From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Edstat

Edstat ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log· investigate · cuwiki)
Report date March 24 2010, 04:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Iulus Ascanius

Editor uses home and office computers (IP addresses specifically match location to references that they posted in the article) as well as occasionally using the username Edstat as a 3rd voice. Virtually all edits occur on one page ( Shlomo Sawilowsky), but some on other pages, for the purpose of pushing content by that person. The home/office thing obviously isn't that big of a deal, but the editor constantly poses as 2 or 3 separate people to outvote, troll, WP:SOUP, and otherwise WP:OWN Shlomo Sawilowsky. On the talk page, they will often say things like "me and XX are the only ones who..." This directly violates sockpuppet policy. Editor also uses personal attacks, calling those who disagree bullies, "wiki warriors," and Anti-Semites (the subject is Jewish). They refuse to accept consensus of other users.

As an interesting twist, 68.43.236.244 once self-identified as the subject on the talk page ("Response from the Prof"), so the issue is more than just sockpuppetry, but of direct COI self-promotion.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

141.217.105.228 blocked 3 months, 68.43.236.244 blocked 2 weeks, and Edstat blocked 2 weeks for the sock puppetry. – MuZemike 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


12 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The first SP investigation of Edstat listed only two of these four socks, User:141.217.105.228 and User:68.43.236.244 . I newly list two additional socks, User:141.217.105.21 and User:68.43.236.4. Only User:68.43.236.244 remains active. The good news is that most of the User:68.43.236.244's sock-edits appear to be good-faith edits (with a sloppy signature). The bad news is that even the previously warned sock continues with some problematic edits and a continued failure to disclose the socks, even when asked (and reminded of WP policy about linking accounts, under usual circumstances):

(A) Edstat denies sockpuppets (or other violations of WP policy) alleged by me in November of 2010.
(B) On 26 October 2010, Edstat signs revived sock 68.43.236.244; soonafter, Edstat agrees that he need not have exclusive use of the IPs, without addressing the remarked similarity of interests or the WP policy that notice be given of linked accounts.
(C) On 17 October 2010, Sock 68.43.236.244 replaces signature of Edstat.
(D) After returning from a temporary block, on 13 April, Edstat denies sock-puppetry, stating "Some of the allegations and comments you made (and most made by Smartse and Lulus [sic., User:Iulus_Ascanius ]) were incorrect or apparently deliberately taken out of context. I chose not to defend myself, because it is petty. The fact that an Admin [ User:MuZemike ] can be persuaded to block without checking is just another nail in the coffin of what Wikipedia describes itself as: nonprofessional." The next day (April 14), the sock returns with a passive aggressive edit.

The first SP investigation of Edstat noted behavioral concerns. In addition to that investigation, five additional discussions of Edstat's behavior are known to me. Current discussions include

(1) Edstat's talk page,
(2) WikiProject Statistics, and
(3) the talk page of the Shlomo Sawilowsky article;

previous discussions include

(4) (twice) at the conflict of interest page and
(5) a 2007 mediation.

These discussions are relevant to assessing whether Edstat has used of sock-puppets since 2007 in "acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner" on WP (although the most severe cases occured before the Spring blocking). The warning (1) by administrator EdJohnston concludes that Edstat's disruptive editing warrants an ANI notice. The warning (3) by administrator Charles Matthews warns of a potential request for comment on the behavior of Edstat.

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I alerted SP primarily because the first investigation did not list the other socks. Item (C), in October, the sock replacing Edstat's signature, is a civil edit. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Edstat

Edstat ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log· investigate · cuwiki)
Report date March 24 2010, 04:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Iulus Ascanius

Editor uses home and office computers (IP addresses specifically match location to references that they posted in the article) as well as occasionally using the username Edstat as a 3rd voice. Virtually all edits occur on one page ( Shlomo Sawilowsky), but some on other pages, for the purpose of pushing content by that person. The home/office thing obviously isn't that big of a deal, but the editor constantly poses as 2 or 3 separate people to outvote, troll, WP:SOUP, and otherwise WP:OWN Shlomo Sawilowsky. On the talk page, they will often say things like "me and XX are the only ones who..." This directly violates sockpuppet policy. Editor also uses personal attacks, calling those who disagree bullies, "wiki warriors," and Anti-Semites (the subject is Jewish). They refuse to accept consensus of other users.

As an interesting twist, 68.43.236.244 once self-identified as the subject on the talk page ("Response from the Prof"), so the issue is more than just sockpuppetry, but of direct COI self-promotion.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

141.217.105.228 blocked 3 months, 68.43.236.244 blocked 2 weeks, and Edstat blocked 2 weeks for the sock puppetry. – MuZemike 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


12 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The first SP investigation of Edstat listed only two of these four socks, User:141.217.105.228 and User:68.43.236.244 . I newly list two additional socks, User:141.217.105.21 and User:68.43.236.4. Only User:68.43.236.244 remains active. The good news is that most of the User:68.43.236.244's sock-edits appear to be good-faith edits (with a sloppy signature). The bad news is that even the previously warned sock continues with some problematic edits and a continued failure to disclose the socks, even when asked (and reminded of WP policy about linking accounts, under usual circumstances):

(A) Edstat denies sockpuppets (or other violations of WP policy) alleged by me in November of 2010.
(B) On 26 October 2010, Edstat signs revived sock 68.43.236.244; soonafter, Edstat agrees that he need not have exclusive use of the IPs, without addressing the remarked similarity of interests or the WP policy that notice be given of linked accounts.
(C) On 17 October 2010, Sock 68.43.236.244 replaces signature of Edstat.
(D) After returning from a temporary block, on 13 April, Edstat denies sock-puppetry, stating "Some of the allegations and comments you made (and most made by Smartse and Lulus [sic., User:Iulus_Ascanius ]) were incorrect or apparently deliberately taken out of context. I chose not to defend myself, because it is petty. The fact that an Admin [ User:MuZemike ] can be persuaded to block without checking is just another nail in the coffin of what Wikipedia describes itself as: nonprofessional." The next day (April 14), the sock returns with a passive aggressive edit.

The first SP investigation of Edstat noted behavioral concerns. In addition to that investigation, five additional discussions of Edstat's behavior are known to me. Current discussions include

(1) Edstat's talk page,
(2) WikiProject Statistics, and
(3) the talk page of the Shlomo Sawilowsky article;

previous discussions include

(4) (twice) at the conflict of interest page and
(5) a 2007 mediation.

These discussions are relevant to assessing whether Edstat has used of sock-puppets since 2007 in "acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner" on WP (although the most severe cases occured before the Spring blocking). The warning (1) by administrator EdJohnston concludes that Edstat's disruptive editing warrants an ANI notice. The warning (3) by administrator Charles Matthews warns of a potential request for comment on the behavior of Edstat.

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I alerted SP primarily because the first investigation did not list the other socks. Item (C), in October, the sock replacing Edstat's signature, is a civil edit. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply



Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook