Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (3rd)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

[edit] User:Nrcprm2026

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets

209.77.205.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Squee23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dlabtot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

John J. Bulten 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

209.77.205.2

• Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) is a permanently banned chronic abuser. His latest proven puppet 1of3 was blocked 10/18.
• Evidence against 209.77.205.2 being James was already accumulated here, but the IP was not blocked. This evidence is repeated below:
  • Paul supports regressive tax? [1], [2], [3]
  • Paul would flat-out prohibit all abortions? [4], [5], [6]
  • Paul's actions & words conflict? [7], [8], [9]
  • User's interests include Ron Paul, Iraq War, speciation (evolution), Malloc (C programming like James).
• This IP returned to activity 10/20, 10/23, and then full-bore 10/28-present. Continued pushing James's interest set such as sex, WP:AN, and John Stossel. IP also edited Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign‎ twice, which helps tie in Squee23.

Squee23

• Squee23 was created 10/23 and has been full-bore since. First three edits were to put templates on user and talk page, and immediately edit Turkey-PKK conflict; Mideast is another shared interest area of James. This pattern matches edits of puppet 1of3 on 7/29. Compare 1of3 [10], [11], and Squee23 [12], [13].
• Besides user pages and Mideast, Squee23 also edited Fundraising redesign many times, Ron Paul, Village Pump and MediaWiki talk (re fundraising), and foreplay, and was involved in an apparent name war between "general welfare clause" and "taxing and spending clause", with reference to "ghits" as James likes to do.
• Note how both the IP and Squee23 are interested in graphics of Jimmy Wales's eyes and in donor counting, within minutes of each other: [14], [15]. Squee has unexpectedly advanced knowledge of WP photos.
• Squee's habits with Ron Paul are similar to prior puppets. Here he reverts a presumably helpful edit needlessly and without providing a reason. (I had switched to use of a template, and although that move is now being debated, no one else used the tack of inexplicable reversion.) More egregiously, here he recasts the lead by moving a sentence to the main body: "move statements from lede that don't summarize". Lead sentences that don't summarize are a familiar bugaboo of James, and in this case at least one of the two clauses/"statements" Squee23 moved was, in fact, a proper summary.
• Squee's writing style is also very similar: misspellings, frequent WP jargon abbreviations, frequent self-reversion, noncaring attitude, etc. Additional diffs would not be hard to locate, but would take more time. I trust this is sufficient.

Dlabtot

• See [16]. Made 16 edits to depleted uranium in 24 hours, 8 of which have confrontational-sounding edit comments.
• Why are both Dlabtot and 1of3 creating user subpages called "monobook.js"??! [17], [18].
• Besides uranium, Dlabtot likes: Iraq, Gay bomb, Petraeus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction‎, John Stossel [19], also reverting other editors, admin pages relative to James's types of abuse, general science pages: in common with James S., but apparently with a better-segregated watchlist.
• First edit 8/24/07 deleted a link while blanking categories and article translation links, citing "dubious" and relevance right off bat. Second edit, to a Bush article, was to delete a "POV" statement. Sudden familiarity with WP criteria on first edits.
• See also his talk: He immediately went to editing 2007 in Iraq and Battle of Jenin, and was tagged an SSP by 8/25/07 by PalestineRemembered. Then Wjbean caught him not following procedure 3x and argued bad faith by 9/20.
• His edit times are well-compatible with other known and suspected puppets of James. E.g. Squee23 edits 9x 4:04-4:46 10/24 with minor gaps, then 19-min gap to 5:05; Dlabtot edits in that gap at 4:52. (Note Squee here edited link to Royal Prerogative, while D's first edit was Pluralis majestatis, which is slightly related.) 1of3 edits 1:18-1:19 and 1:29 on 10/17, D fits in gap 1:20 and 1:27. 1of3 edits 3x 21:51-21:54 and 6x 22:01-22:09, D edits in the 7-min gap at 21:55. This is not a perfect method and may be both gamed and misread, but analyzing a large amount of data (which I have) would expect to turn up unrelated patterns and occasional overlaps, not lots of close swaps. When many close swaps are observed and only one overlap, that is presentable evidence IMHO.
• Again no personal details on user page.
• Writing style is again very similar, especially in confrontationism. Again observed misspellings, frequent WP jargon abbreviations, frequent self-reversion, noncaring attitude, etc.
• In short, if Dlabtot is not a sock of James, I'm the fourth editor to mark him as acting in bad faith, and some other sanction might be appropriate. John J. Bulten 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please act quickly for reasons stated at prior cases, [20] and [21]. The second is a CU still open at this date. Possible sleepers are JLeclerc, Pdilla, 66.56.206.68, BSbuster. I had implicated Starkrm by probable cause (who is now awaiting the CU), but he has defended himself and the CU may clear him.

Add: Starkrm recommended Dlabtot for addition to this list, which I think pretty well clears Starkrm, but I am still waiting for an admin to concur. I know that making several reports like this is at risk of ruffling many feathers (Starkrm's for instance), so I would also appreciate admin feedback to this question: Has my use of "probable cause" to accuse SSP's been overzealous? Thanks. John J. Bulten 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

John - I don't know any of these editors, and haven't looked deeply into your accusations, but if you are trying to make a case from behavior - something I have some experience in doing - I think you need to have more specific overlaps and similarities, not things like "uncaring attitude" unless the same language is used in demonstrating such attitude, and "no personal details on user page" is also not convincing of sockpuppetry. Also, you should check WP:MONOBOOK - there's nothing nefarious or even suspicious about two editors using it - many do. And as for using WP jargon abbreviations a lot - well, that's pretty ubiquitous and is hardly a sign of sockpuppetry either, even if used early on. After all, your very first edit talked about NPOV - the jargon is all around us, and people pick up on it - especially POV/NPOV. If esoteric policy is quoted early on I might raise an eyebrow, but POV? Again, I have no idea if your suspicions are correct, and I haven't read this really thoroughly, but these things jumped out at me and they don't help a behavior case, in my opinion. Tvoz |talk 07:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should cross-post this here: my name is James Lang, I live in Alberton, MT, and I always post from 12.32.36.103 or 216.166.132.57, I made a couple edits from one or both of those IPs before I registered my username and all of my edits since I registered have been made under this username. Dlabtot 09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

While awaiting the admin findings, I've also posted a clarifying response. John J. Bulten 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say this much about Dlabtot: The contribution pattern resembles what I'd seen of [[User:BenB4] and User:Acct4, and the instant familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and procedures (particularly about reporting sock puppets!), almost immediately, is unexplained by the comment above. I have not personally done enough research to be able to confirm anything more than a reasonable suspicion, and I don't have time for it. All of the suspicious things I've seen have other possible explanations, as noted by Tvoz. If this is User:Nrcprm2026, though, all that needs to be done is to watch the this new user. Very likely, the pattern will emerge if he is truly a sock, and if he is really James Lang, it won't. However, admin may develop, of course, further evidence not easily accessible to ordinary mortals. To James Lang, I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia community, but note that we suffer greatly from users who abuse the trust of the community; I hope you will understand that the caution is necessary. "You would cry too if it happened to you...." I will note, however, that the sock I came to know would have been expected, almost exactly, to say what you said on your talk page: "Yawn in response to Sockpuppetry accusation." Assuming that you are not a sock, you should know that the worst thing likely to happen here is that an administrator would decide you are a sock and you would be blocked. Next time you attempt to edit an article, you would see a notice that you are blocked, and there would be instructions as to how to get unblocked. If you are as you claim, it won't be difficult at all, a minor nuisance. I was blocked as part of the process of administrative process investigating what another recent sock in this series had done, and it was disconcerting, for a few minutes. Then I did what the instructions said and I was back on in minutes. Might take longer if an action was specifically targeting you, but do not think that the blocking of socks is punitive. It's protective, and the presumption will generally be that you are *not* a sock, and if an administrator makes a mistake, it can easily be undone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was accused of being a sockpuppet almost immediately after my first few edits. That time, I was pretty upset... this time .... pfffft. I guess I got caught up in some ongoing drama at the DU article. Whatever. I don't think it will be very hard for the admins to determine that I am who I say I am. I'm even listed in the phone book. Dlabtot 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I now see that with the information I've given on this page and google, one can easily find out not only my phone number and address, but my political contributions as well. Such is life in the 21st Century. Dlabtot 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And a determined sleuth could probably even find my picture. Dlabtot 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Closed, see WP:RFCU#LossIsNotMore_-_6,Squee23 is a sock, Dlabot not. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)