 joined Wikipedia on 25 November 2013 [ [132]], However, his/her first edit on 27 November was “to better comply with MOSNUM” [ [133]] The edit used the disp=flip function - remarkable for a Newbie’s first edit but more consistent with a sockpuppet who wants to put imperial measures first .
Passy2 seems to go round after Archon2488 , flipping the displays to be imperial first[ [134]] [ [135]] [ [136]] Once again this is out of character for a new editor but very characteristic of a sockpuppet who wants to put the Imperial system first..
Edits by Passy2 appear to be focused on putting imperial measures first whether justifiable or not. [
[137]] [
[138]] [
[139]]
Passy2 won’t accept being outvoted [ [140]] Even an RFC on units didn’t stop him. [ [141]]
This pattern of editing is troublesome in itself and suggests that the account was created to fight the good fight for imperial measures. The tactic of endless argumentation is also consistent with DeFacto’s modus operandi. [ [142]] [ [143]] and [ [144]]
Please check this user. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Michael Glass ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Suspected sockpuppets “Chose another name” and “Eddystone Bill”
I think that both may be sockpuppets of DeFacto, the banned user
[145] and sockpuppeteer
[146] who continually campaigns for imperial measures.
‘’Chose another name’’ joined Wikipedia on 19 February 2014, the date that the previous sockpuppet case against DeFacto was opened. [147]
Since then, ‘’Chose another name’’ has made more than 40 edits, the vast majority of which have been to put miles first in a variety of articles [148]
“Chose another name’s editing practice shows the following patterns which suggests that it is a sockpuppet.
Please check on these users. I believe that they are sockpuppets of DeFacto. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Michael Glass ( talk) 04:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Based on a review of the edits and extensive experience with this sockmaster, I'd say the SPI is warranted and a block of both accounts could be made on the edit pattern alone.
Garamond Lethe
t
c 02:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the above assessments. The pattern matches DeFacto's MO well enough to make checkuser superfluous. -- Boson ( talk) 14:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There's some behaviour we'd miss by looking at this Wikipedia alone. Two days after Chose another name was created here, DeFacto pursued hir anti-metric campaign and vendetta against
Martinvl by following him to the Simple English Wikipedia as Centaur
[162], where s/he ultimately succeeded in having both of them blocked. (The admin's block log comment for Centaur was Reciprocal block: Violating the "one-strike" rule: Continuing problems that had him banned as DeFacto on en.wiki
. As Martinvl shows no sign of socking once blocked but DeFacto is happy to create more socks, this probably counted as a 'win' in DeFacto's eyes.) As Centaur, DeFacto edited often on Simple until 2 April 2014 and returned to appealing hir block there from 18 April to 21 April 2014. Chose another name began hir "miles-first" campaign here on 22 April.
I haven't examined other Wikipedias. I do have the impression that DeFacto's socking on this Wikipedia has become deliberately single-minded with socks which are increasingly SPAs, perhaps in the hope that identification will be harder if fewer tells are provided. NebY ( talk) 15:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting NebY's point on DeFacto's behaviour, but ultimately we don't need to take it into account. I agree with others that the case is obvious enough that no checkuser is required - just block and be done with it. Kahastok talk 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me — Darkwind ( talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
New user account created June 24, 2014. Three of first five edits (
[170],
[171],
[172]) are edit-warring at
Human scale consistent with DeFacto's previous efforts to de-emphasize metric measurement, e.g., "The
metric system, which is based on precisely reproducible and measurable physical quantities"
is changed to "The
metric system, which is based on other more reproducible physical quantities"
. With the exception of creating their userpage, all other edits have focused on metrication at
Human scale.
This remark left on
Archon 2488's
talk page is, to my ear, very much in keeping with the tone and obsessions of DeFacto. I don't usually reopen this SPI unless the sock has several dozen edits, but given the nature of the evidence and the long history of this user, 14 edits is sufficient. Note that CU hasn't been useful the last several times, so I'm requesting a block based on behavioral evidence only.
Lesser Cartographies (
talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The user has not done much editing since this was filed, so probably best to close this as stale. Will refile if the disruptive behavior resumes. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I should point out that his very first edit was to revert some edits that I had made to the article on human scale because he considered that they constituted "undiscussed metrification" or some such. Strange behaviour for a new editor. He then insisted several times that the edits in question "needed more discussion", despite being flatly contradicted by several editors. I explained the MoS to him more than once, but he ignored this. He seemed to apologise and drop the stick but then brought the issue up again on my talk page. All this is a classic DeFacto performance. I was previously harassed by another DeFacto SP in a similar way. Archon 2488 ( talk) 22:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
DeFacto has a long history of emphasizing imperial units over metric in UK-related articles, and an extensive history of socking to do this. Initial edits of new account ProProbly focused on emphasizing metric over imperial for French articles (e.g., [173], [174]) with the novel rationale "to comply with the French tradition". Subsequent edits used that rationale to de-emphasize metric units at UK articles (e.g., [175], [176]), using advanced template options. These edits were reverted, which led to classic DeFacto complaints on user pages ( [177], [178]), a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers ( [179]) and a trip to ANI ( [180], compare to [181]). Not bad for an account with all of 75 edits. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 03:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I have suspected Jaggee of being a DeFacto SP since he started reverting my edits with the pretense of "restoring the English variety" (four such reverts in August). In fact, many of these reversions also had the effect of removing unit conversions (in one in particular case, the
Unruh Effect, I had not actually changed any spellings because I replaced some unit names with symbols). This account’s only contribution since then has been to weigh in to the latest dispute with ProProbly, by reverting the attempts by Lesser Cartographies to undo ProProbly's reverts of my edits.
Archon 2488 (
talk) 12:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Baaarny has the metrication obsession [182] and came in swinging in defense of DeFacto below, all within their first 12 edits. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baaarny; that should probably be closed, as DeFacto is the master. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Agreed. The previous complaint against ProProbly ended with this comment: "Closing for now...if the case can be bolstered with new evidence then please refile." The edit history shows an obsession with putting imperial units first in British articles. Examples include this and this and this. I think that ProProbly has now provided enough evidence to cook his goose. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Admission by Jaggee
OK, I confess to it all, I am the DeFacto SP. How could I refute such skilfully assembled evidence against me. It was the way the filer so expertly juxtaposed the diffs of my work as Defacto with my work as Jaggee that clinched it I think. I realise it would be futile to try to argue with that. Damn my naiveness in believing I could go under the radar and get away with criticising the filer's expert edits and succinct edit summaries here and here correcting the ignorant spellings of a previous editor. Worse still, I made, what with hindsight was, the fatal error of criticising this edit, I should have been more respectful of the editor's right to drive a coach and horses through the WP:UNITS guidance to use miles for such distances in UK articles. The evidence against me is impeccable, Nice work!
Evidence request from ProProbly
For the benefit of those of us who are not familiar with the works of DeFacto can you provide some diffs of his work too, ones which you believe shows the accounts to be related. Also as your vaguely worded submission shows no reason to suspect any connection between them, can you actually explain why you believe your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. ProProbly ( talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Baaarny
Wow, the metricate-Wikipedia-at-all-costs-brigade are getting very twitchy now. Their cover is being slowly, but surely, eroded. Their desperation has now led to me, the messenger, being simultaneously accused by one of them as being the sock-master of DeFato and by another as being a sock-puppet of DeFacto. Clearly they can't both be right!
I came here to urge caution when reading Michael Glass's affected and unconvincing contribution to this investigation, and Lesser Cartographies has now taken the opportunity to use my presence as an excuse to imply that I came to defend DeFacto. How incredibly transparent his feigned indignity and incredulity is!
I'll repeat here my comment from the other SPI against me. I'll explain exactly who I am, why I am here with this account, and explain how this account is a legitimate alternate account fully complying with current Wikipedia policy.
I can confirm that this is not my only Wikipedia account. However, this is a legitimate and authorised use of an alternate account as I will explain below.
I created this account solely to protect my privacy. In real life, I, like Michael Glass (the filer of the first SPI against me), am a member of, associate of or participant in the discussion forums of several pro-metrication advocacy groups, including the UK Metric Association, Metrication Matters and the US Metric Association. My real life identity is readily discernible from my main account name, however, unlike Michael, and at least 2 [possibly at least 4 now as others have emerged here] other similarly active Wikipedia editors that I am aware of, I do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to further the agenda of these metrication organisations. In fact I deliberately only edit articles which are NOT in any way related to units of measurement, and so I am not personally recognisable from my editing work here. If I were to use my main account name in relation to units of measurement edits, I would almost certainly be identified. And, in case it isn't clear from what I write above, I am NOT the sock-master [or now sock-puppet] of "DeFacto", "Chose Another Name", "Eddystone Bill", "There is another possibility", or of any other account for that matter.
It goes without saying, that Michael's motives in raising that [, and supporting this, ] SPI are clear, he wants to save his own skin, and has chosen to try to get me blocked, by fair means or foul, so that he can continue to use Wikipedia to promote the goals of these advocacy groups unchallenged. Baaarny ( talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Baaarny and ProProbly may be actually the same person.
I believe that Baaarny is a sockpuppet. The evidence can be found here. Baaarny's history demonstrates that this sockpuppet is just a one-purpose account.
We now have incontrovertible evidence - incontrovertible because it is by Baaarny's own admission:
This sounds like DeFacto. However, "there is another possibility". Could it be another editor using the DeFacto franchise for his own ends?
In either case the sockpuppets should be banned. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Retaliatory SPI
A bad-faith retaliatory SPI has been filed here. I'd appreciate it if the closing admin took care of both. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 12:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I opened an AN/I thread on this matter, but I suppose I ought take it here. Take a look at the SPI archive for DeFacto. IPs from the same ISP were associated with DeFacto and blocked way back in 2012. Specifically, the connection is quite clear in these accounts created by DeFacto. These IPs have been causing disruption, one has followed me around, and have both annoyed me and obfuscated various things. This follows the usual trend from DeFacto. Drmies suggested at the AN/I thread that a range block is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I believe that these IPs are acting as strawman socks for another user. It does not, in various ways, match the pattern of DeFacto's previous socks, and his comments on MOSNUM talk in particular are a caricature of DeFacto's style, designed to be knocked down. This, for example, appears to me to be inviting ridicule for the position it appears on first sight to advocate. The editor probably feels that he get away with whatever he wants because he assumes that it will be blamed on DeFacto. And FWIW I do have a name in mind.
Regardless of all that, I do not dispute the obvious fact that these IPs are acting as disruptive sockpuppets for a named user with close knowledge of the discussions on this topic over the past few years, and therefore meets the standard under WP:ILLEGIT. Kahastok talk 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@ JamesBWatson: At this stage we have an IP sock that has made no known edits in over two weeks (since 21 October). Both suspected editors are already indeffed and the one I suspected is already subject to a separate SPI. We know the IP hopped over the space of less than 24 hours, so there's nothing to say he'll use any of these ever again. May I suggest that we would be better off keeping our collective powder dry on the basis that there's no administrative action that can possibly be taken at this point? Kahastok talk 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
As can clearly be seen in the list of contributions from the first of these IP addresses, someone is using the new general sanctions as a pretext for reverting any change to how units are presented in UK articles. Clearly this is someone who has been following the recent developments at WT:MOSNUM and has an axe to grind. This is all, of course, classic DeFacto behaviour, and it would appear to be a continuation of the disruptive IP address sockpuppeting from last month. Archon 2488 ( talk) 01:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
These edits [196], and their summaries, are clear evidence of someone editing with an anti-metric agenda. There are derogatory and silly comments in the edit summaries such as "this is the English version, not the French - and the majority here primarily speak UK/US units", which is classic DeFacto stuff. I have left clear notification on his talk page [197] of why his edits are not appropriate. For a brand-new account, this behaviour is extremely suspicious, and many of us have seen it several times before. Archon 2488 ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Archon 2488 ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is clearly intimidation by Archon 2488. I have foiled his attempt to systematically and stealthily (note his misleading edit summaries) metricate large quantities of articles without first discussing his plans with the community. What I have done is unflip his undiscussed an unnecessary flipping of primary units to be metric. That restorative action of mine should be applauded, and he should be sanctioned, not only for making false accusations of sockpuppetting, but for maliciously disrupting Wikipedia with his mass flips and conversions. Ceipt ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I am disturbed by the reaction to my edits here, it appears to me that I have stumbled into the middle of a witch hunt of some sort, and become the chief suspect. Where did all these contributors pop out from? I haven't seen them around any of the articles I have been involved in. And why do they imagine that their unevidenced pontifications should be listened to?
Shall I explain where I have come from, and why, and my interest in Archon 2488's edits and why I felt compelled to try to halt his systematic execution of his self-confessed "opposition to the preferential use of medieval units" and his attempts to "Renounce ignorance and support science"/ Or will that be commented out as "irrelevant discussion" too? Ceipt ( talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In one important sense it's not totally irrelevant: DeFacto has a long history of going on the offensive as soon as he is called into question. He knows perfectly well what the standard WP measurement policy is, of course, but he likes to feign ignorance. One important commonality is the obsession with edit summaries: here [200] ProProbly (a previous sock of DeFacto) criticised my edit summaries and accused me of hiding "undiscussed metrification". His angle is usually that switching unit order to metric-first "needs community discussion" or some such – compare this [201] edit summary of Ceipt with examples such as [202] and [203] by ProProbly (also complaining about edit summaries, which started the discussion on my talk page). The pattern of following one particular other editor (in this case, me), reverting his edits and starting pointless discussions is also there – compare the pattern of ProProbly's edits [204] and Jaggee's edits [205] (in the period just before he was blocked) with Ceipt's: [206]. Archon 2488 ( talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Timpace is a sockpuppet of the banned editor DeFacto. My reasons are as follows:
[208] The addition of a disp=flip is quite sophisticated for a new editor.
Information on Hugh8 is added below. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that Hugh8 is a sockpuppet of the banned user DeFacto.
According to Hugh8’s edit history, he made his first edit on 14 March 2015 [212] and yet on 31 March he wrote about me: “His edit history is also full of ducks and dives aimed at 100% metrication. He's relentlessly substituting existing references with metric references in 100s of articles, then coming back later and metricating them on the pretence that the references give metric! Crafty, eh? And his name is all over numerous disputes about that.” [213]
These are the words of an anti-metric campaigner who has been around Wikipedia for a long time. This mixture of malice, exaggeration and invention is not the work of someone who came to Wikipedia at the beginning of March 2015. It is more characteristic of a seasoned sockpuppet. But Hugh8 did not target me before making this comment.
Hugh8’s edit history makes it clear that he largely concentrated on reversing the edits of Archon2488 and MetricStronk.
His first edit was to remove the flipping of a measurement so that the display was miles first (about Hatra in Syria) with the edit summary “Not allowed” [214]
Edits 2, and 3 were to reverse edits by MetricStronk. [215] [216]
Hugh8’s next two edits reveal a knowledge of how to edit, beyond what one would expect of a new editor. (A two stage operation to get rid of the second last - and last - edit of Archon2488.) [217] [218]
Hugh8’s next edit removed MetricStronk’s edit without disturbing an intermediate edit. Again, this is a remarkable edit for a newbie, but unsurprising in an experienced sockpuppet. [219]
After a stint of copy editing, Hugh8 went round and modified Archon2488’s edits, as shown in these diffs: [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225]
Hugh8, like Timpace, occasionally forgets to sign his comments on the talk page.
I believe that the sockmaster is using different sockpuppets for different editors: Hugh8 for MetricStronk and Archon2488; Timpace and another suspected sock for me. This is yet another ruse to make it harder to join the dots.
Another suspected sock is, LowlandLaddie. He fixed on an edit and citation of mine to Bournemouth. Just Like Timpace and Hugh8, he occasionally forgets to sign his comments on the talk page. [229] This editor also bears other hallmarks of a DeFacto sock, as I will document later. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
In just 12 edits, LowlandLaddie’s edit history shows quite striking resemblances to the characteristics revealed especially by Timpace but also by Hugh8.
Forgetting to sign his comments:
LowlandLaddie [230] [231] [232].
Reversing edits when he has made a mistake.
LowlandLaddie: [237] (mistake with a URL)
Timpace: [238] (“didn't give summary, so will do it again”)
Reversing citations when websites cited have metric information:
LowlandLaddie: [239]
Timpace: [240]
Intemperate comments
LowlandLaddie: “…Michael Glass using a false statement…. the original … is NOT a travel brochure, but is the authoritative website of the body charged with managing the coastal site.
Davey 2010: "It is a travel brochure pure and simple…."
LowlandLaddie: "Whoops, I just realised I was using the wrong url… Sorry for my confusion." [241] or [242]
Timpace: When an editor pointed out – politely – that an edit of his was out of line with MOSNUM, Timpace’s response: “MOSUNIT doesn't support this sort of defiance.” (This diff gives the discussion in context.)
[243]
Hugh8: “It's clear now where your loyalties lie, and I'm sorry I wasted my time coming to you for help in trying to reverse "MetricStronk"'s work, and "Archon 2488"'s support of it. Now we have you, "Metric Stronk", "Archon 2488" and "Michael Glass" all apparently working to the same barely hidden agenda.” (Part of a rant to be found at this diff: [244]
Conclusion
I think these diffs point out the striking similarities between LowlandLaddie, Timpace and Hugh8. It should also be borne in mind that LowlandLaddie and Timpace were targeted on my edits while almost all of Hugh8's edits were directed at Archon2488, MetricStronk and others. The exception, and it is significant, was his rant here: [245] . This last edit is the capstone that demonstrates beyond doubt the close relationship between Hugh8 and the other two editors.
The use of multiple sockpuppets is typical of Defacto, as may be seen from [246]. The example from 30 April 2014 is particularly relevant [247]. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
No doubt about it; the edit patterns are the same as ProProbly, Ceipt and the rest of them. His ongoing warring over units on the Cerne Abbas Giant page is a clear violation of the terms laid out in the General Sanctions for UK units. Archon 2488 ( talk) 13:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The behavioral evidence Michael has assembled is convincing (and depressing). Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Editied for clarification. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 11:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, definitely typical DeFacto behaviour pattern. The investigation should be extended to include:
who exhibits similar behaviour. The targeting of Archon 2488, the single-minded anti-metric, pro-Imperial agenda, and the violation or "creative" interpretation of WP:METRIC are typical of the numerous socks of DeFacto. Confirmation of behavioural patterns should probably also be based on the users and diffs in the archived sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive (q.v.), taking account of DeFacto's block evasion tactics, which should by now be well-known to those involved in these sockpuppet investigations. Is this enormous time sink a candidate for the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse? -- Boson ( talk) 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Nothing has happened for three weeks. Is there an issue that still needs to be addressed? Michael Glass ( talk) 00:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Michael, you were editing against WP:MOSNUM and were edit warring to impose it. This is a classic tactic I've seen you repeat on other articles, you edit against the recommendation of WP:MOSNUM then demand its never changed unless its discussed ad nauseum first. And in discussing you'll never agree to change. You were being disruptive here not Timpace, whose edits were constructive and to improve the article. The so-called behavioural evidence is weak and the Checkuser evidence shows this wasn't the same person. I note that the comments are now descending into personal abuse, I am not a de facto defending sockpuppets, merely someone who commented that once again new editors were being accused of being sockpuppters on very flimsy evidence. Neither am I an "anti-metric" crusader just an editor tired of being in the middle of two intransigent groups conducting agenda based editing. I pity anyone who closes this, as they're bound to be similarly accused. W C M email 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a shame, though not entirely surprising, that so much of the above has descended into abuse and name-calling.
I am not saying definitively that none of these editors is DeFacto. My view is that I do not believe that the case is proven, and that it should be proven before we take action. I also believe that there is a history of routinely accusing people of being DeFacto and that the standard of evidence risks slipping to a point where anyone who suggests actually following MOSNUM (as at Westminster Bridge) or takes a pro-imperial position (unlike MOSNUM) is assumed to be DeFacto. That is not a good place to be.
In terms of the general sanctions, I will note that this is not the place for the discussion. But it is perhaps relevant to remind Archon and Michael that nobody has ever sought to prevent them from dealing with breaches of the sanctions in an appropriate manner. Kahastok talk 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Health_Service_Journal&oldid=954518695 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Health_Service_Journal&oldid=954501363 Rathfelder ( talk) 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.